Global Depression In The Near Future?

[altus]

9 hours ago, trastrick said:

They are not "pretend links", amigo.

 

They are varied economic views and predictions of the US economy, "then and now", from page one  results of a simple  Google search.

Pretend links because they don't link to the source. The importance of providing links to the source of quotes has been explained to you before, as has the fact that  people won't go hunting for your sources but just will assume you've selectively quoted out of context.

 

Quote

They are varied economic views and predictions of the US economy, "then and now", from page one  results of a simple  Google search.

I don't believe links to those six articles came from the first page of a single google search. Please demonstrate you are correct by providing the search terms you used to find them.

 

[trastrick]

Not my problem what you believe, pal! 

 

Each article I posted was from a simple generic Google search, and has a verifyable link.

 

As I said, I'll provide a link for each, if you are still confused! 

 

But the links are self evident, and you could do it yourself, easily.

 

I'm not about to follow you down your dissembling , off topic rabbit holes!

 

Feel free to post your own "economic forecasts". (now there's a hint!) 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

 

On 14/06/2022 at 10:05, trastrick said:

They are varied economic views and predictions of the US economy, "then and now", from page one results of a simple  Google search.

So what was the search term?

 

48 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I'm not about to follow you down your dissembling , off topic rabbit holes!

As usual, when you've been rumbled for making stuff up.... again!

Edited June 15, 2022 by Magilla

[trastrick]

Just now, Magilla said:

 

So what was the search term?

In translation "I've been caught out lying yet again... so I'll try to bluff it out"

You need to get a refund for that cheap "translation program" in your head. 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

18 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You need to get a refund for that cheap "translation program" in your head. 

Clearly, cheap doesn't mean it's inaccurate

 

I'll ask again, what was the search term?

[trastrick]

For any major societal issue facing the world, markes, pandemics, economic crises, climate change, wars and unrest, there is no shortage of pundits and politicians and "experts" with often opposing views, forecasts, and "solutions"

 

If you want to find out what actually going on, you must look at the world as it is today.

 

Here's a recommended article, on the current topic, that looks  at where we are, and where we have been. It makes no predictions for the future,  because nobody has ever found a reliable crystal ball.

 

The Financial Times.

 

Opinion - Global economic growth

Policy errors of the 1970s echo in our times

"Unexpectedly high inflation, wars in key commodity-producing regions, declining real wages, slowing economic growth, fears of tightening monetary policy and turbulence in stock markets — we see all of these things in today’s world economy. These were also the dominant features of the world economy in the 1970s. That period ended in the early 1980s, with a brutal monetary tightening in the US, a sharp reduction in inflation and a wave of debt crises in developing countries, especially in those of Latin America. It was also followed by huge changes in economic policy: conventional Keynesian economics was buried, labour markets were liberalised, state-owned enterprises were privatised and economies were opened up to trade".

 

What follows are a series of economic charts, which all end around the cuurent date. No "projections", so you are left to make of it what you will. Chose your own pair of glasses, through which to view it!

 

What do YOU see?

 

The closing paragraph by the author is particularly profound:

"I worked as an economist at the World Bank in the 1970s. What I remember most about that period was the pervasive uncertainty: we did not have any idea what would happen next. Many mistakes were made, some out of over-optimism and others out of panic. The past does not repeat itself. But it is rhyming. Do not ignore time’s poetry".

 

For the full article see:

https://www.ft.com/content/d5d68068-d3d7-4948-a13d-b36e8c2b8339?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

2 minutes ago, trastrick said:

The Financial Times.

 

Opinion - Global economic growth

Policy errors of the 1970s echo in our times

 

For the full article see:

https://www.ft.com/content/d5d68068-d3d7-4948-a13d-b36e8c2b8339?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

"Vast debts make the world economy more fragile than it was over 40 years ago"

 

Am intrigued though...

 

...in the US at least, most of that debt is a result of policies/presidencies of the party you're a cheerleader for...

 

...so I await your explanation of how it's all Bidens fault, or some notion of "weak leadership", with great interest!

[trastrick]

Just now, Magilla said:

"Vast debts make the world economy more fragile than it was over 40 years ago"

 

Am intrigued though...

 

...in the US at least, most of that debt is a result of policies/presidencies of the party you're a cheerleader for...

 

...so I await your explanation of how it's all Bidens fault, or some notion of "weak leadership", with great interest!

Don't see any reference to party politics, Biden or weak leadership there, pal.

 

Wouldn't Vast Debts make the World Ecomomy more fragile than it was over 40 years ago?

 

It is what it is! Just the facts!

 

You got the wrong thread! 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

5 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You got the wrong thread! 

Nope It is relevant to any discussion about debt.

From your posts it's clear that if you could, you would vote for a party who's policies and governance has (in the last 40 years, at least) consistently increased the deficit, and thus the debt, often by significant margins!

 

So I find it odd that you're highlighting the problem of debt, given your other posts on this forum and clear allegiances...

 

...but of course, not at all surprised that you only seem to be concerned out it now

[trastrick]

20 hours ago, Magilla said:

Nope It is relevant to any discussion about debt.

From your posts it's clear that if you could, you would vote for a party who's policies and governance has (in the last 40 years, at least) consistently increased the deficit, and thus the debt, often by significant margins!

 

So I find it odd that you're highlighting the problem of debt, given your other posts on this forum and clear allegiances...

 

...but of course, not at all surprised that you only seem to be concerned out it now

What rubbish!

 

If you read my posts you will find a consistent critique of "spiraling, unsustainaible National Debts" borrowed money passed along to generations of unborn. I've called it "immoral, "selfish" and uncontitutional, as in "Taxation without Representation"

 

My position has always been clear.

 

I'm in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to force the Ponzi scheme politicians to pay for their spending largess, as they go, by raising taxes, if necessary.

 

If you concluded otherwise, you are is serious need of  remedial reading help!