Barack Obama has rescued America from Economic Disaster

[Razgovory]

Oh sure, NOW you say that!

When did I say otherwise?    

In Berkut's mind the caricature of you did.

[Berkut]

Oh sure, NOW you say that!

When did I say otherwise?    

When did I say you said otherwise?  

[Valmy]

When did I say you said otherwise?  

So...you are saying the Joan wouldn't have said that while Bush was President not that he said that Bush impacted the economy...do I have that right?

[Ed Anger]

I just blame the jews, like normal people.

[Berkut]

When did I say you said otherwise?  

So...you are saying the Joan wouldn't have said that while Bush was President not that he said that Bush impacted the economy...do I have that right?

More to the point that it is funny that now that Obama is President he is beating that drum, while I never heard him say anything like that back when the lefty crowd was beating the crap out of Bush, or Reagan, or Bush Sr., or whoever over their "destroying of the economy".

I don't doubt that he believes it, nor do I doubt that it is true. Just found the timing rather amusing.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't get it.  The economy isn't great but clearly has improved since Obama entered office.  If I really was the partisan hack Berkut suggests, why would I be highlighting this particular point now?

[DGuller]

I want to rebutt the rebuttal that the president doesn't affect the economy.  Obviously it's foolish to attribute cyclical fluctuations in the economy to them, but in the longer term they can drive the agenda that can be helpful or hurtful for the economy.  Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike.  However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.

[Berkut]

I don't get it.  The economy isn't great but clearly has improved since Obama entered office.  If I really was the partisan hack Berkut suggests, why would I be highlighting this particular point now?

The amusement isn't over you highlighting it now, it is over you NOT highlighting it in the past.

Anyway, it was an aside - don't take it so seriously - it was not intended that seriously. And I do not think you are a partisan hack - partisan certainly, but no hack.

[The Minsky Moment]

  Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike.  However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.

Unions were already in the midst of a long secular decline - Reagan's move highlighted that fact and arguably may have emboldened some employers, but IMO in the grand scheme it is still a minor event in the context of a much broader, long-term story.

Meanwhile as the traditional craft and industrial unions continue to stagnate, the public sector unions are as frisky as ever.  As our friend strix can remind us.

[DGuller]

Unions were already in the midst of a long secular decline - Reagan's move highlighted that fact and arguably may have emboldened some employers, but IMO in the grand scheme it is still a minor event in the context of a much broader, long-term story.

Meanwhile as the traditional craft and industrial unions continue to stagnate, the public sector unions are as frisky as ever.  As our friend strix can remind us.

Ok, maybe a better example would be widespread deregulation, starting with Ford and continuing in force with Reagan.  Some of it was done with extreme stupidity, like the S&L debacle, but a lot of it was very beneficial in the long run.  The presidents were the ones pushing the deregulation agenda.

[Vince]

I want to rebutt the rebuttal that the president doesn't affect the economy.  Obviously it's foolish to attribute cyclical fluctuations in the economy to them, but in the longer term they can drive the agenda that can be helpful or hurtful for the economy.  Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike.  However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.

I brought up in another thread that the President can appoint people to the Federal Reserve and the various agencies that set economic policy and enforce regulation.  Thus the President has some degree of control over the economy in that respect but not many people agreed with it.

[DGuller]

I brought up in another thread that the President can appoint people to the Federal Reserve and the various agencies that set economic policy and enforce regulation.  Thus the President has some degree of control over the economy in that respect but not many people agreed with it.

I agree with it.

[Hansmeister]

I recall that too.  I remember in particular a thread called "this economy is smoking!" back in 2005 where certain sergeant was praising Bush on his expert handling of the economy.

It is a shame we lost our archives.  Do you remember that thread?  You started it.

Stop using drugs in your parent's basement, you fucking retard.  As usual you don't have a clue what your talking about - that is, when you're not simply making shit up since your incapable of making an intelligent argument.

Just as a little refresher, not that this would ever make it thru your little retarded brain, here's a recap:

Way back in late 2004 (and several times in subsequent years) JR was making an argument that the Bush's deficits was causing the dollar to drop vs other currencies, which I rebutted by making the argument that 1. drop in the value of the dollar was a monetary issue of the Fed under Greenspan practicing to loose a monetary policy (citing the great Milton Friedman "inflation always and everywhere is a monetary problem"), and second, that deficits, as long as they do not exceed economic growth, are entirely manageable, since the only thing that matters is the publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP (which was basically flat during the Bush years)

The stupid thing is that even if your claim about my position was true, you don't have an actual argument to make.  Just because somebody is fine with a deficit of 3 percent, it does not follow that he should also be fine with a deficit of 12 percent.  How does that even make a remote amount of sense?  Only a retard would make that argument.

However, when you decry a deficit of 3 percent as bankrupting the nation, as you, my little psych-ward patient have argued in the past, it is completely incoherent to argue that a defict of 12 percent in the short term, and deficits above 6 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see are suddenly just fine.  Only somebody who is either certifyably insane, or somebody who can't really think but only regurgitate a party-line, no matter how intellectually incoherent.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of my points (as I recall) is that the Bush fiscal position was inherently unsustainable because it depended on double-digit increases in profits and associated tax receipts year-after-year.  Thus, even though Bush was running "only" 3 percent GDP deficits, that number was misleadingly low because it was being flattered by an unusually frothy profits cycle.  I predicted that the fiscal position of the country was due for a significant deterioration- which I estimated would probably occur in the 2006-07.  That turned about to be wrong: the crash came a couple years later, but was even worse then I thought it would be. 

Note that the majority of the present deficit is due to prior spending commitments vs. present receipts; for all the criticism of the stimulus package, its relative contribution is not that great.  If long-term deficits of 6 percent are to be deemed unsustainable, then there is no way we should have running 3 percent at the top of the boom in 2005.  On the contrary, we should have taken a page from the Clinton years and be running a slight surplus during that time period.

[KRonn]

These came out yesterday; mixed news, or take a bit from recession recovery. I guess with the retail sales drop it was mitigated by the rise in auto sales, but was a pretty bad time for other retailers.   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32400126/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Weekly jobless claims rise unexpectedly
Four-week moving average rises; continuing claims drop sharply

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32399822/ns/business-retail/
Retail sales post surprise drop for July
Unexpected drop raises worries about consumer spending