economic collapse

The service and asset based "New Economy" didn't work out so hot

Now what?

It sounded good on paper: Globalization meant that un-developed economies could become developing economies by manufacturing the things that would be needed in developed economies. Developed economies would provide services and capital to manage and fund new manufacturing and resource extraction enterprises in the Third World. A rising tide would lift all boats. The theory behind the New Economy made some sense. Read it all

I hate this stinkin' recession and the idiots who caused it! But...

Remember the good old days when "recession" meant that maybe you couldn't find a great full-time job, but you could at least pull some temporary or beneath-you type gigs and get paid in a timely fashion? Nowadays I'm scrambling as hard as I ever have and snatching very little loot, and almost everyone is in the same boat. At least in my circle, people who work for the government or in health care seem pretty secure. Everybody else is screwed or worried about becoming screwed. It's a DAY-yum mess! Read it all

Housing starts are way down. What a surprise -- more bad news for the economy! This is a very important statistic because house building spurs all kinds of other activity. Construction workers buy burritos from burrito carts; new home owners fill their houses up with new furniture and gizmos; furniture and gizmo salespeople rejoice and take their families to Disney World. Read it all

The Dow is down 700-some points for the day as I write this. It sure is a good thing that bailout bill passed on Friday! Just imagine how bad it would have been if we hadn't forked $700 billion over to the high lords of finance! Read it all

David Leonhardt of The New York Times disappointed me tremendously this week.

I'm not sure why he would make such a clumsy attempt to defend one of the most odious pieces of legislation in the past ten years (and that's saying a lot), but he did. It's hard to believe that an erudite fellow like Mr. Leonhardt could be so glaringly ignorant, but I don't look good in tinfoil so I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not willfully ignorant in defending the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Leonhardt backs up his claim that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley is not culpable in this mess by making an egregious sin of omission, to wit: Read it all

(This is a long, serious post about how Uncle Sam should just man up and admit that he's broker than broke. Then Uncle Sam should roll up his sleeves and do what CharlieHipHop suggests -- as he should've 20 years ago instead of being a stupid, stubborn jerk. Skip to the comments for the funny stuff. It's all serious EconoPoliticoBlahBlah from here until then. You have been warned.)

Whether or not the bailout proceeds as planned, the United States of America is bankrupt. The sooner we come to terms with this reality -- and begin to plan accordingly -- the better.

Before I show you how a bankruptcy might work, let me strengthen the case for its inevitability. Read it all

Fannie and Freddy rebounded a bit today after remarks by Henry Paulson, promising to prop up the teetering giants with Treasury and Fed (read: your) money.

When will they learn? It's about fundamentals, not reassuring remarks, and the fundamentals stink. It's eerily similar to how USSR apparatchiks issued glowing statements about bumper crops and glorious worker gains even as people cruised through stores with barren shelves. The shelves aren't bare (yet) in American stores, but how many people do you, personally, know who are feeling financially secure these days? Read it all