I was going to ask if he was counting the Great Depression. I still wonder whether he's actually thinking about that, or if he's just talking about his adult life.

I love Alan Greenspan!

I have to admit to being a tad bit of a reactionary when it comes to economic downturns (I've seriously been worried about another Great Depression since I was little) so I'm this close to keeping all my money under my mattress! Especially since my bank is having some trouble and there's rumblings that it may go under.

I do find it ironic that the Federal Reserve was created (in part) to prevent another Great Depression, and now the former chairman of the Federal Reserve is saying we're about to have it worse off than the Great Depression.

Could it be that the Federal Reserve isn't helping the economy at all?! Surely there's no problems with the market that a little government intervention can't fix...

Is Alan doing the Hand Jive?

Greenspan's been saying we're in deep doo-doo for months, I'm surprised it's taken so long for people to hear him. Warren Buffett says we're in for more pain before anything gets better as well.

Steph, that's something I can agree with. The problem isn't going to go away easily.

we need another fdr

Tidal, we do NOT need another FDR. He was a fascist and responsible for the Great Depression lasting as long as it did.

FDR was not a fascist, I think you need to look up what that actually means. If you're going to insult him for extreme political ideology, it would be more appropriate to call him a communist.

But FDR was so sweet to Annie when she was living with Daddy Warbucks. He even sang with her.

MM, at the time FDR's policies were openly considered fascist. It didn't have the negative connotation that it has now.

Either way, the important part of that statement was that FDR is the reason the Depression lasted so long.

The term fascist, and fascism, tend to hold a general belief in many people's minds, but its definition is still argued very heavily among scholars of "fascism."

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go down this road, but I am noting that as most scholars do not agree on one defined meaning, that I highly doubt we'll come to agreement here.

3M, you make a good point. I don't think we should go down that road, either. I don't want to spend all day arguing about what 'fascist' means.

It's a good idea to sidetrack the discussion away from today's economic situation and reminisce about how things went more than 60 years ago.

3M - so could I call all you guys here fascists, and as long as my definition fits, it's ok?

Well, it's funny you should say that stephley, because 60 years ago we went turned to socialist policies which spawned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I seem to have heard about them in the news lately in reference to our economy Do those sound familiar to you, stephley?

Steph, the events of 60 years ago are relevant. We need to examine past methods of solving financial problems in order to decide what the best course of action for solving our current problems might be. I have already said that the Federal Reserve is not the way to solve these problems, if you want to talk about that, the door is open.

Dave, as long as you keep your definition to the "general guidelines" and when you do break from them that you are able to argue their validity, then have a ball!

It's a good thing history doesn't repeat itself...........

Yeah, we've never seen anything like this before... Years of ecconomic excess followed by the balloon bursting.

There's been an administration in office for 7 years insisting that the economy was a little troubled but solid and that staying the course was the way to go.

What's your point?

If we want to go to the past, let's reflect on the last 8 years that got us here. Hmmm...

I mean, I see the point, but it's hardly a response to what we've all just said to you. I guess you didn't have a response to that so you said something irrelevant to the current thread of conversation.

But yes, the Bush administration doesn't know how to handle it. In my opinion, neither Obama or McCain are offering any real solutions either.

It's true stephley...but I expect nothing less from the Bush administration. Everything has gotten out of hand--the war....the economy...the list goes on.

There isn't going to be a clear solution to the problems, Michelin, because it's going to take YEARS to reverse the damage Bush has done. I think we're all going to have to make [more] sacrifices if we're going to be strong again, no matter who is elected. We can't expect either candidate to have a magic solution.

I didn't say they weren't offering "easy" solutions, I said they weren't offering "real" solutions. I have my opinion of what actions we'd need to take to really fix the problems, and they wouldn't be easy at all. That's why neither candidate wants to suggest them.

if we'd just swallowed the bitter poison of recession in 2001/2002 rather than pretending like everything was ok because of the credit/housing bubble, maybe things would be different today.

The key is we are going to have to make sacrifices. I think that has been the Bush downfall. He hasn't asked anyone to make those sacrifices.

What is a "real" solution to you then?

i agree, dave.

There's one solution from the Obama campaign I liked. And that's lowering my taxes even more. I'm one of those under $250K range earners, and if it means I can put a little more in my pocket to save for a rainy day or my future, I'll take that. So far McCain is offering the same cuts, maybe a little bit more, but not as aggressive then Obama's.

Let me rephrase my statement above. McCain is offering the same Bush tax cuts, maybe a little bit more, but not as aggressive as Obama's. My mistake.

Wow, thank you UnDave!

Girl A, we could start by getting rid of the Federal Reserve, a return to the gold standard, abolishing federal agencies right and left, getting rid of the income tax, getting rid of the minimum wage, a massive overhaul of the welfare system, installing a plan to end social security...

I could go on but I bet that's plenty for you.

I don't know enough about economic policy to comment too intelligently on what steps we should take, but I agree that a return to the gold standard just makes logical sense.

michelin, good luck with all of that. seriously. to me it sounds like you'd rather live in a different country! or maybe a different century? sounds like a medieval fiefdom would be good... a nice, peaceful agrarian life outside his majesty's gates. well. to be honest, we're on our way there. the best thing people can do in this economic climate? learn to grow their own food.

Thanks, Michelin. I suppose with every "real" solution, there's going to be "real" consequences for both sides of the coin. What you think is a real solution may not be a real one for others. And since according to you, neither candidate is offering real solutions, I'm going to have to go with whose offering the most REALISTIC solutions.

YY, thanks for making a reasoned response to my ideas instead of just mocking me.

And I would like to live in the country our founding father's envisioned. Sadly, this is a rather different country than that.

GirlA, that's true. I think all we can do is go with the candidate who comes closer to our idea of what the best solution would be.

Yikes. That scares me...

You're welcome girlA, what did I do?

You said what I've been thinking and said a little earlier...that we need to make sacrifices...

actually i wasn't mocking you, mich. i was being serious! i would happily go back in time to an agrarian life, where i didn't have to worry about huge manufactured issues like the economy.

we're screwed here... it's way beyond talking about solutions on an internet message board. the fed and everything else you mentioned all have problems, but this is what we have now, any changes would take decades to implement. if indeed we are heading into another depression, the best thing you CAN do is learn to grow your own food.

You said what I was thinking and mentioned earlier..that we need to make sacrifices.

Geez..sorry it posted twice!

"if we'd just swallowed the bitter poison of recession in 2001/2002 rather than pretending like everything was ok because of the credit/housing bubble, maybe things would be different today."

That's so untrue. We need the federal government to handle recessions the way FDR did in the 30's, with massive subsidization and rampant inefficiency as well as war-economy socialistic policies. The federal reserve has to centrally plan our economy because it knows better than the market does. We have to have it keep interest rates lower than the market rates, so that people can buy houses on credit that they can't even close to afford, otherwise, where will they live?

Yestyear, I'm getting tired of your classical liberalism. Are you seriously saying that the government should allow a recession to stand, because it is part of the business cycle? How ridiculous!

YY, they would take a while to implement, and they'd also take a while to start working. Everybody really would have to sacrifice in the meantime while the market corrected. I think the word you used, 'manafactured', is absolutely perfect. So many people blame the free market economy for our problems, but they don't realize that our economy is so heavily regulated and 'manafactured' (as you put it) that most of these problems are the fault of government intervention, and not the "free market" failing.

Am I wrong or is the housing crisis caused by weaker government regulation of people making these bad loans. You need some regulation to prevent fraud and swindlers.