economic turnout:

[Darth Apple 54]

the better way to project , opinion polls!

please vote on what you think will happen to the world economy.

by "when the economy will rexover" I mean "when will the economy be good as it was pre-rescession."

please vote.

Blakesterville.

[Duke87 1,070]

Honest answer:

Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody knows. Attempting to make predictions accomplishes nothing, better off just working on it and accepting that it will recover when it recovers.

[Legosim 14]

I think its out of the recession, but im afraid of a huge inflation, gas prices are going up again

and im fresh out of high school, trying to find a job, not much progress on that.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Years.

It collapsed becuase wages didnt increase with prices.So the recent growth was all just numbers, not real growth.

It wont recover till it totaly collapses.

[Ntq€310 1]

I believe were already out of it, and that the economy will start to see some amount of growth by this summer, however, we won't reach pre-crash days for a couple years, and there is the great chance we go into another crash brought on by high energy prices, and inflation.

[Randomtaskk 1]

By next summer no one will be worrying about it anymore, but it won't be close to pre-collapse levels, that will still take at least a good few years, more like 10.

[Darth Apple 54]

I don't believe that we are out of the recession(at least in America.)though things seem to be getting better... look at the unemployment! it is still rising , the economy is still going downhill, it is just slowing down. just because the DOW is rising is not a big indicator, though it helps , let's look at real info(particularly, unemployment rates in america(9.4%)etc...) And come to think about it, it is worse than you would expect.

Of coarse, it is getting better, I believe it is going to be fair to call it over by late fall... but the recovery is still going to be slow from there.

          This poll is based on something GOOD for the economy(like 6% unemployment rates again.(and the return of traffic jams!! uh, oh...)

I think that pre-collapse levels will arrive by a couple of years, they were quite hard to beat!

this is the simtropolis project of economic projection, lets see what the whole community thinks!

Thanks!

keep on voting!

-Blakesterville.

[sneakeypete 16]

Pre collapse levels were abnormally high, so i doubt we'll be seeing anything like that for years.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

I think it's bottomed out; we're already seeing signs of recovery. However, the recovery will be slow, time consuming, and won't get back to pre-crash levels for years. However, we might be able to stop using the word 'recession' at some point later in 2010.

[Yoman3 5]

It really depends where in the world you are. China and India will come out of it before the US, and the US will come out of it before Europe.

[Kryptowhite 9]

I think that here in america, it has bottomed out, and it will likely stay that way throughout the summer. I don't see things getting any worse, just because the car companies are done, the banks are being helped to recover, so what else BIG is there to lose? We are starting to develop new industries to fill in the massive holes that were created, obviously in the last year or two, green energy has really taken off, and for years now the high tech industries have been steadily growing.

So I voted next fall, although thinks won't be well again for quite some time.

[duack 14]

If all goes as is, I think the recession would be over by christmas, but pre-recession levels wont be seen for some time. The DOW rising means investment is up, but rising unemployment means consumer spending may fall. It takes longer for businessess to require more labour than it does for investment 'vultures' to take business oppurtunities now when its cheap.

(I put the word 'vultures' in inverted commas because they're not necassarily bad. In fact, they are needed for the economy to climb out of a recession.)

EDIT: Kryptowhite said "what else BIG is there to lose?". Answer: the state of California. That poses a threat to recovery.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31381205/ns/politics-washington_post/

[Voar Tok 4]

This is just amusing...

British Airways asks staff to work for free

It's going to be a while before the economy completely recovers.  Honestly, in some regards, I hope it doesn't recover.  The last time we had a major disaster like this, it was because the credit system was way too loose and people who didn't deserve the credit were still able to get it.  Now we did it again.  Think we'll learn our lesson?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

This is just amusing...

British Airways asks staff to work for free

quote>

Thats just... dire. I feel a strike coming along.

[Lampala 1]

I don't think it will start really getting better in the US until Obama stops concentrating on propping up big failing businesses and starts trying to save small business and the middle class. The only way I can see that is by lowering their taxes and encouraging competition, but I don't see that coming anytime soon. The democrats (and liberal Republicans) have spent too much money to be able to concentrate on lower taxes. It's already evident that they're trying to find new ways to tax us, and I don't trust a president who's never been in charge of anything and won't even take credit for the debt he's caused. The blame Bush mindset has got to go if he wants to get serious about the economy. So basically, I think we're a little bit doomed right now.

[Voar Tok 4]

I would like to share this email I received about the actions that the government is taking in response to the bailouts.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

Oh how true.

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

I don't have a crystal ball either, but I'm hoping things will start to improve soon. Consumer confidence is starting to rise, banks are starting to return bailout money, and car companies are reorganizing (fewer brands and fuel efficiency sounds like a good idea, but we'll see what happens...)

AIG and GM were bailed out because they were too 'big' to fail. AIG has dealings everywhere in the financial world and GM employs thousands around the world. Not saying there weren't big mistakes made, but if both totally collapsed, we'd be in a bigger mess right now.

There are still a lot of challenges ahead, but I think we learned a lot because of the financial crisis, and we'll be stronger from it.

[Darth Apple 54]

yeah... we will have a story to tell.

I agree with that email. the biggest problem that obama has is that as soon as anything shows any signs of recovery, obama takes whatever got it there from his administration, and leaves it on its own, thus,it crashes again. you see what I mean, it you bail out a bussiness to help it out, then it makes a small profit, then you expect them to pay it back all of a sudden(they should pay it back, yeah, but not then!)they will fail again.

[Msprintz 25]

Global economic recovery will hinge on broad changes in the way banks conduct business, and how we approach new and existing markets( growing them).  Obviously global banking institutions weren't completely sound and they took risks and gambles that they shouldn't have made, in over-extending themselves it hurt the market as a whole.  New regulations are just a start at correcting that problem. 

However any change will be for naught  without changes to our business practices in new and existing markets.  It's known that we allow our businesses and factories to exploit labor overseas( resultant of poor national labor laws), but we do little to try and correct it.  With a world population of nearly 7 billion correcting this problem should ensure markets won't stagnate as they get saturated with goods and no buyer( higher wages will ensure buyers).     

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: mks24

Global economic recovery will hinge on broad changes in the way banks conduct business, and how we approach new and existing markets( growing them).  Obviously global banking institutions weren't completely sound and they took risks and gambles that they shouldn't have made, in over-extending themselves it hurt the market as a whole.  New regulations are just a start at correcting that problem. 

However any change will be for naught  without changes to our business practices in new and existing markets.  It's known that we allow our businesses and factories to exploit labor overseas( resultant of poor national labor laws), but we do little to try and correct it.  With a world population of nearly 7 billion correcting this problem should ensure markets won't stagnate as they get saturated with goods and no buyer( higher wages will ensure buyers).     

quote>

There needs to be changes in the way everyone does thier business. Car companies need to focus on building cars

not becomeing finance companies.

[Ntq€310 1]

I think the biggest change needs to come in the mind. There is no reason that you should buy a house that you know you can never afford.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I think the biggest change needs to come in the mind. There is no reason that you should buy a house that you know you can never afford.quote>

This is true.  I would expand that to say that there is rarely a reason to buy anything you know you can never afford.

In order to build wealth, people need to live beneath their means and invest the rest.

Too many people live above their means, run up their credit card balances, and pay absurd interest rates.

Any money that you give away to the credit card company is money you don't have for purchases or investments.

[saltandsauce 0]

AIG and GM were bailed out because they were too 'big' to fail. AIG has dealings everywhere in the financial world and GM employs thousands around the world. Not saying there weren't big mistakes made, but if both totally collapsed, we'd be in a bigger mess right now.quote>

this is a reason for highly restricting takeovers, it means companies grow too big and cut out competition (it is the act of competition not "winning" the competition which drives down prices and lowers wages and standards of living.you know, the thing that people who go to business school love) A system where company A and company B compete and the only situation where one closes is if it goes bankrupt.

the "City of London" crisis (why do they always call it "the city" there are several other cities in Britain) could be traced back to when that crappy ugly building known as the gherkin was built. for some reason people loved it and got very hyped up over it. Tony Blair had just been elected and the banks said to him (dressed up in jargon) "if you don't de-regulate us we're going" and Tony being Tony, he caved in to allowing mortgages of over 100%. considering that i live outside the Holy land of the commuter belt of London, my city hasn't fully recovered from the 1980s or 1990s recessions and never experienced the boom so nothing has changed really.

[_Atticus 10]

An attitude change from people is hard to come by. We humans are hard-headed, so many people will forget and start doing the same thing in a few years. I think what we need is better regulations of the financial industry. If the financial companies had not been allowed to create those crazy derivatives, and mortgage-backed securities, perhaps the financial sector would not have imploded, but alas, it did. So why I would like to see the Obama administration do is retain, or even improve America's industrial sector and increase regulation of the financial sector.

-Pingangster

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I think the biggest change needs to come in the mind. There is no reason that you should buy a house that you know you can never afford.quote>

This is true.  I would expand that to say that there is rarely a reason to buy anything you know you can never afford.

In order to build wealth, people need to live beneath their means and invest the rest.

Too many people live above their means, run up their credit card balances, and pay absurd interest rates.

Any money that you give away to the credit card company is money you don't have for purchases or investments.quote>

Ah Frugalility we miss you. we have come a long ways from the great depresion and its aftermath, generations were you didnt spend more then you had. Now its the opposite, that credit score you have is partly based how how much debt you have, how crazy math is that?

An attitude change from people is hard to come by. We humans are hard-headed, so many people will forget and start doing the same thing in a few years. I think what we need is better regulations of the financial industry. If the financial companies had not been allowed to create those crazy derivatives, and mortgage-backed securities, perhaps the financial sector would not have imploded, but alas, it did. So why I would like to see the Obama administration do is retain, or even improve America's industrial sector and increase regulation of the financial sector.

-Pingangsterquote>

those regulations were in place, then removed. it just took it this long for the math to make it all blow up.

[Doofenshmirtz 0]

I voted late 2010 as there was no later option, but imo it will be mid 2011-early 2012 or thereabouts. However mind you that is based on what data i have available me, and it's not that much to be honest. I am no financial aspect, in fact the economy is one area i (due to too many variables) have difficulty thinking about in any area larger than say a Simcity region sized area. World economies are such complex things that to predict what will happen if you're a normal uninformed non financial expert such as myself, is impossible. But based on what little data i have garnered, and my somewhat pathetic amount of study from such sources as my Chronicle of the Twentieth Century on past financial problems, i would have to say 2011-2012 or thereabouts. However that is America. The term 'world financial crisis' is stupid, imo, as it makes everything sound overly simple, which it obviously isn't. Like 'global warming' it is overly vague and quite incorrect really (fact not opinion, climate change is not going to be uniform, i've read this in reliable sources mind you like Wikipedia and tv news). In regards to America i daresay progress will catch up with recession around that point. With regards to other nations i can't be sure. Here in Australia we have weathered quite well, despite the governments ad campaigns that make it sound like the Great Depression or something, and people seem fairly allright. I'm unemployed and looking for work (finished homeschool last year) but i doubt the WFC will affect my chances of finding work too much. From what i've seen it's more complex than that.

I can't predict long term future predictions. Nobody can. Too many variables to take into account, even the most powerful supercomputer could barely predict a gist of the near future. However from what i do know, and what i have seen, this WFC will not be as bad as people tend to think, and will probably be over by 2020 for all nations involved, and by 2012 for those better off nations involved.

[chris0101 8]

If you think about it, this was doomed to happen. Housing prices were going up at a crazy rate. Prudence demands that the government, the central banks (or the Fed in the US), and other organizations take control when wages are not rising, commodity prices are not rising nearly as fast, and other prices are not rising nearly as fast when housing rises nearly the way it did. Of course, the real problem is not the housing market, but the credit default swaps market. It has a posted value on the order of $600 TRILLION (yes 12x the world's GDP)! (Although it lost "only" 80 trillion or so dollars). Humans are a remarkably short-sighted and stupid people, and denial seemed to be commonplace in the world about the fact that this was an inevitable and predictable occurance for those who studied history. When you read works of people like Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Thomas Frank, Kevin Phillips, etc. you realize that this was entirely predictable for those that studied the past.

Prudence also demands that government take out speculation bubbles early on (the smaller the bubble, the bigger the pop). The ideologues who thought that a perfectly free market would regulate itself or that the free market was the optimal outcome are about as deluded as the advocates of the opposite extreme, communism for the world's problems.

[Gridlock 9]

The Financial and Economic Position of the United Kingdom 1931. Memo to Cabinet from Sir Warren Fisher, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury September 1931. Deficits with Inky Blots and Rotten Parchment Bonds sustained.

"The seriousness of the financial difficulties which are engaging public attention is perhaps not fully realised. It may therefore be useful to set out the elementary facts. The root cause of the "run" on the part of the foreign depositor is the fact of our living beyond our means as evidenced by our ordering from abroad more goods than we could pay for and therefore our owing to other countries more in dollars and francs than they owe to us in sterling.

Closely associated with this fact in the foreign mind is the question of our national Budget. After the war a certain number of countries continued to have difficulties in balancing their budgets and instead of pulling in their belts, resorted to the expedient of meeting deficits by printing innumerable bank or currency notes. Whenever this was done, the national currency lost much or all of its value i.e. purchasing power, and with the corresponding rise in prices, hardship, even hunger, was widespread.

Consequently, when any of these countries subsequently desired financial assistance from other countries before the citizens of the latter could be induced to lend, they insisted on the borrowing country balancing its budget. And no one was more emphatic than ourselves in preaching this doctrine.

A national Budget has thus come to be regarded as a touchstone of a country's financial stability second only in importance to its international balance of trade; and if, as the case at present with us, we are "down" on our balance of trade with other countries, foreigners to whom we owe money automatically turn a microscope on to our Budget. And if the Budget is not really balanced, but is merely dressed up to look as though it were; or again if the national expenditure is of a scope and type such as to involve (by means of taxation) taking people's saved, up capital and spending it as if it were recurrent income, the distrust abroad of our soundness would be intensified.

Any expectation that we might continue on a "rake's progress" would complete the destruction of international confidence and thus result in the final collapse of our greatest asset, i.e. our credit.

The remedy is to reverse the process which has been responsible for the trouble, and this means that instead of living at a level which has entailed ordering abroad more goods than we can pay for, we must relate our orders to our capacity to pay. And unless we can produce and sell abroad more goods (including "services") than we have been doing, we shall be forced to cut down our orders abroad, and our and our standard of living must be reduced accordingly.