Obama Is Destroying The Economy

eyeball · March 14, 2009

The real dangerous thing is that the Dems can pretty much pass what they want through Congress and the Senate( with an armtwist or two) and think they can save everybody. In one year, even those in denial will see that something is fundamentally wrong.

Given the Congress and Senate under the last administration couldn't see that everything was completely FUBAR for eight whole years or more, one year will seem like Godspeed.

Edited March 14, 2009 by eyeball

msj · March 15, 2009

I still think you are missing the obvious.....the "state" has to solve the problem because the state has a self interest (pun intended) and means to do so. Belittling the preachers of economic doom is hardly a new phenom, as is the worthlessness of questionable after-the-fact accuracy from economists, the NBER, or self anointed web forum experts. Markets have the right to embrace "wild exuberance" just as much as they embrace "Doom".
Recessions come and go by design.....next these experts will think they are good enough to predict the weather.

It's not a matter of the prediction but of the method.

People like you and August spin out nonsense - the US isn't in a recession because of this pile of crap or that pile of crap.

One only has to see the recession thread elsewhere to see the nonsense of your claim regarding "after-the-fact accuracy." Anyone with an eye on the facts knew the US was in a recession in 2008 before the NBER called it officially. Even I, a lay person, guessed it's start as February, 2008 back in June or July of 2008 (while you stated that the US wasn't in recession).

And that's the problem - too many cheer leaders who ignore and insult the "Cassandra's" rather than focus on the facts.

The cheer leaders ignored facts and missed the formation of the bubble just like doomsayers will ignore facts and miss the bottom and recovery.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

...People like you and August spin out nonsense - the US isn't in a recession because of this pile of crap or that pile of crap.

....or your pile of crap. There is no recession by definition until the NBER says so....you have been trapped by your own crap.

One only has to see the recession thread elsewhere to see the nonsense of your claim regarding "after-the-fact accuracy." Anyone with an eye on the facts knew the US was in a recession in 2008 before the NBER called it officially. Even I, a lay person, guessed it's start as February, 2008 back in June or July of 2008 (while you stated that the US wasn't in recession).

You still don't get it....your's/my degree of "error" is only your contest to enjoy. It doesn't matter to me or the US economy in the least, which would/did proceed at full tilt anyway. Economists with far more credibility than you or I predicted equally unimportant nonsense.

And that's the problem - too many cheer leaders who ignore and insult the "Cassandra's" rather than focus on the facts.

The facts were plain to see.....and frankly, a recession was the least of concerns in retrospect. Now you will tell us when you predicted the collapse of the banking, automotive, and insurance sectors. You and Roubini should spend more time in Las Vegas or at the horse track.....you both should be very rich by now.

The cheer leaders ignored facts and missed the formation of the bubble just like doomsayers will ignore facts and miss the bottom and recovery.

So what? Why do you persist in passing judgement on the individual and collective choices of government or the private sector? Even given the obvious now, decisions about what to do have not been clear or unanimous.

Yours is the usual and worst kind of "I told you so".....because it doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong......nobody gives a damn.

punked · March 15, 2009

....or your pile of crap. There is no recession by definition until the NBER says so....you have been trapped by your own crap.

That isn't true you can be in recession as you are and were and still have the measurements and indicators come out later. It is like your in a car and you are breaking the speed limit for 100 miles then the cops get you on a radar. Does that mean you weren't breaking the speed limit a hundred miles ago? No that is stuipd.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

That isn't true you can be in recession as you are and were and still have the measurements and indicators come out later. It is like your in a car and you are breaking the speed limit for 100 miles then the cops get you on a radar. Does that mean you weren't breaking the speed limit a hundred miles ago? No that is stuipd.

You just hurt your own argument......the "cops" had to get you on "a radar" to make it stick. Arbitrary decisions about when the US economy entered or departed a recession is not my concern.

punked · March 15, 2009

Well we know one thing, Cheney says you can't blame the economic crises on them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/c...c_n_175055.html

But Dana Perino says you should give Bush the credit for the recent market rally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/p...d_n_175062.html

So I got it market goes down Obama is in office must be his fault. Although market goes up of course Bush gets the credit.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

.....So I got it market goes down Obama is in office must be his fault. Although market goes up of course Bush gets the credit.

That's how it worked for the Democrats as well.....perhaps you were expecting something different?

msj · March 15, 2009

....or your pile of crap. There is no recession by definition until the NBER says so....you have been trapped by your own crap.
You still don't get it....your's/my degree of "error" is only your contest to enjoy. It doesn't matter to me or the US economy in the least, which would/did proceed at full tilt anyway. Economists with far more credibility than you or I predicted equally unimportant nonsense.

The facts were plain to see.....and frankly, a recession was the least of concerns in retrospect. Now you will tell us when you predicted the collapse of the banking, automotive, and insurance sectors. You and Roubini should spend more time in Las Vegas or at the horse track.....you both should be very rich by now.

So what? Why do you persist in passing judgement on the individual and collective choices of government or the private sector? Even given the obvious now, decisions about what to do have not been clear or unanimous.

Yours is the usual and worst kind of "I told you so".....because it doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong......nobody gives a damn.

There is always credibility.

And to use the excuse that there is no recession until the NBER says so is like saying there is no murder until the murderer is caught, tried and convicted.

It is this kind of crap that sophists like you spew and for which I'm tired of.

As for the rest, there are other ways to "profit" by being a bit early on the downside and a bit late on the upside. One does not need to turn to gambling to do this.

Roubini is already very rich (and he, apparently, gets the babes as well). My finances are none of you business as is my love life, but, giving the anonymity of this forum I can assure you that I'm very rich and that I sleep with a supermodel every night. :rolleyes:

I don't subscribe to the school of thought where making lots of money makes one more right than others so I will let you keep that crap "logic" to yourself and August [just recently I had to comment on August using this kind of "logic" hmm, makes one wonder].

As for nobody giving a damn, that's their problem.

To the extent that I can ward off the sophist pap that people like you and August spew whenever I provide a link with facts (ever hear of those?) and context then I have had a good day.

Edited March 15, 2009 by msj

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

....To the extent that I can ward off the sophist pap that people like you and August spew whenever I provide a link with facts (ever hear of those?) and context then I have had a good day.

Do you wear tights and a mask while accomplishing these financial super-hero feats? Perhaps an HP-10B in your utility belt?

All you have done is provided second and third hand reports from primary sources that were already evaluated in real time.

We don't give out medals for that.

Edited March 15, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

msj · March 15, 2009

Do you wear tights and a mask while accomplishing these financial super-hero feats? Perhaps an HP-10B in your utility belt?
All you have done is provided second and third hand reports from primary sources that were already evaluated in real time.

We don't give out medals for that.

Tights and a utility belt! I prefer to use my Sharp calculator, though.

I'll take my links over your opinions any day.

Funny how my "second and third hand reports" sure seem to PO guys like you.

Awwww, that's too bad.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

Tights and a utility belt! I prefer to use my Sharp calculator, though.
I'll take my links over your opinions any day.

Funny how my "second and third hand reports" sure seem to PO guys like you.

Awwww, that's too bad.

Because that's all that really can be mined here.....fun and games with irrelevant opinions.

Like an old fashioned serial, let's stay tuned and see what happens next (because you don't really know, with or without links).

Edited March 15, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

August1991 · March 15, 2009

2) The government will have to provide the leadership to implement proper regulation. Now that the deregulators have lost credibility this can be done. It's easy to blame the government for not regulating the banking industry properly in the first place but there's a reason they didn't - an honest belief by Greenspan that he didn't need to regulate the mortgage practices since the markets' self-interest would supposedly ensure the financial crisis wouldn't happen. Yeah, pretty brilliant.

Your post deserves more but here's a good start:

I can’t deny that there was something gratifying about watching Bernard Madoff handcuffed and carted off to jail Thursday morning. He was — is — the worst of the worst. By his own admission, his Ponzi scheme ran for nearly two decades; by contrast, the original Ponzi scheme, dreamed up by an Italian immigrant named Charles Ponzi in 1919, was exposed within eight months. Many of Madoff’s investors have been left with nothing, having foolishly entrusted their life savings to a man they thought “was God,” as Elie Wiesel put it not long ago. Mr. Wiesel’s foundation lost more than $15 million in the Madoff fraud, and he and his wife, Marion, lost their personal fortune as well.
...

I suppose you could argue that most of Mr. Madoff’s direct investors lacked the ability or the financial sophistication of someone like Mr. Hedges. But it shouldn’t have mattered. Isn’t the first lesson of personal finance that you should never put all your money with one person or one fund? Even if you think your money manager is “God”? Diversification has many virtues; one of them is that you won’t lose everything if one of your money managers turns out to be a crook.

Nocera - NYT

There is a great amount of naivety in believing that government regulation will somehow protect people from making mistakes. It's even questionable whether in the long run, regulation even helps because it often leads to unintended consequences.

Oleg Bach · March 15, 2009

Because that's all that really can be mined here.....fun and games with irrelevant opinions.
Like an old fashioned serial, let's stay tuned and see what happens next (because you don't really know, with or without links).

Links are for babies - the net is not the bible...nor is the bible 100% - and remember that the def of opinion is THEORY. Either you are certain of things - through experience and logical deduction..and you have faith in your own eyes and ears - or you are just a common school boy - I'm with B C - He is mature and coldly pragmatic and I trust this mans experience and the wisdom gained from it - This is not your average chump- This American is a very important and good man -------five bucks Cheney for the promotional pitch! Send it in small demoninations of quarters - toos them over the falls and I will pick them up down stream of my consciousness.

msj · March 15, 2009

Your post deserves more but here's a good start:Nocera - NYT
There is a great amount of naivety in believing that government regulation will somehow protect people from making mistakes. It's even questionable whether in the long run, regulation even helps because it often leads to unintended consequences.

Once again (and again, and again, ad nauseum) it is about proper regulation that curbs the worst excesses.

It is not about trying to prevent every little mistake.

When the bias is towards less regulation then it is no surprise that cases such as Madoff occur and credit crises occur.

This is not to say that these things wouldn't happen to some extent with lots of regulation (in fact, with lots of improper regulation I would expect it to happen) - it's just that a system with proper regulation would tend to curb the worst excesses.

msj · March 15, 2009

Because that's all that really can be mined here.....fun and games with irrelevant opinions.
Like an old fashioned serial, let's stay tuned and see what happens next (because you don't really know, with or without links).

Sure, we don't really know what the future holds.

But at least I know what's going on in the present and the recent past.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

Sure, we don't really know what the future holds.
But at least I know what's going on in the present and the recent past.

I agree...you think you know these things.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

You can't make this stuff up.....hope Senator McCain is ROTFLHAO:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary "mess" it's in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

Obama's Democratic allies pleaded for patience with an administration hitting the two-month mark this week, while Republicans said the White House's plans ignore small business and the immediate need to fix what ails the economy. After weeks projecting a dismal outlook on the economy, administration officials -- led by the president himself in recent days -- swung their rhetoric toward optimism in what became Wall Street's best stretch since November.

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: "Of course they are sound."

"The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology," she said. "We know that -- that temporarily we're in a mess, right? We've seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we're in a -- in a bad situation."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090315/obama_economy.html

BubberMiley · March 15, 2009

You can't make this stuff up.....hope Senator McCain is ROTFLHAO:

I think he would only be ROTFLHAOing if he really wanted to lose. Otherwise, he's probably just pissed off.

bush_cheney2004 · March 15, 2009

I think he would only be ROTFLHAOing if he really wanted to lose. Otherwise, he's probably just pissed off.

Nope...he is probably laughing...just as he would at any Tailhook convention.

GostHacked · March 16, 2009

I think he would only be ROTFLHAOing if he really wanted to lose. Otherwise, he's probably just pissed off.

Pissed off that it is not HIS crisis to say these things about .. Even McCain himself said some time last year that the economy was sound .. you know ,, like Bush said it was.

It's a laugh, but they are all crying on the inside. No wait.. they aren't... they simply don't care at all.

Oleg Bach · March 17, 2009

Pissed off that it is not HIS crisis to say these things about .. Even McCain himself said some time last year that the economy was sound .. you know ,, like Bush said it was.
It's a laugh, but they are all crying on the inside. No wait.. they aren't... they simply don't care at all.

The economy is not being destroyed. The way these people think of an economy is their OWN economy. If theirs is in tact and this class still have millions of bucks in disposable income - then all is fine. Try to discribe not having bus fair to get to your job to an investment banker - He things EVERYBODY has enough for a bus ticket. Those that have never had to do without really can not connect to having to do without - It's another world to them and they are not part of our world or ECONOMY.

Shady · March 17, 2009

Even McCain himself said some time last year that the economy was sound

Yeah he did, in the fall, when the economy was in much better shape, and he was excoriated for it. I'm anxiously awaiting all the media reports, proclaiming Obama out-of-touch with the public, and out-of-step with economic reality. However, I won't hold my breath.

GostHacked · March 17, 2009

Yeah he did, in the fall, when the economy was in much better shape, and he was excoriated for it. I'm anxiously awaiting all the media reports, proclaiming Obama out-of-touch with the public, and out-of-step with economic reality. However, I won't hold my breath.

So if Obama said it then, he would be wrong as well. Economists told us in Dec 2008, that we were in a recession since Dec 2007...

benny · March 18, 2009

Obama cannot have destroyed what didn’t exist: what is called an economy was only a bubble.

August1991 · March 18, 2009

Once again (and again, and again, ad nauseum) it is about proper regulation that curbs the worst excesses.
It is not about trying to prevent every little mistake.

When the bias is towards less regulation then it is no surprise that cases such as Madoff occur and credit crises occur.

This is not to say that these things wouldn't happen to some extent with lots of regulation (in fact, with lots of improper regulation I would expect it to happen) - it's just that a system with proper regulation would tend to curb the worst excesses.

And once again (ad nauseum), please define proper regulation.

BTW, your suggestion is a simplistic reference to the ongoing debate of smart economists since at least Lucas, Prescott and Tobin. (Krugman is an unoriginal partisan participant.) msj, do you understand that you have touched on a critical issue in modern macroeconomic theory?

----

msj, I'll give you a (micro) idea of how economists since 1975 or so understand this macro problem. The AIG managers signed their contracts (with bonuses) understanding that the US government would bail AIG out. IOW, people figure out what governments do.

People aren't fools.