Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on February 06, 2009, 09:01:40 AM
-
Alright, now, as I've said before, I'm an economist, so I hope people don't get too overwhelmed by the technical details of this plan.
Republicans in the House and Senate, I have the answer that will get us out of the recession far faster than any Obama and Democrat plan.
Listen carefully, now.
Here's what you need to do:
STALL.
That's it. Stall EVERYTHING as much as you possibly can. Hold up every single vote in the Senate. Don't let anything get by.
Normal recessions last around 12-14 months. According to numbers, this mild recession has lasted close to a year now. (This one is likely to last a little longer thanks to the previous "bailout" package)
As for the suffering, the govenment just reported that the jobless rate is 7.6% http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/markets/bondcenter/credit/?postversion=2009020608
SEVEN POINT SIX PERCENT.
Economists think the natural rate of unemployment (rate an economy needs to survive and grow) is between 4-6%.
That means we have between 3.6% and 1.6% of unhealthy unemployment.
Seriously, stop panicking.
The economy needs time to adjust to mal-investment. We need to allow the bad companies to be weeded out so that better companies can use their resources (some of those resources being PEOPLE).
Things need to hurt for a little while. Attempting to "alleviate the suffering" will only prolong it.
So there's your mission Republicans. Stall. Stall for all you are worth.
I promise, if you can stall for this next year, EVERYONE will be much better off.
-
I'll buy that plan for a dollar. Likely to cost me a lot less in the long run.
I think our gov't usually does the most good when it is in gridlock.
"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge
I think CC is pretty much the ideal for a POTUS.
-
I'll buy that plan for a dollar. Likely to cost me a lot less in the long run.
I think our gov't usually does the most good when it is in gridlock.
"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge
I think CC is pretty much the ideal for a POTUS.
Perhaps. Give me Grover Cleveland though:
"Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term, more than double the 204 vetoes cast by all previous presidents."
http://www.usconstitution.com/grovercleveland.htm
"Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . "
He also vetoed many private pension bills to Civil War veterans whose claims were fraudulent. When Congress, pressured by the Grand Army of the Republic, passed a bill granting pensions for disabilities not caused by military service, Cleveland vetoed it, too."
"Elected again in 1892, Cleveland faced an acute depression. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act and, with the aid of Wall Street, maintained the Treasury's gold reserve."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/grovercleveland/
-
Wow, that's one non-consecutive pimp.
-
Perhaps. Give me Grover Cleveland though:
And he was a Democrat of the old school... before they went crazy as bedbugs and elected FDR.
-
Stall. Do nothing. But have plenty of wax in your ears. And a flak jacket on.
-
I heard they did put out an alternative stimulus plan with a bunch of tax cuts, but it was voted down. If they keep doing that, they can at least trumpet their attempts to do something better.
-
Perhaps. Give me Grover Cleveland though...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/grovercleveland/
That was....beautiful.
Let's clone him. Using private-sector dollars.
-
I can now describe my political affiliation as "Grover Cleveland democrat". :lol:
-
I think CC is pretty much the ideal for a POTUS.
Not in the modern era. Doing nothing and stalling is no longer good enough. We must work to actively eliminate programs and entire departments to get to a Coolidge-level of freedom.
-
Seriously, stop panicking.
Works for me.
-
I think I had previously posted my advice to all our elected reps:
"Don't just do something, Stand There !!!!!"
=D
-
Stalling and opposing every effort worked well for the Democrats during both Bush terms (before they started signing off on Dem-friendly bills)....let's return the favor....
-
But seriously, folks...
If we don't realize by now what's on tap and that we are going to have to be actively obstructionist, we are kidding ourselves. Digging in our heels will just mean being dragged to the slaughterhouse.
-
Digging in our heels will just mean being dragged to the slaughterhouse.
I will not go willingly.......
-
Why not advance this admin. With sarcasm and satire. Go ahead with a real good strong dose of power corrupts.
How else will the rest of society understand a 200 year rollback.
-
honestly, I kinda want the repubs to let this BS stuff slide on through. I know and you know, that it will make the economical meltdown more prolonged and a harder storm to ride. BUT, if the repubs do the right thing, and it causes the issues to become fixed, then the dems get the credit, and we are stuck with them for a few more elections, which may be worse in the long run.
If the repibs say screw it and let the stuff go through, then when it fails, we can just all blaim the demorats. :)
-
.
-
Digging in our heels will just mean being dragged to the slaughterhouse.
I plan to dig in so deep that they'll have to bring the slaughterhouse to me.....figuratively speaking, that is.....
-
Let's see here: how many banks have failed in the past year?
What's the drop in stock value over the same period? What's that, some people were going to retire on that money, and crashing stock values are a bad sign for the economy?
Record numbers of foreclosures?
Yeah, calling this economic situation "mild" doesn't seem to square up with the facts.
Of course, you can believe the government statistics on employment....but those were the same ones that were telling us there was very little inflation when gas and food tripled in price over a couple of years. And low unemployment doesn't necessarily mean good economic health-a nation of 10 hour a week part timers is not in good economic shape.
I've seen it pointed out here, and I'm starting to agree with the position that the economic was in such bad shape that without the first bailout of the banks the currency would likely have become worthless.
There are tougher times ahead, and whatever direction this country takes, the people who are proposing "sit back and do nothing" are the surest guarantors of political irrelevance that either of the two parties will find.
-
Call me skeptical of any statistic originating in government house. GDP, inflation and unemployment stats are political pronouncements.
Here is a different view of the vaunted 7.1% unemployment figure
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8607.html
-
I've seen it pointed out here, and I'm starting to agree with the position that the economic was in such bad shape that without the first bailout of the banks the currency would likely have become worthless.
Without inflating even further, the currency would become worthless?
-
There are tougher times ahead, and whatever direction this country takes, the people who are proposing "sit back and do nothing" are the surest guarantors of political irrelevance that either of the two parties will find.
If they market it that way, yes.
If on the other hand, they couch it in terms of defending struggling businesses from burdensome regulation/taxes, that could possibly work. Though of course, the media will still just paint it as obstructionism, sitting by while millions lose their jobs, etc. And they've got the jump on us by making Wall Street out to be the bad guy, so...
I think it might be better for Republicans to propose their own stimulus plans, which amount to govt. doing less. That is, proposing changes that amount to looser regulation and lower taxes, probably with some token "We're from the govt. and we're here to help" programs thrown in.
-
No....they better start doing something.....like following people with a clue. America voted for change.....not the same old Republican plan.
-
No....they better start doing something.....like following people with a clue. America voted for change.....not the same old Republican plan.
These people's constituents elected them to do the Republican thing, remember?
It's their moral duty to do the Republican thing.
-
Let's see here: how many banks have failed in the past year?
What's the drop in stock value over the same period? What's that, some people were going to retire on that money, and crashing stock values are a bad sign for the economy?
Record numbers of foreclosures?
Yeah, calling this economic situation "mild" doesn't seem to square up with the facts.
Of course, you can believe the government statistics on employment....but those were the same ones that were telling us there was very little inflation when gas and food tripled in price over a couple of years. And low unemployment doesn't necessarily mean good economic health-a nation of 10 hour a week part timers is not in good economic shape.
I've seen it pointed out here, and I'm starting to agree with the position that the economic was in such bad shape that without the first bailout of the banks the currency would likely have become worthless.
There are tougher times ahead, and whatever direction this country takes, the people who are proposing "sit back and do nothing" are the surest guarantors of political irrelevance that either of the two parties will find.
Alright, I'll bite: just how many banks did fail over the past year?
And not got bought up by a competitor or re-organized. How many failed?
Second, as to people retiring on that, they should have moved it from risky assets many years before retirement. (I know this because I was telling my parents and in-laws this... not that they listened, though).
Third, as to the government's statistics: you won't trust their ability to measure the economy but you trust them to FIX IT?
If the government is incorrect on the unemployment numbers, what are the correct numbers?
As for there being tougher times ahead, you may be right: it looks like the Senate will be passing that misbegotten travesty of a "bailout". Let's hear it for the failed policies that caused the Great Depression!
-
I've seen it pointed out here, and I'm starting to agree with the position that the economic was in such bad shape that without the first bailout of the banks the currency would likely have become worthless.
The problem wasn't currency becoming worthless, it was just the opposite. The problem would've been a rapid reduction in the availability of currency. This would be an increase in the value of currency, a "hyper-deflation" if you will.
Note also that the situation wasn't due to the condition of the economy as a whole, it was due to the condition of the banks. It was a result of their being heavily over-invested and over-leveraged in real estate. The rest of the economy maybe could have continued chugging right along if not for the fact that the banking industry is fundamental to every other industry and enterprise within the economy.
-
Here's where I saw that argument:
.
So far we've seen the failure of about 170 banks which have drained about 30% of FDIC's reserves (Indy Mac's failure alone pulled almost 15%). Had AIG failed, the remains of FDIC's reserves would have been quickly exhausted (covering insured deposits at other banks brought down by AIG), leading to bank runs and further deterioration of the US financial system. In turn, that lack of confidence in the US financial system would then spread to foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds. Once that happens and they lose their appetite for US treasuries, the US economic system would look a bit more like that of Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Very nicely said.
-
Here's where I saw that argument:
So far we've seen the failure of about 170 banks which have drained about 30% of FDIC's reserves (Indy Mac's failure alone pulled almost 15%). Had AIG failed, the remains of FDIC's reserves would have been quickly exhausted (covering insured deposits at other banks brought down by AIG), leading to bank runs and further deterioration of the US financial system. In turn, that lack of confidence in the US financial system would then spread to foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds. Once that happens and they lose their appetite for US treasuries, the US economic system would look a bit more like that of Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Very nicely said.
Hmm...
http://www.fdic.gov/BANK/HISTORICAL/BANK/2008/index.html
I count 24 bank failures in 2008.
Now, that is a significant increase over preceeding years, but in a mild financial crisis, not surprising.
I wish I could say: I can't believe people are falling for this crap about the "WORST ECONOMY IN SEVENTY YEARS!", but I can.
Most people have no knowledge of the past and no economic training.
This is a MILD financial downturn. The only way it's going to get worse is by screwing around with the economy and trying to "manage" this crisis.
We aren't even NEAR double digit unemployment.
1982, the end of the last major recession caused by money mischief in the 1970's, the unemployment rate was 10.8%
Ten point eight percent.
It is 7.6% right now.
Unless we have a massive contraction of the money supply the economy should right itself fairly soon.
In the 1980s in order to curb the runaway inflation of the 1970's, we had that type of contraction of the money supply. In 1981, the inflation rate was 10.1%. The Fed's actions to lower that rate is what led to the high unemployment rate in 1982. It caused some pain for a while, but the US economy finally got back on its low inflation, low unemployment rate track.
The circumstances to cause that kind of inflation or unemployment do not yet exist. Government removing $1 trillion from the private sector may create those circumstances, though. ("Crowding out" is what happens when the government spends money. This occurs whether the government taxes or borrows to finance their spending- either way the economy has lost the same amount of money- it is now unavailable for private investment.)
-
You do realise the current way the govt calculates jobless numbers is pretty much male bovine excrement, right?
-
You do realise the current way the govt calculates jobless numbers is pretty much male bovine excrement, right?
Hmmm....
I checked to make sure but as I see, you're one of the members touting the "science" of global warming.
When I argue against that poor science, I use analysis of their conclusions, data, sampling, or statistical models.
Your argument here is "It's just BS".
Any actual economists you can cite?
I ask because there's a MASSIVE "consensus" on unemployment....
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brianbeutler.com%2Fjobsrecessions.jpg&hash=5ddda6f380c5bfe5afd59e96a9d53b7e74805331)
This is one.
I'm at work, but I will find my source for this when time permits.
Basically, the numbers I look at are the BLS U6 numbers that were pretty much deleted from the unemployment numbers. Clinton did this to make his unemployment numbers look better.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brianbeutler.com%2Fjobsrecessions.jpg&hash=5ddda6f380c5bfe5afd59e96a9d53b7e74805331)
This is one.
I'm at work, but I will find my source for this when time permits.
You mean, the 2001 recession, which had, at its worst, a 6.3% unemployment rate didn't have as many job losses as where we are right now at 7.6% unemployment!?
-
You mean, the 2001 recession, which had, at its worst, a 6.3% unemployment rate didn't have as many job losses as where we are right now at 7.6% unemployment!?
I trust total job loss numbers more than these "adjusted" unemployment percentages, as the way those percentages are calculated. Again, i'm no economist, but with what little I know, that's the feeling I get.
-
I trust total job loss numbers more than these "adjusted" unemployment percentages, as the way those percentages are calculated. Again, i'm no economist, but with what little I know, that's the feeling I get.
US Population (estimated), 2001: 278,058,881
US Population (estimated), 2009: 305,529,237
Raw numbers have a problem. Care to guess what it is?
-
Apparently I was wrong about something, I thought how u3 was calculated changed twice since 2000, but I can't find confirmation of that.
-
I think you need to go a lot further back than 1990 to get an objective comparison with past downturns.
-
I think you need to go a lot further back than 1990 to get an objective comparison with past downturns.
I am curious what the graph would look like if you take 1984 into account.
-
We should also keep in mind that a lot of people who show up as "unemployed" are doing a couple of small business things off the books and truly do have employment.
That skews the figures in the other direction.
There's quite a lively off books economy going on out there.
-
We should also keep in mind that a lot of people who show up as "unemployed" are doing a couple of small business things off the books and truly do have employment.
That skews the figures in the other direction.
There's quite a lively off books economy going on out there.
And what do you think might cause that?
Oh, yeah. Raping peoples' wallets if they dare try to make some money with their own hard work.
-
There are many causes.
All I was addressing is the fact that the shadow economy of off-the-books transactions skews the figures in the other direction.
-
Here is a Pelosi-free chart comparing the relative severity, in terms of unemployment, of the last four recessions:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheamericanscene.com%2Fimages%2F98.gif&hash=efbcd17bd86fc90a76d51b625e5a3efcfe981b20)
The only way the current recession becomes a depression is if our gov't works hard and makes it a depression.
No....they better start doing something.....like following people with a clue. America voted for change.....not the same old Republican plan.
Oh, you think dumping nearly a trillion dollars on the recession is a change from previous administration?
Were you alive & conscious the last six months?
-
I'm pretty sure that anything before the mid to late 90's and now is comparing apples to oranges, as the unemployment calculation method DID change during Clinton. Wether it significantly affects the above chart is another matter.
-
Two citations which give the nature of suspicion about official federal unemployment statistics.
Discussing latest figures
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8607.html
John Williams has made a pretty good living second guessing federal economic statistics. He is the "go to guy" for counter-arguments regarding key governmental statistics. I find it interesting how the federal government has changed over time how its statistics are generated. Curiously enough the changes seem to favor the government.
http://www.shadowstats.com/
And here is the unemployment statistics portion of his primer
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54
-
As usual, someon else put in much better terms what I was trying to. That marketoracle article was very good, and very sobering, too.
-
Hmm...
http://www.fdic.gov/BANK/HISTORICAL/BANK/2008/index.html
I count 24 bank failures in 2008.
Now, that is a significant increase over preceeding years, but in a mild financial crisis, not surprising.
I wish I could say: I can't believe people are falling for this crap about the "WORST ECONOMY IN SEVENTY YEARS!", but I can.
Most people have no knowledge of the past and no economic training.
The guy who posted that is on wall street dealing with this right now.
Most economists did not warn their clients about the crash that was coming...might want to remember that when you rely on the "science" of economics to formulate your theories about how the economy is actually doing.
-
The economy is so bad and this recession is so awful that our company had an 11% profit increase this January over last January.
-
The guy who posted that is on wall street dealing with this right now.
Most economists did not warn their clients about the crash that was coming...might want to remember that when you rely on the "science" of economics to formulate your theories about how the economy is actually doing.
First of all, economists tend not to have "clients." Stockbrockers do.
Secondly:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1014169323358510560.html?mod=Extra
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109684359646434797.html?mod=Extra
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1016494105312486320.html?mod=Extra
As an example of economists warning of the problems that led to this crisis. (I chose Fannie Mae, economists have been warning about derivatives since the 90's)
Third, what does it matter what we economists say? People won't listen to economists.
(Edit: For example, http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2009/02/10/buy_american_--_or_bye-bye_america
Economists have been fighting for free trade for 232 years- which, not coincidentally, is as long as the study of economics has existed.)
-
The economy is so bad and this recession is so awful that our company had an 11% profit increase this January over last January.
Our last quarter was awesome. I am getting angrier every day with Obama talking down the economy like this.
-
Our last quarter was awesome. I am getting angrier every day with Obama talking down the economy like this.
He needs a depression to be able to fully implement his socialist policies. If there isn't one available, he'll do his best to create one.
-
He needs a depression to be able to fully implement his socialist policies. If there isn't one available, he'll do his best to create one.
If this bill passes AND they turn it into "Smoot-Hawley II" with their "Buy American" provision, he may very well do so.
I'm almost dumbfounded by the stupidity.
-
If this bill passes AND they turn it into "Smoot-Hawley II" with their "Buy American" provision, he may very well do so.
I'm almost dumbfounded by the stupidity.
Is that level of stupidity really possible? At some point don't we have to assume that it's part of a plan rather than ignorance or stupidity? I've never read any economic or historical texts that treat Smoot-Hawley and protectionism as a good thing.
I just have a hard time believing that they're really all that ignorant of history and economics. Either scenario is bad, but I'd almost rather believe they are doing this as part of some evil plot than that we have people that stupid/ignorant running our country.
-
The guy who posted that is on wall street dealing with this right now.
Most economists did not warn their clients about the crash that was coming...might want to remember that when you rely on the "science" of economics to formulate your theories about how the economy is actually doing.
Don't confuse economists with investment advisors. Many investors got blindsided by the downturn. Many economists had seen it coming for a while.
Heck, I'm not a serious economist by any means, but even I saw a deflationary crash coming and have been posting about it here for a year or two.
-
Is that level of stupidity really possible? At some point don't we have to assume that it's part of a plan rather than ignorance or stupidity? I've never read any economic or historical texts that treat Smoot-Hawley and protectionism as a good thing.
I just have a hard time believing that they're really all that ignorant of history and economics. Either scenario is bad, but I'd almost rather believe they are doing this as part of some evil plot than that we have people that stupid/ignorant running our country.
I go back and forth on this question.
Sometimes I think they're just plain dumb, ignorant of history and economics, and blinded by their ideologies.
Other times I think it's part of a plan. FDR couldn't have done his socialist policies without a major economic downturn. That he and his policies caused precisely the kind major downturn they needed is curious. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe it's not.
Now I see Obama doing the exact same thing. He's taking a modest downturn and talking it up into a Severe Financial Catastrophe, then using the Severe Financial Catastrophe as justification for policies that we know will cause serious harm to the economy. If we get a new round of socialist New Deal programs out of this mess, will that be a coincidence too?
-
I go back and forth on this question.
Sometimes I think they're just plain dumb, ignorant of history and economics, and blinded by their ideologies.
Other times I think it's part of a plan. FDR couldn't have done his socialist policies without a major economic downturn. That he and his policies caused precisely the kind major downturn they needed is curious. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe it's not.
Now I see Obama doing the exact same thing. He's taking a modest downturn and talking it up into a Severe Financial Catastrophe, then using the Severe Financial Catastrophe as justification for policies that we know will cause serious harm to the economy. If we get a new round of socialist New Deal programs out of this mess, will that be a coincidence too?
Munchhausen syndrome.
Frank and Dodd CAUSED the mortgage mess. So who gets put in charge of fixing it?
Frank and Dodd.
-
He needs a depression to be able to fully implement his socialist policies. If there isn't one available, he'll do his best to create one.
It's working for me. I get depressed just thinking about Obama. Not that he isn't a tad comical at times.