Saw this today.
Obama's gdp = approx. 7/2011. Source: The NY Times:
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
BTW, that article is about 8 years behind being real news. Here is a study about that from 2005 (based in the medical field).
Which has also been challenged:
"Brew, I started off quite civil on here, but after being repeatedly attacked, persona attacks, including by matt, who as an employee of CCP should avoid and be above such behavior, that I finally had enough. And FYI pretty much everything posted by liberals on here is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest."
I have been reading city paper since 2008. Every thing I have read you post on here, from the beginning, has been full of hatred and negativity. You act childish, yet can't understand why no one takes you seriously. I don't always agree with Cid, but he could be an example for you. When you give people respect, they may actually want to converse with you.
"Furthermore, for you libturd regulars on here that LOVE to pump science as the arbiter of truth and end all be all of undeniable fact, the "Business Insider" published a story today titled ... "Why Most Published Scientific Research is Wroong"."
What scientist would claim that all studies are fact? None that I know of.
Anyone that basis stories out of the Economist as a central opinion on all scientific research, probably doesn't know much about scientific research. Anyone can get published. Peer review and multiple counter experiments are what real scientists look for. The title is also misleading. If you actually read the story, they are specifically talking about cancer research and clinical drug trials as a reason most research is incorrect. It really isn't that the research is wrong, but that the results cannot be reproduced. You can't use that as a reason to doubt all scientific research. The author's point is that studies need to be replicated and scrutinized more. He just did a very poor job of highlighting why that is important. For example, just because a drug manufacturer can't reproduce a case study of a new cancer drug does not mean a chemist researching a new type of synthesis will use the same methods or controls, thus having the same issues. Two different worlds, and the world of clinical trials is a difficult one. I do agree that medical research can be spotty, and I blame most of this on the cutthroat for-profit system the drug companies work under. That is why I am not part of those industries. I work in petroleum chemistry and combustion technology. If the core theories behind this industry were incorrect, we wouldn't be able to progress in our current projects. Luckily, those core theories have been repeatedly challenged and still hold up. If they ever fail a challenge, the theories will be changed. And that is the beauty of science. It is always evolving based on new discoveries. It is sad you can't understand that. Instead, you push it away and see it as a negative part of our world. If we didn't have it and use it, you probably wouldn't be alive today.
I love reading various explanations of how it's totally fine, indeed beneficial, to the US economy for our federal government to create money at nearly US$100,000,000,000 per month and issue it as debt at low interest rates, thus forcing the rest of the US$ fixed income world to do the same and also having ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN TO EVER STOP. 1% interest on US$17,000,000,000,000 is still a good chunk of US Federal Revenue.
Anyone that lives in the real world know that endless borrowing, whether to run your lawn mowing business, your household, a large corporate or a national government is not feasible and will lead to collapse. Yes, our currency is the current global reserve currency of the world. No, that doesn't waive the rules of mathematics.
"Regarding Krugman, that communist."
See Ned, this is why I'm skeptical (to put it mildly) that you have any kind of postgraduate education.
There may be some people that are better off, but the country as a whole is not and we are headed further & further down a very dangerous and harmful path. The crash that happened at the end of Bush's 2nd term was all started under Clinton and can be directly tied to Clinton and progressive policies. Bush did things that complicated the situation, but he had little to do with the cause and his admin tried for years to head of the banking crisis, but was blocked by Barney Frank and Dems in the House and Obama and Dems in the Senate. This is fact and has been repeatedly proven.
Brew, I started off quite civil on here, but after being repeatedly attacked, persona attacks, including by matt, who as an employee of CCP should avoid and be above such behavior, that I finally had enough. And FYI pretty much everything posted by liberals on here is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.
FYI: I post openly under my real name and dont roll over for anyone.
Fish Pimp - Try to keep up. I have a BS in Finance, an MBA, and with the exception of the 5 years I spent in Tampa/St.Pete in the tech industry I've spent my entire adult life in the mortgage & corporate finance sector. I've defined & discussed QE numerous times in the past on here.
As far as Pubs & regulations, you are full of it. As usual. What they desire to block is broad vague legislation like Dodd-Frank that after 3 years is still being fleshed out in unintended ways by unelected bureaucrats. Corporations can not focus on the future when law after law by Dems is broad & vague and gives virtually unlimited power to regulators that do as they please years later. Legislation where "we have to pass it to know what's in it".
FED monetary policy constantly trying to force growth is dangerous. As I have written numerous times, constant growth is not sustainable. There must be cooling off periods. Short term minor recessions are natural. The problem is politicians use them as campaign fodder because the average voter is a moron and has no clue how the economy works. Clinton used a minor recession under Bush 41 to win the '92 election when the recession was already over by the time of the election rolled around. Then he started us down the path that got us in the quagmire we are still trying to dig our way out of.
Most of the federal government should be dismantled. It is illegal and a huge overreach per the Constitution.
Regarding Krugman, that communist thinks debt is no big deal at any level. Even most Keynesians recognize that debt is bad in the long term. Anyone that thinks Krugman is credible is out to lunch. I've seen countless left leaning economists and business types call Krugman out on CNBC.
artrougue - Well written, but you meant Carter, not Bush. Carter created the "Community Reinvestment Act" in 1977.
By the way, for liberals reading this ... John Carney, who is a very liberal business writer & Wall Street reporter, wrote a series of articles back in 2009 in the "Business Insider" where he finally admits the the CRA and Clinton were large contributors and the birth place of the banking crisis & housing bubble. He tries his best to constantly place undo guilt on Bush & Pubs, but he does in fact give the CRA & Clinton a role and the birth place of this mess when other liberals, Dems, & progressives in general refuse to do so. And FYI, for those unaware, the "Business Insider" is a very liberal business publication.
Furthermore, for you libturd regulars on here that LOVE to pump science as the arbiter of truth and end all be all of undeniable fact, the "Business Insider" published a story today titled ... "Why Most Published Scientific Research is Wroong".
"Lots of people's hatred of him ,on here"
Hum, wonder why that would be...
"matt once again shows what a complete idiot he is!!"
"RickS - You're an idiot."
"I could prove it in painstaking detail, but you libturds are so intellectually dishonest you'd never admit the truth no matter what!!"
"Fish Pimp - As usual, a moronic libturd."
Personally, I think people that can't communicate without hostility or insults only hurt their own agenda. Lack of tact shows lack of intelligence.
Ned is absolutely right.
Lots of people's hatred of him ,on here, blinds them to where the Fed is sending us. Blaming the great recession and our current state of economy entirely on Republicans is lunacy.
Our financial crisis, followed by the Great Recession, was caused by Congress, the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and was helped along by the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama White Houses.
The Federal Reserve, under the chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, created the massive housing bubble by over-expanding the money supply. President Bush and members of Congress, through the Community Reinvestment Act, intimidated banks and other financial institutions into making home loans to people ineligible for loans under traditional lending criteria. They became subprime lenders. Lending institutions made these loans, now often demeaned as predator loans, because they knew they’d be sold to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Freddie and Fannie.
The GSEs had no problem taking this risky path, because they knew that Congress would force taxpayers to bail them out.
Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is following in the footsteps of his predecessor by massively expanding the money supply by purchasing Treasury debt. He is creating prime conditions for a calamity by the end of this decade.
Then there were the crony capitalists, among whom are Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, General Motors and Chrysler. These and many other companies, through the thousands of Washington lobbyists they hire, are able to get Congress to shortcut market forces.
Free market capitalism is unforgiving. In order to earn a profit and stay in business, producers must please customers and wisely use resources to do so. If they fail to do this, they face losses or go bankrupt.
It’s this market discipline of profits and losses that many businesses seek to avoid. That’s why they descend upon Washington calling for government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges. Many businessmen wish not to be held strictly accountable to consumers and stockholders, who hold little sympathy for economic blunders and will give them the ax on a moment’s notice.
With a campaign contribution here and a gift there, they get Congress and the White House to act against the best interests of consumers and investors. .
Crony capitalism should not be our only concern. The foundation for economic collapse 20 to 25 years from now has already been set.
Social Security and Medicare deficits, unfunded state and local pension liabilities, government operating deficits, baby boomer retirement and a failed K-12 education system have eaten out our substance.
Our biggest problem lies in the Federal Reserve’s ability to manipulate our monetary system to accommodate big government and use inflation to rob Americans.
That’s why politicians and government leaders everywhere hate a monetary system based on gold. They can manipulate the quantity of paper money, but they can’t manipulate the quantity of gold.
As usual Ned threatens to make a point but cannot quite get there and then blames it on our inability to comprehend his genius. He's also very good at claiming to have known the answer after someone tells him what it is.
Carlos, monetary policy can't make up for the dereliction of duty of the Legislative branch of government on it's own. To defend QE, it is perhaps the only reason why sequestration has not sent us into a double-dip recession. If government spending cannot be used to stimulate the economy, then the theory is that very low interest rates and an increased money supply will stimulate lending and private sector growth. We have seen this growth but it's been weak. Yellin is on record as believing that there is too much focus on keeping inflation low instead of targeting the unemployment rate. The threat of higher inflation should get businesses spending again instead of hoarding their cash. We'll see what the cost of unwinding the Fed's position is once the economy fully recovers, but that day never seems to get any closer thanks to the Republicans.
The Republican economic policy is a disaster. Ned bemoans the Clinton era repeal of Glass-Steagall yet fails to recognize that the Republicans are the party blocking reinstatement of these type of banking regulations. The Tea Party began in opposition to the TARP bailout, but now that they have political power, what have they done to reel-in the too big to fail banks? Nothing. They even nominated a banker for President! Only the uber-liberals like Elizabeth Warren are waging any kind of war on the big banks. The impotent Tea Party can only express their economic rage by intentionally creating financial crisis after financial crisis, which simply creates uncertainty in the business community and has all sorts of negative ramifications for the economy.
It seems to me that the biggest complaint against the Fed is that they pursue monetary policies which are designed to keep the economy growing which may be opposed to the political aims of conservatives. Unfortunately for the country, their goal seems to be to destroy the economy as an excuse to dismantle the government. And, of course, blame it all on Obama.
Am I better off?
Without a doubt.
Anyone with investments is.
Anecdotal evidence is distracting. Means nothing.
"Are you better off now, after 5 years of the Obama Administration's polices and this Congress?"
Yes, I am. 5 years ago, I was unemployed under the Bush administration. Let go because the economy tanked (including the private sector). Forced to work jobs making a fraction of what I previously made, because I didn't want to try and live on unemployment. Now, industry is back and better than before. Don't get me wrong, I have never been a huge Obama fan. But things are better now for my life and my industry.
Are you better off now, after 5 years of the Obama Administration's polices and this Congress?
Mat is right on here but his conclusion that it’s all the Republicans fault is a little too easy.
Fish Pimp, please continue your economic lecture and educate all us simple minded common folk. Continue to expound on your monetary policy philosophy using television shows.
Interest rates are low, have been kept incredibly low for decades, and the Fed keeps telegraphing their next moves. The Fed uses ANY excuse to cram them down as low as possible at all times and have been doing so since the late 80’s. First they lower the rates at the discount window and allow banks to use garbage as collateral. Then they start buying short term treasuries. Then operation Twist where they basically trade short term treasuries for long term ones. Now, the Fed is buying MASSIVE (80 billion) amounts of long term treasuries per month by creating new money. They aren’t exactly printing money but they are creating credits and increasing the money supply.
This is unprecedented, reckless, and continues to inflate the assets already in possession of bond traders and hedge funds. Stop complaining about the 1%. These guys below Wall Street look down on the 1%. We are talking about the .00001%.
And now the current man-of-the-people President nominates Professor Yellin. Look her up. Maybe she looks like she just fell out of some Soviet politburo, but she is on record that the policy of Greenspan and Bernanke hasn’t been aggressive enough.
RedHeadedDixie - The only thing you got right was Clinton throwing out Glass-Steagall and it was not a deal. He was just stupid.
The whole economy under Pubs vs. Dems I explained above. Only simpletons look at calendars & charts and make that erroneous assumption.
matt once again shows what a complete idiot he is!!
matt, private citizens are only allowed by creditors to reach a certain level of debt. They have a debt ceiling that is governed by their "debt to income ratio". Before the financial crisis & housing bubble that number was higher thanks to alternative loan programs, but at least that debt was still secured by tangible assets, which is leveraged debt that is often perfectly harmless. Credit cards are unsecured debt, which is very bad debt.
The debt held by the government is theoretically unlimited and all of it is technically unsecured debt, which is bad. To even begin to lump them together is beyond asinine.
Oh by the way, Bill Clinton is behind all of this, with help from Jimmy Carter. There is a very clear and direct cause & effect between Carter & Clinton using liberal social engineering policies and loose monetary FED policies, in conjunction with Clinton deregulating the banking industry, that resulted in the tech bubble & stock market crash just before Clinton left office. That got dumped in Bush's lap. That & 9/11 led Greenspan to convince Bush to keep rates low, but the process was put in place by Clinton. In fact, the Bush admin saw the banking crisis coming years in advance, but Obama and Barney Frank denied there was systemic risk. Now Frank has the nerve to blame Bush when Youtube is packed with videos of him mocking the Bush admin in Congressional hearings and calling them racist and more (typical liberal BS). Bush saw it coming and tried to stop it. Dems blocked them. These are indisputable facts!!
RickS - You're an idiot. Krugman is a communist and radical ideologue that has repeatedly been proven to be a quack. Government stimulus is mostly pissed away and adds to the debt. Obama spent over a trillion and then laughed when it was revealed that shovel ready jobs were a joke. The best jobs bill is get out the way of private industry. The bogus green agenda by progressives is killing America's economy. If we tapped into our natural resources we'd have a huge economic boom in this county. And using Krugman's BS about the economy under Dems vs. Pubs is childishly simplistic. Conservative policies repeatedly pull us out of recessions caused by progressive policies. These things take time to play out. By the time the messes are straightened out a Dem gets elected and screws it up again, but the recession typically doesn't hit till they are leaving or out of office. Anyone with any knowledge of economics understands how it works. Comparing economic charts to presidents and saying recessions happen more when Pubs are in office is beyond stupid. Those Pubs inherited economies in decline thank to Dems!! I could prove it in painstaking detail, but you libturds are so intellectually dishonest you'd never admit the truth no matter what!!
Fish Pimp - As usual, a moronic libturd. FYI: Every conservative I know understands QE and we know its garbage!! It is in fact one of the main causes of most of our problems. It and liberal policies and the expanding government.
QE is actually a fairly new name for it. It has also been called "hyper liquidity" and "loose money FED policy" and many other terms. Bottom line, it leads to inflation, it created the stock market/tech bubble under Clinton, it fueled the housing bubble, it gave Wall Street banks the money to create stupid loan programs that were mandated at gun point by Clinton, and it, along with progressive social engineering policies, has led to the skyrocketing college costs since the 80s and the student loan bubble we are in now.
Debt doesn't have it's usual influences on rates when there is hyper liquidity, which artificially pushes interest rates down. Just the signaling by Bernanke that the FED was thinking about pulling back in a few months pushed mortgage rates up 1 1/2 percent in a matter of weeks.
And cutting taxes does stimulate the economy and both Kennedy & Clinton did it.
The FED has some good qualities, but it has been too easily influenced by progressives pushing social engineering policies, and has had chairmen (Particularly Greenspan & Bernanke) that over use the FED (under White House pressure) to manipulate the economy.
The economy is like the ocean. It operates in waves. Tides fluctuate high & low. That's how everything works. People work, rest, work, rest in cycles. Sadly presidents, especially Dems/liberals, manipulate FED policy for social engineering purposes, which is insane. That is not the purpose of the FED. They also refuse to let the economy rest when it needs to. Recessions are like a low tide or a rest break. They happen naturally and it's fine. But the FED meddles too much with the economy and tries to artificially stimulate growth. Just leave it alone. All you do is push things off causing a bigger crash latter. It's like snorting coke every time you get sleepy. At some point your body will break because the body needs rest & sleep. If you artificially stimulate the body too much for too long the body collapses and you die. The economy works the same way.
ps. Both parties are fiscally irresponsible, but stats I think show deficits go down and gdp goes up under Dems more often than Repulsives. On average anyway. So its this huge, unfortunately accepted, fallacy Repulsives are better with budgets and money than Dems. Yet, yet, Clinton for some odd reason (probably a deal) repealed the Glass Steagall Act. That was one factor that pushed us into the financial crisis a few years back probably.
I am frightened by mission-creep, in-your-business big government too, petrified lately (and it takes a lot to petrify me) by the NSA, but having worked in both the private and public sectors I can tell you there are plenty of smart people in the later. Sooner or later I've noticed a lot of people, especially men whose wives don't work, women and minorities*, because they are stressed at home, seek STEADY, saner employment (better hours, benefits) and only gov't can nearly guarantee that today. Only government probably. Gov't has become the job creator of last resort in this country and in Britain actually. (and probably dozens of countries). So imo a larger than necessary gov't workplace is probably still better than millions chronically unemployed or underemployed (which is more of a problem in the US right now) and ultimately good for economic growth if entitlements can be kept under control. That struggle is playing out finally before our eyes and it's going to get ugly before it's over. At least we recover fairly quickly: Yesterday I read South Africa, Greece (still), Brazil, France (STILL), lots of places you wouldn't think, have huge unemployment rates now. *probably drawn to gov't work in the first place 'cause of their anti-racist stance and policies.
Ding, ding, ding! Sark gets it. The reason interest rates are low is because of quantitative easing (QE). This is the policy adopted after the recession where the Central Reserve Bank buys US Treasury bonds, which puts more money in circulation without actually printing more money. This has been called monetizing the debt. When the Fed buys these bonds, they take them out of circulation, making the remaining bonds more valuable. As we all know, bond prices move in the opposite direct of interest rates. Therefore, more valuable bonds puts downward pressure on interest rates, keeping the rates artificially low and stimulating the economy.
There is a very reasonable conservative argument against this policy, but my point in asking the question was that most conservatives don't know what it is.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper