Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lockmat

U.S. Economic Crisis - All Things Related

Recommended Posts

In each of the situations you describe, a trigger during a period of high tension set off the riots. The LA riots started spontaneously. The others were triggered during protests. I would not expect a Rodney King style explosion, but if the efforts of the government fail miserably, plunging the country into even deeper recession, it is certainly possible that certain groups may feel the need to express their frustration through protest. Once a protest begins, a simple mistake by authorities can cause it to explode into riot, especially in a protest like these might be, where no central group is trying to show that they can protest peacefully, as evidenced by the civil rights marches, or more recently, the marches by hispanics in support of rights for illegal aliens.

Predicting riots is certainly a crapshoot at best. For one, conditions would have to deteriorate rapidly and drastically to a point that many people are destitute. Even the massive 3 million jobs lost so far is only 1% of the population and 2% of the workforce. But, it certainly could happen if the right conditions form, followed by the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In each of the situations you describe, a trigger during a period of high tension set off the riots. The LA riots started spontaneously. The others were triggered during protests. I would not expect a Rodney King style explosion, but if the efforts of the government fail miserably, plunging the country into even deeper recession, it is certainly possible that certain groups may feel the need to express their frustration through protest. Once a protest begins, a simple mistake by authorities can cause it to explode into riot, especially in a protest like these might be, where no central group is trying to show that they can protest peacefully, as evidenced by the civil rights marches, or more recently, the marches by hispanics in support of rights for illegal aliens.

Yep, that's pretty much what I just said.

Predicting riots is certainly a crapshoot at best. For one, conditions would have to deteriorate rapidly and drastically to a point that many people are destitute. Even the massive 3 million jobs lost so far is only 1% of the population and 2% of the workforce. But, it certainly could happen if the right conditions form, followed by the trigger.

Americans don't have a clue what real poverty is anymore. We're working from an entirely different set of expectations from that of our grandparents. I concur that things will have to continue getting worse in real terms, and I think that that is entirely plausible; I do not think that conditions need to get as bad as they were in the 1930's to set the condition for civil unrest.

Also, I doubt that we're looking at copycat riots in every major American city, all occurring at once. Certain parts of the country are more primed for riots than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Americans don't have a clue what real poverty is anymore. We're working from an entirely different set of expectations from that of our grandparents.

I agree. Our standard of living is so high, it's insane. Food, shelter and clothing. Anything above that is a blessing above and beyond.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, that's pretty much what I just said.

Yeah, you always repost what I say in different language, so I thought I'd try it out on one of your posts. I can see the attraction. It is much easier to write a post this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find the Stimulus debate thread, so I'll post here. I was watching the debate today. Wow. Are Republicans politicians the stupidest people in the world, or are they just being obstructionist? One guy said the stimulus package is just big government spending...umm...yeah, that's what you do when the country has been in recession over a year, we lose 600,000 jobs last month, 1.8 million in the last 3 months, and 3.6 million since December 2007. You use your big government for what it does best...spending.

And the tax cut argument is just GOP pandering. Studies show that every dollar in tax cuts produces just $1.02 in increased spending. Every dollar spent on infrastructure produces $1.59 in spending. So what are the Republicans pushing? You guessed it.

I'm not a big fan of single party rule. The 8 year reign of terror that just ended is exhibit #1. But, if the GOP is going to sct like their policies did not contribute to the worst economic and financial meltdown this country has seen in 70 years...and worse, suggest more of the same as a solution to our problems...then we'll be looking at Democratic one party rule for a LONG time. And that's not good, either. I think some of these politicians haven't quite decided that this is a real economic crisis yet. Or, maybe they want to drive it deeper, then claim the Dems did it. Either way, I do not see them acting with our best interests in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't find the Stimulus debate thread, so I'll post here. I was watching the debate today. Wow. Are Republicans politicians the stupidest people in the world, or are they just being obstructionist? One guy said the stimulus package is just big government spending...umm...yeah, that's what you do when the country has been in recession over a year, we lose 600,000 jobs last month, 1.8 million in the last 3 months, and 3.6 million since December 2007. You use your big government for what it does best...spending.

. . .

Republicans are neither stupid nor just run of the mill obstructionists . . . well, no more than the Dems were between 2000-2008. After all this huge load of crap stimulus plan began with President Bush and his cabinet, Obama and the Dems just want to expand it more.

It's a simple political move that the GOPers are looking like they'll win. Public opinion is moving away from the Dems on this issue every day, and the Dems desperately want some GOP support in the event this huge stimulus pile of crap fails as it very well may.

If the GOP rides along and it fails, then the Dems can claim bipartisanship - equal failure. If the GOP goes along and the stimulus succeeds, the Dems will claim credit and ride into the next election with more wind behind their sails. Opposing it and pointing out the obvious flaws of governement waste, inflation and pork are enough to align their position with the majority of Americans who despise waste and want lower taxes. It's the only angle where the GOP comes out ahead.

That's how it works, it's just business as usual. You see there's no real Change or Hope as advertised, there's just a typical power grab and the upcoming abuse of power to follow (which has already kick started with all those unpatriotic Dems that haven't paid their taxes). Hope and Change haven't worked in here in Obama's Illinois since 2002 when it made it's debut, and it's only gotten worse.

Besides, if anyone's actually depending on any of those dolts in suits that reside in DC to be smart enough to fix anything as large as the US economy, that's pretty naive. Neither the Dems nor the GOPers care about anything more than power.

Edited by Bombero451

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans are neither stupid nor just run of the mill obstructionists . . .

That's how it works, it's just business as usual.

If you wanted me to believe your first statement, you probably should not have debunked it with your second statement. I agree with you that the GOP is just being obstructionist. I also just got off the BLS website, where the U-6 report shows 13.9% of the US workforce is either unemployed or underemployed. That is 1 out of every 7 workers that cannot find a full-time job.

By the way, government waste and pork spending during a recession is not a bad thing. Read your economics book. But, I really did not post in hopes of a "Did so! Did not!" debate. I was looking to see if there was a logical and well grounded reason for the GOP's actions. Your statement that it is business as usual makes clear that your answer would be "No."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted me to believe your first statement, you probably should not have debunked it with your second statement. I agree with you that the GOP is just being obstructionist. I also just got off the BLS website, where the U-6 report shows 13.9% of the US workforce is either unemployed or underemployed. That is 1 out of every 7 workers that cannot find a full-time job.

Thanks for putting those numbers up--I had intended to link to the report today and got distracted. The U-6 number is IMO where the story is and a lot of people have been pissed a long time that it doesn't get more play. I read in a blog I follow that the WSJ actually reported U6 today, a rather big move for them, tantamount to acknowledging that stat does, in fact, matter.

1 in 7 people don't work full time. Ironically, the Dow does well on the news that WalMart sales increase 2% (was it month over month?). The market continues to reward business models that are based on low wages and part timers, despite the overall deflationary effect on the economy. Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first found the U-6 several years ago while reading someone post how much better the US economy was than France. It turns out the the standard US definition for employment is if one works one hour per week for the previous 4 weeks. One hour! That is beyond comical, and is just one example of the US obsession with looking good over actually being good. France, by way of comparison, considers a person unemployed if they work less than 80 hours in 4 weeks.

I'm reading that the market was not so much concerned about Walmart making a killing off of the recession as optimism that a stimulus bill agreement would be reached today. Watching CNBC, there seems to be a growing disconnect between the market and GOP voters. Used to be the GOP took care of business, and GOP voters applauded it. These days, it appears the GOP politicians are playing to the base with proposals that screw business. Interesting watching it play out, especially watching the "free markets uber alles" CNBC pundits cheering for more government help.

EDIT: Oh, and the 2% is year over year same store sales.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you always repost what I say in different language, so I thought I'd try it out on one of your posts. I can see the attraction. It is much easier to write a post this way.

I do sometimes come to the same conclusion by different means, however I do not tend to engage in parrot-like repetition. If you believe otherwise, please provide an example to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't find the Stimulus debate thread, so I'll post here. I was watching the debate today. Wow. Are Republicans politicians the stupidest people in the world, or are they just being obstructionist? One guy said the stimulus package is just big government spending...umm...yeah, that's what you do when the country has been in recession over a year, we lose 600,000 jobs last month, 1.8 million in the last 3 months, and 3.6 million since December 2007. You use your big government for what it does best...spending.

And the tax cut argument is just GOP pandering. Studies show that every dollar in tax cuts produces just $1.02 in increased spending. Every dollar spent on infrastructure produces $1.59 in spending. So what are the Republicans pushing? You guessed it.

Yes, I don't doubt that the party line is flawed. It is a chronic condition of political parties. But if you're citing "studies", please cite which ones they are. Studies are worthless unless you're familiar with their methodology...and then (as applied to politics) they typically become even more worthless.

Either way, I do not see them acting with our best interests in mind.

I agree with that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, government waste and pork spending during a recession is not a bad thing. Read your economics book. But, I really did not post in hopes of a "Did so! Did not!" debate. I was looking to see if there was a logical and well grounded reason for the GOP's actions. Your statement that it is business as usual makes clear that your answer would be "No."

Waste is always a bad thing. It's part of the definition.

It is possible to implement Keynesian economic public policy and not do so willy nilly without regard to the costs and benefits of any particular project. It is not as though there is a shortage of projects, after all, just that there is a rhetorical shortage of time before some kind of undefined disaster occurs which need not be defined because such definition might derail wasteful pork rather than guide spending towards projects which not only inject cash into the economy but also prove useful in the long term.

You should really take your own advice and read an economics book. As one whose degree is in economics, I would suggest one that is oriented towards international monetary economics...if you can manage it.

Really, the "stimulus" is unnecessary in its entirety. It's just a matter of modifying how government spending is financed. We shouldn't be borrowing as much and taxation cannot occur in the short term; therefore we must print money. It counters deflation, acts to recapitalize financial institutions without rewarding the ownership thereof, and increases economic activity among all sectors within the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for putting those numbers up--I had intended to link to the report today and got distracted. The U-6 number is IMO where the story is and a lot of people have been pissed a long time that it doesn't get more play. I read in a blog I follow that the WSJ actually reported U6 today, a rather big move for them, tantamount to acknowledging that stat does, in fact, matter.

1 in 7 people don't work full time. Ironically, the Dow does well on the news that WalMart sales increase 2% (was it month over month?). The market continues to reward business models that are based on low wages and part timers, despite the overall deflationary effect on the economy. Crazy.

It's an open secret that US economic statistics definitions have been manipulated over time to look better - particularly inflation and unemployment. I posted this earlier, but under the same definition that was used until the 1980s US unemployment would have exceeded 10% since last summer.

Americans have a mild form of Stockholm Syndrome. There will be no riots.

Classic! :lol: True though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Americans have a mild form of Stockholm Syndrome. There will be no riots.

I had to Wiki that term. I knew I'd heard of it before, but never knew the exact meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, government waste and pork spending during a recession is not a bad thing. Read your economics book. But, I really did not post in hopes of a "Did so! Did not!" debate. I was looking to see if there was a logical and well grounded reason for the GOP's actions. Your statement that it is business as usual makes clear that your answer would be "No."

I couldn't care less what you agree with or not. I don't need to re-read my old economics books because you're talking about political moves not economic ones. Politics is a game of "how long can we stay in power", that's it. So the answer to your question is indeed "no".

Did you ask why the Dems were obstructing the the GOP congress up until 2006 or the president up until 2008? Probably not. Washington is loaded with mediocre talent trying to figure out an intelligent solution to an huge problem. From the DC leaders all we hear is that we're doomed, that this bill must pass or we'll fall off a cliff. Shovel ready projects are needed tight now . . . yeah right.

All the shovel ready projects are bull crap wrapped in wet toilet paper. There are no shovel ready projects in this plan that will address the unemployment issue for a couple or three years out. We'll have recovered by then. We've seen 10%+ unemployement before and a huge spending program for unions or temporary work projects won't help.

Both parties need to scrap their typical BS and give us a plan that is 50% perminent tax cuts (not rebates) for corporations and citiznes and 50% spending for actual work projects like the smart grid idea that employs existing construction companies. We don't need another failed WPA or an eventual TARP III to follow Bush's crappy Tarp I and this even crappier Tarp II. We did it in teh 30's and Japan did it in the '90's and look how well it worked.

IMHO, Obama could've worked with the GOP to get something truly bi-partisan done, that would've been real change. Instead, my ex-senator left all the heavy lifting to write the bill to Nancy Pelosi. Dumb mistake, and I'm sure it won't be his last. Obama needs to remember he's the president and he won the election on his ideas, not Nancy's. Weclome to the big leagues BO.

B)

Edited by Bombero451

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

recovery.gov

I'm glad that they're trying to be transparent, but what good will it really do? The scrutiny should have come before, not so much after the money is spent. We'll be able to keep our elected officials accountable, but it really doesn't mean anything after the trillion dollars is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the stimulus, I love the new HAIF ads I'm seeing, complete with pictures of Obama.

"Get your stimulus check!"

"Obama gave me $12,000!!"

I didn't know that's how it was going to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must every Democrat speaking of the current economy and stimulus begin their speech and comments with the fact that they inherited the worst economy since the great depression?

Does anyone else get the feeling that they're trying to paint the worst picture possible so in case they don't succeed they won't get any blame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must every Democrat speaking of the current economy and stimulus begin their speech and comments with the fact that they inherited the worst economy since the great depression?

Does anyone else get the feeling that they're trying to paint the worst picture possible so in case they don't succeed they won't get any blame?

That's precisely what they're trying to do. It's very obviously a coordinated effort on the part of the DNC, just like how they've done this previously with the "in a bipartisan way" phrase.

Americans respond very well to apology on the part of their public officials, and I think that one is in order. I'd like to see just one Democrat legislator come forward and apologize to the American people on behalf of the whole government for systematically ____ing up the economy in a bipartisan way over about the last 15 years. Whoever did that would get a lot of press and would appear to be at least taking responsibility for the errors that have been committed.

As it is, one of the places where I most ardently criticize the Democrats right now is that they are unwilling to take responsibility for anything that ever has, is, or will occur. And along a similar strand, they also are not projecting an image of control or stability. Not only is it going to hurt them politically as the inheritance rhetoric wears thing, but it is hurting the economy because investors don't know how to make heads or tails of them. Friday's snafu with Sen. Dodd suggesting that the nationalization of financial institutions was on the table didn't help, and continued discussion of how to place a higher tax burden on those making more than $250,000 per year or about whether to raise the current capital gains tax rates is making investors nervous...probably much more than they actually should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of being picky, but Robert Gibbs saying over and over that the prsident is and will have to make "very difficult" decisions is kind of getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must every Democrat speaking of the current economy and stimulus begin their speech and comments with the fact that they inherited the worst economy since the great depression?

Does anyone else get the feeling that they're trying to paint the worst picture possible so in case they don't succeed they won't get any blame?

...but that's a true statement... do you have a problem with the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's precisely what they're trying to do. It's very obviously a coordinated effort on the part of the DNC, just like how they've done this previously with the "in a bipartisan way" phrase.

Americans respond very well to apology on the part of their public officials, and I think that one is in order. I'd like to see just one Democrat legislator come forward and apologize to the American people on behalf of the whole government for systematically ____ing up the economy in a bipartisan way over about the last 15 years. Whoever did that would get a lot of press and would appear to be at least taking responsibility for the errors that have been committed.

As it is, one of the places where I most ardently criticize the Democrats right now is that they are unwilling to take responsibility for anything that ever has, is, or will occur. And along a similar strand, they also are not projecting an image of control or stability. Not only is it going to hurt them politically as the inheritance rhetoric wears thing, but it is hurting the economy because investors don't know how to make heads or tails of them. Friday's snafu with Sen. Dodd suggesting that the nationalization of financial institutions was on the table didn't help, and continued discussion of how to place a higher tax burden on those making more than $250,000 per year or about whether to raise the current capital gains tax rates is making investors nervous...probably much more than they actually should be.

Interesting, considering that the GOP controlled the Congress for every one of those 15 years, except the last 2, and controlled the White House for 8 of those 15 years. Not that the Dems wouldn't have screwed things up had they been in control, and not that some Dems (Clinton, Dodd and Frank, to name a few) were not complicit with the GOP in screwing things up, but frankly, the party in power gets the blame, and over the last 15 years that would be the GOP.

What would probably be even more impressive would be for the American people to admit that their unbridled greed caused the problem, but I don't expect to see that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, considering that the GOP controlled the Congress for every one of those 15 years, except the last 2, and controlled the White House for 8 of those 15 years. Not that the Dems wouldn't have screwed things up had they been in control, and not that some Dems (Clinton, Dodd and Frank, to name a few) were not complicit with the GOP in screwing things up, but frankly, the party in power gets the blame, and over the last 15 years that would be the GOP.

That's what I'm saying, right there in bold. The government and each of the respective parties made egregious errors either by making policy with adverse consequences, by not blocking policy with adverse consequences, or very simply by doing nothing, whether they chose to do nothing out of ignorance or because it was a smart short-term political calculation.

There's plenty of blame to go around. I just want to see a Democrat come forward because it'd show a lot of character for an individual who is currently empowered in the context of a monolithic Party to break ranks and be honest with their constituents. I'm pretty sure that sooner or later (if they haven't already) various Republicans are going to say this and much more because they're going to need to be perceived as honest to a diverse array of constituencies that don't presently like or trust them, or especially their party.

As far as popular opinion is concerned, though, you're right. The GOP gets the blame for now. But the "we inherited it" excuse will only work for so long. I'm not sure that it'll last for another two years if the economy doesn't improve or if it actuallygets worse even after having spent trillions of Dollars on false stimulus; and Democrats won't be running a popular national candidate that time around. Americans are fickle like that.

What would probably be even more impressive would be for the American people to admit that their unbridled greed caused the problem, but I don't expect to see that either.

Whose responsibility was it to manufacture the bridle?

Greed is like the constant and forceful flow of a river. For as long as there is rain, the river will flow. There will be times of flood and times of drought; the river will shift course by dozens or even by a hundred miles or more as it matures. The entire landscape could convert to desert, yet there would be water flowing just inches beneath the surface of the ground. It manifests itself fully and inescapably in any kind of habitable environment. It is the natural state. Any attempt to impound the river so as to stop it is a fantasy; whether the river flows around it or through it, the dam will not hold. To reshape a river, the river must be permitted to flow. Competently executed, the flow of the river is not only safely regulated but is productive, lighting a world that might otherwise have been regularly inundated. Improperly done, and the dam will burst, mercilessly annihilating those it was meant to serve as a torrent of water struggles to find its equilibrium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but that's a true statement... do you have a problem with the truth?

It's absolutely the truth, but what's the point of looking to the past? How would we react for instance if every Houston Texans representative/player every time they spoke reminded us that they were just an expansion team just five or six years ago. Nobody really cares, they just want results. The Obama people have said that in pretty much every speech, introduction and interview for the past month and a half. Move on already, give the market and the people of this nation some hope and results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's absolutely the truth, but what's the point of looking to the past? How would we react for instance if every Houston Texans representative/player every time they spoke reminded us that they were just an expansion team just five or six years ago. Nobody really cares, they just want results. The Obama people have said that in pretty much every speech, introduction and interview for the past month and a half. Move on already, give the market and the people of this nation some hope and results.

At least it is a technically true statement, and it is only February. Remember that Bush claimed that he inherited a recession, even though the recession did not begin until March of 2001, 2 months after he began his presidency. He claimed that for his entire 8 years in office.

Interestingly, strong majorities appear to appreciate Obama's attempts at bi-partisanship, and blame Republicans for being obstructionist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29358401/

And, I agree with Niche that "we inherited it" will only work for so long if results do not follow.

WHOA! Ari Fleischer just said on Larry King that Bush inherited a recession! So, here we are 8 years later and they're still saying it. Does not bode well for hoping the Dems stop saying it soon.

DOUBLE WHOA! He just said that the tax cuts ended the 2001 recession and kept it shallow! But, the tax cuts didn't take effect until after the recession ended! Gotta love that revisionist history, Ari. ;)

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least it is a technically true statement, and it is only February. Remember that Bush claimed that he inherited a recession, even though the recession did not begin until March of 2001, 2 months after he began his presidency. He claimed that for his entire 8 years in office.

Interestingly, strong majorities appear to appreciate Obama's attempts at bi-partisanship, and blame Republicans for being obstructionist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29358401/

And, I agree with Niche that "we inherited it" will only work for so long if results do not follow.

WHOA! Ari Fleischer just said on Larry King that Bush inherited a recession! So, here we are 8 years later and they're still saying it. Does not bode well for hoping the Dems stop saying it soon.

DOUBLE WHOA! He just said that the tax cuts ended the 2001 recession and kept it shallow! But, the tax cuts didn't take effect until after the recession ended! Gotta love that revisionist history, Ari. ;)

In all fairness, the causes of economic growth or contraction can be set in motion many years prior to it actually occurring. A Democrat arguing that Obama inherited an economic recession caused by one Bush could be countered by a Republican arguing that Clinton inherited an economic expansion caused by another Bush. And there is enough history to draw from that it really doesn't matter which way anybody is arguing, there is an effective counterpoint.

In further fairness, tax cuts written into law today get written into business plans tomorrow, benefiting a proposed new firm that would become operational next year, and it does incite new business activity (in the short run). I know its not cool to point this out, but government spending and investing crowds out private spending and investment; it wouldn't be so bad if the government was better at spending, but its track record just sucks. The big caveat of course is that if the government only cuts taxes and does not cut its spending, then it sucks up money from the global economy taken in as debt which otherwise would've gone to private investment. Only, it takes a good long while for the effects to be observed. There's no such thing as a free lunch, that's the bottom line.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both points are fair to make, but Ari wasn't being fair, as both of his statements were outright lies. It would be fair to argue that the recovery of 2002 and beyond was made stronger by the tax cuts enacted in the summer of 2001, but not to say that they cured the recession that ended in 2001. Even the $300 tax refund checks that Bush gave out did not begin arriving until the recession had ended. And, as you and I have both said on occasion, the economy does not react quick enough to stimuli for Ari to claim that credit. In fact, isn't part of the GOP argument against this stimulus package that it won't help until too late?

But, really, the point here is that lockmat is being a bit quick on the draw, complaining that Democrats use the "inherited the recession" statement in mid-February, when the GOP is still using a (false) statement of "inheriting the recession" as recently as tonight, 8 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both points are fair to make, but Ari wasn't being fair, as both of his statements were outright lies. It would be fair to argue that the recovery of 2002 and beyond was made stronger by the tax cuts enacted in the summer of 2001, but not to say that they cured the recession that ended in 2001. Even the $300 tax refund checks that Bush gave out did not begin arriving until the recession had ended. And, as you and I have both said on occasion, the economy does not react quick enough to stimuli for Ari to claim that credit. In fact, isn't part of the GOP argument against this stimulus package that it won't help until too late?

I would say that a claim on Ari's part that tax cuts were the one single silver bullet that ended it would be disingenuous, however tax cuts signed into law today make every single investment prospectus with a time horizon beyond one year look more attractive to investors. There is legitimate reason to believe that they played some part in the recovery.

I think that there may be some confusion over what I've said because there are very different considerations for the long-term and short-term consequences of various policy. In the long run there's no free lunch. In the short run it is possible to temporarily stimulate the economy...it's just that the policies enacted to that end have to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to figure out which ones are worthy candidates and which ones are bogus. And this is aside from whether the projects actually perform well when subjected to cost-benefit analysis--I'm just talking about projects that increase the velocity of money. Applied to specific provisions of the stimulus, Republicans had good cause for objection on the grounds that the stimulating effect wouldn't be quick enough. In other cases, not so much. I'm not sure whether to blame Republicans for not being clear, Democrats for a humongous bill that was basically impossible to clearly or concisely explain, or the short attention spans of people that consume political news...probably the latter.

But, really, the point here is that lockmat is being a bit quick on the draw, complaining that Democrats use the "inherited the recession" statement in mid-February, when the GOP is still using a (false) statement of "inheriting the recession" as recently as tonight, 8 years later.

I didn't see the interview, so I might be making assumptions out of context, but had it occurred to you that Ari might just be trying to counter the Democrats' newest catch phrase? Maybe he wasn't arguing his point very convincingly, but I'd think that he'd mention circumstances of history that were beyond his control for a reason like that rather than just randomly.

Btw, it is not necessarily a false claim, as I explained in a previous post, but it is very uncertain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't see the interview, so I might be making assumptions out of context, but had it occurred to you that Ari might just be trying to counter the Democrats' newest catch phrase? Maybe he wasn't arguing his point very convincingly, but I'd think that he'd mention circumstances of history that were beyond his control for a reason like that rather than just randomly.

Btw, it is not necessarily a false claim, as I explained in a previous post, but it is very uncertain.

It was kind of convoluted, but it had nothing to do with the Dems new favorite buzzphrase. Bob Woodward had made a comment about Bush inheriting a surplus and his tax cuts turning it into a deficit, and that those tax cuts are still in effect, making bigger deficits. His point was that at some point we'll have to raise taxes lessen these deficits. Ari, in defense of Bush's tax cuts, trotted out that Bush inherited a recession (lie. It started in 2nd quarter 2001), and that the tax cuts cured it (99% lie. The cuts were not even passed and signed into law until the recession was over. I'll give you the 1% possibility.) There was no discussion of the new buzzphrase. It was about the size of the deficits, and when Woodward blamed the tax cuts, Ari defended them by making up facts. The cuts are defensible, just not the way he did it.

EDIT: I should probably point out that this is not a new argument. Bush has been pushing that 2000 recession argument forever. Ari just repeated it.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was kind of convoluted, but it had nothing to do with the Dems new favorite buzzphrase. Bob Woodward had made a comment about Bush inheriting a surplus and his tax cuts turning it into a deficit, and that those tax cuts are still in effect, making bigger deficits. His point was that at some point we'll have to raise taxes lessen these deficits. Ari, in defense of Bush's tax cuts, trotted out that Bush inherited a recession (lie. It started in 2nd quarter 2001), and that the tax cuts cured it (99% lie. The cuts were not even passed and signed into law until the recession was over. I'll give you the 1% possibility.) There was no discussion of the new buzzphrase. It was about the size of the deficits, and when Woodward blamed the tax cuts, Ari defended them by making up facts. The cuts are defensible, just not the way he did it.

EDIT: I should probably point out that this is not a new argument. Bush has been pushing that 2000 recession argument forever. Ari just repeated it.

Something about your claim seemed wrong, and so I checked. It is wrong. Look at this data. A recession never happened; we never had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Growth during the quarters immediately before and after GDP losses even completely made up for the losses. And quarters with GDP losses were about evenly divided between Democrat and Republican presidencies (if that's something that matters).

Q1 2000 - 1.0% (D)

Q2 2000 - 6.4% (D)

Q3 2000 - -0.5% (D)

Q4 2000 - 2.1% (D)

Q1 2001 - -0.5% (D-->R)

Q2 2001 - 1.2% ®

Q3 2001 - -1.4% ®

Q4 2001 - 1.6% ®

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so now Al Sharpton is trying to turn the stimulus bill into a racial issue ??? This media hound just PROVED how dumb he really is, as he apparently thinks that Obama wrote the stimulus bill ?

http://www.news24online.com/ViewDetails.aspx?NewsID=16289

Rangel does this all the time, and the Post's editor-in-chief called him out for what he is: a publicity opportunist. I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that he's dumb, but that he's pulled this kind of crap for so many years and continually gotten reelected doesn't reflect well on his constituents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something about your claim seemed wrong, and so I checked. It is wrong. Look at this data. A recession never happened; we never had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Growth during the quarters immediately before and after GDP losses even completely made up for the losses. And quarters with GDP losses were about evenly divided between Democrat and Republican presidencies (if that's something that matters).

Q1 2000 - 1.0% (D)

Q2 2000 - 6.4% (D)

Q3 2000 - -0.5% (D)

Q4 2000 - 2.1% (D)

Q1 2001 - -0.5% (D-->R)

Q2 2001 - 1.2%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recessions aren't "officially" defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth, although that is a common misperception. From the National Bureau of Economic Research, the folks that make the call:

It's a non-profit with a nose for publicity that makes somewhat arbitrary conclusions and puts them out there as though they're the word of God. Not once in any of my economics classes or textbooks was a recession ever defined according to NBER conclusions; in fact, GDP was the sole consideration. Other factors are peripheral or only symptomatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a non-profit with a nose for publicity that makes somewhat arbitrary conclusions and puts them out there as though they're the word of God. Not once in any of my economics classes or textbooks was a recession ever defined according to NBER conclusions; in fact, GDP was the sole consideration. Other factors are peripheral or only symptomatic.

Oh, well that settles that. Talk about arbitrary conclusions! :lol: How dare they contradict your schoolbooks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, well that settles that. Talk about arbitrary conclusions! :lol: How dare they contradict your schoolbooks!

GDP is the important one. Period. It is output.

The NBER's consideration for other factors (like employment) reflects a normative approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something about your claim seemed wrong, and so I checked. It is wrong. Look at this data. A recession never happened; we never had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Growth during the quarters immediately before and after GDP losses even completely made up for the losses. And quarters with GDP losses were about evenly divided between Democrat and Republican presidencies (if that's something that matters).

Q1 2000 - 1.0% (D)

Q2 2000 - 6.4% (D)

Q3 2000 - -0.5% (D)

Q4 2000 - 2.1% (D)

Q1 2001 - -0.5% (D-->R)

Q2 2001 - 1.2%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see legislature's upcoming education budgets for public schools...

Meanwhile, private schools' endowments are shrinking and faculty, operating expenses, and tuition costs are taking a major hit:

Rice University: Will cut next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then Ari lied about THAT too. He can't inherit a recession if one never occurred, can he? I find it interesting that in arguments past you would lecture us about how a recession is defined and who the arbiter is on recessions, but today the NBER is a publicity hound, but the facts remain that either Ari lied because the NBER said the recession ran from March to November 2001, OR he lied because no recession ever occurred...according to you.

I think you should take this up with the NBER and Ari, personally.

Claiming that Ari lied infers malicious or deceitful intent. Perhaps he was only mistaken. He is a press secretary after all, not an economist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be interesting to see legislature's upcoming education budgets for public schools...

Meanwhile, private schools' endowments are shrinking and faculty, operating expenses, and tuition costs are taking a major hit:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6288904.html

I'm a little surprised to see this. I was under the impression that colleges didn't do as badly in recessions because more people were apt to delay entering the job market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today at 11:15am, Biden will be addressing the stimulus that will be given to Amtrak. It'll be on KTRH2 online and I'm sure on cspan somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today at 11:15am, Biden will be addressing the stimulus that will be given to Amtrak. It'll be on KTRH2 online and I'm sure on cspan somewhere.

So what came of it? Amtrak is really a niche product in the NE it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what came of it? Amtrak is really a niche product in the NE it seems.

I have no idea. I'll have to search for news reports since KTRH2 was playing their normal stream so I did not get to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, here are some high/lowlights:

"Every, every, every, every passenger rail service system in the world relies on subsidies. We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak," he said at Union Station this morning. "So let's get something straight here: Amtrak is not bent at the trough. Amtrak has been left out. ... I'm tired of apologizing for help for Amtrak."

One of the projects in the stimulus plan is a $21 million renovation of that station, and another $105 million will be spent on renovating Amtrak facilities nationwide. Also included: $82 million to fix damaged rail cars, $63 million to upgrade the electricity pathways, and $10.5 million for a new station in Sanford, Fla. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla) was among those on hand thanking the veep for his role in securing the funds.

"If you have any problems in the stimulus, call the po-po. That's Joe Biden!" she said, declaring the group part of "Team Amtrak."

So comfortable with the group was Biden that he was heard using the f-word a little too close to the open mic as he greeted them. Of course, his predecessor was caught doing the same, but in a more negative context.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_...praises_ra.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...