What part of the economy is doing fine?

And if Obama interferes in the free market, would the GOP pounce on him for that? Where is the harm in advertising the economy is getting better and getting people to be optimistic? The stock market is back above 12,000. There are sectors of the economy doing fine, and it isn't the public sector.

Obama: 'The Private Sector Is Doing Fine' [UPDATED]

I know I'm not worried about this happening anymore. Lines at the ER, a television boom, emptying suburbs. A catastrophic economic downturn would feel nothing like the last one. - The Boston Globe

I think the economy is working fine. People had gotten used to reducing risk to nothing and always having steady growth. The Fed screwed with interest rates, people bought houses and condos with no intention of living there, we burn through billions on oil that isn't coming back... Still, a lot of people still didn't need to change or cut back much in their lives. People are driving their cars. They might not lease new cars anymore, but that was never smart anyway. I went to a party on Sunday with 120,000 people, the small company that put it on is doing fine, and helped sell lots of hotel rooms in Vegas too. The airplanes and airports seem just as crowed as ever, but they charge more for fees.

The 401k & financial advisers get more business if they claim you will get a 'standard' 7% return. There won't be any problems or crashes. Do people expect too much out of the economy, and that it should be really easy to make money?
Crisis Cost Americans 39% of Median Net Worth - Businessweek
How likely will another event like the 2007-2008 crash happening again in the next 40 years be? How about the devaluation of the dollar?

 

I'm blue collar. I don't really care too much about the stock market. Don't care at all about Vegas, airlines or leasing cars. I care about the fact that my house lost $75k or more of its value in the last 4 years, meaning we now have NO equity to fall back on while our kids go to college and the porch falls apart. I care about the fact that I will probably never find a decent job again. Even "decent" is subjective-I made more per hour in 1991 than I did in the job I lost 6 months ago.

How you think the economy is working fine is beyond my comprehension. Retail is way way down, one of the reasons I'm now out of work. People did not or can not pay for extras like portraits or art for their homes. Some clients who had been rather well off were watching pennies to the point of not doing their annual portraits/Christmas cards, etc. Steady growth?? Where? The only steady growth I see is when I look out onto my backyard. People still drive their cars because they have to get around somehow. But I'm willing to bet most drive and do all their errands in one single span of time and as close to home as possible. Just seeing a lot of cars doesn't mean anything.

I am the "private sector" and I'm doing pretty shitty, quite frankly. I can't afford life insurance. We have to get PLUS loans each semester and have no way of paying that back right now. Our health insurance takes a full 1/5 of the spouse's pay and we still have medical bills that for whatever dumbass reason, the carrier refuses to pay.
The "Great Depression" happened for entirely different reasons than our current situation in that people were trading stock without the cash backup and when they tried to cash in, it all came crashing down. There was no FDIC, no guarantors, no insurance, so poverty quickly came to be. It was a great equalizer. That is not the case now. Those of us who have had to struggle paycheck to paycheck, then watch our jobs go buh-bye do not benefit from the same cushions as richer people. No, it wouldn't feel like the "last one" because some who have fared pretty well won't feel a thing. And I don't see it getting any better in what is left of my lifetime.

 

[Edited, off-topic.]

I, for one, think the economy is doing just fine. (Tip of the hat to Obama, WTF are you backpedaling?)

For over a year, prior to this last month's job report, we were adding jobs to the economy, and making ground on unemployment, down in the 8% range (not 12 to 15 %).
Due to an adjustment to the prior period, and only 69K jobs this last period, we lost 0.1 % Let me re-phrase that...
Only "gaining" 69K jobs, we lost 0.1 / 100 ground in the jobs market.
While it sucks to add jobs, and have the unemployment rate go up...
Adding jobs is better than losing them, no?
So, for more than a year, we've consistently been adding jobs, irrespective of 1 month's loss of 0.1 / 100.

Feeling entitled to 1/69K jobs, and, among those 69K jobs added, one that pays better than 1991...
Damn... I've done hard labor in a furniture factory, and I'd go right back to it before the retail stores that furniture ends back up on.

Not to be obtuse or anything... just my $0.02

 

Key segments of the private sector have been adding jobs for the last two plus years at a slow but steady rate....retail trade,manufacturing, health services, professional/business services, leisure/hospitality... The only segment, other than public employment, really down is construction.

I know that doesnt help if you cant find a job, but slow steady growth, in part as a result of the stimulus, sure beats having the economy fall over the cliff as was a real possibility.

 

The part where incredibly rich people make money at everyone else's expense. That seems to be in excellent working order. The part where the rest of us find decently-paying jobs in the areas in which we are qualified, and don't get swamped by living expenses, health care costs, and crushing student loan, however, seems to be in need of a lot of fixing up.

 

Real possibility? It WAS falling off a cliff as Obama walked in the Oval Office door.

 

The Senate passed a two-year $100 billion transportation/infrastructure bill with bi-partisan support earlier this year. By most estimates, it would create more than 1 million private sector jobs to repair the crumbling infrastructure. The Republican House refuses to act on it.

There is a trickle down effect, but not from tax cuts for the wealthiest. But from newly hired workers spending in the local economy.

 

From Bruce Bartlett, senior economic adviser in both the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations:

The Romney fix?

More tax cuts for the wealthy, more defense spending and only cutting federal spending that adversely impacts the middle class and working poor (the result of which takes money out of local economies). Evidently, he is also ignorant of the fact that the federal govt. provides $billions/yr to local govts to hire teachers, cops, fire fighters.

 

Things are improving a bit in my neck of the woods as well - job opportunities are opening up, the county has been able to scale back some of its proposed cuts to education, and overall, people seem to be complaining less (might be due to the fact that they've just gotten tired of complaining).

I don't regard this as light at the end of the tunnel however. I don't see the middle class we all remember with fondness, ever attaining its former glory. I think we have to acknowledge that our making do with less the past couple of years is not going to be a temporary thing. I don't see wages rising significantly. I don't see manufacturing returning as a staple of US employment. We are being homogenized and equalized on the global workforce playing field. Once all things being equal are equal, we will no longer be a manufacturing pariah. Some of those manufacturing jobs will come back but the wages offered will be no different than the wages seen by a Chinese or Indonesian worker. This appears to be the long term plan and goal of its creators.

Abolishing unions, shrinking the influence of the federal government on the economy and lowering wages and benefits to a level which can compete globally - all of these further the goals of a truly global economy. With all other aspects equalized, individual countries attract business and barter for it within the global pool, through the offering of tax and trade incentives, subsidies and worker skill level. (compensation for skill based on global standards rather than national ones)

I see the wealth gap increasing in disparity the closer we get to this equalization and beyond. The course has been set, the pieces are in motion, and there doesn't appear to be any significant will to reverse this course. Its stamp of approval and eagerness to facilitate, apparent here in the US in the Citizen's United decision.

Pessimistic? Stuff of conspiracy theorists? Maybe. But all signs indicate that this is the path leading to our future. Unless the plan collapses in on itself (which it appears to be showing some signs of doing - but may in fact be just the early growing pains of a shift in economic and social course) or workers worldwide revolt against a global, upper and lower class system of capitalist rule.

 

I <3 Krugman.

----------

Things to keep in mind about "history"... Obama is shouldered with economic issues handed down from Bush-baby. While many of Bush-baby's flounderings under the thumb of the power behind his throne were of his own accord, some were handed-down to him from Clinton (e.g. tax code sledghammer).

I like the analysis that Obama's increased spending less, but also brought-in less revenue (and should have done more). That's a fair critique (and one I partially wasn't aware of).

 

I think the passing down (on) of this new economic way of thinking and operating began with the Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Obama has joined too late in the game to change a thing. The best he can do is profess his desire that things could be different and blame his ineffectiveness on political adversaries intent on throwing a wrench into all his good intentions. A true thing, that, but I often question if he would be anymore effective with a Congress on his side. I can envision high-profile but virtually meaningless legislation could be enacted, but no real reversals of fortunes.

I've come to regard his Presidency no differently than I have regarded the last 4 presidencies. IMO, there's an invasive agenda operating at full speed ahead which can be only slightly influenced by a single President, Prime Minister, Congress, or House of Parliament. The outcome of this grand and omnipotent agenda appears to be a fait accompli.

One could hope that a 2nd Obama Presidency would reveal some true strength and independence which has lain dormant in the man. Sadly, I suspect his second term will not be a marked change from the first. I believe he's certainly intelligent and capable enough to make decisions in the best interest of the US and its citizens but in the grand scheme of things, he's as much a eunuch and pawn of the grand agenda as the rest of them have been (and will continue to be).

No matter which version of the story you read or how many remakes of the movie you watch, the Titanic always ends up crashing into the iceberg. So it would appear with the course we're on.

 

The true "counter-theory" to my observations about history is that history doesn't matter. While much of politics (e.g. Democracy started by the Roman Empire) is based on history, it is not based on ancient history, but development over time. In today's day and age of pragmatism and information inundation, fact is that what matters is there here, now, and relatively recent past.

Ultimatly, if you take that tact... all economic woes, under the responsibility of the current president, are the current president's problem, nothing to do w/ his predecesors.

So, let's take a political shift factor into account...
WHAT IF the incumbent doesn't win? What if Romney ends-up being our next President, and Obama drinks himself into a stupor in Kenya? Romney's responsible. Obama's getting blitzed in Africa.

Except, there's no "power" behind the throne in this instance...
I don't hear CRAP about Joe Biden...
I hear all too much about Obama.
I heard too much parrot-speak from Bush-baby, as I do spelling-mistakes from Romney.
And way too g'damn much about and from Cheney (long-standing Bush-family puppeteer & sociopath opportunist).

Happens to EVERYONE who enters politics on a supported soapbox... the stilts just aren't there when the big boys kick them out from under you.

I'd concur, see just above.

This is an excellent (though cynical, but not too) modern political philosophy... mind if I adopt it?

 

The band plays on with a new conductor.

The only difference between Romney in front of the cameras on the Front Lawn vs Obama will be the lack of apologies or flimsy justifications for failure to act in accordance with his promises.

Be my guest.

 

I got a whole separate rant on that all it's own...
I'll wait & refine such opinions before voicing her.

 

I think we can count on Romney to be a good little capitalist soldier without having to worry about the castrated left making any trouble.

If I were a betting gal, I'd put my money on Romney right now. The right man at the right time. The consummate corporate yes-man who will pave the way through the last rocky bits of economic chaos into the wonderful world of global capitalist corporatism held in check and power by their fascist government cohorts who will still laughingly insist they oversee democracies.

Are we there yet?

Geez, I'm starting to scare myself.

/Inject sanity and reason here.