Maybe he's not the messiah

[KYYX4ever]

Our economic troubles are part of something huge and complicated that will take years to undo. There was no way that Obama could come in and wave a magic liberal economy-fixing wand around, and undo this mess in less than a month. Folks need to be patient and ride this out. Eventually things will shift more favorably. The administration is doing well to take suggestions from all sides. It is not desperation; it is pragmatism, and politics too of course. No matter who would have gotten elected, any president would be in the same boat now and be making similar moves.
I have been seeing and reading some articles about Japan's economy. Seems their gov't has made about a [b]dozen[/b] stimulus packages since the 90s, and they have not worked. Our troubles require so much more than stimulus packages by the gov't.
What do you guys think might be some solutions [?]

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>I have been seeing and reading some articles about Japan's economy. Seems their gov't has made about a [b]dozen[/b] stimulus packages since the 90s, and they have not worked.[/quote]

What are we up to now, four? Since last year?

[quote]Our troubles require so much more than stimulus packages by the gov't.
What do you guys think might be some solutions [?][/quote]

We need to listen to Biggie:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MimSmKOJZRg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MimSmKOJZRg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Our economic troubles are part of something huge and complicated that will take years to undo. There was no way that Obama could come in and wave a magic liberal economy-fixing wand around, and undo this mess in less than a month. Folks need to be patient and ride this out. Eventually things will shift more favorably. The administration is doing well to take suggestions from all sides. It is not desperation; it is pragmatism, and politics too of course. No matter who would have gotten elected, any president would be in the same boat now and be making similar moves.
I have been seeing and reading some articles about Japan's economy. Seems their gov't has made about a [b]dozen[/b] stimulus packages since the 90s, and they have not worked. Our troubles require so much more than stimulus packages by the gov't.
What do you guys think might be some solutions [?]
[/quote]

I think jobs is the solution. And it is intertwined with the cost of health care. I would love to see tariffs put on imported goods that could be manufactured here. Just like it used to be. I read that Hershey is closing another plant in Pennsylvannia and sending the jobs to Mexico. Companies such as Microsoft are always lobbying for more higher allotments of H-1B temporary visas. It's all such bullsh*t

Whenever I see a Rupublican representive bellyaching about how much money is being spent it makes me laugh. They haven't been conservative in years. And what the hell is the deal with being against "Buy American"? What about the Bush stimulus plan that had no restrictions for the banks? Our great grandkids will be paying for that for years to.

Every politican be it a Republican or a Democrat, is connected with a lobbyist that is working against the American people. Until we do a clean sweep of our elected officials, things will never change.


I forgot to add, unless we do something real about illegal immigration, these people here in our country illegally will continue to rape our tax dollars. Any new construction jobs that may be created with our money will have many illegal immigrants on the jobsites. E-Verify should have been included in the new stimulus bill. It was in the first house version but was removed.

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>I forgot to add, unless we do something real about illegal immigration, these people here in our country illegally will continue to rape our tax dollars. Any new construction jobs that may be created with our money will have many illegal immigrants on the jobsites. E-Verify should have been included in the new stimulus bill. It was in the first house version but was removed.[/quote]

YES. And get rid of this sanctuary city nonsense. And cut Puerto Rico loose already. And radio needs taste reform.

[hutter]

If y'all are being honest with yourselves (I know that's asking a lot) you can lay whatever blame on the economy on William Jefferson Clinton's feet (NAFTA as well as the open door he gave to China which we're paying for not only economically but health-wise. You think there was something to those Chinese political contributions now? Bill sold us out). It's amazing that GWB was able to go as long as he did considering what a mess he was inheriting. And now Obama is inheriting that same mess, and look how long it's taking him to drop the ball. Not four years, not eight years, but barely a month. Liberal economics at work, once again.

And when will folks learn? When you threaten to socialize banks, medical care, etc you scare away the real money that makes this country run.

[MARV]

I just wish there was some incentive to get real economists into Washington. This country has no economic leadership.

[SallyLightfoot]

hutter, if you want to be really honest, GWB inherited some problems, sure, but he turned a moderately challenging situation into a three-ring shit-circus.

Clinton was a moderate-left president, and he had a republican majority in Congress, so he passed a lot of center-right legislation. Clinton was doing what washington usually does -- let the big corporate donors and lobbyists drive the country. As a president, you can pass center or center-right policy with the intention that regulation and oversight will remain in place. But that didn't happen under GWB.

Socialization doesn't have anything to do with the mess that we're in. GWB had to try to save the banks, or the economy would fall to pieces. Obama also had to continue this effort. That's not socialization, that's trying to rescue the nation from the flames.
I don't understand what this 'scare away the real money...' means. There is a global credit-crisis, and our largest financial institutions are insolvent. Money is only paper, worth only the confidence that people have in it. Once the confidence erodes, there is no 'real' money asset, and the entire system falls like a house of cards. In this context, luring 'real money' does not make any difference.

And finally, this is not 'liberal economics', people. It's the Chicago-school of economists like Milton Friedman, Greenspan and the Ayn Rand objectivists that have built this system on the faith that free-markets and individuals are self-regulating.

[KYYX4ever]

Not to mention the failed "trickle-down" economics that drove much of the GOP policies from the 80s onwards. More like "trickle-[b]on[/b]", because that is what it did to us little people.

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by hutter[/i]
<br>If y'all are being honest with yourselves (I know that's asking a lot) you can lay whatever blame on the economy on William Jefferson Clinton's feet (NAFTA as well as the open door he gave to China which we're paying for not only economically but health-wise. You think there was something to those Chinese political contributions now? Bill sold us out). It's amazing that GWB was able to go as long as he did considering what a mess he was inheriting. And now Obama is inheriting that same mess, and look how long it's taking him to drop the ball. Not four years, not eight years, but barely a month. Liberal economics at work, once again.

And when will folks learn? When you threaten to socialize banks, medical care, etc you scare away the real money that makes this country run.
[/quote]

The "Socializing" bailout of the banks was Bush and Paulsen.
Helping out Paulsen's friends with billion of dollars with no strings attached, no accountablity what so ever.

I always hated Clinton's NAFTA and still do. Any of the so called "Free Trade Agreements" seem to screw the United States.

Clinton had nothing to do with cutting taxes for the wealthy during wartime. (Unprecedented move that had never been done before)
Or spending over 700 BILLION dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without having a way to pay for it. The past eight years the past administration ran our country on borrowed money. It was just a matter of time until it all imploded. Whatever so called mess Bush may have "inherited" could have been changed quite easily with a Republican president and Congress in charge.

[NuWaveRx]

[quote]

And finally, this is not 'liberal economics', people. It's the Chicago-school of economists like Milton Friedman, Greenspan and the Ayn Rand objectivists that have built this system on the faith that free-markets and individuals are self-regulating.
[/quote]


Er...no. That's pleasent propaganda spread by those who want to point the finger of blame concerning the current financial crisis at the "free-market" boogyman. The bottom line is if it weren't for the increase in regulation that resulted in the creation of behemoths like Fannie/Freddy and the idiotic mandate to induce lenders to arrange morgages to those who had no business getting them (with fun things like sub-prime rates or ARMs) much of our problems would not currently exist.

As far as "deregulation" of Wall Street:
1-Many economists would argue that the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 actaully allowed for more diversification in investment banks and the shape we are in now would be considerably worse were it not in play

2-The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which many have said encouraged the credit default swaps that led to the start of the financial crisis was a relatively new act using a derrivative that only a very few people actually understood. Had these swaps been classifed as "futures" such swaps probably would not have been allowed. I believe the bottom line with this is the market did not have time to complete enough of a cycle for self-regulation. I believe it is safe to say that if the crisis was over tomorrow, very few investment banks would go back to working with these instruments

3-The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms of 2003 led to FAS 157, clarifying the ways that publicly traded companies should value their assets. Now, assets had to be valued at the price they could fetch if sold today. If the market for a particular type of asset, such as credit default swaps, happened to be illiquid for the moment, the accounting value was now zero, regardless of any inherent worth. When investments that probably have long-term value are assessed at zero in the short term, balance sheets and capital ratios turn ugly and panicked selling ensues.

You are correct, however, that W (not exactly a paragon of de-regulation himself, (the federal regulatory budget increased 65 percent during his watch), could have averted much of this by acting sooner. Of course we can add the Trillions spent on a unnecesary war in Iraq for his contribution to U.S. insolvency.

All this being said, and despite the fact that I do not agree with much of his economic policies, to declare Obama's policies a "failure" and that he's "dropped" the ball is disingenuous at the very least. He's been in office for less than two months. No one--not even the implementation of a more laissez-faire, less tax prohibative approach to this crisis, could reverse it any quicker. It took years to get into this mess and will probably take months or years to get out of it.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130348.html

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>[quote]

And finally, this is not 'liberal economics', people. It's the Chicago-school of economists like Milton Friedman, Greenspan and the Ayn Rand objectivists that have built this system on the faith that free-markets and individuals are self-regulating.
[/quote]


Er...no. That's pleasent propaganda spread by those who want to point the finger of blame concerning the current financial crisis at the "free-market" boogyman. The bottom line is if it weren't for the increase in regulation that resulted in the creation of behemoths like Fannie/Freddy and the idiotic mandate to induce lenders to arrange morgages to those who had no business getting them (with fun things like sub-prime rates or ARMs) much of our problems would not currently exist.

[/quote]

Friedman and his ilk have dominated economic policy for the past three decades. The chicago school is not to blame for what has happened, they just laid the theoretical groundwork. The problem of this crisis was not exactly mortgages, nor was it sub-prime lending (the forclosures have been across the board, and in markets where Fannie Freddie were not active). The problem was risk & leverage. Only about 5% of all mortgages have gone into foreclosure. The problem is that the banks had levered themselves up so much that they would be insolvent if only 3.5% of the entire mortgage market failed. If the problem were just mortgages, then it's a 1.2 trillion dollar problem that we could just throw money at and make it go away (and Paulson's 'buy the bad assets' approach would work). If only we were that lucky. The real problem is that it is a 1.2 trillion x 30 (or 45, or whatever the leveraging rate) mess because of the derivatives, which are too complex to accurately value.

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]

As far as "deregulation" of Wall Street:
1-Many economists would argue that the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 actaully allowed for more diversification in investment banks and the shape we are in now would be considerably worse were it not in play
[/quote] Our financial system has imploded-- our largest banks have folded, and many of the largest that remain are insolvent; I'm not sure how things could be considerably worse.

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
2-The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which many have said encouraged the credit default swaps that led to the start of the financial crisis was a relatively new act using a derrivative that only a very few people actually understood. Had these swaps been classifed as "futures" such swaps probably would not have been allowed. I believe the bottom line with this is the market did not have time to complete enough of a cycle for self-regulation. I believe it is safe to say that if the crisis was over tomorrow, very few investment banks would go back to working with these instruments
[/quote] This is a generous view of events. Derivatives have been around for over a decade, and there were problems with them in the early 90's (Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, etc.). What the CFM Act did was permit the largest investment banks to lever up beyond what was previously allowed (something like from 15% leverage to over 30%). I also believe that banks would not go back to these specific investments, but the financial world has a short memory -- if you give them a decade, there will be a new shiny debt instrument invented and the cycle will repeat. Given the way Wall Street incentives work, there's too much $ to resist.

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
3-The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms of 2003 led to FAS 157, clarifying the ways that publicly traded companies should value their assets. Now, assets had to be valued at the price they could fetch if sold today. If the market for a particular type of asset, such as credit default swaps, happened to be illiquid for the moment, the accounting value was now zero, regardless of any inherent worth. When investments that probably have long-term value are assessed at zero in the short term, balance sheets and capital ratios turn ugly and panicked selling ensues. [/quote] The alternative to this would be to allow garbage investments to remain on the balance sheets, like financial time bombs for future management to worry about. Meanwhile, the current crop of high-paid Wall St. talent collects their giant bonuses.


[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
You are correct, however, that W (not exactly a paragon of de-regulation himself, (the federal regulatory budget increased 65 percent during his watch), could have averted much of this by acting sooner. Of course we can add the Trillions spent on a unnecesary war in Iraq for his contribution to U.S. insolvency.

All this being said, and despite the fact that I do not agree with much of his economic policies, to declare Obama's policies a "failure" and that he's "dropped" the ball is disingenuous at the very least. He's been in office for less than two months. No one--not even the implementation of a more laissez-faire, less tax prohibative approach to this crisis, could reverse it any quicker. It took years to get into this mess and will probably take months or years to get out of it. [/quote]I think we agree on this, and not out of generosity to either president. When a bubble bursts, there isn't much that can be done except try to lessen the pain without making matters worse.

I enjoy reading Reason from time to time (gotta love Peter Bagge!), but libertarians also tend to believe in the miracle of free-markets. Libertarians are a bit like republicans without the god fetish, but who have turned to narcissism instead of socialism/humanism (like the democrats).

[NuWaveRx]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
Libertarians are a bit like republicans without the god fetish, but who have turned to narcissism instead of socialism/humanism (like the democrats).
[/quote]

I find that view short-sighted, and (ironically) very narrow-minded for a person who posts here as a bastion of so called "liberalism".

I'm afraid history is defintely on the Libertarian side here, Sally. Capitalism and it's inherent view of free-markets has catagorically been responsible for the development of the richest and most prosperous society the world has ever known. Time and time again when left (largely) to its own devices Capitalism has devised ingenious and flexable answers to any number of the world's problems--from the mundane to the life-saving. Free markets employ more people and sustain them at a higher level of living than any other known economic system. As far as "narcissism" is concerned, those same "evil" business owners have allowed for the people they employ and themselves the disposable wealth to support communication and Philanthropy on a level never known in this planet's history. Certainly without it you and I would not be having this conversation online. Like most Libertarians I know, I am not advocating for a complete lack of oversight in the free market--just that it should be done as minimally as possible to allow Capitalism to function as efficiently as possible.

I agree with you on a lot of (mainly social) issues, Sally, but I'm afraid not on this topic. My belief in the free market has nothing to do with "miracles", but with knowledge aforethought of history.

[SallyLightfoot]

I post here only what my opinions are, not to represent a particular belief or political party. Frankly, I don't know exactly what the definition of liberalism is. As for history being on the side of 'libertarianism', I don't know what this history is. Much of US history can be more readily viewed through the lens of corporatism/militarism, hegemony and racism-- and these things are anathema to libertarianism.

I'm not against regulated capitalism, and I agree that capitalism has historically harnessed human potential better than other systems. When I said 'narcissism', I meant that libertarianism focuses on the self-- on individual freedom as opposed to the collective. Maybe 'solipsism' would have been a less offensive term, but maybe not. The libertarian movement tends to attract a lot of anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-government types, the ones that are not welcome within the GOP tent because they don't endorse the religious, militaristic, strong central govt themes of that party. [quote]Like most Libertarians I know, I am not advocating for a complete lack of oversight in the free market--just that it should be done as minimally as possible to allow Capitalism to function as efficiently as possible. [/quote] I think most citizens believe in this regardless of political/economic stripe. People on the left do not say 'We need way [i]more[/i] oversight than is necessary.'

I think the Internet is perhaps not the best example of capitalism (or philanthropy). Started and funded by the government, embraced by public research institutions, academia and universities, running on BSD, Linux and other free operating systems, as well as Apache, LAMP and Firefox...

[SallyLightfoot]

rotator--
Give me an example of New Wave 'creds'? Is it a secret handshake, a ticket stub from a Depeche Mode concert?

I'm here for the same reason anyone else is here. I'm a huge music geek and I come to NWO because it's one of the best enclaves for fans & experts in the genre-- people who have even more passion & knowledge for it than me. I think there's a site search engine if you want to read anything I've posted outside of NNW.

I get the sense that you prefer to be surrounded by people who share a certain pov. If so, that's too f***** bad. I haven't said anything disrespectful to anyone, and I don't think I need to kiss anyone's ring to gain entry to the honeycomb hideout.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet, but obviously our world-views are so different that you characterize me that way, and feel the need for a confrontation. I would prefer that people respond to my posts like NuWaveRx, who made good points that I'm still thinking about. That's the kind of thing that I hope to gain from discussions here. You may be looking for something else, but that's not a concern of mine.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by hutter[/i]
<br>If y'all are being honest with yourselves (I know that's asking a lot) you can lay whatever blame on the economy on William Jefferson Clinton's feet
[/quote]

Um, no. Our current economic troubles were engendered well before Clinton's term. Policies were set into motion during Reagan's terms in the 80s. And don't forget, the GOP controlled controlled Congress for Clinton's initial years, and that in order for Clinton to get anything accomplished, he had to make certain compromises legislatively, some of which were allowing some Republican deregulatory bills to pass and signing them into law.