Now That Barack Hussein Obama Is President

isly ilwott · #**106** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simone

To be sure, Steeeve. The whole sorry business began during the administration of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Oh, puleeeze! Even foreign governments recognize that the lax rules in the housing markets here in the United States (pushed by Jimmy Carter...boosted along by Bill Clinton) caused the entire global economic meltdown. Reagan gave the Democrats something to destroy and they did it.

T.Q · #**107** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 07:58 PM

Carter and Clinton-12 years
Reagan-8 years (after Carter)
Bush Sr-4 years
W.-8 years

How is it that it's always Carter's and Clinton's fault when your hero Reagan had 8 years to fix Carter's screw up, Bush Sr had an additional 4 years, and W. had 8 years after Clinton to realize something needed to be done?

Amazing how this point just keeps on eluding you every time it's brought up. Politicians may be to blame, but not democrats.

daewoo · #**108** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simone

To be sure, Steeeve. The whole sorry business began during the administration of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Actually it is even older than that. When Nixon took us off the gold standard because we could not actually afford to redeem for gold, that was the beginnign of the end. We should have seen a massive, nationwide correction then which would have been painful and long...maybe as long as 2 years...and then we could have started growing again.

Everything since then has essentially been compounding the problem and putting off the correction, and every time we do it, it gets worse.

daewoo · #**109** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Daewoo,

I have a few problems with what economists say vs reality. The most basic one is how do you determine the effects of something long term and short term? I do believe you can spend your way into economic recovery but it seems there is a simple problem to this...all you are doing is paying off a credit card with another credit card. I hate to say this but the simplest and most logical economic concepts seem to be the ones that work out the best in the long run. So if we are to determine if this really helped we can't just say "hey looks like the economy is better..look at GDP" 1 year after a 1 trillion dollar infusion. What happens in the long term when our debt is sky high and it collapses? Do we blame the president who put the last dollar in that make the dam break?

My second problem is that this isn't really a stimulus package. This is more of a gift program. $500 isn't going to bring back the middle class and the fixing of potholes (or infrastructure as the bill calls it) isn't going to create jobs.

Finally, the theory that government spending helps everything is suspect since the same excuses for failure and reason for needing it are the same ones used for "trickle down" economics. This should be be a red flag in my opinion. As an accountant I deal with reality and history. Economists deal with theory and frankly I think theory is just guessing with style.

So a few points here....how do we measure long term effects of government spending, what will it help anyway, and why is this theory so popular?

Infinite growth paradigm. Our economy is essentially based on the absolutely moronic notion that infinite growth is possible. Not only does it rely on infinite growth being possible, it requires it for the economy to keep ticking over.

If you start with an assumption of infinite growth, suddenly deficit spending does not seem so bad because you can always discount it based on the fact that in the future, it will basically be a lot less because we will have so much more. Basically they look at deficit spending the way one might look at the receipt of a lottery payout, or in anticipation of a big payment from a client.

The problem, of course, is that you cannot possibly have infinite growth within a finite system, and if you chop the economy off at the roots, you can not count on any real growth at all.

If you look at this stuff and apply infinite growth thinking to it, it all makes sense. Unfortunately we have reached the point where infinite growth pretty much looks like the idiocy it is.

Jo Bennett · #**110** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 11:06 PM

Capitalism itself is predicated on the basis of infinite growth, that's why the whole system is screwed up.

daewoo · #**111** (**permalink**) 02-01-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

Capitalism itself is predicated on the basis of infinite growth, that's why the whole system is screwed up.

Yes and no. In theory a balanced system would be possible. It has never happened...nor have we ever been anywhere close to it...but in THEORY it could be done.

Steeeeve · #**112** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 10:08 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't China decide to stop buying 30yr notes and instead are buying 5yr and 10yr notes?

Isn't this pretty much admitting they don't think we can buy our debt 30yrs from now?

T.Q · #**113** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't China decide to stop buying 30yr notes and instead are buying 5yr and 10yr notes?

Isn't this pretty much admitting they don't think we can buy our debt 30yrs from now?

But they think you can 5 years from now? Not being snarky, just kind of confused. If that is the case, how is 5 or 10 years better than 30?

daewoo · #**114** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.Q

But they think you can 5 years from now? Not being snarky, just kind of confused. If that is the case, how is 5 or 10 years better than 30?

5 and 10 year notes are easier to dump on the secondary market.

T.Q · #**115** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daewoo

5 and 10 year notes are easier to dump on the secondary market.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks Daewoo

simone · #**116** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't China decide to stop buying 30yr notes and instead are buying 5yr and 10yr notes?

Isn't this pretty much admitting they don't think we can buy our debt 30yrs from now?

I guess China figures they'll own the U.S. in 30 years and they don't want to put themselves into indebtedness.

Wal-mart certainly paved the way for the Chinese to own us.

Steeeeve · #**117** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 11:21 AM

So basically in the first few weeks Obama has managed to #### off China to the point where they stopped buying 30yr treasuries and Chavez still thinks our president smells funny.

Not a promising start to that change I keep hearing about.

Steeeeve · #**118** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simone

I guess China figures they'll own the U.S. in 30 years and they don't want to put themselves into indebtedness.

Wal-mart certainly paved the way for the Chinese to own us.

Or it could be the fact that China has 681 billion (as of Nov 08) invested in our t-bills and t-bonds. That is roughly 22%..more than any other country, including Japan.

The road was paved with the big government you love so much.

simone · #**119** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 01:06 PM

No, Steeeeve, George Bush's irresponsible Big Government that lied us into a war otherwise known as the Quagmire Known as Iraq.

Oh yes, and by refusing to pay as we go, Bush borrowed and borrowed and borrowed.

Republicans can never be trusted with the American treasury again.

Steeeeve · #**120** (**permalink**) 02-02-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simone

No, Steeeeve, George Bush's irresponsible Big Government that lied us into a war otherwise known as the Quagmire Known as Iraq.

Oh yes, and by refusing to pay as we go, Bush borrowed and borrowed and borrowed.

Republicans can never be trusted with the American treasury again.

You are so clouded by hatred and bigotry you can't even see reality. Running a deficit isn't a new thing that Bush created...it has been going on at incredible rates since the 70s. Clinton, for example, ran a deficit every year in office. Both Bush's did as well. Obama has already promised to see Bush's record deficits and double them..at least..under the illusion that we have to or our country will be in shatters. But why blame the president in power when it is Congress who controls money (read the constitution if you don't believe me)? Republicans only controlled both houses 10 out of the last 55 (almost 60) years. Democrats have controlled both houses for around 40 of those years.

Well guess what, China thinks we are insane and is dropping 30yr t-bonds. I doubt Japan will hang in there much longer and all of a sudden we are stuck printing money. Just last week we heard the treasury say they wanted to actually loan themselves money. This is insanity under the illusion that we need to get out of an economic downturn this very second.

You want to blame people, try blaming everyone in Congress over the last 50yrs.

Way too easy Simone..come on.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: