digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

59% of Americans say Depression Likely - 79% Worry About One

taipeitimes.com — "Asked if the US could slip into a depression lasting several years, 59 percent said it was likely and 79 percent said they were worried about it, the paper said. The poll of 1,025 adults was completed on Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.The poll results reflect a slide in confidence ..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bohemianowl, on 03/19/2008, -23/+88And we don't need any socialists or war-mongers to help spend money we don't have.
    • clintontj72, on 03/19/2008, -17/+52ummm...we already have socialist warmonger fascist tools spending money we don't have... :D
      • OrangeTide, on 03/19/2008, -7/+8And it looks like we're going to elect another one to replace him.
      • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -14/+9"Socialist warmonger fascist"?

        That's an oxymoron if there ever was one. A core point of view of socialists is anti-militarism, as war is viewed as the most violent expression of the contradictions of capitalism.

        Fascism is also completely incompatible with socialism. As under fascism, the state and the corporations would merge, and would be ruled by an autocratic elite. Unlike under socialism (be it state socialism, market socialism, anarchism or communism) where the state (which would however be abolished under many variants of socialism, like anarchism) and corporations would be owned and controlled by the producers and consumers (the people).
        • SpudgeBoy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+7"As under fascism, the state and the corporations would merge, and would be ruled by an autocratic elite."

          That is what is going on in this country righ tthis very minute.
        • ICSU, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4"That's an oxymoron if there ever was one. A core point of view of socialists is anti-militarism..."
          LOL
          Nazism - National Socialism
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2LOL FARC. LOL Chavez. LOL any "Socialist" movement in South America. They always end up with a really high body count.
        • xptoast, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1The concept of Communism was a neat one but the Communism in real life sucks bad. The connotation is important to note when looking at most peoples sentence structures.
      • synarchy, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2"That's an oxymoron if there ever was one. A core point of view of socialists is anti-militarism, as war is viewed as the most violent expression of the contradictions of capitalism."

        LOL. Is that what they tell you at the weekly meetings, comrade? Oh, nice red star, btw.

        Tell that to the people of Tibet.
    • gonegoogling, on 03/19/2008, -8/+17and now we have to choose between three more
      • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6Yeah, John McCain is definitely Karl Marx reincarnated... reincarnated. Corporate puppets Clinton and Obama are definitely arguing for workers taking over the corporations and the state.
    • siszam, on 03/19/2008, -31/+15We have warmongers. We need socialists. Socialist countries spend taxes to help citizens not kill them. That doesn't hurt anyone. Greedy people like to pretend it does.
      • RogerStrong, on 03/19/2008, -9/+26Which is why socialist countries like the Soviets, Chinese, and Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) never started wars, never killed their citizens, and never hurt anyone. Riiiiiiight.
        • pagefaultca, on 03/19/2008, -16/+5Those are communists and facists, not socialists. Get it right.
          • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -4/+5No, they are not communists (Nazi-Germany was however fascist). The syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War were communist.

            The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (before the PRC's move to barbarist market capitalism) were sort of state socialist, but not quite, as the producers and consumers in reality had little say in the production.
          • RogerStrong, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6"Nazi" was short for "Nationalist Socialist".

            You can claim that the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the cold-war Romanians, etc, etc, were somehow not really socialist. But not without conceeding that socialist countries have a near-perfect record of turning into tyrannic dictatorships.
          • Jlaugh, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Every country has been a dictatorship at one time or another. What does economics have to do with despotism? The world is full of capitalists and socialist dictatorships.
        • sponeil, on 03/19/2008, -5/+10Socialist is like most western European countries, and it basically means high taxes + high benefits for everyone (like better and cheaper education, healthcare, public transporation, etc.)
          • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3The Scandinavian "socialist" countries are in fact neo-liberal social democratic. Mona Sahlin of the SAP (Swedish Social Democratic Party) recently said that the SAP are no longer against private property, hence, they are not socialist.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Ahh the oxymoron of High Taxes = Cheap or "Free" stuff for everyone. SOMEONE pays for it. And I guarantee there's more income being hidden than you realize. Look at the hissy fit the founder of IKEA threw when Forbes wanted to list him as the richest man in the world. He claims he only makes a few hundred grand a year instead of billions, because he HIDES his money from high taxes.
        • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -7/+6none of those countries were proper socialism. As long as technology advances scarcity will eventually disappear and socialism will come(true socialism without government control). The problem with socialism is the people who think they can force it. If you have 100 people and 1 loaf of bread you can't be a magical jesus for the people, all you end up with is a dictator who takes single loaf for himself.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/19/2008, -2/+10If you're saying new technology is what would make socialism work, then that would make capitalism, which already works, equally more efficient. Plus we'd get to keep our liberties and technology would advance faster too making capitalism exponentially more efficient ;)
          • Jlaugh, on 03/19/2008, -7/+1Efficiency seems to be destroying capitalism. More efficient capitalism = less jobs.
          • blast_flame, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Such a system would also be perfectly free market.
            http://www.reason.com/news/show/28243.html
          • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1@masterm1nd

            new technology is irrelevant. What is important is lack of scarcity. Technology just seems to be the way we will move to lack of scarcity. Capitalism only works efficiently because of scarcity. Capitalism is a very fancy way of deciding who gets the 1 loaf of bread when there's 100 people. When there's 100+ loafs there's no need for that anymore.

            As for your fear of liberties, socialism is very easily tied to anarchy. Dictatorships of the proletariat and Big Brother socialism is unnecessary and very likely to lead to dictatorship or new government in my mind. Especially if it was achieved with a violent revolution. (Marxists consider it a necessary step. Anarchists don't)
          • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2The only way technology will be able to eliminate scarcity is if it is able to create matter out of nothing... If that happens, then I doubt anyone will be worrying about any of the ***** we all worry about today.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4"new technology is irrelevant. What is important is lack of scarcity."
            Lack of scarcity is almost entirely dependent on technology giving us more efficient use of resources. As an example, more than a billion people would die off if we were to go back to entirely organic farming methods on existing farm land.

            "The only way technology will be able to eliminate scarcity is if it is able to create matter out of nothing... If that happens, then I doubt anyone will be worrying about any of the ***** we all worry about today."
            First of all creating something out of nothing isn't necessarily not possible, after all, everything had to be created out of nothing. The more efficient you use resources, the more you get out of them. Essentially that is just as good as having more resources consumed without efficient technology. When we go to the moon and harvest helium-3, that is technology literally giving you resources you didn't have to begin with.
          • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4@ masterm1nd:

            Capitalism works efficiently? When 91 million people die from starvation every year? That's just a great system of resource distribution.
          • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1@mciampa1214

            true, to a certain degree. Not everything can be plentiful, but the important things will be. We already produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. Waste and market problems are the main reason we can't feed people now. Given a 100 or so years, I wouldn't be surprised if hunger was a thing of the past. Now, I doubt that means everyone will be eating sirloin states and pie, but you get the picture.
          • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2"more than a billion people would die off if we were to go back to entirely organic farming methods on existing farm land."

            Your right, you can't turn back. Once you become more efficient you birth more people, then you become more efficient and you birth more people. That is one very big problem is that your population will always increase to consume the surplus. In many ways were no better off then hunter-gatherers, because both of us are at the edge of our resources.

            Luckily, it seems like there is a point when people have enough resources that they don't feel the need to have 50 children just so one can survive.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4insurgente, what are you talking about. How many starve in capitalist America? Are the people you refer to dieing in capitalist countries, or not? You have to figure that out before drawing such conclusions. Did you know GMO food is a byproduct of American capitalism and credited with saving billions of lives?
          • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2@capiCrimm I agree with you (sort of), I didn't say I hope people starve, but everything is relative, once everyone has food that just becomes the bottom of the pyramid, everyone will always want more than they have.
        • marc123, on 03/19/2008, -4/+7those were DICTATORSHIPS. try comparing American to the social democrat states of Western Europe, those are the ones at the top of the human development index. Where is America? Oh yeah 12th and falling fast!
        • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Communism is a political system like democracy or republic.
          Socialism is an economic system like capitalism.

          The Soviets were communist with a socialist economic system. The parent did get it right.
          • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Communism is not a political system like democracy or republic. It is a socioeconomic system in which the state, classes and money have been abolished through the abolition of private property and the market, and the establishment of direct democratic workers' and consumers' councils, run by the workers and consumers themselves to plan the allocation, production and distribution.

            Socialism is the economic system in which private property has been abolished and replaced by common property. The means of production would be owned and controlled by the producers themselves.

            The Soviet Union was a Communist (Communist Party members), but they weren't communist. It was a state socialist dictatorship.
      • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -1/+9Can I have some of your money? or are you gonna be greedy with it?
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. Woodrow Wilson was a socialist. FDR was a socialist. Bush was as Big Government as this country has ever seen.

        Yeah big powerful nationalist government is exactly what we need more of.
    • marc123, on 03/19/2008, -16/+6try looking at the economy of the most socialist countries in europe like those in scandinavia, maybe then you will then drop the bulls**t propaganda! You puny mind has obviously been warped by business interests into seeing socialism as evil.
      • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -2/+7Yeah they had to combine into one larger country/union to have any influence.
        • marc123, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4you are wrong in several ways. first the eu was created largely to prevent another war in europe by increasing economic interdependency. secondly if you are talking about the eu as having the same influence as america and each individual country not having that beforehand, then the reason why is very simple. Population size. America has perhaps 300m in population each scandinavian country has less than 10m. the whole population of the EU is only slightly larger than America's population. It is the size of the domestic market of an ecomony that is the major determinant of influence in the long term. America's success in the post-war world was pretty much just because it has the biggest population by far of any developed nation. As a result this cut-throat capitalist, selfish ethic that was dominant in America became the dominant ideology for advanced capitalist societies in the 20th Century. Just because America was in a fortunate position after the war does not make its inequitable system "the way", i am optimistic we will see a change towards greater egalitarianism in this century as America's influence declines and its hitherto unquestionable selfish ethic starts to seen for what it really is.
      • TRScheel, on 03/19/2008, -2/+10Please read this:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/world/europe/12f ...

        And note this quote:
        "One result was that the country's university system guaranteed a free — or almost free — college education to every high school graduate who passed the baccalauréat exam. University enrollment soared. The value of a bachelor's degree plummeted."

        If everyone gets a degree then a degree is worthless. The world needs idiots, face it. Everyone cant be in the 90th percentile.
        • JohnFlux, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1If everyone can read and write, then reading and writing is worthless.
          • DucoNihilum, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2For getting a job? YES. When was the last time you filled out "Can read and write" on your resume?
        • chrisj33, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Except reading and writing are basic skills that everybody needs to go anywhere, while a degree only helps you get a good job.
        • Locke2053, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1Wait. You think limiting the supply of degrees ONLY to those who were born wealthy has a NET BENEFIT on an economy?

          Sounds like somebody needs to go back to school, TRScheel!
          • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Read the article then come back and argue with me, until then you sound like an idiot.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/19/2008, -3/+7Yes, both systems can work, but socialism fails a lot more and is highly dependent on the wealth and resources inherent to said socialist state.
        • marc123, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3socialism fails a lot more? wheres the stats to back up that wild statement? how do you explain africa then, it has zero countries and pretty much all of its countries are failures? your confusing communist dictatorships with real socialism, which is not inherently anti-capitalist it just is a belief in a greater redistribution of wealth.
      • Herostratos, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4A little anecdote:
        Here in Norway, air travel was done by a state monopoly up until 5-6 years ago. Then it was sold, and by allowing evil capitalists to compete with the previous monopolist the price of air travel dropped 50-70 % in one single summer. Socialism, which is state control over the means of production and all markets - such as air travel - was proven to be full of fail that year. We do not need more socialism.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 03/19/2008, -4/+13Osama bin Laden can truly say "Mission Accomplished". He promised he'd bankrupt the U.S. in a war. The national debt has doubled under Bush to $10 trillion dollars, and at $3 a gallon of gas, Americans are stuffing the pockets of Middle East terrorists with cash.
      • nirav72, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4We should have just given him a part of that trillion dollars to go away. Because killing him hasn't worked out well. Has it?
        • Jlaugh, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Sure it has he's been dead for years now. Bhutto announced that 6 months ago in the international news.
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -4/+6Somebody gets it. This was the plan all along, as they knew they couldn't win a military war with the United States. However they could beat us in a mental game of chess. Just as we didn't listen to why they attacked us on 9/11, we didn't listen to their goal and objective which was equally as evident.

        They attacked us because we are involved in their business. THeir way to defeat us was by spending us into economic collapse. In Osama's wildest dreams, I don't think even he could have imagined we would take the bait as quickly and fall so fast.
        • hexydes, on 03/19/2008, -5/+6If you honestly think that the war in Iraq is the reason why the US economy is in a recession right now, you're literally incompetent. It's reasons like this that I'm glad no one takes comments on Digg seriously, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
          • mmd643, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1See below. The was was one of many horrible policy decisions that have lead to the correct situations that we are now in.

            Others include massive government taxation and overspending. The taxation stifled business and hurt consumers through higher prices and less income. Massive regulations and red tape that benefited large businesses who could afford the lobbyists to tilt said regulation in their favor, stifling fair competition.

            I could go on and on here, but you can't forget to include the biggest group of criminals, the folks over at the federal reserve.
        • trer, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3@hexydes

          No, it wasn't THE reason. It certainly is A reason. A war that a good number of the citizens are against causes FUD. FUD stunts the economy.
          • mmd643, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Thanks for explaining that in my absence.
        • DucoNihilum, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Or MAYBE it's the fed inflating the economy.... JUST MAYBE.
    • Hetman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6If you want a socialist country I expect that cigarettes are going to become illegal, defiantly alcohol. "the amount of damage that causes in accidents a year probably cannot even be estimated." No more McDonald's for the fat-asses. I'm not paying for someone who wants to live an unhealthy life that is their choice I'm not paying for it. I can see universal health care for anyone under 18. But after that you need to be responsible for yourself and your actions.
      • Independentsam, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1"defiantly alcohol" I love it! That folks is irony.
      • Tetraca, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I must agree with you mostly, and I am a libertarian socialist. There are times when people need to have personal responsibilty for their actions and where the market works, and there are places where the government --- whether local, provincial, or national --- would be better suited in dealing with the public need.
        If I were in power, I wouldn't ban cigarettes, or alcohol. In fact, I'd probably loosen up a few drug laws (ecstasy and marihuana): We'll get more tax money for more important programs like gradually removing the national debt, universal healthcare, education, public access television, and scientific research.
    • ldailey06, on 03/19/2008, -5/+5You've gotta agree that trending towards a more socialist 'tax and spend' would be better than our current 'cut taxes and spend spend spend Japan's money, oh and let the next administration deal with the blowback'
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6Um no. How about we stop spending and stop taxing. Trading one ***** concept for another ***** concept does not progress make.
        • hexydes, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Oh, what's this...a voice of reason...ON DIGG NO LESS?!
    • insurgente, on 03/19/2008, -11/+9***** off. There is no ***** socialism (producer control and ownership of the means of production), whatsoever, in the United States of America.

      Socialism is immune to depression. Even the Soviet Union proved that during the Great Depression. So if they were socialists, there would be no depression.
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -6/+7What drug are you on and where can I get some? I've always wanted to take a trip to fantasy town.
      • chrisj33, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4The Soviet Union wasn't affected because it was isolated. No other countries would trade with them anyway, that way they could build up their industry with whoever was left after they had killed millions of their own people.
        • daxsymbiont, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4THE EVIL THE EVIL COMMUNISTS.

          BURN THE WITCHES.

          KILL THE INFIDELS.
      • Versh, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Righto, no depression because the entire economy becomes a stagnant mess-- the entire populous becomes equally poor, and innovation becomes impossible when there are no incentives (never mind all the restrictions in the first place). Socialism has done terrible things to societies-- it simply doesn't work.
        • Jlaugh, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Most societies for most of human history have been socialistic, you really don't have a good grasp of history.
      • synarchy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Here's a list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owne ...

      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3You're a loon.
    • Chompy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Anyone talking a depression doesn't know what the word means. Recession, yes. Depression, no.
      • hexydes, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4That's the first thing I thought when I read the headline. "Hmm...I wonder how many of these people they asked actually know what a depression, or for that matter a recession, actually is."
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3"I feel depressed about having to pay more at the gas pump, so yea, we're in a depression, oh hold on while I mute my plasma TV, I'm getting a call on my iPhone with internet service."
    • Malevolant, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6Headed if not already in a recession, yet the Democrats want to spend massive mounts of money on the biggest social programs ever. That makes complete fiscal sense....If you're going broke why not borrow and spend much more than you can already afford. That is beyond ridiculous.

      To the guys trying to sell USSR Communist socialism, you are beyond stupid. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read here, and that's saying a lot. You must be from Marxist.org. If you want Americans standing in line for hours, for a loaf of bread, it says a lot. Communism/socialism failed in the USSR and Cuba, as well as plenty of other countries around the world. Ever ask yourself why so many socialist countries are poor? Ever wonder why capitalist countries are so rich? I'll let you try to discern the truth from there.
    • chrisj33, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2People don't understand how many safety nets are in place nowadays if a depression begins to loom. The economy will shrink a bit, then continue to expand, just like a balloon.
  • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -3/+13What's that acronym? Ah!!! BOHICA!!!!!!!!!!
  • muckemuck, on 03/19/2008, -24/+92So what plan does Obama have to get us out of this? How come he didn't say anything about this risk six months ago like.. oh.. Ron Paul did?
    • blindhammer, on 03/19/2008, -2/+15The history of the Fed and the economy is so batty, that most Americans believe it to be fringe. I mean, some bankers meeting on a secret island then pushing through legislation during Christmas break? The 16th Amendment probably not properly ratified?

      It's batty. It may be true, but it's batty.

      Americans don't like people in power talking about "odd" things, even if what they are talking about is true.
      • capiCrimm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." ~ Ben Bernanke

        real fringe batty stuff.
        • RationalXubrnce, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2 Holy crap, this dumbass acutaly said that? I thought you were kidding until I googled it. Not that I didn't already know they did it but still.
    • d3lta, on 03/19/2008, -25/+5I guess thats because Obama was busy thinking up a plan to get elected unlike... oh.. Ron Paul. Paul is a fruitcake hoping for a depression, if Obama's done his homework right he'll know we'll go into recession but not a depression. And he has a plan to tackle that, doesn't he?
      • juankovo, on 03/19/2008, -2/+21Ron Paul is hardly a "fruitcake." He's written multiple books on economic theory. Regardless of whether you agree with his views, understand that he has spent a lot more time thinking about the economy than you or Obama ever will.
        • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1It wouldn't shock me to see that Ron Paul by raving on about a depression is one of the causes of the article. I'm not saying it is his fault entirely but worrying about a depression can often cause one. Think about it, if 79% of people worry about a depression coming and sell their houses/take money out of banks/etc the market would shatter causing a depression. Ron Paul hasn't helped the situation by preaching about it on national television and getting everybody worried about it.
      • Sophistifunk, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1L Ron Hubbard has written a bunch of books too, but that doesn't make him any less of a nut.
        • DonTazeMeBro, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I also wrote a book, called "Sophistifunk is Intelligent", and just like L Ron, I also write fiction.
    • sushicombo, on 03/19/2008, -15/+2I've heard of that wine before....whats the brand? Oh yeah...bitter jealousy. Delicious.
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Jealousy is when someone gets something you can't have. In this case, we're all in it together.
        • Sophistifunk, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1No, that's envy. Jealousy is when you fear a loss of something you do have.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -8/+8Actually, Ron Paul's comments primarily focused not on sub-prime mortgages, but on the government's ability to "print" money... or, in more accurate terms, change the fed rate to increase or decrease liquidity.

      Ironically, it's this fed rate adjustment ability that might prevent a full blown depression. It's a tool they didn't have back in 1929. Thanks to people like Ron Paul.
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6It's working really well...
      • eryximachus, on 03/19/2008, -0/+11Ridiculous. the "fed rate" adjustment simply means pumping more money into the economy. This obviously did nothing but cause disaster in Germany in the 1920s and lead to prolonged economic stagnation in Japan since 1990.

        You fail it. Kiss your savings goodbye, sucker.
        • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1It's called hyper inflation - the government print money so prices go up devaluing the $.
        • bc289, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0The US is nowhere near hyperinflation. In fact, one could argue that the inflation they have caused has been within a healthy range in the last two decades. The truth is that inflation is MUCH better than deflation. The prolonged stagnation in Japan was a result of many factors, but it was not a result of printing money (they experienced deflation during this period). In fact, that's why economic stagnation occurred in Japan - they ran into a liquidity crisis and already had interest rates at 0, leaving the fed powerless and unable to expand the money supply.

          Inflation is in fact not bad, especially when it is expected. Many contracts have inflation built in to them. As for your savings, they're called TIPS. Use them.

          Let's not forget that inflation lowers your debt, which most americans have.
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3You don't understand what is happening. Not in the least.
      • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -3/+0thinkfr33ly is probably right. i don't know what ron paul said, but i do know that monetarism and small annual increases in the money supply did stabilize our economy greatly ever since the creation of the fed. if you don't believe me, look at how many financial panics the u.s. had before the creation of the fed - the economy was incredibly volatile back then. it's not like the government is printing tons of money like germany in the 1920's. the money supply only increases 1 or 2% per year. and they need this to happen because otherwise deflation could set in, resulting in the keynesian deflationary spiral, which is what happened during the great depression. people would realize that not investing or spending their money is a better investment than actual normal investments, which would cause even more deflation, which in turn would cause people to horde money under their mattresses even more. granted, the fed's actions during the great depression may have exacerbated the depression, but if the fed wasn't there we probably would have had many more depressions during the 20th century.
        • eryximachus, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1The US GDP growth rate in the 20th century is half what it was in the 19th century.

          Financial panics are good for the economy, but bad for bankers. That is why they created the fed. Also, none of the financial panics were at all significant in comparison with the Great Depression. Since the Fed stopped the M3 reports - we no longer really know how much the money supply is increasing. Fractional reserve lending also allows banks to increase the money supply essentially infinitely, and there are billions of dollars in fraudulent securities out there.
      • ManoWar, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1TTC VIDEO - Economics 3rd Edition

        http://www.mininova.org/tor/777895

        Maybe this will help in your understanding of modern economics.
  • tweetsa, on 03/19/2008, -33/+2sweet more ron paul spam

    buried
    • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -2/+31Considering that this is a survey measuring the opinions of Americans as a whole, this wouldn't qualify as "Ron Paul Spam". Moreover, Ron Paul isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
      • tweetsa, on 03/19/2008, -24/+1considering it was linked and the author is from ronpaulforums.com, yeah i'd say this is ron paul spam.
        • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -1/+22The author is from the Taipei Times. LOL Tapei isn't in Ron Paul Forums; It is the capital of Taiwan!!!
          • tweetsa, on 03/19/2008, -14/+1author of this digg
          • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Ron Paul spam doesn't make the front page. Therefore this isn't what you say it is.
  • sasharouge, on 03/19/2008, -1/+10...the poll reflects a slide in confidence? ! ? Heelllllooooo!
    • chrisj33, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Now that we've answered that most people believe this... the next question is...

      Why the ***** should we care what these people think? I was never consulted.
      • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0people are usually wrong about economics. this survey doen't mean anything.
  • Vocifer, on 03/19/2008, -27/+80Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. Enjoy your depression everyone.
    • xOpifex, on 03/19/2008, -16/+12Because getting rid of the Fed and the IRS would be great for our economy...
      • centran, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4That is what ***** me off about him. However, his extreme ideas of cutting many government agencies was more for "flash" then anything.
        He admitted in other interviews that his ideas where eventual goals for the far future but would probably be impossible to do even with two terms.
        • cswake, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7Because he's not ***** insane and understands that the Congress is the one who would have to be "converted" into giving him stuff he could sign.
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3We don't really have an economy. We have a Keynesian system that is largely regulated.
        • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Definition of an economy:
          the realized system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area.

          the real question is whether it is possible to NOT have an economy. you're an idiot.
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0Absolutely!
      • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2Thank you for voting for a man that did nothing but get people all worried about a depression.

        If your a home owner and you think a depression is about to happen -what do you do? You sell your house hoping to get as much cash before the drastic fall of house prices. If 79% are worried and sell their houses then the prices will drop considerably thus ironically causing the depression.

        Ron Paul has been the most vocal on the issue which likely helped contribute to the worry.
    • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -11/+6It's going to be your depression too. (just an FYI there will be no depression.)
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4It won't affect everyone harshly, you're right there. But it has already begun. The only difference is that it isn't extreme yet.
        • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2The econ hasn't even started shrinking yet so you can't even have a recession yet, much less a depression.
      • Y0tsuya, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Everybody will get whacked. Those who are prepared will be less damaged and will come out ahead.
    • akamurph, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5All you diggers do is whine about the end of the world and such... Go outside, get some fresh air, be a little optimistic. There will be no depression!
      • reed311, on 03/19/2008, -6/+2Yeah, I know, it's hilarious. It's mostly the doom and gloom Ron Paulbots who are saying that we live in a socialist country. The funny thing is, truly socialist countries are immune to depressions.
        • skinnyskittles, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1yeah because truly socialist countries are in a constant state of depression
      • PricklySponge, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2Yeah. The vast majority of mainstream economists completely reject the notion that a full-blown depression will take place in the coming months and years. All the talk of a depression is perpetrated by a noisy fringe Austrian economics minority.

        Ludwig von Mises must be rolling in his grave in dismay at the radical following he has unintentionally gained.
      • BlaenkDenum, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Ignorance is bliss.
    • X9001, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1And I was sure you guys were ***** gone by now
    • RationalXubrnce, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I want that as a T-shirt. "Dont blame me, I voted for Ron Paul"
  • julialopez, on 03/19/2008, -6/+23I'm surprised only 79% are worried about one.
    • kh99, on 03/19/2008, -8/+4Probably 21% are so rich they don't care.
      • Nation, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2no, about 12 percent don't care enough to answer the question and 9% actually understand economics.
      • kh99, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0I think it depends on exactly what the question was. I was thinking something like "if there were to be a depression, are you worried about how you would get through it". (and I assume that that's what julialopez was thinking). In that case it wouldn't matter what the definition of depression is. So who wouldn't worry? Financially secure people.
    • Thud, on 03/19/2008, -1/+20Q: "Do you think we're going to end up in a depression?"
      A: "Well, that's what I keep hearing on the news, so, I suppose so."
      Q: "I'll put you down as a Yes. Thank you for your time."
      • endlessoul, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6It's funny. The pollsters actually are much more deliberate in their questioning. So much so as to skew the results with their carefully worded questions.

        Never trust polls and pollsters. Just go with your opinion.
        • Civilizationist, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1Unless you think 911 was an inside job...
        • Locke2053, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Never trust interpretations of polls. Look at the actual questions asked.

          Never trust only your own opinion. Your opinion is one datapoint.
    • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11There is no way in hell that 79% of those people even know the proper definition of a depression or recession.
    • MindTrigger, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4I'm not planning on a 'depression', but I am being more careful because of the uncertainty. I had a few major purchases lined up for this year, but my wife and I canceled them in favor of banking more money for 2009, 2010 should things slow down even more. We are keeping it cool and trimming a lot of the fat off our spending for the entire year. If things don't look better by the end if 08, we will do the same in 09.

      Hell it's only March, and I paid 3.79/gal at the gas station yesterday. We aren't far off from $4 in some SoCal areas.
      • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3It's action like that which causes depressions. By people holding back on purchases the economy suffers. Companies stop making profits and can't afford to pay staff.
        • wootup, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2You know you're trapped in a seriously *****-up economic system when as it starts to unravel, people actually URGE you to buy ***** you don't need or want. Seriously, isn't our insane overconsumption the driving force behind the Holocene extinction event and global warming alike?
          • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1I wasn't trying to urge people to go out and buy, just trying to get across how articles like this one do nothing but hurt the economy. If people would stop ranting about a depression it would be far less likely to happen. People such as Ron Paul have thrown the word depression around so much that people have listened and are now worried about it. People who are worried about it then take action like MindTrigger which hurts the economy and makes the difference between a recession and a depression. The next step is people will sell their houses to avoid losing money "when" the house market collapses. This again hurts the economy as house prices drop because so many houses are up for sale.

            I believe the term is "Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" but I might be wrong? After therefore because of.
          • MindTrigger, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Let me see if I understand you. I should go out and spend money, during a time when business in my area has slowed to a crawl, and I was even laid off from my job along with hundreds of other people I worked with. This is happening all over the country right now.

            What you have here is a chicken/egg situation, and smart people will side with caution. I feel no obligation to go out and spend money to try to save an economy that has been raped by big corporate assholes who will simply leave the country with their millions when the ***** hits the fan.
          • MindTrigger, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Also, I'm not reacting out of a false sense of fear. I am reacting to the slowdown in the local economy where both my job and my wife's job have slowed to a crawl. A year ago we were thriving and made some large purchase plans. Now the situation has changed and our income potential has dropped with the economy, so we are backing off, doing the smart thing, and saving some money. Don't put the blame for this ***** on people like me who chose to save.
          • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1@MindTrigger

            What part of "I wasn't trying to urge people to go out and buy" didn't you get? Saving is good for you but bad for the economy, it's as simple as that. If everyone in America decided to save rather than spend, companys would go out of business. Is there a fail in that logic? Maybe, but if nobody purchased a TV - TV companys would go out of business. If nobody purchased cars, car dealers would go out of business. If companys go out of business, people lose jobs. If people lose jobs they lose their house. I know it's not as black and white as that but still you get my point surely.

            In your post, you said "I am being more careful because of the uncertainty". Uncertainty and Fear go hand in hand. What makes you uncertain? Articles like this one and people like Ron Paul (I hate mentioning him here on digg he is the most public vocal person I can think of) who preech about a depression. Do you see what I'm getting at?
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/19/2008, -18/+16I hate how people talk about it like its not already here. Its like talking about somebody who's sitting in the room staring at you.
    • d3lta, on 03/19/2008, -3/+17Depression? There maybe housing and credit crises, but there certainly isn't a depression. Read up on Japan and Australia, they went through the same thing. Housing slumps take a long time to get out of, but if you're hoping for a great depression, you can keep hoping, its not coming anytime soon. A recession on the other hand, is probably in full swing apart from its technical definition, which might just also be satisfied after all quarterly results come in.
      • Locke2053, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1US bankruptcy law is different from Japanese bankruptcy law. Americans can abandon their debt if it gets out of hand. For this reason, a correction in US housing prices would be extremely quick compared to Japan.
    • BassMastr, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9What's even worse is when someone talks about the future like it's already happened.
    • rogersj3, on 03/19/2008, -3/+10Please take an Intro to Econ course, then come back and apologize.
      • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Econ 101 has little to do with Keynesian economics.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Yes, but he could ask his prof "What's the difference between a recession and a drepression?" and the instructor would say "In a recession, we all lose 10-15% of our buying power and things are more expensive and some of you are out of work. In a Depression, 35% of us are out of work, those of us working lost 80% of our buying power, and we're eating a can of beans for breakfast, lunch, and dinner."
      • fatejudger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I don't know about you, but I was taught both supply and demand side economics at my university.
    • sbgskl, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5A recession differs from a depression. The fact that you can still afford internet access illustrates this. During the great depression, middle class folks (not African orphans) were STARVING to death.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2your username describes you perfectly, mentallyinhell
  • Stevanoski, on 03/19/2008, -7/+27Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm - Stephen Wright
    • Adamande, on 03/19/2008, -10/+3This story is not about emotional depression, but economic depression. I fail to see how that quote is relevant...
      • solarsavior, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Obviously it went right over your head. You're technically correct, but you missed the joke.
        • Adamande, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Well, I'm a blonde. Stuff goes right over my head daily :-P
          Sorry for my previous comment.
      • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2that comment doesn't really even deserve a response
  • juankovo, on 03/19/2008, -7/+26Someone on Digg yesterday said, "the Fed is running out of fingers to plug the holes in the paper dam they've built."

    I really want to see the Fed collapse, but I fear that something even worse is waiting in the wings to be rolled out as soon as that happens, and Americans will welcome it with open arms.
    • yahushua, on 03/19/2008, -5/+5That something is called the Amero...if you thought the dollar was dropping now, just wait until middle east countries start to de-peg from the dollar.

      Steve Previs, VP of Jefferies International Ltd on CNBC

      "I think one thing that people who are dollar based need to focus on is the Amero..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
      • RogerStrong, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2For every Steve Previs who advocates a common currency, you'll find someone else with equally compelling arguements for isolationism and protectionism. Don't hold your breath for either.

        Canada would never adopt it, nor has anyone come up with a credible reason why it would - not even when the US economy is strong, let alone when the conspiracy theory would have Canada tie itself to a sinking ship.

        • WarSaw27, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Buried as foriegn liberal blather. The NAU is here to stay.
          • RogerStrong, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Your NAU doesn't exist. The idea had it's moment in the spotlight after 9/11 and was quickly rejected, and we've been steadily heading in the opposite direction ever since.

            And you're so much better at blather. Liberal blather even - you're the one who's convinced that evil corporations have all the power.
        • WarSaw27, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Uh, they do.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Step away from the Alex Jones talking points and get a clue.
    • VenDrake, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8>> and Americans will welcome it with open arms

      You are right about that. While we disagree about what's needed, the entire country is hellbent on change and willing to follow anyone who promises it...eerily similar to the atmosphere surrounding Hitler's rise in Germany.
      • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3This is what scares me. Obama is going to lead an damn socialism movement in this country.
        • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Obama can be pulled from power much easier than hitler
    • synthpop, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7I really wouldn't wish for something like that. most dictators have used situations like this to rise to power
    • akamurph, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4How old are you ***** people?! Why are all diggers scared of the boogie-man and always think the worst things they see in movies are going to happen in real life?!
      Oh, Juan, as long as 'someone on Digg said something yesterday' you better believe it cuz it has to be the truth right?
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3if the fed collapses, we'll probably have something even worse than the great depression. don't wish for something until you've thought it over.
    • citizen132, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3If the Fed were to 'collapse' then that could actually trigger a Depression. It would scare the markets to death and everyone would run for the exit. Much, MUCH worse than what's happening now.
    • bc289, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I'd have to agree with all of that except for the first part, wishing the fed would collapse. It's a scary thought, but ***** like Zeitgeist and Ron Paul's antics are causing people to stick their nose into things they know nothing about.
  • IMJGalt, on 03/19/2008, -7/+13All hail the genesis of the North American Union
    • RogerStrong, on 03/19/2008, -2/+14No, this makes a North American Union *less* likely. Canada isn't about to tie itself to a sinking ship.

      Canada's economy is going strong. The housing market is hot. Unemployment is at a 33-year low. The Canadian dollar reached an all-time high - they keep having to lower interest rates to drop it, which heats up the economy even further. While the US has been piling record deficit after record deficit onto it's national debt for the last 8 years, Canada has had budget surpluses and has been paying down it's debt. The oil sands are being quickly developed.

      To distance itself from US economic mismanagement, Canada has been negotiating free trade agreements with *other* countries. It just signed a free trade deal with the European Free Trade Association (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). It just started free trade talks with Jordan. A free trade deal with Peru is undergoing legal revisions.
      • WarSaw27, on 03/19/2008, -6/+9The Globalists will decide, not Canadians.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/19/2008, -4/+9In your mind. Not in the real world.
      • form3hide, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6We all know Canada doesn't really exist. Stop your blabbering.
      • GhostyBoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+7FYI I live here and as much as Canadians don't want anything to do with the Hindenburg of the U.S. economy our government has taken a recent liking to secrecy and making shady deals with ***** BushCo.
      • dandonia, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4If America goes down most of the world will suffer.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Sure - but the closer the economic ties with the US, the more the other countries will suffer.

          Which is why Canada is signing free trade agreements with *other* countries. And perhaps why Canada hasn't been raising much of a fuss when the US - from durham wheat to softwood lumber to high tech - refuses to honor NAFTA. Why Canada is instead signing free trade agreements with other countries.
      • wootup, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2"Canada isn't about to tie itself to a sinking ship."

        We already did, it's called NAFTA and it makes it ILLEGAL to:
        - Sell commodities to Canadian companies for cheaper than you sell to American or Mexican companies
        - Stop or reduce the export of commodities that have been exported in the past under NAFTA, such as oil
        - Redistribute wealth or resources according to any method other than hard-line international capitalism. During the Great Depression, governments intervened to help feed their populations; such actions are now illegal under NAFTA and will not occur in the coming depression

        And since NAFTA takes precedence over federal, provincial and municipal law, our elected representatives are powerless to stop this corrupt trade agreement and its unelected tribunals from deciding our fates. When America falls, Canada goes down with it.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2I agree with much of what you're saying. To make matters worse, while the trade agreement becomes the law of the land in Canada, it gets overridden by any judge in the US.

          We're hardly powerless though. We always have the option of pulling out of the agreement. The trade agreements we've been signing with *other* countries is certainly a good start.

          Perhaps we can even negotiate something with the US that gives up less sovereignty. The next president will likely be stuck with a campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, and as you point out, Canada would be happy to do so.

          I'd rather catch the "harmonization" fad and harmonize our trade laws with the US - that is, give OUR judges the power to override sections of NAFTA. As always, turn-about is fair play.
          • WarSaw27, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1So uS judges should have their hands tied and be bound to some foreign agreement? How is that not international governance? Sure both countries should have the ability to decide for themselves, forever, without any foreign interference.
      • DonTazeMeBro, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Canada opened up trade agreements with Peru and Jordan... wow thats really going to distance Canada from US economic mismanagement.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Those who are honest and can read, saw that the list - of just new agreements - is more like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Jordan and Peru. Now add existing free trade agreements Mexico, Israel, etc.) and that's a significant amount of potential trade.
  • chocobomog, on 03/19/2008, -10/+62Breaking: 79% of people don't know basic economics and what the definition of depression is.
    If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Instead, the majority of people spend more than they earn, and receive no-down-payment loans on overpriced houses that they will never be able to pay back. Recession is likely, depression is not. But most people don't understand the difference.

    Odd that this depression talk happens the day after the Dow Jones had its biggest jump in 6 years.
    • d3lta, on 03/19/2008, -9/+5I don't know why ur being dugg down, you're quite right.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 03/19/2008, -4/+10I was hoping someone would post this. Oh no, 59% of the general populace--a large chunk of which probably only got through high-school algebra--say a depression is likely!! Run for the hills!
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -5/+12The Dow had the biggest jump in 5 years because of speculation, not because of economic fundamentals. The massive cut in the fed rate was like giving a cup of double espresso to a dying man. Sure, he perked up for a minute... but just long enough for people to cover their shorts and take profits.

      Low and behold, the market was down another 300 points today.

      Perhaps it is you who needs a little education about how the market works.
      • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2While the market does have the propensity to overshoot, the Fed rates are economic fundamentals so the jump yesterday actually was directly related to economic fundamentals.
      • ManoWar, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1TTC VIDEO - Economics 3rd Edition

        http://www.mininova.org/tor/777895

        Learn something its free

    • mmd643, on 03/19/2008, -4/+1When you give away free money its shocking how you can get a one day spike in the market. Shocking I'll tell you.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1i don't think depression is incredibly likely, but just because the dow jumped a lot doesn't mean anything. that is just one day and it was the result of a massive fed rate cut. today, it lost almost everything that it had gained.
    • BedPost, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1If J.P. Morgan hadn't stepped in, we'd probably be falling into one as we speak. America was teetering on the edge.
  • blindhammer, on 03/19/2008, -3/+50To be honest, I don't even think most Americans know what a depression is.
    • d3lta, on 03/19/2008, -7/+3Thats funny, we take all kinds of pills to deal with it. Wasn't there some study that came out recently that said those pills weren't effective?
    • JavertHolmes, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Does *anyone* really know what a depression is? The definitions I've looked up for it use vague words like "drastic decline in the economy" as opposed to giving numbers in terms of percentage declines and such. Even then, I've heard economists give numbers like "20% decline" with the caveat that other people use different numbers.

      Maybe the best definition is that we're in a depression when people come to the consensus that we're in a depression.
      • JavertHolmes, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2My editing timer ran out.

        The more tongue-in-cheek definition I've heard is (paraphrased from memory) "if your friend is unemployed, it's a recession. If you're unemployed, it's a depression."
      • diggrnumber1, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1a recession is by definition 2 or more consecutive quarters of negative real gdp growth. a depression is much more than 2 quarters of negative real gdp growth. economists don't know for sure if we're in one yet because the numbers haven't been reported yet by the government.
    • OrangeTide, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2americans in their 30s and later likely grew up with their grandparents telling them stories of what it was like during the Great Depression, Bad socialism is what caused it to linger longer than it should have.
    • ejan, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying they're wrong, but I wouldn't trust a random poll for anything like this. Trust all of the analysts who are talking about recession.
  • staxofmax, on 03/19/2008, -1/+22At one point President Bush had a 90% approval rating, and until recently a majority of Americans believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam was involved in planning the 9-11 attacks. This poll, while accurately representing the unease Americans feel regarding the economy, should not be used a predictive metric for forecasting the future of the global economy.
    • zachblume, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Best comment on page.
    • doskir, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2the problem is that the economy is influenced by the actions of the consumers (surprise surprise) and if tons of people think the economy is going down the toilet they will change their buying behavior and MAY be able to turn recession into depression
    • HeyaBILL, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4"I hated Bush before it was cool"
      • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1bush really did do a good job of tricking people at the beginning of his first term, though. he tricked me into thinking that saddam had wmd's at first (using colin powell to increase his credibility).
    • runamok, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0Allow me to translate staxomax's comment into perhaps a more crude rendition. The average American is apparently completely ***** clueless so any poll that uses them as a source doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. The reality is kind of amusing.

      People have thousands of dollars of debt. Up until recently they were spending their refinancing dollars on lots of consumer goods. Our incomes are not increasing even at the rate of inflation. People absolutely MUST curtail their spending even if it hurts the economy at large in the short term. Can you imagine what will happen once all these people with zero savings get old? We'll be taking care of their medical and living costs.
  • khail250, on 03/19/2008, -5/+32this poll is meaningless since 20% of americans think the sun revolves around earth, others have no idea what depression means except for the zoloft commercials
    • phosphodyson, on 03/19/2008, -5/+0Uhm, the sun does revolve around the earth. The earth also revolves around the sun. You can even say that they both revolve around each other. It all depends on your perspective and what you use as your point of reference. Sorry, but you need to read up on relativistic physics. There aren't any fixed points of references like there used to be before Einstein, et. al. The poll asking Americans whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is stupid and outdated. The question is essentially meaningless. It's akin to asking "where is the center of the universe?"
      • davewelsh79, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2That's not true. Even an objective observer from outside the solar system would still say the Earth revolves around the Sun. Even from our frame of reference here on the Earth, the Earth stays still and simply rotates and gives the illusion of the Sun going around us.
  • mathchemist, on 03/19/2008, -12/+7Yes, Americans are retarded sheep children that don't know jack about the world works. Why on earth would you use what they say as a predictive method in this case?
    • Chassit, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6***** you, you generalizing bastard.
      • philhatesyou, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Seeing as to how the article is talking about a generalized opinion, then it seems fair that making generalized statements is a legitimate response.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1he's actually right. i wouldn't trust the american public's medical advice - i would trust a doctor. in the same way, i wouldn't trust the american public's economic advice - i would trust an economist.
  • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -10/+11chocobomog and kaheil250,

    A good portion of Americans still know what a depression entails because they lived through the last one, or their parents told them a lot about it when they were kids.
    • d3lta, on 03/19/2008, -0/+8And they went forth and became baby boomers who decided it wasn't worth saving for retirement... thanks!
      • juankovo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+13Why save for retirement when you're on the top end of the largest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated?
    • chuckDontSurf, on 03/19/2008, -1/+7That's completely irrelevant. Knowing about the conditions during a depression doesn't make you any better a predictor of them.
    • philhatesyou, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4That doesn't mean they know/remember the economic goings on that caused the depression.
    • sbgskl, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2And, a good portion DON'T know anything about the depression. Probably more than those who do, who are now in their 70s.
  • cusoman, on 03/19/2008, -1/+20And the percentage of the people that took the poll that actually have a grasp on even the most rudimentary economics concepts regarding all of this?

    My guess is less than 2%
    • Thud, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Most people aren't looking at the economic statistics, they only know what they're told by the media. For example, how many people think that we're already in a recession? Well, a recession, by definition, requires negative GDP growth. The common accepted definition is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. As of right now, economic growth is still POSITIVE. The rate of growth is shrinking but it's not negative yet.
      • rogersj3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Glad someone paid attention in ECON 101 - it bugs me that no one else around seems to have.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1 Does that definition factor in that the dollar the GDP value is measured in is worth less. If the dollar loses 2% and we have a 1% growth have we really gained?
  • cmost, on 03/19/2008, -11/+4It seems people should have worried about that back when they elected a dumbass like George Bush to TWO terms. His administration took this country from a healthy surplus to one of the biggest deficits in history! I find it humorous how the Republicans refer to Democrats as "tax and spend liberals" when it is they who spend spend spend without bothering to figure out how they're going to pay for it all. Meanwhile, Democrats have long had a policy of "paygo" as in each program, etc. must be paid for somehow. Yes folks, we have to increase taxes if we want to pay for all the crap we're taking on. But then again, many U.S. households run the same way. People are in debt up to their eyebrows and spending more and more every day. This country is going to crash and burn hard and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. What's most ironic is that old Osama Bin Laden has said all along that his goal is to bankrupt the United States. Well, to use Bush's words: "Mission accomplished!" We did it to ourselves because we were so foolish.
  • xero69, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Who participated in this "poll"? Did they survey people coming out of bars or Wal-Mart?
  • marc123, on 03/19/2008, -3/+20buried as irrelevant. this stat is merely a reflection of how bad the media has been scaring them
  • stanfy86, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Why is this article supposed to be important? i mean of course nobody wants a depression, but its not like people worrying about it is going to cause it to occur, and it's been in the news for the last month or so that "America is heading towards a recession!!!" so it's not like this is new news........
    • Buelldozer, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2You're quite wrong. People worrying about it actually WILL cause it to occur.
      • stanfy86, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Yes i understand that people buying less crap will contribute to a depression, but its not the trigger, look at the housing crisis, the US was exploited by the federal reserve to allow them to call in all outstanding loans from smaller firms, which caused the american public to have no disposable income, and in a cunsumer drivin society, this can adversly effect the economy so much that a recession , or even a depression can occur.


        Look back to the 30's when the last depression occured, do you think that the depression occured because people worried about it? NO. The previous depression occured when the fedeal reserve gave out thousands of "margin loans" throughout the 20's, and called them all in in 1929, causing the forclosure of over 16,000 banks, and allowed the fedeal reserve to buy rival banks out, and even whole corperations at pennies on the dollar. Furthermore the fedeal reserve STOLE every ounce of gold in the US, and thats why if you look at a dollar bill pre depression, it will say "redeemable in gold dollars", where as now it says "legal tender". At that time rather than print more money to recover from the collapse, the fed actually cut production resulting in further loss.
        • stanfy86, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1sorry for the spelling mistakes, the spell-checker locked up for me and i couldnt edit my comment.....
    • redwritinghood, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0So, it's better to stick our collective head in the sand? Isn't that what got us in this mess?
  • Zlorp, on 03/19/2008, -5/+7and 50% also elected george bush 2 different times.

  • NelsonR, on 03/19/2008, -5/+0We all must look on the bright side, Wall Street, Bankers and Corporations who now manufacture overseas are making lots of mullah. They also are now invested in currencies other then the devalued wall paper dollar. This is the happy thought for the day. :) You little people are of small consequences for their consideration, even Bill Gates wants more visas for alien workers since Americans are uneducated in his viewpoint.
  • skillzdan, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1why does it matter what the americans predict. being american myself, i have no say whether or not the country goes into a depression or anything else involved. asking americans what they think is going to happen to their country is ridiculous.
    • JohnFlux, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1> why does it matter what the americans predict. being american myself, i have no say whether or not the country goes into a depression or anything else involved

      Uh, yes you do. If everyone believes that America is heading for a depression, then they will likely change their spending habits, and thus self-fullfill their own prophecy.
      • xptoast, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I got an idea. Buy a ton of stuff. Just stuff that will get you through a depression. Spending is not the problem. Spending money on what is the problem. Buying your kids tons of junky toys is bad. Buying tons of w/e that is useless and without any real world usable value is bad. Like buying thousands of dollars in Baseball cards. It is not the vague that counts. It is the precision of how you live your life. Being vague will help nobody.
    • rogersj3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, perception guides practice; in the case of economics, if more people believe that things are about to get awful then they'll stop spending and make the situation worse. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy spurred on by the media barking gloom and doom at them.
      • regeya, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I don't know about other parts of the country, but that's what we've been seeing here; not only are people spending less on gas, but the rumors keep flying that gas will top $4/gallon (we are right at national average) AND nearly everyone I've talked to has drastically cut back on spending. The rest are overextended, and some of the former are too.
        If it's short lived as earlier predicted--in other words, if we're halfway through it already--I hope some people have soiled their shorts enough to realize it's time to pay that credit card debt, get a sensible house and car, etc. I know what some of you say to that without you commenting, and more than likely I agree.
  • Cockslap, on 03/19/2008, -4/+11Depression?! Buried as inaccurate. Most americans alive wouldnt know a depression if it lept up and bit them on their asses. Recession, Maybe. Depression, Negative.
    • Chassit, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I would suspect that you're right.
    • Hetman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I agree you are right. But im sure the people in the roaring 20s didnt know what a depression was like either. Did it stop it from happening No.
    • centran, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah well... if our oil problems worsen and the price skyrockets we could plummet into a depression. But if that happens be happy with the thought that we will pull most of the world down with us to the point where other countries will end up in a recession.... haha, suckers!
  • andyn8484, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2This is what happens when you try to solve problems with stupid ideas like a tax rebate and cutting rates in the midst of a "war". We are mortgaging the future.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0although i agree those things are bad, they have little relation to the current economic situation.
  • SchnellFowVay, on 03/19/2008, -1/+15This poll is useful as a gauge of public opinion, but not as a sign of impending disaster.

    The average person doesn't even comprehend basic economics -- much less the nuanced macro- and micro-economic causes and consequences of a depression -- or even a recession for that matter.

    Moreover, public opinion is usually just a reflection of current media and pop culture. If the talking heads say we are headed for recession, then dammit, the public thinks we are in recession.

    This isn't to say we aren't either verging upon or wallowing in a recession. Nor is this to say that a depression is impossible. What I am saying, however, is that most Americans know jack about economics. There are numerous positive economic turns going on daily -- they just get overlooked.

    Yesterday Visa Corporation completed the most successful IPO in history -- besting even Google's old record. The stock markets have been on a rather fervent upswing since government-backed buyout of Bear Stearns. The US currency woes seem to be bottoming out (unless China or Saudi Arabia unpegs -- then watch out!). Even the mortgage crisis, while certainly the worst in history, seems to be bottoming out. Unemployment is still about 40% lower than it was during the Dot-Com bubble burst.

    All I'm saying is this: Because some random idiots on the street think the sky is falling is no reason to become chicken little yourself. See our current situation for what it MOST LIKELY is: The verge of a moderate economic recession.
    • rogersj3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Most coherent comment on the page so far - thank you sir!
    • Gonthim, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Nice try, but research helps. Google made less than 2 billion on their IPO. The previous record was around 10.6 Billion for AT&T Wireless.

      As another note, Visa released today and the market fell almost 300 points, so I'd say we're still going down.
    • MagicSnoop, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Agreed SchnellFowVay. Dugg up for coherence.
    • asskicker32, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Dugg, but youre not entirely correct. The market turns day in and day out. The good news this week was the better than expected earnings by Lehman and other investment banks. You overlook the housing crisis, credit crunch and the liquiditiy issues that still exist. With all this unease, it wouldnt be too hard to bankrupt several major banks, destroy all the credit and push us into a DEPRESSION (a long period of severe economic downturn).

      The sky is not falling yet, but thats because Bernanke is doing everything he can to prop this economy up. I mean, we have back to back recessions here (dot com and housing market) and serious issues with our major financial institutions. The risks for a depression are real. Dont let Visa's succesful IPO bury that fact. That is one company in one sector on one day. Also, they have proven to be EXTREMELY profitable over the past 10 years.
  • sushicombo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6Taipei times dot com? I'm not going to worry all that much.
  • jcastillo81, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4The solution is simple, Stupid. Print more money!!! DUH!
  • ColonelJessup, on 03/19/2008, -4/+8Here we go again with the Digg.com economic professors.....................................
  • glucoseboy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+958% of American's don't know anything about economics or how the fed works or for that matter have more than 1000 in their checking account. Who cares?
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3It was lack of regulation of the lending industry, not the fact that fed has monetary policy tools, that led to this economic downturn.

    While the decline of the fed funds rate post 9/11 certainly boosted the mortgage industry, and somewhat artificially boosted the economy, it was the fact the industry was essentially repackaging junk loans into "derivatives" that were labeled as high quality that eventually lead to the collapse.

    In other words, we needed MORE regulation of a financial markets. Tell me... did Ron Paul ever ***** suggest that? No? Ok, then shut the ***** up.
    • Chassit, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4The government has no business involving itself in the market.
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4You have no business giving an opinion on matters you clearly don't understand.

        Regulation is what gives people confidence in our markets. Strict rules on booking keeping, for instance, provide transparency and therefore encourage investment.

        Countries will very little economic regulation are extremely dangerous and risky investments, and tend to have massive swings as information leaks out.
        • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Markets constrained with controlling governments are worse places to invest because there is no innovation.
          • citizen132, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Do any of you remember the airlines before regulation? Sure, you got a drink and cookie on every flight but the tickets were incredibly expensive compared to today. Since deregulation there has been a massive boom in air travel. Prices have come down - even when you factor in inflation. This process is much the same in any of the other industries which have been deregulated.
          • bc289, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0I agree with the airline industry deregulation. But it doesn't mean that the gov. should stay out of all markets.
      • bc289, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0Wow. What you said was just horribly wrong. There is no government today that doesn't involve itself somehow in markets.
    • Evolutuon, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1The regulations we have set are to protect people and to promote fair business. Not control the market. We hardly need anymore as it is. Take your socialist ideas to China.
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Fair business like not lying about a product you're selling? How is that "socialist"?

        Give me a freakin' break.
    • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Bailing out banks is the opposite of what we need... they need to handle their own affairs and take the bad with the good.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0you're right. i know i'll get dugg down for this, but basically every economist would agree that ron paul's economic policies would actually greatly exacerbate the economic problems that we face now. Do you want to the Bretton Woods gold standard? Look at this graph, and you tell me whether you think that gold would be a good currency:

      http://www.nma.org/enumerate/gold/gold.htm

      gold is a much worse currency than the dollar. nobody but a speculator would ever think of investing in a country with such an unstable currency. furthermore, you can't predictably increase the amount of gold in the money supply, which could potentially result in the keynesian deflationary spiral and multiple panics and depressions - possibly even economic collapse.
      • synarchy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Economic collapse? Really? Oh, my. And what happens when the fed loans out all its holdings to direct dealers (know what those are?) and plants interest rates at zero at the same time. Go ahead, tell us. We're just a few months away from that at this point.

        • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0we are headed toward economic collapse - according to what evidence? seriously, paulite idiocy has almost become a religion for you guys. and you guys claim to be scientific skeptics. you're a joke.
  • mucdigg, on 03/19/2008, -1/+31929 enhanced & reloaded.

    Housing credit troubles will look like fun as soon as derivative industry is starting to collapse like a big fat huge house of cards.

    Buy some small weight gold and/or silver coins. You won't buy food with a 500gr gold nugget.

    The sound of one hand clapping. The value of a stock when exchanges are closed.
    • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1I think you may have that tinfoil hat on a little too tight.
      • mucdigg, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Let's wait and see.
        If I'm right you'll buy me a Lager (5 USD Gold coin ;)
        If you are right, I'll buy you a Lager (25 USD paper 'money' == 1/2gr Fine Gold real soon now ;)
  • Chassit, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3I am no economic expert, but it seems that fear of a recession often ends up causing one. With people panicking and all. I'd be interested in what more subject knowledgeable people think about this.
    • rtphokie, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I enjoyed "It's a Wonderful Life" as well, but it's no substitute for an economic class or two.
    • bc289, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you're right. It's talked about a lot because this phenomenon happens all over economics, from speculative attacks on currencies to recessions, as you mentioned. Self-fulfilling prophecies doom markets a lot. Media and people talk about recession -> people believe recession is coming -> people spend less money in order to save for the upcoming recession -> consumption in economy goes down -> economy dives into recession as demand for goods and services drops
  • spamcrusher, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6We also have three people running for President who lack the ability to do anything about it. The first answer is to drastically cut federal spending, and the first and easiest place is Iraq. We should get the hell out of Iraq, and now. The second place to cut spending in the military, granted we need a strong military but I have a feeling there is a lot of waste on that side of the budget. Third, we need to cut socialist programs like Medicaid and Social Security. Each individual state should run their own version of health care, and pick up where the fed. government left off by insuring elderly and poor, or expand it to everyone if that's what they want. Bottom line though, it's something that should be managed from your state's capital, not from DC.

    The depression will be caused by the falling value of the dollar, which is caused by spending way more money than we should be spending. There are two options, increase taxes or lower spending. I'm a middle class American, and I feel I'm way too overtaxed. I also feel "rich" people are way too overtaxed. I helped a co-worker of mine who is a Cardiologist do his taxes, holy crap you folks wouldn't believe what was sucked from his paycheck to fund the federal government.

    Look at the bright side, Americans have been living way beyond our means for decades now. Most everyone knows it, most of the American population even the poor live better lifestyles than most of the world. Our middle class would be wealthy in many countries or considered royalty in some. What's happening is the bubble is bursting, but it will be corrected. I just believe Americans will have no choice but to live a lifestyle similar to most of the world. With the dollar falling, we will begin to see more tangible goods being produced on American soil by American workers.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Those socialist programs you talk about are the only thing keeping a large segment of the populous off the streets.

      People never learn.
      • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2The people that never learn are the people that wind up on the streets in the first place. Get a job!
    • Renian, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Cut government spending? That may actually worsen the problem. I will agree about cutting government spending in foreign areas, but not domestically?

      Why? The government spending multiplier,which increases GDP at a rate of the amount the government spends times 1/MPS, where MPS is the marginal propensity to save, which is 1 - MPC (marginal propensity to consume).

      "The depression is caused by the falling value of the dollar, which is caused by spending way more money than we should be spending."

      Unlikely. MV = PT, which is the money supply * the velocity of money = average price * transactions. The velocity of money and transactions are relatively constant. Therefore, I would blame an increase of M, and thus an increase of P. The increase of both represents inflation. There's also the fact that during recession times, a person tends to increase his or her marginal propensity to save, and thus decrease his or her marginal propensity to consume, thus adding to the recession. Because of this, if V and T are changing as you seem to think, then the only way they could be going is down. The devaluation of the dollar however is likely caused by the previously mentioned inflation, as it represents a decrease in purchasing power parity. When compared to the real exchange rate formula of RER = e(P*/P), where e is the consumer price index compared to the base year, P* equals the foreign price of a good and P is the domestric price, we can see that the increase in P causes RER to drop.

      "I also feel "rich" people are way too overtaxed."

      ...But they are rich. Because of this simple fact, it is likely very safe to assume that their overall decrease in utility from being taxed is less than that of taxing other members of society, as I'm sure their utility would take a sharp drop if they could no longer afford food, clothing, and shelter. It doesn't help that the government is spending too much in foreign affairs instead of spending domestically where the government spending multiplier would actually help us.
      • SigmundDali, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Just when I had given up hope that anybody could sufficiently argue against the RP nuts on Digg...

        Completely and totally right. Its a shame that are huge spending program right now is going outside of the country. Its so easy to blame the few social programs we have in this country for the huge deficit, but completely disregard the largest discretionary item in the federal budget: Iraq, where a large percentage of our spending does not even come back to this country, further exacerbating inflationary forces by a) sending more dollars into the international market, and b) causing massive borrowing financed by foreign capital.

        What we need is MORE, not less domestic spending now. Get out of Iraq, repeal the tax cuts to the upper class (who, you correctly point out, have much MUCH less utility for their dollars) which will get their dollars away from the corrupt ass banks that are directly responsible for this immediate recession we're in now, redirect 10% of Iraq's budget to domestic programs like infrastructure development (how about a massive Wi-Fi program?) and start paying down Bush's deficit.

        And none of that has ***** to do with getting rid of the Fed and getting back to the gold standards, stupids.
    • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1but the really rich people are incredibly undertaxed. the top rate capital gains tax is only 15% for long-term investments, and that only includes realized gains. people like bill gates are only getting taxed a percent or 2 of their net worth each year (it may be even less).
  • TommyBoy919, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6Buried for the fact that the general population is flat out stupid. We are in the early stages of a recession, no doubt about that, but an extended depression remains highly unlikely. The recession should last from 12 to 18 months, perhaps up to 2 years, while the housing market will start to climb back up in 2 to 3 years. The depression talk is from the paranoid or uneducated.
    • lukemann, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0You're ruining the gloom and doom atmosphere. These diggers will begin to doubt that they're going to get a McMansion at fire sale prices or make a fortune on gold coins...
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure 59% of Americans couldn't define "depression"... I agree things are not looking up, but we're probably in for nothing more than a garden-variety recession. I really wish the economy was more of a central topic among the presidential candidates these days.
    • Akairenn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Depression: The feeling you get when you see the words 'High Yield' coupled with '3% APR'. :p
  • Monty2, on 03/19/2008, -6/+3According the media/left we've been in a recession every year since Bush took office. Now that it's an election year, the chants REALLY heat up.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4Are you really that clueless?

      The S&P has dropped nearly 20% in the last 6 months. Unless there is a huge rally between now and May, that's two consecutive quarters of negative growth. In other words, the DEFINITION of a recession. Not just a recession, but a loss of almost 20%! That's a huge drop.

      Furthermore, we have yet to feel the impact of much of this lending crisis. According to virtually every indicator, the next 6 months will only be worse. I market drop of over 40% (20% more than we've had so far) isn't pretty damn likely.

      Now, as far as a depression is concerned... nobody can predict what the economy will be like 2 years from now. But there aren't too many reasons to be optimistic at this point.
      • mciampa1214, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Growth is determined by GDP not the S&P 500 index... stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
        • diggrnumber1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0it is defined by 2 consecutive quarters of decline in REAL GDP.
          • mciampa1214, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1No, GROWTH is not defined as 2 consecutive quarters of DECLINE in anything. If you're going to be nit-picky at least be right
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2You have no idea what you're talking about.
      • ManoWar, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1TTC VIDEO - Economics 3rd Edition

        http://www.mininova.org/tor/777895

        learn something its free.
  • MWeather, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2I'm not worried at all. I never worry about the inevitable.
  • JK1150, on 03/19/2008, -1/+7why not trust the economic expertise of randomly surveyed adults?
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Ever notice that consumer confidence is a great predictor of future economic growth?

      Perhaps you should take these random adults a bit more seriously.
    • d03boy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1recessions are self-fulfilling prophecies. If people believe they will come, they'll save their money, thus creating a deficit of flowing cash
  • synthpop, on 03/19/2008, -1/+10if stress over depression is affecting your life, try Bernankeum™. Bernankeum™ eases symptoms of depression by using your money to save the people who caused the problems in the first place. If this doesn't help your state of mind just take more Bernankeum™, turn on the TV and forget all about it.
    (side effects may include: spiraling death of the dollar, making the problem worse and depression)

    ask your president if Bernankeum™ is right for you
  • RandoTheKing, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2If they're truly wo