jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (60 posts)

Is economic illiteracy leading us toward a third world depression?

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago
    1. Jane Stevens profile image59
      Jane Stevensposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely, no question about it.

  2. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Wow, I agree to Ralph!

    Yes, economic illiteracy (namely irrational Keynesian beliefs) is leading us (US) toward third world (and) depression. No doubt about that lol

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is Europe's NOT following Keynes theory, not the reverse.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Keynes has limitations. Two of them are as follows:

        1. it interferes with the free market. House prices should be falling, not going up. Same for stocks.

        2. The bailouts went to the wrong people. Should have gone to the citizens and not the banks. That was a huge mistake in the long run. As Obama just said, the US consumer is no longer able to purchase the world's excess goods. They killed the golden goose of world prosperity to make the crony capitalists even richer.

        However, on the other hand, if the private sector doesn't pick up the slack, we are toast.

        So goes the dismal science of economics Ralph.

    2. michael brannigan profile image60
      michael branniganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Free Market economics caused the recession so Keynesian economics will cause it? That makes no sense at all. This is probably the fifth world recession in the last eighty years, not the third.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I was surprised i was about to agree with Ralph as well...

      ... then I read the article..

      ... oh Krugman!! Not only do you think that "printing sheets of paper with nubmers on them" will solve our economic woes, you also wanted a NEGATIVE interest rate (whatever that means... what? you borrow ten dollars from the bank and they give you $12?!!?). And, even on top of that complete nonsense, Krugman, you think that "having money gain value year after year is a bad thing"!!!!

      Reader: what are you more afraid of - the fact that the dollar is worth 5 cents compared to what it was worth 100 years ago? or the idea that your money might be worth about a penny more next year?

      The technology industry, car industry, and many many countless other industries have been in a SPIRALING DEFLATIONARY TAILSPIN for decades: RAM costs about half what it did 10 years ago, so does memory, so does information storage devices. The quality of TVs doubles almost every 20 years (if not faster), as does scanning technology (amongst others. I can buy almost twice the quality of car as I could 40 years ago (if i were alive, that is)...

      ... and yet I still buy the darn things - I just bought a 32 gig iPod touch the other day, even though if I had waited another 3 years I could have gotten a 64 (or more) gig iPod for the same price.

      Deflation is NOT a problem- people will still buy things. For millenia deflation had *cough* RAVAGED *cough* the human species, and yet people still bought stuff.  Deflation is NOT something to fear, inflation is.

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    This thread will probably set a HubPages record for most responses.

  4. Rafini profile image88
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    hhmmm, I'm not really a history buff...but when were the other depressions?  I only know of the Great Depression of the 1930's....hmm  I thought we were headed into the second Great Depression....

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Read this link to find out from a Nobel Prize economist.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini … ef=opinion

      1. Rafini profile image88
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thanks.


        The recession is over?  Doesn't seem like it to me...but maybe I don't really know what  a recession is.  (similar to a depression only not as bad - right?)

        Inadequate spending?  If I spent any more than I already do I wouldn't have enough money to pay my bills!  I doubt I'm the only one....hmm

        Many people will be jobless for years and may never work again - doesn't sound like the recession is over unless it means depression has taken over. hmm

        (what are Japans deflationary traps? - simple terms if possible lol)

        1. profile image0
          jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Rafini,  Unfortunately, the majority of the populace does not understand
          economics and our monetary system under present day operations.

          We are operating under a debt monetary system.  Under this system, the M1 money, (the money that the public, government and businesses use to pay our every day bills), is only allowed to be created by the extension of credit from private commercial banks.  (This means interest loans).
          However, no money is created to pay the interest on those loans.  Therefore, we are always creating a debt greater than the debt money supply created.

          All money is debt before it is spent into circulation.  Under this system, if there is no debt, there can be no dollars.  If we all quit borrowing, the system begins an immediate collapse.

          If you have money in a 401K,  IRA, pension plan, checking acct., savings acct, or in your wallet,  yoiu could not possible have those accts, unless someone else, either individually or collectively, has an equal amount of debt.

          These facts we received in answer to letters of inquiry we sent to the U.S. treasury, the federal reserve, and the library of congress.

          This is why our cost of living and taxes keep going higher.

          When government  borrows, we pay that debt in higher taxes.
          When  corporate America borrows, we pay their loan principle plus interest, in higher prices for their goods and services.  This means a higher cost of living.

          This is why approximately 85% of the wealth is owned by aboiut 5% of the people.

          If you have any doubts about my statements, just relate all of what I have just written and apply it to your personal life,

          We are slaves to the fractional reserve debt monetary system controlled by the bankers of the world.

          Answer me this.  How can we pay debt with debt?
          Jerryl

          1. Rafini profile image88
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            so, in other words, we're in this mess due to the dollar not being backed by gold?

            1. profile image0
              jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Rafini,  Contrary to popular belief, gold, never did, nor will it ever back the dollar.

              We actually used gold for money in limited quantities at one time, but if one really thinks about the topic of gold backing the dollar, we realize that
              back in the days when gold miners and panners found some gold, they could take that gold to the mint, have it weighed and assayed, then melted down and stamped into coin free of charge.

              This process was rewarding man's productivity.  In essence, it was man's productivity that backed the dollar, and gold or silver were just
              symbols of that productivity.

              Currently, our dollars are still backed by man's productivity.  However, it is man's future productivity that backs the dollar today, because of having to borrow, at interest, in order to have a medium of exchange. 

              We are financial slaves to the federal reserve fractional banking system, which only allows the M1 money supply to be created through indebredness, with no money created to address the interest on that debt.

              We can never get out of this financial mess that the banksters put us in, until we change from a debt monetary system where we must borrow in order to have our medium of exchange, and start earning first, then spending that earned money into circulation.  Money borrowed from the banking system, must be paid back and erased from the books.  In other words,
              when we repay loans, money is uncreated,  However, the interest debt on those loans, forced more borrowing. 

              Money created by rewarding man's immediate productivity, is earned, not borrowed.  Therefore it does not have to be paid back to anyone, and lives on indefinitely, and there is no interest debt attached to earned money.

        2. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Rafini
          the Japanese people are not good spenders when they don't trust their Government, which seems to be most of the time! lol

          When things get tough as they are now in Japan, the people horde money and the economy won't bounce, as there is not enough home grown cash in the system.

          1. KFlippin profile image60
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Dang, sounds like America these days, maybe we should pass a 'law' that if you get paid in 'HOME GROWN CASH' in the USA - it STAYS IN THE USA!.

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              In the late 70s I worked in Singapore. They blockaded their currency at that time, Successfully too some would argue. smile

              A friend who lived there moved a large amount of currency offshore , then he went to go on holidays overseas with his wife.  The Government offered him a choice.
              Bring the money back or go to jail. After that he was not allowed to travel with his wife without leaving a surety with the Government before they went.

              1. KFlippin profile image60
                KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Sounds interesting, not sure how we'd implement that with the work force of illegals sending their American cash back home, but if we can manage it for the actual citizens of America, we could likely manage it for the 'illegals' as well if we implement a more relaxed work visa program for Mexican illegals.

          2. Rafini profile image88
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            that makes sense...lol...I would have thought it was the same everywhere..lol

        3. michael brannigan profile image60
          michael branniganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Recession is when your neighbour loses his job, Depression is when you lose yours.

        4. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          the recession is not over (in all reality it IS a depression - they've just redefined what the terms mean in the last 80 years or so). We'll probably see another strong hit sometime soon.

          The money supply has tripled in the last 10 years - things are going to shoot up in price. ... actually, things HAVE shot up in price - whereas I'm getting a much better deal on numerous items, food seems to have gone up in cost by upwards of 10-15% over the last 5 years! i was shocked to see how much things cost when I got back from Japan.

  5. leeberttea profile image60
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    I don't even know how Krugman got a degree let alone a Nobel prize in economics! His solution is to just keep spending even though Europe and the rest of the world has come to the realization that there just isn't enough money in the world to spend us into prosperity.

    When Krugman talks about spending he's talking about government spending. The problem is government doesn't do anything well, not even when it comes to spending. Oh they're quite efficient at wasting cash without effect, consider the stimulus of nearly one trillion dollars which did virtually nothing to turn the economy around. Krugman would rather it was ten trillion!

    Spending is indeed the answer, but not government spending, consumer spending, and the only way to encourage that is by actually creating jobs, not government jobs with their huge retirement and benefit costs, but private sector jobs. How you you encourage private sector jobs? Certainly not through tax increases and crushing government regulations that only serves to send jobs overseas.

    Krugman is right about something though. We are entering a third depression and the costs will be immense and this is a direct result of Obama's failed economic policies of which Krugman himself is a part!
    t

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just out of curiosity what are your economics credentials? And where do you get your opinions? They certainly are unorthodox. What economists do you follow?

      1. leeberttea profile image60
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Dude it's common sense! Anyone that's had to support a household can tell you the same thing. There's nothing unorthodox about my views. You act as the government can control everything and do so effectively, yet where is the evidence to support this? Right off the bat you have Obama's stimulus, all his predictions -wrong and now he wants more stimulus? What a suprise Krugman wants more government spending too!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Comparing national budgetary policy to the family budget is completely fallacious. Even conservative economists don't support that. Just about all economists believe that Federal government stimulus is appropriate to prevent a recession from becoming a depression or from being prolonged unnecessarily. Did you read Paul Krugman's column? I suggest you read it again. And if you don't agree with Krugman please tell us why. The only argument among people who actually know something about economics is over the amount of the stimulus required and the timing for reducing it and going to work on the deficit by cutting services or increasing taxes or a combination of the two.

          1. leeberttea profile image60
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sure you want to buy the Krugman argument, but none of this so called economists can seem to make a simple calculation as to  how much spending is required. Krugman's argument is to keep spending until the economy turns around. Well eventually the economy will turn around if you believe in economic cycles, and they all these economists will come forward claiming credit for their brilliance.

            But we can't really test their ideas can we. It's not like we can have two economies side by side and increasing spending in one and cut spending in the other. There are too many variables that can't be controlled. How convenient for the economists and for folks like yourself that buy into the BS espoused by these people.

            I think even Krugman will admit that government spending alone won''t be enough. That we have to get the private sector involved. I believe you'll get total agreement from all the economists on that, maybe even Obama. The question is how do you engage the private sector, by government interference, or by government getting out of the way?

            Of course the government, and government economists, particularly those of Krugman's ilk, will tell you only the government can do it> Why? Because they have a printing press? Sure they want to inflate their way out of the deficit and out of debt! Well that's good for government but it doesn't help the people with 401ks whose withdrawals will now be worth a fraction of what they would have been.

            When are you and those on the left gonna get it? We the people don't exist to serve government, to make them a success, it's the other way around! It's about time we hold them accountable!

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              As I argued in a recent piece for The American Prospect, adapted from A Presidency in Peril, Obama needs to learn from the example of Harry Truman. In the summer and fall of 1948, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and Truman was widely given up as a goner, Truman responded by deliberately sending "the do-nothing 80th Congress" legislation on housing and jobs that he knew they would defeat -- to dramatize the difference between his own program and the Republican one.

              Truman not only won re-election in November 1948 in American history's greatest
              electoral upset; his coattails were so attractive that 75 House seats went from Republican to Democrat, and the Democrats took back both houses of Congress.

              If today's Republicans are blocking aid to spare 300,000 school teacher pink slips, and over a million unemployed workers who are losing their unemployment insurance and Cobra health coverage, Obama should be hanging that callous behavior around their necks, Truman style.

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ku … 27141.html

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You don't get it. The left doesn't get it! You can't see how the government is using taxpayer money to help the few at the expense of the rest of us. Why should teachers, police, and firefighters and unions be protected from the effects of the economic downturn? Why shouldn't the pain be shared by all. Who is watching out for me? Who is helping me? My job hangs on a thread, the thread of prosperity in the private sector, so why shouldn't the government give the private sector money? No, no no! Not that, the private sector are rich investors they already get too much! Well who do you think creates the wealth in this country?
                Politics aside, you people on the left need to get some common sense.

                1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                  WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  let us think, intelligent people.  why should teachers, police and firefighters be treated any different?  gee.  i dunno, because they are sort of necessary to a healthy society.  the backbone?  how broke are you leeberttea?  is it that bad?  should kids miss out on an education and police take a walk?

                  1. leeberttea profile image60
                    leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well let's see, in NY there is a room where teachers are placed where they do nothing, day after day for years on end and they collect their salary, many in excess of 100K per year. Should stimulus money be used to keep them "employed"?

                    What about keeping cops employed in communities where population is declining because people have lost their homes and jobs and left for greener pastures? Like any business, government should assess what is needed and what it costs to fill that need, not just grow for the sake of growing.

                    In NY the governor tried to furlough workers one day a week in order to eliminate the deficit while still keeping workers employed. The union took him to court and now he had to reinstate them and give them a raise! Looks like some of the folks will now have to be let go. Obviously if you can do without everyone for one day a week, you can probably make do with a few less workers.

                    The economy has contracted, and everyone has to adjust including government.

                2. Strophios profile image60
                  Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think you understand how the stimulus works. Or how Keynesian economics works. The idea is as follows: in a recession/depression: people (the private sector) don't have money, and the money they do have they are unwilling to spend because the economy sucks, thus investing it or even spending in general is too risky. This is why the government steps in, the government has money and is still, even in the grips of a depression, capable of borrowing more because its credit is pretty much unimpeachable, and people are almost willing to buy bonds because they're safe. So the government pours money into the economy, into the private sector, by way of the stimulus. Yes, private sector. Who do you think is building all the new bridges/roads/etc.? It's been ages since the PWA and the WPA, now they contract out, to the private sector. Even if they didn't, the stimulus would still be a great help because it is injecting money into the economy and increasing confidence in the economy, thus allowing the private sector to get back on its feet.

                  That is how Keynesian economics works. It is in no way based on the notion that the government should run everything or that the private sector is evil, just that, during a depression/recession, the private sector really sucks at doing its job, which is demonstratably true.

                3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Among your many Limbaughesque,assertions, perhaps the most absurd is that it is the only the left that totally disagrees with your opinions.  The vast majority of those in the middle are also too intelligent to return to the voodoo economics of Reagan and W.

                  Glenn Beck is on soon.  You may reply after the show. (or not)

                4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Help the few?! Tell that to the 15-20% unemployed in Michigan.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's not just a Krugman argument. It's the standard undisputed modern economics argument. The only dispute among economists is how much stimulus is required and when should it be tapered off and attention be paid to making sure there isn't a resurgence of runaway inflation. Most economists agree that we aren't close to that point although agreement isn't unanimous. Changing from stimulus to inflation control prematurely will result in a deeper and prolonged recession which is arguably much more costly than a bit of inflation so long as inflation doesn't get out of control. Beyond that, nearly all economists agree that we can't go on forever with huge deficits. Attention to the deficits and national debt will be essential going forward. The problem is that people want government services but don't want to pay the taxes required to pay for them. This is a political problem more than an economic one. Or, more properly, a political problem which leads to serious economic problems.

              And, yes, Krugman agrees that private stimulus is important, but when private stimulus and jobs aren't happening the government must step into the breech.

              1. leeberttea profile image60
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Undisputed? I'm disputing that argument right now!



                That's the basic tenet of Keynesian economics. He seems to believe we need the Government to direct capital into infrastructure to stimulate the economy. Obama spent 800 billion dollars and only a small fraction of it went to infrastructure!
                It seems to me, that the government is nothing more than a middle man in this equation, an entity that extracts a cost to provide an inefficient service. The bottom line of Keynesian theory is to put money in people's pockets so they will spend it, well then, why not cut out the middle man? Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just eliminate social security taxes so that 800 billion went directly into the pockets of people and business? Seems to me that's the kind of stimulation that would have had an instant effect.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Don't worry Liberty - Everyone in the world agrees with you.

          Expect people who are mesmerized by a chunk of metal that says "Nobel" on it.

          Keynesianism has been dead since stagflation, Mises has shown that government spending is an inept way of trying to reach prosperity, and all of history has shown that abandoning gold is a sure fire way to collapse an empire.

          ... but, none of that matters because I don't have a sheet of paper saying "degree in economics" on it...

  6. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "this is a direct result of Obama's failed economic policies of which Krugman himself is a part!"

    Wrong. It's the result of centuries of Robber Baron greed. Allowed by Robber Baron politicians in gvt...mostly the Republican party.

    We are all reaping what those self-serving money-grubbers sowed.
    Obama is the 1st to give some back to us normal people...the invisible Americans.

    Invisible, stepped on, ground to the dirt.

    ALL so a few can live like the Queen of England.
    Wherever we're headed....there's a huge come-uppance due.

    And I want to be here to see it.

    1. leeberttea profile image60
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So you'll be happy when we're all out of work and there's rioting in the streets?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You think things will change without this?

        1. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          done.

        2. leeberttea profile image60
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would hope so. Why not?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Because things have never changed without violence. Read a history book or two why don't you?

            1. leeberttea profile image60
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Things change every day without violence. Perhaps you need to change your attitude.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Amen to that!

              2. WizardOfOz profile image61
                WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                change of underpants vs. change of economic direction?

              3. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps you need to be a tad more realistic. Although - I see you are a big fan of owning a gun. Which is the best non-violent method of changing things. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                What has changed without violence exactly - seeing as you are now a history expert as well as an economics expert. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

                lol lol

                TEA? LOLOLOLO

                1. leeberttea profile image60
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Why don't you try reading a newspaper once in a while. You might learn something.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  if you think that "owning a gun" and "going out murdering people in a fit of ideology" are the same things... then... my grandpa must be the craziest murderer i've ever met! - the 90 year old guy, who fought in WWII, sleeps with a loaded safety-off rifle next to his bed.

                  Also, to prove that things change without violence: I used to be a liberal. But then Ron Paul showed me the light by completely PWNING giulianni in the South Carolina Republican Debates.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Over half the people in the country now live off of the work and productivity the other half.  You don't think this might have a little bit to do with it?  Just maybe we can't afford to support all the entitlements we've voted in?

  7. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    its already happening.  can't stop it.

    re: rioting.

    Canada G20.  Nobody else see this?

  8. Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    Exploitation used to be horizontal - get rich at expense of other countries. Now that we're globalised, there are no other countries, so the horizontal model is replaced with the vertical. The rich club gets richer at the expense of everyone, anywhere. Pity.

  9. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Saw the massive wall of storm troopers arayed against them...

    Funny, they looked JUST like the storm troopers used wherever any protest is held anywhere in the world!!

    Isn't that odd? It's like a Global Army or something.

    Darth Vader look-alikes. Bwahahahaa....I am your daddy.

  10. Jane@CM profile image60
    Jane@CMposted 6 years ago

    I'm not a economist and I don't play one on t.v.

    In Sacramento they are running ads about how the Sherif's saved a family from death - i.e. showing how important they are to the public & we need to reach out to their Commissioner to save their jobs.  I agree, we need police, but do we need so many?  Give me a fast car, and a radar gun and I'll be happy to sit hidden behind some shrubs and pick up speeders. Granted this isn't all they do, but give me some serious averages on how much time they do just sit pointing their radar guns behind a bush vs other "police" duties.  On the drive south yesterday we saw five or six in a five or six mile radius pulling people over.  Yes, then the money to pay the ticket goes back into the system, right?

    I think just about every job is under the gun, whether you are a teacher or a doctor - or a senator.

    Is America spending, yes and how many are spending themselves into debt, many!  If you take a look around our neighborhood, 4 houses are facing foreclosure - have they gotten rid of the lawn service or pool boy - NOPE!  Why, because they don't have to, they are literally going to be able to live in their house for close to a year without having to pay mortgage because the house is foreclosed, and that is how long it will take the bank to kick them out.

    I'm trying to learn more about how economics work, but I'm really stuck on the attitude of people and their spending habits.

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Here's an interesting little chart from TPM that shows what's causing the deficit--

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv … ?ref=fpblg

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, that is not very optimistic is it? With another 5 years or more in Afghanistan to go, it is going to be a slow turn around for America. sad

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yep!

        Here's what Carl Levin had to say on the subject on Face the Nation yesterday--

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/ … 3624.shtml

        Oops! That was last November. But it's still relevant. I'll see if I can find what he said yesterday.

        Here it is. He said firing McChrystal was the right thing for Obama to do.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/ … tag=latest

  12. KFlippin profile image60
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    When I read this this morning I thought of Ralph, and tada! I wasn't disappointed.  My opinion -- it is just a timed editorial in support of whatever this administration wishes to do in terms of spending, which is spending and spending.  That said, he does a superb job of making one fearful of austerity, but of course, that was the intent.

  13. Origin profile image60
    Originposted 6 years ago

    I hope the economy improves, I'm unfortunately one of those people that the recession pooped all over (laid off, lost my home, etc).

    I don't have excess money to spend on consumer products, instead I horde what little I have (heh.. it's pathetic), and use all of my online earnings for enjoyment (movies, books, video games, etc). I rationalize the spending of online earnings to keep myself sane. Thankfully, I'm skilled at the art of making money online to an extent that it does provide!!

    big_smile

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      you horde what little you have because you're smart.

      That guy that Deeds linked to -- his name is Krugman, or something -- has some sort of chunk of metal that has the letters "n o b e l" on it, and he seems to think that "saving your money" is a surefire way to a recession...

      Godspeed Origin - I would recommend buying silver.

 
working