Economic recovery is weakest since World War II
... The AP compared nine economic recoveries since the end of World War II that lasted at least three years. A 10th recovery that ran from 1945 to 1948 was not included because the statistics from that period aren't comprehensive, although the available data show that hiring was robust. There were two short-lived recoveries — 24 months and 12 months — after the recessions of 1957-58 and 1980.
http://news.yahoo.com/economic-recovery-weakest-since-world-war-ii-152031546--finance.html

Originally Posted By ActionJack (15 AUG 2012 3:37pm)

Economic recovery is weakest since World War II
... The AP compared nine economic recoveries since the end of World War II that lasted at least three years. A 10th recovery that ran from 1945 to 1948 was not included because the statistics from that period aren't comprehensive, although the available data show that hiring was robust. There were two short-lived recoveries — 24 months and 12 months — after the recessions of 1957-58 and 1980.
http://news.yahoo.com/economic-recovery-weakest-since-world-war-ii-152031546--finance.html

Hmm, might it have something to do with coming out of the the worst resession since WWII?

Originally Posted By dryline_tx (15 AUG 2012 5:40pm)

Originally Posted By ActionJack (15 AUG 2012 3:37pm)

Economic recovery is weakest since World War II
... The AP compared nine economic recoveries since the end of World War II that lasted at least three years. A 10th recovery that ran from 1945 to 1948 was not included because the statistics from that period aren't comprehensive, although the available data show that hiring was robust. There were two short-lived recoveries — 24 months and 12 months — after the recessions of 1957-58 and 1980.
http://news.yahoo.com/economic-recovery-weakest-since-world-war-ii-152031546--finance.html

 

 

Hmm, might it have something to do with coming out of the the worst resession since WWII?

 

 

Maybe.  What does the article suggest?

Credit, the fuel that powers economies, evaporated after Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. And a 30 percent drop in housing prices erased trillions in home equity and brought construction to a near-standstill.
So any recovery was destined to be a slog.

"A housing collapse is very different from a stock market bubble and crash," says Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It affects so many people. It only corrects very slowly."
http://news.yahoo.com/economic-recovery-weakest-since-world-war-ii-152031546--finance.html

That's somewhat different from the Great Depression but some of the recovery methods seem eerily similar.

Moral Hazards are Not Something to Toy With
by Nicolas Loris
The recently enforced Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act created many unintended consequences for toy manufacturers and oddly enough, even for your local library, but most of which, blinded parents’ sense of caution when it comes to buying toys for their children.

This regulation, which went into effect on February 10, 2009, mandates that all products targeted to children must contain safe levels of lead and phthalates (plastic softener). Who can be against that?

Goodwill for starters. The legislation not only mandates that new products are safe but also that all products sold or given freely meet these standards. The question now becomes, do you invest the money to test all your merchandise or do you destroy it?

Goodwill plans on destroying 170 million dollars worth of goods simply because it’s cheaper.

The economic impact of the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act has been mapped out by The Heritage Foundation’s Alex Adrianson. You can read his thoughts here.

The US Product and Safety Commission want to make the world safe for our children, but that is the job of the parents. When the federal government creates a supervisory board to inspect toys, it suppresses a parent’s natural inclination to be cautious when purchasing goods, which creates a moral hazard.

Take, for instance, the Securities Exchange and Commission. Their mission is to protect investors. Now, let’s say you were approached by Bernie Madoff and he asked you to invest in his company. You might do your research and see that Mr. Madoff was investigated twice by the SEC and found nothing wrong. When a government agency, with the word security in it, signs off on the Madoff operation, why shouldn’t you? Well, we all know how that worked out.

There is a proper role for the government in protecting its citizens (read: anti-fraud laws, and laws against dangerous toys entering the market.) The SEC and the US and Product Safety Commission do this, respectively. Ideally, harmful products will never reach the market place but if one does, people will respond and not purchase goods from that company or supplier in the future. If the company wants to survive, they will have to reemerge as an industry leader and provide safe goods – remember what happened to the fast food chain Jack-in-the-Box? The proper incentives are in place for companies to follow the rules or else they’ll be out on the street.

So, while a proper role for government does exist, we must not let government agencies lull us away from our natural hesitations or excuse us from our responsibility to provide a safe environment for our children.

Moreover, the overregulation from this policy is doing much more economic harm than regulatory good. Right now, the economic impact is roughly one billion dollars sitting in inventory at manufacturers and second-hand charities. There is nothing fun about that.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/06/moral-hazards-are-not-something-to-toy-with/