Social Question

Drgrafenbergmd's avatar

If the Financial panic was aggravated further what would be the immediate results domestically?

Asked by Drgrafenbergmd (387points) February 12th, 2010

Which areas and what demographics in America would be most affected by further panic? Considering the manufactured nature of “panic” in our present society, feel free to include the winners as well as the losers.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

24 Answers

PandoraBoxx's avatar

Why does this question read like a test question? Do I get extra credit for using 5 or more SAT words?

Drgrafenbergmd's avatar

@PandoraBoxx gag! you think so too?

CyanoticWasp's avatar

Well, the Great Depression was “cured” within just 16 years, after just ten years of failed Socialist economic policy, two years of hand-wringing about ‘some durn furrin war in Europe’ and four years of all-out fight-for-survival across two oceans.

So I guess I’m hoping for no more aggravation of the current panic. One FDR was enough.

Cruiser's avatar

Panic? What panic?? The only panic I see is in the democratic incumbents.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

The first panic would be those who don’t produce.Traders/financial markets.The least affected would be agriculture.

njnyjobs's avatar

People who has the most tend to lose more, but the middle class are the ones who typically feel the brunt of a downward econoomy as evidenced by record number home foreclosures in the past year or so.

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp I have to call you out on your revisionist history. What you state about the Great Depression is simply not true. The “socialist” spending that FDR instituted under the new deal actually worked rather quickly. By 1936, the Gross Domestic Product was recovering and employment was on the rise. But the Republican right bellowed so loudly about the unfairness of helping poor and jobless people that the Democrats backed off on the spending, and a second recession with climbing unemployment resulted in 1937.

Seeing that second downturn, they reinstated the spending and the GDP recovered to where it would have gotten had there been no depression by 1939, before the advent of WWII. Of course, WWII helped propel employment—but guess why! It was GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It is just absurd to claim that government spending never works, and then in the next breath claim it works just great so long as the government is just blowing people and things up instead of building bridges, highways, railways and airports.

DrMC's avatar

Actually studying trends recently I noticed that the areas least affected by the real estate crash, were the ones that didn’t participate in the bubble. As the market tumbled, it seems the best place to be are ones with “conservative values” – look historically at the unemployment rate in south Dakota.

(this likely however does not include native Americans)

As ye sow bubbles, so shall ye reap.

Now if we could just train those coastal areas to fall off the continent, or better yet, accelerate global warming till they’re under water.

ETpro's avatar

Stoking fear would have a terrible effect on the nascent recovery. It already has. America’s corporations have doubled their cash reserves in the last year. They are making profits on increasing business, but they are storing it away rather than hiring new workers. THe more uncertain they become, the longer till they part with that nest egg. Some will just decide to invest it in places that promise a greater return.

Drgrafenbergmd's avatar

@etpro Dont forget that related to World War II it was fought with american technology, on both sides. Siemens, The Aluminum Corporation of America, these guys are just like the “war on terror” people today.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@ETpro if you think that seven years of FDR’s socialist “control” of the economy (I wasn’t even talking about his spending) was made for a “rather quick” recovery, then we really don’t have much of a way to debate this. I believe that words have meanings that correspond roughly with the common dictionaries that I use; I have no idea what you’re reading.

I also don’t deny that WW II prompted huge government spending and I agree that this stimulated the economy—in the worst of ways. I’m not saying that Roosevelt was the cause of the war, only that 12 years of general (and increasingly authoritarian) mismanagement followed by 4 years of total war was a pretty tough way to go to claim “recovery”. Spare me from more Democratic “solutions” to Depressions.

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp It isn’t an issue of what I think. I posted a link to the track of the Gross Domestic Product from before the Depression out till after its end. What I said is fact, not opinion. If facts have no place in a debate with you, then you are quite right, we have no basis to talk about it.

Ideology is fine to guide actions so long as the facts bear out that it works. It becomes a problem when facts that conflict must be attacked or ignored, and only those instances where the facts support the ideology pass muster to be accepted as relevant to your continued belief in your ideology.

@Drgrafenbergmd Corporations are what they are. And to be fair, we took great advantage during and after the war of German technology as well. Bring me up to speed on how that relates to the question at hand.

SeventhSense's avatar

@CyanoticWasp
You are a Master Baiter.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@ETpro don’t you read anything that I write, or are the words too hard to understand? I took issue with “rather quickly” = “seven years”. That had nothing to do with your chart, it had to do what what you think about “rather quickly”. That was opinion, unless you’re quoting from the Democratic Party Dictionary again. Send a link to that sometime.

Your second paragraph is pure bloviation: sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t argued with your facts: the economy improved under Roosevelt. After 16 years I would sure as hell hope so, even with him in power. (American voters can be stupid, and often prove that, as eight of twelve Bush years certainly attest—and most of Roosevelt’s administration.) His legacy is totally dependent upon his being the president in power during all of WW II; he should have been run out of town for his handling of the Depression. (And the Republicans right along with him.)

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp Let’s avoid the typical flame-war taunt about the other not knowing the meaning of words. The economic policies FDR initiated worked, as I pointed out, rather quickly, as in 3 years. Bear in mind that Republicans had been in control up to 1933 and had insisted on total laissez-faire capitalism, which had driven the economy over a huge cliff and totally wrecked it. So complaining that it took too long to fix it is rather disingenuous.

SeventhSense's avatar

@CyanoticWasp
I’m sorry I don’t remember Herbert Hoover being commemorated on a coin….oh wait he did have that song by Archie Bunker

Drgrafenbergmd's avatar

@Etpro the relation between WWII profiteering and panic is that the Fed made billions in interest from the war loans, which is why their interests were in going to war. Meanwhile these same bankers and wall street investors built great wealth and profited from both sides, of which there is vast amount of proof. If there is proof otherwise I will gladly change my stance, but from my perspective, every war since WWI has been a chance for the elite to profit off of American’s soldiers deaths. Why else would we have been so confrontational to the Japanese. I digress but doesnt the pattern of inducing panic match today’s situation?

ETpro's avatar

Dial that idea back way before WWI my friend. The Rothschild family in Europe started financing wars in the 17th century. They often put up the money for each side to fight, and raked in great interest from it. The family today is worth upwards of $1 trillion.

DrMC's avatar

I’ve heard once that ceaser took over Rome from the senate, because they had manipulated an economic collapse with the intent of liberating land ownership through foreclosure type methods. This had strong public support, as the senate was viewed as corrupt, self serving, and pitted against the citizens.

At this time we are printing money (M3) at an insane rate, borrowing like mad and foreclosing left and right – with the net effect of moving money somewhere else.

Bastille day?

ETpro's avatar

@DrMC A few years ago, I would have laughed at the suggestion. Now… May be coming.

DrMC's avatar

@ETpro one nice thing about our system is it has a lot of escape valves to let out revolutionary pressure. Unfortunately, if those become plugged, it could be bad.

The vise grip on mainstream media is a little too 1984 for my tastes. The failure of both repubs and dems to do anything about the mis behavior of microsoft, I see as a litmus test, that most chose to ignore.

Maybe we just need to behead Bill gates. Then the rest will fall into place.

muahahahaah.

SeventhSense's avatar

The working class and the middle class are always the ones to suffer. The upper classes that precipitate these crises always land on their feet or weather temporary setbacks as in this last fiasco. They bring the world to the edge of ruin by their greed and come out smelling like roses and they are allowed again unfettered to practice the same laissez faire practices that nearly destroyed the economies of both the nation and the world. The instruments of predatory wealth, debt creation and the parasites who bleed the country dry periodically and add nothing to the collective good is what needs to be dismantled.

@CyanoticWasp
I think you’re being biased in regards to FDR. Even a national poll puts him at the top three presidents ever along with Lincoln and Washington (CNN 1999). More than a half a century later this can’t be dismissed as a mass voting ignorance or anomaly of the time.

And what would you have had Roosevelt do differently? There were people setting up shacks on the lawn of the White House. Hoover’s solution was to shut the blinds.

Roosevelt immediately set about changing the tide of the nation by building infrastructure, dams, highways. bridges, art, architecture and creating unprecedented and bold initiatives that put millions to work and transformed the nation. He won a record three terms because he was in touch. He was effective. He most certainly changed the landscape of the nation and the role of the Federal government but he inherited a nation in poverty. He had no choice.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@SeventhSense if he had done all of those things and not championed Social Security, I could probably forgive him anything. Social Security is the single worst idea that any politician has had in this country.

I think Lincoln’s handling of the political and military issues he faced during the Civil War was incredible (in D.C. within a state that wanted to be seccesh and just a few miles from one of the most militant of those states, and with the succession of posturing and incompetent generals he had to deal with… as well as conscription riots and Democratic rivals all around and to the north of him… well, yeah, he was quite a guy. But I fault him for fighting the war at all.

I don’t follow many crowds. I don’t worship any presidents.

SeventhSense's avatar

@CyanoticWasp
Neither do I but I recognize the contributions of presidents from both parties.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther