Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> From 1929-32, the U.S. gov stood back while GDP fell by 25% and
> 10,000 banks failed. Over the last year or so, the Fed has expanded
> its balance sheet by about $2 trillion and a massive stimulus program
> - bigger than anything the New Deal ever tried - is going to be
> enacted in a few weeks. Governments around the world are doing similar
> things. While it may not enough, it's still not spitting in the ocean.
I did disclaim any opinion on its magnitude. Direct comparisons are/will be silly, since the world is really pretty different: So many more _things_ -- highways, unbelievably large tractors (in which the wheels don't turn, just the body), factory farms, huge college enrollment, social security but a damaged 'safety net' otherwise, and so much of the work force produces neither value nor material wealth. I don't know what the relative proportions of petty producers (independent professionals, small farmers, small repair shops, etc)but but there are certainly fewer small farmers. We do not know how large a fall in the economy is necessary to produce a different but comparatively similar magnitude of pain, despair, freakishness, etc.
My eye problem has wiped out a good deal of the activity that formerly filled my day, and though I can still read the computer screen, too much leaves my eyes _really_ blurred. The relevance here is that a really serious recession would similarly wipe out the way in which millions of people spend their time (and for the unemployed of course more time to fill). And if a two-income family gets reduced to a one-income family, that in many cases could be disastrous. And that does raise a problem about the unemployment rate, not through any skullduggery but simply because it perhaps can't be measured.
And so on.
Carrol
Carrol