Obama: "The Economy Is Not As Bad As We Think..."

[Noah Body]

"...but of course, that didn't stop me from promoting it as a gathering darkness so I could get my spending stimulus bill passed," the President did not go on to say.

He kept telling us how bad it was, up to and after he was elected. Now it's suddenly going to be OK?

Read all about it. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SP30G5&show_article=1)

[William Haskins]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff302/slypuck2/ObamaChange.jpg

[robeiae]

Having a computer-literate President is paying big dividends. Obviously, Obama's been surfing P&CE...

I like Biden's warning, though:



Vice President Joe Biden opened the meeting by warning state officials that if they misuse money from the stimulus package, they should not expect more help from the federal government for a long time.
"If we don't get this right, folks, this is the end of the ability to convince Congress that anything should go to the states," Biden said.

[James81]

Context is everything here:

"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we're down on the dumps," Obama said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."

"I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say," Obama added. "Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

"And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems."

[Noah Body]

When you say context, do you mean to infer that Obama himself was not beating the drum of doom with substantial regularity?

[James81]

When you say context, do you mean to infer that Obama himself was not beating the drum of doom with substantial regularity?

No, I mean to say that just because he said "the economy is not as bad as we think" does not mean he's saying "Ok, guys, the economy is all hunky dory now and I was wrong."

[ColoradoGuy]

Nuance is difficult to explain on a bumper sticker.

[robeiae]

Is propaganda?

[Noah Body]

No, I mean to say that just because he said "the economy is not as bad as we think" does not mean he's saying "Ok, guys, the economy is all hunky dory now and I was wrong."

Of course, that's not what I said. :)

[blacbird]

Is propaganda?

Propaganda, by definition, requires no explanation. Stay the course.

caw

[KikiteNeko]

Guys, come on. Obama's still a step up, even if he takes off his shirt and does the hula at the next public event. A drunk chickadee would still be a better president than Bush was.

[MattW]

Guys, come on. Obama's still a step up, even if he takes off his shirt and does the hula at the next public event. A drunk chickadee would still be a better president than Bush was.I see your "Bush was worse," and I'll raise you "it's only been 50 days - too early to judge."

[Bird of Prey]

At least he didn't say "Mission Accomplished" . . .yet.

[MattW]

At least he didn't say "Mission Accomplished" . . .yet.
It's only been X days.... :tongue

[James81]

Of course, that's not what I said. :)

Sure it is:

"...but of course, that didn't stop me from promoting it as a gathering darkness so I could get my spending stimulus bill passed," the President did not go on to say.

He kept telling us how bad it was, up to and after he was elected. Now it's suddenly going to be OK?

Read all about it. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96SP30G5&show_article=1)

[robeiae]

Propaganda, by definition, requires no explanation. Stay the course.

cawSure it does. You have to explain how it works, for those unaware.

I'll use Obama's tactics, as an example:

1) Obama talks down the economy, predicts catastrophe (and irreversable catastrophe at that) unless...we follow his plan. See, that's fear-mongering, which is...wait for it... a kind of propaganda. The phony "truth," as it were, is the idea that only by doing x can we avoid y, when x really won't have much of an impact on y or not y, and y is not a given, regardless.

2) Obama, after fanning the fears for his agenda backs off a bit, becasue he realizes (or has been told) that now he needs to be more positive, so maybe the market will stop tanking. So, he generalizes with the "it's not as bad as we think" bit. Now, this is propaganda, too, because the only "we" he can actually speak for is himself and maybe his inner circle. But he's not saying he's wrong; he intends the "we" to mean "us." So, he's imlying that it's better--and therefore has gotten better--than everyone thinks, all in an effort to "put a positive spin on things."

Now imo, that's pretty much politics as usual. Though I would say Obama is really doing a poor job of spinning, but he's still getting some auto-goodwill. Afterall...

It's only been a month.TM

[Noah Body]

What Rob said. I'll carry it further to say that Obama used the state of the economy to ram in a big government spending initiative. His dark and gloomy language is now suddenly a little lighter and brighter...and in politics, I rarely believe in coincidence.

[KikiteNeko]

Propaganda, by definition, requires no explanation. Stay the course.

caw

I agree with the poster who said that, yes, it does require explanation.

I also agree with those who are saying it's too soon to judge and that he isn't saying the economy is A-OK now; he's saying "Chill out, folks, I got this." He just got elected into the worst friggin mess in a long time and he is going to try to fix it. At least he is being proactive. You may not like the stimulus package but it's better than a president who I heavily suspect hung around reading comic books while Katrina victims were waving from rooftops, and choked on pretzels while thousands of soldiers died in a war that has NOTHING to DO with 9/11 at ALL, and casually killed English as the common language for tech support and Dunkin Donuts employees.

Even if you don't like his methods, I will support him because the way we've been doing things under the Bush administration not only didn't work but also made things so much worse.

PS, Obama's probably right. The economy isn't as bad as I think. I am frankly surprised the country hasn't just blown up. Literally, flame and carnage everywhere, children screaming, birds flying into tree trunks, chipmunks leaping from bridges into open sewage canals. Chaos!

[James81]

1) Obama talks down the economy, predicts catastrophe (and irreversable catastrophe at that) unless...we follow his plan.

Your arguement falls apart right here.

He has not predicted no such thing.

He has suggested that IF the economy were to keep heading downward with no recovery, that it will eventually get to a point where it may NOT recover....which is very much true.

And then he said that in order to fix the economy, we need to change certain fundamentals about it and that it will be a long term process.

And then he offered the stimulus plan as a way to "create and/or hold jobs and put money in taxpayers pockets."

You can twist his words to mean what you say they mean if you want, and spin it to make it sound like fear-mongering, but he did not "predict catastrophe." The suggests that he came out said "If we do not do this stimulus, our economy will fail catastrophically."

And I challenge every single one of you to find me a quote where he says those words. You can't, because he never said that. That's the way people are twisting his words though.

[Zoombie]

I'm waiting and watching...and I'll continue to wait and watch, cause, well, it HAS only been, what, 50 days? 3 months? I don't know, I can barely tell when one day starts and another ends...

This guy is going to be around for 3 and some odd more years, at the least.

His stuff is going to take a while before we can fully say if it will or will not work for sure.

But don't let that stop you from making threads like this! Prezzies all need crits...even more than writers do.

[Don]

It's only been a month.TM
So are you gonna sue me for trademark violation? :D

[robeiae]

Your arguement falls apart right here.

He has not predicted no such thing.

He has suggested that IF the economy were to keep heading downward with no recovery, that it will eventually get to a point where it may NOT recover....which is very much true.

And then he said that in order to fix the economy, we need to change certain fundamentals about it and that it will be a long term process.

And then he offered the stimulus plan as a way to "create and/or hold jobs and put money in taxpayers pockets."

You can twist his words to mean what you say they mean if you want, and spin it to make it sound like fear-mongering, but he did not "predict catastrophe." The suggests that he came out said "If we do not do this stimulus, our economy will fail catastrophically."

And I challenge every single one of you to find me a quote where he says those words. You can't, because he never said that. That's the way people are twisting his words though.

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."--President Obama, February 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

[KikiteNeko]

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."--President Obama, February 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

That's not a prediction of catastrophe. That's him saying that doing nothing would cause catastrophe. He hasn't been sitting on his hands. He is now doing what he think will avoid that catastrophe.

[James81]

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."--President Obama, February 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

Act on what?

[James81]

That quote is missing come key words.

"on this stimulus" is missing after "act".

[robeiae]

That's not a prediction of catastrophe. That's him saying that doing nothing would cause catastrophe. He hasn't been sitting on his hands. He is now doing what he think will avoid that catastrophe.
He wrote an Op-Ed, too:

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress...

Regardless, James claimed Obama had predicted "no such thing." But he sure as hell did...UNLESS we do what he says we need to do.

[James81]

He wrote an Op-Ed, too:


Regardless, James claimed Obama had predicted "no such thing." But he sure as hell did...UNLESS we do what he says we need to do.

He's STILL not directly saying that his stimulus plan will save us from catastrophe.

In fact, if you look at his current quotes about fixing health care, it's almost as if he realizes we need to do more than one thing to fix this. It's almost like he recognizes that the economy is based on more than just one thing.

it's mindboggling to me that a politician can get that. But he does.

[James81]

Man, I can't find the article where it talks about other senators criticizine Obama for focusing on Health Care right now and how Obama said something like, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well that's part of economic growth."

I'm horribly misquoting him, though, but I can't find the article. It was on Yahoo.

[KikiteNeko]

Rob, maybe we just have very different views, but


Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress...

comforts me quite a lot. He's trying to DO something, and is being FORTHRIGHT about it. Of course he doesn't have a magic wand to fix it. It will have to be his judgement call, and since the majority of Americans voted him in, they entrusted him to this task. I was one of them, and I shall see what happens. Right now I have absolute faith and quotes like the one above make me say "Good, progress is eminent."

[rugcat]

He wrote an Op-Ed, too:


Regardless, James claimed Obama had predicted "no such thing." But he sure as hell did...UNLESS we do what he says we need to do.I think the point is Obama believes that we have to do something to prevent a deep depression and an economic disaster that would take years to recover from. He's offering a plan he thinks will work. Would you want a president to propose a plan and say, "it's not very practical and I don't think it will do any good, but pass it anyway?"

And not like we're choosing between competing economic plans -- unless you consider the option of doing nothing at all a plan. (Oh, wait, that is the Robaeie Republican plan.)

If you want to consider that fear mongering, fine. Others consider it an accurate and sober assessment. But there is a very real possibility that despite any economic signs of recovery, the psychological aspect of fear about the economy might sabotage any plan and doom it to failure. A bit of guarded optimism and reassuring talk is vital.

[Bird of Prey]

It's very clear to me that both adminstrations have/are floundering. The primary problem is philosophical. Summers today declared it a great time for investors to jump back in the market. What?? I mean, is that a good idea for Americans at this stage in the game??

Why on earth would that help anybody when the underlying problem of regulation hasn't even been addressed? And of course, most of the people I know are not "jumping" in the market because they're already mired in a market that has dragged their net worth down with it. The few people that stand to make anything now are those wonderful executive patriots that took their underserved bonuses in taxpayer greenbacks and promptly beat it out of town. I understand two are hole up in the Hamptons, writing "it's not our fault" books. Poor babies.

As long as accountability is not addressed, anything can happen at any time to the economy without warning. The wild west mentality prevails; and unethical practice has yet to be anything but frankly, amply rewarded; because unfortunately, Obama and friends have yet to fully act as law enforcement. Obama's excuse?? He doesn't want to look back. Good Lord.

[robeiae]

He's STILL not directly saying that his stimulus plan will save us from catastrophe.
That is the idea he was selling. He's a POLITICIAN.

It's unbelievable to me that I have to argue about this point.

[KikiteNeko]

That is the idea he was selling. He's a POLITICIAN.

It's unbelievable to me that I have to argue about this point.

It's unbelievable to ME that people are already complaining about the first plan of action in eight years of Bush-induced mess, before it's even had a chance to work or not work.

[robeiae]

It's unbelievable to ME that people are already complaining about the first plan of action in eight years of Bush-induced mess, before it's even had a chance to work or not work.
Fine. But at least be honest about what Obama is doing, here.

Again, he's a politician. But for some reason, pointing that out is not allowed because it's Obama...

[Don]

It's unbelievable to ME that people are already complaining about the first plan of action in eight years of Bush-induced mess, before it's even had a chance to work or not work.
That song's really getting old. When somebody tells an alcoholic to belly up to the bar and have another drink, there's no reason to wait around and see if that's going to be a successful treatment or not.

FedGov is drunk on spending and drunk on power, and the economy is reacting appropriately to those illnesses. When the proposed change is to a bigger bottle of the same booze, the market is appropriately going to gasp in horror and run for the exits. It's not really rocket science, John Maynard Keynes to the contrary.

[KikiteNeko]

Fine. But at least be honest about what Obama is doing, here.

Again, he's a politician. But for some reason, pointing that out is not allowed because it's Obama...

I don't think I argued that he was promoting his stimulus plan... And I'm aware that he's a politician; I'm not kissing an Obama poster every night before I go to bed. All I'm saying is that so far he's doing a good job and people are so hasty to judge and criticize a plan that hasn't even had a chance to do anything yet, negative OR positive.

[KikiteNeko]

That song's really getting old.

It is getting really old having to defend my stance, because people who want this president to fail never seem to change. People seem to WANT to be hateful and pessimistic rather than pay attention. Even if McPain and Failin got into office, I wouldn't WANT them to fail. We can't afford another fail after eight years of epic fail. Give it a damn chance, people.

[robeiae]

He intentionally. used fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

Agree or not?

[robeiae]

We can't afford another fail after eight years of epic fail.
Well see, you've said that--or something like it--quite a few times. But it's just your opinion. Yet you say it like it's a given. Part of the problem--I think--is that not everyone agrees with your assessment.

[KikiteNeko]

He intentionally. used fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

Agree or not?

Agree.

And he should. We should be afraid.

Bush did not use fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

And look where we are.

[Bird of Prey]

That song's really getting old. When somebody tells an alcoholic to belly up to the bar and have another drink, there's no reason to wait around and see if that's going to be a successful treatment or not.

FedGov is drunk on spending and drunk on power, and the economy is reacting appropriately to those illnesses. When the proposed change is to a bigger bottle of the same booze, the market is appropriately going to gasp in horror and run for the exits. It's not really rocket science, John Maynard Keynes to the contrary.


I think you'll find the market participants may be drunk on that booze, too. It's just that they're in rehab, for virtue of winding up on skid row.

[KikiteNeko]

Well see, you've said that--or something like it--quite a few times. But it's just your opinion. Yet you say it like it's a given. Part of the problem--I think--is that not everyone agrees with your assessment.

That's probably how we got into this financial mess. If anyone out there can afford to have their job go overseas, and pay $5 for gas, and be poisoned by Chinese paint and salmonella peanut butter, they can start their own country elsewhere.

[mscelina]

Even if McPain and Failin got into office, I wouldn't WANT them to fail.

oops. just told on yourself.

And yes, Rob. The clue bus rolled up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and informed the President that the fearmongering techniques were making matters work so now he's backtracking and trying to do the opposite. His intentional use of fear to drive through the stimulus package worked. Now, he has to ride on fairy wings sprinkling pixie dust to make us believe that we have been saved by a disaster because he took action.

[Bird of Prey]

Agree.

And he should. We should be afraid.

Bush did not use fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

And look where we are.

He didn't? Really? Maybe you're just talking about the recent economic mess. Lordy, I hope so.

[mscelina]

Bush didn't need to use fear for military actions, BoP. The fear was already there, as it should have been considering what happened. That really has nothing to do with President Obama's flip-flopping on the state of the economy though.

[Don]

It is getting really old having to defend my stance, because people who want this president to fail never seem to change. People seem to WANT to be hateful and pessimistic rather than pay attention. Even if McPain and Failin got into office, I wouldn't WANT them to fail. We can't afford another fail after eight years of epic fail. Give it a damn chance, people.
I absolutely, 100% agree that we can't afford another fail after eight years of epic fail. That's why I'm opposed to these policies, not because of who's signing the paper. I fail to see how discouraging a drunk from taking another drink means that I want the drunk to stay an alcoholic.

Look, I don't WANT Obama to fail. However, that's like saying I don't WANT gravity to suck. It sucks whether I want it to or not. If Obama continues on the same Keynesian path as his predecessors, those policies will fail. If the friggin' Pope was President and he followed those policies, they would fail.

WANTs don't create reality, no matter how powerful someone (or some government) claims to be. Let's quit living in fairyland and pretending if everybody wants Obama to succeed, he will, regardless of the policies he chooses to follow. I am NOT attacking the man, I'm attacking his misguided policies.

[robeiae]

Agree.

And he should. We should be afraid.

Bush did not use fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

And look where we are.

He didn't? Really? Maybe you're just talking about the recent economic mess. Lordy, I hope so.

Bush didn't need to use fear for military actions, BoP. The fear was already there, as it should have been considering what happened. That really has nothing to do with President Obama's flip-flopping on the state of the economy though.
Well look, Bush did use fear as a tool, imo. When? After 9-11. The goal? Support for the Patriot Act.

The two situations are quite similar, imo. I can see it. I can point it out in both cases.

And that doesn't make what was done WRONG, wholly and completely, as a matter of course.

But what it does mean is that my earlier statements in this thread--re Obama, predictions of collapse, and propaganda--remain correct and are reflective of the way politicians operate.

[robeiae]

That's probably how we got into this financial mess. If anyone out there can afford to have their job go overseas, and pay $5 for gas, and be poisoned by Chinese paint and salmonella peanut butter, they can start their own country elsewhere.
Really, I don't understand your point here.

[rugcat]

Well look, Bush did use fear as a tool, imo. When? After 9-11. The goal? Support for the Patriot Act.

The two situations are quite similar, imo. I can see it. I can point it out in both cases.There is a significant difference you're overlooking however. When Bush used 9-11 fear as a tool to implement policies he wanted, he misled the country and basically lied about the extent of the threats we faced.

Cheney's constant iteration that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks. The images of the "mushroom cloud" that could result if we didn't go to war. The constant color coded alerts, many of which came at politically advantageous times, which were later found to have no realistic basis. The argument that the patriot act was necessary because without it we would be in imminent danger. None of these things were true.

This is fear mongering -- preying on people's fears to make them believe things that are not true, or are grossly exaggerated in order to gain political support.

Obama is telling us that we are faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. You may believe his solutions are wrong headed, but the situation he describes is accurate. It, unlike the Bush administration's fantasies, is fact.

Making people aware of this is not fear mongering. Refusing to acknowledge it would be criminally stupid. And emphasizing the small indications of actual good economic news is not flip flopping, it's an attempt to encourage some much needed confidence.

[robeiae]

There is a significant difference you're overlooking however. When Bush used 9-11 fear as a tool to implement policies he wanted, he misled the country and basically lied about the extent of the threats we faced.
I disagree.

Obama is telling us that we are faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. You may believe his solutions are wrong headed, but the situation he describes is accurate. It, unlike the Bush administration's fantasies, is fact.
I disagree.

Though his "solutions" certainly could make it that bad.

[James81]

He intentionally. used fear. as a tool. to get support. for his plan.

Agree or not?

The point that you repeatedly keep missing through all these threads is that it's legitimized fear. When it's legitimized fear, it's not really a "tool" to get support for a plan. It's a REASON to get off your ass and do something.

So no, I don't agree for that reason. Was his tone, at times, that of fear? Yes. Do I think he was using fear to manipulate? No. Another big reason for not believing he was simply using fear as a tool of manipulation was that he never really done it before in his campaign. He has no history of using fear as a tool of manipulation.

We are just so used to Bush using fear for manipulation that Obama is getting tainted with the same damn brush...a brush he doesn't deserve to get tainted with at this point because it's the ONLY time his tone has been fearful.

Which is yet another reason I am always shouting "it's only been x amount of days".

If he makes a habit of it, then I'll be first in line to say "rob, you were right."

At this point, I am reserving those kinds of labels for him because there isn't enough to back it. He didn't use it in his campaign, so I have no reason to believe that he'll continue to use it.

[robeiae]

The point that you repeatedly keep missing through all these threads is that it's legitimized fear. When it's legitimized fear, it's not really a "tool" to get support for a plan. It's a REASON to get off your ass and do something.
I'm not missing anything. The idea that the economy was going to collapse in such a way that it could not be reversed is not legitimate. Therefore, using that kind of language to induce fear amounts to fear-mongering, nothing more.

[Bird of Prey]

I disagree.
I disagree.

Though his "solutions" certainly could make it that bad.

Rob, certainly you don't believe that Bush did not use fear mongering and picky evidence to push a crusade against a man he hated?

Oh, and in keeping with the thread: Obama has indeed used fear tactics imo. I can't understand how anybody could say otherwise. However, Obama seems to have more of the folks at heart, thus the acceptance of all the rhetoric as gospel. . .for some. I'm in his corner but I don't believe he's not using rhetoric to push his agenda, and I don't believe I have any choice but to wish him the best.

[robeiae]

Rob, certainly you don't believe that Bush did not use fear mongering and picky evidence to push a crusade against a man he hated?
I already specifically said that Bush used fear as a tool.

Beyond that, I really don't want to rehash Iraq.


But I probably will...

[James81]

I'm not missing anything. The idea that the economy was going to collapse in such a way that it could not be reversed is not legitimate. Therefore, using that kind of language to induce fear amounts to fear-mongering, nothing more.

It is legitimate if some sort of intervention action isn't taken. We're not talking about a normal dip here. We're talking the worst economy we've had in 70 years. We're talking about a situation that mirrors the great depression (I've spelled that out in other threads how the housing market's burst bubble and foreclosures mirror the exact events that led to the great depression).

Whether you agree with that or that the stimulus will help it is immaterial. There ARE, however, legitimate comparisons between this current situation and then. And there ARE reasons to believe that *some* kind of intervention is needed NOW to try to stop us from bottoming in the same position we were in then.

[robeiae]

Whether you agree with that or that the stimulus will help it is immaterial.
Well, no. That's just stupid. It's absolutely material. You don't get to turn an opinion into a fact just because YOU agree with it.

[Bird of Prey]

It is legitimate if some sort of intervention action isn't taken. We're not talking about a normal dip here. We're talking the worst economy we've had in 70 years. We're talking about a situation that mirrors the great depression (I've spelled that out in other threads how the housing market's burst bubble and foreclosures mirror the exact events that led to the great depression).

Whether you agree with that or that the stimulus will help it is immaterial. There ARE, however, legitimate comparisons between this current situation and then. And there ARE reasons to believe that *some* kind of intervention is needed NOW to try to stop us from bottoming in the same position we were in then.

This is where I disagree, James. If we had let the FDIC pick up where the banks should have rightfully failed?? I think it would have been both fair - thus instilling confidence in the market as an entity that reflects ethics - and ultimately cheaper.

[James81]

Well, no. That's just stupid. It's absolutely material. You don't get to turn an opinion into a fact just because YOU agree with it.

My point is that there are economists who say what I'm saying, so it's not like Obama is just pulling shit out of his ass. It's not just a rag tag, pull shit out of the air, theory. There are real people with real economic credentials who believe this stuff and Obama buys into that school of thought.

Thus, his "fear" is legitimized in the sense that HE believes what he's saying is true, whether you or I believe it's true or not.

[James81]

This is where I disagree, James. If we had let the FDIC pick up where the banks should have rightfully failed?? I think it would have been both fair - thus instilling confidence in the market as an entity that reflects ethics - and ultimately cheaper.

Well I can agree with that. I pretty much opposed the bailout.

[Bird of Prey]

My point is that there are economists who say what I'm saying, so it's not like Obama is just pulling shit out of his ass. It's not just a rag tag, pull shit out of the air, theory. There are real people with real economic credentials who believe this stuff and Obama buys into that school of thought.

Thus, his "fear" is legitimized in the sense that HE believes what he's saying is true, whether you or I believe it's true or not.

Wow. Just substitute the word Bush for Obama and what do we have?

[robeiae]

My point is that there are economists who say what I'm saying, so it's not like Obama is just pulling shit out of his ass. It's not just a rag tag, pull shit out of the air, theory. There are real people with real economic credentials who believe this stuff and Obama buys into that school of thought.
And there are people with real economic credentials that don't buy it.

However, I don't believe I've seen to many economists say the crisis is something that may not be reversible, unless the Feds spend a trillion plus dollars on pork.
Thus, his "fear" is legitimized in the sense that HE believes what he's saying is true, whether you or I believe it's true or not.
You don't know that to be true, however. You don't know--for a fact--what he believes in this regard. And given that Obama is now saying "it's not as bad as we think," circumstantial evidence suggests he didn't really believe it, either. Let's also not forget, the stimulus bill was pushed through before it was even read. By anyone.

[Bird of Prey]

Well I can agree with that. I pretty much opposed the bailout.

Which proves you're rational. You certainly have my attention.

[James81]

Wow. Just substitute the word Bush for Obama and what do we have?

The difference is that Bush had a history of using fear-mongering as a tactic. Obama doesn't (this includes his campaign period too).

And there are people with real economic credentials that don't buy it.

However, I don't believe I've seen to many economists say the crisis is something that may not be reversible, unless the Feds spend a trillion plus dollars on pork.

You don't know that to be true, however. You don't know--for a fact--what he believes in this regard. And given that Obama is now saying "it's not as bad as we think," circumstantial evidence suggests he didn't really believe it, either. Let's also not forget, the stimulus bill was pushed through before it was even read. By anyone.

The stimulus also started out as a much simpler, much more basic plan too...until it left Obama's desk and funneled through the trash that is in Washington.

And I can make a reasonable assumption on what he believes based on his history. Fearful language has never been an Obama forte'.

[James81]

Which proves you're rational. You certainly have my attention.

Ha ha, well thanks.

Rational is sort of the way I'm trying to approach the Obama presidency (even though I get accused of kissing his ass simply because I won't jump on the negative train bashing him 50 days into his presidency). I'm going to give the man as fair a shake as I can give. If he continually lets me down, then I'll get on board with you guys.

To be honest, I'm not hopeful. But then again, maybe he'll surprise me.

[robeiae]

Well I can agree with that. I pretty much opposed the bailout.

Which proves you're rational. You certainly have my attention.
I opposed the bailout, as well.

Obama and Geithner, however, were for it...

[robeiae]

The stimulus also started out as a much simpler, much more basic plan too...until it left Obama's desk and funneled through the trash that is in Washington.
Then he should have refused to sign it, no?

[James81]

Then he should have refused to sign it, no?

Depends on how important he thought it was to get it passed immediately.

He had just spent all this time saying how urgent it is to pass the bill, refusing to sign it when it came to his desk would've only garnered more criticism. Damned if he don't, damned if he does.

[robeiae]

Depends on how important he thought it was to get it passed immediately.

He had just spent all this time saying how urgent it is to pass the bill, refusing to sign it when it came to his desk would've only garnered more criticism. Damned if he don't, damned if he does.
I don't know...tossing away billions and billions of dollars to avoid criticism would be a pretty weenie move, no? You sure you don't want to reconsider your reply?

[blacbird]

I don't know...tossing away billions and billions of dollars to avoid criticism would be a pretty weenie move, no? You sure you don't want to reconsider your reply?

And if he'd vetoed it you'd have said? Let me guess . . .

1. Flip-flopper.
2. Not in control.
3. Doesn't know what he's doing.
4. Hasn't got a clue.
5. Spineless.
6. Lacks leadership quality.
7. Not up to the task.
8. All of the above.

Sounds like a Robeieio poll to me. I'd guess you'll vote for Door Number 8.

caw

[robeiae]

And if he'd vetoed it you'd have said? Let me guess . . .

1. Flip-flopper.
2. Not in control.
3. Doesn't know what he's doing.
4. Hasn't got a clue.
5. Spineless.
6. Lacks leadership quality.
7. Not up to the task.
8. All of the above.

Sounds like a Robeieio poll to me. I'd guess you'll vote for Door Number 8.

cawIf he had vetoed it, I would have been seriously impressed.

Just as--I bet--you would have been. Yet, here you are, along with others, defending it simply because of your party affiliation, nothing more. After all, you didn't know what was in it when it was passed, just like everyone else, so you couldn't possibly have agreed with its passage for any other reason. Right?

[Bird of Prey]

I opposed the bailout, as well.

Obama and Geithner, however, were for it...

I know. You see, this is where I have real trouble with "change." The Bush administration started the bailout initiative which of course rewards the rich, failure and irresponsibility. Obama has not only continued on that path, but upped the ante so to speak. It's difficult to see it as anything but "more of the same," although Obama is not so free with the money as to not exact better behavior from the institutions.

My biggest problem - as I've said before - is the continued lack of regulation. We still have no legal guarantee that the bailout recipients will even tell the truth, much less spend the money in keeping with the nation's best interests. As demonstrated, the financial institutions were perfectly happy to hoard the money and reward their executives with outrageous bonuses.

[blacbird]

If he had vetoed it, I would have been seriously impressed.

Just as--I bet--you would have been. Yet, here you are, along with others, defending it simply because of your party affiliation, nothing more.

Actually, I'm not defending it. I'm reserving judgment, generally, to see what the results will be. Which I think is the sensible position, as opposed to instant critique based on theory and ideology.

caw

[robeiae]

Actually, I'm not defending it. I'm reserving judgment, generally, to see what the results will be. Which I think is the sensible position, as opposed to instant critique based on theory and ideology.

caw
Okay.

[James81]

along with others, defending it simply because of your party affiliation,

I'm a Republican.

[Joe270]

I'm waiting and watching...and I'll continue to wait and watch, cause, well, it HAS only been, what, 50 days?

54, but who's counting? But Obama has managed to spend almost as much as Bush did in eight years in those 54 days.

Now that's change.

[Fullback]

This is bizarre. Here's a guy who couldn't rent a car eight years ago at the Democratic National Convention because his credits cards were denied telling you the economy isn't as bad as he thought it was.

How would he know?

He knows nothing about finance, economics or money. He wouldn't know the difference between good advice and bad advice. He doesn't even know what to ask or who to listen to.

What a sad choice of politicians were offered up in 2008.

[Zoombie]

Can you name a non-sad choice of politicians...ever?

If they're not incompetent, they're assholes. If they're not assholes, they're assassinated.

[nighttimer]

There's a awful of cynicism, partisan bitching and a vague whiff of sour grapes in this thread.

What there isn't are many other solutions or alternatives offered up.

How would he know anything about the economy? The way any leader who wants to be successful does. Hire the right people to advise and help you. Give them the tools and the support to do their jobs. Then get out of the way.

The economy is Obama's top issue, but he can't micromanage it.

Change is coming but sometimes the change is both slow, gradual and not immediately recognized when it gets here.

[Zoombie]

I am actually not as cynical as I pretend.

I am in the sit and wait position.

We've elected him, we gotta see what he does.

[nighttimer]

I concur.

I defend everyone's Constitutional right to be bitch relentlessly. All I ask is we give the guy a fair chance before deciding he's the biggest failure since New Coke.

Most new hires get at least 90 days before they're bounced out. Every president regardless of political affilation or philosophy deserves to show they're not total screw-ups.

If he is, then in 2010 you can stamp the envelope (and start sending the Democrats packing) and two years later deliver the same message to Obama.

"You're fired." :poke:

[James81]

This is bizarre. Here's a guy who couldn't rent a car eight years ago at the Democratic National Convention because his credits cards were denied telling you the economy isn't as bad as he thought it was.



This is the first time I've heard that. Got a link?

[IdiotsRUs]

The G20 summit is about two miles away.

I could go and eavesdrop if you like?

[robeiae]

I'm a Republican.
Yes, but you're defending it because you're getting a new laptop.

[mscelina]

54, but who's counting? But Obama has managed to spend almost as much as Bush did in eight years in those 54 days.

Now that's change.

Kindly remember that this is IMAGINARY money. We don't have the amount of money that Obama is spending.

[cethklein]

There's a awful of cynicism, partisan bitching and a vague whiff of sour grapes in this thread.

What there isn't are many other solutions or alternatives offered up.



Which is precisely the problem. The GOP has become what the Dems were post-911, a party that does nothing but bitch yet offers ZERO in the way of an alternative. They need to get their heads out of their asses, fast. This country works on checks and balances. So far the GOP is doing nothing to check the Democrats. Instead the idiots can't even come up with a definitive leader for their party. They've let a goddamned radio host take control of their party for crying out loud. The same way the Democrats let buffoons like Michael Moore and Bill Maher control their platform back in 2004.

I think the sour grapes your seeing are directed mroe at the GOP by disillusioned conservatives. And they've got a valid reason to be disillusioned. I'd be disillusioned too. Maybe what the conservative movement needs to do is grow a pair and take control. But it'll never happen. The Dems never did. The only reason they returned to power was because the Republicans managed to fuck up on such a monumental scale. The Dems did nothing on their own. I suppose the GOP plans the same thing, to wait and let the Dems screw themselves up.

[Unique]

Kindly remember that this is IMAGINARY money. We don't have the amount of money that Obama is spending.

I first heard of imaginary numbers in elementary school. I never understood them or what they were for. Now I do. :(

[robeiae]

This is the first time I've heard that. Got a link?
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11959309
http://www.slate.com/id/2198743/

[astonwest]

I defend everyone's Constitutional right to be bitch relentlessly. All I ask is we give the guy a fair chance before deciding he's the biggest failure since New Coke.
So, at what point is criticism of his bone-headed moves allowed? After he leaves office?

[rugcat]

So, at what point is criticism of his bone-headed moves allowed? After he leaves office?It's not a question of whether criticism is allowed, as you're well aware. It's a question of whether it's warranted. What's going on now is like baseball fans jumping on a player and pronouncing him a disaster and a failure midway through the first game of the season.

If midway through the season, he's hitting .200 and striking out every other time at bat, we'll all join the chorus.

[Don]

It's not a question of whether criticism is allowed, as you're well aware. It's a question of whether it's warranted. What's going on now is like baseball fans jumping on a player and pronouncing him a disaster and a failure midway through the first game of the season.

If midway through the season, he's hitting .200 and striking out every other time at bat, we'll all join the chorus.
Given that the player has already hocked the whole team's income stream, arena and all, for the next two generations, I'll go along with that analysis.

[blacbird]

Given that the player has already hocked the whole team's income stream, arena and all, for the next two generations, I'll go along with that analysis.

At this point it's not analysis. It's ideologically-driven polemical conjecture.

You're welcome to do that, of course.

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

It's not a question of whether criticism is allowed, as you're well aware. It's a question of whether it's warranted. What's going on now is like baseball fans jumping on a player and pronouncing him a disaster and a failure midway through the first game of the season.
Sounds like Yankee fans.

[ColoradoGuy]

Can you name a non-sad choice of politicians...ever?
Paul Wellstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone).

[Pilot]

It's unbelievable to ME that people are already complaining about the first plan of action in eight years of Bush-induced mess, before it's even had a chance to work or not work.

The tiny little memories of some people is amazing. Think 1995 for the germination of this financial fiasco. Gee, who was prez then? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes007.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[blacbird]

The tiny little memories of some people is amazing. Think 1995 for the germination of this financial fiasco. Gee, who was prez then? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes007.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

Think back further, maybe to 1981, with the advent of "supply-side economics" coupled with a rush to deregulate everything in sight, including the banking/savings&loans/investment industries. The business abuses now being uncovered daily, it seems, are direct descendants of the mid-1980s "greed-is-good" culture of Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Charles Keating.

Clinton doesn't get off the hook for things that happened in his Presidency. Neither does Reagan. But for sheer cluelessness, neither of them comes even close to GWB.

caw

[Pilot]

None of these things were true.

the situation he describes is accurate. It, unlike the Bush administration's fantasies, is fact.

How odd. I could have sworn that the World Trade Center disaster actually happened. There I go trusting my eyes again. Shame on me.

[Pilot]

It is legitimate if some sort of intervention action isn't taken. We're not talking about a normal dip here. We're talking the worst economy we've had in 70 years. We're talking about a situation that mirrors the great depression (I've spelled that out in other threads how the housing market's burst bubble and foreclosures mirror the exact events that led to the great depression).

Whether you agree with that or that the stimulus will help it is immaterial. There ARE, however, legitimate comparisons between this current situation and then. And there ARE reasons to believe that *some* kind of intervention is needed NOW to try to stop us from bottoming in the same position we were in then.

You are very correct. The Great Depression was caused by big government interference and that's exactly what's happening right now. The comparisons are legitimate, without a doubt.

[ColoradoGuy]

You are very correct. The Great Depression was caused by big government interference . . . .
Time for this graph again.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j244/ColoradoGuy/untitled.jpg

[rugcat]

How odd. I could have sworn that the World Trade Center disaster actually happened. There I go trusting my eyes again. Shame on me.And Cheney convinced a large number of people that Iraq was involved in that. That's the fantasy.

[blacbird]

The Great Depression was caused by big government interference

You are aware that the Great Depression dates from fall, 1929, a little over six months into the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. Prior to that, we had eight years of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, during the "Roaring '20s", when almost no government regulation of or interference in the conduct of business and investment commerce took place. Hoover then presided over 3 1/2 years of pretty much steadily deteriorating economy, doing next to nothing about it. No matter how you measure it, the nadir of the Depression was in 1932-1933, at the end of Hoover's dismal term and the beginning of Roosevelt's.

Now, explain to us all again how "Big Government Interference" caused the Great Depression.

Oh, damn, Colorado already beat me to it.

caw

[Pilot]

Think back further, maybe to 1981, with the advent of "supply-side economics" coupled with a rush to deregulate everything in sight, including the banking/savings&loans/investment industries. The business abuses now being uncovered daily, it seems, are direct descendants of the mid-1980s "greed-is-good" culture of Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Charles Keating.

But for sheer cluelessness, neither of them comes even close to GWB.

caw

I was being nice. The real culprit who planted the seed for this is named Jimmy Carter. That's the true origin of the mortgage meltdown. After that, it was a function of government trying to modify the stupid thing to make it work, and business men's greed.

[Pilot]

Time for this graph again.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j244/ColoradoGuy/untitled.jpg

The graph doesn't tell the whole story, CG. You've got to delve into the history books to find all that really happened. Any time big gov starts trying to fine-tune the economy, it's like letting your two year old mess with the fuel injection on your car. Not a good idea.

[Pilot]

You are aware that the Great Depression dates from fall, 1929, a little over six months into the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. Prior to that, we had eight years of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, during the "Roaring '20s", when almost no government regulation of or interference in the conduct of business and investment commerce took place. Hoover then presided over 3 1/2 years of pretty much steadily deteriorating economy, doing next to nothing about it. No matter how you measure it, the nadir of the Depression was in 1932-1933, at the end of Hoover's dismal term and the beginning of Roosevelt's.

Now, explain to us all again how "Big Government Interference" caused the Great Depression.

caw

If I thought it would make one iota of difference to those who drank the kool-aid, I would happily post all that data. Given the fact that it would mean nothing to those firmly entrenched in this "CHANGE" madness, I see no point.

[blacbird]

If I thought it would make one iota of difference to those who drank the kool-aid, I would happily post all that data. Given the fact that it would mean nothing to those firmly entrenched in this "CHANGE" madness, I see no point.

Translated into English, means, "I can't."

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

The graph doesn't tell the whole story, CG. You've got to delve into the history books to find all that really happened.
I have. A lot. And I find the newest generation of New Deal denialists unconvincing, plus a little dishonest (for example, see my post here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3390344&postcount=11) about how Shlaes and others have misrepresented employment statistics.)
Any time big gov starts trying to fine-tune the economy, it's like letting your two year old mess with the fuel injection on your car. Not a good idea.
That's your opinion, of course. It isn't mine.

[Pilot]

I did it again. God, I am so stooooopid! Let myself get drawn into politics again. Sorry about that, folks. Think I'll find a good game of Mahjong somewhere. Y'all have a good one.

[robeiae]

I'd just note that The Great Depression refers to the entire period, from 1929 until 1939 (or a little later/earlier, depending on who you ask).

If it had only lasted a couple of years, it wouldn't have been called the GREAT Depression.

So, what CAUSED the initial market collapse and/or the rapid shift downward in economic indicators is not--as a matter of course--the entire story, here.

[robeiae]

I have. A lot. And I find the newest generation of New Deal denialists unconvincing, plus a little dishonest (for example, see my post here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3390344&postcount=11) about how Shlaes and others have misrepresented employment statistics.)
So have I. And I disagree.

:)

[ColoradoGuy]

If I thought it would make one iota of difference to those who drank the kool-aid, I would happily post all that data. Given the fact that it would mean nothing to those firmly entrenched in this "CHANGE" madness, I see no point.
Not at all, Pilot -- I like looking at data of all sorts. Sometimes I even change my mind if the data's convincing. But the fundamental problem for the New Deal denial economists is, in the abstract, they must deal in counter-factual, hypothetical history. That is, they need to convince that FDR's actions made what was already bad much worse and postponed recovery. That's a tough row to hoe. The circumstantial evidence even goes against them. If you look at the mild GDP setback in 1937 or so, it coincided with FDR moderating his Keynsian policies. He went back to the way he was doing things, and both GDP and unemployment improved. That may be conincidental, but it's a pretty compelling coincidence.

So what's in your Kool-Aid?

[blacbird]

We can discuss the development and outcome of the "Great Depression" and the various political/economic policies that were applied during it, but the issue of "cause" goes to the genesis, not the continuation or progression of it. Pilot said, as it seems I need to quote directly: The Great Depression was caused by big government interference

Patent nonsense.

And while Colorado's graph may not tell the whole story, it damn sure shows a huge part of it.

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

So have I. And I disagree.

:)
I know Rob, but how about you put up some data about it from your side? Maybe a new thread? I know I'm reading it from a partisan viewpoint, but I'd really like to know how your guys can get around the simple GDP data. From what I've read they either ignore it or dismiss it as unimportant.

[robeiae]

Not at all, Pilot -- I like looking at data of all sorts. Sometimes I even change my mind if the data's convincing. But the fundamental problem for the New Deal denial economists is, in the abstract, they must deal in counter-factual, hypothetical history. That is, they need to convince that FDR's actions made what was already bad much worse and postponed recovery. That's a tough row to hoe. The circumstantial evidence even goes against them. If you look at the mild GDP setback in 1937 or so, it coincided with FDR moderating his Keynsian policies. He went back to the way he was doing things, and both GDP and unemployment improved. That may be a conincidental, but it's a pretty compelling coincidence.
Whoa. You're stating that in terms of GDP alone and with built in assumptions about the course of the period that favor your analysis. But that's not the only way to look at it. And of course, you know that.

Do we really need to do this all again?

Can't we--instead--just agree that I'm right we're not gonna be able to change anyone's position on this?

[robeiae]

I know Rob, but how about you put up some data about it from your side? Maybe a new thread? I know I'm reading it from a partisan viewpoint, but I'd really like to know how your guys can get around the simple GDP data. From what I've read they either ignore it or dismiss it as unimportant.
Well, you know the most recent study--that argued the New Deal extended the Depression by eight or so years--has been linked to, here. Me, I'm not one for putting up charts. But here's one on the unemployment rate: http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Unemployment_300g15.gif

[ColoradoGuy]

Whoa. You're stating that in terms of GDP alone and with built in assumptions about the course of the period that favor your analysis. But that's not the only way to look at it. And of course, you know that.

Do we really need to do this all again?

Can't we--instead--just agree that I'm right we're not gonna be able to change anyone's position on this?
OK, Ok -- but employment and GDP figures just seem the most important to me. And to my late grandfather, the unrepentent, rabble-rousing union organizer, too. I channel him sometimes.

ETA: but that chart doesn't prove anything one way or the other to me, other than maybe it took a decade and a war boom to fix Hooverism completely. Besides, that graph also uses the questionable (to me) practice of counting those in WPA projects and the like as unemployed -- they weren't. Counting those folks as employed drops the rate to 10% in 1940.

[robeiae]

We can discuss the development and outcome of the "Great Depression" and the various political/economic policies that were applied during it, but the issue of "cause" goes to the genesis, not the continuation or progression of it.
Well no, it doesn't. Not the entire period. That's the point. You want to identify the cause(s) of the genesis--Black Friday, let's say--that's one thing. But the reason(s) why there was a Great Depression extend into the period.

The '37 recession was hardly just a blip, even if CG refers to it a "mild" GDP setback.

[robeiae]

OK, Ok -- but employment and GDP figures just seem the most important to me. And to my late grandfather, the unrepentent, rabble-rousing union organizer, too. I channel him sometimes.
Also, don't forget the Depression was not limited to the U.S. (I need to remember that, too). So, actions elsewhere mattered here, just as actions here mattered elsewhere.

[ColoradoGuy]

The '37 recession was hardly just a blip, even if CG refers to it a "mild" GDP setback.
Whatever it was, its precise timing is evidence (although circumstantial) against your side, as I noted above to Pilot.

[robeiae]

Whatever it was, its precise timing is evidence (although circumstantial) against your side, as I noted above to Pilot.
No, it's not. Your assuming too quick of a response to changes, imo.

And regardless, the War looms large as the real salvation.

ETA: I don't want to do this, CG! Please don't make me...counter this post (as I'm sure you can) but don't add anything else and I won't respond. Please?

[ColoradoGuy]

And regardless, the War looms large as the real salvation.
On that I agree with you. Of course, one could also see that as the ultimate validation of the importance of Keynesian macroeconomic principles in unusual times like our grandparents' (and ours) . . .

[ColoradoGuy]

And now I'll stop torturing you (and everybody else). But I leave you with this tidbit. John Maynard Keynes died of infective endocarditis, a rare infection I spent 20 years of my life investigating. There's some kind of symmetry there.

[robeiae]

How odd. Hayek went Whiggish in his later years...

[astonwest]

It's not a question of whether criticism is allowed, as you're well aware. It's a question of whether it's warranted. What's going on now is like baseball fans jumping on a player and pronouncing him a disaster and a failure midway through the first game of the season.

If midway through the season, he's hitting .200 and striking out every other time at bat, we'll all join the chorus.
If Kansas City brought in last year's home run leader (whoever that was) with a huge contract that nearly busted the salary cap with his salary alone, but promised their fans this was going to be the year they took the pennant...then the guy struck out his first ten times at bat, you'd better believe there would be some warranted criticism of the move.

[James81]

Yes, but you're defending it because you're getting a new laptop.

I hate my job. H-A-T-E my job. (I'm using the word "hate"here about my job)

And as much as I like the money that's coming from the overtime, I would much rather be doing just about anything else besides working long hours to get some jobs out for a stimulus.

But I use my job as real live proof that the stimulus is doing exactly what it set out to do.

So yeah, I'm not really happy to be working these hours, but on the other hand I'm grateful that I not only have a job, but I'm working more now that I ever have. It could be much worse for me.

[blacbird]

And now I'll stop torturing you (and everybody else).

Wimp.

caw

[Joe270]

Colorado,

In reference to your graph, FDR took over as president March 4th, 1933.

The upswing on your chart starts Jan. 1st, 1933. Hence the economy was already on the upswing before he got into power.

That his policies then dulled the recovery and prolonged the depression might still be in question, but the economy was recovering before he did anything.

[blacbird]

If Kansas City brought in last year's home run leader (whoever that was) with a huge contract that nearly busted the salary cap with his salary alone, but promised their fans this was going to be the year they took the pennant

Bullshit. First, there is no salary cap in Major League Baseball. What this guy "broke", if anything, was the budget of the KC Royals, who annually vie for the cheapest and worst team in baseball. Second, I don't know who this guy was, but nobody hit a damn for the KC Royals last year (or the half-dozen years before that), and no other team even wants to trade for these players.

Plus, Major League Baseball is a completely private enterprise, other than having that 80-year-old exemption from anti-trust laws. The owners of baseball teams are entirely free to do whatever they damn well please with their money. Google Steinbrenner.

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

Colorado,

In reference to your graph, FDR took over as president March 4th, 1933.

The upswing on your chart starts Jan. 1st, 1933. Hence the economy was already on the upswing before he got into power.

That his policies then dulled the recovery and prolonged the depression might still be in question, but the economy was recovering before he did anything.
True, the inflection point is at 1933. (Of course folks are now demanding that Obama should have somehow magically caused an improvement just by his election in November. Those same folks should then allow that the reversal of the downward trend in 1933 was the result of the magic of FDR's election in 1932.)

But what's striking to me is that the steep rate of assent of the GDP is more or less the same (but reversed) as the rate of decent for the previous 4 years. I can't see how anyone could expect it to recover much faster than that, but the New Deal denial folks insist that it could have, if not for FDR. They say FDR made the recovery slower, even though the GDP was back to where it had been in 1929 by 1936. So it took 4 years to fall to its nadir and only 3 years to climb back to where it was before it fell. Whatever FDR did or didn't do, that looks pretty impressive.

And I think GDP really is the bottom line. After all, we define recession/depression by what the GDP is doing -- shouldn't we define recovery by the same criterion?

[blacbird]

The upswing on your chart starts Jan. 1st, 1933. Hence the economy was already on the upswing before he got into power.

Man, Joe, is this really lame, or what?

We've now had four straight days of Dow Jones rises, amounting to over 10% increase. So, I assume, you credit this to Obama's policies?

caw

[ColoradoGuy]

Man, Joe, is this really lame, or what?

We've now had four straight days of Dow Jones rises, amounting to over 10% increase. So, I assume, you credit this to Obama's policies?

caw
Dana Perino says Bush gets the credit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/perino-bush-deserves-cred_n_175062.html). No, I am not kidding.

[Joe270]

My post got evaporated. Dang it.

I choose 'what', Blac. How can FDR possibly take credit for a GDP upswing (not a DOW tick, btw) which clearly occurred before he took office, much before any economic policies of his could be enacted much less take effect.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[ColoradoGuy]

My post got evaporated. Dang it.

I choose 'what', Blac. How can FDR possibly take credit for a GDP upswing (not a DOW tick, btw) which clearly occurred before he took office, much before any economic policies of his could be enacted much less take effect.

Seems pretty clear to me.
I agree that's debatable, Joe. What's not debatable though, at least to me, is the argument that FDR made it worse. I don't see how the GDP could have recovered any faster. That's the claim I'm refuting -- that FDR made it worse. Or, even more absurd, Pilot's implication that FDR somehow caused the Depression.

[Joe270]

Just as FDR could not have been responsible for the upswing in GDP, he couldn't have caused the depression, either.

Now the policies after he took office and their contributions are certainly debatable.

[Fullback]

You should post the entire chart, Mr. Colorado; the chart showing that GDP still had not recovered to 1929 levels even after a decade of "stimulus" spending. It doesn't show the revival and depression cycles fully. Where is the depression of 1937 on your chart? It also doesn't show real wage depreciation over time. Wages never came close to 1926 levels until well into the 1940s.

[ColoradoGuy]

You should post the entire chart, Mr. Colorado; the chart showing that GDP still had not recovered to 1929 levels even after a decade of "stimulus" spending. It doesn't show the revival and depression cycles fully. Where is the depression of 1937 on your chart? It also doesn't show real wage depreciation over time. Wages never came close to 1926 levels until well into the 1940s.
I did show the whole chart through the 1937 dip. Look again. And regarding real wages -- I assume you know that real wages for middle class Americans today have not gained for several decades and may have even slipped a little? Does that mean we've been in a recession all this time?

[Fullback]

My mistake on not reading the chart better on the right side. I hate old age. But, I was surprised to see the left side clipped too far into the depression to be of value in showing GDP throughout the time frame.

Yes, I know about real wage suspension.

You seem like a bright and analytical fellow. I'm not looking to spar, so I'm not going to answer the, uh, snarky recession question. ;)

As much as economists would like to argue that their work is science, it is no more of a science than history or sociology are. I know that you already know that the truth ends with most events and history and economics are imperfectly written from then on based on an agenda. I think that if you read some material explaining the boom-bust business cycle, you'd find it interesting and may find even modify your current opinion of economic causes and effects.

[ColoradoGuy]

As much as economists would like to argue that their work is science, it is no more of a science than history or sociology are. I know that you already know that the truth ends with most events and history and economics are imperfectly written from then on based on an agenda. I think that if you read some material explaining the boom-bust business cycle, you'd find it interesting and may find even modify your current opinion of economic causes and effects.
I agree. Long ago I thought I was going to be an historian, though I ended up going in another direction. I know quite a bit about the boom/bust cycles of the 19th and early 20th century in America (other countries not so much) and was taught by a very good economic and labor historian. My annoyance over the latest round of New Deal arguments is that they are generally not aimed at figuring out what actually happened and why -- they are driven by a present agenda.

My own view is that FDR was elected in a crisis -- both real and perceived -- and blundered this way and that way to try to find a way out. That is also his own description of what he was doing. I also think, whatever their effects on the economy, the New Deal programs kept people from starving, and that's a good thing in its own right. The New Deal also established the principle that the government has direct role in citizens' material welfare, particularly in old age, and to me that's an important thing.

[astonwest]

Bullshit. First, there is no salary cap in Major League Baseball. What this guy "broke", if anything, was the budget of the KC Royals, who annually vie for the cheapest and worst team in baseball. Second, I don't know who this guy was, but nobody hit a damn for the KC Royals last year (or the half-dozen years before that), and no other team even wants to trade for these players.
Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part that they'd put a salary cap in MLB.

Substitute Chiefs for Royals, league-leading (most TD and receptions) QB for home run leader, and Super Bowl for pennant, then...

Assume that the guy then tanks the team throwing tons of interceptions in the first 4 games...would there not be a lot of criticism of the move?

[rugcat]

Assume that the guy then tanks the team throwing tons of interceptions in the first 4 games...would there not be a lot of criticism of the move?Analogies are always suspect, esp sports analogies, so i'm sorry I introduced it.

But since I did, let's not forget that 4 games is one quarter of a season. So the analogy would be one year into the presidential term, not six weeks.

And interceptions are tangible, quantifiable mistakes. Whether we approve or disapprove of Obama's actions so far, we don't know what the results will be. Again, a more apt analogy would be a quarterback who has got the team into a 42 -0 hole in the first half, and the fans start booing the replacement after one series of downs because he hasn't scored a touchdown.

[robeiae]

:e2smack:

[blacbird]

Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part that they'd put a salary cap in MLB.

Substitute Chiefs for Royals, league-leading (most TD and receptions) QB for home run leader, and Super Bowl for pennant, then...

Assume that the guy then tanks the team throwing tons of interceptions in the first 4 games...would there not be a lot of criticism of the move?

By percentage, the "first four games" would equate to the first full year of Obama's Presidency. Okay. I'm on record here as saying I'm withholding judgment on his policies for some unspecified period of time to see how things work. A year seems fair to you, then it seems fair to me. I was thinking maybe till the end of summer, but, hey, I'm a hardass.

caw

[astonwest]

Analogies are always suspect, esp sports analogies, so i'm sorry I introduced it.You should be. :)

[astonwest]

Again, a more apt analogy would be a quarterback who has got the team into a 42 -0 hole in the first half, and the fans start booing the replacement after one series of downs because he hasn't scored a touchdown.
How about booing the coaches for running the same run play for the last 4 series and losing yardage every down?