That's Hysterical: Do 2 Recessions Equal 1 Depression?

So Paul Vigna in The Wall Street Journal, here:

"Do two global recessions equal a modern depression? We seem destined to find out."

Notice the word "modern",  as if to say we in our time are much too advanced to have an old-fashioned depression like they had way back in the day. You know, a god-awful depression where massive numbers of people go hungry and die before their time.

The fact is depressions happen. They have a technical character. You can measure them. Some are indeed severe, as in 1920. Some are also short, as in 1920. Some are relatively shallow, as in 2008 or 1937, and go on forever due to incompetence. Some are severe and go on forever due to incompetence, as in 1931, or in Greece today. Our problem is that we won't agree to agree on a name for this depression enemy this time around because depressions don't happen in "modern" times. Insisting that depressions don't happen in "modern" times is actually a form of hubris. And you know what cometh before a fall. But try telling that to an entire civilization.

By the way, isn't the "modern" age over already? The old right in America, you know, the opposition to FDR in the 1930s, used to stand against the modern age which FDR, and Wilson before him, represented. There's still a magazine in print by that name which hails from the conservative ethos of that very time and continues to talk about this, which really is a mark of true conservative distinction, seeing that conservatism at its best brings forward into the present the truths, and critiques, of the past. But "modern" truly is an old conception which is getting a little long in the tooth to continue to be used of this age when we have clearly moved on in any number of ways, except perhaps in our conceits. An exception to this might be our nostalgia for Glass-Steagall, which makes us sort of conservatives of modernism, if it's permissible to speak that way.

But I digress.

What thoughtful people are worrying about at this moment is that we could re-elect this incompetent boob, Barack Obama, who is working on the choom gang, and finally go really and truly insolvent while he fritters away four more years getting in touch with his inner Arnold Palmer. Some people think insolvency is actually his objective, which to my mind gives him way more credit than he deserves. He seems to think money grows on trees, planted by the financial, insurance and real estate sectors, but hasn't yet figured out that his usefulness to them comes with an expiration date not unlike the expiration dates which attach to all the promises he has made and end up going poof into the air.

When liberals finally do conclude the emperor has no clothes on, this indeed will be all over, but the problem with that is that most liberals went to public school. They won't figure it out until it's way too late. Say 2022, if they live that long.

The left already figured it out, however, in the first year of Obama's presidency, but decided to make their strategy of destroying the country Obama's strategy by continuing to support him. This was an inflexion point where all that stupid talk from the right about how we share some common ground with the left should have come to an end. I don't recall the left saying they had any common ground with us. Instead what we got and continue to get from Republicans and other liberals is incredulity about Obama's failure to have learned anything by now.

Here's a newsflash for you: He has no intention of learning anything. Republicans continue to misunderstand his opposition, as is their wont. Saddam Hussein was not worth getting angry about, but they did, and Barack Obama is worth getting upset about, but their response is . . . Romney. No wonder Democrats have contempt for Republicans. The stupid party.

No, everything now depends, unfortunately, on the residuum of common good sense among the rank and file out there, the apolitical people who simply have had enough of this. Considering the depths of our social dissolution, however, and Obama's attempts to subsidize that with food stamps, free cell phones, disability payments and the revivification of welfare (what else would you expect from a drug addict?), it is hard to remain optimistic about them, but that's probably all we've got remaining.

"The Great Depression, after all, actually comprised two technical recessions, 1929-1933 and 1937-38, not that most people could tell the difference.

"What would you call a 7-10 year period of suppressed growth and stagnant wages, of economies on the verge of collapse and overwhelmed leadership? You could do worse than “depression” – lowercase “d” to be sure, and we’ll hope for a great new age on the other side of it. But a depression all the same."


I'll see you at the polls in November, voting for Romney. I'll be the one with a clothes pin on my nose.

And I'm going to keep it because I have a feeling I'm going to be needing it.

Republican Judd Gregg, Author Of TARP, Now Promotes Superstition

What an embarrassing load of claptrap, here, from the Republican author of TARP, without any basis in facts, just pure superstition about dates, which is just a cover for the real point of the article, a weaseling defense of TARP in the face of Neil Barofsky's critical book on the subject, being released this week:

September is a month where unusual and often extremely damaging things seem to happen. It is the month that kicked off the Great Depression and led to Black Monday a month later. It also is the month in which, in 2008, the nation came close to a total economic collapse. ...

[T]here have been numerous sharp stock market downturns in September. Why these events seem to crowd into September is a subject of a great deal of conjecture.  There is no consistent answer. But it seems September is the point in the year where people assess where they have gone, and what the next year will be like, and make investment decisions based on their conclusions. ...

Unfortunately, this year, September may be a decisive month for the world and our nation’s economy. ...

This will probably be undeniably clear by September. ...

Not long, one suspects. September. ...

September has been a good time for such a reaction. ...

Price Of Gold Adjusted To The Purchasing Power Of The Dollar

What is today's fair value price of an ounce of gold? Is it really $1,579 the ounce?

In 1913 the price of gold was still fixed at $20.67 the ounce and remained there until FDR devalued the dollar and fixed the price at $35 the ounce. It wasn't until 1971 that gold convertibility was finally ended and the dollar allowed to float completely freely. Today's gold price represents a price increase of over 7500 percent from $20.67 the ounce, which was gold's prevailing price after the War Between The States until the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and right up to the Great Depression election of FDR in 1932.

Does that sound right to you? 7500 percent?! 

One way to decide is to see what's happened to the dollar in terms of its purchasing power since 1913, which marked the end of a long 35 year period of dollar purchasing power stability.

From 1913 through 2011, the dollar's purchasing power has declined so much that it took $23.40 to buy in 2011 what $1 could buy in 1913. Another way to say that is the dollar has suffered a devaluation of 2340 percent over the period.

So if you applied that percentage to the price of gold in 1913, you'd arrive at a gold price in 2011 of $484 the ounce, suggesting that today's gold price is inflated by about 226 percent and needs to fall about $1,095 the ounce.

Opinions vary on the fair price of gold, from $218 (Woodhill's calculation of purchasing power) to $800 (Tamny's ten year average) and even today's market value around $1,500 (Lewis).

I think it is interesting that gold ended both 2003 and 2004 below $440 the ounce. It was in November of 2004 that GLD, the SPDR Gold Shares, first made its appearance on the NYSE, making daily speculation in gold like daily trading in a stock.

It has hardly looked back since, but it probably should, and probably will.

Honest Liberal: Job Losses Under Obama Continue Worst In Post-War Period

So Calculated Risk, here, an honest liberal:

This [chart] shows the depth of the recent employment recession - worse than any other post-war recession - and the relatively slow recovery due to the lingering effects of the housing bust and financial crisis.

I say that Obama's done doodleysquat!

Compared to George W. Bush's long jobs recession, or any other jobs recession since the Great Depression, Obama's jobs recession will forever live as a monument to what one man who hates capitalism can do to a country by simply doing doodleysquat to fix it, and plenty to hinder it.

An Historicist Explanation Of Fascism Which Unintentionally Describes America

Seen here:

"Fascism resulted from the mobilization of mass armies, the creation of command economies, and the problem of reintegrating veterans into war-torn societies."

Is there a better explanation than this for what happened in America since The Great Depression, whose presidents have drawn their inspiration, now more, now less, from the strong men of Europe as mediated through the legacy of FDR?

In America the creation of the command economy preceded the mobilization for the world war, but the twin developments set the conditions for the state's new role in American life. 

American-style fascism bloomed in The Great Depression and Second World War and then grew through the post-war cult of education, with its original GI Loan Program writ ever larger year by year with newer names and until finally nationalized under Barack Obama, who owes his political success not to the Marxist socialists who inspired and bank-rolled his education but to Chicagoans whose financial success in real estate depended upon government planning, cooperation and exploitation of the poor. He is the epitome of the strangely blended system. 

The proliferation of American fascism occurred through the decades-long expansion of minor educational institutions, cow colleges and junior colleges into degraded and degrading universities which came to elevate the promise of mere vulgar employment to the status of an educated person's learned and wise perspective. A Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education became the equivalent of one in mathematics, and the sixth grade teacher seriously asks the students today to bring an empty white business "envelop" to the next class.

If an education no longer results in gainful employment, we are told, a sin has been committed against education's one and only commandment: Thou shalt get a credential for a job. From fund-raisers who call university alumni to the Rush Limbaughs and Dave Ramseys of the world, an education in a traditional department of human knowledge which fails to lead to employment is useless and worthless.  

Today there are hopeful signs of acute crisis in this consensus even as it reaches its zenith.

Participants graduate with crushing loads of debt in a new environment of depressed wages, long before they have good jobs, spouses, homes, cars and children.

And while the fields of graduates are white unto harvest and they continue to be recruited on-site by big businesses, many of which are responsible for key program funding for the system itself, the number of available jobs has shrunk dramatically as low American GDP resembles present day Europe more than it does its own much more vibrant past. It's as if the system has reached its limit to perpetuate itself.

The lesser products of the universities end up as functionaries in government union shops in the public school system or as media mouthpieces whose job it is to promote the jobs message, but declining tax revenues in the states and diffusion of media due to technology change the calculus for career-minded teachers and "information" workers. As we've seen in Wisconsin, the people who must pay and pay and pay again have had enough. And today's pad will doubtless become yesterday's laptop.

Those not yet quite up to the college experience who can't get an assembly line job because there aren't any may hope to join the military with the promise of money for education later, after the tour of duty. But the prospects for duty look less likely to include personnel-rich adventurism going forward as drone-war proliferates. Out-of-shape teenagers and malcontents in any event will find it increasingly difficult to join a shrinking all-volunteer military.

The failure of faith in the cult of education will necessarily precede the demise of the system, and it appears to be accomplishing this all by itself by not delivering on its promise. It wouldn't be the first time, but you'd need a useless degree to appreciate that. 

Romney Again Defends TARP, Says Bush, Not Obama, Prevented Depression

Romney's complete and utter nonsense from yesterday, quoted here:

"There was a fear that the whole economic system of America would collapse -- that all of our banks, or virtually all, would go out of business."

"In that circumstance, President Bush and Hank Paulson said we've got to do something to show we're not going to let the whole system go out of business. I think they were right. I know some people disagree with me. I think they were right to do that."

"I keep hearing the president say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression."

"No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening."

Never mind the stock market nose-dived after TARP was passed, millions more lost their jobs, housing went into the toilet and stayed there, and 2008-2009 were back-to-back years of GDP declines. A small depression, but a depression nonetheless.

And never mind that George W. Bush himself characterized his own actions as abandoning free market principles in order to save the free market system. As senators, both John McCain and Barack Obama voted for the measures Bush signed.

This was liberalism in action, not conservatism. And Romney the corporate raider is just fine with it, as are over 4 million Republican primary voters to date.

But over 6 million Republican primary voters to date disagree, voting for Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Still others have voted for candidates not named Romney who have dropped out of the race.

Romney seems bound and determined to subdue the base of the Republican Party, as John McCain before him.

Therefore he will lose to Barack Obama. 

The 2010s Will Be Grim, a Depression of Spectacular Severity

So says Martin Hutchinson (who blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression) for the Asia Times:

[T]he 2010s will be a grim decade, because the transitional and wealth effects of eliminating the government debt markets that have formed the centerpiece of the last three centuries will be enormous - a Reinhart/Rogoff depression of spectacular severity.

Bond market investors, take note.

Read the rest here.

US Homeownership Rate Falls at a Great Depression-Like Rate

So says a story here, but written to obscure that fact:

[T]he U.S. may never return to its mid-decade housing boom peak in which nearly 70 percent of occupied households were owned by their residents. ...

Nationwide, the homeownership rate fell to 65.1 percent - or 76 million occupied housing units that were owned by their residents - from 66.2 percent in 2000. That drop-off of 1.1 percentage points is the largest since 1940, when homeownership plummeted 4.2 percentage points during the Great Depression to a low of 43.6 percent.

Since 1940, the number of Americans owning homes had steadily increased in each decennial census due to a mostly booming economy, favorable tax laws and easier financing. The one exception had been 1980-1990, when ownership remained unchanged at 64.2 percent.


So the recent drop to 65.1 from nearly 70 is 4.9 points (not even mentioned!), or 7 percent, compared with a Great Depression drop to 43.6 from 47.8 (again, not mentioned!), or 8.8 percent.

Instead, the article spins the story with the statistical irrelevancy of the homeownership rate in the year 2000, evidently because the 2000s was the bubble decade, which doesn't count, unless George Bush did it, if it's bad thing.

Another deliberate diversion by AP Obama. 

Reuters' Mike Dolan Gets It Wrong On Depressions

The relevant passage from his story here on the recent debate about whether we've had, face, or are in a depression makes a real hash of it:

But search for a precise definition of economic depression and you'll be hard pressed to find anything more specific than it's more severe than typical business cycle recessions, tends to cross multiple countries and lasts much longer.

Anecdotal rules of thumb -- cited in The Economist magazine and elsewhere -- center on a peak to trough drop in real gross domestic product of more than 10 percent or recessions lasting more than three years.

On that measure, the 1929-1933 Great Depression in the United States qualifies with a 27 percent loss of GDP and a peak unemployment rate of some 25 percent. The shorter 1937 and 1945 downturns qualify on the GDP measure alone too.

"Hard pressed"? The most useful rule of thumb learned way back in my childhood is not even mentioned: back-to-back years with GDP declines, on the analogy of recessions, which are back-to-back quarters with GDP declines. String out a recession long enough with annual GDP failing to surpass a previous high and you have a depression.

People may have to disagree about such definitions, but not about the data behind the theory.

The GDP decline of the 1929 depression is not correctly represented by the writer. Nominal GDP in 1929 was $103.6 billion, falling to its nadir in 1933 to $56.4 billion, a 45.56 percent drop, not 27 percent as the author states. It took until 1941 to surpass 1929 GDP.

Nor did GDP decline from 1937 to 1938 by more than 10 percent. It declined by 6.3 percent, from $91.9 billion to $86.1 billion. But GDP in 1939 exceeded that achieved in 1937, technically not a depression within a depression because there weren't back-to-back years of GDP decline.

And the GDP decline between 1945 and 1946 was a measly 0.36 percent, falling to $222.2 billion from $223 billion. The $1.9 billion decline between 1948 and 1949 was only 0.71 percent.

Missing from the story are the real 10 percent or greater depressions in the 20th century apart from The Great one: the depression of 1907-1911, when nominal GDP fell by 11.1 percent; and the depression of 1920-1925, when GDP fell almost 17 percent. Prohibition, dontchaknow. The roaring '20s were really a lot shorter than ten years.

If the 2008-2009 depression will compare to anything, it will be to 1937-1938's 6.3 percent decline, or to 1913-1916 when GDP fell 6.6 percent. The problem is the numbers are still fluid. The numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis still show a nominal decline in one year only, 2009, of 1.8 percent from 2008, despite reports of larger nominal declines in 2008 from 2007 and in 2009 from 2008 in the neighborhood of 3.8 percent.

If it's pretty clear we've had at most only a very small depression, we're technically out of it in 2010 due to government spending. It's equally clear, however, that current GDP is so anemic in the aftermath that we may well repeat the episode.

The Economy Is Not The Same Thing As The Market, Or Is It?

Mark Hulbert reminds everyone here that the DOW quadrupled between July 1932 and March 1937.

He thinks analogists should think about that when drawing doomsday scenario parallels. He's surely correct that smart investors could make a lot of money if today's market replays the DOW from that period in The Great Depression.

But that's one hell of a big "if".

I don't buy the analogy.

For one thing, the Shiller p/e ratio then had fallen way below 10 to the near rock bottom levels near 5 once seen in 1920-1921. Today we're still around 19.

And then there's the little matter of GDP.

Having fallen from $103.6 billion in 1929 to $58.7 billion at the end of 1932, GDP began to rise again in 1934, reaching $91.9 billion by the close of 1937. From the GDP low of $56.4 billion in 1933, GDP rose nearly 63 percent in just four years of the DOW's five year cyclical bull recovery in that secular bear during the 1930s. Today growth is mired in the vicinity of 1 percent, after a decade of average annual growth of 1.67 percent. That was a raging fire then. We've only lit a match.

The depression of 2008-2009 was much too small by comparison to 1929-1940 to draw any meaningful parallels: a 46 percent drop in GDP over four years today would mean reducing our $15 trillion economy by nearly $7 trillion. We didn't drop even a half trillion dollars from GDP in 2009. And the last time the p/e ratio got close to the low 1921 and 1932 levels was in 1982.

We've had a little depression. A little growth and a little gain in the markets would seem to follow.

But since government can screw up a two-car funeral, anything is possible. 

Can No One Tell The Truth, Even About The Great Depression?

Seen here:

Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. gross domestic product contracted by around 30%.

Where the hell does that come from?

In 1929 GDP was $103.6 billion. By the end of 1933 GDP had declined to $56.4 billion. That's a decline of over 45 percent, not "around 30 percent."

Matthew Lynn for Marketwatch.com is talking about "the buying opportunity of a lifetime" at the link.

Really? With the Shiller price-to-earnings ratio at 20.43?

The buying opportunity of my lifetime was between 1973 and 1983, when the Shiller p/e ratio rattled around 10, fifty percent lower than it is today. And it just so happens that I didn't have any money to invest in those years like I do today because of a lifetime of saving.

Not even March 2009 was the buying opportunity of a lifetime, when the Shiller p/e fell to around 15.

If you are wise you will keep your powder dry until you see the whites in their eyes, so to speak, when we get to 10. But even then, can you live with yourself if you pull the trigger and then a total market collapse like 1929 brings the p/e closer to 5?

Well, can ya?

Remember the one true thing of Keynesianism: markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. A decline from 10 to 5 can wipe out 50 percent of what you have.

There is nothing which cannot repeat itself, because human nature does not change.

Net Return On Massive Secret Loans To Biggest Banks By Federal Reserve Was Barely 1 Percent During Subprime Meltdown Between 2007 and 2009

Bloomberg has the story here.

This while home buyers in the US in 2007 with excellent credit were paying 6 percent or more for 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

Here's the propaganda line from the article:

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money, about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages.

But the depression wasn't averted, no matter how much lipstick Bloomberg tries to put on this pig:

While the 18-month U.S. recession that ended in June 2009 after a 5.1 percent contraction in gross domestic product was nowhere near the four-year, 27 percent decline between August 1929 and March 1933, banks and the economy remain stressed.

Instead of "banks and the economy remain stressed," how about, "it was a depression nevertheless"? We now know thanks to revised GDP numbers released by the government in its annual revision in July that GDP went slightly negative for the first time in 2008, followed by a substantial negative GDP report for 2009. Two back to back years of negative GDP are a depression, just as surely as two back to back quarters of negative GDP are a recession. Clearly not the Great Depression, but a depression nonetheless.

Yet we still can't bring ourselves to say it.

As usual, the banks are ground zero for depression, whether it's under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which was meant to prevent booms and busts, or not:

Data gleaned from 29,346 pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and from other Fed databases of more than 21,000 transactions make clear for the first time how deeply the world’s largest banks depended on the U.S. central bank to stave off cash shortfalls. Even as the firms asserted in news releases or earnings calls that they had ample cash, they drew Fed funding in secret, avoiding the stigma of weakness.

Why do you think there's been such a flight to cash ever since, first by the banks, then by the corporations, and now by the citizenry, always the last to know?

Nothing has changed, and nothing has been fixed. 

Debt that can be repaid might be. What cannot be repaid won't be. Not ever. And that's what depressions in real capitalist economies are for: quick, dirty and nasty little episodes of failure which reset the chess board. Except we can't seem to accept that because we're not really a capitalist society anymore, which is why this sorry tale keeps dragging on.

Who Will Buy Your Crappy Ass-et: Megan McArdle, or Jesus?

Have you lost your soul? Were you just your job? Are you fit for nothing now, a drag on society, a problem that can't be solved?

Megan McArdle thinks so, and her barren, soulless assumptions lead straight to war, to the gulag, and to the ovens where the unproductive assets of humanity can be "soaked up." In the language of the dismal economist, liquidated:

"Human capital is like almost any other form of capital: it is a depreciating asset. The longer you stay out of the workforce, the less valuable you are to potential employers. You lose market intelligence and industry connections. Your technical knowledge and skills atrophy.

"I was unemployed for basically two years between . . . 2001 . . . and . . . 2003. ... I felt the isolation and the desperate fear of everyone who doesn't have a 'real job', the people who don't know how they're going to earn enough over the next forty years to keep body and soul together.  I experienced real despair for the first time in my life. And it changed me, permanently.

"... What really matters is how it changed my outlook on the world. I became afraid then in a way that has never really left me. I obsess about economic security.  I catastrophize small setbacks. ...

"There was also the crushing sense of isolation, and failure. ...

"[M]illions of people, staring into the abyss of an empty future.  We don't know how to re-employ them. The last time this happened, in the Great Depression, World War II eventually came along and soaked up everyone in the labor force who could breathe and carry a toolbag.  I hope to God we're not going to do that again, so what are we going to do with all these people?

-- Megan McArdle, here

Such is the way of death. Many are they who walk in it. But there is a way where there is no fear, where everyone is valued, not for what they do, but for who they are, for whom the future is full because God inhabits it: 

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.

-- Matthew 6:25-34

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

-- Mark 8:35-36

Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

-- Matthew 11:28

Liberals Deliberately Conflate Extension of Bush Tax Rates With New Cuts

As here. It's their, well, job to lie like this.

Steve Benen still expects us to believe that a reduction in the top rate from 39 percent to 35 percent, ten years ago, was a massive cut?

It would be nice if we could have some Republicans today actually proposing reducing top marginal tax rates to say, 28 percent. Now that would be a cut. But massive? From 70 percent, and 50 percent, yes (for a brief, shining moment under G.H.W. Bush, when 'Read My Lips. No New Taxes.' meant raising them anywhere north from 28 percent). But cutting taxes now anywhere south from 35 percent would be a massive cut? Puh-leeze.

Of course things haven't improved since the Bush tax rates were extended, temporarily. Nothing has changed.

Unless of course the Republicans want to argue that the extension averted another Great Depression.

But only Democrats could say such things with a straight face.

Barry Ritholtz Can't Even Spell Other People's Book Titles Properly

His latest demonstration of illiteracy is here (which I rather like to point out now and again since Ritholtz seems to think he's God's appointed corrector of innumeracy--what's so great about being able to count when you can't read or write, either?):

The Case Shiller chart showing home prices in the 1920s or 30s does not use actual sales data, but are [sic] hypothesized by Prof Shiller in his book Irrational Exuberence.

On the substantive issue, Ritholtz is right to stress that there are problems comparing the two eras since data are not complete for the past in the same way that they are today for many things.

I rather liked one commenter's response to this post, objecting to the obvious straw man argument among other things: 

Mark A. Sadowski Says: 

June 1st, 2011 at 10:19 am

There’s a couple of problems with this post.

1) You’re conflating the claim that residential housing has done worse with the claim that this recession is as bad as the Great Depression. These are two seperate [ah, that would be "separate"] claims and one does not imply the other.

2) The relative absence of mortgages in the Great Depression would have greatly reduced the foreclosure problem relative to our own times.

3) High end real estate in Manhattan [!] in the 1930s was not a proxy for housing nationally.

Grebler, Blank and Winnick constructed a fairly decent index of nominal housing prices nationally (Shiller uses it). It fell 30.5% from 1925 to 1933.

http://www.nber.org/books/greb56-1

In contrast the S&P/Case-Shiller index has fallen 34.0% from 2006Q2 through 2010Q4.

Moreover your claim ignores the fact that there was considerable deflation in everything during the Great Depression. Taking into account the CPI, real housing prices only fell 12.6% from 1925 through 1932. In contrast real housing prices have fallen 40.1% this time around (so far).

P.S. For comparison[']s sake on the 67% decline in housing prices in Manhatten [Manhattan] between 1929Q3 and the end of 1932, consider the city of Las Vegas today. From peak in April 2006 to present housing prices in Las Vegas have fallen 58.4%. Adjusting for CPI the decline in housing prices in Manhatten [Manhattan] in the early 1930s is 57% whereas the decline in Las Vegas today it is 62.7% (so far).

If Ritholtz is so smart, how come it's not called the Case/Ritholtz index?

Now wasn't that fun? 

Housing Price Declines About 6.5 Percent Worse Than Great Depression

As reported here, quoting Paul Dales, senior economist at Capital Economics:

“On the Case-Shiller measure, prices are now 33% below the 2006 peak and are back at a level last seen in the third quarter of 2002. This means that prices have now fallen by more than the 31% decline endured during the Great Depression.”

The article concludes that it is probably even worse than that, if current modest inflation is factored in compared to the  deflation prevalent in the 1930s. 

Yeah, Thanks Bernanke

"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything."

"We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it."

"We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under. The technology frontier is limited right now. We definitely have an innovation slowdown and the economy’s gonna suffer."

"Any bears out there better be careful because the dividend yields on these stocks look awesome relative to all the other investment vehicles out there. So bears are going to have to find a new way to express their discontent with the U.S. economy."

-- Peter Yastrow, market strategist, quoted here

These guys keep talking their book, which is the Fed's book, which is the politicians' book, until, you know, we vote them out of office. "Don't fight the Fed" is their number one rule.

Why do we have to find a new way to express our discontent? What's wrong with expressing our discontent in the usual way, like we've been doing? You don't want us to march in the streets again, do you? We aren't buying anything, we aren't traveling anywhere, eating out, investing, or working for a paycheck. In short, we're on strike. Howdoyalikethemapples, chump?

The only thing we can do is plant. And wait. And vote. And we're really looking forward to voting again.

Or have you forgotten last November?

Growth in 2000s 38 Percent Lower Than 1930s

Louis Woodhill doesn't much like the Paul Ryan plan because of "static analysis," here, but fails to note that Ryan's is an intellectual and political concession to the status quo. This has been the GOP's problem for decades, and why we perceive the party to be "moderate" and a paler reflection of liberalism. Why vote for that when you can get the real thing from Democrats?

Unsurpisingly, support for the Ryan plan is overwhelming in the over-55 set, for whom the plan changes nothing. Those who stand to lose under it, however, and lose votes, understandably don't like it. America's problem has been and remains addiction to socialism. That Ryan is trying to chip away at this is really what drives liberals crazy, but America simply cannot afford to continue spending $30,000 per year subsidizing every retiree in the country.

Woodhill unintentionally provides support for this point in his brief history of economic growth, which should be a wake-up call for conservatives who need to re-assess their past support for Bush era Republicanism. 

Average real annual rates of growth by decade:

1930s: 2.71 percent

1940s: 5.57 percent

1950s: 3.50 percent

1960s: 4.20 percent

1970s: 3.18 percent

1980s: 3.24 percent

1990s: 3.40 percent

2000s: 1.67 percent

"This last number is shocking. Our real growth rate in the 2000s was less than half of the average (3.5 percent) from 1930 to 2000, and it was 38 percent lower than that of the 'Great Depression' decade of the 1930s."

Yes, the 2000s, when George W. Bush out-liberaled the liberals and expanded government more than at any time since the Great Society programs of the 1960s, with his massive "drugs for seniors" program. Why, he even got liberals to vote for two wars at the same time. Talk about guns and butter.

No wonder Democrat liberals hate him. No wonder growth went nowhere.

RC Whalen Wants Us To Declare FDR's 'Emergency' Over Already

Some excerpts:

President Herbert Hoover said of the New Deal that it was an attempt to crossbreed Socialism, Fascism and Free Enterprise, part of a collectivist revolution led by FDR and carried within the Trojan horse of economic emergency. ...

The second half of volume three of President Hoover’ s memoir, The Great Depression, contains a scathing critique of his successor -- and also an admission of personal responsibility for the catastrophe. It features several times the word “ fascism ” to describe many Roosevelt-era prescriptions for fighting the Depression, a blunt reminder that much of what FDR did during these dark years was borrowed from the strong men of Europe — Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Stalin in Russia.

Don't miss the rest, here.

Decline in Housing Values Slightly Worse Than Great Depression

According to CNBC.com and Zillow, here:

Home values have fallen 26 percent since their peak in June 2006, worse than the 25.9-percent decline seen during the Depression years between 1928 and 1933, Zillow reported.

November marked the 53rd consecutive month (4 ½ years) that home values have fallen.


Sounds like an historic opportunity to me.