|
Obama killing the economy and stock market? Huh? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| delobbo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm just saying that there's a culture in this country of pinning the entire economy on the Dow... and that's simply not an accurate snapshot. Obama isn't worried about putting in place policies designed to stimulate the stock market (or at least he shouldn't be) - he's looking to stimulate demand in order to prop up GDP growth and limit the rise in unemployment. That's how you rebuild the economy, and that takes more time than the seven weeks he's been given. |
sure, and of course I will be happy if things start to get better. but these first few weeks have been dismal. mistakes are being made left and right. it's really disappointing. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by delobbo
sure, and of course I will be happy if things start to get better. but these first few weeks have been dismal. mistakes are being made left and right. it's really disappointing. |
I agree that mistakes have been made, but it's a tricky rope to walk. Republicans wanted a much smaller stimulus focused entirely on tax cuts (or none at all). Progressives (including myself) wanted a much, much larger stimulus with a greater emphasis on infrastructure and unemployment help/health care subsidies. What we got was something in the middle. I think it's been a valuable lesson for the Obama folks that A. you can't please everyone, and B. sometimes one side is wrong. History will bear this out, but economics already shows that we need to stimulate demand and tax cuts is not the way to do it.
We're facing a trillion dollar output shortfall, and we've plugged $400 billion with that last stimulus. It's akin to sand-bagging around 40% of the town... we're still going to get inundated.
In my opinion, it's time for Obama to take off the kid gloves. Republicans never came to the table to craft policy:
| quote: | “We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”
McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.
McHenry’s description of his party’s goal — to “bring down approval numbers” for Nancy Pelosi and House Dems — is being much talked about today among Congressional Dems. It’s likely that Dems will grab on to the quote today to bolster their charge that Congressional Republicans aren’t interested in playing a constructive role in governing and see their hope for political revival in the eventual failure of the Democratic majority’s policies. |
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/ |
|
|
| delobbo |
| hehe.. did you see the SNL The Rock Obama.. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by delobbo
hehe.. did you see the SNL The Rock Obama.. |
Can't say I did. I really don't see much TV (other than 30 Rock). |
|
|
| delobbo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I agree that mistakes have been made, but it's a tricky rope to walk. Republicans wanted a much smaller stimulus focused entirely on tax cuts (or none at all). Progressives (including myself) wanted a much, much larger stimulus with a greater emphasis on infrastructure and unemployment help/health care subsidies. What we got was something in the middle. I think it's been a valuable lesson for the Obama folks that A. you can't please everyone, and B. sometimes one side is wrong. History will bear this out, but economics already shows that we need to stimulate demand and tax cuts is not the way to do it.
We're facing a trillion dollar output shortfall, and we've plugged $400 billion with that last stimulus. It's akin to sand-bagging around 40% of the town... we're still going to get inundated.
In my opinion, it's time for Obama to take off the kid gloves. Republicans never came to the table to craft policy:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/ |
I personally don't think the mistakes being made concerned decisions which were of the "tough" variety. And given what was said during the campaign, I would have expected O to go the other way or at least in a markedly different direction - that's why it's disappointing. There were a lot of empty promises along the way. But, apparently, this is what politicians do. Don't know if you remember but i am not a politics guy. This election was the first time I was really interested. And, according to the election statistics, I was not alone. Many many first-time voters. Many people were tired of the previous administration and for sure we did not want Palin anywhere near the White House. Those were my motivating factors, looking back. But I was also optimistic that O could turn things around and invigorate markets - I know the market is not a direct indicator of presidential performance but I felt he was influential enough TO have some recognizable positive effect on it. Anyways this whole thing with politicians has left me quite cynical and honestly if this is "what they do" then I feel like I wasted soooooo much time effort and energy following the election and campaign. I'm glad we kept Palin out of the White House tho. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I just don't see that at all. I mean, if you're using the market as a baseline for job performance maybe. But there's been a great deal of change thusfar in government policy - ending the gag rule on abortion, the codification of equal pay for women, lifting the moratorium on federal funding for stem cell research, drawing down in Iraq, moving toward closing Guantanamo, etc.
There are some things where I think Obama's fallen short of my hopes, but it's hard to argue that he's "failed" there - on torture he hasn't met progressive demands, but conservatives aren't complaining. On the economy he is in the awkward position of having caved to compromise from the very start and passed an inadequate bill, but the sentiment in Washington is quickly swinging toward redressing that.
Overall, I think Obama has been largely successful. I never thought things would shift overnight - it takes a long time to craft policy, and an even longer time to evaluate effectiveness. I would imagine we won't have a verdict on the first 100 days until near the end of this term. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I just don't see that at all. I mean, if you're using the market as a baseline for job performance maybe. But there's been a great deal of change thusfar in government policy - ending the gag rule on abortion, the codification of equal pay for women, lifting the moratorium on federal funding for stem cell research, drawing down in Iraq, moving toward closing Guantanamo, etc.
There are some things where I think Obama's fallen short of my hopes, but it's hard to argue that he's "failed" there - on torture he hasn't met progressive demands, but conservatives aren't complaining. On the economy he is in the awkward position of having caved to compromise from the very start and passed an inadequate bill, but the sentiment in Washington is quickly swinging toward redressing that.
Overall, I think Obama has been largely successful. I never thought things would shift overnight - it takes a long time to craft policy, and an even longer time to evaluate effectiveness. I would imagine we won't have a verdict on the first 100 days until near the end of this term. |
I will also point out that many times back in November & December, after the election, when Obama was doing decisive things like naming Cabinet officials, the market was rallying on the hope of where things were headed. Just look at what happened when they named Geithner. Then Geithner had tax problems (along with others) and underperformed the expectations in terms of providing clarity, confidence and details.
I think one of the main reasons the market rallied before the new year was because it looked like Obama was going to step in, take the reins, and tell the crew how we were going to guide the ship through the storm. It hasn't really happened that way, which is why the market is disappointed and pricing that disappointment and fear into stocks, bonds, credit.
And I won't disagree on some of the social policy issues points during normal times, but we aren't living in those. I mean, who cares if stem cell research is allowed if tax receipts and private investment won't fund it (past the point where it's "stimulus" that we can't afford to fund forever? |
|
|
| delobbo |
| ^^^ precisely. and I'm all for equal pay, but what if you don't have a job? addressing the wrong things at the wrong time. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Hey Opus--the market looks forward, not backward! The gripe isn't that the plan is killing the market, rather it's more along the lines that the plan is long on spending and short on details and is heavy on welfare and wealth transfer and light on real stimulus. In short, it's half-baked and the market players aren't biting. Just sayin'. |
Well I'll just add my two cents to this post. As to welfare ... I didn't really see that with exception to the extension of unemployment benefits ... nothing too excessive however. The stimulus package was short on details and it was heavy on wealth transfer but probably not for the same reasons that you might agree. I definitely thought the stimulus package was far too compromising to republicans in that its largest component was tax cuts. Tax cuts are a wealth transfer because we have a progressive income tax. Instead of tax cuts the focus should have been on more fiscal stimulus. I can't think of a policy decision more silly than to stimulate "demand" via tax cuts when consumer confidence is taking a dump on the entire economy. Particularly when one takes into consideration that we are experiencing a bubble bursting of a minuscule savings rate.
As for the markets ... well do you really think the markets are acting rational right now? CDS spreads alone on certain companies should provide enough indication that is completely ed up. Healthy companies should not have these kinds of problems raising money in the credit markets (and a lot of them are legitimately healthy)! Yes the stimulus plan is half baked, but the market is even MORE half baked. As for what market "players" are looking for imo are nationalizations. And I agree with that ... there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. Those preferred shares need to be converted to common equity and the big banks broken up into bad banks/good banks. I think that's what's needed, what everyone expects, and this delay in nationalization is a legitimate criticism.
However, I am FAR FAR FAR FAR more critical of newly appointed retards McCain and Shelby for advocating big bank failures. I mean seriously .... after seeing what happened with Lehman do you seriously think we can SURVIVE a deleveraging of a Citi or BOA failure??? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by delobbo
^^^ precisely. and I'm all for equal pay, but what if you don't have a job? addressing the wrong things at the wrong time. |
:wtf:
You guys sound like Mark Halperin - "President Obama, aren't you being distracted by the real issues by taking five minutes to sign a monumental stem cell bill?" |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well I'll just add my two cents to this post. As to welfare ... I didn't really see that with exception to the extension of unemployment benefits ... nothing too excessive however. The stimulus package was short on details and it was heavy on wealth transfer but probably not for the same reasons that you might agree. I definitely thought the stimulus package was far too compromising to republicans in that its largest component was tax cuts. Tax cuts are a wealth transfer because we have a progressive income tax. Instead of tax cuts the focus should have been on more fiscal stimulus. I can't think of a policy decision more silly than to stimulate "demand" via tax cuts when consumer confidence is taking a dump on the entire economy. Particularly when one takes into consideration that we are experiencing a bubble bursting of a minuscule savings rate.
As for the markets ... well do you really think the markets are acting rational right now? CDS spreads alone on certain companies should provide enough indication that is completely ed up. Healthy companies should not have these kinds of problems raising money in the credit markets (and a lot of them are legitimately healthy)! Yes the stimulus plan is half baked, but the market is even MORE half baked. As for what market "players" are looking for imo are nationalizations. And I agree with that ... there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. Those preferred shares need to be converted to common equity and the big banks broken up into bad banks/good banks. I think that's what's needed, what everyone expects, and this delay in nationalization is a legitimate criticism.
However, I am FAR FAR FAR FAR more critical of newly appointed retards McCain and Shelby for advocating big bank failures. I mean seriously .... after seeing what happened with Lehman do you seriously think we can SURVIVE a deleveraging of a Citi or BOA failure??? |
Nationalization will indeed be the coming debate in the next month, and that probably helps explain the decline in share values on Wall Street - what corporation is excited about that prospect? I go back to Josh Marshall's point about how Wall Street is driven by opinions and values of people that don't necessarily represent the best interests of the entire economy in a holistic sense. We need to focus on increasing demand among consumers, not among stock buyers. |
|
|
|
|
