"Depression of 2008" is REALITY: President Bush Confused by Economy

I do know this much: if I were advising President George W. Bush, I would not be allowing him to answer questions about the economy. What is it about this leader of "the free world" that he doesn't get properly advised about the REAL economic situation facing the United States?

Following up on my recent blog about the Depression of 2008, I now have more evidence that shows I am likely one step closer to vindication on my words. Here are the headlines on Yahoo!'s news page which show a bit of conflict and confusion within the leaders of the United States: An Associated Press story titled "Freddie Mac posts $2.5B loss in 4Q"; another AP story titled "Economy skids to near halt"; yet another from AP (business section) which says "New day, new low for dollar"; as well as (AP) "Stocks fall on weak economic data"; AND, according to Reuters, "Weak growth, job claims fuel recession fears"........these ARE just HEADLINES. Not down the page several stories - but the top of the business news. This would lead any rational human to think there is a definite problem with the economy. Hence, I feel my urgent need to point out how close my "reality" is to becoming EVERYONE ELSE'S REALITY. Well, except for maybe a few persons here and there. (You can almost feel this next paragraph coming even without my first paragraph!)

In the meantime, President George W. Bush has had a press conference going on at the White House. A great time for advisers to shut him up on the economy, indeed! The Associated Press story reads:


Bush: US is not headed into recession
AP - WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday that the country is not headed into a recession and, despite expressing concern about slowing economic growth, rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts. "We've acted robustly," he said.

I don't know what to say about the President's advisers other than to ask them questions which sound completely like an outright attack - even when that is NOT my point at all. The main question would be: "Do you NOT ALLOW the President to see, read, and hear the truth about the economic climate?" There is also: "Since he is the President and also has plenty of money with which he could one day share with you, are you keeping him as a buddy so that when you have lost all your savings you can use his wealth and stature to prop up your lives?" Well - okay - that really DID sound like an attack, but it is also a justified question since they are, after all, paid to give the President FACTUAL INFORMATION. Or is it just an assumption that he is to be told the truth?


Whatever the case, there were other pieces of news that I gleaned from the business section of the 27 February 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch. By way of the NEW YORK TIMES, the Post-Dispatch put an article by Vikas Bajaj into the Business section of the Wednesday paper which states in the headline "Housing slide gets steeper as inflation fears rise". Then the article adds that "falling house prices and the rising costs of everything else - picked up speed in data reported Tuesday, putting Federal Reserve policymakers in an increasingly tough position." The article goes on to state that the data released on Tuesday shows fresh evidence of the housing market's PROLONGED slump. A leading index of house prices in 20 cities fell by 9.1 percent in December from the same month a year earlier. Bajaj writes: "Using a three-month moving average, the index, the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller, is falling at an annual pace of more than 20 percent."
That is astounding.

More information from the article shows that the Labor Department reported that wholesale prices, which exclude taxes and distribution costs, rose ONE PERCENT in January 2008. And compared with January 2007, producer prices were up 7.4 percent!


Last week, the Labor Department said consumer prices were up 4.3 percent in January 2008.


The question: Have you received your 4.3 percent raises already this year?

When you read articles like this one, who needs more negativity in their life? Well, I'm NOT DONE with the final point of this article. Bajaj quotes Paul Ashworth, a senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, who wrote in a note to clients, as saying "February may go down in history as the month that the previously indefatigable U.S. consumer finally threw in the towel, beaten by a combination of deteriorating labor market conditions, surging prices for food and energy, and collapsing house prices."

BANG! The GUNS to the heads of the "good economy" have gone off now.

My prediction: The "regular joe" (most who make less than $30,000 per year) will rise up to tell those who have been making six-figure incomes "Ha! It's about time YOU took a giant loss on things. We've been suffering at the expense of 'the man' for about 5 years." And they'd be correct.

I wonder who is MORE ready to take a bath in red ink[???]: the "average Joe or Jane" who can't pull down $30,000 a year and has been given false hope in the so-called PRIVILEGE of "credit cards", or "the money man" who has made three to one-thousand times that amount per year over the past decade and has tied-up a significant amount in stocks while hoping the economy doesn't do what it IS doing: sink into oblivion.

Perhaps now would be the time for the "average Joe or Jane" to FILE FOR PROTECTION - bankruptcy legislation may have allegedly made it more difficult to file for protection, but that legislation probably didn't count on the economy to FAIL miserably BEFORE the November elections. Also --- wasn't that legislation supposed to protect "us" from those people who made more than average and still couldn't figure out how to manage their excess money? What of Americans who haven't been able to "make enough money" to "manage our excess money" in the first place?

"Depression of 2008" --- it will not be my legacy simply because I reported it and claimed it existed before others. It's just what I see a few weeks into this year.