We should be at 7.5% unemployment

[JakeStarkey]

They actually made things worse.

Present your case.

It's in the chart.

Your case is the chart? Then you have lost.

 

[asterism]

Present your case.

It's in the chart.

Your case is the chart? Then you have lost.

Prediction and reality. The Keynesian "experts" were wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

Plenty of people (including me) said the stimulus was going to fail and even said that it was going to make things worse and that's exactly what happened.

Sheesh, you seem so blind to obvious facts that you can't even concede a correct prediction.

People like you continue to make that incorrect assertion based on your extreme bias, in my opinion. Report after report proves that the stimulus DID work, including the latest quarterly analysis by the CBO. You can link on the full report here:

Stimulus Provided Large Jobs Boost, CBO Report Concludes

Also, even conservative journalists who have no political bias will say that the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to: Jump start the economy. It was never intended to be sole remedy.

Robert J. Samuelson - Our economy's crisis of confidence

People are super-sensitive to the latest news, for good or ill, because their vision of the future is blurred and their bias is gloomy. Having underrated economic risk during the boom, Americans may be overrating it now. Unfortunately, perceptions can become self-fulfilling.

The Obama administration is grappling uneasily with this reality. It can rightly claim that its economic policies quelled the near-hysteria of late 2008 and early 2009. But the success was partial, and the administration isn't getting much credit even for that.

I've had enough "extreme bias" accusations to just now let it roll off my back. You cite a flawed report from a group that never ever got any cost estimate right (research the CBO's view on how much Medicare would cost) as proof that the prediction put out by President Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors was wrong but only because they didn't truly understand the problem?

Really?

The CBO data that you criticize were forecasts (estimates). The CBO report on the stimulus is an analysis of the real data for the last three quarters. Big difference.

 

[asterism]

People like you continue to make that incorrect assertion based on your extreme bias, in my opinion. Report after report proves that the stimulus DID work, including the latest quarterly analysis by the CBO. You can link on the full report here:

Stimulus Provided Large Jobs Boost, CBO Report Concludes

Also, even conservative journalists who have no political bias will say that the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to: Jump start the economy. It was never intended to be sole remedy.

Robert J. Samuelson - Our economy's crisis of confidence

I've had enough "extreme bias" accusations to just now let it roll off my back. You cite a flawed report from a group that never ever got any cost estimate right (research the CBO's view on how much Medicare would cost) as proof that the prediction put out by President Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors was wrong but only because they didn't truly understand the problem?

Really?

The CBO data that you criticize were forecasts (estimates). The CBO report on the stimulus is an analysis of the real data for the last three quarters. Big difference.

Only because you think they can conduct an analysis. I don't because I've never seen one they got correct.

 

[MaggieMae]

Show me an innovative leading edge startup that got an SBA loan before demonstrating positive earnings. I haven't been able to find a single one.

Sorry, but I don't intend to do your homework for you. All I can suggest is that you show some of that old-fashioned American positive attitude and meet with an SBA member, show him/her your business plan, and then if you get turned down, come back here and bitch about it. Since you've never actually stated what it is you're looking for in the way of financial support, and for what, how the hell am I supposed to analyze all your complaints that you can't find any?

Fair enough. I'm not going to give you enough information for you to personally identify me, so bear with me a bit. There's a company out there called Zynga which makes games for Facebook and MySpace. Their primary competitor is a company called PopCap which also makes games. In 2008 I approached some tech types and developed a game which was a spin on the Bejeweled Blitz structure (a well known classic cipher game that nobody owns, it's that old) with a "spin." All I needed was some operating capital to market it. Denied at all levels but the tech types still had built a functioning game. They were able to sell the core to PopCap and the game is called "Bejeweled Twist." They got that because I can't legally or ethically claim ownership of it. But I took the risk and it didn't pay off. They got jobs and PopCap gets another game, one that they were working on already. I see the modifications that the team I hired brought, so it's a hybrid of their game and mine but still all legally theirs. Sometimes things work out that way, no harm and no foul.

In that case the SBA just flat out refused. Literally wouldn't even consider my plan for marketing it and then having a backup plan of presenting it to either Zynga or PopCap and just getting the money back.

"It won't work."

Well, it did.

I no longer have the option of doing something like that at all again unless I personally finance it since the financial reform law has effectively shut down the private investor group that invested in my idea. I figured such a concept was not something the SBA would be comfortable with, but I never figured a private investing "club" with a central core legal structure would be told that they are now a bank.

Here's another one:

Earlier this year I noticed that Google is phasing out their program of wholesaling Cable TV commercials. I presented the idea that a company should market these services locally to every banker in the region, and none of them thought it was a good risk. True, it's a risk and I understand how weary bankers are about taking risks in a bad economy. Again, not even worth the SBA specialists' time to even hear about it past the initial paragraphs of my idea. "We don't invest in startups" was the interrupting comment.

So while I was doing my normal routine of my existing business, I found some interested investors. "Let's see what happens with Dodd-Frank first." I got a call the day after the law was signed and was told, "if banks can't do it then neither can we because we're effectively a bank now."

Since then I've saved up and I'm moving forward with my idea but all the capital is going to come out of my pocket. It's a risk, and one I'm willing to take. But 15 people haven't gotten hired yet and we missed some key opportunities, one of them being the new Legoland theme park being built right now, with a huge marketing effort being launched next month.

In the end it'll all work out. 12 of those 15 people I wanted to hire in January are still here and I'll probably still hire them. But they missed out on 10 months of income they could have had developing a campaign that I already had the inside track on getting if only I could have afforded to hire them then. Well all but 3 of them, those 3 moved away. One of them is a farmer now. But to get there I have to save because access to capital is not what it used to be. So I'm saving.

What are you doing?

I'm sorry neither worked out for you and hope you don't give up. You seem determined, and that's always key. But just from an objective point of view, your first venture seemed like something you could have tried to copyright so that it couldn't have been, er, stolen by anyone else. Although copyrighting itself can be an involved process, a good way to begin is to formulate the plan in written detail, with a prototype description if there is one, then mail it certified mail to yourself. When you receive it back, with the postal certifications attached, do not open the envelope. It should remain sealed until you get a real copyright. In the meantime, if anyone else does attempt to adopt your idea, you have dated proof that it was your idea first. And that is at least worth a day in small claims court.

Second, a marketing "idea" to improve an existing business would need some sort of support from the potential clients that, yes, they think it would enhance their business (letters of recommendation, but not necessarily commitments). Anything like that helps to show the SBA that your idea has credibility.

Also, in either case, you could have done your own focus group (among people who have valid credentials, not just buddies) and videotaped the results. I've heard of people doing that these days, too, in order to convince a potential lender/investor of the viability of a new idea or product.

 

[MaggieMae]

Asterism does not care about the welfare of America; he simply hates Obama.

Frankly I'm sick of his whining that he can't get no satisfaction trying to build his business. (At least I presume that's why he chose to argue with me over SBA possibilities and the exhange we had over lines of credit.) Asterism needs to spend as much energy as he has on a message board by hitting the pavement if his problem is personal. I return to my brother-in-law as an example. (He's also an uber conservative, Obama-hating Palin-loving person, but I forgive him for that because I like him, and he gets out there and gets it done.) He has taken 3 different routes with his business, after twice watching it slowly fail. Between the used car dealership and his current business of used trucks only and winning a franchise for snow removal equipment, he also invested (thanks to the bank he has dealt with for 30 years) in snowmobile sales and service. Unfortunately, that was one of those off years when Vermont got NO SNOW. But he was never deterred and never once thought of himself as a complete failure, so he kept on truckin'. Pun intended.

I should also mention that my BIL was a high school English teacher before he ventured into the car business, so that was quite a jump but apparently the bank thought he was a good risk anyway.

Oh, I'm going to respond to this screed.

But first, I'd like to say kudos to your brother in-law. He's the heart and soul of what funds this government. Go sell your tax increases to him.

But let's also clarify that he was only a good risk to the bank because he needed money to expand. He didn't get money to start. Banks don't generally lend money to start, unless there is a security interest and/or a franchise involved.

But I'm going to respond, because you are absolutely full of shit about me. Sorry to say, but now I understand why so many people hate you.

Just because my brother-in-law is a conservative doesn't mean he goes around bad mouthing taxes. And that's because he's always very aware that taxes are what make the country's engine run. He also has a daughter who is reliant on government help for her 3 young children since here husband isn't around anymore and her father can only help her so much.

All I said about YOU was that you seem to be spending a lot of energy complaining instead of doing. But you've since explained your situation. Now was that so hard?

Me? I had no idea so many people hated me. Must be that's why I get so many pos reps and the neg reps since I've been a member can be counted on one hand. I spend an enormous time researching the important issues and diligently following progress on the issues that matter, and I can therefore back up every word I post. If people hate what I say, that's just too bad. I invite them to counter my arguments with solid sourced material of their own, which, frankly, is a rare event. Usually I'm only met with the typical angry anti-Obama rhetoric which, without basis, is meaningless.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've had enough "extreme bias" accusations to just now let it roll off my back. You cite a flawed report from a group that never ever got any cost estimate right (research the CBO's view on how much Medicare would cost) as proof that the prediction put out by President Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors was wrong but only because they didn't truly understand the problem?

Really?

The CBO data that you criticize were forecasts (estimates). The CBO report on the stimulus is an analysis of the real data for the last three quarters. Big difference.

Only because you think they can conduct an analysis. I don't because I've never seen one they got correct.

So cite others that were far off. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I forgot that in the CBO director's blog, he explains the formulas used in drawing their conclusions. Maybe this will quell your assumptions that the CBO is inept, lies, is biased, or all of the above.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1617

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's in the chart.

Your case is the chart? Then you have lost.

Prediction and reality. The Keynesian "experts" were wrong.

You present a minority report? You better cough up the underpinning of it if you want credibility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've had enough "extreme bias" accusations to just now let it roll off my back. You cite a flawed report from a group that never ever got any cost estimate right (research the CBO's view on how much Medicare would cost) as proof that the prediction put out by President Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors was wrong but only because they didn't truly understand the problem?

Really?

The CBO data that you criticize were forecasts (estimates). The CBO report on the stimulus is an analysis of the real data for the last three quarters. Big difference.

Only because you think they can conduct an analysis. I don't because I've never seen one they got correct.

You are not an expert; your opinion does not count.

 

[asterism]

Sorry, but I don't intend to do your homework for you. All I can suggest is that you show some of that old-fashioned American positive attitude and meet with an SBA member, show him/her your business plan, and then if you get turned down, come back here and bitch about it. Since you've never actually stated what it is you're looking for in the way of financial support, and for what, how the hell am I supposed to analyze all your complaints that you can't find any?

Fair enough. I'm not going to give you enough information for you to personally identify me, so bear with me a bit. There's a company out there called Zynga which makes games for Facebook and MySpace. Their primary competitor is a company called PopCap which also makes games. In 2008 I approached some tech types and developed a game which was a spin on the Bejeweled Blitz structure (a well known classic cipher game that nobody owns, it's that old) with a "spin." All I needed was some operating capital to market it. Denied at all levels but the tech types still had built a functioning game. They were able to sell the core to PopCap and the game is called "Bejeweled Twist." They got that because I can't legally or ethically claim ownership of it. But I took the risk and it didn't pay off. They got jobs and PopCap gets another game, one that they were working on already. I see the modifications that the team I hired brought, so it's a hybrid of their game and mine but still all legally theirs. Sometimes things work out that way, no harm and no foul.

In that case the SBA just flat out refused. Literally wouldn't even consider my plan for marketing it and then having a backup plan of presenting it to either Zynga or PopCap and just getting the money back.

"It won't work."

Well, it did.

I no longer have the option of doing something like that at all again unless I personally finance it since the financial reform law has effectively shut down the private investor group that invested in my idea. I figured such a concept was not something the SBA would be comfortable with, but I never figured a private investing "club" with a central core legal structure would be told that they are now a bank.

Here's another one:

Earlier this year I noticed that Google is phasing out their program of wholesaling Cable TV commercials. I presented the idea that a company should market these services locally to every banker in the region, and none of them thought it was a good risk. True, it's a risk and I understand how weary bankers are about taking risks in a bad economy. Again, not even worth the SBA specialists' time to even hear about it past the initial paragraphs of my idea. "We don't invest in startups" was the interrupting comment.

So while I was doing my normal routine of my existing business, I found some interested investors. "Let's see what happens with Dodd-Frank first." I got a call the day after the law was signed and was told, "if banks can't do it then neither can we because we're effectively a bank now."

Since then I've saved up and I'm moving forward with my idea but all the capital is going to come out of my pocket. It's a risk, and one I'm willing to take. But 15 people haven't gotten hired yet and we missed some key opportunities, one of them being the new Legoland theme park being built right now, with a huge marketing effort being launched next month.

In the end it'll all work out. 12 of those 15 people I wanted to hire in January are still here and I'll probably still hire them. But they missed out on 10 months of income they could have had developing a campaign that I already had the inside track on getting if only I could have afforded to hire them then. Well all but 3 of them, those 3 moved away. One of them is a farmer now. But to get there I have to save because access to capital is not what it used to be. So I'm saving.

What are you doing?

I'm sorry neither worked out for you and hope you don't give up. You seem determined, and that's always key. But just from an objective point of view, your first venture seemed like something you could have tried to copyright so that it couldn't have been, er, stolen by anyone else. Although copyrighting itself can be an involved process, a good way to begin is to formulate the plan in written detail, with a prototype description if there is one, then mail it certified mail to yourself. When you receive it back, with the postal certifications attached, do not open the envelope. It should remain sealed until you get a real copyright. In the meantime, if anyone else does attempt to adopt your idea, you have dated proof that it was your idea first. And that is at least worth a day in small claims court.

Copyright wasn't the issue, it's a lot more involved but the ideas weren't stolen.

Second, a marketing "idea" to improve an existing business would need some sort of support from the potential clients that, yes, they think it would enhance their business (letters of recommendation, but not necessarily commitments). Anything like that helps to show the SBA that your idea has credibility.

Also, in either case, you could have done your own focus group (among people who have valid credentials, not just buddies) and videotaped the results. I've heard of people doing that these days, too, in order to convince a potential lender/investor of the viability of a new idea or product.

The point is that the SBA reps never let the presentation get that far. They nor banks have any interest in new concepts. It's simply not in the boundaries of their risk profile. Sadly, that's true for the type of private investor groups that have now been forced to be regulated as banks.

My interest in discussing this is not to whine, it's to demonstrate the effects these sweeping government controls are having on new businesses. You asked for examples and I gave you some.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't know how much more obvious it can be that Obama is a failure. Thankfully, he took Keynesian economic theory down with him

 

[william the wie]

I don't know how much more obvious it can be that Obama is a failure. Thankfully, he took Keynesian economic theory down with him

Don't bet on it. According to what is leaking about what actually happened in fall of 2008 the GOP is much more in line with the general theory than the dems. Obama is more of a monetarist on steroids with a leftist bias.

 

[loosecannon]

Don't bet on it. According to what is leaking about what actually happened in fall of 2008 the GOP is much more in line with the general theory than the dems. Obama is more of a monetarist on steroids with a leftist bias.

I agree. Monetarism is the more dangerous discipline, and it is even stronger than it was before the "abyss impasse" of 08.

This is where the presence of Geithner and Bernanke will yield bad dividends.

 

[william the wie]

Don't bet on it. According to what is leaking about what actually happened in fall of 2008 the GOP is much more in line with the general theory than the dems. Obama is more of a monetarist on steroids with a leftist bias.

I agree. Monetarism is the more dangerous discipline, and it is even stronger than it was before the "abyss impasse" of 08.

This is where the presence of Geithner and Bernanke will yield bad dividends.

Worse yet monetarism is simply an update of Fisher's 1910 paper that led to what he called in early 1929 "A permanent plateau of prosperity." We are entering South Sea bubble territory.

 

[loosecannon]

I keep paying attention to the Chinese who seem to be adhering to a far more stringent variation of monetarism. They intend to curb volatility and bubble formation by limiting capital formation at the commercial bank level.

If monetarism was the slave in service to the economy as Milton Friedman suggested it might be an extremely useful tool. But in a global capital market nobody operates in the requisite isolation.

 

[william the wie]

I keep paying attention to the Chinese who seem to be adhering to a far more stringent variation of monetarism. They intend to curb volatility and bubble formation by limiting capital formation at the commercial bank level.

If monetarism was the slave in service to the economy as Milton Friedman suggested it might be an extremely useful tool. But in a global capital market nobody operates in the requisite isolation.

And even with all state owned banks China is having big problems.

 

[code1211]

I don't know how much more obvious it can be that Obama is a failure. Thankfully, he took Keynesian economic theory down with him

Apparently, he did so world wide.

The Big 0 has done more to demonstrate the wisdom of Reaganomics than Reagan did.

 

[asterism]

I keep paying attention to the Chinese who seem to be adhering to a far more stringent variation of monetarism. They intend to curb volatility and bubble formation by limiting capital formation at the commercial bank level.

If monetarism was the slave in service to the economy as Milton Friedman suggested it might be an extremely useful tool. But in a global capital market nobody operates in the requisite isolation.

Global monetarism follows the behavior of a cartel and one only works on zero-sum plans where the "haves" are battling the "have-nots."

 

[MaggieMae]

Don't bet on it. According to what is leaking about what actually happened in fall of 2008 the GOP is much more in line with the general theory than the dems. Obama is more of a monetarist on steroids with a leftist bias.

I agree. Monetarism is the more dangerous discipline, and it is even stronger than it was before the "abyss impasse" of 08.

This is where the presence of Geithner and Bernanke will yield bad dividends.

Worse yet monetarism is simply an update of Fisher's 1910 paper that led to what he called in early 1929 "A permanent plateau of prosperity." We are entering South Sea bubble territory.

I love all the doomsday predictions by economy expert webnutters. Real experts of all persuasions are working diligently to come up with real solutions. These are the ones who, without political bias, aren't secretly hoping the US will crash.

 

[MaggieMae]

I keep paying attention to the Chinese who seem to be adhering to a far more stringent variation of monetarism. They intend to curb volatility and bubble formation by limiting capital formation at the commercial bank level.

If monetarism was the slave in service to the economy as Milton Friedman suggested it might be an extremely useful tool. But in a global capital market nobody operates in the requisite isolation.

I can't believe you are actually praising the Chinese system. Do you really hate this administration so much? The Chinese are able to control any goddamned thing they want. They are a quasi capitalist regime that has figured out how to rake in profits for the government, but which hardly extends to its citizens. China remains a Communist nation. Hello?

Unfuckingbelievable.