Earl-Of-IMDb
War Child
that picture with the white stripes and the elephant is creepy..
the decade from hell
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
You can find both horror and great beauty and joyfulness in any decade. Just depends where you choose to look.
This is very true. Our pastor yesterday, in reflecting on the decade that was, said something interesting -- that crisis is when true heroes arise, and so he postulated that this last decade may also be known as the decade of heroism. Not to deny the horrors that occured, but to point out that, from firefighters in NYC to rescuers in New Orleans, heroes still rose to the occasion.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I deleted all the reasons this decade sucked simply because I refuse to belive this is the way it's going to be every other decade.
I haven't felt so financially stressed since the 80's and I had credit card debt back then. I don't now - and don't have a mortgage either, but I'm struggling as hard now as I did back then.
It really doesn't make any sense and it shouldn't be this way.
Goodbye to the 00's.. it's been real, a real drag.
I haven't felt so financially stressed since the 80's and I had credit card debt back then. I don't now - and don't have a mortgage either, but I'm struggling as hard now as I did back then.
It really doesn't make any sense and it shouldn't be this way.
Goodbye to the 00's.. it's been real, a real drag.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
You want the decade from hell? Europe in the 1340s.
I think the 'end of history' that Melon alluded to, has a lot to answer for. That whole 1989-1993 period (roughly: I lump the beginning of the end of the Iron Curtain and the end of apartheid in South Africa as bracketing a loose era of good feelings) was so much of a Hollywood happy ending that it inspired some triumphalist drivel and obscured the fact that nothing ever really ends. For one thing, a less complacent country would never, I hope, have let George W. Bush within spitting distance of a presidential nomination, let alone election (and make no mistake, it wasn't a nation in crisis, but a nation that felt like politics didn't much matter and besides everything was a-o-k, that watched over the 2000 circus). But them were the times.
This decade reminds me of nothing so much as its exact mirror 100 years ago, the Edwardian era just before everything exploded. Of course nothing ever exactly repeats, so don't quote me some day as predicting a third world war in the 2010s. A long era of awkward and insufficient institutions, economy and politics, certainly that part looks likely enough.
On a personal note, it has blown the big one, but, them's the breaks.
I think the 'end of history' that Melon alluded to, has a lot to answer for. That whole 1989-1993 period (roughly: I lump the beginning of the end of the Iron Curtain and the end of apartheid in South Africa as bracketing a loose era of good feelings) was so much of a Hollywood happy ending that it inspired some triumphalist drivel and obscured the fact that nothing ever really ends. For one thing, a less complacent country would never, I hope, have let George W. Bush within spitting distance of a presidential nomination, let alone election (and make no mistake, it wasn't a nation in crisis, but a nation that felt like politics didn't much matter and besides everything was a-o-k, that watched over the 2000 circus). But them were the times.
This decade reminds me of nothing so much as its exact mirror 100 years ago, the Edwardian era just before everything exploded. Of course nothing ever exactly repeats, so don't quote me some day as predicting a third world war in the 2010s. A long era of awkward and insufficient institutions, economy and politics, certainly that part looks likely enough.
On a personal note, it has blown the big one, but, them's the breaks.
solemole
War Child
You can find both horror and great beauty and joyfulness in any decade. Just depends where you choose to look.
EXACTLY!!
Decades, everyone! 10 years is too long for it to be one mood, one feeling, one single all encompassing state of affairs. Every decade has its terrorism, civil wars and of course, natural disasters.
Plus, there is the "world events" side of things and the "personal side of things." One could suck, the other could be just fine, as others have alluded to.
The way I see it:
World events: Too much promise to start, too many opportunities lost along the way. We start out- 2000- peace and prosperity, on our way to paying off our debt and forgiving African debt-- then before 9/11 even happens, America is back in deficit! In my view, the previous Bush administration was devastating for our economy, much of what we deal with know can be traced back to their reckless actions. 9/11- a horrible tragedy, and an opportunity for world unity against the common threat of terrorism is shattered by a diversion to Iraq. Missed opportunities to make progress against terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia result. The Israel-Palestine issue received much less attention than due. Tsunami, Katrina, Korea and Iran.
Personally: I was just fine! Started out the decade in 7th grade, finished it out as a recent college graduate. Every year was reasonably positive and fulfilling for me until 2009, when I had to deal with the illness and death of my father. Hoping for a better 2010!
Same to all of you!
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
perhaps "decade from Hell" is pretty America-centric. i think it was the worst decade for the US since the 1930s, and though there was far greater mass death for the US in the 1940s, one could argue that the loss of life defeated fascism.
India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa -- all had a very good decade, and Europe has certainly been through worse.
but for the US, it's been shameful in many ways, and as nathan pointed out, at least the everyday heroes did rise to the occasion.
India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa -- all had a very good decade, and Europe has certainly been through worse.
but for the US, it's been shameful in many ways, and as nathan pointed out, at least the everyday heroes did rise to the occasion.
Good point here!
To make matters worse for the US, we seemed to view India, Brazil and China having a good decade as some kind of zero sum game. So instead of competing and innovating and working to be the best, we seemed to retreat into finger pointing and negative talk about globalization.
Unfortunately, we saw what you mentioned not as an opportunity to compete, but as a threat. Too bad.
Of course, as always, the everyday heroes came through, as did our military families, seeing as they were the only ones who sacrificed during this time.
As always, the everyday heroes did rise to the occassion!
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Worst decade for the US since the 1930s? I don't think so.
01. The 00s average unemployment rate and inflation rate were lower than the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s!
02. The 00s poverty rate was lower than ANY decade in US history with exception of the 1970s.
03. GDP growth throughout the decade was not radically lower than any previous US decade and higher in several cases.
04. The average national debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in the 1990s and 1950s and 1940s.
05. Overall US standard of living increased over the past 10 years.
06. More US citizens go to college and graduate than 10 years ago.
07. The average life expectancy for US citizens has increased.
08. There have been many advances in medicine and technology that have improved the lives of many people in excess of previous decades.
09. Wars in the 1770s, 1780s, 1840s, 1860s, 1910s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, took FAR more US lives than the ones in the 2000s.
10. Ask people in Rawanda and Bosnia and they will tell you the decade from hell was the 1990s and with good reason. Those conflicts killed more people in a shorter amount of time than anything seen worldwide over the past decade.
Bottom line, claiming that the past decade was the decade from hell or the worst decade in US history since the 1930s, perhaps because George Bush was president during most of it, is nothing more than wishful thinking.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Take that, liberals!!
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Strangely enough, the naughties also so men displaying chest hair more freely than any decade other than the 1970's. Coincidence? I think not.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I personally think an awful lot of the world's problems could be solved in one fell swoop by the return of the mustache.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Surely Toronto's hipsters cant be the only ones sporting mustaches... I guess you could mean real mustaches and not bad teenage ones
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Lord Stanley's Cup stayed in the Lower 48 the entire decade so it wasn't all bad.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Hey, why don't you stop insulting the island folk and go laugh at my joke about the inherent conflict of interest in a gay man who gets paid to kick balls.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
You have no concept of basic statistics. The problem with this decade is that we started well and ended shitty. Thus, the problem is in decline, not in average. Any average analysis makes this decade look better because it started off well back during the Clinton administration in 2000.
Strongbow has no concept of anything, never mind basic statistics.
She has a long history of proving this.
All this is doing is cherry picking data from 2000 and comparing it to 2009. Thats not representitive of the entire decade by a long shot.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Not representative? It's the perfect representation! That's what this decade was: a massive economic tailspin.
I actually know the relevant statistics for each decade, each year, and each month and have posted them here before.
Were talking about a period of ten years. Each decade has multiple rises and declines in just a 10 year period. If you want to accurately assess each decade, you don't cherry pick the first month or year and compare it to the last month or year. Your leaving out over 80% of what happened during the decade by doing that.
The Clinton administration was just ONE YEAR of the past decade. Thats it. Most of the Clinton years were in the 90s, a decade that is beaten by the recent one on several levels.
Also conversly, the last year of this decade, 2009, makes it look far worse than it really was. Once again, if you want an accurate assessement of the decade, you have to consider everything. Not just the first year and the last year.
You wouldn't just consider US military casualties in 2000 and in 2009 when looking at the those cost for the decade would you?
If your going to be accurate and objective, you have to look at all the data, including the data that shows unemployment came down to as low as 4.4% under George Bush in 2007!
Well, you have obviously not looked at the annual and monthly rates for unemployment, inflation, poverty and GDP growth throughout the decade. Several of these statistics rose early in the Bush administration, then they dropped. Monthly unemployment rates dropped to as low as 4.4% in 2007 which is one of the lowest unemployment rates on record.
Any ten year period will have a number of rises and declines. Its not been a straight decline in all the numbers since 2000. In fact, I don't think you'll find any decades that would show that. It just to long of a period. Thats why all the data must be looked at to assess the decade, not just the first month and the last month.
There are millions of people who lived very well during the Bush administration who only just recently lost their jobs and others things in 2009. But your not going to see these things if you just narrowly look at two months or two years of a decade which is TEN YEARS!
Wow, what an intelligent, objective, respectful and forum appropriate response.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
The amazing thing is that you spent all of your posts cherrypicking stats and then accuse us of cherrypicking. Faaaaaantastic.
I didn't cherry pick anything from the 00s. I looked at all the major economic statistics for the decade(EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR) and compared it to the other decades. Nothing is left out. Cherry picking would be looking at only the first month and the last month of a 10 year period. It tells you almost nothing about what happened in the 9 years and 10 months between those dates. It basically says that what happened from 2003 to 2007 is irrelevant. But thats a five year period that had strong economic growth, reduced unemployment and inflation. People got married, bought homes, got promoted, entered new jobs, graduated college and enter the work force to good paying jobs during that time. But your completely ignoring that and claiming that life during the decade can be defined by the first month of the decade and the last month of the decade which is absurd!
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Take a look at the following.
US monthly unemployment rate from December 2005 through February 2008:
2005
Dec 4.8%
2006
Jan 4.7%
Feb 4.8%
Mar 4.7%
Apr 4.7%
May 4.7%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.5%
Oct 4.4%
Nov 4.5%
Dec 4.4%
2007
Jan 4.6%
Feb 4.5%
Mar 4.4%
Apr 4.5%
May 4.5%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.7%
Oct 4.8%
Nov 4.7%
Dec 4.9%
2008
Jan 4.9%
Feb 4.8%
Thats 27 consecutive months of an unemployment rate below 5%. The second longest run in the past 40 years and the 5th longest run in United States history. But if your only concerned with statistics in the year 2000 and the year 2009, you would NEVER know this. You can't claim that Bill Clinton was responsible for this either. This started nearly a full year into George Bush's second term in office! This period of time constitutes nearly a quarter of the entire decade and over half of Bush's second term in office.
US monthly unemployment rate from December 2005 through February 2008:
2005
Dec 4.8%
2006
Jan 4.7%
Feb 4.8%
Mar 4.7%
Apr 4.7%
May 4.7%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.5%
Oct 4.4%
Nov 4.5%
Dec 4.4%
2007
Jan 4.6%
Feb 4.5%
Mar 4.4%
Apr 4.5%
May 4.5%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.7%
Oct 4.8%
Nov 4.7%
Dec 4.9%
2008
Jan 4.9%
Feb 4.8%
Thats 27 consecutive months of an unemployment rate below 5%. The second longest run in the past 40 years and the 5th longest run in United States history. But if your only concerned with statistics in the year 2000 and the year 2009, you would NEVER know this. You can't claim that Bill Clinton was responsible for this either. This started nearly a full year into George Bush's second term in office! This period of time constitutes nearly a quarter of the entire decade and over half of Bush's second term in office.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Those 27 months coincide more or less with the bubble period - i.e., unsustainable. Asset price bubbles are of their nature unsustainable.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
