Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

    Free at last, free at last...thank God Almighty, we are free at last.

    Great Recession now officially the longest and most painful downturn since the Great Depression, but declaration comes as worries of double-dip recession grow.


    Recession officially ended in June 2009

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Great Recession ended in June 2009, according to the body charged with dating when economic downturns begin and end. But the news comes amid rising fears of a double-dip recession.

    The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group of economists, released a statement Monday saying economic data now clearly points to the economy turning higher last summer.

    That makes the 18-month recession that started in December 2007 the longest and deepest downturn for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression.

    The NBER acknowledged the risk of double-dip recession in its statement, but said "The committee decided that any future downturn of the economy would be a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in December 2007. The basis for this decision was the length and strength of the recovery to date."

    The committee that made the finding said it "did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity." Rather, it decided that June was when the economy hit bottom, and that it has been slowly but steadily growing since then.

    "Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion," said the NBER.

    Most economists have been saying for months that the recession likely ended in the summer of 2009. But the NBER typically takes a long time to declare the start and end of recessions, waiting for all the economic data to be revised and finalized and making sure that any change in direction of the economy is long-lasting. It didn't declare that the recession started in December of 2007 until a year later.

    But Monday's announcement comes at a time when there is growing concern among many economists that the U.S. economy is in danger of slipping into another downturn, a so-called double-dip recession. Measures of economic growth, hiring and other signs of recovery have all weakened in recent months.

    Double-dip recessions are relative rare. The last one occurred in the United States when the 1980 recession was followed by another in 1981-82. The NBER waited until July 1981 to declare the end of the 1980 recession, which turned out to be the same month that it eventually determined the next recession had begun.
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

  • #2
    Ah, perhaps he really is the messiah.

    Comment


    • #3
      What crap.
      Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
      "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
      He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

      Comment


      • #4
        And he WON the economy so quickly. Well done Obama.
        Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
        Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
        We've got both kinds

        Comment


        • #5
          All this really shows is that the economy righted itself naturally and now we are starting to see the effects of all the government intervention in the form of a second recession. A textbook case of how government intervention in free market economies makes things worse.

          Comment


          • #6
            Super-Hussein
            Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
            GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

            Comment


            • #7
              YOW BAMA !!!
              "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                What crap.
                See? Republicans like to see their fellow Americans suffer.

                You should be happy.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment


                • #9
                  I knew he would pull through! I still can't seem to find my free healthcare though.

                  But I haven't had time to look for it because I've been applying to all these new green jobs.
                  If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                  ){ :|:& };:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yet more evidence that the stimulus failed.
                    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I just wish they could elect George one more time.
                      Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                      GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The topic of the article itself is obviously uninteresting. The NBER "recession committee" is a backward-looking organization, with more interest in not being wrong than offering timely analysis of the state of the national economy or (gasp) predictions. This is no knock against them; to paraphrase, "there are two types of economists: those who predict the direction of interest rates on TV and real economists".

                        However, it does provide an interesting place to stop and think about the government's interventions/attempted interventions. I will restrict my discussion to the US economy and the actions of various facets of American government

                        In order of importance, there's been:

                        1) TARP/AIG bailout
                        2) "Quantitative easing" of various flavors
                        3) Auto bailouts
                        4) Finreg (to now, the political process leading to it)
                        5) Standard monetary policy
                        6) "Stimulus" of various flavors. I include, e.g. the extension of unemployment benefits etc

                        Some of these are offsetting.

                        For example, (2) and (5) injected a large amount of capital into banks by driving down the yield of various assets. Through the magic of fractional reserve banking, this turned into a large multiple of the actual cash injected. TARP injected a large amount of capital into all large banks and many smaller banks. Those which were already sufficiently capitalized voluntarily redeemed the additional capital as soon as feasible. Weaker banks retained the capital for longer, and arranged secondary equity offerings in order to eventually the redeem the government's capital. The AIG bailout injected capital into banks which had unhedged counterparty exposure/credit exposure to AIG and may have saved the markets from a systemically critical bankruptcy (I think that far too much has been made of this). (3) was most noteworthy because of the effective expropriation of auto debtholders in favor of less senior claimants (mostly the auto unions). This was a straightforward transfer between one politically favored group (organized labor) at the expense of a group of disorganized/dispersed stakeholders (small investors) and a disfavored group (financial firms of all stripes). A clearer demonstration of classic public choice theory is harder to envision. It also had the effect of tightening corporate credit markets, an effect which is likely to persist long after the current crisis. As far as I can tell, this consideration was independent of the actual bailout (for example, while the government was busy tearing up contracts, it could at least have done so in a way which preserved the priority of claimants while achieving the goal of continuing the Detroit gang as a going concern). (4) has led to increased liquidity preferences in banks (and thus economy-wide), though it's difficult to assign a number here (liquidity preferences had already gone up due to market experiences).

                        Straight-up "stimulus" is regulated to last place mostly because it's unclear to me if it had any effect at all. I have no way to judge this.

                        I think the most interesting of these are (2) and (5). The key thing to bear in mind here is how limited the "normal" monetary policy response to macro events is. Quantitative easing is exactly like standard monetary policy except in that it targets variables other than short-term interest rates. Open market operations are open-market operations. And the difference between a repo and a purchase is negligible when you're talking about short-dated Treasury paper (the preferred open-market instrument). Why did it take so long for the Fed to drive down the long end of the yield curve? How ****ing hard is it to go out and buy 2-30 yr treasuries until the yield curve is a flat 1%? How hard is it to go out and sell credit protection on the CDX until spreads hit 75 bps? Bear in mind that you own the ****ing printing press.

                        The major problem with the attempted monetary policy was a failure of imagination and testicular fortitude.
                        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                        Stadtluft Macht Frei
                        Killing it is the new killing it
                        Ultima Ratio Regum

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          EDIT: ****
                          "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                          "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
                            The topic of the article itself is obviously uninteresting. The NBER "recession committee" is a backward-looking organization, with more interest in not being wrong than offering timely analysis of the state of the national economy or (gasp) predictions. This is no knock against them; to paraphrase, "there are two types of economists: those who predict the direction of interest rates on TV and real economists".

                            However, it does provide an interesting place to stop and think about the government's interventions/attempted interventions. I will restrict my discussion to the US economy and the actions of various facets of American government

                            In order of importance, there's been:

                            1) TARP/AIG bailout
                            2) "Quantitative easing" of various flavors
                            3) Auto bailouts
                            4) Finreg (to now, the political process leading to it)
                            5) Standard monetary policy
                            6) "Stimulus" of various flavors. I include, e.g. the extension of unemployment benefits etc

                            Some of these are offsetting.

                            For example, (2) and (5) injected a large amount of capital into banks by driving down the yield of various assets. Through the magic of fractional reserve banking, this turned into a large multiple of the actual cash injected. TARP injected a large amount of capital into all large banks and many smaller banks. Those which were already sufficiently capitalized voluntarily redeemed the additional capital as soon as feasible. Weaker banks retained the capital for longer, and arranged secondary equity offerings in order to eventually the redeem the government's capital. The AIG bailout injected capital into banks which had unhedged counterparty exposure/credit exposure to AIG and may have saved the markets from a systemically critical bankruptcy (I think that far too much has been made of this). (3) was most noteworthy because of the effective expropriation of auto debtholders in favor of less senior claimants (mostly the auto unions). This was a straightforward transfer between one politically favored group (organized labor) at the expense of a group of disorganized/dispersed stakeholders (small investors) and a disfavored group (financial firms of all stripes). A clearer demonstration of classic public choice theory is harder to envision. It also had the effect of tightening corporate credit markets, an effect which is likely to persist long after the current crisis. As far as I can tell, this consideration was independent of the actual bailout (for example, while the government was busy tearing up contracts, it could at least have done so in a way which preserved the priority of claimants while achieving the goal of continuing the Detroit gang as a going concern). (4) has led to increased liquidity preferences in banks (and thus economy-wide), though it's difficult to assign a number here (liquidity preferences had already gone up due to market experiences).

                            Straight-up "stimulus" is regulated to last place mostly because it's unclear to me if it had any effect at all. I have no way to judge this.

                            I think the most interesting of these are (2) and (5). The key thing to bear in mind here is how limited the "normal" monetary policy response to macro events is. Quantitative easing is exactly like standard monetary policy except in that it targets variables other than short-term interest rates. Open market operations are open-market operations. And the difference between a repo and a purchase is negligible when you're talking about short-dated Treasury paper (the preferred open-market instrument). Why did it take so long for the Fed to drive down the long end of the yield curve? How ****ing hard is it to go out and buy 2-30 yr treasuries until the yield curve is a flat 1%? How hard is it to go out and sell credit protection on the CDX until spreads hit 75 bps? Bear in mind that you own the ****ing printing press.

                            The major problem with the attempted monetary policy was a failure of imagination and testicular fortitude.

                            A lot of fancy words for simple concepts... but what is your conclusion? Did any of those government activities serve to turn around economic growth? Were they just mitigating factors to soften the descent for certain politically expedient groups until the business cycle came back around? What? Obviously, this is complex and there's no data in front of you, but what do you think overall with respect to Asher's original post? Did Obama's policies turn around the economy exogenously?

                            So monetary policy and TARP good... auto bailouts bad... and everything else whatever? Net?
                            Last edited by Al B. Sure!; September 21, 2010, 02:04.
                            "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                            "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On a side note, one of the econbloggers I read posted, as TARP was being formulated "why is the government trying to buy bank equity rather than assets? They're the exact same thing". My response was "because it's easier for the Treasury to ask for 700 billion to buy equity at 10X leverage than it is for it to ask for 7 trillion to buy assets at 1X leverage".

                              To this day, I think I was right. Possibly my proudest moment in macro thinking.
                              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                              Stadtluft Macht Frei
                              Killing it is the new killing it
                              Ultima Ratio Regum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X