View Full Version : Triumph of the Wrong?
In these closing weeks of the campaign, each side wants you to believe that it has the right ideas to fix a still-ailing economy. So here’s what you need to know: If you look at the track record, the Obama administration has been wrong about some things, mainly because it was too optimistic about the prospects for a quick recovery. But Republicans have been wrong about everything. About that misplaced optimism: In a now-notorious January 2009 forecast, economists working for the incoming administration predicted that by now most of the effects of the 2008 financial crisis would be behind us, and the unemployment rate would be below 6 percent. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
Why did the administration get it wrong? It wasn’t exaggerated faith in the power of its stimulus plan; the report predicted a fairly rapid recovery even without stimulus. Instead, President Obama’s people failed to appreciate something that is now common wisdom among economic analysts: severe financial crises inflict sustained economic damage, and it takes a long time to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/krugman-triumph-of-the-wrong.html?src=me&ref=general
Note: October 11, 2012
mookiemookie
10-12-12, 02:31 PM
severe financial crises inflict sustained economic damage, and it takes a long time to recover. This is the truth. And also why I think everyone screaming about how their "plan" is going to create jobs is silly. Jobs aren't created unless consumer demand creates them. There isn't going to be demand until people work through the crushing debt they took on in the 2000s ...the credit cards, student loans, cars, the foreclosed mortgages, etc. No "plan" is going to speed up that process. Pointing fingers at Obama saying "you didn't create more jobs!" is just as foolish as Obama getting up there saying "my plan's going to create X number of jobs." It just doesn't work that way.
Takeda Shingen
10-12-12, 02:44 PM
I think that a lot of what you are seeing is the natural upturn of the economy, particularly in the last few months. It has become clear to both parties that the next four years will feature a recovery, and that whoever is in the White House will get to have their party claim responsibility for that recovery. I believe that this explains the recent push and rally of the Republicans, and the recent sense of urgency of the Democrats. They each want to have their man in the game when the good stuff starts to happen. They can then use it as a campaign slogan for the next three decades.
AVGWarhawk
10-12-12, 03:07 PM
This is the truth. And also why I think everyone screaming about how their "plan" is going to create jobs is silly. Jobs aren't created unless consumer demand creates them. There isn't going to be demand until people work through the crushing debt they took on in the 2000s ...the credit cards, student loans, cars, the foreclosed mortgages, etc. No "plan" is going to speed up that process. Pointing fingers at Obama saying "you didn't create more jobs!" is just as foolish as Obama getting up there saying "my plan's going to create X number of jobs." It just doesn't work that way.
Obama did create more jobs. These jobs were government related paid with tax dollars. Are we sure this is the way to go? :hmmm: I don't think so.
AVGWarhawk
10-12-12, 03:10 PM
I think that a lot of what you are seeing is the natural upturn of the economy, particularly in the last few months. It has become clear to both parties that the next four years will feature a recovery, and that whoever is in the White House will get to have their party claim responsibility for that recovery. I believe that this explains the recent push and rally of the Republicans, and the recent sense of urgency of the Democrats. They each want to have their man in the game when the good stuff starts to happen. They can then use it as a campaign slogan for the next three decades.
I'm with you on this Tak. Recovery is slow and in 4 years we just might see the light at the end of the tunnel. Who is in the WH will look golden. Folks do not realize when legislation for certain things pass it take months/years to initiate it. Take a look at BRAC. The program was approved in 2006. The actual closures of bases started about 2 years ago.
Madox58
10-12-12, 03:18 PM
All I can add is this.
From a very tough last few years in the Construction Game?
I'm hardly ever at home since late January!
:o
We have hired 4 new guys and are on the verge of hiring a few more.
:yep:
Companies we have done no work for in years are calling us up with job offers all over the country. From Long Island to Washington State!
:yeah:
I think that a lot of what you are seeing is the natural upturn of the economy, particularly in the last few months. It has become clear to both parties that the next four years will feature a recovery, and that whoever is in the White House will get to have their party claim responsibility for that recovery. I believe that this explains the recent push and rally of the Republicans, and the recent sense of urgency of the Democrats. They each want to have their man in the game when the good stuff starts to happen. They can then use it as a campaign slogan for the next three decades.
:yep: If we can avoid the EU collapsing in on itself then hopefully we can get towards the less bumpy part of the road to recovery before the decade is out.
mookiemookie
10-12-12, 03:30 PM
I think that a lot of what you are seeing is the natural upturn of the economy, particularly in the last few months. It has become clear to both parties that the next four years will feature a recovery, and that whoever is in the White House will get to have their party claim responsibility for that recovery. I believe that this explains the recent push and rally of the Republicans, and the recent sense of urgency of the Democrats. They each want to have their man in the game when the good stuff starts to happen. They can then use it as a campaign slogan for the next three decades.
Very astute observation.
Obama did create more jobs. These jobs were government related paid with tax dollars. Are we sure this is the way to go? :hmmm: I don't think so.
The number of government employees has dropped under Obama.
And tax dollars are distributed back to the public through spending, so it works from an economics standpoint. I don't think it's the most efficient way of going about it, but it does work.
AVGWarhawk
10-12-12, 03:47 PM
The number of government employees has dropped under Obama.
I need to see a source. Obamacare will be handled by whom?
mookiemookie
10-12-12, 03:56 PM
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fred-20120529-govemployment.png
Jimbuna
10-12-12, 04:16 PM
:yep: If we can avoid the EU collapsing in on itself then hopefully we can get towards the less bumpy part of the road to recovery before the decade is out.
Wishful thinking but I hope you are right.
http://www.thefactfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fedwork1.jpg
http://www.thefactfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fedwork2.jpg
Source: FedScope, Office of Personnel Management (http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp)
mookiemookie
10-12-12, 09:07 PM
Government employment covers only civilian employees; military personnel are excluded. Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency also are excluded.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch2.pdf
Sailor Steve
10-12-12, 09:22 PM
My chart can beat up your chart! :O:
AVGWarhawk
10-12-12, 09:24 PM
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch2.pdf
This is perfectly meaningless. The way I have read it, state and local gov't employees has diminished. The Fed employees has grown in the last four years.
This is perfectly meaningless. The way I have read it, state and local gov't employees has diminished. The Fed employees has grown in the last four years.
Note that the definition is from a different website than the graph. I checked the Fred site and while I found the graph there is no mention there of not including military.
Takeda Shingen
10-12-12, 09:37 PM
My chart can beat up your chart! :O:
My dad can beat up your chart, but he needs a few beers to get going.
mookiemookie
10-12-12, 10:01 PM
The FRED data comes from the BLS Establishment survey of employment. The PDF link is the methodology for the survey.
Sailor Steve
10-12-12, 10:47 PM
My dad can beat up your chart, but he needs a few beers to get going.
Did you ever hear the "Hollywood" version?
Kid 1: "My dad can beat up your dad!"
Kid 2: "Are you kidding? Your dad is my dad!"
All graphs that have been shown here, the current unemployment rate, it is a secure information, :hmmm:
Did you ever hear the "Hollywood" version?
Kid 1: "My dad can beat up your dad!"
Kid 2: "Are you kidding? Your dad is my dad!"
or this
Kid 1: My dad can beat you dad
Kid 2: So can my mom
Jimbuna
10-13-12, 02:42 PM
Did you ever hear the "Hollywood" version?
Kid 1: "My dad can beat up your dad!"
Kid 2: "Are you kidding? Your dad is my dad!"
Often used over here in the UK...or at least it was at school when I was a kid :oops:
Sailor Steve
10-13-12, 02:54 PM
My lawyer can beat up your lawyer. :O:
Jimbuna
10-13-12, 02:58 PM
My lawyer can beat up your lawyer. :O:
Don't trust him until you find out how much my lawyer is being paid :)
Sailor Steve
10-13-12, 03:03 PM
Don't trust him until you find out how much my lawyer is being paid :)
The answer that comes to my mind is: My lawyer can sue your lawyer for assault! :D
Jimbuna
10-13-12, 03:49 PM
The answer that comes to my mind is: My lawyer can sue your lawyer for assault! :D
WellI can't afford to sue because I pay my lawter all I've got :88)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.