Triumph of the Wrong?

[Gerald]

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/op...me&ref=general


Note: October 11, 2012

[mookiemookie]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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? I don't think so.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

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!


We have hired 4 new guys and are on the verge of hiring a few more.


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!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Obama did create more jobs. These jobs were government related paid with tax dollars. Are we sure this is the way to go? 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]

The number of government employees has dropped under Obama.

I need to see a source. Obamacare will be handled by whom?

[mookiemookie]

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

[August]

Source: FedScope, Office of Personnel Management (http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp)

[mookiemookie]

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]

My chart can beat up your chart!

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.