Obviously we'll have a better perspective in 5, 20 or 100 years, but now that the Obama years are almost over, how do we assess his legacy?
Personally, I'm struck by the absence of any personal scandals, and the low count of political ones. The worst he did was the surveillance of journalists a while back.
But this is languish, so have away!
His wife is kinda mannish.
He entrenched alot of the bad things Bush did so far as the War on Terror and so forth. But he has largely been alright besides that. The fact he couldn't get any legislation done was a bit of a downer.
The funny thing, given how he is hated on the right, he should be the favourite president of any libertarian and small government conservative. He didn't do a lot.
:huh: He brought Peace.
History will be kind to his stimulus and unkind to his handling of international
:hmm:
affairs, with exceptions such as the Cuba opening. The Red Line was a disaster and most of his foreign moves have turned out badly.
How history treats Obamacare will depend on whether the previously uninsured young feel happy or angry about being compelled to buy insurance.
Other than that, he sparred with the GOP over the budget.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
History will be kind to his stimulus and unkind to his handling of international affairs, with exceptions such as the Cuba opening. The Red Line was a disaster and most of his foreign moves have turned out badly.
You don't see the pivot to Asia as moderately successful?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 30, 2016, 02:34:50 PM
You don't see the pivot to Asia as moderately successful?
I think the results of the pivot are mixed right now, and won't be seen for a decade or so. Vietnam's status/attitude ten years from now will be the barometer.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 30, 2016, 02:34:50 PM
You don't see the pivot to Asia as moderately successful?
I don't see any improvement in either the South China Sea or North Korea. And it could be argued that the timing of the pivot contributed to the FUBAR situation in the ME.
I have healthcare, so fuck all of you. You want me dead, you fucking cunts come find me and let's square it up right then and there. You fucking pussies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2016, 02:46:21 PM
I have healthcare, so fuck all of you. You want me dead, you fucking cunts come find me and let's square it up right then and there. You fucking pussies.
But will it survive?
Quote from: 11B4V on October 30, 2016, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2016, 02:46:21 PM
I have healthcare, so fuck all of you. You want me dead, you fucking cunts come find me and let's square it up right then and there. You fucking pussies.
But will it survive?
The fuck do you care. Fuck off, welfare queen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2016, 03:00:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 30, 2016, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2016, 02:46:21 PM
I have healthcare, so fuck all of you. You want me dead, you fucking cunts come find me and let's square it up right then and there. You fucking pussies.
But will it survive?
The fuck do you care. Fuck off, welfare queen.
:moon:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethisgif.com%2Fuploaded_images%2F99951-Carlton-Dance-Animated-Gif.gif&hash=90331b0e11c5912c76f63a6067d0d9c32bb8e085)
Obama seems to be an improvement over Bush II. Passed Obamacare, presided over an economic recovery, killed bin Laden, reduced troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilt the US brand over the world, etc. He faced an obstructionist congress, so he couldn't get too much done, particularly on gun control. Wasn't too effective in containing Russian aggression.
Overall a decent president, but isn't a really great one. I rank him around 15 in the historical ranking of all US presidents.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 30, 2016, 05:10:15 PM
I rank him around 15 in the historical ranking of all US presidents.
Interesting, and from an outside viewpoint. As a matter of curiosity, and so i can get a feel for your metrics, between which two presidents would you sandwich him (roughly)?
I think history's judgment will depend on how historians will evaluate his inability to defeat GOP, which set out to sabotage him from day one and largely succeeded. Were his hand really tied, or could he have outmaneuvered them had he had more political skill?
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2016, 05:36:36 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 30, 2016, 05:10:15 PM
I rank him around 15 in the historical ranking of all US presidents.
Interesting, and from an outside viewpoint. As a matter of curiosity, and so i can get a feel for your metrics, between which two presidents would you sandwich him (roughly)?
Kennedy and Johnson.
He tried oh how he tried. I blame the republicans. Of course.
From a Franco/Canadian perspective: great orator, campaigner. Managed to reform healthcare somewhat. Did not close Guantanamo. Did not contain Russia (not sure what he could have done differently there).
Kinda hard to do anything significant when you don't control Congress. I guess he didn't do enough to make sure not to lose midterms.
6.5/10? I dunno. Charismatic, smart, his election had significance but I'm not sure what he'll be remembered for.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2016, 04:53:36 AM
6.5/10? I dunno. Charismatic, smart, his election had significance but I'm not sure what he'll be remembered for.
First black president?
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2016, 04:53:36 AM
6.5/10? I dunno. Charismatic, smart, his election had significance but I'm not sure what he'll be remembered for.
First black president?
Yeah but while it is an achievement to grab the POTUS seat while being black, it is not a very kind reflection on you when your greatest achievement in your job is the colour of your skin.
He has killed a shitload of brown people, so I don't know how that cleaves among you enlightened glowing balls of light.
His 8 years won't matter much. He'll be remembered the same way remember Taft.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2016, 10:09:00 AM
His 8 years won't matter much. He'll be remembered the same way remember Taft.
As somebody who couldn't fit in his bathtub? :huh:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2016, 10:09:00 AM
His 8 years won't matter much. He'll be remembered the same way remember Taft.
The only man to lead multiple branches of the Federal Government? Maybe. But John Roberts seems like he is not going anywhere for awhile.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2016, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2016, 10:09:00 AM
His 8 years won't matter much. He'll be remembered the same way remember Taft.
The only man to lead multiple branches of the Federal Government?
How quickly we forget James K. Polk. :alberta:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 31, 2016, 10:36:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2016, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2016, 10:09:00 AM
His 8 years won't matter much. He'll be remembered the same way remember Taft.
The only man to lead multiple branches of the Federal Government?
How quickly we forget James K. Polk. :alberta:
Napoleon of the Stump!
Quote from: Scipio on October 31, 2016, 09:46:23 AM
He has killed a shitload of brown people, so I don't know how that cleaves among you enlightened glowing balls of light.
Probably killed fewer brown people than any president since Carter, though. The next president that does not kill a shitload of brown people will be the first.
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2016, 04:53:36 AM
6.5/10? I dunno. Charismatic, smart, his election had significance but I'm not sure what he'll be remembered for.
First black president?
You ended on I don't know what he will be remembered for.
Sigh. Ok garbon.
Ultimately, I think he'll be remembered much like Carter or Bush the Elder--a good man, but in over his head as President.
Thanks, Obama. :)
Quote from: dps on October 31, 2016, 01:08:56 PM
Ultimately, I think he'll be remembered much like Carter or Bush the Elder--a good man, but in over his head as President.
Being re-elected doesn't really translate to "in over his head". Quite frankly, neither Poppy nor James Earle were, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2016, 10:51:53 AM
Napoleon of the Stump!
Our slave broker President. :mad:
Quote from: dps on October 31, 2016, 01:08:56 PM
Ultimately, I think he'll be remembered much like Carter or Bush the Elder--a good man, but in over his head as President.
Two under-rated Presidents.
Bush Sr. had his shortcomings as a pol, but the last thing I would say about him is over his head.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
Bush Sr. had his shortcomings as a pol, but the last thing I would say about him is over his head.
The man was built to be a President. Unfortunately his acorns not only fell far from the tree, but the squirrels got to them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: dps on October 31, 2016, 01:08:56 PM
Ultimately, I think he'll be remembered much like Carter or Bush the Elder--a good man, but in over his head as President.
Two under-rated Presidents.
Bush Sr. had his shortcomings as a pol, but the last thing I would say about him is over his head.
Agree about Bush Sr. His problem was that he was crap at lying. Policy-wise he was okay or better. His mistake was running for elected office.
The lesson of Bush and Carter was:
1) Don't run for re-election while the Fed Chairman is hiking rates to 20%
2) Don't run for re-election in the aftermath of a massive financial collapse.
Bush Jr. learned the lesson from Dad, made sure the massive financial collapse happened at the end of term 2, not term 1.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
The lesson of Bush and Carter was:
1) Don't run for re-election while the Fed Chairman is hiking rates to 20%
2) Don't run for re-election in the aftermath of a massive financial collapse.
Bush Jr. learned the lesson from Dad, made sure the massive financial collapse happened at the end of term 2, not term 1.
What massive financial collapse are you talking about?
The savings and loan thing?
OK.
About half the industry got wiped out, so yes that's a pretty significant event.
My impression might have been colored by the fact I was still in grad school, but it didn't seem to me that outside of cocaine snorting southwestern property developers/speculators and crooked S&L owners, that many people were directly affected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2016, 02:47:37 PM
My impression might have been colored by the fact I was still in grad school, but it didn't seem to me that outside of cocaine snorting southwestern property developers/speculators and crooked S&L owners, that many people were directly affected.
Well, those guys and every single person who had a 401K or held any stock. We got crushed (for a while).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2016, 02:47:37 PM
My impression might have been colored by the fact I was still in grad school, but it didn't seem to me that outside of cocaine snorting southwestern property developers/speculators and crooked S&L owners, that many people were directly affected.
it was very bad in Canada and in Quebec. We almost didn't survive the crisis as my dad's employer went bankrupt and he was still owed like 3 months wages. And he lost all his actions in the company too. Told him to get out way before. Never listens.
The financial crisis wasn't only limited to the S&Ls - the commercial banks were hit very hard, particularly those exposed to commercial RE. The S&Ls "headlined" the crisis because so many collapsed outright. The big commercial banks like Citi mostly survived, but had to lick their wounds and rebuild capital.
The 90-91 recession was like a dry run for 2008, a recession linked to financial crisis, resulting in a slower recovery.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2016, 09:56:13 AM
The financial crisis wasn't only limited to the S&Ls - the commercial banks were hit very hard, particularly those exposed to commercial RE. The S&Ls "headlined" the crisis because so many collapsed outright. The big commercial banks like Citi mostly survived, but had to lick their wounds and rebuild capital.
The 90-91 recession was like a dry run for 2008, a recession linked to financial crisis, resulting in a slower recovery.
This is clearly before my time so your insight would be appreciated. How did Congress and the Fed respond to it? Did the Fed engage in QE or similar measures?
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 01, 2016, 04:38:09 PM
This is clearly before my time so your insight would be appreciated. How did Congress and the Fed respond to it? Did the Fed engage in QE or similar measures?
The Resolution Trust Corporation was created to sell off the assets of failed S&Ls. The remaining S&Ls were turned into plain vanilla banks. I don't remember any special moves by the Fed.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 01, 2016, 04:38:09 PM
This is clearly before my time so your insight would be appreciated. How did Congress and the Fed respond to it? Did the Fed engage in QE or similar measures?
The Fed cut rates sharply but QE was never on the table because rates never got near 0%. This was a very different macro environment - inflation was quite high coming out of the 80s boom compared to present near zero levels (although low compared to the 70s stagflation era). There was no perceived deflation risk as materialized in 2009. But overall the direction of the policy was similar.
The main legislative response was creation of an authority (the RTC) to warehouse the assets of all the collapsed S&Ls. This turned out to be a policy success - the RTC managed the asset portfolio competently and ultimately the net loss to the taxpayer was contained despite the insolvency of so many insured banks. Other legislative changes involved strengthening capital standards and streamlining the alphabet soup of bank regulators.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2016, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 01, 2016, 04:38:09 PM
This is clearly before my time so your insight would be appreciated. How did Congress and the Fed respond to it? Did the Fed engage in QE or similar measures?
The Fed cut rates sharply but QE was never on the table because rates never got near 0%. This was a very different macro environment - inflation was quite high coming out of the 80s boom compared to present near zero levels (although low compared to the 70s stagflation era). There was no perceived deflation risk as materialized in 2009. But overall the direction of the policy was similar.
The main legislative response was creation of an authority (the RTC) to warehouse the assets of all the collapsed S&Ls. This turned out to be a policy success - the RTC managed the asset portfolio competently and ultimately the net loss to the taxpayer was contained despite the insolvency of so many insured banks. Other legislative changes involved strengthening capital standards and streamlining the alphabet soup of bank regulators.
Thanks!
If we entertain the counterfactual that inflation and interest rates had been high in '08, would the GFC have gone differently? Or would the housing bubble not have been able to reach its size in such an environment?
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 02, 2016, 01:51:35 AM
If we entertain the counterfactual that inflation and interest rates had been high in '08, would the GFC have gone differently? Or would the housing bubble not have been able to reach its size in such an environment?
It's hard to answer that counter-factual in the abstract without knowing the reason why inflation was higher. I.e. you would have to suppose a rather different macro environment, and so the answer would vary based on that specification.
With that huge caveat, I'd say:
1) The fact that inflation was relatively low may have contributed to the residential housing bubble to the extent that "money illusion" leads residential buyers to place greater emphasis on low nominal interest rates, as opposed to real.
2) Generally speaking, conventional monetary policy is going to be more effective in a higher inflation environment, because it is easier for the monetary authority to target negative real interest rates with conventional tools.
Obama is teh brillianz. Greatestest Prezidenth evah.
He fixed the health system, healed the racial divide, brought democracy to the middle east, reset the relations with Russia, stopped the proliferation of nuclelar weapons, contained the Ayatollahs, reduced the deficit, improved the economy, raised the standing of the USA in the wold, strengthened our allies, weakened our enemies, consolidated our position as the most powerful military evah, and completed our pacification of Iraq.
Last name Ever, first name Greatest.
Overselling it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2016, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 02, 2016, 01:51:35 AM
If we entertain the counterfactual that inflation and interest rates had been high in '08, would the GFC have gone differently? Or would the housing bubble not have been able to reach its size in such an environment?
It's hard to answer that counter-factual in the abstract without knowing the reason why inflation was higher. I.e. you would have to suppose a rather different macro environment, and so the answer would vary based on that specification.
With that huge caveat, I'd say:
1) The fact that inflation was relatively low may have contributed to the residential housing bubble to the extent that "money illusion" leads residential buyers to place greater emphasis on low nominal interest rates, as opposed to real.
2) Generally speaking, conventional monetary policy is going to be more effective in a higher inflation environment, because it is easier for the monetary authority to target negative real interest rates with conventional tools.
Minsky, can you give me an example of number 2, so I understand how that works in practice?
Quote from: Siege on November 02, 2016, 06:54:54 PM
Minsky, can you give me an example of number 2, so I understand how that works in practice?
Sure.
Say inflation is 5%. Interest rates are 7%. That means real interest rates are 2% (7-2)
If there is a recession the theory is that interest rates are too high to sustain normal economic activity. This is often expressed in terms of Knut Wicksell's theory of a natural interest rate - recessions happen when the actual interest rate is higher than "natural interest rate" - the rate that is needed to bring the economy into equilibrium.
In this example, say the natural real interest rate is 0.5%. Then the Fed just needs to cut interest rates to 5.5%. Easy.
Now take the example of country "J"
In country J there is negative inflation (deflation) of -1.0%. Nominal interest rates are at 0.5%, meaning real interest rates are 1.5% (0.5 - -1.0)
In this example, say the natural real interest rate is 0.5%. So the monetary authority wants to reduce nominal interest rates to -0.5%.
Problem is that conventional monetary policy can't reduce interest rates below zero (people can just hold cash). So some kind of unconventional policy is needed - like QE or putting some kind of a tax on cash.
The closer interest rates (real interest + inflation) is to zero, the harder it is to get conventional monetary policy to work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2016, 02:47:37 PM
My impression might have been colored by the fact I was still in grad school, but it didn't seem to me that outside of cocaine snorting southwestern property developers/speculators and crooked S&L owners, that many people were directly affected.
:huh:
If you read or watched the news at least even a little bit... or lived anywhere but under a rock, you would have had some kind of idea of how bad it was! :P
I was at school at the time as well, post Army/Iraq, even, so it had zero impact on me personally. Still couldn't go a day without hearing something relating to it, though.
He's talking about the S&L crisis in the 90s. :secret:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 03, 2016, 11:52:38 PM
He's talking about the S&L crisis in the 90s. :secret:
It's been a long day :Embarrass: :blush:
Obama's popularity hits near-record high on eve of election
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2016, 02:10:09 PM
History will be kind to his stimulus and unkind to his handling of international
:hmm:
affairs, with exceptions such as the Cuba opening. The Red Line was a disaster and most of his foreign moves have turned out badly.
How history treats Obamacare will depend on whether the previously uninsured young feel happy or angry about being compelled to buy insurance.
Other than that, he sparred with the GOP over the budget.
Hm, Yi basically has captured my opinion precisely.
I'll also add Obama has been a voice of reason in a very unreasonable era. Some of his biggest failings on doing a big domestic policy deal with Boehner came down to his inability to reign Harry Reid's nonsense in.
My view's pretty unchanged over the last eight years. I think he's fulfilled his promise and is going to end up a sort of Reagan of the left.
However I think he has the potential to be a dreadful ex-President which he hopefully avoids.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 07, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
Obama's popularity hits near-record high on eve of election
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897)
Happens often to politicians about to leave. :P
What do we think he'll do next? Lecture circuit? Charity? International organisation? SC Justice? Head of a University? Governor of the Bank of England? Reality porn star?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2016, 06:25:30 AM
My view's pretty unchanged over the last eight years. I think he's fulfilled his promise and is going to end up a sort of Reagan of the left.
In what way? I don't know that there will be any sort of cult of reverence built up around him though if he had any shot, it'd be because he's the only non-tarnished Dem pres in the recent past.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 08, 2016, 06:26:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 07, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
Obama's popularity hits near-record high on eve of election
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897)
Happens often to politicians about to leave. :P
George W. Bush departed office as utterly hated and unpopular.
Quote from: Gups on November 08, 2016, 06:50:12 AM
What do we think he'll do next? Lecture circuit? Charity? International organisation? SC Justice? Head of a University? Governor of the Bank of England? Reality porn star?
Goldman Sachs :contract:
Quote from: Gups on November 08, 2016, 06:50:12 AM
What do we think he'll do next? Lecture circuit? Charity? International organisation? SC Justice? Head of a University? Governor of the Bank of England? Reality porn star?
SC Justice would certainly make a nice bit of vengeance. "Block my appointments will you? How do you like this then? :P "
He can be a reality porn star in his spare time.
See: the career of Louis Brandeis.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2016, 09:23:41 AM
See: the career of Louis Brandeis.
I was unaware of his amateur porn career.
;)
Absolute filth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2016, 09:28:18 AM
Absolute filth.
I looked into it, and it wasn't so bad. After all, no matter how hot the action, he always wore his "'Brandeis Briefs".
;)
Quote from: Gups on November 08, 2016, 06:50:12 AM
What do we think he'll do next? Lecture circuit? Charity? International organisation? SC Justice? Head of a University? Governor of the Bank of England? Reality porn star?
The man's an academic at heart, so I'm going with the University route. At least for a while. NICE AND QUIET.