Not a normal V recession

Not open for further replies.
Paul Krugman, Princeton University’s Nobel Prize-winning economist, said global economic prospects don’t justify the two-month rally that has restored $8.9 trillion to stock markets around the world.

Bear rally. There were 3 or 4 during the Great Depression. But hey, Bernanke said it will get better by the end of the year!
Krugman is sticking to what he said back in 2008. It may take many years before we see a full recovery.

“It looks to me now as if the markets are now pricing in a rapid recovery, that they’re pricing in a V-shaped recession, which I consider extremely unlikely,” Krugman said at a forum in Shanghai today. “The market seems to be looking as if this is going to be an average recession, but it’s not.”
Losses at Freddie Mac continue:
The McLean-based housing finance giant said that during the three months ended March 31, it lost $9.9 billion, or $3.14 per diluted share, compared with a net loss of $151 million, or 66 cents per diluted share, for the year-ago period.

Total revenue slipped to $771 million from $1.4 billion in the first quarter of 2008.

The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency has asked the Treasury Department for $6.1 billion in financial backing to eliminate Freddie Mac’s net worth deficit as of March 31. The company expects to get the funds by June 30.

But the economy is fixed...
But the economy is fixed...

I always thought that it was. That's why I tried everything I could not to participate. They found me anyway ..and took it out a whole new door.

Market Crash 2.0 should come some time this fall or next fall, since the massive government debt bubble will do exactly the same thing as the previous massive private debt bubble.
Market Crash 2.0

I find it so personal, that I think it will be Market Crash Part Deux
Well, unfortunately the fix to GM is to send even more jobs overseas. This recession could last years.
Originally Posted By: ryansride2017
My vote is a W shape.


But not so funny if you consider:
Land, Labour, Capital.
Which of these is naturally increasing in quantity, therefore becoming worth less and less, and which are decreasing in quantity, therefore becoming worth more and more?
Which are you?
L shape here. I don't see how we can borrow nearly $2 Trillion and pay for a health care system at the same time (or anything else) w/o a flattening of our economy.
Aren't we tired of the poles that offer two bad choices

Growth with assured ultimate collapse with assured social technical corrections of our population's standard of living.

..or if we attempt to contain and retain our standard of living we get worse.

I'm sorry, neither is a functional goal to endorse or strive toward.
We can borrow our way out. After all, it's how we got here.

I'm not talking about a little borrowing, I'm talking about "nuclear" borrowing.

When publicly traded companies (even privately held companies) hit times such as these, they write off every possible expense and bad asset as the new management takes over. They wipe the slate clean.

In a voting cycle of two years, the only thing that happens is kicking the can down the road. It's been kicked for thirty years.
Krugman said two months ago that most of the major banks would have to be nationalized. The same ones that are currently paying their TARP money back. So I would not take every thing he says as gospel.
Not open for further replies.