PDA

View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF THE DAY 02/13/12



LWW
02-13-2012, 02:15 PM
Dear leader, by his own hand, admits that his economic agenda has been a failure. (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/privately-obama-sees-recovery-1-2-years/372116)
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/sites/default/files/styles/blog_listing_full/public/Obama%20%281%29.jpg

Soflasnapper
02-13-2012, 04:45 PM
"probably will take a year or two more to fully dig ourselves out of this hole" is no admission of failure.

It's a progress report, and an admission of just how big that hole we dropped into was.

Has Gabby Giffords rehabilitation been a failure, just because it's going to take considerably more time for her to approach her full capacity? Isn't her rehab actually well on track, considering she was shot in the head?

Well, the economy was shot in the head, the remedial economic agenda of stabilization has worked, and will also take more time to get us anywhere close to normal.

As in, duh! Pretty easy to do that math-- if you take the average monthly job increase of the Clinton administration, at about 250,000 a month, how long would it take to regain 8 million lost jobs? Or take their very best month, and presume we could AVERAGE that figure, going forward. Still will take some years, and this math applies to any future president as of 2013.

It CANNOT BE DONE in any shorter time frame than one or two years, by any president or Congress or alternative economic plan. Very big hole indeed.

sack316
02-13-2012, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"probably will take a year or two more to fully dig ourselves out of this hole" is no admission of failure.

It's a progress report, and an admission of just how big that hole we dropped into was.

Has Gabby Giffords rehabilitation been a failure, just because it's going to take considerably more time for her to approach her full capacity? Isn't her rehab actually well on track, considering she was shot in the head?

Well, the economy was shot in the head, the remedial economic agenda of stabilization has worked, and will also take more time to get us anywhere close to normal.

As in, duh! Pretty easy to do that math-- if you take the average monthly job increase of the Clinton administration, at about 250,000 a month, how long would it take to regain 8 million lost jobs? Or take their very best month, and presume we could AVERAGE that figure, going forward. Still will take some years, and this math applies to any future president as of 2013.

It CANNOT BE DONE in any shorter time frame than one or two years, by any president or Congress or alternative economic plan. Very big hole indeed.

</div></div>

Very true words there Sofla... if only the situation had been presented as openly and honestly during campaigning, or selling us on stimulus packages etc. people wouldn't have quite as many stones to throw. Unfortunately for our President, his promises left a whole rock quarry as ammo.

Sack

eg8r
02-13-2012, 05:58 PM
Sofla told us those aren't stones to be thrown. They are actually "sly misdirections". Perfectly harmless and never meant to be true unless by some miracle they did happen.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-13-2012, 06:11 PM
The extent of the hole was not known until the second revision of the 4Q08 gdp figures, well after the campaign, and well after the stimulus package had been configured and passed.

The planning, and the projections, were made when the estimated figure was well under half what it turned out to be.

Originally, the 3rd quarter of '08 was scored at a barely positive gdp figure of up around 1%. It was really down 3%. The 4th quarter was thought to be down about 3%, and that was revised to down 6%, and then about 9% down finally. (Figures from memory)

The very large losses of jobs that took place again were mounting ever larger as '08 came to a close, and those reports take a couple of weeks into the next month to be reported and known.

Now, one additional duty of a leader is to be positive, and provide confidence that a plan can and will work. That's true even of a military leader who knows a given unit's prospects are dire, and might even be on a suicide mission. They must be given some reason to believe they can prevail or else they will be defeated before they begin.

Given our consumption is what, 75% of our gdp, HAD Obama known, and then told, the people that the economy will be bad and not fully recovered for the next 4 years, what effect would that have had? Wouldn't it have gravely worsened the situation?

Not that he did know, or could have known. But we have never lacked for pessimists on the economy since he took office. How would adding to their voices have helped a thing?

LWW
02-13-2012, 06:49 PM
You truly are without a sense of shame aren't you.

Obama told us that if he didn't have it fixed in 3 years he would be a failure.

Now he admits that this not only hasn't happened, but isn't close to happening.

sack316
02-14-2012, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The extent of the hole was not known until...
</div></div>

I'd love to accept ignorance as an excuse. And by all rights it actually is a plausible one. But I personally still find it unacceptable.

It wasn't "We must find out more to address the problem before implementing a solution" or anything along those lines. It basically came down to "We've got this fix, that's going to fix 'it'... but if it doesn't work we can always say we didn't know what 'it' was or the extent of 'it' ".

We implemented a solution, without diagnosing the problem... throwing ideas at symptoms at will without full or even acceptable levels of knowledge of the root cause(s) and extent of said problems.

Were it a medical procedure, the Doctor would have quite a lawsuit on his hands.

I am by no means saying a cure-all was even possible all things considered, because it certainly wasn't. I said that all along, as did many others here. But our country's leadership didn't say that... they said "here ya go, this will fix us right up".

Sack (obviously paraphrasing lol)

LWW
02-14-2012, 04:48 PM
Don't forget that the fix was so urgent that it had to be done <span style='font-size: 26pt'>NOW</span> or would surely be doomed ... no time for discussion ... no time for research ... no time to entertain other ideas ... no time at all.

LWW
02-14-2012, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The extent of the hole was not known until BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH B-B-B-BOOOOSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH B-B-B-BOOOOSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH B-B-B-BOOOOSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH B-B-B-BOOOOSH ...</div></div>

You honestly should be ashamed to post such drivel.

The left has never given Bush the slightest consideration for not knowing the exact shell count in Iraq ... yet tramp out this Bravo Sierra.

Soflasnapper
02-14-2012, 06:02 PM
Since it is absolutely true, I am comfortable stating that truth.

Tell me how you all would have stood up and saluted if he'd said the problem is much worse than the numbers indicate now (trust me, I know!), and what we really need is $1.5 trillion in a stimulus package.

And Sack, he didn't do the wrong thing so much as not do enough of it. That hardly means he should have delayed starting what he did. It's a principle of triage in emergency medicine-- you first need to stabilize the patient's vitals, and you do that, even as you then need to fine tune the diagnosis and the treatment depending upon what you find.

I GUESS the preferred position for some was to do nothing in terms of stabilizing the economy, letting the freefall of economic collapse continue apace, and then when we were down 50% on gdp, then get the message?

We would probably have needed martial law, and the Army doing souplines, had that occurred.

The ignorance is terrifying on these subjects. Emergencies require emergency measures, sometimes things that have never been done before, and more.

Soflasnapper
02-14-2012, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You truly are without a sense of shame aren't you.

Obama told us that if he didn't have it fixed in 3 years he would be a failure.

Now he admits that this not only hasn't happened, but isn't close to happening. </div></div>

Again with the misquoting-- typical from you.

This is the quote:

“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Now, 'have this done' means what? If it meant stopping the gdp freefall or even modest declines, he did that, and virtually right away, as soon as his package was passed. If it meant turning the 750,000 jobs lost monthly into jobs gained, that took about 6 months, and we now have well over 20 months of net job gains, even considering the continuing losses in the public sector jobs. If it means seeing the economy create several millions of net jobs, that has been accomplished, at about 3 million to the good.

If it means seeing enough jobs growth to reduce stated unemployment, we've seen that as well.

If it means entirely restoring the economy to good times, that of course has not happened.

Because that was impossible, as it turned out. The well-known 'wealth effect' of how much wealth creates how much demand in the economy went into backwards effect, and the approx. $7 trillion in loss in the stock market and about the same in the loss of housing value took approx. $1 trillion out of market demand. A year. That hole was not plugged up with a 2-year $800 billion stimulus spending package, however much good that still did. While the momentum of the jobs loss continued, that further reduced demand, and the housing values also continued to drop.

So, as Obama said, his re-election is certainly at risk, and no done deal. Yet it's looking up for those prospects, as you may have noticed.

I think it's like this. We had a plane problem, and hired a guy to fix the plane. He gave a preliminary estimate of how long it would take without a thorough check. The checking showed the plane had many defective systems, and the fix would take quite a bit longer. In the meantime, the engines were fixed, the plane got down the runway and has taken off. Late, and somewhat crippled, so it's having trouble getting up to altitude or to cruising speed. But the plane is flyable, and is flying now, if weakly.

So do we storm the cabin and throw this guy out the cargo bay, when there is nobody available who has ever done such a thing, and the prospective replacements actually said the plane was irreparable originally, and ought to just be sold for scrap? But now say they can do a better job?

Sev
02-14-2012, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"probably will take a year or two more to fully dig ourselves out of this hole" is no admission of failure.

It's a progress report, and an admission of just how big that hole we dropped into was.

Has Gabby Giffords rehabilitation been a failure, just because it's going to take considerably more time for her to approach her full capacity? Isn't her rehab actually well on track, considering she was shot in the head?

Well, the economy was shot in the head, the remedial economic agenda of stabilization has worked, and will also take more time to get us anywhere close to normal.

As in, duh! Pretty easy to do that math-- if you take the average monthly job increase of the Clinton administration, at about 250,000 a month, how long would it take to regain 8 million lost jobs? Or take their very best month, and presume we could AVERAGE that figure, going forward. Still will take some years, and this math applies to any future president as of 2013.

It CANNOT BE DONE in any shorter time frame than one or two years, by any president or Congress or alternative economic plan. Very big hole indeed.

</div></div>

Bad analogy.
Giffords will never fully recover.

Soflasnapper
02-14-2012, 07:14 PM
Who said the American economy would ever fully recover? I'm betting it will not.

Back in the day, post-WWII, George Keenan ('Mr. X' who invented the containment theory against the USSR), said the problem was this: America had half the world's wealth, and only 6.3% of the world's population. Even at that time, he said that was likely an untenable position.

With globalization of capital and capital flows, our position has gravely deteriorated, and we've wasted or at least used up tens of trillions of dollars trying to keep our position with military 'persuasion.' Pretty much going broke in that process, maintaining an 'arms race' without any significant competitors.

The standard of living has been doing a slow-motion collapse over some decades now. Likely, it will end up about 50% of its previous level. We are being averaged down to the rest of the world's standards, including the 3rd world.

cushioncrawler
02-14-2012, 07:23 PM
Sev -- Bad analogy. The usofa haz never been well.
mac.

Re other stuff.
The only good medicine iz a nonfunded deficit.
Americadagrateizgowendownin8.
mac.
Itsbinaprivlidgeknowenyawl.

Sev
02-14-2012, 07:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sev -- Bad analogy. The usofa haz never been well.
mac.

Re other stuff.
The only good medicine iz a nonfunded deficit.
Americadagrateizgowendownin8.
mac.
Itsbinaprivlidgeknowenyawl. </div></div>

Just remember if we go down we are taking everybody with us.
99 luff ballons.

cushioncrawler
02-14-2012, 07:37 PM
Yes -- krappynomicysts hav allready been spotted next to rail tracks in Greece. They were bumming eech other furiously -- its that time of year in europe -- and conditions are ideal -- and its only a matter of time before their numbers are unstoppable.
mac.

Sev
02-14-2012, 07:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes -- krappynomicysts hav allready been spotted next to rail tracks in Greece. They were bumming eech other furiously -- its that time of year in europe -- and conditions are ideal -- and its only a matter of time before their numbers are unstoppable.
mac. </div></div>

If Greece collapses the countries self emulation is going to be entertaining to watch.

cushioncrawler
02-14-2012, 08:08 PM
I hav been thinking about the eurodollar.
It sort of duznt work -- wont work. But az with most ekonimix someone's loss iz someone's gain -- but not allways. Praps with the eurodollar the bookies and punters all leev the track broke.

What they hav iz a eurodollar -- doubtfull value -- mixed up with krappynomix. Not a good mix. I will think some more about this -- surely there iz a good side somewhere. The usofa iz different, theusofaDollar iz a different animal to the eurodollar -- but the krappynomix iz the same.
mac.

cushioncrawler
02-14-2012, 08:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....If Greece collapses the countries self emulation is going to be entertaining to watch.</div></div>Yes -- poor Greece, trapped on an escalator, a painfull death. But what sort of escalator death iz it going to be.

(1) Escalator stops -- Greece stands and stands, and starves.
(2) Escalator iz going up ok -- but Greece iz walking down, and starves.
(3) Escalator iz going down ok -- but Greece iz walking up, and starves.
mac.

wolfdancer
02-14-2012, 08:35 PM
while I am opting to stay out of the political "discussions", I still enjoy reading your replies to those that I regard as naysayers.

cushioncrawler
02-14-2012, 10:23 PM
Woofly -- where are u nowadays. mac.

Soflasnapper
02-15-2012, 11:48 AM
This, from an Economist article, explains the problem with the data the president had at the time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, and a stimulus bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 26th. A stimulus package worth $819 billion passed in the House just two days later.

Two days after that, Americans received grim news about the economy: in the fourth quarter of 2008, GDP contracted at a 3.8% annual pace—the worst quarterly performance since the deep recession of 1982. More bad news hit on February 6th, when the BLS released new labour market figures. It reported an employment decline of 598,000 in January, following on revised drops in employment of 577,000 in December and 597,000 in November—a three-month drop of 1.8m jobs. On February 10th, the Senate passed its version of the stimulus, worth $838 billion. In conference committee, the bill shrank to $787. On February 17th, Mr Obama signed the bill into law.

In the months and years that followed, Washington provided additional support to the economy, perhaps ultimately contributing approximately $1 trillion in total stimulus. But that first bill was the big bite at the apple. The White House looked at the economic situation, sized up Congress, and took its shot. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Unfortunately, the situation was far more dire than anyone in the administration or in Congress supposed.

Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data.</span>

We can't know exactly how things would have played out in a world in which key policymakers had better data. If the true scope of the economic disaster in the fourth quarter had been clear, however, it seems certain that Ms Romer's models would have shown a need for more stimulus, that the White House would have agreed to push for more (and perhaps a lot more), and that Congress would have been much more receptive to a bigger bill. A drop of 8.9% does seem much more terrifying, after all, than a 3.8% decline. Bigger stimulus would have reduced the economic deterioration in subsequent months. The Fed might also have been more aggressive.

Of course, it's not impossible that knowledge of the dire state of the economy would combine with a bigger stimulus plan to shake faith in American finances. </div></div>

From 'Flying Blind,' the Economist, 8/3/11 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/fiscal-policy)

So those complaining about Obama acting without the complete picture couldn't be more wrong. He had to act, and act swiftly, and so he did. Within a week of being inaugurated? Yes, very swiftly.

Should he have WAITED-- MONTHS-- to find out it was far worse? Or used special superpowers to learn what the numbers would be, perhaps by sneaking out to the future to read the headlines?

Damn him for not using those superpowers that all presidents get once they enter office!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
02-15-2012, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">while I am opting to stay out of the political "discussions", I still enjoy reading your replies to those that I regard as naysayers. </div></div>

Appreciate the support! Opinions vary on my efforts, apparently, mainly negative feedback, so it's good to hear of a better reception from some.

cushioncrawler
02-15-2012, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">......So those complaining about Obama acting without the complete picture couldn't be more wrong. He had to act, and act swiftly, and so he did. Within a week of being inaugurated? Yes, very swiftly. Should he have WAITED-- MONTHS-- to find out it was far worse? Or used special superpowers to learn what the numbers would be, perhaps by sneaking out to the future to read the headlines? Damn him for not using those superpowers that all presidents get once they enter office!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif</div></div>Yes -- but no. A krappynomix stimulus iz not a proper stimulus.

Gov expenditure kan and duz stimulate a bit -- it iz better than nothing.
But a proper stimulus, ie proper medicine, ie proper ekonomix, iz non-funded gov expenditure.

The inkreeced gov expenditure iz ok, but then it iz not ok when the gov inkreeces taxes etc to fund that expenditure. And that etc inkloods selling bonds. But i suppoze that any bonds bort by China & Co would be good in the short term, ie would help theusofa in the short term.

The system that u hav in theusofa iz a bit like a hospital that ----
[1] Duznt hav the right sort of X-ray etc diagnostic tools.
[2] Which iz mainly due to not knowing what to look for, ie looking for the wrong things.
[3] Which duznt matter much koz in the end they preskribe bad medicine anyhow.
mac.
Americadagrateizgoindownin8.