Global recovery's weakness raises possibility of trade war

In all the comparisons between the Great Recession of the past three years and the Great Depression of the 1930s, one comforting thought for policymakers has been that there has been no return to tit-for-tat protectionism, which saw one country after another use high tariffs in an attempt to cut the dole queues.

Yet the commitment of governments to keep markets open was based on the belief that recovery would be swift and sustained. If, as many now suspect, the global economy is stuck in a low-growth, high-unemployment rut, the pressures for protectionism will grow.

The former chancellor, Ken Clarke, aptly summed up the downbeat mood when he said in yesterday's Observer that it was hard to be "sunnily optimistic" about the west's economic prospects. Adam Posen, a member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, made a similar point last week in a speech last week advocating more quantitative easing.

Despite a colossal stimulus, the recovery has been short-lived and, by historic standards, feeble. The traditional tools – cutting interest rates and spending more public money – were not enough, so have had to be supplemented by the creation of electronic money. In both the US and the UK, policymakers are actively canvassing the idea that more QE will be required, even though they well understand its drawbacks and limitations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/04/economic-failure-could-lead-to-protectionism

And when you let yourself accept that sort of linguistic bullshit, you let yourself be used, you become a tool.

that are contributing to this recession. FDR had a good supply of cheap energy to work with and an industrial base that was located throughout the USA. The infrastructure was just beginning to grow so there was no end to the possibilities.

I do not think we have those things going for us now. Instead we have outsourcing, deregulated banks and other industries. Another thing that is totally different is that his country was very rural and ours is mostly urban. Rural economies can do something about feeding and housing themselves where as urban communities are less able to do either.

I think we make a big mistake when we compare the two eras.