I am not a victim of anything. I will do something you won't do, I admit that some of my posts are lame attempt at humor, sarcasm and occasionally in bad taste but I am pretty certain that the vast majority of what I post is certainly not nonsense. And my typical pattern is to initially start off with a prettern serious point, question or observation, it is typically only after getting baited do I go down into the gutter. When I do that I know what I am doing and I know why.

If what I posted was not clear, asking for simple clarification would help. The above is not clear to me as to what you are looking for in a response.

---------- Post added at 01:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 AM ----------

Is it your view that the stimulus saved us from the "brink"? Do you think the stumulus is all the needs to be done? Is simply spending nearly a trillion dollars the answer to future recessions? Do you have concerns of a "double dip", if not why not?

There should be a government economics course at college. The rules that apply to governments aren't the same as companies or individuals.

1. The banks have been stabilized. If they had not been stabilized, it would take years for the smaller banks to grow to the size required and offer decent rates.

2. A lot of that money has been paid back or may not need to be spent. Recovery.gov is a good concept, but they need to whip up a simple TV show to explain it to people like me.

3. Some calculated 'unknown to me' amount gets paid right back to the government in taxes. I pay about 40-50% in taxes once everything gets added in I believe. And then the money I give to other people gets taxed, and the cycle repeats.

4. The psychological impact on the stock market here and around the world was positive. The stock market can cascade and snowball down fast now that a lot of trades are based on mathematical models by large institutional investors.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with printing money out of thin air or funding projects that may not of been done (or should not have been done), but I feel that the economy is healthier now than a year ago.

The fact that we are better off now then a year ago is what is important. Is everything fixed? No there is still a lot to do but we are better off.

If you are driving 100 MPH down a freeway the wrong direction you can't simply throw the car in reverse and expect to be going 100 MPH in the right direction, you first have to slow down, then stop, then turn around, then accelerate back up. The same is true with the economy. We can't just make it change directions instantly, it takes work and it takes time. Will Obama get the economy back to where it was, i don't know, but he sure has gone a long way toward that goal. And it is pretty damn clear that the change occurred right when Obama started enacting his plans.

I personally don't see ANYTHING better than 2 years ago as far Obama is concerned.

What I do see is that gas prices are holding somewhat steady and people are making adjustments. But as for the job market, it's worse, wages are still decreasing, people are still losing decent paying jobs and having to pick up low end wage jobs. People are still defaulting/getting deferments which just ups the interest, on student loans because they don't make enough.

I still see houses in foreclosure, it's easy to say "well they are down... well, how many were foreclosed on before and how many remain empty or bought up dirt cheap and turned into "rentals". We should see the stats on those being evicted.

I still see jobs being shipped overseas and no true jobs here being created. I still see an infrastructure that is falling apart and the excuses of no money to fix them being bandied about. SO what happened to the stimulus money that was supposed to fix our infrastructure and create "shovel ready jobs". I know of 4 major cities in Ohio that their water/sewer systems are being held together with duct tape (almost literally) and will be totally in need of a new system, within the next 2-3 years, IF they are lucky.

I remember posting on here how roughly 75% of our major bridges were in need of repair (most built in the 50's to early 70's and not meant to with hold heavier trucks and the amount of daily traffic they do).

Our roads have gotten worse, but that's a fucked up Ohio thing. For whatever reason we continue to use the same company to repave the same highways every year, regardless of what party is in power.

Government corruption, partisanship and selling out the hard worker is still running rampant and there is NO push from our president or Dem leaders to change that.

Figures can be pulled out of anywhere, what matters is when I see my neighbors, family and friends actually realizing a better standard of living and not going backward.

Going backward should be unacceptable to ANY government official especially a president.

I reiterate, you can state whatever poll or bring out any graph you want to, but it doesn't mean shit when the wages are falling, the classes are moving further apart, and we are being fed bullshit.

There is no reason, whatsoever, that a person who works 40 hours a week should have to live on food stamps, live in fear of foreclosure, need government assistance in ANYWAY. Only reason that happens... wages are not high enough to support a respectable standard of living (a house payment that is decent, but you know with raises every year and maybe a chance to move up, the payments become more and more affordable, basic cable, reasonable utility use, average mileage, maybe a 1 or 2 night out dinner, being able to save a little for Jr's college or that Summer vacation, etc). NOT ONE OF THOSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A "LUXURY" TO SOMEONE WHO WORKS 40 OR MORE HOURS A WEEK. IT SHOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TOP 10% ARE STEADILY INCREASING THEIR WEALTH. FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PART TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THIS TO BE OK AND FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO NOT WORK TO TRY TO CORRECT THIS IS FUCKING INSANE. The GOP are paid for by the top 5% when did the DEMS sell out?

Pan this is where personal responsibility has to come into play. Just because you work a 40 hour week, doesn't entitle you to have a $200k house that you can't afford, eat a steak dinner 2 nights a week, or go on vacation. people have been buying things they can't afford for quite a while now. And to blame govn't for peoples' overspending is just dishonest.

[quote=pan6467;2760566]I personally don't see ANYTHING better than 2 years ago as far Obama is concerned./QUOTE]

Some things are slightly better but I don't see great improvement either. The DJIA has somewhat stabilized up about 20% from where it was when Obama started, but that level seems weak since every time Obama makes a dumb statement about taxing banks or canceling bonuses the stock market drops again for a few days.

The financing crunch from a year and a half ago seems to have eased but I read about small businesses still having problems getting financing and Obama seems convinced he has to do something about that.

Unemployment is up from a year ago and is projected to be around 10% for years.

Foreclosures are still a problem. Car sales and home sales were up a bit but that seems more like stealing future sales thanks to Obama's giveaways with cash for clunkers and home purchase credit. I read stories shortly after cash for clunkers ended that car sales fell off the cliff again and there was great concern that the same would happen with home sales if the home purchase credit ended.

Now I'm reading that commercial foreclosures are expected to be a problem. I'm reading complaints that the credit card companies are boosting rates again.

I think the reality is that there has been a fundamental shrinkage in the economy thanks to people no longer being able to use their home equity as a piggy bank and no longer being able to live on credit. I think Obama is going to have to deal with that instead of trying to artificially inflate the economy and stick the taxpayer with a huge debt.


So where do businesses get the money to make this happen? Most businesses are not making huge profits where they can afford to pay increased salaries and remain competitive. And no, I don't think excessive executive salaries are the rule. Maybe in some large corporations, but in small businesses I think lots of owners are just getting by. I have inlaws who run a small software business and they are commenting all the time about how the money just isn't there.

Secondly, what is a reasonable income? If it's say $15.00/hr, then how is paying the person who formerly made $8.00 /hr $15.00 hr remotely fair to the person who was skilled enough to earn $15.00/hr? What happens to his salary? If it stays at $15.00/hr then why should he improve his skills when all he has to do is show up at work to collect $15.00/hr? If the $15.00/hr guy's salary now increases to $23.00/hr or $30.00/hr then what happens to inflation?

I've been thru this personally and the answer in my opinion is not to just pay everybody what the government says is sufficient to cover his living expenses. When I started working, the best job I could find was at just under 2x minimum wage. I decided that I didn't like that, so I spent the time learning skills that were needed to get hired by the company that I wanted to work for in the first place. It took me a few years bt managed to get to where I wanted to be.

I'm wondering how much of the problem with the average American has to do with things other than real wages. (BTW, do we know how real wages have fared in the U.S. over the past couple of decades?)

What about other issues such as the savings rate or the debt-to-income ratios of the average American household?

Jobs will get back on track when the economy does, not before. And we won't know it's happening until after the fact. It will be a long, slow recovery. Few people are expecting otherwise.

The next time around, I hope many will have learned some hard lessons. You cannot go about your business expecting something like this cannot happen.

Is it perhaps that too many were reaching too far for the American dream?

You have to know the risks. You then have to know how much you are willing to take.

I believe it was one of the links I posted in this thread. It showed a steady and marked decrease since 1995.


Perhaps, but I don't see wages increasing for a very long time.

We have become a somewhat "live for today society" for numerous reasons, primarily I believe it the news feeding us pablum and our politicians being flat out corrupt.

And what exactly were people reaching too far for? When everything goes up but wages there is serious trouble.

And as the hard working class and lower 90% of the people are told "They are over reaching", the top 10% continue to grow wealth off the backs of the working man, paying him lower wages, outsourcing jobs and having government in their back pocket.

So, someone working 40 hours and wanting to live within his means but can't because wages are, IMHO, artificially held down.... it is that worker's fault for wanting a decent life?

There's a lengthy article in the newest Rolling Stone that says the banks are setting us up for another fall here shortly. I haven't read all of it, but I'll summarize when I'm done

I have not seen the Rolling Stone article, but as the financial crisis gets studied what we will find is most of the problems revolve around the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999, signed by Bill Clinton, written by Republicans with virtually unanimous bi-partisan support. This allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities, to date nothing has changed. The exposure of a catastrophic repeat is very real. Congress needs to act separating commercial banking activity from investment banking activity. This is not a "failed Bush administration policy" it is a failed banking policy. It would be nice for people to stop the blame game and get the job done. So, in spite of Obama's rhetoric we are still at risk, and I think or hope he knows it. Volcker seems to have Obama's ear and is certainty sending that message.

ace...I am actually impressed that a free market, "no regs" guy like you is willing to acknowledge that the financial services modernization bill that effectively repealed most of Glass-Steagall was responsible for the abuses of the last 10 years.

IMO, it was compounded by Bush's SEC chairman turning a blind eye to those abuses.

And the economy was further adversely impacted in terms of debt/deficit by taking a budget surplus (and paying down the debt) and instead of continuing that policy, enacting the 01 and 03 tax cuts (at a cost of $1 trillion) that provided little or no stimulus...and an unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq (at a cost of another $1 trillion before its over).

But now that you recognize the impact of the de-regulation of the banking/financial services sector, are you ready to re-regulate?

The House passed a bill (with zero Republican votes) late last year that the WH supports.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act addresses:

sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold

derivatives - the bill regulates the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, requiring all standardized swap transactions to be cleared and traded on an exchange

bail-outs - the bill requires big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company’s potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.

ponzi schemes - the bill strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors from Madoff type frauds

consumer protections - the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.

This certainly is not the answer to the long-term need to retool the US economy....but it would help prevent a recurrence of those abuses.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

The Recovery Act was never intended to "fix" the economy, but rather to stop the free-fall, jump start the economy and put it in the right direction.

To that end, it included significant investments in alternative energy programs, health technology, a national broadband program, etc. where, in recent years, the US has fallen behind China, India, EU countries and even Iran (see below) in science, engineering and technology....IMO, these are essential to growing the economy in the right direction.

We are no longer the "great innovator" and if we dont address that fact, the long-term outlook for our place in a global economy is not good.

An interesting article (and report) on "geopolitical shifts in knowledge creation"
Knowledge creation (R&D) leads to job creation and a 21st century economy.

We better refocus our efforts and that takes both public and private commitments and investments!

I understand debate technique and the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point, but to suggest I am a "no regs" guy is a bit over the top. I am not sure if you actually believe your summation of my views or if it is something else. Which is it?

I would not characterize investment banking activities as an abuse. There are winners and losers. the dramatic shift in market conditions was compounded in my view by government, and there was certainly no legitimate reason for the government to selectively bailout some and not others.

This goes off point. The federal deficit had virtually nothing to do with the financial crisis. It is very common for an economy in war to increase its debt. And deficit spending as a percentage of GDP was in line with historical averages. Even with the tax cuts, taxes collected went up. The real problem with the deficit is spending and the accounting tricks used to raid social security.

Again, I am not clear on what your intent is in the way you characterize the issue. Banks were never de-regulated, I would say they were wrongly regulated. The government did not let the hens run free, the government let the wolves into the hen house thinking it was a good thing.

If true it should have passed and become law, the WH had a super majority.

I currently support reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, past Fed chairs support it, and there are some conservatives who do as well. If the WH supports it, I think Obama could get it done. I think this would be a major win for him, and could re-set the tone in Washington. I have no interest in a repeat of the financial crisis or a double dip recession. Now is the time to act.

The federal deficit during the Bush years had A LOT to do with the financial crisis. Part of the reason a bubble was created was that the need to finance that deficit led to a huge influx of foreign money into the US, helping foster excess liquidity, risk taking, and inflating the bubble.

From a 2005 paper by Menzie Chinn:

As far as the size of those deficits go, the problem wasn't the size itself, but that they came during an economic expansion. Deficits are and should be bigger during a recession, but when you have deficits during an expansion, it only makes the recovery from the next recession that much harder.

roachboy, the number doesn't look so bad when you flip it over to the cost of the wars to each taxpayer. In that case, it's only $7,228 currently. That's less than $1,000 per year, certainly that's not too much to bear, is it?

I would rather have my $7K, or better yet my $7K minus the cost of universal health care.

Interesting question. An answer requires speculation regarding any assumed benefit to war. There have been some wars initiated with no social benefit to any one, some for example simply ego or emotionally driven. However, some wars have been fought with what some would see as significant social benefit, but how do you measure that? If we did the exercise with WWII, calculating the cost and asking if it was worth it, what would the answer be? Or, what if the Allies initiated preemptive military action rather than responsive military action and we did this exercise, what would the answer be?

ace, you cannot possibly be serious in equating the debacle in iraq with world war 2.
you cannot be.
so your question is moot.

baraka: have a look at some of the other options that parse the squandered money differently. like by amount of money that coulda been spent on health care or job creation or infrastructure development or research & development that's instead been pissed away in the afterburn of the neo-con's fiasco in iraq. some imperial dreams burn alot of fuel on their way into the ash-heap.

You are going to eat your words, roachboy, when we get terror to sign an unconditional surrender.

Yea, I was looking in the mirror this morning thinking about how moot I am. I actually like being moot, but forgive me for interfering with your fallible, oops, infallible judgment.

With all my moot regards,


Ace

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

Assume we did not use our military and even with the use of our military there have been costs due to our "war on terror" or their war on us. What are those costs? What would they be if we had not used our military in war since 2001? I bet you just want to pretend that we live in a happy, happy world.:):):)How about we go to the ME and start a big camp fire and sing our way to peace and happiness.:):):) I bet Twinker Bell would sprinkle us all with her magic fairy dust and we can be happier and happier.:):):) Happy, happy happy.

{added} Sorry for the tone above. I assume people see what I see, in this case it seems obvious to me that it very important when looking at costs to look at benefits. To look at costs alone seems a bit odd to me. I think looking at the benefits and the costs is very important to the issue put on the table here, to suggest that it is not is something I assumed was dishonest, perhaps it wasn't, perhaps it was something else - and that something else is what I don't see.

nice dodge

I was also the king at dodge-ball in grade school, the other guys feared me and the girls loved me.:thumbsup:

Ace,

Generally, the point is "moot" in both directions. To suggest that a government which willingly overspends $1.4T would suddenly have some fiscal restaint that implies "let the poor people starve because we have to finance a war" is absurd. To create an argument that war money is being taken out of the hands of social programs doesn't jive with the trends of our federal government. They don't care how much they spend, no stone goes unleased.

Any of us can only speculate to our wildest dreams what would have happened had WWII or TWOT not been waged. To attempt a price tag to justify it having been fought (or having not been fought) is impossible. The argument will always land with those who supported the war justifying the cost and those who didn't justifying the waste.

WWII cost us millions of lives but established us as an economic superpower and created a very successful generation of Americans. The War on Terruh has cost thousands of lives and has not (and will not) push this country forward in any positive way

the end of world war 2 marked the beginning of the american empire.
the war on "terror" marks the end of the american empire.
the damage the gwot et al did to the position of the united states in the name of defending the position of the united states is pretty astonishing. it bespeaks a fundamental ideological problem, the kind of ideological problem that seems almost characteristic of fading empires, as if there was some kind of over-arching plotline that empires repeat.

Sometimes I really really worry that my posts this far into a thread will never be read.
And if mine aren't being read ... the person in front of me, or behind me ... theirs aren't being read ... and I think they make more sense then me.

Your posts were read by me, if that means anything. :)

Me too.:)

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

My point was not clear. How do you know we overspent? You don't, I don't, all we can do is speculate. But to only focus on the costs and base an argument on that is dishonest in my opinion. To use a personal example, if I spend $600 on a motorcycle helmet and that helmet saves my life it is clear the money spent was worth it. If I never have an accident, did I overspend? Or, how about this, if a person threatens to kill me and I spend $10,000 to prevent an attack that could cost my life, did I overspend? We may never know the answer with certainty, all we can do is base our judgment on speculation and assumption. Regarding the war on terror our views most likely differ, but as a nation more people agreed with taking proactive military action than disagreed.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

How do you define "empire"?

How do you respond to my charge of being dishonest regarding presenting "costs" without the value of comment on the value or the benefits of the "costs"? Do you actually believe the dollars spent on the war on terror, both domestic and military, were all wasted dollars?

If you spend $1,400,000,000,000 more than you earn - you have overspent. Period.

Again, I think the point is missed. If I take a loan of $1.4T,(and even if I have no current income) but I use that money wisely with a return on the money greater than the cost I would argue that I have not overspent. I look at both sides of the question, why wouldn't you?

I'm really not getting drawn into a hypothetical which can neither be proven or disproven. My point is simple:

Some in this thread have contended that, because of the money being spent on the GWOT, much needed money is being diverted from social programs and to the war machine. My point is that any government who will overspend $1.4T is not robbing from Peter to pay Paul. They are spending as much as they want on whatever they want.

The issue is not hypothetical. Real judgments are getting made everyday regarding how money is to be spent. If people including the current administration believed that money is being wasted on the war on terror, I would think they would want it to stop - like right now. But the spending has not stopped, why? In my opinion, the money being spent is perceived to be worth it.

The second part of your post regarding "robbing Peter...", I don't understand. We are not robbing ourselves when we set spending priorities. I actually thought Obama was going to go into office with new priorities, but he did not, he is pretty much in step with Bush. Why are the people who supported and voted for Obama/Democratic Party Controlled Congress letting him/them get away with that?

So we agree. We are not robbing Peter (social programs) to pay Paul (the war on terror). See, that wasn't hard.:thumbsup:

If we want to spend more on social programs all we have to do is collect more money (taxes) or use debt. When Congress is making spending decisions they typically don't say if we spend money on X we can not spend money on Y. They spend money on both. The truth is that most Americans don't want to spend more on "social programs", perhaps that is what we agree on.:thumbsup:

Yes, because social security, medicaid and medicare are sooooo unpopular, right?:rolleyes:

this is his point.

emphasis mine.

There is also the possibility that we borrowed 1.4 trillion so we wouldn't lose 2,3,4+ trillion. Either through lost tax revenue, more unemployment checks, failed banks, lower property values, etc...

And the value of our money might have been shot if we had gone into a real depression.

(But I do think that we need to have a better fiscal policy put into place that will start paying down the debt and allow the government to make money)

Getting back to the original question posed in the OP, (with the exception of military endevors) I believe George W Bush is more Hoover-ish regarding economics.

Since we're drawing comparisons from past presidents, President Obama would like to be compared more as a new FDR. His efforts to date resemble closer to Woodrow Wilson trending toward Chavez.

Give people the option to opt out and you will see how popular they are.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Dude! We are saying the exact same fucking thing!!!!

so wait. this "logic" about state spending decisions happening based on no constraints whatsoever--what fantasy space is that part of?

o wait, i know: the state doesn't work on explicitly conservative lines, so there are no lines. the logic isn't conservative-centric so there isn't one. unless the state totally submits to a logic that is somewhere between monetarism-lite and libertarian, anything goes. this way you don't have to think real hard about the basis for objecting to program x as over against program y: its all unfettered anyway, but if you like a program or sector, then it's "responsible" (grotesque levels of expenditure on the military, say) but that "responsible" verdict relies on other fantasies ("the war on terror")...if you don't like program y, then it's a "problem" (o i dunno...taxation, say) and this verdict also relies on other fantasies (taking away my shit, giving it to people less deserving than me)...

so its a space of self-reinforcing, self-confirming delusion. you don't need to look at messy things like reality. why bother? the world is SO simple this way.

and this is what i was talking about with an ideology that's symmetrical with the collapse of empire.
and empire is in this case the whole of the post-world war 2 capitalist order.
it's all finished now.

=====

otto: that'd be the logical parallel.
sadly, obama is way more centrist than was fdr and way more willing to play the bipartisan game. the political context is way more reactionary as well.
but at least in your version, things follow logically.

removed by author

I believe the U.S. has been steadily trending away from true capitalism since as far back as WWI (for variety of reasons). If you consider all the federal institutions, laws and regulatory measures implemented prior to the 50's, "free-market" capitalism has been non-existent for nearly a century. So in some respect, this may validate your assertion of the death of capitalism. However, I do not necessarily agree with ideological victories or failures claimed as one superior to the other. The economic game is global and is ultimately played outside of national or political ideology. We have been nudged carefully along the way with mindful attention to our thirst for controversy. Unfortunately, we've grown accustomed to reacting to the pot that's been stirred for us. I'm afraid our future is well on it's way down some road beyond our ability to react with approval or not... yeah, true capitalism is long dead.

otto---interesting.
i wasn't arguing that capitalism is over with. it's mutated again, this time i think beyond the nation-state so quite beyond the whole range of political and legal institutions that arose by degrees across the "long 19th century"
(so from say the french revolution through the early 1920s, the modern state trending toward the nation-state, which was dominant after world war 1 as the political form symmetrical with captialism as a mode of production, so as more than a system of ownership and way of organizing how stuff gets made)...

the american empire rested on the lattice of transnational structures set up after world war 2 in order to stabilize states at the level of currency and military action. the process of leaving nation-states behind didn't really get started until the 1970s though, and unfolded like most such processes do incrementally, incoherently, in fits and starts with things like the internet playing a considerable role.

this outstripping of nation-states poses some very basic political questions most of which are not easy and most of which will probably have to be addressed sooner or later (what legal framework can regulate capital flows that move across national boundaries in an instant, for example....what legal structures can regulate TNCs? on and on....how are these structures to be made politically responsive to people? what would it mean for them not to be responsive? these are pretty basic questions, dont you think?)

but right now, they're not being touched. better to pretend nation-states still matter and that market capitalism is still a useful metaphor for thinking about the complex socio-economic system of systems that we live under.