We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
To be fair, velocity of money isn't really a great indicator of activity at all. It's easy to explain, too, particularly because of how it's used in this article.
The difference between the Depression and today is simple. During the Depression, the Fed didn't flood the economy with cash. As a result, the resulting slowdown in velocity was a true indicator of nobody purchasing much of anything.
Today, economic activity has slowed significantly, but velocity is overemphasizing the slowdown for a simple reason - GDP hasn't grown, but money supply has exploded. Thus, the number of times a single dollar has to change hands to maintain GDP is minimal.
In a sense, what the Fed is HOPING for is that velocity will pick up, drive economic activity and grow the economy because of a misguided assumption that more green pieces of paper = more wealth and more spending. This is not, by any means, a reasonable assumption.
I agree with the author's assessment of the economy, however. Things are very, very bad. I just think his use of velocity is incorrect because the similarities between the two eras' velocity are non-existent.