PDA

View Full Version : ABANDON SHIP! ABANDON SHIP! ABANDON SHIP!



LWW
06-08-2011, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romer, gone. Summers, gone. Orszag, gone. And now comes more news of a key member of the president's economic team heading for the exit.

Et tu, Goolsbee?

Of the key members of President Obama's original economic team, soon only Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will be left.

Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer left in September 2010. Her replacement, Austan Goolsbee, announced yesterday that this summer he will return to teaching at the University of Chicago. National Economic Council director Larry Summers returned to Harvard in January. Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag left last July.

What's going on?

More to come.... </div></div>

Nobody wants to be there when the shiite hits the oscillating blade of reality, that's what.

A tax cheat and an empty suit are all that remain. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/goolsbee-exit-leaves-obama-with-only-geithner-from-original-economic-team.html)

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 07:29 AM
Maybe he should consider offering a job to Gayle. She seems to think she knows everything about the economy, and there is no doubt she would stand by him even as his entire presidency crumbles around him.

Steve

LWW
06-08-2011, 09:09 AM
I wonder if they tweet back and forth?

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 10:05 AM
She probably has a blog that he reads first thing every morning!

Steve

LWW
06-08-2011, 10:53 AM
I doubt that ... but I'd bet she gets Plouffe's daily <s>brainwashing</s> <s>marching orders</s> <s>talking points</s> opinions.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2011, 01:18 PM
History repeats itself, repeatedly.

Except Reagan's team pulled their apparently larger scale vanishing acts a year earlier in his term than this timing represents.

And many quit over stated objections to various administration policies, or having been cut out of the loop by the senior inner circle, in addition to the very bleak prospects of the economy and the economic policies in place.

This may or may not be a common occurrence for the economic advisory teams for presidents. I only looked for the example where I knew there was a severe economic problem, and the far less severe shallow recessions of the two Bush presidencies might not have occasioned such a wholesale departure. The last recession for W WAS severe, but only showed its depths very late in the second term, so departures at that time could readily be attributable to the impending end of their jobs in any case (since W couldn't have a 3rd term).

Even so, we know W and Co. essentially fired SecTreasury O'Neill, and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, early on in their first term.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Reagan's Vanishing Advisers
By David Beckwith;Christopher Byron Monday, July 26, 1982

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922955,00.html#ixzz1OiHGtnZ5
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just when he needs help, they are beginning to depart

Anderson, Rashish, Hormats, Ture, Roberts, Jordan. One after another, Ronald Reagan's economic advisers have been emptying out their desks and leaving. Some have left for personal reasons, and others over substantive disputes. But the overall effect has been to underscore an impression of disarray within the Administration's top economic ranks.

With the economy still slumping and interest rates sky high, holes have begun appearing at the State Department, the Treasury and the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Meanwhile, policy-making has become a desperate waiting game, with virtually all options for actions ruled out by the principles of Reaganomics, leaving the top advisers little choice but to hope that a brisk recovery will somehow occur. Says Jerry Jordan, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, who resigned early this month, citing family reasons: "You have got to remember that the President himself has set economic policy, and he is so incredibly consistent that it really does not matter who the subalterns or lieutenants are."

Jordan's resignation is only the latest in a string of departures that have been going on since early last winter. First to depart was Myer Rashish, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Long an irritant to right-wing conservatives because of his liberal views on international trade matters, Rashish resigned following a series of personality clashes with Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

Last month Robert Hormats, State's Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, also resigned. First appointed to the staff of Henry Kissinger's National Security Council in 1969, Hormats had served in economic posts during the past four Administrations. Among his other complaints, he objected to Reagan's efforts to block or at least delay the Soviet
Union's planned construction of a natural gas pipeline to Western Europe, and announced his resignation.

Also out the door was Martin Anderson, the President's top policy development adviser. A strong advocate of supply-side economics who helped formulate the policy on which Reagan campaigned for the presidency, Anderson left after being effectively locked out of the inner circle of the White House decision-making process. He is now doing research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

The most controversial resignations have been two top Treasury Department supply-siders, Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, who left in February, and Norman Ture, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Tax and Economic Affairs, who departed in June. Neither has disguised his dismay at the drift in Administration economic policy. Said Ture of the compromise plan to boost taxes $98 billion over the next three years: "The package is damned unfortunate. It is going to be self-defeating." Roberts summed up his gloomy view of Administration policymaking: "There is no policy any more. The policymakers bend whichever way the wind is blowing that day."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922955,00.html#ixzz1OiHlHqlU
</div></div>

eg8r
06-08-2011, 02:00 PM
So you are basically saying, "OK, this happens all the time"? I haven't spent any time to see how often this has happened in the past.

I think a way to make this thread into a discussion would be to ask whether you think this is good news or bad news or is it just news and just people moving on.

eg8r

Sev
06-08-2011, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe he should consider offering a job to Gayle. She seems to think she knows everything about the economy, and there is no doubt she would stand by him even as his entire presidency crumbles around him.

Steve </div></div>

She's focused on a wonker Weiner.
Its been fully exposed you know.

pooltchr
06-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Leno had a good one last night. The put up that pic of Barry stuffing down a chili dog, and Leno comments about the heat he had been taking over the picture. "That's two politicians this week that got in trouble over a weaner"!

Steve

LWW
06-09-2011, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just when he needs help, they are beginning to depart

Anderson, Rashish, Hormats, Ture, Roberts, Jordan. One after another, Ronald Reagan's economic advisers have been emptying out their desks and leaving. Some have left for personal reasons, and others over substantive disputes. But the overall effect has been to underscore an impression of disarray within the Administration's top economic ranks.

With the economy still slumping and interest rates sky high, holes have begun appearing at the State Department, the Treasury and the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Meanwhile, policy-making has become a desperate waiting game, with virtually all options for actions ruled out by the principles of Reaganomics, leaving the top advisers little choice but to hope that a brisk recovery will somehow occur. Says Jerry Jordan, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, who resigned early this month, citing family reasons: "You have got to remember that the President himself has set economic policy, and he is so incredibly consistent that it really does not matter who the subalterns or lieutenants are."</div></div> </div></div>

And, amazingly, that recovery was blooming and was an outstanding one ... much to the chagrin of the leftists.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And, amazingly, that recovery was blooming and was an outstanding one ... much to the chagrin of the leftists. </div></div>

Sputter, cough, ew! (Coffee shot out of the nose on that one! Stop it!!!)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joblessness reached a postwar high in 1982. On "average," 10.7 million persons were unemployed during the year, 9.7 percent of the labor force. By the end of the year, when the economy finally ended its deep recessionary slide, unemployment had risen even higher, with the number of jobless persons (seasonally adjusted) reaching 12.0 million in December and with the rate of joblessness peaking at 10.8 percent. </div></div>

Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/02/art4exc.htm)

LWW
06-09-2011, 04:06 PM
Quite true, although I seriously doubt you understand why.

The scary part is that the last time we had to squeeze 10% inflation out of the economic system, we started with a relatively low UE rate ... this time we start at nearly 10%.

To fix the damage you have cheered on will require that a massive hit to the economy eventually be taken.

It should have been taken in the late 1990's when the dot bomb happened ... but Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have disregarded the long term welfare of the economy in favor of short term political reward.

What should have been a 1982 type recession will now, ultimately come closer to the great depression because of "progressive" insanity.

Soflasnapper
06-09-2011, 04:50 PM
The scary part is that the last time we had to squeeze 10% inflation out of the economic system, we started with a relatively low UE rate ... this time we start at nearly 10%.

I doubt you have an accurate picture of these two periods, as it sounds like you think we must now wring 10% inflation out of the system, and 9% = nearly 10% UE.

Fact is, back then, the Reagan deficits were highly inflationary all on their own, and Volcker's monetary policy had to fight both the inflation already there, and these new inflationary pressures.

He did it from a strictly monetary policy side, restricting M-1 growth or M-2 growth by the federal rates the Fed controls, in what was termed sado-monetarism, from how badly it hurt the economy, growth, and blew up unemployment by 50% (7.6% or so when he came in to 10.8% for the highest year).

LWW
06-10-2011, 06:35 AM
The fact is that inflation, as measured by the standards then, is around 10% now ... and, yes, 9% is almost 10% by any logical review of reality.

Soflasnapper
06-10-2011, 11:34 AM
The fact is that inflation, as measured by the standards then, is around 10% now

Not credible. Any source for that?

LWW
06-10-2011, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is that inflation, as measured by the standards then, is around 10% now

Not credible. Any source for that? </div></div>

You walk into the trap every time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure

Using reporting methods put into place before 1980 leaves current inflation at almost double digits! Since a change in reporting in 1980, inflation is only currently at 5.5%

After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.

Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.

Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://soundofcannons.blogspot.com/2011/04/inflation-actually-near-10-using-older.html)

OH MY! (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts)

LWW
06-11-2011, 12:55 PM
I guess asking you to ever admit to believing a lie told to you by the state is asking too much?

And, FWIW, inflation is that high with the most expensive consumer item ... a home ... in a price depression.

If you take that out of the equation, I'd guess the true current rate of inflation to be in the 12% to 15 % range.

But, as long as we can continue to print money to buy our own debt the O-cult will never realize what is about to hit them.

Have you wondered why foreign sovereign funds are bailing on treasury bills?

They know that the USA is right now in the midst of a de facto default by monetizing the debt and destroying the dollar.

Soflasnapper
06-11-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is that inflation, as measured by the standards then, is around 10% now

Not credible. Any source for that? </div></div>

You walk into the trap every time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Inflation Actually Near 10% Using Older Measure

Using reporting methods put into place before 1980 leaves current inflation at almost double digits! Since a change in reporting in 1980, inflation is only currently at 5.5%

After former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was appointed in 1979, the consumer price index surged into the double digits, causing the now revered Fed Chief to double the benchmark interest rate in order to break the back of inflation. Using the methodology in place at that time puts the CPI back near those levels.

Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter.

Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://soundofcannons.blogspot.com/2011/04/inflation-actually-near-10-using-older.html)

OH MY! (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts)
</div></div>

You're right on this one. I accidentally ran across this same topic (which is weird) in the meantime, and the revisions to the CPI index since 1980 have numbered about 20.

However, there is this from the article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “While the federal government would have us believe the numbers are rather tame, our own personal gauge leads us to believe inflation is running between 5 percent to 6 percent annually,” wrote Alan Newman in his latest Crosscurrents newsletter that refers to Williams’ statistics. </div></div>

Even given the knowledge of what you mention, referring directly to this fact from Williams, this expert says it's REALLY half or so the 10% that the older standards would have said was the case.

Evidently, the old standard really DID overstate inflation (by about 100%). Perhaps the new standard underestimates inflation by 50%. So this quote shows agreement that the old standard substantially mis-measured the facts, and that the restatement to lower figures was appropriate and necessary, if perhaps overdone and thus now underestimating a bit (but half the percentage error of the older standard).

One thing that was taken out after 1980 was the newly higher mortgage rates that then prevailed after the S&L deregulation allowed for far higher fixed rates and ARM mortgages, etc. Why? Because the vast majority of homeowners were sitting on fixed rate mortgages of 4-1/2 to 5%, and had no impact from the higher mortgage rates in their household budgeting.

By excising increasing housing interest rates from the CPI early in the '80s (in 1980, Carter was stuck with the artificially higher number, to his political detriment), it may even be that the deflationary, or counter-inflationary, effects of the now far lower costs of housing have been omitted as well.