Originally Posted by Grez

Its a scary thought right now, and unfortunately if we keep going the way we do, it very well may happen.

Originally Posted by Onion Eater

Kondratiev waves are pure hogwash - comparable to roulette players seeing patterns in the history of the ball landing on a red or black number.

According to Wikipedia:

"Long wave theory is not accepted by most academic economists. Among economists who accept it, there has been no universal agreement about the start and the end years of particular waves. This points to another criticism of the theory: that it amounts to seeing patterns in a mass of statistics that aren't really there. Moreover, there is a lack of agreement over the cause of this phenomenon."

That's basically it:

1) They're seeing patterns that aren't there.

2) They have no explanation for why such patterns exist.

In my Devil's dictionary of Economics I define:

Roulette: Pop quiz! Which of these statements is more profound? 1) It’s red now, but eventually it will be black. Always bet on reversion to the mean! 2) It’s red now, so it is sure to be red again. Never bet against a winning streak! Answer: Neither. Playing roulette is not profound, no matter how you bet. Neither is playing the stock market, unless you have an actual explanation for why a particular stock is going to pay fat dividends or go up in price. See Bonner and Wiggin.

Reversion to the Mean: “Things that are unusual usually return to normal. If they did not, there would be no ‘norma’ to return to. That is why you can expect stocks to become more expensive when they are cheap and cheaper when they are expensive,” write Bonner and Wiggin, “The older the investor, the more confidence we have in him. He has seen good times and bad times. He has seen bulls and bears.” With all due respect, this is not a theory. Theories are expected to explain why an event happens, not just sagely announce that it will happen eventually. As I write in my 1999 book, “Nothing prevents young fools from growing into old fools.” Just stroking one’s white beard and propounding, “seen it before,” does not imply that one could explain it then, or can now. (With this “theory,” Bonner and Wiggin could get rich at roulette simply by stroking their beards and saying, “It’s red now but eventually it will be black.” Anybody want to invest in their next trip to Las Vegas?) See Section VIII of my 2004 paper.

Originally Posted by res

This is what I heard on the news, keep in mind that I'm from Serbia so the information I get about current US situation is mostly to never correct; I rarely bother to read about it on the net since the bailout plan was adopted in congress.
So they were talking about Bushie and his economic policy and at the end they said that United States budget deficit for this year will be $420 billion. How can this be correct?
If you add up the amounts already taken by various banks and other financial institutions, together with the fact that the money came from US treasury, and other "expected" expenses for this year it is surely well above the figure of "mesely" 420 billion. I know the journalists in my country are down right stupid and lazy to their goddamn jobs but this shocked me. Are you guys being told the same bullshit story or was this one simply for Serbian domestic consumption?
Our Gouvernor of the Central Bank and minster of finance have started lying so much that it is insulting. Our currency is losing value by the day. People here still remember the horrific hyperinflation of 1993-1994 when the average daily rate of inflation was nearly 100 percent. I know I remeber that time.
Here's an article about it if you're interested The Worst Episode of Hyperinflation in History: Yugoslavia 1993-94.

Originally Posted by michaelr

Well I see you news agencies are as about as bad as ours. The Deficit here is about 720 Billion, that is with the borrowed funds from SS, they don't talk about that. Also since the 10 billion dollar a month disaster is not on the budget, you would need to add that.