RSS Feed MenuHas anyone noticed how economic expectations have changed since the advent of The One? I noted this tendency the other day. Though there is no objective reason to have any faith that the Obama economic program will produce economic growth and lower unemployment, the will to believe among the media elite who put their diminishing credibility on the line to elect him remains powerful. But reality keeps on intruding. Some recent headlines.
“US weekly jobless claims unexpectedly rise” (Reuters, Aug. 20)
“New Home Construction Unexpectedly Declines in July” (Washington Post, Aug. 18)
“Dollar May Extend Decline After Retail Sales Unexpectedly Drop” (Bloomberg, Aug. 13)
“Consumer confidence falls unexpectedly in August” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 14)
Meanwhile, overseas:
“German Services, French Industry Unexpectedly Grow” (Bloomberg, Aug. 21)
“Brazil Futures Yields Rise as Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Drops” (Bloomberg, Aug. 20)
“UK Factory Production Unexpectedly Jumped in June by 0.4%” (Bloomberg, Aug. 5)
“Australian Employers Unexpectedly Add 32200 Workers” (Bloomberg, Aug. 5)
Yes, there is “June Factory Orders Unexpectedly Rise 0.4%” (Forbes, Aug. 5), but I think you get the idea. Ben Bernanke may think things are looking up, but the numbers aren’t showing it yet. I normally don’t think Bob Herbert gets much of anything right, but he is almost unique on the Left in calling attention to the ongoing plight of the unemployed. If Obama is a quarter as smart as everybody in DC says he is, he will get on the same page fast.
balconesfault // Aug 24, 2009 at 4:37 pm
since the advent of The One
How to start an article in a way that only people likely to agree with you will read past the first line.
LFC // Aug 24, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Has anyone noticed how economic expectations have changed since the advent of The One?
Has anyone noticed how economic expectations from the right for Obama are VASTLY greater than the performance of St. Ronnie, despite being handed a much worse economic situation?
Ronnie took office in Q1-1981. The economy started really moving around Q2-1983. So Ronnie gets 9-10 quarters, but Obama gets complaints after just two. Interesting. (Actually, I saw a right wing op-ed blaming Obama for the recession BEFORE the inauguration. Pretty hilarious.)
And Ronnie’s economic growth came from a big stimulus package (tax cuts and big jumps in spending) that continued for his entire 8 years. It’s the same type of thing that the right is complaining about Obama doing for just the coming year.
Different standards for Republicans and Democrats. It’s the apologist’s way.
ottovbvs // Aug 24, 2009 at 7:05 pm
……I seem to remember Reagan asking the question……is the economy in better shape than it was in January 2009…….any questions?
ottovbvs // Aug 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
‘Yes, there is “June Factory Orders Unexpectedly Rise 0.4%” (Forbes, Aug. 5), but I think you get the idea. Ben Bernanke may think things are looking up, but the numbers aren’t showing it yet.”
…….Actually there’s a raft of numbers showing it…..unemployment now at 250k versus 700 k when Bush left office…..new home sales just had biggest monthly increase for 9 years…..interest rate spreads……the Dow is now around 9500….. Ben Bernanke v NM gusher….whose real and whose a little weanie
sinz54 // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:34 pm
lfc: I agree with you that it’s premature to criticize ANY national economic program for failing to have produced boom times in just 6 months after passage.
That said, the Reagan economic program benefited from an explosive growth in both the private sector and the stock market, fueled by cuts in marginal income tax rates and the ebbing of inflation caused by tight-money policies. Obama seems to be betting that his massive expansion of the Federal Government can work just as well as Reagan’s massive expansion of the private sector. I think that’s a very bad bet.
Because a lot of Obama’s Government spending isn’t creating new enterprises with new jobs and new opportunities, but subsidizing failed enterprises (like GM). Do you really believe that GM will ever be able to compete effectively against Honda and Toyota? Ever? Investors don’t seem to think so. MTLQQ.PK (yes, that’s its new ticker symbol) closed today at 0.75 (yes, 75 cents) per share.
I think the U.S. taxpayer is stuck with owning GM indefinitely–though we taxpayers seem to have no say in what should be done with it. It appears to have been turned into a welfare program for UAW members and hundreds of surplus dealerships. (And ObamaCare includes a provision to pick up the cost of medical insurance for UAW members who took early retirement as well. More handouts. No new private-sector jobs.)
ottovbvs // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm
sinz54 // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“That said, the Reagan economic program benefited from an explosive growth in both the private sector”
…….yep he did even better than Bush…..he tripled the national debt……also Sinz sorry to disappiont you but govt was actually bigger when he left than when he arrived…..but as ever don’t let the actual facts confuse you…….you also seem to have forgotten that it was GWB who wasn’t prepared to let a “failed enterprise” like GM collapse…….he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer but by comparison with you he was a razor
barker13 // Aug 25, 2009 at 11:03 am
Re: lfc // Aug 24, 2009 at 5:01 pm (#2) –
(*SIGH*)
IFC. Reagan and Volcker came in with the CORRECT policies; Obama’s policies are Bush’s policies on steroids.
Take off the partisan cap for just one moment and reflect: Reagan/Volcker wrung inflation out of the economy. Yes. At a short term price! But at a long term gain!
Again… take the partisan cap off. Bush and the RINOs spent, spent, and spent.
HOWEVER…
Bush and the Democrats (2007-2008) spent, spent, spent, more, more, more…!
AND…
Obama and the Democrats…
(*SHRUG*)
Are you getting the picture?
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:34 pm (#5) –
“Obama seems to be betting that his massive expansion of the Federal Government can work just as well as Reagan’s massive expansion of the private sector. I think that’s a very bad bet.”
Yep. (*SHRUG*)
BILL