Alex Jones, CTists, and Fear.

[Thunder]

I have written about this a while ago, but with the release of Jones' new movie, its worth mentioning again.

Alex Jones..is all about fear. Scaring sensitive, emotionally vulnerable people, into believing lies and half-truths.

Just listen to his narration in "The Obama Deception". He sounds like Darth Vader. Its funny..its silly..but it also shows he is trying to scare us.

Scare us into believing what exactly? That Obama is a politician? That he made some promises that he may not be able to keep? That he made some exaggerations? That he may defend the interests of powerful groups, industries, and corporations??

Whats new. He is a politician. Thats what politicians do. Get a clue and get real if you think differently.

But Alex is all about fear. He is just like FOX News. Spreading lies about the "NWO", the "Illuminati", "Fluoride", "Chemtrails", and other utter lies and bs.

It is clear now, that if you follow Alex Jones, then you are a total fool. Not because he is counter-culture..or takes on the status quo.but because he is a liar and seeks to profit off fear and paranoia. Much like Bush and the Neo-Cons.

Alex Jones wants chaos and destruction in the USA. He is desperate for it. He is desperate for a major recession or even a Depression. If the economy starts to recover..he is going to go nuts..and may indeed try to inspire or start a "revolution" on his own.

CTists, I urge you to regain your sanity and STOP listening to Alex Jones and the other Conspiracy Theory salesmen. They are bad for you and the USA and the world.

[twinstead]

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Our buddy Alex is a FUD peddler for sure.

[Thunder]

FUD peddler. I like it.

How can anyone listen to this guy and not get pissed off with his never-ending fear mongering?

I guess, if you like fear and paranoia and mistrust, you LOVE Alex Jones.

But, with an environment like that..how can even Alex Jones be trusted????

[LightinDarkness]

The entire media makes money and ratings off spreading fear and hysteria, not just FOX. I listen to NPR all the time and 5 minutes doesn't pass where the words "economic crises" isn't uttered and there isn't some story about how horrible things are. Even last week when the markets were up, NPR was quick to remind us every 5 minutes that we shouldn't get excited because the end was still nigh. They are trying to find every angle possible to doom/fear monger.

The foundation of CT is populism and fear, AJ just plays more to the fear than the populism depending on the day.

[Praktik]

Just listen to his narration in "The Obama Deception". He sounds like Darth Vader. Its funny..its silly..but it also shows he is trying to scare us.

Scare us into believing what exactly? That Obama is a politician? That he made some promises that he may not be able to keep? That he made some exaggerations? That he may defend the interests of powerful groups, industries, and corporations??

Whats new. He is a politician. Thats what politicians do. Get a clue and get real if you think differently.

Right on! THis is the money quote from your post IMHO...;)

And I think its this (mis)conception of power that drives most of the battles between me and my truther friends. When I shoot down something of AJ's they'll plug my response into their binary formula and since I don't agree with AJ - it must mean I'm fine and dandy with everything and think that Obama is really gonna bring "change".

Disclaimers regarding the nature of politics, the pull of differing factions, the donation/favour ferris wheel of politics, the entropy of any political system - these are disregarded. Because after all, I don't buy into any of AJ's BS so therefore I am "programmed" by my university education and the MSM.

[Aitch]

The Obama Deception? Sounds like one of Robert Ludlum's lesser known efforts. ;)

[Thunder]

The entire media makes money and ratings off spreading fear and hysteria, not just FOX. I listen to NPR all the time and 5 minutes doesn't pass where the words "economic crises" isn't uttered and there isn't some story about how horrible things are. Even last week when the markets were up, NPR was quick to remind us every 5 minutes that we shouldn't get excited because the end was still nigh. They are trying to find every angle possible to doom/fear monger.

The foundation of CT is populism and fear, AJ just plays more to the fear than the populism depending on the day.

Um...we ARE in an economic crisis. Saying that isn't fear mongering. And we should not get our hopes up just because the Dow Jones has 3 good days.

This recovery will be slow and painful. The market may go back down to 6500 or lower. We have to lower our expectations for this recovery...in terms of its intensity and duration of time.

That's not fear mongering. Its hoping for the best but being prepared for crap.

[LightinDarkness]

Um...we ARE in an economic crisis. Saying that isn't fear mongering. And we should not get our hopes up just because the Dow Jones has 3 good days.

This recovery will be slow and painful. The market may go back down to 6500 or lower. We have to lower our expectations for this recovery...in terms of its intensity and duration of time.

That's not fear mongering. Its hoping for the best but being prepared for crap.

No, we are not. We are in a cyclical economic recession. This happens every few years, and every few years people act like chicken littles and proclaim the end of days. Saying CRISES CRISES CRISES CRISES only promotes fear. If we didn't have 24 hours a day of media networks proclaiming the end was nigh most people would not have even noticed the recession and the panic and hysterical wall street selling by non-institutional investors would not have occurred.

Acting hysterical every time the DOW drops and then dismissing it every time it goes up as a "dead cat bounce" is simply another media example of promoting fear and refusing to objectively analyze the situation. Its the same way that the woos celebrate and congratulate each other each time the DOW goes down but proclaim a government conspiracy every time it goes up.

It is fear mongering, plain and simple. But its what people want. People don't want to hear the reality. They don't want to hear that things aren't as bad as they would like to believe because that means they can't blame everything on "the economy".

Alex Jones simply engages in a more hysterical form of fear mongering, but NPR and FOX aren't far behind.

[Thunder]

No, we are not. We are in a cyclical economic recession. This happens every few years, and every few years people act like chicken littles and proclaim the end of days. Saying CRISES CRISES CRISES CRISES only promotes fear.

Acting hysterical every time the DOW drops and then dismissing it every time it goes up as a "dead cat bounce" is simply another media example of promoting fear and refusing to objectively analyze the situation.

The New York Stock Exchange has lost more then 50% of its value..in about 1.5 years.

Our unemployment rate is approaching 10%.

Our GDP has been negative for at least 6 months...I believe.

The USA now owns more then 30% of Citicorp.

There are now NO more investment banks in the USA.

Not a crisis? You sound like the Kevin Bacon character in "Animal House" yelling: "All is well!!" as screaming and fleeing people are all around him.

http://www.tigerboard.com/userimages/1animalhouse508.jpeg

Its not the end of the world. Martial law will not be imposed. FEMA camps are not about to open. But we are in a financial crisis.

[LightinDarkness]

The New York Stock Exchange has lost more then 50% of its value..in about 1.5 years.

Our unemployment rate is approaching 10%.

Our GDP has been negative for at least 6 months...I believe.

OH MY GOD! CRISES! Too bad that much worse happened in the recessions of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Of course, you conveniently forgot to study those in your chicken little assessment. Heck in the 1970s we even had city wide riots and gas lines. CRISES! Oh wait..not so bad after all.


The USA now owns more then 30% of Citicorp.

We completely owned Savings & Loans - if you get this hysterical now, I can't imagine what you did then.


There are now NO more investment banks in the USA.

Really? I better tell my sisters - who both have jobs at two separate investment banks - that they are working for something that doesn't exist. Thanks for the info.


Not a crisis? You sound like the Kevin Bacon character in "Animal House" yelling: "All is well!!" as screaming and fleeing people are all around him.

And you sound like chicken little, running around in circles and screaming THE SKY IS FALLING during a normal cyclical economic recession.


Its not the end of the world. Martial law will not be imposed. FEMA camps are not about to open. But we are in a financial crisis.

The irony if you decrying fear mongering when engaging in the doom mongering yourself is hysterical. Not in a crises.

http://www.searchenginepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/chicken_little_dvd.jpg

[Thunder]

doom? i am calling doom? we are in a financial crisis...NOT an abyss.

we will be just fine. we just need to stimulate the economy and get some better controls over our financial system.

calling doom my butt. im calling for rational solutions, staying calm, and riding out the storm.

btw, your Roth IRA may be doing fine, but my 401k lost about 18% of its value in like 2 months.

but, again, its going to be alright. we are gonna be just fine.

[LightinDarkness]

doom? i am calling doom? we are in a financial crisis...NOT an abyss.

we will be just fine. we just need to stimulate the economy and get some better controls over our financial system.

calling doom my butt. im calling for rational solutions, staying calm, and riding out the storm.

btw, your Roth IRA may be doing fine, but my 401k lost about 18% of its value in like 2 months.

but, again, its going to be alright. we are gonna be just fine.

I suspected your political biases might be causing this and it appears as though I am right - first blaming fear mongering only on FOX when the entire media engages in it, some to a much worse extent, and then talking about the need for a "stimulus".

I said it during Bush and I'm saying it during Obama: not only is the end not nigh, but what we are in is a normal cyclical economic recessions. We have been in recessions that were much, much worse. We have been in recessions with city wide riots, food riots, gas lines, etc. None of that has happened nor will it happen as we are now in the worst of the recession. I am not letting my personal politics get involved in this, I'm being a realist.

I'm glad we agree things are going to be fine. But I just can't agree we are in a crises unless every cyclical economic recession is a crises.

[Undesired Walrus]

Jones actually promotes security, not fear.

Fear is having to live in a world with an ambigious concept of morality, large nuclear powers run by fallable, all too human leaders, and one in which 9/11 can be carried out by patient men with boxcutters.

Security is existing in a world where there is a clear sense of black and white and a powerful global elite controlling the course of history. It's God, basically, for a fairly secular society. Comfort. This is what AJ promotes.

It's more exciting to declare that lights in the sky are alien spacecrafts, than the mundane tail light of a aeroplane.

[LightinDarkness]

Jones actually promotes security, not fear.

Fear is having to live in a world with an ambigious concept of morality, large nuclear powers run by fallable, all too human leaders, and one in which 9/11 can be carried out by patient men with boxcutters.

Security is existing in a world where there is a clear sense of black and white and a powerful global elite controlling the course of history. It's God, basically, for a fairly secular society. Comfort. This is what AJ promotes.

It's more exciting to declare that lights in the sky are alien spacecrafts, than the mundane tail light of a aeroplane.

That is an excellent observation. On the face of it he does promote fear and doom, but as you correctly point out the fear and doom is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. The end is that, through the fear and doom the world is simplified into black and white terms that are easy to understand, and the shades of gray which actually make up our reality can be disregarded by the Believers.

In the real world, morality and right and wrong are complex concepts. Its not always clear that there is any one right answer. In the fantasy land of Alex Jones, we can be secure in knowing that there is evil for which we can fight against, personified through the mythical NWO and other groups he rails against that are nothing more than figments of CT imagination.

[Thunder]

I'm glad we agree things are going to be fine. But I just can't agree we are in a crises unless every cyclical economic recession is a crises.

please explain to us ignorant individuals how the sub-prime mortgage fiasco factors into your "cyclical" economic recession theory.

[twinstead]

please explain to us ignorant individuals how the sub-prime mortgage fiasco factors into your "cyclical" economic recession theory.
You have some nerve asking for specifics

[LightinDarkness]

please explain to us ignorant individuals how the sub-prime mortgage fiasco factors into your "cyclical" economic recession theory.

Actually, as it is you who is insistent on claiming a crises, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a crises exists.

What exactly do you think a recession is? It is when some systematic event occurs that causes a decline in economic activity, although just how much of a decline we have to see (in terms of GDP) to declare a recession is a matter of debate.

In the early 2000s, the dot com bubble burst causing a recession. In 2007-2008, the real estate bubble burst and caused a recession. Its not a crises, its what happens when people act irrationally in a economy. The bubble bursts and the economy self-corrects. Not a crises - quite normal.

[Klimax]

Actually, as it is you who is insistent on claiming a crises, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a crises exists.

What exactly do you think a recession is? It is when some systematic event occurs that causes a decline in economic activity, although just how much of a decline we have to see (in terms of GDP) to declare a recession is a matter of debate.

In the early 2000s, the dot com bubble burst causing a recession. In 2007-2008, the real estate bubble burst and caused a recession. Its not a crises, its what happens when people act irrationally in a economy. The bubble bursts and the economy self-corrects. Not a crises - quite normal.

My professor during lecture on macroeconomy said that depression (crisis can be even recession) starts usually at 10% decline of GNP in consecutive two years.Recession is just two quarters consecutive with some decline.

Crisis is not clear term,that's why it is more popular since everybody can use it.(and run with it)

[Aidoneus]

I've always thought conspiracy theories to be rather childish. I see them as a way of removing one's own responsibilty. If terrorism and global warming aren't the product the Galactic Empire.... Sorry, New World Order, then the CTs might have to accept some responsibility for both, an alltogether much scarier prospect.

[Thunder]

Actually, as it is you who is insistent on claiming a crises, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a crises exists.


No, my friend. Most of the nation agrees that we are in a financial crisis. You deny this. Therefore it is YOU who must prove that there is no crisis.

Most of the world agrees there was a Holocaust. Holocaust deniers say its fake. Do I have to prove there was a Holocaust?? lolol.

You can stop with the Truther logic now.

[Thunder]

You have some nerve asking for specifics

I know. I got chutzpah. Truthers hate when they are asked to present evidence. It offends them.

[Klimax]

No, my friend. Most of the nation agrees that we are in a financial crisis. You deny this. Therefore it is YOU who must prove that there is no crisis.

Most of the world agrees there was a Holocaust. Holocaust deniers say its fake. Do I have to prove there was a Holocaust?? lolol.

You can stop with the Truther logic now.

"Crisis" is meaningles.There are two defind terms.Recession and depression.
We are in recession and it will still take some time to reach deppresion.

Therefore this dispute crisis/no crisis is in the end futile as neither side is correct.

[Thunder]

Agreed. We are in a Recession. It may become a Depression. The economists will tell us if and when that occurs.

I call it a crisis..but this is my personal opinion. One does not have to agree with me that it is a crisis. But we ARE..in a bad recession.

[GreNME]

Okay, parky76, I can try to explain how this definitely can fall under the realm of cyclical, but only if we can agree on some determining factors for the crisis. You see, by my definitions, the bubble that took place over the last ten years had not only to do with mortgages-- though mortgage-holders are certainly a popular whipping boy in popular media-- but with huge amounts of leveraging debt not only unwisely, but with about the same mentality as a gambling addict at a horse track. No, this isn't the "money as debt" nonsense of the conspiracy theorists, though they do certainly latch on to it as confirmation (bias) of their theories. Still, the mismanagement does fall in line with the boom/bust cycle, but not in a positive way. Instead, it takes a problem and multiplies it, which is exactly what we're experiencing right now. Hopefully things will plateau soon and we can focus on getting back on the climbing track with the economy, but right now we're at the point where everything looks like crap and is probably going to get much worse. The reality is that how much worse or better things are going to get, for the most part, will have to do with some personal and political points of view, but in the long run things will improve and get back on track. The economy is designed to experience cycles, just not normally this bad of one. Even as bad as this one is, though, it's nowhere near as bad as having a completely unpredictable economy (think Austrian School, as AJ or RP love to bloviate about).

But enough about that: in my next post I'll address my thoughts on the OP.

[LightinDarkness]

No, my friend. Most of the nation agrees that we are in a financial crisis. You deny this. Therefore it is YOU who must prove that there is no crisis.

Most of the world agrees there was a Holocaust. Holocaust deniers say its fake. Do I have to prove there was a Holocaust?? lolol.

You can stop with the Truther logic now.

Claiming the majority is with you = truther logic.

Using an appeal to the people fallacy = truther logic.

Not that you are correct, but in any case a majority of people believing anything is proof of nothing. For a long period of time most of the country also believed that enslaving people based on skin color was perfectly OK and preventing people from voting based on their gender and class was the right thing to do.

A normal cyclical recession /= crises. They happen every few years, and every few years chicken littles emerge to declare the sky is falling. That you buy into it because it fits your political biases is your problem, not mine. By the way, Obama recently changed tune and stopped the doom and gloom mongering - you might want to adjust your ideology in order to remain consistent with your political biases. The Doom Monger in Chief has recently become Confidence Builder in Chief and has stopped uttering the word CRISES every 5 seconds.

[LightinDarkness]

My professor during lecture on macroeconomy said that depression (crisis can be even recession) starts usually at 10% decline of GNP in consecutive two years.Recession is just two quarters consecutive with some decline.

Crisis is not clear term,that's why it is more popular since everybody can use it.(and run with it)

Those are the normal terms but the NBER (the people who determine recessions and depressions for the US officially) have stated that its not always as clear cut. NBER declared a recession starting in December of 2007, while GDP didn't even begin decreasing until the 4th quarter of last year.

Personally I think NBER is making what constitutes a recession/depression lighter and lighter in order to satisfy doom mongers. Eventually a 5 point drop in the DOW will be declared a depression criteria and the treasury secretary having indigestion will be declared recession criteria.

[Klimax]

Those are the normal terms but the NBER (the people who determine recessions and depressions for the US officially) have stated that its not always as clear cut. NBER declared a recession starting in December of 2007, while GDP didn't even begin decreasing until the 4th quarter of last year.

Personally I think NBER is making what constitutes a recession/depression lighter and lighter in order to satisfy doom mongers. Eventually a 5 point drop in the DOW will be declared a depression criteria and the treasury secretary having indigestion will be declared recession criteria.

Why does not it suprise me.Then any fluctuation will spell DOOM.(I liked that game btw. :D )

And that early??? In 2007?? The only effect in the timespan 12.2007-4.2008 which was felt was fall of prices of wood!My company had bit rough times,but survived.(At local market it was even worse due increased supply of wood)But rest of world was still unaffected and no "crisis" was observable...

[LightinDarkness]

Why does not it suprise me.Then any fluctuation will spell DOOM.(I liked that game btw. :D )

And that early??? In 2007?? The only effect in the timespan 12.2007-4.2008 which was felt was fall of prices of wood!My company had bit rough times,but survived.(At local market it was even worse due increased supply of wood)But rest of world was still unaffected and no "crisis" was observable...

I know, December 2007 was great for me but NBER - in December 2008 - decided that that was the beginning of the recession:
http://wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html

I think its hilarious. :P

[Thunder]

When GM is about to go into bankruptcy, the major shareholder of Citicorp is the US Government, and AIG needs a $150,000,000,000 bailout...we know something ain't right.

Or, you can be Kevin Bacon and yell: "All is well!!!!!!!"

=)

[GreNME]

As much as it may seem that Alex Jones thrives on fear-- and, admittedly, he does tend to feed on it in huge helpings-- what really keeps AJ and his look( or act)-alikes isn't fear. It definitely isn't uncertainty: he's always perfectly certain of his proposed world-the-way-he-sees-it. And it's not doubt: Alex Jones is so sure of himself that he'll seem to do anything he can not to show a single chip in that statuesque image of himself that he's created. No clay feet for mister Jones, not even when he weeps about how he doesn't think he's done enough for "the cause."

What really drives them is moral absolutism. Moral certainty. It permeates their every waking (and possibly sleeping) minute. And it's that moral absolutism taken to extremes that makes them seem so ominous, so frustrating, and in most cases so eager to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to further whatever cause they've latched onto.

That sounds like too simple of an answer, because obviously there are people who are moral absolutists who don't behave like conspiracy theorists. Hell, there are moral absolutists who are a part of practically every politically leaning point of view out there. Arguably, on some level and regarding some things, we're all absolutist about some things at a deep enough point. That's true enough, but the difference is that the conspiracy theorists, particularly the most vocal of the conspiracy theorists, wear that moral absolutism on their sleeves as the very defining factor of who they are, and those who don't accept it are blind (or stupid), complicit, or part of the problem itself.

Again, though, that's still too simplistic in that it continues to define loads of people who aren't conspiracy theorists, though people fitting that description do tend to be fanatics or fundamentalists to a given ideology-- whether liberal or conservative, religious or areligious, militaristic or pacifist, pop- or counter-culture, etc. So, what sets conspiracy theorists apart from those other things? Not much, actually. Just the level of extremity to which they believe it, and how absolute they're willing to accept things are, how the world works, and whether it's important to their own life and world (and, usually, the lives of those they care about). Someone might think that eating vegetarian is one of the more important things they can do for their own lives and, in a small amount, to the benefit of the world at large; they might think that it's their responsibility to share that point of view with others, sometimes in as loud or as pervasive a manner as possible. Equally, someone might think that their land, the property they damn well worked through blood, sweat, and tears to own, should be their domain and their domain only, damn any infringing group or organization; they might go so far as to fight eminent domain rulings as far as they can afford to go, and speak publicly about the infringement whenever possible in order to let people know about the injustice being forced on them. A religious person might feel that people of their religion are treated unfairly in some way, regardless of their numbers compared to other religions, because they live in a society that allows so many things their religion considers ultimately wrong. A guy might own some guns or want better healthcare for his family, and be pissed at what he perceives as the government dropping the ball in protecting their rights and livelihood. All of these people are typically likely to join groups of people who feel similarly to them, or to at least associate with those more like-minded. They typically tend to feel with moral certainty that their point of view is more accurate, more rational, and more correct.

But why aren't all of these people conspiracy theorists?

The reality is that, in most cases, some of them are, and it has quite a bit to do with those things they feel so morally certain about in the first place. This is especially prevalent when those who are so certain are given as much access as possible to points of view that confirm their certainty, but that's typically not enough. The persistent tendency of human desire to see order, to detect patterns, must also come into play for the conspiracy theories to set in. Those conspiracy theories also need to be confirmed with like-minded assessments, or those that are similar enough to provide sufficient confirmation. Usually this little mental song-and-dance remains as a low-level hum in the back of our minds, enough to influence some compartmentalized points of view-- that the oil companies and car industry are in bed with each other, that a country or political system of common dislike is trying to destroy our (in general) way of life, or that a political party or political ideology is working in concert to subvert freedom/fairness/decency/equality/whatever you can think of-- but rarely to the point where it proceeds into our considerations for how everything (or anything) in the world works and how we approach life in general. That is where the differences between a conspiracy theorist and pretty much everyone else begins.

Alex Jones is just one of these kinds of moral absolutists, and his successes in developing a following aren't much different than how other moral absolutists develop followings. The most popular type of this behavior has to do with religious revivalists or proselytizers-- their "come to Jesus" gatherings that come in, get everyone all-fired-up, then move on to the next location (after taking 'donations' to fund their 'ministry') to preach their "come to Jesus" story all over again. Much like these religious types of practices, the more successful (as in more successful than the fleeting) conspiracy theorists leave mental breadcrumbs in their sermons, so that they can link their current sermons back to their previous sermons, or in times of trouble be able to take a current sermon that's flopping and set it on a foundation of a sermon that's known to work and always keeps the crowd wanting more. Heroes and villains play large in this practice, with the goal of the sermons to assure the people listening that they are the heroes that the world needs and that the villains are not only very real, but threaten the very fabric of everything that we in this world-- as heroes, mind you-- hold to be most dear. It doesn't matter if it's a political group (or groups), a piece of legislation either proposed or in use, or a social practice that either should or should not be allowed to continue (or start).

Does any of that sound familiar? It should, because it basically describes the bulk of the hyperbole used by all major political parties throughout the world, by governments around the world both diplomatically and otherwise, and in pretty much any news or current events commentary you can find on your television, radio, or in print (online or on paper). Why the hell else do you think that people like Jones or Rense or Avery or Joseph or any other CTist just love to cherrypick through any media they can and regurgitate it back to those listening to them as if the conspiracies they're presenting are novel or insightful?

It's all of us, everywhere, in the differences that define us: all whittled down, compressed, re-filtered, re-compartmentalized (so as to avoid facing contradictions), re-simplified, and re-focused back at the world at large in the form of a conspiracy theorist's moral absolutism. So, it's not the fear-mongering or hyperbole that defines the conspiracy theorist-- there's plenty of fear-mongering to go around in use pretty much everywhere, and let's not get started on the mountains of hyperbole in just a day's worth of news and news commentary. It's not even just the use of moral absolutism-- for some, that absolutism might drive them to get into politics or to become actual revolutionaries or militants, but rarely full-blown conspiracy purveyors. But if you take that foundation of moral absolutism, taken to the extreme, and salt it with enough directed hyperbole and "us vs. them" fear-mongering, then you can make a conspiracy theorist out of practically anyone, even otherwise bright individuals.

That's what gives Alex Jones and his ilk their pulpit, and what allows them to keep their rhetorical engines running. That isn't to say that there might not be some herbs and spices missing or in wacky amounts in his brain-bucket, but whether there is or not wouldn't even be enough without that absolute moral certainty and the prevalence of nonsense to dip into from all kinds of chaotic rhetoric and hyperbole that floats around in the world today. They're just the prism through which the worst of the hyperbolic rhetoric out there today passes through and comes out in its most basic of formats, and is then picked over and fit into their "us vs. them" messages as they see fit. They can't be wrong, because if it were to turn out that they were wrong it wouldn't just be the embarrassment of being wrong, it would be the mortal sin of being not right, which to a moral absolutist is the worst thing of all.

[GreNME]

Why does not it suprise me.Then any fluctuation will spell DOOM.(I liked that game btw. :D )

And that early??? In 2007?? The only effect in the timespan 12.2007-4.2008 which was felt was fall of prices of wood!My company had bit rough times,but survived.(At local market it was even worse due increased supply of wood)But rest of world was still unaffected and no "crisis" was observable...

That's not true. Many people, including some economists attempted to point out how things were heading toward a really bad recession, even as far back as 2005. I recall basing a paper I wrote in 2004 or 2005 off the numbers of some of these people, including a gradually lowering median family income by factoring in the inflation rate and leveraging of the housing bubble to back more and more investments. I believe Paul Krugman, like him or not (I'm so-so on him), was one of those I recall from 2006 or 2007 saying that things were a lot worse than the government or Wall St. were admitting, and that people should be wary of relying too much on the boom market at this time.

Then again, that's easy to say after the fact. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of this wasn't completely off the radar, it just wasn't clear that the crash would be this bad, and it's still not clear whether more early warning would have been enough to avert it back in 2005-2007.

[Klimax]

I know, December 2007 was great for me but NBER - in December 2008 - decided that that was the beginning of the recession:
http://wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html

I think its hilarious. :P

:eek:

When GM is about to go into bankruptcy, the major shareholder of Citicorp is the US Government, and AIG needs a $150,000,000,000 bailout...we know something ain't right.

Or, you can be Kevin Bacon and yell: "All is well!!!!!!!"

=)

Something might not be right,but absolute doom it is not and not even depression.

That's not true. Many people, including some economists attempted to point out how things were heading toward a really bad recession, even as far back as 2005. I recall basing a paper I wrote in 2004 or 2005 off the numbers of some of these people, including a gradually lowering median family income by factoring in the inflation rate and leveraging of the housing bubble to back more and more investments. I believe Paul Krugman, like him or not (I'm so-so on him), was one of those I recall from 2006 or 2007 saying that things were a lot worse than the government or Wall St. were admitting, and that people should be wary of relying too much on the boom market at this time.

Then again, that's easy to say after the fact. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of this wasn't completely off the radar, it just wasn't clear that the crash would be this bad, and it's still not clear whether more early warning would have been enough to avert it back in 2005-2007.

Thanks.

[LightinDarkness]

When GM is about to go into bankruptcy, the major shareholder of Citicorp is the US Government, and AIG needs a $150,000,000,000 bailout...we know something ain't right.

Or, you can be Kevin Bacon and yell: "All is well!!!!!!!"

=)

When major corporations have gone bankrupt before*, when the United States government has not only been a major shareholder but OWNED entire banks before (Savings and Loans - hello?!), and when there have been city wide riots and food panics in previous recessions....

We know that things have been much worse before.

Or you can be chicken little and scream "the sky is falling!!!!!"


*Looks like someone isn't up to date: GM is not even asking for government money anymore. Things are on the up and up.

[LightinDarkness]

That's not true. Many people, including some economists attempted to point out how things were heading toward a really bad recession, even as far back as 2005. I recall basing a paper I wrote in 2004 or 2005 off the numbers of some of these people, including a gradually lowering median family income by factoring in the inflation rate and leveraging of the housing bubble to back more and more investments. I believe Paul Krugman, like him or not (I'm so-so on him), was one of those I recall from 2006 or 2007 saying that things were a lot worse than the government or Wall St. were admitting, and that people should be wary of relying too much on the boom market at this time.

Then again, that's easy to say after the fact. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of this wasn't completely off the radar, it just wasn't clear that the crash would be this bad, and it's still not clear whether more early warning would have been enough to avert it back in 2005-2007.

No one beyond permabears who predict doom 100% of the time could predict when the bubble would pop. Anything else is guessing. Everyone now wants to claim that they saw it all coming, and yet none of the people who do put their money where their mouth was.

[GreNME]

No one beyond permabears who predict doom 100% of the time could predict when the bubble would pop. Anything else is guessing. Everyone now wants to claim that they saw it all coming, and yet none of the people who do put their money where their mouth was.

That's why I pointed out that it's easier to say after the fact. Regardless, there were plenty who were saying that the uncovered leveraging (mostly involving debt) was creating a problem that would not be mitigated by the market, and that the way the financial institutions were treating their capital could very well multiply the problem. And it did. To say that no one could have seen the mortgage bubble bursting is nonsense, that was the cyclical part, but what a lot of people didn't expect was how badly the mismanagement would affect the entire banking market. No one beyond conspiracy theorists are saying that they saw it all coming, but there's really no use in ignoring that a lot of people saw a lot of pieces of this coming from as far back as four or five years ago.

Want to know where I put my money with my mouth? My house. I bought it at a time when the bubble hadn't much touched where I lived (Dallas), I put money down on it and planned out all the payments. I bought it at that time because I knew that the prices were going to inflate, then pop. I wasn't in the job I'm in now when we bought it, but I knew that if we didn't jump on it now that we'd lose money later because of the housing prices. It was a gamble that's (so far) paid off. A guy who lived down the street from where I now live lost that home because he bought it two years later (2007), right when home values were starting to drop, because he followed the bad-but-popular advice that there was no problem. A friend and his wife bought a home in a more bubble-affected area in 2006, and are now living on practically a shoestring budget so that they can continue to make the house payments. I have another friend who was even more savvy than I was and got his home at practically a steal before the mortgage bubble burst, which left his house value largely unaffected afterward (I know that he timed this because he and I discussed it prior to his buying). But most of all, I was looking at buying a home and land last July-August and was paying attention to how things were going in the economy, and recognized that the first half of the year was just the warning of the tidal wave coming. I held on to my money instead of dropping it into a ridiculously low price for 8 acres of land in New Jersey (and I mean ridiculous), and I'm better off for it because even at that steal of a price I'd have lost money in the deal-- the huge crashes began over the following month. So, my money where my mouth is? Please, my money is staying where I need it most: where it's working for me as best as I can make it right now.

I'm not a "shout from the hills" kind of guy, though, and the few debates I had arguing in 2007 and 2008 that we were already in a recession were largely ignored by those who were disagreeing with me, though I will admit that my estimates for how long the recession has been and how long NBER says the recession has been are not the same-- I tend to lean toward it going back to at least mid-2007 (the first major problems got coverage in September of `07), they disagree. I'm more than willing to accept that my guesses may not have been completely right, but they're a damned sight more on-point than the constant "nothing to see here" BS coming from the administration at the time or from the company leaders who were claiming no problems while their books were showing a distinctly different story, as we began finding out in the second and third quarters of 2008.

As I said, no one I know of (that I find credible) predicted everything that happened to complete details and 100% certainty. Nothing ever works that way in economics anyway, so it's a red herring to suggest that much certainty or accuracy would be required. However, enough people saw enough things going wrong and complained about it, and were largely ignored despite a weakening middle class who was going to bear the brunt of the pain in 2008, and will continue to bear it in 2009. I agreed with you that what we're experiencing is cyclical, but it's fairly obvious we think it's cyclical for notably different reasons. That's cool, I'm fine with it, but telling me that no one saw anything coming is just as much after-the-fact mumbo-jumbo as those who claim to have seen everything before it happened.

[LightinDarkness]

That's why I pointed out that it's easier to say after the fact. Regardless, there were plenty who were saying that the uncovered leveraging (mostly involving debt) was creating a problem that would not be mitigated by the market, and that the way the financial institutions were treating their capital could very well multiply the problem. And it did. To say that no one could have seen the mortgage bubble bursting is nonsense, that was the cyclical part, but what a lot of people didn't expect was how badly the mismanagement would affect the entire banking market. No one beyond conspiracy theorists are saying that they saw it all coming, but there's really no use in ignoring that a lot of people saw a lot of pieces of this coming from as far back as four or five years ago.

Knowing a bubble exists and accurately predicting when the bubble would pop are two different things. Everyone knew a bubble was forming. The question was when to get out - if you got out too early, you lost a ton. If you got out too late, you lost a ton. I know of no one who predicted accurately when to get out, much less anyone that put their money where their mouth was on it. You either had doom mongers like Peter Schiff telling you to get out every year since the 1980s, meaning you lost out on everything, or people who couldn't recognize the bubble telling you real estate could never go down.



Want to know where I put my money with my mouth? My house. I bought it at a time when the bubble hadn't much touched where I lived (Dallas), I put money down on it and planned out all the payments. I bought it at that time because I knew that the prices were going to inflate, then pop. I wasn't in the job I'm in now when we bought it, but I knew that if we didn't jump on it now that we'd lose money later because of the housing prices. It was a gamble that's (so far) paid off. A guy who lived down the street from where I now live lost that home because he bought it two years later (2007), right when home values were starting to drop, because he followed the bad-but-popular advice that there was no problem. A friend and his wife bought a home in a more bubble-affected area in 2006, and are now living on practically a shoestring budget so that they can continue to make the house payments. I have another friend who was even more savvy than I was and got his home at practically a steal before the mortgage bubble burst, which left his house value largely unaffected afterward (I know that he timed this because he and I discussed it prior to his buying). But most of all, I was looking at buying a home and land last July-August and was paying attention to how things were going in the economy, and recognized that the first half of the year was just the warning of the tidal wave coming. I held on to my money instead of dropping it into a ridiculously low price for 8 acres of land in New Jersey (and I mean ridiculous), and I'm better off for it because even at that steal of a price I'd have lost money in the deal-- the huge crashes began over the following month. So, my money where my mouth is? Please, my money is staying where I need it most: where it's working for me as best as I can make it right now.

I don't think this counts as putting your money where your mouth is. A home is - and should always be - a place to live. Its not an investment. If you make money off of it, fine, but it should be considered a windfall. Anyone who bought in 2007 should be fine - and they would be - if they didn't think that they had an innate right to making money off of owning a home. You got lucky and bought in 2005 but even if you bought in 2007 it shouldn't matter. Its a home, not a investment.


I'm not a "shout from the hills" kind of guy, though, and the few debates I had arguing in 2007 and 2008 that we were already in a recession were largely ignored by those who were disagreeing with me, though I will admit that my estimates for how long the recession has been and how long NBER says the recession has been are not the same-- I tend to lean toward it going back to at least mid-2007 (the first major problems got coverage in September of `07), they disagree. I'm more than willing to accept that my guesses may not have been completely right, but they're a damned sight more on-point than the constant "nothing to see here" BS coming from the administration at the time or from the company leaders who were claiming no problems while their books were showing a distinctly different story, as we began finding out in the second and third quarters of 2008.

There is, and remains, nothing to see here. Recessions occur. They are not unusual. It would be unusual if a recession did not occur.

[GreNME]

Knowing a bubble exists and accurately predicting when the bubble would pop are two different things. Everyone knew a bubble was forming. The question was when to get out - if you got out too early, you lost a ton. If you got out too late, you lost a ton. I know of no one who predicted accurately when to get out, much less anyone that put their money where their mouth was on it. You either had doom mongers like Peter Schiff telling you to get out every year since the 1980s, meaning you lost out on everything, or people who couldn't recognize the bubble telling you real estate could never go down.

Ahh, I see what you're doing now. You're separating the banking crisis which is at the heart of the current recession from the real estate bubble. That's not a bad thing, and in fact it's probably a better way to look at how to address the problems that are present in the economy right now. That, however, is a discussion for another subforum.

I don't think this counts as putting your money where your mouth is. A home is - and should always be - a place to live. Its not an investment. If you make money off of it, fine, but it should be considered a windfall. Anyone who bought in 2007 should be fine - and they would be - if they didn't think that they had an innate right to making money off of owning a home. You got lucky and bought in 2005 but even if you bought in 2007 it shouldn't matter. Its a home, not a investment.

Are you serious? A home is not an investment like a bond or an index fund, but to say that a home isn't an investment at all is, well, the height of naivete. There was nothing lucky about my decision for when to buy a home, nor my decision to not buy the extra property in NJ last year. It doesn't prove I'm an economic genius (that would make my better half crack up), mind you, but it does display how my own interpretations of how the economy was looking, while not able to predict with 100% certainty, were not just gambling or guessing.

There is, and remains, nothing to see here. Recessions occur. They are not unusual. It would be unusual if a recession did not occur.

That's sort of misdirecting as to the focus of the problem. It's not the recession that is the important thing to see here. It's the problems in the banking institutions right now, most notably the problems with capital that many banks are dealing with, that are definitely something to see. I'm not saying that there's a Chicken Little "the sky is falling!" situation, but the plain facts are that construction has slowed to nearly a halt (which affects my job directly), something like 25 banks last year and 16 so far this year have been seized by the FDIC (though some have been re-sold to other institutions), and unemployment is higher than both of the last two recessionary periods that were more normative by economic standards. This definitely qualifies as a crisis, though just as overstating the extent of the crisis is not helpful, it's equally unhelpful to understate the extent of the crisis right now.

I'm not advocating the typical CT message of claiming the whole economic system is collapsing. That's just stupidity on the part of the CTists trying to justify their claims through confirmation bias. I am a pretty strong advocate, however, of taking an honest look at what's wrong and doing something about it, and so far it looks like that's precisely what's being done by the current administration, the Fed leadership, and even industry leaders at this time, so it's not like those of us who are calling it a crisis are somehow different from those who are in areas of at least policy and market leadership right now. Call that an appeal to authority if you want, but unless you can substantiate how the authorities are also incorrect then you're just arguing from ignorance.

[LightinDarkness]

Im not going to let this continue to go around and round in circles. The only thing I'll say is that thinking a home is a "investment" is exactly why the real estate bubble occurred. Its not, and looking it as a investment is the height of foolishness. A home is a place to live, and if you buy with the intention to make money off of it your merely gambling.

In any case, there is no crises - in banking or real estate. The market self-correcting from excesses is not a crises, its capitalism.

[GreNME]

And I'm telling you that you either have a very different definition of what an investment is than pretty much any reputable wealth advisor and homeowner, or you're just plain wrong. As for whether there is a crisis or not, that's easy to say when you're not dealing with any part of the market that's directly experiencing the crisis.

[Thunder]

Or you can be chicken little and scream "the sky is falling!!!!!"

nice strawman. i said we are in a recession. i consider it a crisis. but we will be just fine.

saying "the sky is falling"? i don't think so.

[AStone]

In any case, there is no crises - in banking or real estate. The market self-correcting from excesses is not a crises, its capitalism.

Gotta tell you, man, it is a crisis. By the very damn definition of the word, it is a crisis:

" 1. The point of time when it is to be decided whether any affair or course of action must go on, or be modified or terminate; the decisive moment; the turning point." (

And, man, next time you want to go on about the definition of a word, it may be best if you understand both the singular and plural of said word. Otherwise, you may end up looking like you don't know what you are talking about.;)