For the last few weeks, all the talk in the Beltway media has been about how the economy has bottomed out and the worst is over, etc. “(A)ctions we’ve taken in the first six months have helped stop our economic freefall,” President Obama said after it was announced that unemployment in July had unexpectedly ticked down from 9.5% to 9.4%. “We’re losing jobs at half the rate we were at the beginning of the year.”
The trouble is, I just can’t seem to reconcile all this happy talk with the actual economic data coming out of Washington. That unexpectedly rosy unemployment number that Obama bragged about is a case in point. The reason the unemployment rate fell in July was because the number of people looking for work fell even faster than the number of people losing their jobs. It’s a bit like a school superintendent bragging about increasing the graduation rate in his district 25% while neglecting to mention the dropout rate had soared 75%. That same unemployment report, by the way, noted that the number of people out of work for more than 27 weeks had surpassed five million, up from 4.4 million in June. Americans are seeing the return with a vengeance of a phenomenon long thought to be a thing of the past: long-term unemployment. (I personally know a Wall Street banker who has been out of full-time work since Christmas 2006, and he’s far from alone.)
The beat goes on. Consumer bankruptcy filings were up 34.3% in July over a year earlier, to the highest levels since a flurry of filings in 2005 right before the bankruptcy laws were made much more creditor-friendly. Retail sales “unexpectedly” fell in July, in spite of the unexpected (there’s that word again) success of the “cash for clunkers” program. Colonial Banc Group “unexpectedly” (sigh) became the largest bank failure of 2009 last week. And did I mention that I had a conversation recently with a partner at a large New York law firm who told me that a tsunami of retail property foreclosures is gathering steam? Look for that piece of “unexpected” bad news in coming months.
I know, I know. The stock market is up, and we all know the stock market is a leading indicator, yadda, yadda, yadda. The rally sputtered a bit late last week, however, as it seems to do every time the Dow flirts with 9400. Still smarting from their stock market losses of last fall, Americans are saving at rates not seen since the last recession ended 16 years ago. I think it will be some time before they jump back into the market with both feet.
Just as Hurricane Katrina was a stand-in for Americans’ frustrations with Iraq and the GOP Congress’ fiscal incontinence, I suspect the healthcare town brawls are a stand-in for many Americans’ frustration with the economy – and with President Obama’s handling of it. Poll after poll shows far more Americans worried about their economic future than about health policy. Yet they see their president expending vast amounts of political capital and intellectual energy on what most perceive as a second-tier issue. No wonder many are prepared to believe in hidden agendas. Cap and trade, Obama’s other signature domestic initiative? A Pew Research Poll way back in January showed climate change coming in 20th on a list of public concerns, below declining morals and the influence of lobbyists. (Terrorism, by the way, which the Obama administration seems determined to ignore, came in third.)
The Obama administration, of course, insists that things would be even worse if it had not pushed through its gi-normous stimulus package earlier this year. Maybe. But now news is coming in that ought to be the ultimate insult for American economic pride: The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that supposedly sclerotic Europe actually seems to be on the cusp of recovery,with both France and Germany showing small, but real, second quarter growth. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, of course, famously refused to follow Obama down stimulus alley. The second quarter numbers could be a blip, of course, but if it continues and Europe appears to be getting back on track while the US marches toward double-digit unemployment, our president is going to have some ’splainin’ to do.
45 responses so far
1 MFarmer // Aug 16, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Very good analysis. It’s apparent that Obama should be going toward free principles rather than trying to bury the free market. It will be ironic if the countries which depend on a strong U.S. economy start berating us for our economically stagnating, statist practices.
2 SFTor1 // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:30 am
Two economies far more regulated than the U.S., with public health care firmly in place, are proving themselves more resilient. They did not fall as far precisely because they did not endorse U.S. laissez-faire policies. Hence, they got by without stimulus initiatives.
Definitely a teaching moment.
3 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:45 am
Frum wrote: “Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, of course, famously refused to follow Obama down stimulus alley. The second quarter numbers could be a blip, of course, but if it continues and Europe appears to be getting back on track while the US marches toward double-digit unemployment, our president is going to have some ’splainin’ to do.”
Are you really this uninformed or are you just taking another disingenous cheap shot at the Obama Administration? Sarkozy and Merkel resisted a large economic stimulus package because their countries already provide substantial stimulus in the form of a much, much larger safety net than exists in the U.S. When unemployed workers in France can get up to 75% of their salaries (up to a max of roughly $86,000/year) for up to 3 years, there’s not nearly the same need for a stimulus to offset the reduced spending from rising unemployment as there is in the U.S. where unemployment benefits max out at under $2,000/month for 12 months.
4 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:51 am
sftor1: “Two economies far more regulated than the U.S., with public health care firmly in place, are proving themselves more resilient . . . Definitely a teaching moment.”
Unfortunately, in order for this to be a teaching moment conservatives would have to be willing to evaulate the facts as opposed to reflexively retreating to their flat earth ideologies.
5 SFTor1 // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:28 am
Spartacus,
After entreaties repeated over and over and over, the old dog may finally sit one day.
6 michaele23 // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:44 am
The reason that Europe is recovering faster is that they already have huge government stimuluses built into their systems, known as a welfare state. They also did not borrow as much money to begin with, and they live with a level of employment, that is, well, higher than ours is now on a regular basis.
Health care cost is a huge part of our economic problem and has to be dealt with. One of the major costs that is out of control for both employers and governments is health care. It is one of the reasons the State of California is in so much trouble. So if people are worried about their economic future they should be worried about the out of control costs of health care.
7 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:28 am
……..I know a grasp of economics isn’t NM Gusher’s strong point but there are major differences between the French/German economies and the US……….. Neither were impacted to anything like the same extent by the financial meltdown because their financial institutions had taken only a relatively small amount of the iffy paper from American issuing institutions. Both have very extensive social safety nets with much better unemployment benefits and of course universal healthcare that cushioned the impact on those laid off. Personal saving rates are much higher and consumer indebtedness much lower……….. And where does the weird idea come from that the French and Germans did not put a lot of stimulus into their economies. Both did, the Germans to a lesser extent but the French have pumped massive stimulus into their economy. The second quarter growth rates in these countries was 0.2% and 0.3% respectively while most economists believe the US which was in a massively worse situation than either of these countries is experiencing real growth in the third quarter………. And what was the source of all these job losses and collapse of economic activity in the US? Not the Obama administration but the Bush administration. From the start of the recession in December 2007 the economy has lost about 6.7 million jobs (all that were created in the previous period of expansion which is the first time that this has happened since the war)…..In the period September 2008 to April 2009 the economy was loosing jobs at rate of 700,000 a month……It’s now tapered down to around 250,000 ………so why didn’t Obama wave his magic wand and stop job losses on January 21?………Answer….. there aren’t any magic wands in economics just facts which NM seems to have a woefully weak grasp of.
8 Chekote // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:50 am
To suggest that the US has a laissez-faire policies is beyond ignorant. BTW, the financial industry is one of the most regulated industry in the US. I know. I am a financial regulatory consultant. Yet, people persists on believing that our economy is still in the 1800s as far regulation.
9 Chekote // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:51 am
After entreaties repeated over and over and over, the old dog may finally sit one day.
You mean there is hope that people on the Left will actually look at the facts instead of droning on with the same talking points about evil capitalists?!
10 Chekote // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:53 am
So if people are worried about their economic future they should be worried about the out of control costs of health care.
People are worried about the high health care costs. The problem with the Obama plan is that it does nothing to reduce costs unless he intends to ration care.
11 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:03 am
“…we all know the stock market is a leading indicator…”
Actually, no… no we don’t all “know” this.
Just as the health “insurance” debate has little to do with actual insurance fundamentals (such as an actuarial balance created to make profit rather than lead to bankruptcy), the stock market is less of a “market” than a casino nowadays.
We need fundamental tax reform. We need fundamental trade policy reform. We need to push for a system that employs the highest number of Americans producing goods and services domestically with the overflow going overseas.
In other words… we need to go back to the economic and social model that made America great.
We need to focus on long term growth – growth based upon actual economic activity that produces something other than bonuses for shifting monopoly money from one balance sheet to another.
Speaking of balance sheets… we need to one again anchor them to reality.
Now folks reading this either know what I’m talking about, or… (*SIGH*)… they don’t. To those who don’t… well… like it or not this puts you in the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke/Obama camp.
And yeah… that’s the point I’m trying to make here… at a certain level they’re ALL involved in the distortion of capitalism and the descent into a more oligarchical system.
Robert Rubin? John Corzine? (Hey… look how Rahm Emmanuel made his millions.) All those former Clinton officials who made a bundle off Freedie/Fannie?
And, yeah… plenty of blame goes to the Republicans too! That’s my point! Both Parties are rotten to the core at the top of the pyramid.
Oh, yeah… back to the stock market… the latest psychological rally (which appears to have stalled) was based upon NOTHING… nothing real… nothing that shouts out “Hey, America, you’re gonna be ok!”
(*SHRUG*)
I wish it were otherwise.
BILL
12 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:05 am
Chekote // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:50 am
” BTW, the financial industry is one of the most regulated industry in the US. I know. I am a financial regulatory consultant. ”
…….I don’t know that anyone has suggested that US financial regs are in the 1800’s…..Strawman? ………So you’re an expert Chek……so you’d know that while certain parts of the US financial industry are highly regulated other parts are virtually unregulated……..and then there’s the issue of the regs only being as good as the regulators…….clearly large tracts of the US regulatory machinery was comatose for much of 2001-2008 most notably the SEC…….then there’s the relative muscle of the regulating agencies to those the regulate viz. Fannie/Freddie’s regulator or the claim by some on the right that AIG was “regulated” because of state oversight of insurers (hard to keep a straight face with that one)……finally there’s the fact that most regs are largely written by the industry themselves (as is true of most industries actually)
13 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:12 am
Chekote // Aug 17, 2009 at 8:53 am
“People are worried about the high health care costs. The problem with the Obama plan is that it does nothing to reduce costs unless he intends to ration care.”
…….Would that be more rationed or less rationed than at present?……I’m a realist…..ultimately they have to get about five or six hundred billion in constant dollars out of costs…….there are lots of ways this can be done and it will probably involve not spending millions to extend people’s lives by six months……that doesn’t seem too high a price to pay if it means people who are basically healthy but with semi serious/serious illnesses have access to care
14 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:15 am
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:03 am
“…we all know the stock market is a leading indicator…”
Actually, no… no we don’t all “know” this.”
……..Well you may not Baarking but the fact is that for every recession since the war with one exception a market recovery has heralded a general economic recovery…….so it’s not unreasonable to see it as predictive
15 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 am
Of course the economic crisis was worse in America than in Europe: It originated in America, with the collapse of the U.S. real-estate bubble. AFAIK, Europe didn’t have such a real estate bubble.
It was Americans who bid up housing prices to astronomical levels by being willing to purchase housing with subprime mortgages with zero money down. It was Americans, not Europeans, who treated their homes as banks, drawing out paper equity with home equity lines of credit, second mortgages, and refinancing.
Even LEFT-WING economists like Dean Baker admit that nothing can be done by the U.S. government to restore the U.S. real estate market to health, until real estate prices decline sharply to equilibrium levels. But in the meantime, millions of Americans got hurt–they found themselves upside-down on their mortgages and had to file for bankruptcy. There was simply no way around that.
When other nations had speculative bubbles that eventually collapsed (Japan, Mexico, etc.), the ripple effects extended to America–but the nation with the bubble always had it worse than the other nations.
16 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:42 am
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 am
“but the nation with the bubble always had it worse than the other nations.”
……….In fact the two countries in Europe (Britain and Spain) which experienced similar real estate bubbles to the US and share other characteristic like low savings/high consumer debt and are thus much more like this country than either Germany (which experienced no real estate boom whatever) or France, are still in deep trouble and expected to experience negative growth for several more quarters.
17 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:02 am
The medical spending is useful to point out – as a nation we do spend twice what anyone else in the world does, per capita, without actually providing greater healthcare security to our working age population.
The Brits spend $2450 per capita on their much decried NHS.
The US spends $2,600 per capita on Medicare and Medicaid. No, that’s not per capita as in “Medicare and Medicaid recipients”. That’s per capita as in “The Entire US Population”.
In other words, were we running a Great Britain-like NHS, we could cover every man, woman and child for what we already spend on Medicare and Medicaid … and all the private spending on private insurance could go to funding all the high end and elective medical care that people wanted above what the system provided.
Add in the enormous economic imbalance we maintain through spending twice or more that what anyone else spends on their annual military budget … the US has given everyone else a 40 meter head start in this 100 meter dash to recovery. Even Usain Bolt is going to have trouble catching any serious athlete with that kind of head start …
18 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:02 am
“Add in the enormous economic imbalance we maintain through spending twice or more that what anyone else spends on their annual military budget ”
………Actually US military expenditures are equal to the rest of the world COMBINED……no not a misprint we have half the world’s total military expenditures
19 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 11:45 am
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 am (#15) –
“It was Americans who bid up housing prices to astronomical levels by being willing to purchase housing with subprime mortgages with zero money down. It was Americans, not Europeans, who treated their homes as banks, drawing out paper equity with home equity lines of credit, second mortgages, and refinancing.”
Ever hear of a little place called Ireland, Sinz?
(*SMILE*)
I believe the UK had its own little fling with overvalued real estate as well.
As for the rest of Europe…
(*SHRUG*)
Any, I’m not arguing with your point; I’m simply adding a bit of depth.
In any case, we’re still basically marching in the wrong direction in terms of economic policy.
BILL
20 sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
barker13 and ottovbs: You’re right, those nations in Europe had their own real estate bubbles–and they, like we, reaped the consequences.
A *major* challenge for democratic societies is whether they have the will to PREVENT bubbles from growing to the point that they burst. So far, the record is not encouraging.
In 2000, the stock-market “dot.com” bubble was becoming pretty obvious even to shrewd investors. Yet when candidate Bush tried to point out that the economy was peaking, he was blasted by Gore and the Dems for “talking down the economy” and that we were experiencing “the greatest of all bull markets.”
21 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:35 pm
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Yet when candidate Bush tried to point out that the economy was peaking, he was blasted by Gore and the Dems for “talking down the economy” and that we were experiencing “the greatest of all bull markets.”
………a campaign line becomes entire Democratic economic management in Sinz’s mind……He seems to forget that Bush between 2002 and mid 2008 presided over a far larger stock market bubble and one with a lot less substance………much of the dot com boom was actually real as were the roughly 22 million jobs created on the Democratic watch whereas all the Jobs created on Bush’s watch most of which were housing and financial product related have gone up in smoke
22 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:43 pm
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
……….You and Baarking should read this clinical summary of the difference between the paranoid and the rational mind……see if anything strikes you as familiar…….to be fair you haven’t got it quite as bad as B but the “candidate Bush” line fits right in with one definition…….some of my fellow spirits might also find it illuminating
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/Rational_thinker_versus_paranoid.html
23 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm (#20) -
“A *major* challenge for democratic societies is whether they have the will to PREVENT bubbles from growing…”
Sinz.
Buddy.
Pal.
Boobie…!!!
Neither Obama nor Bernanke nor Geithner nor the Wall Street plutocrats of EITHER Party have even the tiniest interest in “preventing” future boom/bust cycles… that’s their GOAL!
Debt… debt… debt… that’s what these people are ALL ABOUT, Sinz.
BILL
24 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:21 pm
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Neither Obama nor Bernanke nor Geithner nor the Wall Street plutocrats of EITHER Party have even the tiniest interest in “preventing” future boom/bust cycles… that’s their GOAL!”
………..From my Paranoid v Rational comparison above at 22……Bingo
3. Invokes complex, unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes.
25 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:24 pm
sinz: “In 2000, the stock-market “dot.com” bubble was becoming pretty obvious even to shrewd investors. Yet when candidate Bush tried to point out that the economy was peaking, he was blasted by Gore and the Dems for “talking down the economy” and that we were experiencing “the greatest of all bull markets.”
Not nearly on par with the sin of Alan Greenspan working out a deal with Bush in early 2001 that he wouldn’t oppose tax cuts that totally wiped out our ability to pay down our national debt, and that he would push interest rates way down to stimulate the economy.
The problem is that the low tax rate and low interest rate just turned us into a nation of borrowers and consumers … certainly if we’re talking about rhetoric you remember patriotic spending after 9/11, and the promotion of the ownership society – “America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own” – Bush made central to his 2004 election pitch.
The Fed really deserves a lot of blame. Greenspan had fully bought into the concept of the self regulating marketplace … the idea that a lot of savvy, self-serving gamblers at the poker table would lead to them policing each other, not allowing anyone to take too much risk that would bring everyone down when they couldn’t pay up. Greenspan accepted the idea that China and Saudi Arabia buying American notes was a sufficient means to keeping inflation under check at a time we were running huge trade and budget deficits, and kept interest rates low because … well, imo, because he wanted Bushenomics to succeed. He knew that the Dems retaking power would lead to expansion of labor protections and social services, and he feared growth of those more than he feared Wall Street gamblers and housing bubbles. So like Bush, Greenspan sat there at the table doubling down each time the dice was rolled, hoping it wouldn’t come up craps again.
26 gspurlock // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm
It is really important to keep this in the public eye. We can still and need to repeal all of the unspent funding in the Stimulus Package, the Omnibus Spending Bill and to recall the Budget for a major pruning job.
As long as the threat of socialism, which this spending represents, hangs over our nation, the markets will not recover, nor will the economy. They want to recover. Americans are all about re-inventing themselves and about growth and wealth creation, but socialism and our current presidential administration are diametrically opposed to growth and prosperity.
Best regards,
Gail S
http://backyardfence.wordpress.com
27 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm
gspurlock wrote: “We can still and need to repeal all of the unspent funding in the Stimulus Package, the Omnibus Spending Bill and to recall the Budget for a major pruning job . . . long as the threat of socialism, which this spending represents, hangs over our nation, the markets will not recover, nor will the economy.”
Really? That’s not what actual economists are saying. Where do you get all of this black magic and voodoo thinking?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/business/economy/07stimulus.html?_r=2
28 SFTor1 // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Hi Gail: so who has said anything about socialism. You are simply misusing the word. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, combined with central planning.
There is nothing “socialist” about the Obama Administration. It is solidly capitalist.
29 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Yeah – let’s repeal the unspent funding in the Stimulus Package.
You know, not all cliffs are like Thelma and Louise, or Roadrunner cartoons. For a lot of cliffs there is a steep downslope before the sudden dropoff.
What’s that mean? In the former case, as we’ve seen in so many movies … if you stop in time, you sit there at the edge, safe, until you back away from the edge.
In the latter case, even after you’ve come to a stop before going over the edge – if you take off the brakes before you’ve done the hard work of pulling yourself back up the hill, you’ll immediately pick up speed and go right over the edge.
Krugman, et al, wanted a stimulus package that would not only bring us to a halt, but would rapidly pull us back to the top of the hill and safety. Obama settled for a half step, that leaves us still perched precariously, but gives us a chance to avoid calamity if we knuckle down and get to work. The Republicans were pretty much willing to let us go over the edge … perhaps believing that that looming precipice was just a dip before an uphill we couldn’t see yet, perhaps believing that we could fly, perhaps just believing that a good crash is needed from time to time. And now they’re advocating taking the brakes off so we can speed up again?
Repeal the Stimulus? Has everyone heard of Colonial Bank yet?
30 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:57 pm
gspurlock // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“We can still and need to repeal all of the unspent funding in the Stimulus Package, the Omnibus Spending Bill and to recall the Budget for a major pruning job.”
……….It seems to have escaped your notice that the economy is still fragile and we have 9.4% unemployment plus the need to create about 125,000 jobs a month just to stand still…….only about $150 million of the stimulus has been spent so far and the bulk of it will unfold between now and the end of 2010 thus helping to bring unemployment……we know the goal of Republicans is unemployment in the low teens so they can scream failure which after all is why they really opposed the stimlus program……you’re going to disappointed the economy will be chugging along quite nicely by next summer
31 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:01 pm
……….Spartacus, sftor and balconesfault: read that attachment of mine at 22…… it’s hilarious and all numbered…….all we’ll have to do in future is say something like Paranoid 7!!
32 balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“There is nothing “socialist” about the Obama Administration. It is solidly capitalist.”
Well, if the Obama Administration and Dems were as socialist as some think, we’d have a few nationally owned banks making loans to businesses and individuals these days, instead of pumping hundreds of billions into the existing system with the hope that they’ll do that, instead of using the money for implementing new Wall Street gambling techniques (as Goldman Sacks seems to have done with some success recently), paying huge executive bonuses, or increases in dividends.
There were some people advocating exactly that last fall – Government funded locally managed community lending boards to buy portfolios from lenders headed for bankruptcy, renegotiate with the goal of stabilizing community property values, and become the lender of first resort when the private sector froze up lending. The combined effects of TARP, the Fed funding private buyouts of large investment companies, and the stimulus package have actually helped quell that movement towards real socialism, at the same time largely spending money to reinforce the private sector.
33 LFC // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm
<sinz54 said… A *major* challenge for democratic societies is whether they have the will to PREVENT bubbles from growing to the point that they burst. So far, the record is not encouraging.
Not sure I fully agree with this. The bio-tech bubble under Reagan and the dot com bubble under Clinton were organic. On the latter, Greenspan should have said “irrational exhuberance” much more often, but generally the government should only get just so involved with them.
Contrast this with the latest real estate bubble. That wasn’t really organic, that was government driven. Greenspan decided that near 0% interest rates for a record length of time were a really good idea. Bush’s OCC, who had never stuck their noses into this arena, shut down predatory mortgage investigations in 22 states. 50 state attorney generals asked them to back off, but the OCC claimed jurisdiction … and then refused to investigate anybody. Bush’s OTS and SEC actively avoided upholding existing regulation. And nobody in the administration even mentioned that a deb derivatives market “worth” $64 trillion was probably a bad idea when the entire U.S. debt market, ever mortgage, car loan, credit card, etc., was worth about 1/3 that This was a bubble crafted and encouraged oh so carefully by the administration, and now we’re paying the price.
So the government should gently nudge on organic bubbles, but they should be bitch-slapped into next week when they intentionally create them to create the false aura of economic prosperity(in order to win political points at the long-term expense of the nation.
34 LFC // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm
balconesfault said… The Republicans were pretty much willing to let us go over the edge … perhaps believing that that looming precipice was just a dip before an uphill we couldn’t see yet, perhaps believing that we could fly, perhaps just believing that a good crash is needed from time to time.
No, they believe that they can score political points by blaming the Dems for the economy they created. After all, it’s MUCH easier than actually taking responsibility for your own failures.
35 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Otto, I read your link and it’s exactly on point – especially #9 – Accepts all demonstrated evidence.
36 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Oops. I cut and pasted incorrectly. Here’s #9:
Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.
37 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:48 pm
………you have to differentiate as the list does between the rational and paranoid…….it’s uncanny how well it fits certain contributions though…… don’t you think?
38 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Re: Gspurlock // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm (#26) –
“We can still and need to repeal all of the unspent funding in the Stimulus Package, the Omnibus Spending Bill and to recall the Budget for a major pruning job.”
Yep. IF Republicans can take back one or both Houses of Congress next year we can start reversing the spending binge as early as 2011.
(*SHRUG*) It’s 2009.
(*SHRUG*) It’s gonna be one tough year and a half.
Republican candidates better campaign on cutting spending. If they do they’ll win. No everywhere, obviously, but in enough places.
Re: Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm (#27) –
Spart. You need to be reading other economists and financial experts! (*GRIN*)
Hey… I recommend John Tamny, Peter Schiff, sites like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com
Also… as always… use your own common sense and judgment. If something an “expert” says just doesn’t make sense to you… perhaps there’s a reason. Perhaps the “expert” is full of $hit or just plain wrong. (*SHRUG*)
http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=16962&type=schiff
BILL
39 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Otto: “how well it fits certain contributions though…… don’t you think?”
Absolutely. As I’ve said many times before, the Right has become a slave to its ideology. The GOP policies over the past 30 years (which were all sold as an implementation of their ideologies) have resulted in bigger govt, more deficits, falling personal incomes, weakened international standing and more government intrusion.
They can’t escape the fact that their ideologies, when translated into actual policy, resulted in failure, yet they’re unwilling to accept that other ideologies/policies have succeeded, as demonstrated in Europe and even in some states here. When presented the empirical data, they quickly retreat to theories and ideologies while ignoring the real-world facts. They simply cannot come up with solutions for practical problems without offending their ideology.
It’s like still believing the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
40 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Re: Barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:03 am (#11) –
File Under: “I wish it were otherwise.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344700380597382.html
I respectfully suggest you click on the link and read the piece.
BILL
41 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm
…………..This is their big problem……they have chained themselves to a host of flawed doctrines and shibboleths that they (and that means people like Frum) inculcated into their followers and now they can’t break loose from them…….thus we have economic geniuses like Baarking and gspurlock who think it’s a good idea to slash spending in the middle of a recession……or that supply side actually works….or that attacking science based solutions is good policy……nuttiness has taken them hostage which is why if they’re still in this situation when it gets down to the short strokes of an election next year and given that the economy will be rolling along and Obama and the Dems will have all the pictures of the Republicans committing the crimes to stop it recovering they are in dire trouble
42 ottovbvs // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“File Under: “I wish it were otherwise.”
……..Weren’t Fannie/Freddie “nationalized” by the Bush admin?……..Summers and Obama are having to clean up the mess
43 Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Barker: “Spart. You need to be reading other economists and financial experts! (*GRIN*)”
I typically just rely on Sinz:)
Seriously, you make a fair point. We all could pull out an expert here and there that will corroborate our specific view of things. It was not my intent to suggest that there aren’t experts who hold a different view, but I’m not aware of many with large followings who question the efficacy of govt spending during a recession.
44 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Re: Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:46 pm (#43) –
“I typically just rely on Sinz…”
(*GRIN*) Poor, poor, Sinz; he typically has more folks taking more shots at him from more different directions than even I could ever hope to aspire to.
“Seriously, you make a fair point. We all could pull out an expert here and there that will corroborate our specific view of things.”
It’s not that, Spart, it’s really not. I mean think about it… OBVIOUSLY I’m exposed on a daily basis to “mainstream” group think. While you can avoid “my” sources I can’t really “avoid” yours. (*SHRUG*)
(I know… I know… simplistic, yes… but you “get” where I’m coming from. Nor am I accusing you of not being well informed; you obviously are. I’m simply sharing some of my “go to” sites in terms of getting a wide range of views.)
(Oh… and by the way… LewRockwell.com – as one example – is a site where you’re as like to get what someone like Sinz would consider a “far Left” analysis from as a “far Right.” That’s the thing about so many of these discussions… sometimes the “far” Left and “far” Right are closer than the “moderates” are to EITHER Left or Right.)
“It was not my intent to suggest that there aren’t experts who hold a different view, but I’m not aware of many with large followings who question the efficacy of govt spending during a recession.”
I understand that. What I’m trying to get across to you is that most of these so-called “experts” are wrong – they’re just plan wrong. Whenever and wherever their prescriptions have been tried they’ve failed.
Spart. Understand. Greenspan… Paulson… Bernanke… Geithner… they’re all incompetents – at least if you look at the evidence, the outcomes, and then give them the “credit.”
Give my sources a try. Give ‘em a few weeks – maybe a month. See what you see. Heck… take notes… match your own predictions to theirs… and in a year or two compare the two.
Now I’m not speaking of any one guy or gal being 100% right all the time… but as I offered originally, there are folks like Tamny and Schiff whom I agree with 80%+ of the time and who have actual records to look back on to see how their predictions have fared over the years.
BILL
45 ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:51 am
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Spart. Understand. Greenspan… Paulson… Bernanke… Geithner… they’re all incompetents – at least if you look at the evidence, the outcomes, and then give them the “credit.”
………..yep Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner only averted the complete collapse of the US financial system but apart from that they are incompetent…….a bit late to the party perhaps but that’s the worst one can say about them……Greenspan was incompetent because he was the prisoner of ideology….take note Baarking…..it’s ultimately fatal
You must log in to post a comment.