This was a VERY long article, but truly excellent.  Amazingly, the Brookings Institute, decade by decade, sheds light on the how the media has framed the debate regarding immigration.  I found myself wondering, how is it that American policy has been reduced to sound bites and simple catch phrases. Lou Dobbs says there is a crisis and we believe him? Where are the moderate voices of reason, described within this Brookings Institute report? What really stood out to me, was their analysis that a comprehensive conversation regarding immigration, legal and illegal, was simply not taking place within the larger context of American economy. What was happening within our economy that was allowing for such the large flow of immigrants, including those who were not entering through legal channels? Where is the discussion regarding the housing boom and the need for additional labor? What about the need for high tech employees that this country needs in order to continue competing in a global economy? The media is complicit in promoting the belief that there is an us vs them. Whether it be citizens vs. government or legal vs legal,  somehow the more complicated resolution of immigration has been left behind for the easier to write, us vs them paradigm. In order to come to any meaningful conclusion regarding immigration, we must first rewrite the narrative of immigration. I will add, that although the media may be simplifying this issue, our politicians have shown little initiative to leave behind the politics and search for a comprehensive solution that so many middle of the road Americans desire.

The U.S. media have hindered effective policy making on immigration for decades, and their impact has been increasing in recent years as a result of an ongoing evolution in the media industry. Deeply ingrained practices in American journalism have produced a narrative that conditions the public to associate immigration with illegality, crisis, controversy and government failure. Meanwhile, new voices of advocacy on the media landscape have succeeded in mobilizing segments of the public in opposition to policy initiatives, sometimes by exaggerating the narrative of immigration told by traditional news organizations. The combined effect is to promote stalemate on an issue that is inherently difficult to resolve and that is likely to resurface on the public agenda when a new administration and a new Congress take office in January 2009.

These findings emerge from an examination of how the media have covered immigration going back to 1980 with a special focus on the extended policy debates in 2006 and 2007, which collapsed without producing any significant legislation. Supporters of radically different positions in those debates agree that the current immigration system is broken; one need not favor any particular outcome to conclude that stalemate is a mark of failure in the policy process. Many actors in Washington and beyond played a role in that outcome, and the intent here is not to argue that the media were the decisive players or to rank their influence relative to others. The objective is to understand how the media conditioned public opinion and the policy landscape, and the results show that the media—both traditional journalism and new forms of expression—need to be considered among the factors that contribute to polarization and distrust.

While the immigrant population has grown vastly larger over the years, the terms of the policy debate over immigration have hardly changed in 30 years. Improving border controls; halting the employment of unauthorized migrants; dealing with temporary workers; determining legalization plans for people in the country illegally; refiguring visa categories for legal immigrants—all these topics have been debated repeatedly since at least 1980, and some have actually been legislated. In the meantime, however, the media have undergone a radical transformation marked by declining audiences for the daily newspapers and broadcast network evening news programs that once dominated the information flow and by rising new forms of news delivery via cable television, talk radio and the Internet.

In the recent immigration debates of 2006 and 2007, the new media landscape also amplified discrete sectors of public opinion to help block legislative action. In the first act of this drama, the Spanish-language media helped mobilize huge crowds to protest legislation passed by the House that would have mandated an unprecedented crackdown on unauthorized migrants including their jailing on felony charges. The protest marches of spring 2006 were one factor that pushed a bipartisan group of senators to present a counterproposal whose passage kept the other legislation from moving forward.

The new media voices played an even more significant role in the second act of the legislative drama. In 2007, conservative voices on cable television news shows, talk radio and the Internet mobilized opposition to provisions of a Senate bill that would have offered legal status, or “amnesty” as it was labeled, to unauthorized migrants. Meanwhile, liberal commentators and bloggers paid relatively little attention to the issue. Conservatives in the media successfully defined the terms of the debate in a way that helped lead to the eventual collapse of efforts to reach a compromise.

Both cases represented a triumph of “no!” These media sectors proved adept at promoting opposition to specific measures, but they have shown no comparable ability to advance an affirmative agenda. The media have given voice to strongly felt and well-defined views at either end of the policy spectrum. Meanwhile, the broad middle in American public opinion favors a mix of policy options on immigration, but that segment’s views are marked by uncertainty and anxiety about the topic and skepticism about government’s ability to handle it. This reflects the way the immigration narrative has been framed by the media for a generation.

An important but unresolved question is whether these same dynamics apply to other issues that share certain characteristics with immigration. Comprehensive reform of health care and energy policies, like immigration, require the mediation of many competing economic and regional interests while also assuaging strongly felt ideological differences. If the effects of media transformation can be generalized, the recent failures to reach grand bargains on immigration should serve as a cautionary tale.

42 Thoughts to “A report from the Brookings Institute, How the media has framed the immigration debate”

  1. NotGregLetiecq

    Thank you Elena. It’s so odd to look back on media coverage of the immigration “crisis” while we are in the midst of another “crisis” or so the media tells us.

    “New media landscape also amplified discrete sectors of public opinion,” namely FAIR and the Anti-immigrant Lobby, while mainstream journalists and mainstream politicians often ignored the issue. And this allowed FAIR to define the terms of the debate as “patriots” vs. “traitors.” Funny how we were dealing with “patriots” vs. “traitors” when we were told there was a “crisis” that required an immediate invasion and a 10 year occupation of Iraq.

    But let’s look at the three “crises” one at a time.

    1. Iraq

    2. Immigration

    3. Financial markets

    Which of these were actually a crisis? Certainly not 1. There wasn’t a single WMD found in Iraq. Cheney, Bush, and Rice constantly terrorizing us with images of “mushroom clouds” were therefore blatant manipulation. McCain’s insinuation on The David Letterman Show that the Anthrax attacks came from Iraq turned out to be scare tactic (just “google mccain antrax iraq letterman” if you don’t believe me). There was no imminent threat. No crisis. But did the media tell us there WAS ONE??? Oh yeah.

    What about Crisis Number Two. Is there or has there ever been an “immigration crisis?” No. Not unless you count the landing at Plymouth Rock. As this study points out, the immigration process has been the same throughout American history, and various groups from Germans and Italians to Chinese and Latinos have been looked upon as invaders. Certainly nothing changed in 2006 and 2007 when the media started telling us there was a crisis. But I think the success of the “crisis” fear mongering during the run-up to the Iraq war inspired the “crisis” mongering we saw with regard to immigration. They EVEN tried to conflate the two, and, some of the Freedom Fry voters actually BELIEVED the b.s.!!!!

    So, is Crisis Number Three really a crisis?

    Well, the bill passed in the Senate tonight 75 to 24. I guess we’ll never find out.

  2. SecondAlamo

    “So, is Crisis Number Three really a crisis?” You’ve got to be kidding! Even the media couldn’t dream up what is happening in the financial world. Then again maybe there aren’t any foreclosures in Woodbridge either? It’s just a media scare tactic? As much as I hate to say it, but sometimes the media actually prints a few facts instead of opinions.

  3. SecondAlamo

    Then again, I guess for folks without a dime in investments this isn’t a crisis.

  4. All three are crises, IMHO. The biggest one right now is the bank crash. Then comes Iraq. Then comes immigration.

    That said, if we all get blown up, none of these crises will be crises anymore.

  5. Elena

    Second Alamo,
    Maybe its a little more like the “Boy who cried wolf” story. If everything is a crisis, eventually when a REAL crisis hits, people are simply too skeptical to believe the “experts” anymore. I personally believe the President has done an incredibly poor job explaining the American people why the collapse of “wallstreet” will impact us all, in ways that we don’t understand as “regular” citizens, not educated in the intricacies of the monetary system.

    What concerns me is that there are REAL crisis’ ahead for the next generation, my childrens’ generation, and it isn’t immigration in my opinion. It is the deficit, it is the impact of global warming, it is dependence on foreign energy, and it is the ability to care for the elderly when SS and Medicare go bankrupt.

  6. NotGregLetiecq

    Yes, Elena, but none of those are really a crises either, not in the sense that you have to write a bill and pass it in a week or else the debt explodes into a trillion shards of glass or the globe warms suddenly to 300 degrees. All of these problems are ones that can be solved if you make this a priority over the long term.

    We are all concerned about global warming, but would you be pleased if our next President announced on Jan. 10th that there was a global warming crisis and if we didn’t spend 7 billion dollars to buy the world’s largest ice cube we’d all die by the end of the week?

    Second Alamo, I don’t hold any stocks yet, but I’d like to some day, so I don’t want the Great Depression Part Two to start. I think Elena is right though, if every super duper mega expensive policy decision has to be made with a gun to our head, we have to start wondering what the rush is.

    Iraq would still have been there a year later, or two years later, if we really needed a cash cow for Halliburton and Exxon THAT badly. If, after all the intelligence was corrected and we know there was no strategic purpose in occupying Iraq OTHER than mega profits for the war industry and the oil industry, and if we’d given military experts who weren’t being pressured to lie to the American people the opportunity to EXPLAIN how much LESS safe we’d be 7 years later after taking our eyes of the REAL war against terrorism, THEN we could have made the decision based on the monetary value of an American soldiers life. Lying would not have been necessary.

    Katherine, you still think Iraq was a “crisis” now that you know every single reason they gave us was a lie? Doesn’t that make you doubt whether it was Iraq who attacked us on 9/11? Because it was not Iraq.

  7. NotGregLetiecq

    Let’s compare who thought which challenge was a crisis that required immediate and/or drastic action to shoot the nation in both feet:

    McCain: Yes on Iraq. No on immigration.

    Bush: Yes on Iraq. No on immigration.

    Congress: Yes on Iraq. No on immigration.

    Obama: No on Iraq. No on immigration.

    Obama is the only one who was 3 for 3. And where did McCain and Obama differ? On whether or not to fear-monger, panic, and invade the wrong country.

    But all four say “full steam ahead” on the Bail out plan. So I’ll take them at their word. If I had the stomach to be “outraged” about one of the panic buttons above, I’d be outraged about Iraq. But I’m more sad than outraged at this point.

  8. NotGregLetiecq

    When I say Obama is 3 for 3 I’m including the Wall Street “crisis.” I do think he’s right about it. I’m just really angry that it came to this, and doubly angry that I can no longer trust my government to tell me the truth. So “bold and decisive action” give me a sinking feeling that it’s another Iraq.

  9. AnonForNow

    Our common sense or our bs detector is the biggest casualty in all this. We can’t trust our intuitions anymore about what is true. Our common sense, a distinctly and important American trait, has been spun out of us. We need someone like Obama to talk to us without the spin so that our common sense can be restored. Vote Obama.

  10. NotGregLetiecq

    Great point AnonForNow! That’s exactly what I was trying to say.

  11. ShellyB

    Interesting that in light of the economic malaise that is no longer a PWC problem but a national crisis, there is no one prepared to argue that immigration is a “shoot America in both feet” type of issue. The perfect answer to the anti-immigrant screamers (if there are any next year) will be “consider the economic ramifications.”

    Katherine, I’m surprised you say WMD’s in Iraq was a crisis. I’ll admit I was fooled at the time, but I thought it was common knowledge now that the sell job was a big lie. No WMD’s. No quick and easy war. No war will pay for itself. No greeted as liberators. And yes, NGL, no connection to 9/11.

  12. NGL, Iraq is a crisis because people are dying out there, because we spend billions every day we are there, because we are now on the verge of other wars with the Middle East because of it and because we have ignored domestic policy so we can run around in the sand looking for WMD’s.

  13. NGL, Iraq is a crisis because people are dying out there, because we spend billions every day we are there, because we are now on the verge of other wars with the Middle East because of it and because we have ignored domestic policy so we can run around in the sand looking for WMD’s.

  14. NotGregLetiecq

    Okay, I get it Katherine. You don’t have to say it twice!

    I think we are on the same page. Iraq was not a crisis at the time they told us it was, we both agree. But they have created a crisis by fighting the wrong war in the wrong place, and it will be up to the next President to clean up the mess.

    But here once again, the “crisis” that Bush/McCain policy has created in Iraq does not require rash action that shoots both nation in both feet. We have to be careful getting out of Iraq, and look before we leap. Here McCain and Obama also agree, and Bush is coming around to Obama’s argument too, that we should draw down troops gradually. McCain wants to stay for 100 years if things are not as violent, and he wants to stay for as long as it takes if things are violent. That’s just two sides of the same coin that says stay in Iraq no matter what happens. Meanwhile, he’s so quick to hit the panic button, who knows what NEW wars we would find ourselves in if McCain were suddenly in charge of our military.

    Rash actions are just not good. Rarely does a nation this great have a gun to its head in reality. It’s all rhetoric, or at least it was with Iraq. It was with the Anti-immigrant Lobby. And, I do think some of it is just rhetoric with the economic crisis. But I’ll admit I don’t know that much about economics so I’ll trust our leaders but not by choice. When I go to the polling booth, however, I will NOT be pulling the lever for McCain who said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” 36 times, and then had to trust the experts just like I have to do, and majorly over reacted calling for Paulson’s firing and then “suspending” his campaign and mucking up the negotiations.

    McCain is groping in the dark about the economy every bit as much as I am. It’s nice to have a President you can have a beer with for 8 years. But now I want someone who knows what the heck they’re doing. We just can’t afford another four years with a President (and a V.P.) who have no more expertise on the economy than someone like me who has never owned a stock and still has tons of student loans!

  15. “Okay, I get it Katherine. You don’t have to say it twice! ”

    LOL! I don’t know why, but it posted twice. Guess I was just impatient when I hit the “submit comment” button! 🙂

  16. Oh NGL. don’t even GO down the student loan road! I got ripped off by this scumbag school eight years ago and am still being charged for it–more than $50,000 in student loan debt that I shouldn’t owe! And the lawyers want a gazillion dollars to even do anything about it! Congress….they do nothing. Dept. of Ed….they do less than nothing. Talk about another crises! How are people like us ever supposed to move on when we can’t move on?


    We passed the Posse Comitatus Act specifically to prevent the military to be deployed in our streets. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous development.

  18. Why are we seeing the US Army activated for the first time within US borders absent a national crisis?

    Could it be because the collapse of the American dollar looms on the horizon?

  19. Mckie, I heard about these videos. Are they from a credible source? Where are they coming from?

  20. Democracy Now! has a website. I’m not sure I believe what they are telling us. They are kind of an alternative press/media group, as I understand it.

  21. Roll ze Tape! Frenchie speaks!

  22. kgotthardt,

    It’s been my experience that anything not controlled by the mainstream media is preferable to relying on the MSM. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions in the videos I see but it’s valuable information you won’t get from the MSM.

  23. Red Dawn

    I told a good friend of mine that I was going to back to being UN political as all of this is scaring the …out of me . ( I am trying not to cuss-as I OFTEN do)

    If we can’t trust our Government, who do we trust? It is my understanding that this bill that started out with 3 pages has turned into of 400 PLUS and EXTRA-ching-ching $$ out of the pocket.

    Tears for Fears or years of Fears….please, someone tell me the TRUTH as I don’t know if I should wave the white flag or hang the US flag upside down.

    Please someone tell America-THE PEOPLE straight up

    I chose this video, not really feeling

  24. Red Dawn

    I forgot to add to:the bill starting out with 3 pages/turned into over 400 with tax exemptions for ‘wooden arrows’ made for kid toys why are they posturing IF what I heard is true, that they can pass this bill one way or the other,in the best interest of our Country?

  25. Red Dawn

    “Please someone tell America-THE PEOPLE straight up”

    I realize that was a POOR choice of words as we all know what people want to tell America.

    I want to go on record for asking the people in charge of running the UNITED ( divided)States of America that question and as the song states, LOST in a DREAM ( the American)….I just ask, how do you expect the same in return? NGL has posted about how WE lost faith and Elena has posted about crying wolf…..

  26. You know, sometimes, Red, you have to take a political break. Go ahead. You deserve it! Hide your head in the sand for just a little while. You’ll come back out when you are ready! And then you’ll be more dangerous than ever 🙂

  27. Red Dawn

    Head went into the sand and came back up…. IT is the HEART of the matter
    This is what matters. It is just SUX when you see the truth and want to go and hide you head in the sand. 🙁

    4:16 is dedicated to you… 🙂

  28. Red Dawn

    Remember when the days were long….didn’t have a care in the world…mommy and daddy standing by….Poisoned by fairy tales( the American Dream)….

  29. NotGregLetiecq

    We all tuned in to see Palin Failin’. But what I came away with was that Biden is a very knowledgable, very charming leader with charisma in spades. Palin was servicable as long as she was asked a question she had rehearsed. Tell tale sign if she HADN’T rehearsed a question: she completely ignored it.

    The most significant moment was when we were forced to confront the fact that the Vice President is only a heartbeat away. This is where Palin is a cement block around John McCain’s otherwise swimming feet. She is sinking him fast.

  30. Red Dawn


    Do you really think that our vote counts???? I admit ( not my age) that I have NEVER voted for a president. And just when I think I have the chance (FINALLY-and blame myself for the MOTIVATION/outcome) will make a difference?I don’t know what your answer will bring, I just admit, that I never had and never will trust our government….kiss babies and pass out lollipops…too easy as a mom but a MOM will go for the unfavorable vote 😉

  31. Moon-howler

    Am I actually agreeing with SA?

    I am keeping my fingers crossed that the rescue bill will pass.

  32. Moon-howler,

    If you’re agreeing with SA, it’s a sign you might want to reevaluate your position.

    Recession is a good thing. It clears out all the bad debt. Some people who made bad investments will see those investments sour. But It’s better we take our medicine now and have a year or two of pain and then recovery.

    The other path is to continue our addiction to bad credit. That path will put the american dollar itself into a crash. Instead of seeing some limited investments go bad, the whole american dollar may crash, and with it all our buying power.

    So we can have one or two rooms in our house get burned, or we can watch the whole house burn down.

  33. NotGregLetiecq

    Virginia is a Battleground State Red Dawn! That means our vote counts more than in Texas or California where its a foregone conclusion.

    We have two choices. One is a throwback limited to the way we have done things in the past, not just the recent past with the Bush administration, but also the Cold War bellicose stance that says war is the answer to everything, and free markets should go unregulated and billionaires untaxed because the middle class is large enough to absorb the corporate rip offs and trillion dollar deficits.

    The other choice is the choice of our future. It is the direction people 60 and under want to take this country by overwhelming margins. It means the politics of division and fear-mongering are outmoded by an involved electorate that looks at issues based on what unites us instead of our differences. When politicians fail to communicate effectively, or lose our trust as Bush has done, we tune them out and cop out of our civic duty to participate in self-governance. And when we don’t participate, that leaves room for the lobbyists with all their money to buy influence and take our country away.

    McCain doesn’t know any other way, because in his vision of America the people remain apathetic and disallusioned. McCain can never involve the people in our democracy the way Obama is, can, and will. In McCain’s world, the lobbyists who run his campaign are the ones with the real power, and we the people are just fools to be won over with lipstick slogans and culture war bickering.

    Obama’s ability to lead derives from the people, as it should. With an engaged electorate, and a leader whom we can trust to communicate honestly and clearly with us, there is no challenge we cannot meet. Not even cleaning up after the mess that Bush and McCain have left us.

    This will be the most important election of our lives. The year we’ll look back upon and say that was when the world changed for the better, when the 21st century began at last.

    We have the opportunity to say we were part of it, we voted, or we volunteered to embrace the America we are becoming, embrace the America Barack Obama’s story symbolises, and meet the challenges we face as one people.

    This is the PERFECT year for you to cast your first vote for President. If you don’t, you’ll be forced to lie to your grand kids (=

  34. Lucky Duck

    I am with you Moon-Howler, I find myself in agreement with SA one this one. I hope the rescue plan works and if it does, than we can lessen the impact and perhaps the duration of the recession on society. While financial cycles are a consistent part of our economy, this one is so much deeper because of the reckless actions on Wall Street and others in the Real Estate business. Hopefully, a degree of regulation will be re-introduced to those systems ( I remember my first house required a 20% down payment – what happend to that guideline??) and they prevent the abuses we have recently seen.

    However, there is still going to be a long road to recovery.

  35. Recession has never been good to me, Mackie. No one absolves MY bad debt (that I shouldn’t owe anyway in the case of student loans). I just get more and more poor. It happened in the last recession and I expect it will happen again.

    Oh well. Helps me relate more to the masses which is more than our rotten government and banking bastards do.

  36. ShellyB

    Biden was the clear winner. I have been watching the pundits try to spin this for Palin. I think the disingenuous way in which Republican talking heads have been trying to manipulate people through their TVs has become the latest and most obvious example of putting partisanship before straight talk. There are so many others. How is Bush’s press secretary supposed to come out and tell the truth about what’s been going on the past 8 years (except for McClellan years too late and no I don’t mean GENERAL McClellan). But the independents who will decide this election are well aware they have been lied to. They are looking for it. So it was a big mistake to choose a VP you have to lie to say you have faith in.

  37. Moon-howler

    SA/Lucky Duck/ Moon-howler recovery. You heard it here first.

    Mackie, you cannot let the banks in the United States fail. Even with capitalism, every once in a while you have to do some tweaking. Those congressmen voting no today might very well be voting for the great depression of the twenty first century if this bill does not go through.

    I am not willing to bet my assets on someone’s academic/political opinions. I am going to continue to listen to Warren Buffett and continue to agree with Second Alamo and Lucky Duck on money. If you don’t have investments or a job you need, and you can live off cash, perhaps you can risk it. I am not one of those people.

  38. Moon-howler

    Rescue bill looks like it will pass. Thirty votes more than they need so far.

  39. Michael

    Excellent research Elena!

    I trust the Brookings Institute, we use many of their agent behavioral models in my lab.

    It is really going to come down to the following in my opinion:

    1. Do we want to continue to have “illegal” aliens coming into our country illegally?
    I vote no, some vote yes.
    2. Do we want to continue to have high quality, skilled “legal” immigrants coming to our country?
    I vote yes, some vote no.
    2a. Do we want those legal and “illegal” immigrants to follow law?
    I vote yes, some vote no.
    3. Do we really want to protect our country soverenity?
    I vote yes, some vote no.
    4. Do we understand that any “uncontolled” population growth can have dire consequences on a “second” housing bubble (a bubble is an irrational belief that buyers can make a profit by continuing to sell, in a market that is overvalued)
    I hope we do but the media does not analyze the truth.
    5. Do we understand that any “uncontrolled” growth can have dire consequences on the availability and cost of resources in our future (oil, food and services), especially if the majority of that growth is “low income” growth.
    Such growth historically leads toa nation of poverty, releative to the rest of the world.
    The IMF world bank will be reducing the percentage of US dollars in the next 5 years Special Deposit Recepts (SDRs) as the value of the dollar collapses and the US workforce gets poorer.

  40. Michael

    Even with the passing of a bailout bill, it is only going to help Paulson and Goldman cut personal losses, as well as others who will benefit from the buyouts.

    It will not stop the rise in inflation of goods and commodity resources over the next 5 years and rise in M1/M2 money supply that will likely reach a level it never has in the past (going beyond recession and into depression likely within 2 years), as well as the impact on both as we increase taxes to bring down the deficit spending that will result, and the increased trade deficit that will result and the collapse of the dollar against the euro, and yen that will result.

  41. Michael

    The IMF is selling 400 tons of its gold to compenate for the loss in value of the US dollar. That is serious business.

  42. Michael

    In a nut shell here is the problem. Bailouts are designed to remove bad debt. Bad debt held by any company on its books is a business loss, in some cases it prevents the company from showing a profit. If you can’t show a profit, or be viable as a business, you must eventually declare bankruptcy to prevent your “creditors” from taking your assets from you and dividing up your company. From bankruptcy you MAY be able to legally start over, but as a new entity. companies with positive balance sheets can “buy you” and get even bigger and more powerful (Goldman).

    Side note: Who is managing Paulson’s trust?

    You can bail out your crony friends, who would otherwise lose everything in a lost business. You can stick the bill to the US taxpayer, if they are dumb enough to let you do it, you can keep all of your personal assets and let the government take your risk and debt liability.

    When you do this (and your friend is Paulson) you have essentially pulled off the world’s largest “ponzi” scheme, promised your investors high yields and returns if they invest in your packaged “credit and mortgage derivatives”, go broke (as the illegal ponzi scheme can no lobger support the bubble you have created), hide the “real” losses in the “Federal Clearing house”, refuse to pay back your investors, and walk away with billions for your “financial scheming” efforts.

    The impact on Main street is the rising cost of a runaway inflation as the cost of goods and commodities skyrockets, the stock market collapses, and the money supply increases as you print more paper to cover your increased government operating costs, debt to foreigh nations, add risk to your T-bill, thereby decreasing their value and grade on the international market, and increase taxes to keep the runaway federal deficit from exceeding any previous cap or level ever seen before. The international interbank lending rate will rise from 2% to 6.6%, making it almost impossible for banks to payoff investors (who have offered their portfolios for loans. You will profit from high risk “securities lending” (which should be made illegal and the short market made illegal for the same reason) as you try to cover the federal reserve obligation which will increase as your existing assests become more and more illiquid in an unknown market with no buyers, and you eventually must pass that risk on the the consumer and the companies asking for loans to cover business operating costs and new innovation costs, at high loan values. These businesses will not be able to cover increase comsumable operating costs, cannot innovate and will start laying off employees (like in the midwest). When this happens recession occurs, and eventually depression occurs as 20-30% of the workforce is out of work and cannot find a job anywhere.

    You can only survive this by “hoarding”, increasing your sales prices of commodities (due to scarcity) and not spending but saving your money. This leads to higher consumable prices, more M1/M2 out of circulation and less economic growth (1-2% at most).

    The spiral then continues until innovation and cost cutting (supply) get back in line with limited demand and you eventually recover in about 10 years.

    AWCheney would you agree with this, or do you think a different scenario will happen based on your research? My guess is you will agree with most of it.

Comments are closed.