Obama Is Destroying The Economy

[benny]

At least the current economic crisis coupled with Obama's outrageous solutions has people wondering what economics is.

Since neo-Keynesianism cannot be said to be outrageous, I would say Obama's solutions are only unimaginative.

[GostHacked]

At least the current economic crisis coupled with Obama's outrageous solutions has people wondering what economics is.

Some people (I for one) have been wondering what it is all about for about the last 10 years. It still does not make sense to me.

[benny]

Some people (I for one) have been wondering what it is all about for about the last 10 years. It still does not make sense to me.

Keynes would have said that during the last ten years, people were possessed by "animal spirits" that is "irrational exuberance".

[Pliny]

Some people (I for one) have been wondering what it is all about for about the last 10 years. It still does not make sense to me.

Try the Austrian Economic theory of Ludwig Von Mises. I would suggest "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

Laid out for the interested layman. You don't have to be an Economist to understand it. If you google it you may find a site that has a transcript of it.

The prevailing theory of Economics is from John Maynard Keynes. Economics today is mostly founded in his general theory and he has made the subject one of a mathematical rather than human activity turning today's economists into Econometrists, replete with countless mathematical formulae. Government economists and Central Banks employ Keynes theory to manipulate the economy. You must have heard Governments take credit for the shape of the economy when it is good, giving themselves a pat on the back but they never claim responsibility when things turn sour. It is the market or greed or foreign factors but they claim to have the remedy and will step in to save the day. Unfortunately, their remedies are running out. More and more things in the Economy are making less and less sense which is where you are sitting I think. Keynesian Economists will pooh-pooh Austrian theory but Austrian theory has predicted the course of the economy, it's instability and inevitable collapse.

Keynes basically made the subject too boring for the majority of the populace so it is understandable that the average person, unless he is a central banker or interested in manipulating economies, will find no use for it. I have a suspicion that the powers that be would rather the average person did not take an interest in the subject.

[Pliny]

Since neo-Keynesianism cannot be said to be outrageous, I would say Obama's solutions are only unimaginative.

They are demonstrative of his lack of interest in the subject. I believe he views Economic laws as trivialities and it is simply a problem of distribution and that the creation of wealth does not exist, it is just there for the taking..or should be...and by gum he is going to make it that way. Americans will all become millionaires under his watch...just like in Zimbabwe. Not only that but then he will be able to tax "everyone" because they will be rich, that is, making more than $250K/annum.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

They are demonstrative of his lack of interest in the subject. I believe he views Economic laws as trivialities and it is simply a problem of distribution and that the creation of wealth does not exist, it is just there for the taking..or should be...and by gum he is going to make it that way. Americans will all become millionaires under his watch...just like in Zimbabwe. Not only that but then he will be able to tax "everyone" because they will be rich, that is, making more than $250K/annum.

If you ask the richest man on Earth, Bill Gates, what is it to create wealth and he will certainly answer that it is distributing information.

[GostHacked]

Keynes basically made the subject too boring for the majority of the populace so it is understandable that the average person, unless he is a central banker or interested in manipulating economies, will find no use for it. I have a suspicion that the powers that be would rather the average person did not take an interest in the subject.

Because I really think that it is all smoke and mirrors. It is way to complicated for any average person to understand. It is all playing with numbers and money that does not really exist anyways. So when someone looks into it, they are

We nop longer have a gold standard, and now we don't even have a paper money standard. It is all electronic and can be manipulated in any way to reflect a wanted outcome.

This last crisis is not about wealth loss, it is simply about wealth transfer. Half the money simply did not vanish into thin air, eventhough most of it is created out of thin air.

[benny]

Because I really think that it is all smoke and mirrors. It is way to complicated for any average person to understand. It is all playing with numbers and money that does not really exist anyways. So when someone looks into it, they are

We nop longer have a gold standard, and now we don't even have a paper money standard. It is all electronic and can be manipulated in any way to reflect a wanted outcome.

This last crisis is not about wealth loss, it is simply about wealth transfer. Half the money simply did not vanish into thin air, eventhough most of it is created out of thin air.

Money vanishes when city authorities are forced to spend part of their budgets to destroy houses.

[Pliny]

This last crisis is not about wealth loss, it is simply about wealth transfer. Half the money simply did not vanish into thin air, eventhough most of it is created out of thin air.

Are you saying you know something about economics now?

The last crisis (this crisis) was about social engineering and welfare. There are, were, intelligent people running AIG, Lehman Bros., Washington Mutual, and other losers in the banking industry and on Wall Street. They ran their companies as they understood they should run it but, something changed their perception of risk? What was it?

Firstly, they weren't out to bankrupt their companies. Several things occurred, the Central bank lowered the interest rate so that the lending margin included more people. More people could qualify for a mortgage. The government encouraged lending, which in itself isn't enough to change the risk factor, but they had community groups pressuring banks to make risky loans, once again the parameters of qualification wouldn't change because of that.

The risk on loans doesn't change because of pressure from those two latter mentioned facts but something did change the risk so much so that lenders were eager to issue even sub-prime mortgages resulting in a further drop in the lending margin. It got so bad in some places, I heard, that you were guaranteed a mortgage if you applied - no qualifications. Why were lenders so eager to take those risks?

The government was now very happy. People who couldn't afford homes were now able to live the American dream of owning their own home. So how was the risk of lending eliminated? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ring a bell? They were buying up these subprime mortgages pretty fast. They are government enterprises. Barney Frank was the head of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Rahm Emmanuel sat on it's board of directors. The government basically eliminated the risk. Lenders were lending and builders started building, developers started developing and the bubble started to go into overdrive in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress. The time line on this has it's genesis in the latter part of the Clinton administration. Bush concentrated on the war on terror..er the "contingency operations"..., that and homeland security. He changed very little socially or economically and like he said left the market alone for the most part. He left it alone all right, but he let the foxes in the chicken coop to percolate the the American dream. Allowing all sorts of risk taking on the market to occur...later to blame..."irrational exuberance" and greed on Wall Street. Throwing the blame to Wall Street and Bush's lack of regulation of the market. Of course, Wall Street was to blame because they trusted politicians and let their guard down. They didn't have to take the bait and at first were reluctant but Washington kept up the pressure, even encouraging activist groups to picket the banks and the "homes" of bank managers who didn't cave and give out mortgages to people who couldn't qualify. For the last while before the bubble burst mob processes ruled the market. There were no thinking people there. There was just the hysteria.

The G20 Economic summit that is currently being held in London is something that I think will bring some big changes on the global scene. We'll all be a little more socialist after this one. I have heard that the Federal Reserve and the SEC will come under the regulation of the IMF. The IMF is a European controlled organization.

If Obama takes America there America will lose some of their sovereignty. It's a big coup for socialist forces.

[benny]

Are you saying you know something about economics now?

The last crisis (this crisis) was about social engineering and welfare. There are, were, intelligent people running AIG, Lehman Bros., Washington Mutual, and other losers in the banking industry and on Wall Street. They ran their companies as they understood they should run it but, something changed their perception of risk? What was it?

Firstly, they weren't out to bankrupt their companies. Several things occurred, the Central bank lowered the interest rate so that the lending margin included more people. More people could qualify for a mortgage. The government encouraged lending, which in itself isn't enough to change the risk factor, but they had community groups pressuring banks to make risky loans, once again the parameters of qualification wouldn't change because of that.

The risk on loans doesn't change because of pressure from those two latter mentioned facts but something did change the risk so much so that lenders were eager to issue even sub-prime mortgages resulting in a further drop in the lending margin. It got so bad in some places, I heard, that you were guaranteed a mortgage if you applied - no qualifications. Why were lenders so eager to take those risks?

The government was now very happy. People who couldn't afford homes were now able to live the American dream of owning their own home. So how was the risk of lending eliminated? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ring a bell? They were buying up these subprime mortgages pretty fast. They are government enterprises. Barney Frank was the head of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Rahm Emmanuel sat on it's board of directors. The government basically eliminated the risk. Lenders were lending and builders started building, developers started developing and the bubble started to go into overdrive in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress. The time line on this has it's genesis in the latter part of the Clinton administration. Bush concentrated on the war on terror..er the "contingency operations"..., that and homeland security. He changed very little socially or economically and like he said left the market alone for the most part. He left it alone all right, but he let the foxes in the chicken coop to percolate the the American dream. Allowing all sorts of risk taking on the market to occur...later to blame..."irrational exuberance" and greed on Wall Street. Throwing the blame to Wall Street and Bush's lack of regulation of the market. Of course, Wall Street was to blame because they trusted politicians and let their guard down. They didn't have to take the bait and at first were reluctant but Washington kept up the pressure, even encouraging activist groups to picket the banks and the "homes" of bank managers who didn't cave and give out mortgages to people who couldn't qualify. For the last while before the bubble burst mob processes ruled the market. There were no thinking people there. There was just the hysteria.

The G20 Economic summit that is currently being held in London is something that I think will bring some big changes on the global scene. We'll all be a little more socialist after this one. I have heard that the Federal Reserve and the SEC will come under the regulation of the IMF. The IMF is a European controlled organization.

If Obama takes America there America will lose some of their sovereignty. It's a big coup for socialist forces.

To me AIG is the main responsible for the crisis; it has bet much more than its wealth that it could insure all these subprime mortgages. We cannot blame Democrats for believing that to get healthy neighborhoods owning houses is more effective than owning guns.

Edited April 2, 2009 by benny

[GostHacked]

Money vanishes when city authorities are forced to spend part of their budgets to destroy houses.

It does not vanish, it changes hands. Because if you are spending for something, someone else gets the money for the job of destroying houses.

Piney

About the sub-prime mortages .. it seems in retrospect a really retarded idea to lend money to people who have a pretty high risk of not fulfilling the mortgage agreement. WTF did people THINK was gonna happen?

Pliney

The G20 Economic summit that is currently being held in London is something that I think will bring some big changes on the global scene. We'll all be a little more socialist after this one. I have heard that the Federal Reserve and the SEC will come under the regulation of the IMF. The IMF is a European controlled organization.

If Obama takes America there America will lose some of their sovereignty. It's a big coup for socialist forces.

Groups like the G8 and G20, and the people who are there have been doing just what you are saying for the last 10 to 20 years. Currently the G20 is all about financiers and central bank owners of the G20 countries including the so called elected leaders. And yes the IMF and World Bank are both dangerous entities, and will be combined down the road as the only one world bank. And with the move to a cashless system, like using a debit or credit card. You will be hard pressed to acquire anything wihout a peice of plastic or some other form of ID.

Countries with centralized and privatized banks are part of this scheme. And when non elected, non democratic people are calling the shots, you can bet your ass your soveriengty is at stake.

Remember when this was all considered tin foil hat territory??

[benny]

It does not vanish, it changes hands. Because if you are spending for something, someone else gets the money for the job of destroying houses.

Money vanishes when it is captured by an Invisible Hand.

[GostHacked]

Money vanishes when it is captured by an Invisible Hand.

It does not vanish if captured by an Invisible Hand. It simply is transfered to the Invisible Hand.

[benny]

It does not vanish if captured by an Invisible Hand. It simply is transfered to the Invisible Hand.

When money loses its public nature it vanishes.

[sharkman]

Money vanishes when it is captured by an Invisible Hand.

Good grief, what planet are you from? Seriously.

[benny]

Good grief, what planet are you from? Seriously.

I live where there are sharks in banks.

[Pliny]

It does not vanish, it changes hands. Because if you are spending for something, someone else gets the money for the job of destroying houses.

Piney

About the sub-prime mortages .. it seems in retrospect a really retarded idea to lend money to people who have a pretty high risk of not fulfilling the mortgage agreement. WTF did people THINK was gonna happen?

Pliney

Groups like the G8 and G20, and the people who are there have been doing just what you are saying for the last 10 to 20 years. Currently the G20 is all about financiers and central bank owners of the G20 countries including the so called elected leaders. And yes the IMF and World Bank are both dangerous entities, and will be combined down the road as the only one world bank. And with the move to a cashless system, like using a debit or credit card. You will be hard pressed to acquire anything wihout a peice of plastic or some other form of ID.

Countries with centralized and privatized banks are part of this scheme. And when non elected, non democratic people are calling the shots, you can bet your ass your soveriengty is at stake.

Remember when this was all considered tin foil hat territory??

So you do know something about economics.

Yes, I know this was considered tinfoil hat territory. Fortunately, I have a definition of socialism that serves me well. Socialism is the process of achieving the totalitarian state through evolutionary means. Thus I have never had to waiver from understanding where we were heading as a "socialist" democracy. Or for that matter, where the world was heading as it's governments introduced progressively more socialism over time. Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian states, the former achieved by revolution and the latter by seizing control of the economy. Something that Obama has in mind I think judging by his policies.

I read an interesting article today that essentially stated that it was astounding that the actions of government to stimulate the economy and get banks lending again are promoted by some of the same people who were the first to blame banks for not lending prudently and thus "causing" the collapse in the first place. Astounding is an understatement.

[Pliny]

benny,

Money is merely a facilitator of trade and a store of wealth. The problem with it today is that it is no longer represents a store of wealth since it can be created out of thin air. Since it does not represent a store of wealth, it is not really money anymore, is it?

The government putting money into the economy to stimulate it doesn't result in increased production or wealth. It results in a prolongation of wealth destroying activities that were created in a boom and resulted in a bust. For a short time the infusion of cash may increase production but in the long run it delays necessary corrections in economic activity.

[benny]

So you do know something about economics.

Yes, I know this was considered tinfoil hat territory. Fortunately, I have a definition of socialism that serves me well. Socialism is the process of achieving the totalitarian state through evolutionary means. Thus I have never had to waiver from understanding where we were heading as a "socialist" democracy. Or for that matter, where the world was heading as it's governments introduced progressively more socialism over time. Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian states, the former achieved by revolution and the latter by seizing control of the economy. Something that Obama has in mind I think judging by his policies.

I read an interesting article today that essentially stated that it was astounding that the actions of government to stimulate the economy and get banks lending again are promoted by some of the same people who were the first to blame banks for not lending prudently and thus "causing" the collapse in the first place. Astounding is an understatement.

In a totalitarian state, moral hazard doesn't exist.

[Shady]

MoveOn.org once asked this question: Who will pay for the deficit? I wonder if they still care?

[benny]

Who will pay for the deficit?

Delaware-registered corporations:

http://www.city-data.com/states/Delaware-Taxation.html

[Oleg Bach]

Obama was installed by rich fat established white families to make sure that they stay on top economically and socially - he is paid to do the job and gets a little green helicoptoper to fly around in to feel important. He may do the usual and destroy the average persons economy but not those who deserve to have theirs destroyed ...

[benny]

Obama was installed by rich fat established white families to make sure that they stay on top economically and socially - he is paid to do the job and gets a little green helicoptoper to fly around in to feel important. He may do the usual and destroy the average persons economy but not those who deserve to have theirs destroyed ...

Uncle Tom is dead.