Free Markets, Free People

Another “Great Depression” or just a very slow recovery?

Of course you an find “experts” who will point to each and say that’s our future.   USA Today has a list of them in an article which explores the title question.  It appears most believe it will be the latter – a slow recovery.  But some are worried about signs that the present situation compares very closely with the 1930s.

And, in many ways it does.   We continue to see weakness everywhere.  And it appears until we get the housing market squared away (housing starts down 5% this month) and some other areas cleaned up, plus get some hiring going on, it is going to continue to be rough out there.

Jobs continue to be key to the recovery (we are a consumer driven economy – no job, no money.  No money, no consumption) so the faster we can employ the jobless, the faster we see the recovery take off.  However, that’s a huge undertaking:

The national unemployment rate stands at 9.5%, or more than 14 million Americans, says the Department of Labor, far below the peak unemployment rate of 25% during the Great Depression. But those numbers don’t fully convey the jobs weakness. Another 8.6 million people are working part time because they can’t get full-time jobs. And 3.8 million, discouraged by the dearth of job opportunities, are out of work but were not counted as unemployed.

So while not at 25%, we’re most likely somewhere in the 14% range in real terms (not the politically motivated U3 of 9.5%). 

"If you’re not making money, it’s pretty hard to spend it," or pay bills, Johnson says. "There’s no fuel in the economic engine to make it grow. People are spending less and saving more."

This, of course, is where the impetus comes from to claim if the people can’t spend, the government should.  We’ve seen, first hand, how that’s worked out – unemployment went up and stayed up.  And “more” wouldn’t have made any difference as is now being argued.

The answer isn’t government spending – not in a consumer driven economy.  No, the way you help solve this problem, if you’re government, is to incentivize business expansion and thereby hiring to drive consumer spending.  Instead, the policies of this administration, at least to this point, have businesses on the sidelines sitting on both their hands and their money.

Further crimping the outlook for future growth is the fact that cash-rich U.S. companies, despite improving profitability, are still leery of the recovery and are reluctant to deploy that money to grow or hire new workers.

"Companies have pared their expenses dramatically, upgraded their technology, improved their profit margins," Johnson says. "But they are not hiring more people, because they would have to see greater demand to do so."

Once again, the government can’t create that “greater demand” via “stimulus”.  That demand has to come from consumers.  Those are the customers businesses rely on to generate demand, and with about 14% in the unemployment/underemployment mix, that demand simply isn’t there – or, at least, not enough to expand and hire.

Catch 22?  In a way.  So what can government do? 

Cut business taxes.  Get out of the way.  Provide incentives to expand and hire (accelerate capital equipment depreciation for instance, if bought now).

There are lots of ways short of spending us into oblivion that the government can positively effect the market and the business climate.  Unfortunately, as Mort Zuckerman has stated and the business community as a whole believe, we have an “anti-business” administration in charge right now – and that further unsettles the situation.  Perception being reality, as long as the business community believe that, not much is going to change.

So, there’s your day’s sunny outlook on the economic front.  As Donald Luskin says:

"The only way to get out of debt is to earn money," Luskin says. "The only way to get out of recession is to grow. If you kill growth, you are" in trouble.

And right now, we’re in trouble.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

44 Responses to Another “Great Depression” or just a very slow recovery?

  • Another thing to do is to outright kill legislation like Cap and Trade.  I believe that legislation of this type, like the health care reform bill before it, is one of the factors that keeps companies from adding more workers.  Commit to debt reduction and not just deficit reduction.  Fear that the dollar may suffer some pretty bad inflation at some near future point might also make companies leery of hiring and spending.
     
    In other words, instead of asking for businesses and working Americans to become more fiscally responsible, the government needs to set the example itself.  I don’t see that happening.  It hasn’t happened in a long time, and I am very cynical that the Republicans will follow through on promises of economic reform once they are in a position to do something about it.  The only thing that is cheap in DC is talk.

    • The only thing that is cheap in DC is talk.

      And, relatively speaking, politicians.

    • All this makes you hope that when you wake up in the morning you are greeted by news that all of DC is  gone, along with Tehran, Pyongyang and select areas of Moscow, Damascus and Harare.
      The Political-Industrial Complex is out of control .. globally.

  • What I see is that every time the economy looks like it is ready to recover Obama and his playmates in Congress fit it with another cement overcoat. That’s why I think that they will indeed find a way to move on cap and trade. They want this thing on the bottom before they get blasted in November.

    Amity Schlaes ran through how this worked the last time it was tried in her book The Forgotten Man. How it worked, to summarize, is that it didn’t work. It made things worse.

  • “There’s no fuel in the economic engine to make it grow. People are spending less and saving more.”

    I am curious. Just where do people think all this saved money goes? Some gigantic mattress somewhere? Scrooge McDuck’s legendary vault?

    Money acts like water  (which is how politicians spend it). When those puddles from a thunder storm evaporate the water doesn’t disappear, it goes back into the atmosphere, where it comes down as rain somewhere else. The runoff from the storm makes its way via stream and river to the ocean, where it evaporates into the atmosphere and comes down somewhere as rain again. Etc. ad infinitum.
    When money is saved, someone borrows it and ends up spending it on something. Hopefully that something includes at least  some investment, so that tomorrow’s consumption can be produced.

    • I think that the complication there is that the banking/financial industry is supposedly engaging in “deleveraging,” the process of decreasing the ratio of financing to capital reserves. So, increased savings is probably not going to translate to more lending until….???

    • People are spending less and saving more.

      People are spending less, but are the really saving more or are they just paying down debt, which might help the banks to deleverage but will do nothing to get the “economic engine” running any faster.

      • NeoPeople are spending less, but are the really saving more or are they just paying down debt[?] [emphasis original - dj505]

        IIRC, the savings rate is up, but my guess is that people with money are paying off much more than they are saving.  After the flood of reports about people losing their jobs and then everything else because they had too much debt, a man would have to be a fool (or a politician!) to have a nickel’s worth more debt than he absolutely must.

        Come to think of it, the same applies to companies.  With The Dear Golfer and his thugs passing laws that allow them to sieze companies that meet some hazy definition of “troubled”, owners and CEO’s must surely be thinking about reducing debt rather than expanding capability, especially when demand is down.  So, the choice is pretty clear: hire people that they might not need, or spend the money eliminating debt to reduce the prospect of becoming the next GM.  Not a hard choice to make, really…

      • Almost certainly paying down debt rather than saving. Only a fool would maintain a credit card balance charging about 20% interest and put their money in a bank at 1% interest or speculate on the stock market. That bubble has burst, too, along with the housing bubble and the derivative bubble.

    • They take the money and go buy treasuries with it.

      • Rich folks may buy treasuries, but not the rest of us.

        • No, I mean the banks. The money that the companies don’t spend sits in banks and is not lent out. Instead they buy Treasuries with it, no?

          • Not if they want to make their shareholders happy. Gov’t. securities don’t yield very much. If I owned shares in a bank and they told me they made less than 4% gross  return because they decided it was easier to put all the money in treasuries I would not be a happy camper.

  • McQ, there are other options besides the two you suggest.
    The economy can shrink without ever falling into an actual depression.
    It can fail to expand at anything like the rates we have seen in the past, while not being in a definitional “recession”.
    I don’t do predictions in areas this complex, but I can tell anyone who asks that there are a GREAT many very bad structural indicators, and very few good ones.

    • We could also become a mirror of the Japanese’s Lost Decade.  Essentially continued high unemployment (10% +-1%) and stagnant or low growth (1-1.5% GDP growth).

      • Yep.  The Great Receding.

      • Ah, I can see the news now, ca. October, 2012:

        “President Obama, speaking to government workers in Detroit, touted today’s economic numbers as evidence that his economic policies have worked.

        “‘Four years ago, our economy was on the brink of collapse.  The reckless economic policies of the previous administration, the tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, the deregulation of Wall Street, led to the greatest financial crisis in our country’s history,’ Mr. Obama said to cheering crowds in the candlelit hall.  After pausing for a few moments of spontaneous and irrepressible demonstrations of gratitude, Mr. Obama continued.  ‘Just today, the Department of Economic Security released its predictions for the upcoming quarter.  Projections now show that the gross domestic production will be 1.7%.  That’s nearly 50% higher than this time last year, and shows that we are firmly on the way to teleprompter error 14 fatal error.  Contact technical support immediately.”

        “The gathered supporters raised their hands over their heads and began to chant, ‘Yes, we can’, now a signature event at Obama political rallies.”

        “In other news, more scandals rock the Republican party as allegations emerge that the vice presidential nominee got a ‘D’ on a tenth grade Spanish test.  Hector Laraza, a Hispanic community leader, was outraged.  ‘This demonstrates once again the racism and contempt for people of color in the Republican party,’ Laraza said…”

  • FYI…
    The U1 unemployment is 5.8%.
    The U3 unemployment is 9.5%.  U3 is the ‘official’ government number.
    The U6 unemployment is 16.5%.  U6 is, “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.”
    Source:
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
     

  • I recall mentioning to my father in the 90s when Japan was starting its deflationary period that just because you can borrow money at 0% doesn’t mean that you will do so. Increased consumer savings, either by putting money in savings accounts, money markets, stocks, whatever, or by paying down debt, will not necessarily go into new borrowing. As someone pointed out, banks are deleveraging due to new regulations, and paying trivial consumer interest rates while buying treasuries is a safe option. Also companies are avoiding investing in capex because who knows what the rules will be tomorrow? It’s difficult to figure out what the HCR mess will cost, will Crap ‘n Tax pass, will bondholders get shafted again a la GM/Chrylser, what will income taxes look like next year (affecting consumer demand), and on and on. The Obummer “administration” is a loose cannon that just fires at random targets. Uncertainty kills investment and we are all hiding waiting to see who the next target will be.
      The Obummers cannot understand this because they’ve never run in the real world. None of TAO’s close advisers has ever had a real job where customers had a choice. The old commie George McGovern had an epiphany in the late 80s when he was out of power and bought a small hotel with some other investors. The hotel went bankrupt after a few years and he said that he never realized how difficult it was for businesses to deal with all the regulations put on them by politicians. He said that if only he had been in business first before being a senator, he would have been a much different senator.

  • Scary unemployment graph:

    The median duration of unemployment is higher today than any time in the last 50 years. That’s an understatement. It is more than twice as high today than any time in the last 50 years.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/the-scariest-unemployment-graph-ive-seen-yet/60086/
     
     
     
     

  • RE: “The median duration of unemployment is higher today than any time in the last 50 years. That’s an understatement. It is more than twice as high today than any time in the last 50 years.”

    Or, even worse:
    How about you open the period of time you’re considering even further and say, that: “The unnaturally low rate of employment for the past century, and in particular the past fifty years, has been largely do to the combination of selling off north america to immigrants and their children, the increase in consumer products consumed by these people,   the collapse of european war economies, followed by the results of the monopolization of the world monetary system.  The current unemployment level is the natural consequence of the loss of the US’s temporary economic advantage, as europe caught up, and china, india, russia and other developing countries have developed similar economic models and levels of production.”
    One of the errors of Positivism is that a pretense of the reliability of collected data is sufficient for understanding.  When it’s just a matter failing to look at what you’re NOT measuring, and thereby becoming the victim of your failure.
    The monetary policy since Reagan was an attempt to revitalize american entrepreneurship and individualism by using the US’s unique position in world history, to borrow against future production.
    However, the winning of the war against ideologically managed economies made that borrowing impossible to maintain.  Furthermore, the unregulated use of that credit to fund unproductive investment (housing) rather than relative competitive investment (innovation) led to a bubble, which has now compounded the overall problem.
    This is not to say that we had an alternative to the revitalization of the country. Or that the european model would have yielded better results in the domestic american empire than it did in the homogenous nation states.
    But we are now headed toward the south american model : the exact opposite of what both the left and right desired.

     

  • The problem isn’t lack of consumer spending, the problem is too much consumer spending in the past, leading to massive private debt (100% of GDP) due to bubble economies and cheap credit.   Trying to re-create the hyper-consumerism of the last decade would be like getting an alcoholic finally to give up booze, and then giving him vodka to help him through the withdrawal phase.   Until the consumer starts saving and decreases debt, consumer driven growth could set up a worse crisis.  What we need to do is start producing more, and then using that work through a sustainable increase in savings and consumption.   That won’t be a quick fix.  This recession is a necessary rebalancing of economic fundamentals which got way out of whack in the “something for nothing” mentality of the bubble days.   Increasing production requires finding more things to produce — high tech energy alternatives, perhaps — for which we have a comparative advantage.    Stimulus that invests in future production may be very smart.  A stimulus to private consumption might just create short term relief at a long term cost.

    • Nuts.  As usual.  Japan had one of the highest per capita savings rates in the developed world.  Look where that got them in the face of their stupid government-controlled economy.
      We have a HUGE advantage in LOTS of stuff…INCLUDING oil field technology…and government didn’t have a FREAKING thing to do with bringing it to the market.

      • Japan also has a massive governmental debt.  Anyway, you are being illogical.  You aren’t addressing the problems caused by the massive private debt we have, and the over-consumption.  Japan is irrelevant to our problems.  You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant distraction in order to avoid confronting facts  you don’t want to acknowledge.  That kind of thinking is what got us into this mess.   A vague assertion that we have a “huge advantage” is meaningless.

        • Private debt is private debt, Scott. It will be worked out in 200 million different ways.

          It’s your government that is spending us into the grave.

        • “You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant distraction in order to avoid confronting facts  you don’t want to acknowledge.”

          Is that sort of like having two huge federal entitlement programs veering into bankruptcy but rhapsodically praising the addition of a third huge federal entitlement program created by the biggest deficit-running president of all time while criticizing his predeceesor as a big spender?

          I mean, Scott, go down to the basement and get your power drill and take some pressure off that brain.

        • Note also here this “private debt” angle and the notion of “over-consumption.”

          When the Left starts to really go into failure mode, as it is now, it’s time to what?

          It’s time to blame the people! They can’t be worthy of the Left’s genius if they don’t act responsibly. Let’s not pay attention to the nast trillion dollar deficits. The government isn’t the problem. It’s the damn people who are letting the genius elite down.

          Watch this trend as it unfolds.

        • “A vague assertion that we have a “huge advantage” is meaningless.”

          LOL.
          Thanks, again.
          And keep those meaningful vague assertions coming.

    • Trying to re-create the hyper-consumerism of the last decade would be like getting an alcoholic finally to give up booze,

      So I guess the government is going to sacrifice itself by going on a binge of hyper-consumerism in our stead. How sweet of them. But, in case you didn’t notice, they are spending our money, and that of future generations.

      • “…the hyper-consumerism of the last decade…”
        Oh, yeah…  The late, not great Fritz Hollings….   “Too much consumin’ goin’ ouet dare’…”

    • The problem isn’t lack of consumer spending, the problem is too much consumer spending in the past, leading to massive private debt. See, you guys never get the fact that the problem is never that government spends too much or goes into debt, because that stuff is utterly necessary for our journey to leftist utopian salvation. The problem can’t possibly be on the side of wise leftists in government and academia – that’s decreed by the holy writ of post-modernism. Therefore it’s those undisciplined common citizens, who just refuse to orient their lives for the common good. If you’re one of them that feels that way, you doth protest too much.

      Trying to re-create the hyper-consumerism of the last decade would be like getting an alcoholic finally to give up booze, and then giving him vodka to help him through the withdrawal phase. And you can’t turn that metaphor around and use it for politicians and their spending and debt! That’s not fair! I decree it.

      Until the consumer starts saving and decreases debt, consumer driven growth could set up a worse crisis. What we need to do is for the grunt engineer types out there in flyover country to start producing more, and then using that work through a sustainable increase in savings and consumption. That way, there’s room for wise leftists to raise taxes for the purpose of pretending to be reducing deficits and allow us to maintain and even increase our wise and beneficent control of more and more areas of the economy.

      That won’t be a quick fix. Grunt engineer types are sometimes hard to convince. Increasing production requires finding more things to produce — high tech energy alternatives, perhaps — for which we have a comparative advantage. So you grunt engineers need to look at the bright side, which is that you get to come up with all this new stuff that we wise leftists decree are needed, and while we make all the big decisions for running society, like what amazing inventions you need to come up with and extending healthcare to every member of society. Because it’s a moral right, created by carbon-based forms of life that happen to be wise leftists, but of course not a natural right, which doesn’t exist. I’m sorry I’m kind of mashing this all together, but then it’s clear to me that you dense righties wouldn’t understand it anyway if I talked longer.

      Stimulus that invests in future production may be very smart. Because we wise leftists, especially experienced bureaucrats and politicians, have a magical intuition that helps us know where future production needs to be. A stimulus to private consumption might just create short term relief at a long term cost. But of course that doesn’t apply to unemployment benefits which need to be extended indefinitely to keep those peons dependent on the government ensure that our worst off members are not unduly hurt by this recession.

      Of course, investing in future production means lots more oversight by wise leftists and lots more spending by the government. And that’s not the least bit contradictory with my assertions about Obama cutting spending, so stop saying that! When will you guys get hip with the multiple truth thing, anyway?

      I personally have suggested one program to my elected leaders to invest in future production. I’ve proposed an “anti Sarah Palin caterpillar” program, because those darn magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face, full lips, and ample bosom are really interfering with my productivity. I can’t even take a bath without six or seven of them jumping in with me. I can see them peeping out of my wife’s blouse. It’s definitely time to do something.

      • You’re on a roll these days.

        Ott ScerbThe problem isn’t lack of consumer spending, the problem is too much consumer spending in the past, leading to massive private debt.

        WHY is there such massive private debt?  I think that this is really a problem for the country as high levels of private debt put otherwise productive people at risk of bankruptcy the moment that they lose their jobs or have some other economic reversal.  I suggest that government bears considerable blame for this: the “hyper-consumerism of the last decade”* was, at least in part, the result of government policies such as low interest rates, mortgage and student loan subsidies, and coercion to force banks to loan to people who are high-risk either because they already owe more than they can afford or else have a history of not paying what they owe. 

        I do not propose government action to solve this problem: we do not need Uncle Sugar telling us what we can and cannot spend our money one.  Rather, the government needs to get the hell out of the market.  Let the banks set interest rates and decide who will and won’t get loans.  Let businesses set prices and pay rates.  Let college students find their own financing and earn their way to their degrees.^  When money isn’t effectively being given away by Uncle Sugar, people have less of it to indulge in “hyper-consumerism” and have much more incentive NOT to go into potentially ruinous debt.

        Ott ScerbIncreasing production requires finding more things to produce — high tech energy alternatives, perhaps — for which we have a comparative advantage.

        The belief that politicians and government bureaucrats can AND SHOULD direct what sorts of things we should try to invent and produce is ludicrous.  Unfortunately, it seems to be a common belief on the left.  The faith that they have in “grunt engineer types” is touching, though: “Why, they can invent ANYTHING if we just tell them to do it.  Look at the Soviets: they tossed grunt engineer types like Sakharov and Korolyev into gulags and MADE them invent the Soviet H-bomb and the Soviet missile program.  We just need to make our grunt engineers invent a car engine that runs on unicorn farts and doesn’t emit greenhouse gases and watch the money tax revenue roll in!”

        And let’s talk about “comparative advantage”.  WHY are we essentially stuck in the position of having to try to find high-tech things that only we can produce?  Why are so many of our basic consumer goods, from steel to t-shirts, made overseas?  The answer, once again, is government interference: the price of American labor is made artificially high through such things as minimum wage laws, government support for labor unions, government-mandated health, unemployment, retirement, and medical benefits, etc., as well as pervasive health, safety and environmental regulations.  Some of these things are necessary evils: I am not so naive to believe that businesses would run completely safe and clean operations without oversight.  However, I think we’ve gone so far toward regulation that we’re pricing ourselves right out of the market.

        Ott ScerbStimulus that invests in future production may be very smart.

        I have visions of a group of politicians, beaming under the glare of MiniTru camera lights, surrounded by fawning bureaucrats, labor leaders, and bused-in workers, cutting the ribbon to officially open “People’s Glorious Horse and Buggy Factory No. 1″, it having been determined by a blue-ribbon committee of former politicians, Nobel Prize-winning economists, and other experts that what America needs for the future is more buggies.

        Bah.

        —–

        (*)  Americans have been “hyper-consuming” since at least the end of World War II if not before that.  Back in the day, this was considered a good thing, evidence of the strength of our economy and the virtues of capitalism that allowed increasing numbers of common people to afford more and more things that would otherwise be affordable only by the very rich (if they were available at all).  Now, the ability of common people to buy things like plasma TV’s, nice cars, nice houses, etc. is seen as not only wasteful but outright immoral because it threatens the planet.

        (^) I hate to sound like a crabby old man, but it is vaguely offensive to me that college students have excess student loan money to spend on things like lavish spring break vacations, iPods, new cars, etc. even as they are bumbling along toward degrees that really don’t qualify them to do much of anything after graduation.

    • An interesting attack on capitalism, comrade, cleverly leaving out the unfunded liabilities of the federal entitlement programs!

      Very clever! Your dacha will be air-conditioned this year!

      • We don’t really need much air conditioning up here in Maine. Besides, I think I might have some already for the two days we need it. Last year, I heard a rumble outside my window on a hot day and felt a breeze. It was either air conditioning or moose farts, I’m not sure which.

    • “the “something for nothing” mentality of the bubble days.”{

      Wanting or expecting a high return on an investment is not ‘something for nothing’.  Wanting or expecting  health care or other government benefits without paying for them ( the left’s forte) is. 

      • Expecting a high return on an investment is wanting something for nothing if you haven’t done any work to investigate whether or not the investment makes sense.   The idiotic “day traders” of the tech bubble or real estate flippers of the last bubble were trying to get something for nothing in get rich quick schemes that exploded their face and contributed to a massive crisis that has taken the US off its perch as the dominant world power.   But perhaps that’s a good thing — it’s humbled us in a way that needed to happen.

        • Capitalism is risk, Scott. More risk, more payoff. Get into a boom early, and out not too late and you do well. Get in late, you get stuck.

          Every investor has his reasons and is the best judge of the level of risk he will tolerate.

          But someone with life tenure at a state institution, that is someone who has gotten something for nothing.

        • “The idiotic “day traders” of the tech bubble or real estate flippers of the last bubble”

          It isn’t idiotic if you make a lot of money. Like any other form of gambling, if you are prepared to take some risk, or get someone else to take some risk, in return for a highly likely big payout it is entirely rational to do so. Many of those ‘idiotic’ people became wealthy.
          Those schemes exploded in our face, not theirs, since folks like you decided that the government should cover the losses.

          “a massive crisis that has taken the US off its perch as the dominant world power.”

          So who is the dominant world power now?

          “it’s humbled us in a way that needed to happen.”

          The way you constantly write about it, you certainly seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of seeing the US humiliated. Quelle surpris. 

        • ” done any work to investigate whether or not the investment makes sense.”

          It doesn’t need to make sense, it just needs to make money. And whether it makes sense or not is not some scientific, mathematical procedure. Another of your meaningless vague assertions.  

  • “So what can government do? ”
    “Cut business taxes. Get out of the way.”

    No one who believes in free markets, free enterprise, is going to argue with you. But, Bruce, how long have w been trying to sell that message and how much success have had? The American people, today, don’t trust anyone; not government, whether its Democrats or Republicans in charge, and they have never trusted big business.  The “people” don’t understand the market place and much less economic theories.

    My point is that repeating over and over again: cut business taxes, get government out of our way and let the fre marget system put things right; has not worked in the past and isn’t going to work now. We need to change our approach and, for what they¡re worth, I have a couple of suggestions.

    Before I retired I was an engineer/executive for many years. On numerous occasions I would review reports from young engineers recommending that the company invest in this or that to improve its bottom line. I would often reject these ideas, even when as an engineer I knew they were good ideas for the company because it was obvious that the engineer’s report wasn’t going to convince any board member of its worthiness. I would call the young engineer to my office and explain to him that he could have the best idea in the world; but if he didn’t do an adequate job of selling that idea, it was worthless. I would send the engineer away with the following advise on how to rewrite his report:
    1. Describe the current situation.
    2. Explain the problem.
    3. Explain the options for resolving the problem.
    4. Explain why you have recommended the option you have recommended.
    5. Above all else, write your report in language that any body can understand and be as brief as possible.

    I think that the pundits on our side of the issues could benefit from applying these same recommendations to their own. They need to they are not trying to and don’t need to convince those that already believe, but those that don’t believe and those that just don’t understand.

    My other suggestion is this. We need to admit that some times we have some very unscrupulous people operating in the market place. Manipulating markets and  using insider information for their own gain. We know its true. If we don’t start doing a better job of policing ourselves, then we should keep our collective mouths shut when the people demand that government step in and do it for us.

    Enough said.