Gold/Silver Soar - Depression Coming?
Voltronicus
bgg
> Things don't look good.
Is this your entry in the understatement of the year contest?
Voltronicus
Was that your entry in the asshole of the year contest?
Arizona Coin Collector
"Voltronicus" <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a34fcbe-cf04-4168...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Things don't look good.
Hello
You can blame the 109th Congress of the 1990's for
the problems we now have. Read the information below.
The Glass-Steagall Act repeal was lead by a one, Senator
Phil Grame. He is now John McCain economic advisor at
this time.
Unemployment during the Great Depresson ran from 9.0
percent to 25.0 percent. We are only three percentage
points from being 9.0 percent unemployment.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
FROM:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp
In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and
during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great
Depression, two members of Congress put their names on
what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). This
act separated investment and commercial banking
activities. At the time, "improper banking activity", or
what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement
in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of
the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial
banks took on too much risk with depositors' money.
Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the
Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned
whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial
services firms that can equally compete against each other.
We will take a look at why the GSA was established and what
led to its final repeal in 1999.
Reasons for the Act - Commercial Speculation
Commercial banks were accused of being too speculative in
the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing
their assets but also because they were buying new issues
for resale to the public. Thus, banks became greedy, taking
on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking
itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound
loans were issued to companies in which the bank had
invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those
same stocks.
Effects of the Act - Creating Barriers
Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary and the
founder of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, was the primary
force behind the GSA. Henry Bascom Steagall was a House of
Representatives member and chairman of the House Banking and
Currency Committee. Steagall agreed to support the act with
Glass after an amendment was added permitting bank deposit
insurance (this was the first time it was allowed).
As a collective reaction to one of the worst financial crises
at the time, the GSA set up a regulatory firewall between
commercial and investment bank activities, both of which
were curbed and controlled. Banks were given a year to decide
on whether they would specialize in commercial or in
investment banking. Only 10% of commercial banks' total
income could stem from securities; however, an exception
allowed commercial banks to underwrite government-issued
bonds. Financial giants at the time such as JP Morgan and
Company, which were seen as part of the problem, were
directly targeted and forced to cut their services and,
hence, a main source of their income. By creating this
barrier, the GSA was aiming to prevent the banks' use of
deposits in the case of a failed underwriting job.
The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the
financial community, and it was reported that even Glass
himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was
passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.
..
bgg
Shucks. I was just agreeing with you... :)
Voltronicus
Sorry.
Kenneth Zinger
news:5a34fcbe-cf04-4168...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Translation: I, Voltronicus am an imbecile who likes to state the obvious
just to hear the fart noises flatulate out of my facehole.
bgg
NP. As it turns out, I was way nicer than the next guy.
Longnine009
"Voltronicus" <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a34fcbe-cf04-4168...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I'm going to buy stock in a company that
sells air freshener. I figure by the time Laurel
and Hardy finish unloading wallstreets toxic
waste dumps in every taxpayers living room
sales of Air Freshener will be booming.
That can even be a campaign promise you know:
"A can Air Freshener on every shelf." And more
promises of vouchers for anyone with chee-drins. :)
sgt23
wrote:
> "Voltronicus" <fwdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why not invest in tombstones, they're probably going to be alot of
early graves soon. Yeah I know its an ugly comment but alot of people
killed them selves back in 1929. Might also try food stocks like
General Meals or who ever makes the Ramon noodles. They're will be
alot of people buying them types of food if they market gets much
worse.
Mr. Jaggers
Please cite a reliable source to back up your claim regarding Depression-era
suicide statistics. Anecdotal sensationalism and urban myths do not count
extra. If you succeed, it will contradict everything I learned in a
graduate course in U.S. History.
James
sgt23
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well lets see, I've heard about people who lost alot of money during
the great depression actually sticking a gun to they're head and
blowing they're brains out on the discovery channel, the history
channel, and even in my high school history class. I have no statics
on it, but from what I heard they was alot suicides "more than
average" during the depression. The General meals is something I heard
on from Cramer the guy who has a show on cnbc, I'm pretty sure you
probably know who that is. Then the Ramon noodles I came up on my own,
because they are cheap, and that is what most college students eat who
are broke without much money. If you would like dispute the last two,
then go to them about it not me!
sgt23
Publisher: Eleanore Rosevelt National Historical Site
Author: Unknown
Date of Publish: 2003
Here is article discussing the suicide rate on paragraph 4.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm
Voltronicus
Sarge, the nicest thing anyone can say about you is that you don't
seem to care what a complete fool you make of yourself in your semi-
literate, ill-conceived, illogical diatribes.
sgt23
>
> - Show quoted text -
No I just don't care what you think.
Voltronicus
>
> No I just don't care what you think.
Sarge I think it's just peachy keen that your mom and dad let you have
a computer in your room.
Now be a good little fellow and go to your favorite porn site and wax
the weasel.
sgt23
Glad to know you have been thinking about me that way. Very sick
fetishes you have there.
som...@some.domain
>On Sep 18, 7:54=A0am, "Longnine009" <BiteMeSpamBi...@UpukingDog.dash>
>wrote:
>> "Voltronicus" <fwdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5a34fcbe-cf04-4168...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Things don't look good.
>>
>> I'm going to buy stock in a company that
>> sells air freshener. I figure by the time Laurel
>> and Hardy finish unloading wallstreets toxic
>> waste dumps in every taxpayers living room
>> That can even be a campaign promise you know:
>> promises of vouchers for anyone =A0with chee-drins. :)
>
>Why not invest in tombstones, they're probably going to be alot of
>early graves soon. Yeah I know its an ugly comment but alot of people
>killed them selves back in 1929. Might also try food stocks like
>General Meals or who ever makes the Ramon noodles. They're will be
>alot of people buying them types of food if they market gets much
>worse.
smart money is going into the funeral business. the baby boomer die off has
already started. it will make the ww2 vets die off look tiny.
seriously, take a look at how the indie's are being bought out by chains. the
cost of funerals is going to at least quadruple in the next 20 years.
buy your plots and plans now, or saddle your children with the price of a new
car to bury you.
i've setup cremation and ash disposal. under $1000. way under.
som...@some.domain
no real evidence that it was more than a statistic anolomy.
your history lessons were correct.
the dry dive businesmen is a myth.
som...@some.domain
>On Sep 18, 7:44=A0pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>> sgt23 wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 7:54 am, "Longnine009" <BiteMeSpamBi...@UpukingDog.dash>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Voltronicus" <fwdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>..
>>
>> >>> Things don't look good.
>>
>> >> I'm going to buy stock in a company that
>> >> sells air freshener. I figure by the time Laurel
>> >> and Hardy finish unloading wallstreets toxic
>> >> waste dumps in every taxpayers living room
>> >> sales of Air Freshener will be booming.
>> >> That can even be a campaign promise you know:
>> >> "A can Air Freshener on every shelf." And more
>> >> promises of vouchers for anyone with chee-drins. :)
>>
>> > Why not invest in tombstones, they're probably going to be alot of
>> > early graves soon. Yeah I know its an ugly comment but alot of people
>> > killed them selves back in 1929. Might also try food stocks like
>> > General Meals or who ever makes the Ramon noodles. They're will be
>> > alot of people buying them types of food if they market gets much
>> > worse.
>>
>era
>> suicide statistics. =A0Anecdotal sensationalism and urban myths do not co=
>unt
>> extra. =A0If you succeed, it will contradict everything I learned in a
>> graduate course in U.S. History.
>>
>> James- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well lets see, I've heard about people who lost alot of money during
>the great depression actually sticking a gun to they're head and
>blowing they're brains out on the discovery channel, the history
>channel, and even in my high school history class. I have no statics
>on it, but from what I heard they was alot suicides "more than
>average" during the depression. The General meals is something I heard
>on from Cramer the guy who has a show on cnbc, I'm pretty sure you
>probably know who that is. Then the Ramon noodles I came up on my own,
>because they are cheap, and that is what most college students eat who
>are broke without much money. If you would like dispute the last two,
>then go to them about it not me!
Mr. Jaggers
"I've heard" does not constitute a reliable source. The story about
sticking a gun to one's head is anecdotal and does not provide insight into
a general trend unique to the Depression. "Above average" may well be true,
but how much above average? Now you've made another claim about "most
students eat ramon [sic] noodles." I can't do anything with any of this.
James
Voltronicus
Really, isn't it past your bedtime little fellow?
There, that's a good boy, stop bothering the adults.
tony cooper
<lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm
The suicide rate climbed from 14% to 17% per hundred thousand.
Based on 1930 population figures, that an increase in the number
suicides of about 37,000. (I used 1930 population because it was
easier to find. That would make the 37,000 a bit low if the
population was larger in 1932)
All suicides were not for Depression-related causes, but the spike in
number would certainly indicate that there's a strong correlation.
What did you learn in a graduate course in U.S. History that
contradicts this? I don't normally ask for cites since that infers
that you are not to be believed, but since you are asking for cites,
then you should provide one to back up your claim. What you remember
from a class is just as much anecdotal as a _New Yorker_ cartoon.
By the way, I certainly wouldn't conclude that there was a large
number of stockbrokers jumping out of office windows on or after Black
Friday. That may be urban myth. The bulk of the suicides would have
been by ordinary people suffering from depression (small "d") because
of losing their jobs, savings, homes, etc.
Additional cites:
http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3004.htm (search for Great
Depression)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080610143517.aspx
(supports the 14 to 17 percent increase)
Why should we consider the instructor in your course to be any more of
reliable source than the ones listed above? Did he have cites?
I have, by the way, also taken graduate courses.
(MBA/Northwestern/Evanson IL) It took me a few years to learn this,
but some professors are as likely to blow smoke as the bartender at
Charlie's Bar & Grill. Some feel they must produce an answer even if
they don't know one.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mr. Jaggers
According to the article, "The suicide rates increased from 14 to 17 per
100,000." Unfortunately there is no mention of how long that increase
persisted, a most important detail, nor is there any evidence shown that
ties the increase specifically to conditions brought on by the Depression.
While I don't doubt the raw statistic, I would have to question how
significant it really is. I will give you credit for coming up with this,
though.
James
Mr. Jaggers
I tried over a dozen times to say, out loud, "dry dive" and finally gave up.
I know what you mean, I just can't say it. 8>)
James the Tongue Twisted
som...@some.domain
jim carrolls people who died song has a good line about dry dives.
and a good description of one also from him in his autobiog basketball
dairies. highly reccomend that for a very different view of 1960's.
som...@some.domain
tony cooper
Just found another source which shows conflicting figures, but not a
conflict in correlation. The U.S. Bureau shows similar figures in
percentages, but they figure out to a smaller real incident number. I
don't know if my math was wrong or I used an incorrect population
figure. (I should never attempt to do math in my head.)
Still, there's a definite spike in suicides starting in 1930,
continuing to 1935, and then going down after 1940. The downward
trend started when the economy was moving back sharply upwards to the
war. While the Great Depression was over before 1940, many families
continued to have problems that were caused by the Depression for
several years more.*
http://tinyurl.com/5pxlo6
The figures are not a "a statistic anolomy" as "someone" posted, but a
definite trend. Anomalies don't last for 10 years whether or not you
spell word right.
*I'll repeat, though, that only an unknown number of suicides were
related to the economy and the fallout of the Great Depression. The
correlation is there, though.
som...@some.domain
and it's also a government blab that isn't backed up with any source material
or attributions.
it's about as valid as "i heard...."
som...@some.domain
Longnine009
"sgt23" <bravesfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e557b72d-4249-4d1c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Let them jump. Propping up cockroaches on wallstreet and
home loan borrowers who clearly can't count to twenty-one
without taking their clothes off first only keeps the stupid
genes in the gene pool--at someone else's expense.
Mr. Jaggers
14 to 17 per 100,000, not 14% to 17%. Think about the meaning of what you
wrote.
> Based on 1930 population figures, that an increase in the number
> suicides of about 37,000. (I used 1930 population because it was
> easier to find. That would make the 37,000 a bit low if the
> population was larger in 1932)
An increase from 14 to 17 per 100,000 would be an increase of 3 per 100,000,
30 per million, and about 37 hundred, not 37 thousand, per 123 million (I
found the same population, probably in the same place you did).
> All suicides were not for Depression-related causes, but the spike in
> number would certainly indicate that there's a strong correlation.
Yes, on the empirical, rather than experimental, level.
> What did you learn in a graduate course in U.S. History that
> contradicts this? I don't normally ask for cites since that infers
> that you are not to be believed, but since you are asking for cites,
> then you should provide one to back up your claim. What you remember
> from a class is just as much anecdotal as a _New Yorker_ cartoon.
It's what was NOT stated that I remember. Before I took the class, I, too,
harbored the mental image of guys jumping from tall buildings right and
left. It's the standard mythology. As intense as that class was, and
stickler for details as was the professor, I base my claim on the fact
(which, of course, I cannot verify to anyone's satisfaction) that he would
have made a big deal about it if it were true. He did not.
> By the way, I certainly wouldn't conclude that there was a large
> number of stockbrokers jumping out of office windows on or after Black
> Friday. That may be urban myth. The bulk of the suicides would have
> been by ordinary people suffering from depression (small "d") because
> of losing their jobs, savings, homes, etc.
Sounds reasonable to me.
> Additional cites:
>
> http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3004.htm (search for Great
> Depression)
>
> http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080610143517.aspx
> (supports the 14 to 17 percent increase)
It reiterates the 14 to 17 per 100,000 increase, which, incidentally,
amounts to a 21.43 percent increase. Unfortunately, the duration of that
elevation is not mentioned.
> Why should we consider the instructor in your course to be any more of
> reliable source than the ones listed above? Did he have cites?
The textbook for the course was by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. There were
several additional books of contemporary articles and commentary.
> I have, by the way, also taken graduate courses.
> (MBA/Northwestern/Evanson IL) It took me a few years to learn this,
> but some professors are as likely to blow smoke as the bartender at
> Charlie's Bar & Grill. Some feel they must produce an answer even if
> they don't know one.
I've certainly seen examples of that.
James
tony cooper
<lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>sgt23 wrote:
>> Publisher: Eleanore Rosevelt National Historical Site
>> Author: Unknown
>> Date of Publish: 2003
>>
>> Here is article discussing the suicide rate on paragraph 4.
>>
>> http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm
>
>According to the article, "The suicide rates increased from 14 to 17 per
>100,000." Unfortunately there is no mention of how long that increase
>persisted, a most important detail,
No, *when* it occurred is the most important detail. As it happens,
the increase did persist, but the timing of the spike gives ample
indication of cause.
>nor is there any evidence shown that
>ties the increase specifically to conditions brought on by the Depression.
>While I don't doubt the raw statistic, I would have to question how
>significant it really is. I will give you credit for coming up with this,
>though.
>
If you don't look for evidence, you don't find it. Have you looked
for any evidence that the ten-year rise in suicides, starting at the
beginning of the Great Depression and ending when the economy started
to boom from war production, is *not* related to the Great Depression?
Have you looked at what behavioral experts say leads to suicide? Can
you find one that doesn't include financial loss as a major cause?
"Financial loss" is an umbrella that includes loss of job, loss of
home, loss of savings, loss of the ability to support one's family,
loss of social standing, and the loss of dignity that goes along with
financial loss.
And you question if the conditions spawned by the Great Depression
could be significant?
Mr. Jaggers
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:01:38 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>> sgt23 wrote:
>>> Publisher: Eleanore Rosevelt National Historical Site
>>> Author: Unknown
>>> Date of Publish: 2003
>>>
>>> Here is article discussing the suicide rate on paragraph 4.
>>>
>>> http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm
>>
>> According to the article, "The suicide rates increased from 14 to 17
>> per 100,000." Unfortunately there is no mention of how long that
>> increase persisted, a most important detail,
>
> No, *when* it occurred is the most important detail. As it happens,
> the increase did persist, but the timing of the spike gives ample
> indication of cause.
Please note my use of "a" as opposed to "the." In addition, you are using a
post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. Your conclusion may be the correct
one, but your path in arriving at it is quite faulty.
>> nor is there any evidence shown that
>> ties the increase specifically to conditions brought on by the
>> Depression. While I don't doubt the raw statistic, I would have to
>> question how significant it really is. I will give you credit for
>> coming up with this, though.
>>
> If you don't look for evidence, you don't find it. Have you looked
> for any evidence that the ten-year rise in suicides, starting at the
> beginning of the Great Depression and ending when the economy started
> to boom from war production, is *not* related to the Great Depression?
I am not the one making the claims, thus is is not my responsibility to
"look for evidence." And now here you are asking me to prove a negative to
boot.
> http://tinyurl.com/5pxlo6
>
> Have you looked at what behavioral experts say leads to suicide? Can
> you find one that doesn't include financial loss as a major cause?
> "Financial loss" is an umbrella that includes loss of job, loss of
> home, loss of savings, loss of the ability to support one's family,
> loss of social standing, and the loss of dignity that goes along with
> financial loss.
>
> And you question if the conditions spawned by the Great Depression
> could be significant?
Read what I said, Tony. I do not doubt the raw statistic. My doubt centers
upon the statistical significance of an increase from 14 to 17, the same way
I would question a weatherman saying that the temperature "doubled" from 10
to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, an example of sheer scientific nonsense. You seem
to imply that I am casting aspersion upon the poor wretches for whom
conditions were so bad that they felt that they had to terminate their
lives. I assure you that I am not.
James
tony cooper
What isn't?
>and as stated, it is only a statistic anolomy.
The term, and the spelling, is "statistical anomaly". But it isn't.
The spike lasted for 10 years, and paralleled the Depression in time.
>and it's also a government blab that isn't backed up with any source material
>or attributions.
It's backed up by the U.S. Bureau of Census data at
http://tinyurl.com/5pxlo6
You expect your blab to be a more acceptable source?
sgt23
>
> - Show quoted text -
When did you got to school? Maybe a lot more has been found out since
then. I was just making a statement, I did not mean for this to turn
into an arguement. But I think most of the people in this group were
on a debate team at one time or another. They do like to argue alot!
Mr. Jaggers
I took the course in 1968. The Leuchtenberg text mentioned as the source in
the article you cited was published in 1963. The other source is from 1993.
I don't look at this discussion as an argument. I look at it as a search
for truth, a search that will never be entirely consummated, no matter what
the topic.
I have never been on a debate team. I speak for no one else.
I suggest that you avoid the use of the word "most." But go ahead and do
whatever makes sense to you.
James
tony cooper
That's where I made the calculation mistake that I posted about later.
When personal computers first became available/affordable, I purchased
an Archives CP/M unit (A and B drive and no internal disk) and
Visi-Calc because I've never been able to do mental calculations and
I'm too impatient to use a pencil and paper.
>> All suicides were not for Depression-related causes, but the spike in
>> number would certainly indicate that there's a strong correlation.
>
>Yes, on the empirical, rather than experimental, level.
>
>> What did you learn in a graduate course in U.S. History that
>> contradicts this? I don't normally ask for cites since that infers
>> that you are not to be believed, but since you are asking for cites,
>> then you should provide one to back up your claim. What you remember
>> from a class is just as much anecdotal as a _New Yorker_ cartoon.
>
>It's what was NOT stated that I remember. Before I took the class, I, too,
>harbored the mental image of guys jumping from tall buildings right and
>left. It's the standard mythology. As intense as that class was, and
>stickler for details as was the professor, I base my claim on the fact
>(which, of course, I cannot verify to anyone's satisfaction) that he would
>have made a big deal about it if it were true. He did not.
So what you are objecting to is the jumping out of buildings suicide
stories, and not the rise in suicides during the Depression years?
Why? Sgt's claim was about the increase in suicides, not methods of
suicide.
A stockbroker jumping out of his office window and splattering himself
on the pavement below is an visual icon of Black Friday and the
subsequent weeks, but it wasn't raining stockbrokers on Wall Street.
Desperate people in Kansas, and Ohio, and all over the country are the
ones reflected in suicide statistics.
> By the way, I certainly wouldn't conclude that there was a large
>> number of stockbrokers jumping out of office windows on or after Black
>> Friday. That may be urban myth. The bulk of the suicides would have
>> been by ordinary people suffering from depression (small "d") because
>> of losing their jobs, savings, homes, etc.
>
>Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>> Additional cites:
>>
>> http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3004.htm (search for Great
>> Depression)
>>
>> http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080610143517.aspx
>> (supports the 14 to 17 percent increase)
>
>It reiterates the 14 to 17 per 100,000 increase, which, incidentally,
>amounts to a 21.43 percent increase. Unfortunately, the duration of that
>elevation is not mentioned.
The duration is shown at http://tinyurl.com/5pxlo6. About ten years,
and the ten years the Depression covered. (You can date the
beginning, but not the end. Depressions go out with a whimper and not
with a bang. Most economists agree that the Depression continued, to
some degree, up until at least 1940/41. People were still jobless,
homeless, and broke until the beginning of the 40s when the war
brought a economical revival.
>
>> Why should we consider the instructor in your course to be any more of
>> reliable source than the ones listed above? Did he have cites?
>
>The textbook for the course was by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. There were
>several additional books of contemporary articles and commentary.
Then cite Schlesinger and not what you remember of what the course
presented. That's anecdotal and subject to interpretative hearing.
If Schlesinger wrote the text, it was probably one of the books he
wrote in 1957 and 1958 on "The Age of Roosevelt". I was in grad
school at the time those books would have been fairly fresh. I
probably have some misconceptions of what I think I was taught then.
som...@some.domain
it was a sure thing. yeah, it seems oxymoronic, but stats are are slippery.
i used to know how to spell anomaly but you know, crs.
som...@some.domain
Mr. Jaggers
So am I, that's why I keep a pocket calculator always at the ready.
>>> All suicides were not for Depression-related causes, but the spike
>>> in number would certainly indicate that there's a strong
>>> correlation.
>>
>> Yes, on the empirical, rather than experimental, level.
>>
>>> What did you learn in a graduate course in U.S. History that
>>> contradicts this? I don't normally ask for cites since that infers
>>> that you are not to be believed, but since you are asking for cites,
>>> then you should provide one to back up your claim. What you
>>> remember from a class is just as much anecdotal as a _New Yorker_
>>> cartoon.
>>
>> It's what was NOT stated that I remember. Before I took the class,
>> I, too, harbored the mental image of guys jumping from tall
>> buildings right and left. It's the standard mythology. As intense
>> as that class was, and stickler for details as was the professor, I
>> base my claim on the fact (which, of course, I cannot verify to
>> anyone's satisfaction) that he would have made a big deal about it
>> if it were true. He did not.
>
> So what you are objecting to is the jumping out of buildings suicide
> stories, and not the rise in suicides during the Depression years?
> Why? Sgt's claim was about the increase in suicides, not methods of
> suicide.
That's what I said up above. Look for yourself, or trust me on this direct
self-quote: "Please cite a reliable source to back up your claim regarding
Depression-era suicide statistics."
> A stockbroker jumping out of his office window and splattering himself
> on the pavement below is an visual icon of Black Friday and the
> subsequent weeks, but it wasn't raining stockbrokers on Wall Street.
> Desperate people in Kansas, and Ohio, and all over the country are the
> ones reflected in suicide statistics.
I didn't express or imply anything to the contrary. I expressed a common,
but mistaken, view held by people around me and, by extension, myself, while
I was growing up. I have since disabused myself of that view.
>> By the way, I certainly wouldn't conclude that there was a large
>>> number of stockbrokers jumping out of office windows on or after
>>> Black Friday. That may be urban myth. The bulk of the suicides
>>> would have been by ordinary people suffering from depression (small
>>> "d") because of losing their jobs, savings, homes, etc.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>>> Additional cites:
>>>
>>> http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3004.htm (search for Great
>>> Depression)
>>>
>>> http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080610143517.aspx
>>> (supports the 14 to 17 percent increase)
>>
>> It reiterates the 14 to 17 per 100,000 increase, which, incidentally,
>> amounts to a 21.43 percent increase. Unfortunately, the duration of
>> that elevation is not mentioned.
>
> The duration is shown at http://tinyurl.com/5pxlo6. About ten years,
> and the ten years the Depression covered. (You can date the
> beginning, but not the end. Depressions go out with a whimper and not
> with a bang. Most economists agree that the Depression continued, to
> some degree, up until at least 1940/41. People were still jobless,
> homeless, and broke until the beginning of the 40s when the war
> brought a economical revival.
Well, now we're getting somewhere. It took my insistence to get this
information out, that's why I act the way I do.
But isn't it odd that the chart shows a rather dramatic increase between
1920 and 1925?
>>
>>> Why should we consider the instructor in your course to be any more
>>> of reliable source than the ones listed above? Did he have cites?
>>
>> The textbook for the course was by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. There
>> were several additional books of contemporary articles and
>> commentary.
>
> Then cite Schlesinger and not what you remember of what the course
> presented. That's anecdotal and subject to interpretative hearing.
> If Schlesinger wrote the text, it was probably one of the books he
> wrote in 1957 and 1958 on "The Age of Roosevelt". I was in grad
> school at the time those books would have been fairly fresh. I
> probably have some misconceptions of what I think I was taught then.
I no longer own a copy of the Schlesinger book, so I am unable to cite it at
this time. Even if I did, I would have to quote the entire contents to
prove that it does not contain any statements about suicide during the Great
Depression, and then you would have to read the entire contents to verify
that I was telling the truth. Tell you what, if I am ever in a position to
again acquire a copy of that text, I will purchase it and mail it to you.
I'll even pay the postage.
James
tony cooper
<lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>>> nor is there any evidence shown that
>>> ties the increase specifically to conditions brought on by the
>>> Depression. While I don't doubt the raw statistic, I would have to
>>> question how significant it really is. I will give you credit for
>>> coming up with this, though.
>>>
>> If you don't look for evidence, you don't find it. Have you looked
>> for any evidence that the ten-year rise in suicides, starting at the
>> beginning of the Great Depression and ending when the economy started
>> to boom from war production, is *not* related to the Great Depression?
>
>I am not the one making the claims, thus is is not my responsibility to
>"look for evidence." And now here you are asking me to prove a negative to
>boot.
Of course it's your responsibility. You aren't "Sgt", or "someone",
or "Voltrinicus". You're an articulate, educated, person that is
capable of mounting a viable rebuttal to a statement that you feel is
erroneous. If you can, you should if you are going to question the
statement. I am not asking you to "prove" a negative; I am asking you
to provide some justification for your position that the statistics
cannot be attributed to the Depression.
>
>Read what I said, Tony. I do not doubt the raw statistic. My doubt centers
>upon the statistical significance of an increase from 14 to 17,
When the increase is greater than 20% , and the numbers stay up during
a period where there is a observable event that could cause the
increase, and the number drops down when the effects of the event
diminish, you are pretty safe in saying that there is significance in
the figures.
Mr. Jaggers
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:07:44 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> nor is there any evidence shown that
>>>> ties the increase specifically to conditions brought on by the
>>>> Depression. While I don't doubt the raw statistic, I would have to
>>>> question how significant it really is. I will give you credit for
>>>> coming up with this, though.
>>>>
>>> If you don't look for evidence, you don't find it. Have you looked
>>> for any evidence that the ten-year rise in suicides, starting at the
>>> beginning of the Great Depression and ending when the economy
>>> started to boom from war production, is *not* related to the Great
>>> Depression?
>>
>> I am not the one making the claims, thus is is not my responsibility
>> to "look for evidence." And now here you are asking me to prove a
>> negative to boot.
>
> Of course it's your responsibility. You aren't "Sgt", or "someone",
> or "Voltrinicus". You're an articulate, educated, person that is
> capable of mounting a viable rebuttal to a statement that you feel is
> erroneous. If you can, you should if you are going to question the
> statement. I am not asking you to "prove" a negative; I am asking you
> to provide some justification for your position that the statistics
> cannot be attributed to the Depression.
Where did I say that the statistics "cannot" be attributed to the
Depression? My objective is not to disprove the claim that there is a
correlation, but to require him who made the claim to provide evidence to
back it up. He began by providing a link to an article, and that was good
so far as it went. Your entry into this has introduced many more variables.
The chart you linked has provided some insight into the issue that wasn't
there before. Thanks for that! But sorry, my worldview is based on
scientific methodology, and by that methodology I can no more "disprove"
that there is a correlation than I can "disprove" that there is a God. The
default value is always "no correlation" until experimental evidence is
presented to indicate otherwise. At that point a valid theory can begin to
take shape, and that's now what I see happening here.
>> Read what I said, Tony. I do not doubt the raw statistic. My doubt
>> centers upon the statistical significance of an increase from 14 to
>> 17,
>
> When the increase is greater than 20% , and the numbers stay up during
> a period where there is a observable event that could cause the
> increase, and the number drops down when the effects of the event
> diminish, you are pretty safe in saying that there is significance in
> the figures.
"Pretty" being the operative word here, as its definition can slosh around
quite a bit, I will allow the point. It's been fun, but the Arms of
Morpheus beckon...
Jamezzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........
Kenneth Zinger
reliable source to back up your claim regarding Depression-era suicide
statistics. Anecdotal sensationalism and urban myths do not count extra.
If you succeed, it will contradict everything I learned in a graduate course
in <U.S. History.
Jaggers, you are a complete moron. Where the hell did you attend graduate
school? Deaf, Dumb & Blind University? You must have learned how to
believe instead of learning how to think.
Kenneth Zinger
"Breadlines and Hoovervilles (homeless encampments) appeared across the
nation."
That was a good article. I find it ironic that the media today reported on
"Tent Cities" popping up just in the last month on the outskirts of many
American cities. They are being referred to as "Bushvilles".
Kenneth Zinger
students eat ramon [sic] noodles." I can't do anything <with any of this.
Jaggers is waiting on a government funded study conducted at Harvard on the
"consumption of Ramen noodles by impoverished college students" before he
decides whether your Ramen theory has merit.
Kenneth Zinger
a buck mac and cheese. still makes me queasy.
We need corroborating statements from your former classmates and roommates
before we can consider your above statement as factual. Also, a vintage
film of you and your fellow students eating generic brand mac & cheese would
further validate what you stated above. I would refer to this as the
"Jagger Method of Proof".
Kenneth Zinger
over the course of the entire depression. but
> no real evidence that it was more than a statistic anolomy.
> your history lessons were correct.
> the dry dive businesmen is a myth.
Maybe Jaggers was right then, since someone of your high intellectual
prowess says there were no jumpers.
Kenneth Zinger
source to back up your claim regarding Depression-era
> suicide statistics. Anecdotal sensationalism and urban myths do not count
> extra. If you succeed, it will contradict everything I learned in a
> graduate course in U.S. History.
The New York Times averages for fifty leading stocks had been almost cut in
half, falling from a high of 311.90 in September to a low of 164.43 on
November 13th; and the Times averages for twenty-five leading industrials
had fared still worse, diving from 469.49 to 220.95. The Big Bull Market was
dead. Billions of dollars' of profits - and paper profits - had disappeared.
The grocer, the window-cleaner, and the seamstress had lost their capital.
In every town there were families which had suddenly dropped from showy
affluence into debt. Investors who had dreamed of retiring to live on their
fortunes now found themselves back once more at the very beginning of the
long road to riches. Day by day the newspapers printed the grim reports of
suicides.
- Frederick Lewis Allen
Encyclopedia Brittanica
Wall Street Crash of 1929 - October
"On October 21, an amendment to impose tariffs only on agricultural imports
was defeated. Three days later..." [4]
"Three days later the stock market suffered its first one-day crash." [5] A
record 13 million shares were traded.
The market was crashing and the floor of the NYSE was in a state of panic.
By noon on Black Thursday, there had been eleven suicides of fairly
prominent investors.
John Mazor
"Longnine009" <BiteMeS...@UpukingDog.dash> wrote in message
news:v_DAk.37911$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You missed a big difference between now and the Depression. Nowadays
when the top honchos jump or are pushed off the ledge, they have gold
or even platinum parachutes and already have socked away millions in
hard assets to console them in their later years. Their worker bees
may get screwed in the fall-out, but most of the big boys will cry all
the way to the bank.
And not all the blame for people getting in over their heads on their
mortgages is attributable to ignorance and greed. They were lied to,
and even the average person can't always be expected to understand all
the fine print in such fraudulent sales pitches. They shouldn't be
totally let off the hook but your assessment is way too simplistic.
Which is bad because it suggests that in the future, the victims of
such frauds won't include "average" Americans and therefore we don't
need to worry about protecting them ("us"), we can just let the
dummies at the far left of the bell curve fend for themselves.
Voltronicus
> And not all the blame for people getting in over their heads on their mortgages is attributable to ignorance and greed. They were lied to, and even the average person can't always be expected to understand all the fine print in such fraudulent sales pitches. They shouldn't be totally let off the hook but your assessment is way too simplistic.
Completely wrong-headed thinking. Completely!
Is it too much to expect a person making what will probably be the
largest purchase in their life makes every effort to understand
exactly what they are getting into?
If they were lied to, it was because they wanted to believe the lie.
They wanted something for almost nothing.
Yes, the bankers who created this mess with sub-prime mortgages should
be held accountable - they are crooks.
But to imply that the home buyers aren't equally responsible is just
plain wrong.
PC
"Voltronicus" <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4784771c-4066-40cb...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Wow, I agree with Vol.
These bailouts reinforce the notion that even if you make bad and stupid
decisions with your money it will all be OK in the end. The bailouts may be
necessary, I am not qualified to really comment, but I do not like it in
principle.
MJKolodziej
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:oMqdndhJV8bqiEnV...@comcast.com...
>
> "Voltronicus" <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4784771c-4066-40cb...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 3:18 pm, "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> And not all the blame for people getting in over their heads on their
>> mortgages is attributable to ignorance and greed. They were lied to, and
>> even the average person can't always be expected to understand all the
>> fine print in such fraudulent sales pitches. They shouldn't be totally
>> let off the hook but your assessment is way too simplistic.
>
> Completely wrong-headed thinking. Completely!
> Is it too much to expect a person making what will probably be the
> largest purchase in their life makes every effort to understand
> exactly what they are getting into?
> If they were lied to, it was because they wanted to believe the lie.
> They wanted something for almost nothing.
> Yes, the bankers who created this mess with sub-prime mortgages should
> be held accountable - they are crooks.
> But to imply that the home buyers aren't equally responsible is just
> plain wrong.
IMHO you are wrong.
mk
where is all the money?
>>>>
>
> Wow, I agree with Vol.
That should be a hint to you.
mk
Voltronicus
wrote:> > "Voltronicus" <fwdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4784771c-4066-40cb...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 19, 3:18 pm, "John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> And not all the blame for people getting in over their heads on their
> >> mortgages is attributable to ignorance and greed. They were lied to, and
> >> even the average person can't always be expected to understand all the
> >> fine print in such fraudulent sales pitches. They shouldn't be totally
> >> let off the hook but your assessment is way too simplistic.
>
> > Completely wrong-headed thinking. Completely!
> > Is it too much to expect a person making what will probably be the
> > largest purchase in their life makes every effort to understand
> > exactly what they are getting into?
> > If they were lied to, it was because they wanted to believe the lie.
> > They wanted something for almost nothing.
> > Yes, the bankers who created this mess with sub-prime mortgages should
> > be held accountable - they are crooks.
> > But to imply that the home buyers aren't equally responsible is just
> > plain wrong.
>
> IMHO you are wrong.
> mk
> where is all the money?
>
>
>
> > Wow, I agree with Vol.
>
> That should be a hint to you.
> mk
>
Zinger was right about you!
PC
"MJKolodziej" <mjmwcsREMOV...@htcomp.net> wrote in message
news:lcCdnafvBeQQsUnV...@posted.hometowncomputing...
>
> That should be a hint to you.
Laugh.
Let me try and clarify our respective positions. Do you feel that if I sign
a contract, and do not understand everything I am signing, then find out
later the contract is doing me harm, I am in no way responsible?
MJKolodziej
If you fail to lock your house and all your coins are stolen are you
"equally" responsible?
I do laugh, thanks for that.
:)
mk
>
PC
Asking a question with a question... hmmm...
I guess we have here a Mexican standoff.
Voltronicus
> Let me try and clarify our respective positions. Do you feel that if I sign
> a contract, and do not understand everything I am signing, then find out
> later the contract is doing me harm, I am in no way responsible?
The home buyers were willing pawns in a game played by money-mad
soulless financial ghouls who created the sub-prime mess with
questionable loans & Wall Street scum who "securitizing" them.
Unregulated derivatives trading, hedge funds and governmental
abdication of its duty to police these crooks was just the icing on
the cake.
Why is it every time there's a Bush in the White House, there's a
financial scandal and bailout (remember the S&L crisis? John McCain
was involved in that, though he now denies it.)
sgt23
So your saying I'm uneducated? Just because I may not at this time be
able to express my thoughts as well as you due to my lack of grammar
skills. Doesn't make me any less of an artistic thanker. So get to
know someone pass the internet before you express opinions about them
or at least me anyways! Thank You
sgt23
I refer to this from what I've heard and seen, not any written facts.
Borked Pseudo Mailed
Big words from someone too stupid to have ANY assets, huh Bobbie?
tony cooper
<bravesfa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Of course it's your responsibility. You aren't "Sgt", or "someone",
>> or "Voltrinicus". You're an articulate, educated, person that is
>> capable of mounting a viable rebuttal to a statement that you feel is
>> erroneous. If you can, you should if you are going to question the
>> statement. I am not asking you to "prove" a negative; I am asking you
>> to provide some justification for your position that the statistics
>> cannot be attributed to the Depression.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Read what I said, Tony. I do not doubt the raw statistic. My doubt centers
>> >upon the statistical significance of an increase from 14 to 17,
>>
>> When the increase is greater than 20% , and the numbers stay up during
>> a period where there is a observable event that could cause the
>> increase, and the number drops down when the effects of the event
>> diminish, you are pretty safe in saying that there is significance in
>> the figures.
>
>So your saying I'm uneducated?
No, I'm not saying you are uneducated. I don't know how much
education you have.
>Just because I may not at this time be
>able to express my thoughts as well as you due to my lack of grammar
>skills. Doesn't make me any less of an artistic thanker.
True, you don't express yourself well, and you are careless in how you
do express yourself. The last sentence above demonstrates that.
> So get to
>know someone pass the internet before you express opinions about them
>or at least me anyways!
How would I do that? You think we're going to go out for a beer or
something and get to know each other personally?
MJKolodziej
>>So your saying I'm uneducated?
>
> No, I'm not saying you are uneducated. I don't know how much
> education you have.
>
>>Just because I may not at this time be
>>able to express my thoughts as well as you due to my lack of grammar
>>skills. Doesn't make me any less of an artistic thanker.
>
> True, you don't express yourself well, and you are careless in how you
> do express yourself. The last sentence above demonstrates that.
>
>> So get to
>>know someone pass the internet before you express opinions about them
>>or at least me anyways!
>
> How would I do that? You think we're going to go out for a beer or
> something and get to know each other personally?
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
I'll be designated driver.
It can be fun to watch sometimes.
:)
mk
Voltronicus
> So your saying I'm uneducated?
Yes and you're stupid too. Bad combination, I'd say!
sgt23
How about go ram a large object up your own ass!
Voltronicus
Is English not your primary language or are you just functionally
illiterate?
Longnine009
"John Mazor" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5WSAk.466$pp3.405@trnddc06...
I don't think I missed the difference. "Capitalism" has become a
exercise in debauchery. "Free markets" are now the freedom of
wallstreet whores to avoid prosecution, to keep their profits and
year end bonuses and get their two pimps at the treasury and fed
to off-load the crabs, gonorrhea and re-circulated, not so bubbly
anymore, champagne to the taxpayers. Am I close?
> And not all the blame for people getting in over their heads on their
> mortgages is attributable to ignorance and greed. They were lied to,
> and even the average person can't always be expected to understand all
> the fine print in such fraudulent sales pitches
That could be why real estate attoneys exist.
>They shouldn't be totally let off the hook but your assessment is way too
simplistic.
I agree that it's simplistic. Simply speaking the hook goes in my
back instead of theirs.
>Which is bad because it suggests that in the future, the victims of
> such frauds won't include "average" Americans and therefore we don't
> need to worry about protecting them ("us"), we can just let the
> dummies at the far left of the bell curve fend for themselves.
I hope that's what it suggests. Real capitalism isn't suppose to protect
anybody from their own stupidity--far left, far right or anyone place
in between.
>
>