The world *has* changed: Why we should be afraid
85 comments
To paraphrase, just because a lot of people are panicking doesn't mean we shouldn't be really afraid!
To paraphrase, when a lot of people are panicking it's the ideal time to find some fucking spine and not panic.
What is panicking going to accomplish? What will being afraid gain you? NOT A DAMN THING! What does not panicking get you? Ask the people who aren't. It gets you lots of money and opportunity. Many people have already made hundreds of thousands of dollars by shorting pretty much any stock possible. Many companies are waiting for their competition to start laying off tons of staff and making deep cuts to spending so they can speed ahead by making smart choices and spending money where it can put them ahead.
From: Economy is booming! Credit is free! Leverage everything! Next quarter will be awesome!
To: Economy is destroyed! Take all your money and put it under your pillow! Sell the house! Expect to be poor!
Just two different forms of compulsory reactions that have a complete lack of foresight.
The act of making good financial decisions has not changed. Minimizing both debt and overspending has always been the right thing to do. I have zero debt and as close to zero excess possessions as is possible without living in a log cabin in the woods. I'm not going to change a damn thing except possibly spend more money because stupid fear-mongering like this will create all sorts of opportunity for people who can see the forest for the trees.
Why something like a recession would inspire fear in anyone is a complete mystery to me. There's nothing you can do about it so stop being afraid and stop spreading fear as a viable option. Instead, sit down, take a deep breath, realize that this isn't the "end of the world as we know it," and move on with your life. Jesus, you people sound like a whining, crying broken fucking record. All this recession has caused me to "feel" is pissed off constantly.
This argument sounds like this, except not hilarious because you're serious: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2184997/6808646
To paraphrase, when a lot of people are panicking it's the ideal time to find some fucking spine and not panic.
What is panicking going to accomplish? What will being afraid gain you? NOT A DAMN THING! What does not panicking get you? Ask the people who aren't. It gets you lots of money and opportunity. Many people have already made hundreds of thousands of dollars by shorting pretty much any stock possible. Many companies are waiting for their competition to start laying off tons of staff and making deep cuts to spending so they can speed ahead by making smart choices and spending money where it can put them ahead.
From: Economy is booming! Credit is free! Leverage everything! Next quarter will be awesome!
To: Economy is destroyed! Take all your money and put it under your pillow! Sell the house! Expect to be poor!
Just two different forms of compulsory reactions that have a complete lack of foresight.
The act of making good financial decisions has not changed. Minimizing both debt and overspending has always been the right thing to do. I have zero debt and as close to zero excess possessions as is possible without living in a log cabin in the woods. I'm not going to change a damn thing except possibly spend more money because stupid fear-mongering like this will create all sorts of opportunity for people who can see the forest for the trees.
Why something like a recession would inspire fear in anyone is a complete mystery to me. There's nothing you can do about it so stop being afraid and stop spreading fear as a viable option. Instead, sit down, take a deep breath, realize that this isn't the "end of the world as we know it," and move on with your life. Jesus, you people sound like a whining, crying broken fucking record. All this recession has caused me to "feel" is pissed off constantly.
This argument sounds like this, except not hilarious because you're serious: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2184997/6808646
Amen, brother.
When my grandfather (an entrepreneur himself) asked what this meant for us I said, "We keep going. What else could we do? This will hurt our competitors more than us."
I'd love to see bloated tech companies start dropping like flies. It'd leave such huge holes in the market that just beg for someone to come in and fill them with a lean startup.
When my grandfather (an entrepreneur himself) asked what this meant for us I said, "We keep going. What else could we do? This will hurt our competitors more than us."
I'd love to see bloated tech companies start dropping like flies. It'd leave such huge holes in the market that just beg for someone to come in and fill them with a lean startup.
I'd love to see bloated tech companies start dropping like flies. It'd leave such huge holes in the market that just beg for someone to come in and fill them with a lean startup.
I've seen a lot of this attitude lately, so I want to coin a term: startupfreude!
I've seen a lot of this attitude lately, so I want to coin a term: startupfreude!
> startupfreude
Kind of loses its punch in German since that would only mean "startup joy".
Kind of loses its punch in German since that would only mean "startup joy".
Loses its punch, maybe, but it still makes sense, no? After all the potential failure of the incumbents is a "startup's joy"?
Would the correct German (okay, German/English pidgin) be "Schadenstartup"?
"Schaden" is roughly "harm". "Freude" is just "joy". So, no, Schadenstartup doesn't make much more sense.
I tried to think of a phrasing that would work for the idea, but nothing came to mind with a similar ring to it. In kind of faux German, Startupschadenfreude, being sure to pronouce "Startup" as "Schtartup" might be amusing. :-)
I tried to think of a phrasing that would work for the idea, but nothing came to mind with a similar ring to it. In kind of faux German, Startupschadenfreude, being sure to pronouce "Startup" as "Schtartup" might be amusing. :-)
No, that just means "damage startup."
You are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. I am in the same position as you: zero debt (no mortgage or car payment even), almost all cash or precious metals and renting my home. So this panic doesn't mean anything personally in terms of drop in assets.
But I do see a fall in my income, so I am tightening my belt - by which I mean things like eating out less, stretching out that laptop for another few months, buying fewer non-essentials, less expensive vacations and so on. That is all I am advocating.
It is a rational, non-panicky response to some fairly dire economic circumstances ahead. If you question whether the economic circumstances will become dire, well, bookmark this thread, come back in 1 year, 2 years and 5 years.
But I do see a fall in my income, so I am tightening my belt - by which I mean things like eating out less, stretching out that laptop for another few months, buying fewer non-essentials, less expensive vacations and so on. That is all I am advocating.
It is a rational, non-panicky response to some fairly dire economic circumstances ahead. If you question whether the economic circumstances will become dire, well, bookmark this thread, come back in 1 year, 2 years and 5 years.
I want whatever drugs you are on.
Read your post. You said it's time to be fearful. That we should be really afraid. That a lot of people are panicking and maybe it's time to join them. I'm paraphrasing, but it's in black and white (well, gray and other gray).
Then you come back with this. Essentially, "I'm making less money, so I need to spend less money." So, either you don't believe your own words ("rational, non-panicky response" != "we should be really afraid") or you really believe that a slight decrease in your income warrants advocating dangerous responses like mass-fear and panic.
Presumably, you live in America. This means that by the mere fact of where you were birthed you have been given, free of charge, essentially all the opportunities that this life holds for a human being. I know first hand how horrible life can be for people not handed what we have been. Your inability to financially continue eating steak dinners every night is so far removed from the constant suffering and strife that you could be experiencing that your entire current view is laughable. If you were living on the streets you'd have it better than hundreds of millions of people in this world.
So, no, it's not time to panic. It's not time to be afraid. It's time to survey the landscape, take in the changes, and roll with them. It's time to stop talking about this bullshit. Weather the storm, take advantage of other peoples' fears, and come out on top. It's time to do the same thing any smart, rational, successful person with the right perspective would do.
And, no, I will not bookmark this thread. I don't want to be further reminded of just how much people like you take for granted and what you think we should do when life throws us a little curveball.
Read your post. You said it's time to be fearful. That we should be really afraid. That a lot of people are panicking and maybe it's time to join them. I'm paraphrasing, but it's in black and white (well, gray and other gray).
Then you come back with this. Essentially, "I'm making less money, so I need to spend less money." So, either you don't believe your own words ("rational, non-panicky response" != "we should be really afraid") or you really believe that a slight decrease in your income warrants advocating dangerous responses like mass-fear and panic.
Presumably, you live in America. This means that by the mere fact of where you were birthed you have been given, free of charge, essentially all the opportunities that this life holds for a human being. I know first hand how horrible life can be for people not handed what we have been. Your inability to financially continue eating steak dinners every night is so far removed from the constant suffering and strife that you could be experiencing that your entire current view is laughable. If you were living on the streets you'd have it better than hundreds of millions of people in this world.
So, no, it's not time to panic. It's not time to be afraid. It's time to survey the landscape, take in the changes, and roll with them. It's time to stop talking about this bullshit. Weather the storm, take advantage of other peoples' fears, and come out on top. It's time to do the same thing any smart, rational, successful person with the right perspective would do.
And, no, I will not bookmark this thread. I don't want to be further reminded of just how much people like you take for granted and what you think we should do when life throws us a little curveball.
You are making baseless assumptions. I was born in a very poor country, to parents neither of whom could afford to finish high school. My worldview was shaped by a world where debt was just not an option (think loan sharks & 300%+ annual interest rates when inflation was in the 10% annual range) and mortgages simply didn't exist. If you got into debt that you couldn't repay, you got thugs at the door to collect.
So I am already used to much worse circumstances than the worst that is likely ahead in America. Having said that, what lies ahead for America is going to be very painful economically, even more so because Americans by and large have no recent memory of such economic pain, so lack the "inoculation" that lesser societies have built up due to periodic crises. Deep structural changes are inevitable - and such changes in the economy end up having profound cultural and social impact, some of which is unpredictable.
I would personally do fine both because my personal balance sheet is in fine shape and because I have a lot of inoculation. Can you say that about the average American?
These are the things I said we should be afraid of.
So I am already used to much worse circumstances than the worst that is likely ahead in America. Having said that, what lies ahead for America is going to be very painful economically, even more so because Americans by and large have no recent memory of such economic pain, so lack the "inoculation" that lesser societies have built up due to periodic crises. Deep structural changes are inevitable - and such changes in the economy end up having profound cultural and social impact, some of which is unpredictable.
I would personally do fine both because my personal balance sheet is in fine shape and because I have a lot of inoculation. Can you say that about the average American?
These are the things I said we should be afraid of.
Saying we should be afraid of the unpredictable is like saying we should be afraid of a meteor crashing into earth.
(1) We have no idea how likely it is to happen (2) There's nothing we can do to stop something unpredictable (3) If something unpredictable does happen, deal with it then
Despite the fact that I disagree with your level of alarmism in general, I won't even argue the unlikelihood of these profound cultural and social impacts you suggest. I will just continue to stick with my original argument that there's nothing to gain by fear or panic and continue to be right.
(1) We have no idea how likely it is to happen (2) There's nothing we can do to stop something unpredictable (3) If something unpredictable does happen, deal with it then
Despite the fact that I disagree with your level of alarmism in general, I won't even argue the unlikelihood of these profound cultural and social impacts you suggest. I will just continue to stick with my original argument that there's nothing to gain by fear or panic and continue to be right.
"It is not merely a financial crisis. It is a fundamental economic crisis. The last two weeks brought the crisis to full focus, but we have been building up to it for several years."
"It is a rational, non-panicky response to some fairly dire economic circumstances ahead"
???
And this is the second time you've posted the same thing: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=330134
Almost all the stats & blanket statements you used are uncited, made up, misapplied or wrong. Maxklein is dead on. And if you are right, we get to see him eat his hat. Fun!
Bookmarked.
"It is a rational, non-panicky response to some fairly dire economic circumstances ahead"
???
And this is the second time you've posted the same thing: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=330134
Almost all the stats & blanket statements you used are uncited, made up, misapplied or wrong. Maxklein is dead on. And if you are right, we get to see him eat his hat. Fun!
Bookmarked.
None of the figures (debt to GDP, savings rate etc) I cited are controversial. Lots of people have been talking about those figures for many, many years, that's why I left out citations. Just to cite a recent example, the Sequoia presentation has all of these and more, in gory detail. Of course, you can interpret that data whichever way you want, but the data itself is clear.
You can find the presentation, for example, at: http://www.slideshare.net/eldon/sequoia-capital-on-startups-...
A couple of common objections to my line of argument are:
a) debt to GDP is just an accounting number or paper ("we owe it to ourselves" - in a global sense) and we can adjust that without much consequence to the real world.
Response: Given that current incomes are not able to service the debt, the debt needs to be written down. As that debt gets written down (for example, if GM or Ford were to file for bankruptcy), there will be economic consequences like lay-offs. Those economic consequences are another way of saying that the projects that the debt financed were unviable and therefore have to be terminated.
Those layoffs will cause further debt erosion - those laid-off workers default on their credit card payments, for example. So there are real economic effects to that accounting fiction. Even the dot-com bubble needed several years to be worked out. This is a far bigger bubble.
b) The US savings rate is underestimated.
The savings rate underestimation argument actually used to cite rising asset values, particularly housing, not being counted in savings. Falling asset values kills that argument.
You can find the presentation, for example, at: http://www.slideshare.net/eldon/sequoia-capital-on-startups-...
A couple of common objections to my line of argument are:
a) debt to GDP is just an accounting number or paper ("we owe it to ourselves" - in a global sense) and we can adjust that without much consequence to the real world.
Response: Given that current incomes are not able to service the debt, the debt needs to be written down. As that debt gets written down (for example, if GM or Ford were to file for bankruptcy), there will be economic consequences like lay-offs. Those economic consequences are another way of saying that the projects that the debt financed were unviable and therefore have to be terminated.
Those layoffs will cause further debt erosion - those laid-off workers default on their credit card payments, for example. So there are real economic effects to that accounting fiction. Even the dot-com bubble needed several years to be worked out. This is a far bigger bubble.
b) The US savings rate is underestimated.
The savings rate underestimation argument actually used to cite rising asset values, particularly housing, not being counted in savings. Falling asset values kills that argument.
b) I didn't say anything about real estate. 401k + Roth kill that argument.
startingup, I am very relieved to see another person waking up to the reality of the sitaution. I'm glad you are voicing your concern, I'm really concerned about how comfortable we've grown with the concept of debt. It's a dangerous position to be in, with the Federal Reserve owning as much assets as they do (and they will continue to purchase more, as the Bailout gave them the powers to do so).
SERIOUSLY, you guys need to get off this bandwagon. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the world enconomy. Resources are available, production is huge everywhere and rising, more and more people are entering the rich class, more and more countries are becoming industrialised, there are very few active wars right now.
We live in an unprecendented era of peace and prosperity, and this 'problem' we are observing is just a matter of numbers being pushed from one person to the other. But there is still value being produced, there is still demand for that value.
You should become afraid when you see people withdrawing their savings from the banks, and when a major hostile economic block comes up. What we're observing is just economic readjustment, it's not critical.
If in a year this situation still exists, I'll eat my hat on a webcam. You can hold me to that.
We live in an unprecendented era of peace and prosperity, and this 'problem' we are observing is just a matter of numbers being pushed from one person to the other. But there is still value being produced, there is still demand for that value.
You should become afraid when you see people withdrawing their savings from the banks, and when a major hostile economic block comes up. What we're observing is just economic readjustment, it's not critical.
If in a year this situation still exists, I'll eat my hat on a webcam. You can hold me to that.
Quite right. To put this into concrete terms, we still have all the food we can eat, adequate medical care, enough homes to house everyone, assorted consumer goods that make us happy, and the means to produce all of these as needed.
The crash of the financial markets has not reduced the production capacity of any of these goods or services. There will still be enough of them, only the dollar values attached will be different.
In contrast, during the great depression, lots of actual physical wealth was destroyed. Various other policies reduced production capacity, most notably the NRA and Smoot Hawley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administratio...
The crash of the financial markets has not reduced the production capacity of any of these goods or services. There will still be enough of them, only the dollar values attached will be different.
In contrast, during the great depression, lots of actual physical wealth was destroyed. Various other policies reduced production capacity, most notably the NRA and Smoot Hawley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administratio...
One way to look at the current crisis is that a whole lot of long term plans, once thought to be sensible, were abruptly shown to be unworkable.
These plans included actual inventories, lines of production, houses and other buildings, and actual people working at actual jobs to support all of these.
Those plans now have to be scrapped. That means inventories wasted, lines of production shut down, and people fired. We cannot just keep building more and more houses as if nothing has changed.
Shutting down production lines and firing people is a real destruction of wealth.
This destruction will have secondary and tertiary effects. We've already seen how the cascade works in the stock market. Over the next year (or more) you will see it in production and employment levels.
> The crash of the financial markets has not reduced the production capacity of any of these goods or services.
It has, because a considerable fraction of that productive capacity was allocated based on false assumptions.
We have to reallocate that productive capacity to new purposes. We don't yet know exactly what capital and labor needs repurposed, or to what new purposes. The way we find that out is by businesses contracting or going bankrupt and people being thrown out of work. Eventually, other businesses will expand, new ones will start up, and people will find new jobs. It will take a while, and in the meantime, it is going to hurt.
These plans included actual inventories, lines of production, houses and other buildings, and actual people working at actual jobs to support all of these.
Those plans now have to be scrapped. That means inventories wasted, lines of production shut down, and people fired. We cannot just keep building more and more houses as if nothing has changed.
Shutting down production lines and firing people is a real destruction of wealth.
This destruction will have secondary and tertiary effects. We've already seen how the cascade works in the stock market. Over the next year (or more) you will see it in production and employment levels.
> The crash of the financial markets has not reduced the production capacity of any of these goods or services.
It has, because a considerable fraction of that productive capacity was allocated based on false assumptions.
We have to reallocate that productive capacity to new purposes. We don't yet know exactly what capital and labor needs repurposed, or to what new purposes. The way we find that out is by businesses contracting or going bankrupt and people being thrown out of work. Eventually, other businesses will expand, new ones will start up, and people will find new jobs. It will take a while, and in the meantime, it is going to hurt.
Certainly, the transition from bad to good investments will hurt. I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't. But what you are describing is a normal recession. The only reason the economy even contracts in a recession is because it takes time for the new projects to ramp up. Once they do, things return to normal.
In material terms, we lose some half built houses because no one wants to live in them. I.e., we have more stuff than we need.
The depression was much worse. We lost production capacity in a time when people were going hungry. That is, we had less stuff than we needed.
Scarcity is far worse than surplus.
In material terms, we lose some half built houses because no one wants to live in them. I.e., we have more stuff than we need.
The depression was much worse. We lost production capacity in a time when people were going hungry. That is, we had less stuff than we needed.
Scarcity is far worse than surplus.
Totally agreed! Thanks for that succinct explanation of the real world connection to all this financial destruction.
A whole lot of capital and labor needs to be repurposed, and it is going to hurt, even without the political system making things worse. History teaches us that the odds aren't very good on that front- it is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, nor for that matter a US vs Europe issue.
A whole lot of capital and labor needs to be repurposed, and it is going to hurt, even without the political system making things worse. History teaches us that the odds aren't very good on that front- it is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, nor for that matter a US vs Europe issue.
Nah, the effect will be minimal. A house is either being built or it's not being built. The investment in a house that is not built yet is not that much, for the simple reason that there are not THAT many houses being built.
This economic correction will have an effect, but it will not be terrible - it only affects very tiny parts of the global trade, and most of what is affected is just U.S based and very local.
This economic correction will have an effect, but it will not be terrible - it only affects very tiny parts of the global trade, and most of what is affected is just U.S based and very local.
The 'bailout' isn't done yet; they may yet start destroying valuable things and productive capacity to 'help'.
Startup idea: Sell edible hats :-)
After a few minutes' googling to find somewhere that sells nacho hats (as featured in The Simpsons) I was disappointed to find that they don't seem to really exist.
So, definitely somebody needs to start making 'em.
So, definitely somebody needs to start making 'em.
I thought, perhaps, that your googlefu was not up to par so I looked myself. I couldn't find them, either. Damn.
What?! Okay, now it's time to panic.
10 years is about the length of a business cycle, which is about the smallest accurately-measurable period in economics. The most frustrating thing about politics today is that before 1980, all we hear about history is vague references to things like the Holocaust and the Great Depression.
The thing about our current situation is that it's not something that caught anyone who was paying any sort of attention by surprise. The Federal Government has been making/encouraging bad loans from the moment they had the power to do so. What started out as federal housing assistance during the Great Depression has become Fannie and Freddie and our current crisis. The ideas of easy money and credit extend as far back into human history as we can go; at the very least they played a hand in the economic collapse of the USSR, Germany, Russia. We even suspect they played a large role in destroying one of the only ancient empires we know much about, Rome.
All of that to say, I know the politicians are running for office and thus have to frame things within the lifetimes of their constituents, but can't we, as intelligent people, construct a slightly wider historical lens for this discussion?
The thing about our current situation is that it's not something that caught anyone who was paying any sort of attention by surprise. The Federal Government has been making/encouraging bad loans from the moment they had the power to do so. What started out as federal housing assistance during the Great Depression has become Fannie and Freddie and our current crisis. The ideas of easy money and credit extend as far back into human history as we can go; at the very least they played a hand in the economic collapse of the USSR, Germany, Russia. We even suspect they played a large role in destroying one of the only ancient empires we know much about, Rome.
All of that to say, I know the politicians are running for office and thus have to frame things within the lifetimes of their constituents, but can't we, as intelligent people, construct a slightly wider historical lens for this discussion?
1. World wide? What source are you referencing? The States sure, but I have no idea about the rest of the world and have never read anything talking about world wide debt rates.
2. See number 1.
3. The saving rate statistics are misleading because they don't include 401k and IRAs, which were not nearly as popular 10-20 years ago as they are today.
2. See number 1.
3. The saving rate statistics are misleading because they don't include 401k and IRAs, which were not nearly as popular 10-20 years ago as they are today.
Since the financial system is indeed global, world wide is correct. Sure, it's only in the US, the UK and Spain that a housing bubble has burst (AFAIK, still, that's more world wide than the US alone), but financial institutions are in trouble in Germany, in Belgium and the Netherlands as well (again, AFAIK). In Iceland the collapse of the banking system is so severe the country as a whole (not just the banks!) is effectively bankrupt. And I just read on http://fistfulofeuros.net/ that Ukraine is pretty close to something similar.
Right - markets. What about the debt rates the author referenced in his OP?
Good point. Apparently the UK has a situation similar to the US where debt rates are enormous. But you're right in that most of the world is rather more frugal than the US.
There's a worldwide asset bubble everywhere, in all asset classes. China's stock exchange soared 400% over the last 2 years and is now down 70% in the past 8 months. Similar problems in Southeast Asia, Russia, etc.
According to this site (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) our Debt is 70% of our GDP, not 320%. Not that it matters because the two aren't well suited to compare.
Debt is found on a balance sheet. GDP is found on a cash flow statement. A much more appropriate comparison would be debt to the value of the entire nation's assets. According to this site (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how_bad_is_the_national_debt_r/), the per capita debt is $162k but our per capita WEALTH is $300k.
We're going to be fine.
Debt is found on a balance sheet. GDP is found on a cash flow statement. A much more appropriate comparison would be debt to the value of the entire nation's assets. According to this site (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how_bad_is_the_national_debt_r/), the per capita debt is $162k but our per capita WEALTH is $300k.
We're going to be fine.
Total US debt (public, private & consumer) is 320% of GDP. Government alone is about 70% of GDP. Consumer debt is pushing 90-100% of GDP, historic high. Rest is private sector. The 320% is a never-before-in-history number, even bigger than the great depression.
Income is what is used to service debt. Conventional mortgage rules limit you to 3x mortgage debt to annual income. So debt to GDP ratio is entirely appropriate.
The wealth figure you quote itself is bloated by debt - think of how houses increased in value due to all those easy loans they were handing out. Debt is a mathematical fact, unless discharged in some kind of bankruptcy, while the "wealth" is an accounting opinion, and valuations change. So as the debt comes due, more of it gets impaired, which means people who owned that debt have to write their assets down, which causes asset values to fall everywhere, ... classic debt-deflation. We are witnessing it right now.
The only meaningful end is when debt gets vastly reduced. By then asset valuations would be a lot lower too.
Income is what is used to service debt. Conventional mortgage rules limit you to 3x mortgage debt to annual income. So debt to GDP ratio is entirely appropriate.
The wealth figure you quote itself is bloated by debt - think of how houses increased in value due to all those easy loans they were handing out. Debt is a mathematical fact, unless discharged in some kind of bankruptcy, while the "wealth" is an accounting opinion, and valuations change. So as the debt comes due, more of it gets impaired, which means people who owned that debt have to write their assets down, which causes asset values to fall everywhere, ... classic debt-deflation. We are witnessing it right now.
The only meaningful end is when debt gets vastly reduced. By then asset valuations would be a lot lower too.
Wow, debt of 50+% assets is 'fine'?! Grab the nearest person who lived in the 50s, and ask them what they think of it. That we've grown accustomed to this sort of debt is the cause of all this mess.
Even if you owned nothing else, and had no other debt then a standard 80/20 mortgage has been considered a good deal all around for decades and still is. That's 80% debt to 20% asset at the time you assume the mortgage. Yeah, I'd say a 50:50 debt/asset is OK. The bigger concern is cash flow as shown by Debt to Income ratio because it speaks directly to your ability to service that debt.
It's now estimated at 90% of GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
I'm extremely concerned not just by the responses on this forum, but also because the person who wrote this article has a legitimate concern. He's worried about how much we've grown to love debt as a nation, and I for one agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
I'm extremely concerned not just by the responses on this forum, but also because the person who wrote this article has a legitimate concern. He's worried about how much we've grown to love debt as a nation, and I for one agree.
What matters is the ratio between GDP and the cost to service the debt. There comes a point (above about 35%, I think) where government services will have to be cut to continue servicing the debt.
edit: excuse me, 35% of gov budget. Just like a household.
edit: excuse me, 35% of gov budget. Just like a household.
From this slideshow, (http://businessjive.com) these are other things that also may have caused this:
1) Naked short selling: selling stocks you don't own or haven't even borrowed.
2) SEC not releasing information concerning hedge funds when they should have under the FOI act, because that may have revealed funds' "proprietary trading strategies", which may have been illegal due to their naked shorting.
3) The failure of large derivatives broker Refco in 2005, where in its failure, a significant amount of stock was scattered through the market that wasn't actually capitalizable due to naked shorting.
Since the failure of Lehman, the domino effect has been caused by a lack of trust in the positions of would-be lenders and borrowers: no one believes or can accurately determine another party's viability for a transaction to occur: a lack of commercial grease.
With the US being a central pillar in the global economy, other countries have failed too partly due to their connection to it.
Solutions: greater transparency, perhaps a business organization that companies can join if they reveal more about their actual balance sheets. Members can opt-in to view one another's positions before doing business: like befriending someone on Facebook or Friendfeed.
Also, perhaps from this pillar of transparency, it may be possible to cancel net debt positions computationally rather than let markets gradually build again. Many people may lose out, but others should be held accountable and people can move on.
1) Naked short selling: selling stocks you don't own or haven't even borrowed.
2) SEC not releasing information concerning hedge funds when they should have under the FOI act, because that may have revealed funds' "proprietary trading strategies", which may have been illegal due to their naked shorting.
3) The failure of large derivatives broker Refco in 2005, where in its failure, a significant amount of stock was scattered through the market that wasn't actually capitalizable due to naked shorting.
Since the failure of Lehman, the domino effect has been caused by a lack of trust in the positions of would-be lenders and borrowers: no one believes or can accurately determine another party's viability for a transaction to occur: a lack of commercial grease.
With the US being a central pillar in the global economy, other countries have failed too partly due to their connection to it.
Solutions: greater transparency, perhaps a business organization that companies can join if they reveal more about their actual balance sheets. Members can opt-in to view one another's positions before doing business: like befriending someone on Facebook or Friendfeed.
Also, perhaps from this pillar of transparency, it may be possible to cancel net debt positions computationally rather than let markets gradually build again. Many people may lose out, but others should be held accountable and people can move on.
the greater transparency solution would be only avalaible to big companies, who would employ armies of consultants and accountants to be declared "transparent", since a small business needs a minimum of $20k to get their balance sheets audited/certified
If you want to point fingers you only have to look at the federal reserve (1913).
Fractional reserve banking - Hey, let's give out invisible money ten fold (more today) than actually exists! Usury? Yeah, let's add more invisible money to it in the form of interest. We are geniuses!
Fractional reserve banking - Hey, let's give out invisible money ten fold (more today) than actually exists! Usury? Yeah, let's add more invisible money to it in the form of interest. We are geniuses!
I do think that people panicking, while creating lots of problems, also creates really interesting opportunities because of how people give everything incorrect valuations in the near term and hence a sort of long term arbitrage opportunity is possible
A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people. -- G.A.Rao
If you're correct that a social aversion to debt will develop, then debt will become cheaper as demand decreases, at least after banks have money to lend again. In that case, it seems like swearing off debt as you suggest would be passing up a bargain.
Debt often makes sense.
Debt often makes sense.
You could trace the problems back beyond fractional reserve banking and say that axing the Gold Standard and having a fiat currency was the first con.
Certainly, if credit is too cheap, asset prices will rise as borrowers outbid one another to pay more. Greenspan has to shoulder a lot of the blame for the recent boom.
Here in the U.K., our great leader, Gordon Brown, proclaimed "an end to boom and bust" when he became chancellor in 1997. He was right. Instead we had boom-boom-boom lasting ten years and are now going to have a bust to mirror it.
Certainly, if credit is too cheap, asset prices will rise as borrowers outbid one another to pay more. Greenspan has to shoulder a lot of the blame for the recent boom.
Here in the U.K., our great leader, Gordon Brown, proclaimed "an end to boom and bust" when he became chancellor in 1997. He was right. Instead we had boom-boom-boom lasting ten years and are now going to have a bust to mirror it.
"The root cause of this crisis is fractional reserve lending, and micromanagement of interest rates by the Fed in particular and Central Banks in general. The Fed started the party by slashing interest rates to 1%, but Central Banks everywhere drank the same punch to varying degrees." -- http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/global-co...
The three points above all refer to the financial system. I'm not entirely sold on this "it's not just the financial system it's systemic" argument.
The way I see it, the overall setup looks like this:
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects]
So basically the role of the financial system is to (i) allocate capital and (ii) manage risk. I think it is totally clear that the financial system failed with the latter, but where is the evidence that it failed with the former? With the "subprime loans" were the houses that were built shoddy? It's not like as a world or nation we went out and built some giant white elephant that is now useless. By and large the projects funded remain sound. The problem is that the financial system has seized up.
A few folks have suggested that rather than pumping several trillion of new capital to save the existing disfunctional financial system, we should just pick 20 banks out of bankruptcy, capitalize them and basically replace the existing financial system with a new one (and then distribute the shares in these banks to all citizens so it's not a government run thing).
Bottom line, the financial system is broken, but I'm not sure the fundamental underlying "projects" are themselves broken.
The way I see it, the overall setup looks like this:
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects]
So basically the role of the financial system is to (i) allocate capital and (ii) manage risk. I think it is totally clear that the financial system failed with the latter, but where is the evidence that it failed with the former? With the "subprime loans" were the houses that were built shoddy? It's not like as a world or nation we went out and built some giant white elephant that is now useless. By and large the projects funded remain sound. The problem is that the financial system has seized up.
A few folks have suggested that rather than pumping several trillion of new capital to save the existing disfunctional financial system, we should just pick 20 banks out of bankruptcy, capitalize them and basically replace the existing financial system with a new one (and then distribute the shares in these banks to all citizens so it's not a government run thing).
Bottom line, the financial system is broken, but I'm not sure the fundamental underlying "projects" are themselves broken.
Bottom line, the financial system is broken, but I'm not sure the fundamental underlying "projects" are themselves broken.
In your diagram, you need to complete the loop, to more accurately reflect reality:
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects] <--> [capital]
It is worth remembering how the financial system itself started breaking - it started with all those massively overvalued housing "projects" for which they lent money started going bad, which then spread to other credit classes like autos, commercial real estate and so on.
Ultimately, the financial system is choking on debt that became uncollectable, because the underlying projects that the debt financed proved economically unviable. In micro terms, household income could not service the debt on the house. None of the bailout schemes so far address that income issue. If they started mailing out checks to homeowners to help them pay their mortgages, they can stop house prices from falling, but at the cost of hyper-inflation. In chess terms, we are at an economic checkmate scenario - all options are bad. The least bad option may not be politically viable, so we have to consider really bad scenarios too. At this point it is unpredictable which of the bad choices will be made.
Here is a nightmare scenario: start to really worry if trade sanctions on China or outsourcing ban on India become a possibility. Such beggar-they-neighbor policies begot the Great Depression. We are not there yet, but how confident are you it won't happen once the US Congress gets "serious"?
In your diagram, you need to complete the loop, to more accurately reflect reality:
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects] <--> [capital]
It is worth remembering how the financial system itself started breaking - it started with all those massively overvalued housing "projects" for which they lent money started going bad, which then spread to other credit classes like autos, commercial real estate and so on.
Ultimately, the financial system is choking on debt that became uncollectable, because the underlying projects that the debt financed proved economically unviable. In micro terms, household income could not service the debt on the house. None of the bailout schemes so far address that income issue. If they started mailing out checks to homeowners to help them pay their mortgages, they can stop house prices from falling, but at the cost of hyper-inflation. In chess terms, we are at an economic checkmate scenario - all options are bad. The least bad option may not be politically viable, so we have to consider really bad scenarios too. At this point it is unpredictable which of the bad choices will be made.
Here is a nightmare scenario: start to really worry if trade sanctions on China or outsourcing ban on India become a possibility. Such beggar-they-neighbor policies begot the Great Depression. We are not there yet, but how confident are you it won't happen once the US Congress gets "serious"?
I think:
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects]
better reflects reality in that inflows/outflows of capital to/from projects are funneled through the financial system. For example, investors (capital) are trying to take get capital out of hedge funds (who are in-turn invested in companies) and they can't b/c the financial system is "constipated."
[capital] <--> [financial system] <--> [projects]
better reflects reality in that inflows/outflows of capital to/from projects are funneled through the financial system. For example, investors (capital) are trying to take get capital out of hedge funds (who are in-turn invested in companies) and they can't b/c the financial system is "constipated."
To borrow your analogy the patient is not passed out, he is vomiting all over the room due to credit&leverage intoxication. There is hoping he has coughed up all of that and then some, so he will stop doing that and begin being very sick but conscious, which would be a makred improvement over what we have right now.
Ok, allegories are fun but back to business:
we had some serious issues prior to great depression with stock market - people didn't know how to be moderate. With some education and regulation we got over that (e.g. dot com was not that bad). So now we have a similar problem with leverage - people failed to excersize moderation. They will learn and credit and leverage will assume their natural place as instruments of funds management.
Having said that, I think there are more shoes to drop yet. While there might be a short-term rally, there will be even more drops after that. The size of downturn should be equal to size of run-up (minus the productivity gains over the last decade).
Ok, allegories are fun but back to business:
we had some serious issues prior to great depression with stock market - people didn't know how to be moderate. With some education and regulation we got over that (e.g. dot com was not that bad). So now we have a similar problem with leverage - people failed to excersize moderation. They will learn and credit and leverage will assume their natural place as instruments of funds management.
Having said that, I think there are more shoes to drop yet. While there might be a short-term rally, there will be even more drops after that. The size of downturn should be equal to size of run-up (minus the productivity gains over the last decade).
It might be your last change to charge up a mountain of debt before its all gone. Might as well do it now if we're all going bankrupt!
A depression just means a lot of big companies are going to fail, thus leaving vacuums just begging to be filled.
But, yeah, the whole "hyper-inflation leading to a massively devalued currency, rampant unemployment and poverty, enormous waves of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and bank failures" thing is going to rather suck for a great many people.
Just remember, paradigm shifts = opportunity.
But, yeah, the whole "hyper-inflation leading to a massively devalued currency, rampant unemployment and poverty, enormous waves of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and bank failures" thing is going to rather suck for a great many people.
Just remember, paradigm shifts = opportunity.
If you truly believe what you are saying, then it logically follows that you have bought a great deal of gold, silver, or other precious metals, which for 5000 years have been a measure of value and served as a hedge against inflation.
So, how much gold/silver have you actually purchased? Put your money where your mouth is...
So, how much gold/silver have you actually purchased? Put your money where your mouth is...
Yes, I actually did purchase a meaningful (i.e as a fraction of my net worth) amount of gold, and have been buying for years. And for the rest of my net worth, I went all cash (dollar & yen) or short term treasuries some years ago - other than some small angel investments, which I will likely lose. And I have been renting the place I live. So this 40% stock market crash or the real estate bust hasn't meant anything to me personally. All I am saying is that there were many very smart people warning about these exact issues (examples: Paul Volcker, Warren Buffet, Nouriel Roubini, Steve Roach, Doug Noland ...) for many years. Alas, their pessimism, based on facts and logic, has proved entirely justified.
Economic reality: E(t) = At
where A is the summation of all current factors.
Average person's view of economic reality:
Dummies(t) = 5At + 90
Which means that average people see reality either better or worse than what it is and they're always late to the game.
where A is the summation of all current factors.
Average person's view of economic reality:
Dummies(t) = 5At + 90
Which means that average people see reality either better or worse than what it is and they're always late to the game.
Shameful edit:
Should be Dummies(t) = 5A(t + 90)
This error woke me up in the middle of the night.
Should be Dummies(t) = 5A(t + 90)
This error woke me up in the middle of the night.
Invest in precious metals, Lead and Brass.
Invest in soft commodities. World population is still growing and people still need to eat.
Oh yes. Just in case it gets ugly. Attend some MMA classes and load up on ammo.
Oh yes. Just in case it gets ugly. Attend some MMA classes and load up on ammo.
After only looking at your the title: the world changes every day... go with it and get used to it!
I do think that people panicking, while creating lots of problems, also creates really interesting opportunities because of how people give everything incorrect valuations in the near term and hence a sort of long term arbitrage opportunity is possible
DICTATORSHIPS are like a good many other things in this world. They can be the best, or the worst, form of government.
There are some excellent dictatorships, and there are some hateful ones. Nevertheless, be they good or bad, it generally happens that they are imposed by circumstances, and, when this is the case, the people concerned have no choice but to put up with them. Inasmuch as a nation cannot be too strongly urged not to drift into a situation which leaves it no alternative but helpless acquiescence, this brief and cursory survey of dictators as they have displayed themselves at successive stages of the world's history may not be without profit to the French people at this present juncture.
INTRODUCTION WE are constantly deluding ourselves with the notion that things are new, when, in truth, we are but repeating the experiences of former generations and treading the paths which they long since have trod. The dictatorships of our time came into being on the morrow of the day when President Wilson enjoined us to 'make the world safe for democracy. The victory of the Allies was universally hailed as a triumph for the democratic spirit in all its varied forms. Amid the din of falling thrones, three empires came crashing to the ground. The monarchical system, by which the control of the State is vested in one sole person, seemed doomed to extinction. Who would have dreamt that one-man rule would ever come into its own again? When the first dictator came upon the scene, his advent was greeted with incredulity. A few days, men prophesied, would surely set a term to his dominion. In France, one politician went the length of publicly deriding him as a comic-opera Caesar. And then, when the fashion seemed to be spreading, people consoled themselves with the belief that, if it was an epidemic, it would assuredly stop short at the frontiers of the Greater Powers, of those countries which had a liberal tradition at the back of them, and a firmly established progressive wing. As for inflation and debased currencies, these things, though not unknown, were looked upon as evils proper to impoverished, primitive or ill-governed communities. It was not for a moment to be thought of that the wealthier nations, equipped as they were with a well-organized financial system, would fall a prey to such grave disorders. All this turned out to be a grievous miscalculation. The monetary system fell a victim to disease in the very places where it seemed to be flourishing most securely. Dictatorships sprang up in countries where they had long been looked upon as unimaginable. There they took firm root, despite the fact that, for a long time, the dictators themselves, when still no more than popular sedition-mongers, had never been taken seriously. It is no mere caprice that has led us to connect a disordered currency with the emergence of despotic forms of government. The one precedes, and often begets, the other, because, for the vast majority of people, it is the most obvious symptom of national disintegration. (300 pages later)
CONCLUSION measure pfuncertainty. It is desirable to be sparing of Itfiem7 desirable, that is, not to have need of them, or not to drift into them unwittingly. Eckermann once asked Goethe if the human race would ever see the end of way “Yes” answered the sage of Weimar, provided that governments are always intelligent and the governed always reasonable. We will say the same of dictators. We can do without them on the same condition. But good governments are rare. And Voltaire said that the bulk of the human race always were, and always would be, imbeciles. ps: a bonus from the same author: http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/bainville_jacques/conse...
--- The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/privacy_and_th...
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/budg...
INTRODUCTION WE are constantly deluding ourselves with the notion that things are new, when, in truth, we are but repeating the experiences of former generations and treading the paths which they long since have trod. The dictatorships of our time came into being on the morrow of the day when President Wilson enjoined us to 'make the world safe for democracy. The victory of the Allies was universally hailed as a triumph for the democratic spirit in all its varied forms. Amid the din of falling thrones, three empires came crashing to the ground. The monarchical system, by which the control of the State is vested in one sole person, seemed doomed to extinction. Who would have dreamt that one-man rule would ever come into its own again? When the first dictator came upon the scene, his advent was greeted with incredulity. A few days, men prophesied, would surely set a term to his dominion. In France, one politician went the length of publicly deriding him as a comic-opera Caesar. And then, when the fashion seemed to be spreading, people consoled themselves with the belief that, if it was an epidemic, it would assuredly stop short at the frontiers of the Greater Powers, of those countries which had a liberal tradition at the back of them, and a firmly established progressive wing. As for inflation and debased currencies, these things, though not unknown, were looked upon as evils proper to impoverished, primitive or ill-governed communities. It was not for a moment to be thought of that the wealthier nations, equipped as they were with a well-organized financial system, would fall a prey to such grave disorders. All this turned out to be a grievous miscalculation. The monetary system fell a victim to disease in the very places where it seemed to be flourishing most securely. Dictatorships sprang up in countries where they had long been looked upon as unimaginable. There they took firm root, despite the fact that, for a long time, the dictators themselves, when still no more than popular sedition-mongers, had never been taken seriously. It is no mere caprice that has led us to connect a disordered currency with the emergence of despotic forms of government. The one precedes, and often begets, the other, because, for the vast majority of people, it is the most obvious symptom of national disintegration. (300 pages later)
CONCLUSION measure pfuncertainty. It is desirable to be sparing of Itfiem7 desirable, that is, not to have need of them, or not to drift into them unwittingly. Eckermann once asked Goethe if the human race would ever see the end of way “Yes” answered the sage of Weimar, provided that governments are always intelligent and the governed always reasonable. We will say the same of dictators. We can do without them on the same condition. But good governments are rare. And Voltaire said that the bulk of the human race always were, and always would be, imbeciles. ps: a bonus from the same author: http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/bainville_jacques/conse...
--- The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/privacy_and_th...
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/budg...
This problem will remain for at least as long as you are in denial (and take points away to make the diagnosis fade away and disappear).
A few crooks got rich and they want us to panic while they run away unpunished.
After the biggest profits ever in the oil industry I can hardly see this as a recession.
Where is that money now?
After the biggest profits ever in the oil industry I can hardly see this as a recession.
Where is that money now?
"Most prestigious nation on earth"? Update: (I had to puke.) You are just 'known'. Known as most militant and most dangerous. You are directly or indirectly responsible for every war in the last 60 years. If you sniff oil, or other form of money, you are ready to kill even civilians or children. You are also ready to send your sons to die for smell of money. You have biggest number of homeless in the world, even children and so we can continue whole day... but I still hope there are some people there who understand this and can do something with that. This is how we perceive you here in Europe, my fellow "Americans". :) or :(
> You are directly or indirectly responsible for every war in the last 60 years.
60 years is well chosen - it avoids WWII.
The US started the Korean war? The US started the uprising against France in Vietnam? The US started whatever it was that consumed Eritria/Ethiopia in the 70s/80s? The US started all of the Saharan and sub Saharan"skirmishes"? The US started Darfur? The US started Bosnia?
The US did manage to win the cold war, no thanks to the beneficiaries. Yes, I'm talking about Europe. Now that they don't have anyone threatening them, they're talking smack. When that changes, they'll tell us how they've always been our BFFs. (Which will it be? Russia? China? Their Islamic friends?)
It's well past time for the EU to take responsibility for things instead of telling the US how it should be done. Surely there are some problems that are within their capabilities. And, speaking of capabilities, shouldn't they have significant capabilities? After all, they have 500M people and a greater GDP than the US.
However, the author is correct. The US should let the rest of the world alone. Whether the result is better or worse, they'll get what they want and deserve.
60 years is well chosen - it avoids WWII.
The US started the Korean war? The US started the uprising against France in Vietnam? The US started whatever it was that consumed Eritria/Ethiopia in the 70s/80s? The US started all of the Saharan and sub Saharan"skirmishes"? The US started Darfur? The US started Bosnia?
The US did manage to win the cold war, no thanks to the beneficiaries. Yes, I'm talking about Europe. Now that they don't have anyone threatening them, they're talking smack. When that changes, they'll tell us how they've always been our BFFs. (Which will it be? Russia? China? Their Islamic friends?)
It's well past time for the EU to take responsibility for things instead of telling the US how it should be done. Surely there are some problems that are within their capabilities. And, speaking of capabilities, shouldn't they have significant capabilities? After all, they have 500M people and a greater GDP than the US.
However, the author is correct. The US should let the rest of the world alone. Whether the result is better or worse, they'll get what they want and deserve.
This isn't Reddit. A sweeping statement like "[The U.S.] is directly or indirectly responsible for every war in the last 60 years" doesn't even relate to this particular topic. I don't understand what mental state you're in where you feel a strong urge to lash out at "America", but those comments are detrimental to the quality of this discussion, regardless of whether they're true.
It's important that the American people don't view China this way once the balance of power has shifted again. It's a supreme stupidity to turn envy into hatred.
I can't upmod mynameishere's comment enough.
Oh, you're talking about the American government. America has nothing to do with its government; they're two separate entities, with separate (and perhaps mutually exclusive) interests ;)
Many people in countries with corrupt governments and crappy politicians state that, but in most cases, a government simply does, what the people allow it to do.
in most cases, a government simply does, what the people allow it to do.
Sadly, people can be persuaded to allow all manner of things, if they're led to believe that their way of life is under threat.
Thomas Jefferson put it better than I ever could: “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
Sadly, people can be persuaded to allow all manner of things, if they're led to believe that their way of life is under threat.
Thomas Jefferson put it better than I ever could: “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
yes, even more sadly, its fear it self that is mostly used for persuasion. So don't be afraid America, we, the rest of the world, can't afford to have half of the world's nukes controlled by fascists and corporate blood suckers, oh, wait..
democracy?
From what city of angels do you reside? Do you think America is without enemies, no matter how 'civilized' it behaves or votes? When does a country fall from grace in your eyes?
I hate many things about America, but this:
"You have biggest number of homeless in the world, even children and so we can continue whole day... but I still hope there are some people there who understand this and can do something with that."
is patently false. If America minded it's own fucking business, things would be much better.
"You have biggest number of homeless in the world, even children and so we can continue whole day... but I still hope there are some people there who understand this and can do something with that."
is patently false. If America minded it's own fucking business, things would be much better.
Flagged as xenophobic flaming. Seriously, this kind of thing destroys forums.
Here are a few things that happened in the last 10-20 years that have brought us to this point:
1. Debt became fashionable, even prestigious, world-wide. The most storied names in business became debtaholics. This includes the financial players like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, but industrial-companies-that-became-financial-companies, like GM, Ford, GE and so on. This level of comfort with debt is unprecedented in history, and the historical parallels are dark.
2. The most prestigious nation on earth piled on debt, and other nations copied. US Debt/GDP is at 320%, much higher than even the great depression peak. Derivatives further magnify the leverage - as an example, AIG went down because of the magnified leverage not captured on their balance sheet.
3. US savings rate dropped from 10% in the mid 80s to near zero today, and it even went negative for a period.
History teaches us that such toxic debt episodes are followed by a prolonged hang-over, followed by a social aversion to debt and eventual recovery. The patient has just passed out - the hanger over hasn't even started. It is way too soon to talk about a recovery.
So it is very appropriate to be very concerned and fearful for our collective futures. What can we do as individuals? Swear off debt, live very frugally, lower our expectations.
To paraphrase, just because a lot of people are panicking doesn't mean we shouldn't be really afraid!