US in recession. What should we do about it ?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 34

US in recession. What should we do about it ?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

Jul 24, 2001

Comments:

According to this report from a well respected news organization, the economy of the USA may very well be in recession.

This is a disastrous state of affairs if true. The USA's economy is the engine that drives global commerce. As such if the USA is in trouble, the rest of the world is in trouble.

More stories about General

	European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
	Why Bother?
	Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
	The Science of Poetry
	Kicking the Cat
	A Time For Patriots
	Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
	A Penny for the Guy!
	My Children Will Not Be Attending College
	Media Responsibility in the Modern Era
	Protect Our Children Now
	Happy Tango-no-Sekku!
	Teenage problems, teenage solutions.
	Educational Initiative for Gang Youth announced
	Nerdism Revealed

More stories by

	America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
	Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
	Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
	Is it time women covered up at work ?
	The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
	Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
	European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
	SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
	Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
	Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
	Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
	How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
	The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
	World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
	You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
	A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
	Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
	The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
	Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
	Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
	Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
	DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
	The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
	Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
	My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
	Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
	Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
	Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
	Great Britain must keep the pound.
	Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
	The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
	Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
	America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
	British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
	Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
	Which is the best way to predict the future ?
	God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
	The History of Rap.
	Theater Review: My Fair Lady
	Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
	Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
	A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

Adequacy readers are probably more qualified than most to suggest how we could overcome this recession.

If you believe the government's economic experts, the answer is to hike interest rates. (My informers in the globally respected Finance and Brokerage houses of City of London tell me that this will simply make things far far worse).

Others of a more Socialist bent believe a dose of Keynesian style spending is the answer. (Hey it worked for Roosevelt why not for Bush Jr ?)

Personally, I think that the answer is a war. War has historically been a very good source of stimulus for the US economy, and if managed carefully no US interests need be damaged. The Gulf war showed us how it might be done. The only question is who to go to war with.

The obvious candidates such as China and Russia are off limits; although they do not have the sophisticated weaponary of the US and NATO, they have the force of numbers on their side. What is needed is a small country, preferably one which nobody likes very much, which the US can then demonize and whip up a patriotic frenzy in favor of war.

The not-so-obvious candidate for this war is: ISRAEL.

Now I know it would seem to be an about-face in foreign policy terms, but bear with me. Israel as a state is denounced by almost every other country in the world. There is very little there of any importance save for a few old religious monuments. The US could combine righteousness with the approval of world public opinion by starting such a war.

Since most of the Israelis' weaponry comes from the US it could prove to be a valuable testing scenario for US based weapons manufacturers. And at the same time, provide that all important stimulation to the economy.

	Canada is our biggest risk (3.00 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 10:33:30 PM PST

	Both Canada and Mexico tempt our USian citizens with cheap drugs. Mexico, though, at least provides cheap labor and Tijauna donkey shows. The Great White North is a security risk, with many Islamic potheads waiting to cross the borders with their KDB suitcase nukes. Nuke Canada today.

	France (none / 0) (#4)
	by nobbystyles on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 01:52:16 AM PST

	Is a better target. They are socialist ideological enemies of the USA and have proved their perfidy many times. Also they encourage sexual promiscuity amongst American teens by promoting 'French' letters. And they are rude to tourists by not speaking English unlike eveyone else in the world. France is like the Linux of the world, challenging the Microsoft like USA. A cancerous growth that must be cut out of the world body or else we all suffer by having to watch subtitled films about existentitial angst instead of good clean Hollywood films about serial killers...

	War With France (none / 0) (#27)
	by winston on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 02:24:49 PM PST

	Additionally, the French are loathed by the British. If that isn't proof of their inferiority, I don't know what is.

	It would be bad to do France or Israel (none / 0) (#33)
	by localroger on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 05:50:28 PM PST

	Dude, these countries are nuclear powers. We nave never picked a war with a nuclear power. Say what you will about the madness of MAD but we've never been dumb enough to pick an overt war with a nation that actually had its own nukes. Of course, that was before Bush got elected...

	Better solution from previous Adequacy.org stories (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 06:52:54 AM PST

	In order to improve the US's economy, I'd like to beat all the SUV drivers with a hot poker, convert them all to Wicca and make them watch the Golf channel before conscripting them to fight a war in Israel.

	suv drivers (none / 0) (#7)
	by buridan on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:13:24 AM PST

	or we could just require everyone who owns an suv to buy two more, this will certainly bolster the economy by virtue of personal debt, which is our traditional way of doing it since the 80's other than war. this has the added bonus of perhaps making them realize how ridiculous it is for them to drive a two ton vehicle two blocks to the store and back, or how ridiculous it is for them to have an eight seat vehicle in which they are ever the only occupant. rant, rant

	What's the fuss about SUVs? (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 02:53:45 PM PST

	I'm not sure I understand what people have against large, useful automobiles. I suppose if all I could afford to maintain was a fragile, pocket-sized japanese rice burner with headroom for half of me and one of my closest midget friends, I'd own one. An SUV is a truck with seats instead of a bed. You can haul things in the rain and take your family out for dinner. You can buy a 20" television and not have to hire someone to get it two miles to your home. Yes, it's true that you don't always go to the grocery store with eight other people. Maybe those with no friends and family cannot see the point in seating for 8. Most seats fold down or remove anyway. Wouldn't you like to be able to put a fullsize mattress in your car? wink wink I'm sorry my car doesn't have 4 cylinders and can make it over a speed bump without requiring a new transmission. Also, I guess I also should apologize for wanting a car that can put power to all four of its wheels because we all know that it only takes two, and when I get stuck in the mud I can always find a tow truck. They don't charge anything, anyway. Sure, it looks pretty silly when a soccer mom is driving to the Dress Barn to pick up a blouse. But when some teenage wigger in his souped up Civic rear ends her, her offspring probably won't be killed. It's her car and she can haul her brats around in a tank if she wants to. Having the power and reliability of a truck is a sin, too. Unless maybe you're a contractor. I know car salesman can be pushy, but you're probably bright enough to not buy one if you don't want or need one.

	fat yank (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:19:49 AM PST

	. I suppose if all I could afford to maintain was a fragile, pocket-sized japanese rice burner with headroom for half of me and one of my closest midget friends, I'd own one. Fatty. I can spot 'em a mile off. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	everything has its purpose (none / 0) (#32)
	by buridan on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:27:55 PM PST

	having lived a life where having a truck and having a scout was necessary to even get down the driveway, i am not against the idea of an suv. i am against the idea that everyone needs an suv, even against the idea that most people need a car or motorcycle for that matter. if people designed cities and towns reasonably, it'd be quite unnecessary. If you can't carry your 20 inch television two miles, or pull it with a radio flyer, then perhaps you don't need one, likewise, with the 72 inch tv. why would anyone buy a full size mattress, it'll just screw up your back, go get yourself a nice mat and sleep on the floor, plus it won't squeak the commercially required bedframe. if you did own a full size mattress, as I actually do, i will say that if one is able bodied, you can balance it on your head with your arms and walk with it a good distance, but the boxframe is easier, just strap it to your back with the movers strap and start walking. if you want a 4x4, you had better know how to drive them, most people don't, same deal with a tank, most people don't know how to drive them, though they aren't overly difficult. in any case, if you want a 4x4 for its ability, then you should have bought a unimog. this is why they raised the cost of insurance on 4x4's, because of incompetence.

	Very good idea! (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:06:02 AM PST

	I agree with the story totally! KILL THE JEWS!

	you seem confused (none / 0) (#8)
	by jsm on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:16:09 AM PST

	DMG is, quite clearly, advocating a war with the State of Israel, whose citizens comprise all manner of religions and ethnicities. This has nothing to do with "THE JEWS"; the vast majority of the Jewish Diaspora live in countries with whom neither the USA nor dmg, nor adequacy.org in general have any quarrel. I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere for support in your Nazi tendencies, which frankly disgust us. [editor's note: jsm speaks for himself at this point; other editors may or may not be disgusted by Nazi tendencies] ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	not really (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:35:14 AM PST

	Israel is run, and majorly populated by Jews. The denouncement by almost every other country in the world that the author mentioned is mostly because of this. It is also because the land was stolen from the arab countries in this area and just given to the Jews. Of course this made the countries who rightfully owned the land very angry. There are other reasons I'm sure, perhaps some people have just gotten tired of hearing the jews whine: "But what about THE HOLOCOST!!!!". I am not nazi, I just think it would be a good idea to liberate Israel from the jews. Sorry if I came off as that way.

	you are a Nazi. (3.00 / 2) (#10)
	by jsm on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:40:57 AM PST

	The country which rightfully owned the land currently occupied by the State of Israel was Britain (the land was British Palestine), and it gave the land to the State of Israel freely. Israel is a secular state, populated by Jews, Muslims and Christians. It also occupies territories captured in wars which Israel did not start, and which territories form a vital security buffer which protects the State's integrity. Very few (some would say, scandalously few) Jewish people outside the State of Israel are Zionists, and the right of the State to exist is not dependent in any way upon the history of the Holocaust in the last century. Adequacy.org supports fully the right of the State of Israel to exist as a nation, albeit potentially as a nation at war with the USA. You are a Nazi, and a person of extremely limited intelligence. Any further posts from you on this subject will be treated as the spam they are and removed. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Wow. (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:47:53 AM PST

	You know you've lost an argument when you plug your ears and yell "nananananana, I can't hear you!". Deleting my reply won't make you right. I wasn't planning on correcting you any further, as someone with your ignorance doesn't deserve enlightenment.

	Are you paying attention ? (none / 0) (#13)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:55:10 AM PST

	OK, here goes. The legitimacy of any state depends upon military force. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING else is BULLSHIT. If you cannot get that into your thick head, there is no hope for you. Perhaps you think that one day, Saddam Hussain is going to see the light and convert to democracy overnight ? Perhaps you think that the Irish Republican Army will lay down their weapons and stop terrorising the British nation ? Perhaps you didn't understand Mao Tse Tung when he said 'Power grows from the barrel of a gun' ? Which part of total military superiority do you not understand ? time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I do understand. (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:10:13 AM PST

	In fact, I agree with all of that. Don't forget, my original comment was in agreement with your story and the idea of attacking Israel. I was simply adding to the reasons to do so. You stated some, and I stated one. I was not saying Israel is bad for being there, or Britain is bad for giving the land that they took to them. I fully understand that whoever is the most powerful is the one who is correct, until of course, those who disagree overthrow.

	perhaps so (none / 0) (#15)
	by jsm on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:06:08 AM PST

	Deleting my reply won't make you right Perhaps so, but it will certainly make me appear right in the opinion of our readers. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Hehe (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:12:43 AM PST

	Yes, you are correct. Its funny, because dmg asserted this fact in his post (at the same level as this).

	Unlike the genocidal USAians (none / 0) (#12)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:51:28 AM PST

	The denouncement by almost every other country in the world that the author mentioned is mostly because of this. It is also because the land was stolen from the arab countries in this area and just given to the Jews. Of course this made the countries who rightfully owned the land very angry. Unlike (for example) The United States of America who never stole any land from anyone, or ever indulged in genocide. I am not a Nazi either, but I think it would be a good idea to liberate the Native Americans from the European invaders. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	You are right again. (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:02:14 AM PST

	I again agree with you. I am not from the US, so your attack/defense doesn't really apply to me. Perhaps it isn't an attack; in that case, I am sorry for saying so. I agree with you that if my logic be applied to Israel, then the same would only be fair for the Native Americans. I think however, that it doesn't work with the original story. The topic was for the US to war with someone to stabalize the economy. I do not believe that the US liberating the Native Americans from themselves (the US) would be very benificial to the economy (the US economy that is, I am sure the Native American economy would thrive). The commiters of mass suicide rarely benifit financially from the act.

	Maybe a solution? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
	by elenchos on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 04:14:02 PM PST

	War may boost the economy, but there is also overhead associated with warfare. And the more you do to win, the higher the overhead goes. For example, you have to make all sorts of provision for your troops, feeding them, etc. But what if you don't care about winning? What if you fight to lose? Well you keep all the good things that come from going to war, but cut out all the expense! You cut costs and pass the savings on to the nation! Winning is nice, but financially, it just doesn't pay for itself. So the real question is, who do we want to lose a war to? Well, you hit the nail on the head: Native Americans! They deserve their country back, and we need a way out of this recession. It's win-win. Or lose-win, which is really lose-win-win. Perhaps we won't get to choose: I was looking at a map the other day, and it was unmistakable that the Canadians have massed against the border. Maybe they just like it right up in the very nostrils of America, maybe there is a perfectly innocent explanation for them crowding up against us like that, I don't know. Lurking there at our doorstep, always watching us, marking evey move we make, lurking, watching, always it's Canada there every minute. They have one of the largest landmasses on Earth, yet they all have to be right there practically in our lap, day after day. Back off, eh? Mill around a bit, you Canadians! Don't you have anywhere else you could be? They're all there like that for a reason, but we know damn well we don't want to be the first nation ever to lose a war to any Canadians, to become slaves to the decadent Canadian Empire. But how will we afford the costs of winning a war against them, with our economy in this wretched depression? Declare war on the sovierign tribes and lose. I don't mean lose all lame like. We'd put up a fight. Either way, our economy would take off and as subjects of our new Native American overlords, we would be poised to ram every last Canadian back to the Klondike wastland from which he came. See, it's all about seeing the hidden connections between things, that's all. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	yes, really (none / 0) (#19)
	by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:55:04 AM PST

	It is also because the land was stolen from the arab countries in this area and just given to the Jews. Hardly. The Jews have been there for 3000 years; the land was given to Abraham and his descendants.

	sure, (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:51:59 AM PST

	if you believe in that crap that is the christian bibel.

	We aren't in a recession. (none / 0) (#18)
	by TheReverand on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:16:31 AM PST

	As any real economist will tell you. What we are in is an economic slowdown, which people are perceiving as a recession, which can eventually cause a recession because people aren't consuming as much, causing a lack of economic growth. A recession requires 2 consecutive periods of negative growth. We aren't there yet. HTH

	Huh huh huh (none / 0) (#20)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:02:35 AM PST

	Its like, a self-fulfilling prophecy or something, Beavis. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Actually no. (none / 0) (#21)
	by TheReverand on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:22:49 AM PST

	You see, the feds, recognizing this have been lowering interest rates again and again. The biggest cause of all this was the stock market correction, thanks to all the shitty non-business plan having over-valued companies. We will bounce back, and then we will destroy the EU like it deserves.

	Yes, but it is a feedback loop (none / 0) (#22)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:02:25 AM PST

	The interest rate cuts are already discounted and hedged against by teams of top economists and derivatives traders. Thats why they are often ineffective. Indeed, if they do not go far enough, they often have the opposite effect to the one intended. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	No. (none / 0) (#23)
	by TheReverand on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:34:28 AM PST

	Your field is marketing, stay there. Interest rates were high last year, as high as they have ever been. Real estate was through the roof. That's what happens in booms. With interest rates dropping, we are already seeing a change in the economy. Please read a book on macro and get back to me.

	Actually, no (none / 0) (#24)
	by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:42:54 AM PST

	My field is fixed-income derivates, bond futures and bond options. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	You are nothing but a normal. (none / 0) (#26)
	by TheReverand on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 11:16:43 AM PST

	And a liar to boot. Just like all of your people. This conversation is over.

	What to do about the recession? (none / 0) (#29)
	by shren on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:19:03 PM PST

	That's obvious. I'm leaving the responsibility of fixing this problem to you, fair reader. Go buy something. Right now. Something big, you friggin pansy, not a candy bar. Big ticket. Buy a car or another televison or a pointless frigging motorcycle. Buy drugs - they're expensive and I'm sure that helps the economy somehow. Buy trendy clothes. Buy a house. Buy stock. Buy a cruise. Buy an SUV then smash the fucker. Buy books. Buy a grill to burn the books on. Buy the biggest, tastiest steak your region has to offer. Hell, buy a whole cow! Buy bandwidth, a server box, and admin and clone slashdot yet again. In fact, buy andover and get rid of slashdot. Buy an air conditioner with a cubic footage rating of 10 times your apartment. Buy a plane. Buy luggage. Buy food for a starving child. Buy B&E gear and start a new career. Buy a gun that shoots bullets bigger than your nostril. Buy a ticket to the ISS. Buy a computer vast enough to run games released 2 years from now. Buy a VAX. Spend, dammit, spend! NOW! THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD IS IN YOUR HANDS! DON"T YOU SEE OUR CULTURE ISN"T STABLE ENOUGH TO TAKE A RECESSION THERE WILL BE WAR! WAR AND DEATH AND REBELLION AND THEY WILL TAKE OVER! YOU CAN STOP IT ALL BY BUYING A NEW REFRIGERATOR! Whew. Hey, what are you all staring at?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.