, , , , , ,

I do understand that your news group is a profit-driven and profit rich organization. What I do not understand is this:

Since many groups of people are doing no further examination of things than the quick feeding of information from you, why on the shows you produce are we seeing “experts” who are choosing to lie? They must know the truth of the situation because of their knowledge base and background. What are they doing? – propaganda? – intentional “framing” of the situation in terms they believe will create “confidence” where it is no longer merited? – do they believe lies? What is it that would cause otherwise knowledgeable individuals to pretend something is so that is not?

I would like to see both sides of the issue, too. That seems to be the rationale for giving airtime to contributors that as experts, especially on economics and business projections, are essentially disseminating false interpretations of the facts, knowingly. But the job of news is to accurately portray the facts and what these facts indicate truthfully. We are all capable of forming our own opinions thereafter.

The Great Depression

In October 1929 the stock market crashed, wiping out 40 percent of the paper values of common stock. Even after the stock market collapse, however, politicians and industry leaders continued to issue optimistic predictions for the nation’s economy. But the Depression deepened, confidence evaporated and many lost their life savings. By 1933 the value of stock on the New York Stock Exchange was less than a fifth of what it had been at its peak in 1929. Business houses closed their doors, factories shut down and banks failed. Farm income fell some 50 percent. By 1932 approximately one out of every four Americans was unemployed.

The core of the problem was the immense disparity between the country’s productive capacity and the ability of people to consume. Great innovations in productive techniques during and after the war raised the output of industry beyond the purchasing capacity of U.S. farmers and wage earners. The savings of the wealthy and middle class, increasing far beyond the possibilities of sound investment, had been drawn into frantic speculation in stocks or real estate. The stock market collapse, therefore, had been merely the first of several detonations in which a flimsy structure of speculation had been leveled to the ground.

The presidential campaign of 1932 was chiefly a debate over the causes and possible remedies of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover, unlucky in entering The White House only eight months before the stock market crash, had struggled tirelessly, but ineffectively, to set the wheels of industry in motion again. His Democratic opponent, Franklin D. Roosevelt, already popular as the governor of New York during the developing crisis, argued that the Depression stemmed from the U.S. economy’s underlying flaws, which had been aggravated by Republican policies during the 1920s. President Hoover replied that the economy was fundamentally sound, but had been shaken by the repercussions of a worldwide depression — whose causes could be traced back to the war. Behind this argument lay a clear implication: Hoover had to depend largely on natural processes of recovery, while Roosevelt was prepared to use the federal government’s authority for bold experimental remedies.

The election resulted in a smashing victory for Roosevelt, who won 22,800,000 votes to Hoover’s 15,700,000. The United States was about to enter a new era of economic and political change.

Taken from The Great Depression Overview
Found – http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/overview.htm

The idea that the Great Depression in the United States would have righted itself without any intervention is only a theory and is not supported in the economies around the World historically that have endured depressed economies for any extended length of time. It doesn’t matter what Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals think about that. The facts are still the same and so are the outcomes. Theory and opinion are not facts.

Nor can opinion and theory alter the facts which will become obvious sooner or later. No matter how the facts are, no matter what they are, no matter why they are –> these will remain constant, regardless of our opinions and theories about them.

There are an obvious group of questions that indicate this truth – )( in economics)(.

1. What happens when everyone is selling and very few or no one is buying?

2. How many people stop purchasing when their (one) job disappears and they can’t get another job within a month or two? Is it the members of their immediate household that stop purchasing or also their church, scouts, civic clubs, local government services, schools, and every business they had been using locally?

3. If 66% of those in the US who want to work are working (as described by a news channel a couple days ago), what has happened to the other 34% of those who want to work? Are they homeless now? How many individuals and families is that?

4. When demand goes down, as with many grocery items, stores and commodities such as gasoline, but prices go up – is it obvious these companies are trying to maintain the same profit margins? If an analysis comes from any business or economics book’s information, what happens at some point by doing this? Doesn’t it eventually undermine the sales and stability of company assets, bankrupt the company and further destabilize other things around them?

5. During the Great Depression, the rosy optimism of Republicans failed to meet the measure required to restore faith nor solved the problem. Why would it appear to them as the proper choice to make today, to use after that dismal failure of the same tactic?

6. What happens when over 60% of the physical properties that could be used as a potential residence cannot be afforded by the majority of the population requiring it?

7. What does it mean in the greater scheme of capitalism when all competition for a market position is thwarted and is not accessible – such as the case with any competition for other fuel sources to power homes, cars, airplanes, trucks, ships, farm equipment, boats, trains, etc.?

We have alternatives researched ad nauseum already and prepared to go into the market – why are they denied opportunities to be there available to us? Oil and gas, natural gas, heating oil and electricity have been subsidized for many years, why do we stay our hand now, declining support for those who would compete with them? Our subsidized research to these existing commodities, utilities and oil companies for their geological surveys, for equipment, business incentives, tax breaks and every other avenue of subsidy and support has given an unfair advantage that we funded and yet we have not extended those aids to other forms of energy, power and fuels that would compete with them. Now what?

Written by Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 2008
Cricket House Studios USA1 – 06-07-08