The Experts Agree: The Recession is Over.

[amrchaos]

I have nothing backward.

You print up a bunch of money, with no corresponding increase in production and/or value, and you inflate the currency. You also inflate price bubbles, like what's currently happening in the oil, gold and silver markets.

The run-up in those prices in advance was merely a flight to safety.

The oil went up in part becuase the value of the dollar deflated against other world currencies.
But speculation had drive it up to near $80 before the $ decline came into play.

You know, both of you guys are right just that you are stomping over what you are referring to.

Prices inflated due to the deflation in the value of the dollar which was caused by the inflation of the money supply which is due to the total deflation in the amount of interest charged on the money by the Feds.

See how confusing that was? I wonder did I make a mistake? I think I did

 

[Oddball]

Gee...and why is it you think that the USD became devalued and how does that jive with the run-up in the prices of metals?

 

[Vast LWC]

So, you will also agree with me that one of the very few people who actually took the economists' warnings seriously and tried to bring in measures that would actually have put the US in a much stronger economic position was a certain George W Bush?

Because that's a fact. Bush did listen. He did try to bring in legislation that would have been hugely beneficial to our economy. And, the democrats stopped it. God knows, I am no fan of Bush but, credit where it is due, he tried to stop the worst of it and congress stopped him.

Would it be too much to ask from our politicians that they do what is best for the country and not what is best for themselves. It doesn't actually make a lot of difference what party is in power - both are shit.

I assume that you're talking about the failed legislation to control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005?

The one that Republicans failed to get through even though they held majorities in both houses of Congress as well as the presidency?

I agree, this probably would have helped the situation a bit, but it would have been too little, too late. It was a remedial measure against only the government-run portions of the industry which actually held only 25% of the mortgages that were in trouble.

A better point to head off the crises would have been in 2000 when congress passed legislation to make this kind of derivative trading legal again after 70 years of being illegal.

You know, the same legislation that left the "Enron Loophole"?

The problem wasn't any particular politician or group of politicians. The problem was a general "Hands Off" philosophy that created policy towards industry that allowed all kinds of bad shit to go down.

That philosophy has been going strong for the past 30 years, ever since it became popularized by the Reagan campaign in 1980, but again, I am not blaming Reagan in particular, he was just the start of it.

And the last time that philosophy ruled the markets to the extent that it did in this decade was in the 1920's, and we all know how that ended. In addition, the last time we had Capital Gains taxes below 20% was also in the 20's, when it was 12.5%. The parallels are actually pretty solid between the decade of the the 20's and the 2000's.

Regulation needs to happen, period. And when it does, it needs to be across-the-board regulation, not just one party picking on the pet industry of the other party.

What the Republicans tried to do in 2005, for example, was to regulate the government-supported (Fannie and Freddie) portions of the industry ONLY, when it should have been extending the oversight it was proposing to the entire industry. But God forbid Republicans should say anything about oversight of private industry.

 

[Annie]

The Experts Agree: The Recession is Over.

The "Experts" also agreed that the stimulus was a good idea.

If the Stimulus works then It was a good idea

If it does not, then it was a bad idea

See how it works??

Don't you think the push for a jobs bill, is an implicit acknowledgment that the 'stimulus' failed?

Billions of more to be thrown into the abyss.

 

[Vast LWC]

Don't you think the push for a jobs bill, is an implicit acknowledgment that the 'stimulus' failed?

Billions of more to be thrown into the abyss.

Since all the top minds seem to be under the impression that things are in fact improving and we are recovering, it would seem "the abyss" has been filled, no? And therefore additional action would actually have visible results.

 

[Annie]

Don't you think the push for a jobs bill, is an implicit acknowledgment that the 'stimulus' failed?

Billions of more to be thrown into the abyss.

Since all the top minds seem to be under the impression that things are in fact improving and we are recovering, it would seem "the abyss" has been filled, no? And therefore additional action would actually have visible results.

You do realize that made even less sense than what has gone before?

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's what I don't understand...

I think just about every right-winger on these boards is a fan of Ronald Reagan. I believe that just about all of them would agree that he was an excellent President and was good for the economy.

But Reagan took 2 1/2 years to bring us out of a recession and stop his period of fast-rising unemployment.

Now Obama has had 10 months to get out of an arguably deeper economic hole, and you're all complaining that it's not happening fast enough.

Do you not all see the inconsistency in that?

 

[Vast LWC]

You do realize that made even less sense than what has gone before?

If one assumes the "abyss" to be the giant economic hole that was left by the previous administration and congresses, then it makes plenty of sense.

 

[Annie]

Here's what I don't understand...

I think just about every right-winger on these boards is a fan of Ronald Reagan. I believe that just about all of them would agree that he was an excellent President and was good for the economy.

But Reagan took 2 1/2 years to bring us out of a recession and stop his period of fast-rising unemployment.

Now Obama has had 10 months to get out of an arguably deeper economic hole, and you're all complaining that it's not happening fast enough.

Do you not all see the inconsistency in that?

He's nearly burned a year. He has 3 to go. What happens next year? We'll see. Truth is, even the left is attacking his foreign policies, including some heavy weights on the left.

 

[saveliberty]

Here's what I don't understand...

I think just about every right-winger on these boards is a fan of Ronald Reagan. I believe that just about all of them would agree that he was an excellent President and was good for the economy.

But Reagan took 2 1/2 years to bring us out of a recession and stop his period of fast-rising unemployment.

Now Obama has had 10 months to get out of an arguably deeper economic hole, and you're all complaining that it's not happening fast enough.

Do you not all see the inconsistency in that?

Federal Spending & Budget Issues
February 11, 2009

REAGANOMICS VS. OBAMANOMICS
President Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology. The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components, says Peter Ferrara, director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation.

The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work. The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants.

Third was the control of government spending:

In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5 percent of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today.
In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4 percent from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8 percent from 1981 to 1983.
Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms.
By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4 percent from its 1981 level in constant dollars.
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2 percent of gross domestic policy in 1989 from 23.5 percent of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10 percent in the size of government relative to the economy, says Ferrara.

The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2 percent in 1982 from 13.2 percent in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2 percent in 1983.

We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty, says Ferrara.

REAGANOMICS VS. OBAMANOMICS

Short version: You do what works. Apply common sense.

 

[Toro]

Why is every downturn "the worst economy since the Great Depression"?

This one really is.

 

[Toro]

Can you place in order the Worst since the Great Depression downturns?

Thanks

1. This one.
2. 1980-82
3. 1973-75

 

[Rinata]

Don't you think the push for a jobs bill, is an implicit acknowledgment that the 'stimulus' failed?

Billions of more to be thrown into the abyss.

Since all the top minds seem to be under the impression that things are in fact improving and we are recovering, it would seem "the abyss" has been filled, no? And therefore additional action would actually have visible results.

You do realize that made even less sense than what has gone before?

Thank you!!! I'm so tired tonight and I read that post twice and didn't understand it at all. I thought it was me.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.........we have a 17.5% unemployment rate and the k00ks are going off about how great the economy is!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

You do realize that made even less sense than what has gone before?

If one assumes the "abyss" to be the giant economic hole that was left by the previous administration and congresses, then it makes plenty of sense.

Nobody cares about teh last administration anymore s0n..................

..................


perhaps you missed todays news...............Obama hits a new low for Approval = 45%. The blame game days aqre officially over s0n. He PWNS it now!!!

 

[oreo]

LOL.........we have a 17.5% unemployment rate and the k00ks are going off about how great the economy is!!!

Construction which is really the largest industry in this country is currently at 18.9% unemployment. When you count the illegals that went back to Mexico it's even much higher than that--- As a matter of fact, construction is still the largest industry in the United States. The auto industry doesn't even compare--yet they got the bail-outs because they "were too big to fail." They were too big to fail because they are union--& unions typically vote democrat-- Whereas the construction industry through-out this country is not.

 

[Toro]

LOL.........we have a 17.5% unemployment rate and the k00ks are going off about how great the economy is!!!

Who is saying the economy is great?

 

[Polk]

LOL.........we have a 17.5% unemployment rate and the k00ks are going off about how great the economy is!!!

Who is saying the economy is great?

That. Also, where the hell is that 17 percent number coming from?

 

[Toro]

LOL.........we have a 17.5% unemployment rate and the k00ks are going off about how great the economy is!!!

Who is saying the economy is great?

That. Also, where the hell is that 17 percent number coming from?

It is, I believe, the U-6 unemployment figure. It measures those who have dropped out of the workforce and those who are underemployed.

It was 8%-10% before the crisis, which would have made America's unemployment similar to Europe's official rate of unemployment. Of course, most of the people who quote the 17% now don't realize this.

 

[Polk]

Who is saying the economy is great?

That. Also, where the hell is that 17 percent number coming from?

It is, I believe, the U-6 unemployment figure. It measures those who have dropped out of the workforce and those who are underemployed.

It was 8%-10% before the crisis, which would have made America's unemployment similar to Europe's official rate of unemployment. Of course, most of the people who quote the 17% now don't realize this.

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.