, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

June 7, 2008


About Poverty and Thinking –
2008 Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips
06-03-08 USA1 [cd]21

I’ve met some people over the years that truly live in poverty. And, it seemed to have less to do with how much money they had and more to do with something else.

In every case, these people had more money consistently available to them than I did. Yet, they were impoverished in their mentality about it, in their choices and in their lifestyles.

Some of it steered choices and priorities such that nothing else was possible in these people’s lives. The same $5 can buy one really big lush towel on sale or one meal one time at McDonald’s. Guess which one they would choose while saying they could only afford old, frayed, “couldn’t get the water off the floor with it” towels to use every day.

In my house, although it took six months to do it, each of have two good towels. For awhile, they were color choices based on which of us they belonged to. And, that works. If one was dirty, the other one was used. If found stuffed under the bed, it was easy to tell who was responsible to correct it. I guess we missed going to McDonald’s a few times but it feels so right to come out of a bath and put a nice new towel next to the skin that a sense of abundance is in it.

Without much money, it is very easy to fall into despair about it. Anything that can engage the senses daily to express abundance is helpful to alleviate impoverished futility thinking. This is desirable because many, many messages of worth in our world today imply the idea that value of a life and the worth of a person is based on how much money they have or can generate.

I have noticed that time, actions, activity, choices and engagement in one’s own life has the greater value and determines what happens with the life that is, by nature, valuable whether recognized or not.

I used to hear the basic excuse for insanity of purpose and drive to be the old adage about the tree falling in the forest without anyone to hear it. Did it make a sound or not? That is some real poverty thinking that created this adage and its implied meanings. I’m sure the plants below it that were crushed heard it coming and any other creatures capable of moving out of the way.

Mankind has not defined sound nor sound waves, merely studied what was already here and interpreted it. The world we live in is one of abundance. Why would anyone sit with their child in thirst and curse the rain, not even collecting it to drink when capable of doing so?

What is that, if not poverty at a very basic level of thought, interpretation and reasoning? We are all creators, by design. The world we live in and the moments of time we have are infinity today.

June 3, 2008


Creating A Flow –
Methods And Processes –
2008, Cricket Diane C Phillips

The first thing that happens is trying to find a way to keep doing everything in the same ways without changing but without the disadvantages and / or consequences.

However, a moment comes when the goal shifts to the desired results with the desired outcome paramount while avoiding the undesired consequences takes over.

At this point – change, exploration and discovery becomes key and the flow of creative energies can take place.

Secondly, there is an ebb and flow that occurs as results indicate some desirable and undesirable aspects of attempted changes.

Often this is where one reverts back to the original ways of doing things for comfort or to regain bearings or in lack of willingness to move forward in the process.

Opening the flow actually occurs here at this stage in the process. The tentative and faltering steps of beginning are retaken quickly and real progress begins.

Re-establish goals and let go of how it has to be done to be done right. Let go of why it must be done a certain way and strip away qualifiers like convenience, shoulds, simplicity and any other that restrain the accomplishment.

Start with ‘good enough’ and work from there. The idea that the finished product, goal or the accomplishment of the goal must be anything beyond ‘workable’ simply hinders the process.

Do one thing differently. Work on ‘thinking on your feet’ as the occasion arises. Do whatever is customarily done in the same way in some specific way differently. Reach out rather than in, at least once every day.

Let go of the necessity of comfort and explore the unusual landscape of doing things differently. The more comfortable the process becomes, the more changes will naturally occur.

July 23, 2008


And on a lighter note – very timely right now –


The Shade Tree Wisdom of Politics –
by Cricket Diane C “Sparky” Phillips, 2008

* A good politician is somebody that can make you believe what you didn’t wanna hear in the first place.

* The best place to stay in politics is out of it but the next best place is out of the firing zone.

* A difference of opinion is like that old pair of boots you use to put the manure out in the garden. No point ruining your good ones just to have ‘em stink from stepping in it.

* There may be tons of good ideas in politics but leave it to the politicians to only get the worst ones done, if any at all.

* The treasury is a place where politicians use the “can’t eat just one” rule. In Latin, that’s “eat-amus maximus.”

* Its not a disorder to be a politician but you can’t tell that by listening to them.

* How could you trust the judgment of a politician? It’s a contradiction of terms.

* If you can see the difference between the candidates offered by both parties – you have been listening to them too long.

* Is it possible to tell the difference between a donkey’s ass, an elephant’s ass, as horse’s ass and a jackass? Have you been up in Congress lately?

* A bad marriage is like getting a bad politician but easier to get shed of.

* When two politicians are in the same room, they will always have three ideas between them – none of which will do what they say they will do.

* In order to have politics, it takes a special meeting of several ingredients including the ability to be disagreeable without letting on that you think the other person’s an ass.

* Politicians without money are like you and me – not in politics.

* It takes more than most people would give to be a politician and more than most people would steal to stay one.

* Political compromise is a fancy way of saying that nobody gets what they want but they’re going to spend more than enough money for everybody to have had what they wanted.

* Good in terms of politics is a matter of reference. It depends on who is talking and whether they’re in earshot of anybody.

August 27, 2008