Falling stock market; massive credit market stress; bankers reluctant to lend; bank defaults; companies cutting back investment / plant expansions; large budget deficit; large trade deficit; falling currency; stagnant economy; rising unemployment; high cost of food, energy; and a large portion of the public stating that the nation is on the wrong track, economically.

If you think the U.S. economy is presently mimicking that of a third-world country in the 1970s, you're right.

The United States, after nearly a decade of policy errors and business / consumer mistakes, is in its worst condition economically since the stagflation-plagued 1970s, but with credit market problems that dwarf that era's financing challenges.

In a time like this, when new, negative data points occur almost daily, it's difficult to pinpoint when the turning point will occur. But one may occur in as little as four weeks. Are there economists out there who are doubling as soothsayers? No, it's merely the U.S. Presidential and Congressional election, so says economist Richard Felson.

The first order of the day is financial market stabilization. If the U.S. House of Representatives goes along with the U.S. Senate and approves the rescue bill, that's step one toward financial market stability, Felson said. Add ons / companion public programs will further bolster lender and corporate confidence that the credit markets are not going to go the way of the Edsel, he said.

The nation's two candidates for U.S. president met Friday in Mississippi in their first debate, with both candidates scoring points, but with neither candidate registering a decisive "knock out blow."

The debate played out pretty much along scripted lines -- something campaign operatives were no-doubt delighted to see. In modern, televised debates, the goal is not so much to win as to avoid losing; a serious gaff can set a campaign back, whereas a victory, even a decided one, rarely moves a candidate up in the polls more than a percentage point or two.

Republican Party nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, effectively demonstrated his experience in and knowledge of foreign policy, underscoring the need to win the war in Iraq. McCain believes the United States now has taken the upper hand in Iraq -- if he doesn't believe the nation is winning the war outright -- and does not see defeat as an option.

Democratic Party nominee U.S. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, effectively demonstrated that electing him president would represent a decided break from the policies of the Bush Administration, and he underscored the need for the United States to rebuild both its economy at home and standing/reputation with its allies abroad and throughout the world.

Perhaps the most compelling dimension of the debate was the fact that despite discussing the financial crisis currently gripping the nation, neither candidate said he would make any adjustments to his platform/agenda in light of the decidedly more-challenging fiscal environment. Sen. McCain did not say he would forgo his goal to cut income and business taxes. Sen. Obama did not say he would curtail goals to increase spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research/technology.