Romney v Obama coming closer

National elections are not easy to win in the US, specially when you are a Republican. The worst President in history is still 50-50 to win it with his most important asset an American media that will never criticise for reasons that have become a mystery to me given how sensationally bad Obama is. But whatever the reason is, the fact of the matter is that the American media will virtually never criticise Obama with any serious heat and certainly will not lay it on the way they did with Reagan and Bush.

Even a bit of moderate carping about the debt or the potential effect of gutting the American defence capability would be a start. This virtually never seems to happen in any of the mainstream media outlets, except on Fox and The Wall Street Journal. It is only the common sense of voters who can see what is happening, perhaps only dimly because of the way the media works, but who are nevertheless able to discount the wall to wall positives of the President they are continuously surrounded by that gives someone like Romney a chance. And given how flakey and flawed ever one of the other major Republican candidates have turned out to be, I now feel fortunate that Romney has the temperament to stay the course.

One of the criticisms I had heard of Romney, and have now decided to investigate for myself, is that he did not call Obama a socialist when given the chance. You can watch it for yourself below and what you find is Romney refusing to get suckered into calling Obama a “socialist” which would divert attention away from policies towards the content of labels. I think he is underrated as a politician and a strategist.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to Romney v Obama coming closer

  1. Adrian says:

    Like wise, a healthy dose of pragmatism wouldn’t hurt some of the republican candidates and would certainly improve their electoral chances. Play it smart.

  2. Romney’s got a problem getting his constituency behind him. The religious right don’t like that he’s a Mormon, the TEA party doesn’t like his background on health policy, the NRA doesn’t think he supports the 2nd amendment.

    If they all stay home on election day, Obama will win.

  3. C.L. says:

    …a healthy dose of pragmatism wouldn’t hurt some of the republican candidates and would certainly improve their electoral chances…

    Worked well for McCain.

  4. sfw says:

    What a choice. A man who believes god wants him to wear special underpants or Obama. The yanks are doomed or damned for the next four years.

  5. Alex Pundit says:

    I think he’ll be fine. Contrast him with another red governor in a blue state (some call him the Jerkenator), his record isn’t that bad.

    Also recall that we were begging him to ‘save the Republic’ when it looked as though McCain was closing in on the nomination four years ago.

  6. Don says:

    What about the bloke who took a corpse home to his kids ?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21542427

    Currently number 2 in the nomination betting markets.

    I think Romney will be fine, surely…

  7. annomer says:

    I think Rmoney is a great politician and strategist, I just don’t think he’s that principled and would be willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to obtain and keep power.

    Western democracy has two key weaknesses: groups who want to vote themselves the public largesse and corporate politicians who have no principle. While it may be the most perfect system there is it’s not perfect.

  8. Alex Pundit says:

    The best thing about Romney is while we do believe he is going to save America (or at least slow it’s downfall), we don’t think he’s the Messiah, which will basically work in his favour meaning he won’t see that sort of bubble burst in the polls a la Obama.

  9. Found via Club Troppo, this from Slate a few days ago, and I reckon it’s about right:

    The Republican party Romney is likely to lead into battle has, however, revealed itself in a diminished state—dominated by its activist extreme, focused on irrelevancy, and deaf to reason about the country’s fiscal choices. To survive a Republican debate you are required to hold the incoherent view that the budget should be balanced immediately, taxes cut dramatically, and the major categories of spending (the military, Social Security, Medicare) left largely intact. There is no way to make these numbers add up, and the candidates do not try, relying instead on focus-group tested denunciations of Obama and abstract hostility to the ways of Washington.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/01/mitt_romney_s_the_nominee_the_republican_primary_race_is_over_.html

  10. C.L. says:

    I don’t support Santorum’s candidacy but the slime about his deceased baby is what’s sick – not what he and his wife did.

    http://patterico.com/2012/01/05/in-mocking-santorum-eugene-robinson-reveals-a-sickness-in-our-society/

  11. Jim Rose says:

    santorum is a big government conservative who likes to push people around. A religious thug.

    not a libertarian bone in his body and exactly the type of conservative that drove the classical liberals and libertarians out of the republican party in the mid-20th century

    Newt is too shop-worn and rather thin-skinned too.

    Willard Romney is what most republicans want: the candidate most likely to unseat Obama. that is thier main priority is the primaries from now on.

  12. Jim Rose says:

    steve of B, excellent slate link, thanks

  13. C.L. says:

    It’s easier to survive a Democrat debate.

    Only two requirements.

    1) unborn children must be thoughtlessly slaughterable.

    2) America must surrender wherever possible.

    Throw in a good-looking “light-skinned negro,” and you’re in.

  14. Jim Rose says:

    Mitt should choose Bachmann as his running mate.

    She will help bring out the base, she knows the issues far better than Palin for debating and media purposes, and she and her social conservatism will get right up the noses of the democrat left and the liberal media.

    Like Palin, every day spent campaigning against Bachmann is a day lost campaigning against Mitt and for Obama

  15. Alex Pundit says:

    “Mitt should choose Bachmann as his running mate”

    For all intents and purposes, I’m warming to the idea of Rubio. I think the excitement for him would be more Palinesque.

  16. Jc says:

    Byes thanks Steve.

    That slate piece is a heck of analysis. I seriously can’t believe the sanctimonious crap Australian bumpkins go on about or believe about the GOP.

    The Ryan plan is pretty much accepted wisdom by all the serious candidates.

    As for fucked up…. Rev Wright.

    You freaking twerp.

  17. Jc says:

    Romney will win the election.

    This is going to break like Carter.

    The polls show neck and neck until the last month or so and then break hard for Romney as people begin to think he’s a better prez.

    Fucknuckle s finished.

  18. Oh come on says:

    Here’s my prediction: the Anybody But Romney crowd will dissipate the second there Isn’t Anybody But Romney.

  19. Jim Rose says:

    see http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287068/santorum-s-big-government-conservatism-michael-tanner

    santorum is the exact opposite of ron paul.

    If Ron Paul’s campaign has been based on the concept of simply having government leave us alone, Santorum rejects that entire concept.

    True liberty, santorum writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.” santorum seems fully prepared to use the power of government to support his interpretation of those duties.

  20. Alex Pundit says:

    “Fucknuckle s finished.”

    Lol. Jc tellin’ it like it is.

  21. dover_beach says:

    I don’t support Santorum’s candidacy but the slime about his deceased baby is what’s sick – not what he and his wife did.

    Indeed.

  22. blogstrop says:

    “This virtually never seems to happen in any of the mainstream media outlets, except on Fox and The Wall Street Journal.”
    The failure of the bulk of the mainstream media to cover politics honestly, in fact to do such a tribal, slanted job of it, is perverting the course of their democracy – and it’s similarly woeful here.

  23. JC says:

    “The failure of the bulk of the mainstream media to cover politics honestly, in fact to do such a tribal, slanted job of it, is perverting the course of their democracy – and it’s similarly woeful here.”

    I have a different opinion. Media is actually going back to the future. In much earlier times all you had was slanted, biased opinion and it was only recent that media organizations pretended they were unbiased. I think it’s fine that we’re going back to a semblance of honesty when there is no longer any pretense.

  24. Alex Pundit says:

    “I think it’s fine that we’re going back to a semblance of honesty when there is no longer any pretense.”

    Where do you see this happening?

  25. JC says:

    Well you know who is biased, don’t you?

  26. Oh come on says:

    JC is dead right. Obama is toast. The campaign against him hasn’t started, and when it does there is a fucking MOUNTAIN of shit he’s responsible for that can be flung at him, and it will stick. 2012 will be a cakewalk for the GOP.

  27. Alex Pundit says:

    “Well you know who is biased, don’t you?”

    We’ve always known who is biased, but who these days is actually coming out of the closet?

  28. Gab says:

    Obama re-election campaign: video of 2008 Iowa speech emailed out to the faithful, and others, after the 2012 Iowa primary. The spin: all promises have been kept.

    Clique ici

  29. Don says:

    Obama is $1.80 with books

    Romney @ $2.75

    Hillary is next favorite

    Election betting is my favorite and favorites are always value when the serious money starts flowing.

    My play right now is to back Mittens and wait for the Republicans to let sanity prevail – at which stage I expect to be able to lay-off around $2.20 for a cheeky profit each way in the market,

    Then I will let the market dictate where to get serious with wager. I don’t give a fuck about their equally laden with bullshit spin – I just want to get paid and from my experience following the money is the best way.

    Rudd Howard was some of the easiest money in the history of gambling and I suspect the $1.40 available for the Coalition to boot out the ALP next year only has the “time value of money” going against it at the moment.

    I must say, from my view, the line up of nut jobs from the Republicans this time around makes the Obama $1.80 look tasty – but I think I will hold off and ride the momentum of Mittens for a bit.

    Anyone else following the money???

  30. Viva says:

    “I don’t support Santorum’s candidacy but the slime about his deceased baby is what’s sick – not what he and his wife did.’

    Nearly as sick as this?

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/01/rick_santorum_fecal_dan_savage.php

  31. Don says:

    Rick will be fine

    None of his followers would use Google beyond – “does jesus still love me if…..”

  32. JamesK says:

    I reckon Romney has three significant liabilities for a battle with Obummer.

    1. He’s susceptible to the ‘Evil Wall St Capitalist’ Oummer card.
    He is Wall St. And Bain Capital did close businesses that were not viable with job losses.

    The fact that Obummer and Wall St have been in a co-dependent relationship will and has been ignored.

    Santorum has strong working class credentials and he’s advocating pennsylvania is critical to Obama’s prospects

    2. Obamacare is based on Romneycare.

    3. He has a history of soundbite and video recorded ‘conversions/inconsistencies’. The flip/flopper

    I think the Obama team wants to face Romney.
    They may also enjoy facing Gingrich for the ‘history’
    Rick Perry will not preform well in a debate but is otherwise well credentialled.
    I’d bet that they fear Santorum most.

    Having said all that, I think the cake is baked with Obama.
    The media can report the unemployment rate is 6%. It won’t make a difference. They know.

    And any GOP candidate short of Paul will get up.

    The only risk is a Paul third party candidacy.

    That might cause an Obummer victory.

  33. Don says:

    So you are laying the $1.80 for Obama then James?

    Sounds like a lock in your mind.

    You seriously feel Santorum the Paranoid is their biggest fear?

    I don’t see it

    That’s what makes a market I guess…

  34. JamesK says:

    What and who creates a narrative and why, Don?

    Incumbent Pressies are historically difficult to dislodge.

    Who knew?

  35. JamesK says:

    Incidentally I’d imagine $billions are bet 1 year out from an election.

    Actually no, that’s a lie. I probably wouldn’t.

    I had given three significant arguments on core battle arguments.

    Any answer besides bookie prices a year out?

  36. Don says:

    I totally agree that incumbents are tough to dislodge. Bush the Idiot got a second term.

    Obama would need to be beaten by someone with a enormous groundswell of popular (not just conservatives) support.

    I just don’t see Mitt or particularly a lunatic looking for a new theocracy of the United States besting him- as disappointing as he has been for everyone.

    And as for the odds, I agree early markets have their shortcomings (hence my earlier reticence to bet hard) but the odds are set by the money and not the bookies..

  37. JamesK says:

    So Don’s ‘argument’ is: “I just don’t see Mitt or particularly a lunatic looking for a new theocracy of the United States besting him”

    The odds are set by the bookies. Don.

    They respond to money.

    There is no official GOP challenger.

    We are 11 months away.

    How educated is the small amount of money that bet at this stage?

    If I hand over $100 now on Obummer, I might get $180 next November.

    If I hand over $100 on Romney, I might well know that I have already lost it in 2 months.

    I don’t even know if Paul or Trump will run an independent/third party which will benefit Obummer.

    Try and make an argument.

    Then try and formulate a rebuttal to the three arguemnts I made without injecting your own leftist radical secularism.

  38. Don says:

    Leftist Radical Secularist – awesome

    I’ve been called a lot of things but….

    To address your points to appease you as best I can (I let the money make my decisions, lest my ideology gets in the road of me making cash):

    How does anyone run for President and avoid the slings of the envious? The regular punter can’t raise the dough – they are all tarred with the same Big Business brush.

    Santorum is a nut job. He hates too many people and lifestyles. He has no chance. I am sure many deep conservatives are praying for him, but it won’t work. I am sure his bigotry will poll well in certain states – but seriously, are you going to boost him?

    Anyway I only wanted to reply because you called me a leftist, carry on…

  39. JamesK says:

    So….. now you’re asserting that you’re not a radical secularist leftist????????

    I assumed when you threw the switch to lunacy with the charcterisation of the two term US senator and two term US congressman from the distictly blue state of Pennsylvania “a lunatic looking for a new theocracy of the United States” you rather showed your hand Don.

    And are you seriously still defending your foolish bookie price argument as well?!!!!!!!!

    Your sick schtick paranoid nonsense that Santorum “is a nut job. He hates too many people and lifestyles” does not actually constitute an argument Don.

    Please desist from demonstrating yourself to be both a bigot and a fool.

    I asked you to provide an argument.

    You have manifestly failed.

    I asked you to provide a rebuttal to my argument.

    You didn’t just fail, you didn’t bother.

    Your comments are farcical Don

  40. bingbing says:

    Hmm. Obama or Obama-Lite? Or corpse boy. Or a newt.

    Let’s face it. The Repubs have thrown up a most disappointing field this time round and the only thing I can think of is letting Obama get even more excruciatingly on the nose, enough so that they’ll elect Jeb Bush in 2016.

  41. Don says:

    That is right James – I didn’t bother.

    I posted a link to the Economist that I feel sums up my understanding of Santorum, I dont feel I need to add anything more.

    And I am very comfortable in my knowledge of betting markets – as comfortable as I am in your abilities as a keyboard warrior. But my skills are far more profitable.

    I am soon heading to a Champagne soaked celebration of Russian XMAS. Obviously getting in touch with my fellow communist financiers. Pray for me

  42. JamesK says:

    You posted a link to the Economist Don?

    Not in any comment to me you didn’t.

    I read that sick drivel. It was written in July and has nothing of consequence just inane leftst smear job.

    Alan Colmes Apologizes For Despicable Santorum Remark
    http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2012/01/02/alan-colmes-apologizes-for-despicable-santorum-remark/

    Eugene Robinson squirms through apology to Rick Santorum
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/06/eugene-robinson-squirms-through-apology-to-rick-santorum/

    You are a typical low-life leftist Don.

    You cannot make an argument so you smear.

    And in the most dispicably offensive manner.

  43. PSC says:

    The worst President in history is still 50-50 to win

    And here was I thinking Warren Harding was dead already.

    Then I realised – there is nothing in the constitution demanding the president be alive, and even dead for over 100 years he’s still a better candidate than all the Republican contenders.

  44. JamesK says:

    Well he must be PSC.

    You said so and besides it’s so obvious that it is apparently unnecessary you write a rebuttal to Steve Kates’ points that Obummer has increased the Federal Debt more in 3 years than Bush in 8 years or that he has diminished the American military in 3 years more than Carter in 4 or Clinton in 8 years.

    (And at least Clinton had an excuse.)

    Not only is a rebuttal unnecessary however but a primary argument is also apparently unnecessary.

    We need only your word PSC.

    My skills in the betting markets aren’t as “profitable” as that clown Don’s so I’m a little circumspect PSC.

    Provide some evidence to back your “better candidate than all the Republican contenders” delusion, please.

  45. sdfc says:

    The Obama presidency began when the US economy was basically in free fall. It should not be a surprise that he has run bigger deficits than Bush.

  46. JC says:

    “….that Obummer has increased the Federal Debt more in 3 years than Bush in 8 years or that he has diminished the American military in 3 years more than Carter in 4 or Clinton in 8 years.”

    Odumbocare is dead in the water. It’s never going to get off the ground as the SCOTUS will throw that worthless crap out the door by the middle of the year, just in time to become a hot issue for the election.

  47. C.L. says:

    Nearly as sick as this?

    I note from Wiki that Dan Savage is a homosexual with a “husband” and a “son.”

  48. JC says:

    The Bush presidency also started with a recession, SDFC, so don’t be all cute and sentimental for this worthless oaf.

    He owned the economy the second he was sworn in.

  49. JamesK says:

    Why shouldn’t it be a surprise sdfc?

    The US is in 10 quarters into a recovery with Obama having an income of $2 trillion in taxes and spending $4 trillion each of the last two years. It was actually better in his first year.

    More than 40 cents in every dollar spent by Obama is borrowed.

    Bush spent $700 billion in the bank-rescue package and had a deficit well in excess of $1 trillion in his last year but way less than $100 billion/year in the 7yrs prior to that.

    Obama spent $850 on stimulus TARP in his first year.

  50. JamesK says:

    $850 billion

  51. C.L. says:

    Actually, Obama and the Democrats owned it all before Odumbo was sworn in.

    After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.”

    When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

    This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President, then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President, then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff, then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State, then Sen. Hillary Clinton…

    But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure?

    And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with <bjust three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden?

    Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.

    Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President.

    Obama’s Statement on the Senate’s Passage of the FY 2009 Budget:

    “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. After years of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, this year’s budget helps restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, and provides tax relief for the middle class and low-income families who need help most. It includes an expansion in the Child Tax Credit that I have fought for and makes marriage penalty relief permanent. And it rejects the President’s drastic cuts in important domestic programs.

    “We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about. I commend Chairman Conrad for his extraordinary leadership in moving this resolution forward and moving America’s fiscal policies in the right direction.”

    The Republicans, even including Bush – as best he could in the circumstances – were the ones trying desperately and vainly to stop the stampede to the deficit the US now has. The Democrats – and one Democrat in particular – backed or initiated EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of expenditure making up today’s budget deficit. That man is Barack Hussein Obama.

  52. sdfc says:

    JC

    The 2001 recession was shallow and household spending didn’t really miss a beat. It was ended by a fiscal swing into deficit and big rate cuts by the Fed.

    JamesK

    The TARP was signed into law by bush, from memory the current estimated cost is around $20 billion.
    The major causes of the increase in the deficit since 2007 have been lower tax revenue and higher transfer payments. Tightening fiscal policy by cutting household disposable income would be a disaster.

  53. JC says:

    “The 2001 recession was shallow and household spending didn’t really miss a beat. It was ended by a fiscal swing into deficit and big rate cuts by the Fed. ”

    Oh yea, I forgot slowdowns that Republican Administrations inherit are always shallow. Only the Demolitionists inherit deep recessions and four years later a still their fault.

    You seem to forget what happened in 01. 911 devastated a nations sentiment and had the potential to deepen.

    But hey, 911 was all Bush’s fault.

    Gotcha.

  54. sdfc says:

    You’ve lost the plot JC.

  55. JamesK says:

    Sorry sdfc, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was Obama’s stimulus bill that cost $850 billion.

    TARP was the Bush’s $700 billion bank-rescue package.

    I just got the name confused is all

    And your last sentence in your second comment is discredited Keynesian drivel, sdfc

  56. sdfc says:

    That’s just a statement James. You need to make an argument.

  57. JC says:

    Lost what plot eggsaxtly, SDFC.

    It’s you and few other idiots making excuses for this essentially worthless president, who lies, distorts and blames others for his failings.

  58. JC says:

    I’d have to be writing fiction to lose the plot. That’s you, not me.

    I deal with facts.

  59. sdfc says:

    Come off it JC all you did was write gibberish. Are you saying the 2001 recession wasn’t shallow?

    James

    Thanks for the time wasting exercise. He doesn’t address the current financial conditions.

    In monetary economy with sophisticated financial markets and debts which are designated in nominal monetary terms falling income will increase the real debt burden. It is up to the anti-Keynesians to explain the process by which falling household income will not worsen financial conditions.

    Let me help you, cutting private sector income will help because….

  60. JC says:

    SDFC,

    2001 had the potential to develop into something really serious when you combine the tech crash with 911.

    It didn’t because the fed reacted well and also because the Administration enacted a real stimulus… permanent looking tax cuts.

    Instead the US experienced a dreadful spending binge, an abominable medical insurance government takeover, unprecedented regulatory burden, threats to corporate America (Boeing lawsuit) and scare campaigns to raise taxes.

    The miracle is that the US hasn’t collapsed in a heap over all this.

  61. sdfc says:

    JC

    Debt levels were lower in 2001. There was no widespread financial crisis. I’m sorry but fucked up credit markets are a greater burden than a equity slump. Growth returned with a vengeance in 2003 not long after the Fed cut the fed funds to 1%.

    We keep going around in circles over the deficit. Why don’t you tell me why cutting household income would be good policy.

  62. Fisky says:

    Those betting odds look pretty good. If you put $10,000 on Obama and $6,500 on Romney right now, you’ll get about a 9% payoff whoever wins, based on Don’s prices (Romney is almost certainly going to win the primaries, and if he doesn’t, the alternative will probably be unelectable – so no matter what happens, you should make that 9% in November).

  63. JC says:

    “We keep going around in circles over the deficit. Why don’t you tell me why cutting household income would be good policy.”

    SDFC, I don’t give a flying shit if you income falls (or even rises). However what is important is aggregate income.

    All the stimulus did was have the government borrow money and raise or maintain the income of insulation installers.

    You want national income to rise, not targeted income.

    Only the Central is able to raise aggregate income by raising Nominal GDP. Effective targeting of NGP does that, not fiscal stimulus.

  64. JamesK says:

    No the article is from 2009.

    Are you the lone twit still bangin’ the keynesian drum?

    Because that’s the implication of the last sentence in your second comment.

    U.S. debt reaches level at which economic growth begins to slow
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/99973-us-debt-reaches-level-at-which-economic-growth-begins-to-slow-

    Last year US Fed Debt reached 90% of GDP (at the time of the above report) and in the last few weeks it has officially exceeded 100% of GDP.

    A study by University of Maryland economist Carmen Reinhart and Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, endorsed by Treasury Secretary Geithner, shows that when a nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 90 percent, economic growth is reduced by one to two percentage points. The president’s Council of Economic Advisers estimates that a one percentage point loss in economic growth translates into one million jobs.

    Cutting public sector spending will cut private sector income how sd-blinkered-fc?

    Maybe private sector $ trillions on the sidelines could be mobilised if not crowded out?

  65. JC says:

    Fisk,

    How do you get a return of 9%.

    Centrebet is showing Odumbo at 1.69 and Romney at 2.55.

    I’ve never taken a bet, but as i understand it if you stick a dollar on Odumbo you will get back $1.69. Romney would return you 2.55.

    So if Odumbo wins you end up losing 31 cents plus time value. You need Romney to win to earn 55 cents on a two sided bet less time value.

    No?

  66. Kant says:

    The worst President in history

    One may not be fond of Obama for various reasons, but it strains credibility to start off a blog with a claim like this. Clearly Obama’s immediate predecessor was worse, but more generally are we really to believe that none of the numerous other predecessors were worse than him. Even just in the modern era, what about Carter; or going back to the Depressions, Hoover? Methinks Kates may be allowing his passions to get in the way of objective commentary here.

  67. JC says:

    By what metric was bush worse, Kant. Yours?

  68. JC says:

    Kant

    But every single metric, Bush’s first 3 years were miles ahead of this idiot.

    Unemployment

    Growth

    Debt
    Every measure.

  69. sdfc says:

    JC

    You should give a shit about falling private sector income; it is that income which is expected to meet debt obligations.

    Deficit spending ends up as deposits in private sector bank accounts. Money is not extinguished once it is spent as you seem to believe.

    Just how is monetary policy supposed to promote NGDP growth when credit markets are impaired and private sector income is falling?

    James

    I’m not sure Rogoff and Reinhart’s study applies to sovereign issuers in a fiat money economy.
    Inflation trends, unemployment and interest rates suggest there is little if any crowding out.

  70. sdfc says:

    Bush’s first three years did not coincide with the worst financial crisis in 75 years.

  71. Fisky says:

    JC – according to Don’s figures, it’s:

    Obama is $1.80 with books

    Romney @ $2.75

    Put 10k on Obama + 6.5k on Romney and you get 18k no matter who wins. 1.5k/18k is actually closer to 8%, not 9%. But that’s what you’ll definitely get, because if the next President is not Romney, it’s Obama.

    8% in 10 months or so isn’t bad, right?

  72. Fisky says:

    But let’s take JC’s odds:

    Centrebet is showing Odumbo at 1.69 and Romney at 2.55.

    Those odds aren’t so good. Put 10k on Obama, for 16.9k revenue. Put 6.63k on Romney for 16.9k revenue.

    That’s costs of 16.63 for guaranteed return of 16.9 = only 2% or so.

  73. twostix says:

    Bush’s first three years did not coincide with the worst financial crisis in 75 yearts.

    No just 9/11, nothing at all.

  74. JC says:

    Oh Bullshit, SDFC.

    90/91 , early 80’s weren’t as bad but they weren’t that far off. In each case growth took off two years later.

    Stop over-egging it.

    I do care if national income is falling. I don’t care if insulation installers is falling or rising without a forced stimulus. So stop the leftist reversal.

    “Deficit spending ends up as deposits in private sector bank accounts. Money is not extinguished once it is spent as you seem to believe.”

    Yes correct, the spending ends back into bank accounts. However government borrowing reduced bank deposits as it must and the net effect is nil in terms of the money supply and the spending is nearly always less than optimum. This is something you seem unable to comprehend, SDFC. No matter how many times this is repeated it never seems to penetrate.

    “Just how is monetary policy supposed to promote NGDP growth when credit markets are impaired and private sector income is falling?”

    The Central Bank is able to purchase assets and the the market would immediately adjust to that sort of targeting. You need to stop thinking incrementally, SDFC. You think such an action would mean the tiny incremental changes to financial markets. That’s why you’re unable to understand it.

  75. JamesK says:

    That there are $ trillions of private capital on the sidelines is beyond doubt.

    The original cause was crowding out and that is still relevant but also now relevant is fear and uncertainty of what this insane Obummer regime will do next.

    Rogoff and Reinhart:

    V. Concluding Remarks

    “The sharp run-up in public sector debt will likely prove one of the most enduring legacies of the 2007-2009 financial crises in the United States and elsewhere. We examine the experience of forty four countries spanning up to two centuries of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. Our main finding is that across both advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt/GDP levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. In addition, for emerging markets, there appears to be a more stringent threshold for total external debt/GDP (60 percent), that is also associated with adverse outcomes for growth. Seldom do countries simply “grow” their way out of deep debt burdens.”

    I think your: “I’m not sure Rogoff and Reinhart’s study applies to sovereign issuers in a fiat money economy” is nothing more than making sh1t up.

    Where did you get that sorry excuse?

    Paul Krugmaqnn’s blog?

  76. sdfc says:

    Fisky

    If you’re sure Romney will get the nomination that’s not a bad risk free rate in the current environment.

    Twostix

    What was the decline in GDP in 2001 compared to 2008/09?

  77. JC says:

    “No just 9/11, nothing at all.”

    Pfffff that’s just fiddlesticks. Even if you combine it with a stockmarket crash… It hardly counts if it’s a Republican president. A different story of course if it’s a useless sludge of Demolitionist.

    I mean who cares if the country’s major city is attacked and a decent part of its downtown centre is reduced to rubble.

  78. JC says:

    Oh Okay Fisk, Got ya. You’re adjusting the betting size to the odds.

  79. kelly liddle says:

    JC
    “But every single metric, Bush’s first 3 years were miles ahead of this idiot.”

    You being the big neo-con and all I thought you would at least appreciate the new NDAA. The fact that the chickens have come home to roost does not mean Obama is so bad he is the same. That is why a real change is needed “Ron Paul 2012” not Romney. This ad sums it up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RKPfMqGOg .

    The current crisis was set in motion by 2 things for the most part. Wars and bad lending practices, oversight and laws to make lending practices worse. These all started in a big way from Clinton to Bush and Obama. You are just trying to blame last last bloke in the musical chair.

  80. sdfc says:

    JC

    The early 80s were nowhere near as bad. The economy had high inflation for a start. The recession was started by the Fed and ended by the Fed.

    When government bonds are purchased by the non-bank sector it does have no effect on the money supply that is correct. However what it does increase private sector income you are confusing stocks with flows. The purchaser has just changed one asset for another.

    Central bank purchasing of assets only increases excess reserves unless it promotes increased lending. How is that supposed to occur. Where is the incentive to invest if private sector income is falling?
    James

    You have not addressed the evidence that there is no crowding out.

    I don’t feel the need to take my cues from a blogger. What Krugman says is irrelevant.

  81. sdfc says:

    You says 9/11 was nothing. What was the extent of the decline in GDP in 2001 compared to 2008/09? Anyone?

  82. JC says:

    Kelly,

    Perhaps unlike you I take Politicians at their word.

    Odumbo campaigned on righting the economy, reducing sea water rise, along with hope and change.

    In other words Affirmative action kid told people he would do all those things as well as offer cheap and affordable medical insurance. So far none of those promises have been met.

    He owned the economy the moment the shit for brains swore the oath of office.

    In order to do justice to the man the right thing to do is compare his performance to his predecessor at the same point in time using standardized metrics If we do that he comes off as an appalling president.

    I’m not a neo con and your attempt to paint me as such is garbage.

    Keep making excuses for the guy. Everyone else has during his life anyways.

  83. kelly liddle says:

    JC
    A surprisingly good comeback from you. I can’t object to anything you say. I also think he is terrible just that I think the others were just as terrible. Of course I do not take politicians at their word better to look at the record. So in Australia’s case the opposition is much better mainly because last time they were in government they got many things right especially debt.

    Just like investments is better to look at past profits than assume the CEO or product disclosure statement says you will be rich. They are only salesman.

  84. JamesK says:

    Apparently Kant is woefully ignorant.

    Maybe this incomplete list may stir the idiot’s memory?

    1. Obamacare

    2. The failed $850 billion stimulus

    3. High, persistent unemployment

    4. Gasoline prices

    5. Obummer’s 2012 budget’s fecklessness voted against by 97 to in the Senate.

    6. Massive deficits each and every year
    Spends $4 trillion takes in $2 trillion

    7. The seizure of GM and Chrysler, the transfer of bondholder wealth to unions, and the dumping of the GM stock at a loss

    8. Dodd-Frank

    9. Hostility to Israel.

    10. Failure to support Iran’s Green Revolution

    11. Failure to support Syrian revolution. Assad was a “reformer”

    12. The Libyan Fiasco ad desultory treatment of Congresss

    13. The incompetent handling of the Gulf Oil disaster

    14. The unnecessary ‘permitorium’ in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil disaster

    15. The shutdown of Shell’s Arctic oil exploration by EPA

    16. The president’s push for cap-and-trade in the Congress

    17. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose carbon pricing via EPA when the Congress wouldn’t pass cap-and-trade

    18. The president’s push for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech on his political enemies while keeping the unions free to spend money on campaigns via The Disclose Act

    19. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order

    20. The president’s use of unaccountable “czars”

    21. The president’s refusal to accept Congressional direction vis-a-vis his “czars” contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution

    22. The president’s verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union

    23. The president and Eric Holder’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the black panthers case and the refusal to defend DOMA

    24. The president’s use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents, such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for money

    25. The president’s hyper-partisan approach to governing including “I won, you lost” in 2009 and the assault on Paul Ryan with Paul Ryan as an invited guest in the president’s April 2011 “deficit speech.”

    26. Bowing to the Saudi King and the Japanese emperor

    27. Returning the bust of Churchill to Great Britain

    28. Removing the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic

    29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation’s Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office

    30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea

    31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled with announcement of eventual withdrawal.

    32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously with the dispatch of Frank Wizner and then rejection of Wizner’s advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.

    33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment

    34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing “net neutrality” without Congressional authorization

    35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to California’s Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt

    36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay

    37. Attempt to try terrorists in New York City

    38. Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano

    39. Government takeover of the student loan program

    40. Cancellation of “virtual border fence” project with no replacement or indeed concern for border security

    41. The “Beer Summit” and the attack on the Cambridge Police Department

    42. The Department of Justice’s attack on Arizona for that state’s exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen identification rules

    43. The attack on Scott Walker and Wisconsin for the governor’s and the state legislature’s exercise of their sovereign legislative authority on public employment issues

    44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while the Middle East fell into chaos and the gas prices skyrocketed

    45. Arguing that American exceptionalism was the same as any nation’s sense of exceptionalism

    46. Implying that Minnesota bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding

    47. Inserting himself into campaign for the Olympics

    48. Attack on D.C. voucher program

    49. Van Jones and a long list of other appointees

    50. Teleprompter dependency and the worst run of presidential rhetoric since Millard Fillmore combined with testiness in the few interviews he grants.

    51. The Apology Tour of Europe where Obama made the case against America while apologising for America’s history

    52. The Cairo speech of May 2009 where Obama cosied up to the Muslim Brotherhood, apologized for America and attempted to placated the Islamists

    53. His public recognition and celebration of Islamic holy days while ignoring many Judeo-Christian holy days

    54. His repudiation of America’s Christian history, saying that
    “whatever we were, we’re not that now”.

    55. His refusal to acknowledge the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist, Islamist attack

    56. His exemption from Obamacare of more than 1,000 organisations while the average person is forced into Obamacare

    57. His friendship with unrepentant terrorist, criminal and rabid
    anti-American Bill Ayers

    58. His infamous comment that America had the strongest armed forces “whether you like it or not”.

    57. His duplicity on gay marriage, first repudiating it during the
    election campaign then endorsing later.

    58. His flagrant and deliberate attempt to undermine the American economy by printing hundreds of billions of dollars that were unrelated to economic growth, thereby devaluing the US dollar and promoting inflation.

    59. His love and promotion of class warfare.

    60. His incoherent speech on Libya, which failed to make the case for intervention in Libya while ignoring atrocities against civilians in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Ivory Coast, Congo, Sudan and so on.

    61. For shredding the US military at a time of increased tensions

    62. For ignoring the constitution (yet again) and making 22 recess appointments 2 days ago whilst the Senate is in session

    63. For being the most amateurish, illogical, narcissistic, smug and least competent president in US history.

  85. JamesK says:

    Addit:

    664. Obummer’s blocking of the Keystone XL pipeline costing 24,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs

  86. JC says:

    “The early 80s were nowhere near as bad.”

    Peak to trough fall in GDP was around 3%. Peak to trough in 08/09 was 5%.

    I never said it was as big. I said it wasn’t chopped liver either. You need to be able to comprehend language if you wish to keep up or go to the back of the class.

    2 years later the economy was showing recovery growth of 6%. So far the recovery is miserable.

    “The economy had high inflation for a start. The recession was started by the Fed and ended by the Fed.”

    So what? The economy went into a deep recession.

    “When government bonds are purchased by the non-bank sector it does have no effect on the money supply that is correct.”

    When government bonds are purchased by the CB it reduces the money supply. This is basic monetary economics, SDFC. Any more basic than this and I would be making goo goo noises to make babies laugh.

    “However what it does increase private sector income you are confusing stocks with flows. The purchaser has just changed one asset for another.”

    You’re talking nonsense. The broad effect is zero as a result of deficit spending through borrowings.

    “Central bank purchasing of assets only increases excess reserves unless it promotes increased lending.”

    Big enough and it causes the financial markets to make a big adjustment to future expectations. Incrementally and you get incremental adjustments.

    “How is that supposed to occur. Where is the incentive to invest if private sector income is falling?”

    So you’re really saying that the CB is unable to influence aggregate demand through asset purchases. I don’t think there is any monetary economist in the world worth his salt that would agree with that and neither do asset markets (as we witnessed)

    “You have not addressed the evidence that there is no crowding out.”

    It changes the pattern of capital movements and thoroughly distorts the capital markets. In fact it fucks up the capital structure of the economy as we’ve seen here.

  87. JamesK says:

    The Left’s So-Called Empathy by Mark Steyn
    It doesn’t extend to conservatives or dead babies.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287410/left-s-so-called-empathy-mark-steyn

    “The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.
    Not many of us will ever know what it’s like to have a child who lives only a few hours. That alone should occasion a certain modesty about presuming to know what are “weird” and unweird reactions to such an event.”

  88. JC says:

    65. Attack on Boeing for building a plant in a non-union state.

  89. JamesK says:

    So sdfc doesn’t take his cues for his irrelevant arguments and silliness from Paul Krugman.

    And the fact Obummer spends borrowed and fiat-printed money like a drunken sailor and is the worst Pres in modern history is just bad luck.

    It wasn’t Obummer’s fault according to sd-blinkered-fc, it was Bush’s fault and the reason there is $ trillions of private capital on the sidelines is nothing to do with sdfc’s hero: Obummer.

    Phew! What a relief, eh?

    On the other hand, according to the tremendous insight of sdfc, the more government spends the greater private sector income……

  90. JamesK says:

    American Pregnancy Association:


    “With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.”

  91. Kant says:

    That’s an impressively long list of things you don’t like about Obama, JamesK, but it surely all pales in comparison to the mess left by his predecessor.

    Morevoer, as Ron Paul points out, a big part of the problem for the US is runaway military expenditure. Moreover, Paul also points out that, contrary to your #61, it is US military adventurism that is the main cause of the threat to US security. While many Presidents have been guilty of this, we have mainly Dubya to than for the US’s present predicamnt. Obama’s reduction in military expenditure is actually in line with Paul’s policy stance.

    Go back in time, though, and Hoover’s mismanagement of the economy makes even Dubya’s administration look half sensible.

  92. WadeJ says:

    I’ll just take a stab at one thing
    “gutting the American defence capability would be a start”

    One they’re not gutting the military, the spending will be equal to or greater than the last year of the Bush years. And secondly the cuts in the military were voted for by both parties, not just Obama.

    There’s no reduction in aircraft carriers, the US military will still spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined and there is an 8% reduction in active US army members over the next 5 years. That’s not exactly gutting the military.

    Of course it’s something Obama’s in favour of, so it must be some grand socialist, marxist plot to give away America’s future.

  93. Kant says:

    Just a few more, James, before I hit the sack.

    #28 seems entirely sensible and again in line with Ron Paul’s views: a Libertarian position is that it is not the US’s role to act as world policeman (and it can’t afford to do so even if it were).

    #47 seems fairly innocuous and in line with the behaviour of most politicians from both sides of politics. Morevoer, if it helps the US’s Olympic chances (because, for example, rightly or wrongly the rest of the world still loves Obama, then surely he’s simply acting the the US national interest).

    #30 looks a bit naive too. I thought that most economists think free trade agreements are typically distorting of trade and often a trojan horse for generating additional anti-compettive regulation (for example through more stringent IP rules), and no substitute for true free trade.

    And your #63 is nothing more than a childish rant.

    In sum, I’d say you’ve over-extended yourself. Presumably you were trying to think of as many things as possible to make your case seem more rock solid. But like Dr Kates’ original statement about “the worst president in history”, all you’ve done really is undermine your own credibility, I suggest.

  94. Jc says:

    Kant

    “That’s an impressively long list of things you don’t like about Obama,”

    Lol

  95. Andreas says:

    11. Failure to support Syrian revolution. Assad was a “reformer”

    52. The Cairo speech of May 2009 where Obama cosied up to the Muslim Brotherhood, apologized for America and attempted to placated the Islamists

    Supporting the revolution in Syria would also be cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood. If the revolution in Syria is successful we can expect what is happening in Egypt to happen there. And worse, because in Syria it is the majority Sunni Muslims versus the minority Alawite sect lead by Assad. If Assad is overthrown there will surely be bloody reprisals against the Alawites, so the result will just be a reversal of who is killing who. It is not simply a nasty brutal dictator versus his oppressed people, but rather sect versus sect.

    Also Syria is one of the few Middle Eastern countries with a sizeable Christian population who live largely undisturbed – the ruling Alawites are a minority and so they need Christian support against the Sunni majority. It is similar to Iraq where Sunni Saddam needed the support of the Christians as his enemies the Shia were the majority. Post-Saddam Iraq has seen violence against Christians rise with about half the population fleeing to Syria. Where will they flee to if Assad goes and the Sunnis assume power? Although given #54, Obama probably doesn’t care much about the Christians in Syria.

    Anyway, it is not as simple as supporting the uprisings in Syria, it would be a feel-good exercise as in Libya and Egypt (and Iraq, ignoring the WMDs) and the end result would be just as ‘unexpected’ as in those countries. It is unclear how removing Assad would be in the strategic interest of the US given what is likely to rise in its place.

    10. Failure to support Iran’s Green Revolution

    This on the other hand…

  96. JamesK says:

    66. Touts Solyndra as exemplary in May 20120 which fails a year later after $500 million future generation taxpayer debt.

    67. Humiliating out of Iraq with no clear victory over insurgent forces against military advice.

    68. Passes 2000 page bils with out even 72 hours notice despite promise that all legislation on the Internet for five days before it comes to a vote.

    68 Promised congressional Legislative Hearings would be televised. They weren’t. In fact all behind closed doors

    69 Returning the bust of Churchill gifted and accepted by a previous administration to the British government

    69. Giving a collection of (geographically incompatible) DVDs to the British PM as an official gift.

    70. American is exceptional in the same way as Germany is exceptional etc.

    71. Promising to close Gitmo — failing to do so.

    72. Campaigning for Governor races for NJ, VA and the Senate Seat in Mass. – GOP wins

    73. The midterm elections, which Obama himself called a shellacking.

    74. Prediction that stimulus would ensure that unemployment doesn’t exceed 8%.

    75 Bowing to just about every foreign leader but the Queen

    76. Proposing amnesty for illegal aliens to increase the population of voters for Democrat elections

  97. Kant says:

    Adding to your list won’t overcome its limitiations, James, which is its failure to address how Obama fares relative to his predecessors.

    Moreover, often you’re now just repeating yourself. For instance, your new #70 is just a reworded version of your earlier #45; amd you’re new #69 is the same as your earlier #27.

    More broadly, much of your list is so obviously just a reflection of your own jaundiced preferences that the valid criticisms in it lose credibility.

    Meanwhile, the broader point remains: to sustain a claim that so-and-so is the worst President in history, you need to show that there were none worse. Even a list with a 1000 more items similar to those above would not do this. You are acting, indeed, in the way that Libertarians criticise Keynsians stimulus proponents. “If this much stimulus hasn’t done the job, we’ll just have to keep adding more stimulus”. The problem, however, at least according to Libertarians, is that stimulus will never do the job because its not addressing the question. The same fault arises with your list of Obama grips – by itself, it fails the address the question.

  98. C.L. says:

    Major credit to Sarah Palin for defending the economic libertarianism of Ron Paul’s supporters (the non crazy stuff). She’s the only GOP figure who hasn’t chickened out of the Tea Party agenda.

  99. JamesK says:

    Kant is lecturing me on limitations.

    Thax Kant for your entertaining cant.

    Which one is false?

    Then dare you explain why?

  100. Kant says:

    You (intentionally?) missed the point about your list’s limitations, James. The point is that such a list can not of itself sustain the claim that Obamais the worst President ever. That is the case even if each item in the list were correct.

    On the latter, I have already pointed to a few which are incorrect in my earlier posts. But I repeat: the key point is that you cannot prove that so-and-so is the worst whatever by listing a number of difficiencies of so-and-so. “Worst ever” is a relative concept, and you have failed to address relativities.

  101. Winston Smith says:

    “The point is that such a list can not of itself sustain the claim that Obamais the worst President ever.”
    Well Kant, in toto, it’s good enough for me, and I strongly suspect that it’s good enough for most.

    Are you Bird?

  102. JamesK says:

    Bird is not unintelligent Winston.

    Delusional yes, unintelligent no.

  103. JamesK says:

    On the positive side Obummar has taught many uninformed that prominent government intervention into the private sector often makes things worse besides inviting crony-capitalist corruption.

    Unfortunately I don’t believe that was what he intended Kant.

    77. Cash for clunkers

  104. More on the Tea Party, this time from a book review in the NYT:

    “…the Tea Partiers’ anti-­government ideology is tempered by quiet support for Social Security and Medicare. That’s because the activists themselves tend to be middle-aged or older. Tea Partiers aren’t opposed to government benefits per se, according to Skocpol and Williamson; rather, they’re opposed to “unearned” government benefits, which in practice ends up meaning any benefits extended to African-­Americans, Latinos, immigrants (especially undocumented ones) and the young. A poll of South Dakota Tea Party supporters found that 83 percent opposed any Social Security cuts, 78 percent opposed any cuts to Medicare prescription-drug coverage, and 79 percent opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians and hospitals. “So much for the notion that Tea Partiers are all little Dick Armeys,” Skocpol and Williamson write. The small government Tea Partiers favor is one where I get mine and most others don’t get much at all.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/books/review/books-about-conservatism-and-the-tea-party.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hpw

  105. JamesK says:

    78. The seas didn’t recede

    79. There is no evidence that the Earth had a wound but there is no evidence Obummer healed it either

    80. Liberal Left NY is not going to build his favoured Ground Zero mosque

  106. perturbed says:

    81. Stripping nearly $500bn from Defence when Iran is acting hawkish.

    I wonder how many servicemen & women that one’s going to bite, even if there’s no war.

    One would do well to reflect on what cost the British so many lives in World War One – government parsimony with pacifist intent —> not enough men and weapons to start with, and too small an armaments industry to manufacture and supply the weapons and ordnance the Army needed to properly fight that godawful slogging match.

    This time it would be worse because the sophistication of the weapons is orders of magnitude higher and rapid mass-production is simply not feasible – you have to have the equipment at the start, or you never will. The days of being able to turn out a bomber an hour are gone forever.

  107. sdfc says:

    JC

    Comparing the 80s recession to the 2008/09 recession reveals it is you who do not have a clue. YOY NGDP growth hit a low of +3.1% in Q3 1982 compared to a fall of 3.0% in Q2 2009. That’s a decline in nominal income compared to a mere slowdown in income growth.

    Private debt outstanding was ~100% of GDP in 1982 compared to ~180% of GDP in 2009, so no the two episodes are not comparable.

    The link between deficit spending and private sector income is self evident considering the major increase in the deficit has been the result of lower tax revenue and higher transfer receipts. You are yet to provide an argument as to the benefits of cutting private sector disposable income.

    Saying deficit spending during a deep recession fucks up the capital structure of the economy is quite laughable. You obviously are of the opinion that the rise in private business investment during the recovery has been a negative. After all government consumption and investment has been a comparatively minor part of the increase in the deficit. Non-defence federal consumption and investment is just 2.7% of GDP compared to 2.3% prior to the recession.

  108. sdfc says:

    Sorry higher transfer payments, not receipts.

  109. Jc says:

    “Comparing the 80s recession to the 2008/09 recession reveals it is you who do not have a clue.”

    Yes of course, previous recessions are incomparable to what was experienced in 08/09.
    Stop being foolish.

    “YOY NGDP growth hit a low of +3.1% in Q3 1982 compared to a fall of 3.0% in Q2 2009. That’s a decline in nominal income compared to a mere slowdown in income growth.”

    I’ll repeat peak to trough was a drop of 3% in 81/82 and 5% in 08/09.

    I’ll repeat what I said as you appear drunk again. 08/09 was deeper than 81/82. I have no problem with that. Te problem is that you fail to want to recognize the tepid recovery is a consequence of this deplorable government’s policies in trying to hijack the economy towards statism at ever turn.

    “Private debt outstanding was ~100% of GDP in 1982 compared to ~180% of GDP in 2009, so no the two episodes are not comparable.”

    So fucking what? If you’re working as most Americans are the issue is debt servicing and with interest rates where the are now the carrying capacity is larger. So what you’re raising isn’t really that much of an issue at this ponying in the.

    “The link between deficit spending and private sector income is self evident considering the major increase in the deficit has been the result of lower tax revenue and higher transfer receipts. ”

    So the fed can do something to raise NGDP.

    “You are yet to provide an argument as to the benefits of cutting private sector disposable income.”

    Targeting insulation installers income makes absolutely no sense. Best if the central bank acted to raise income by raising NGDP.

    “Saying deficit spending during a deep recession fucks up the capital structure of the economy is quite laughable.”

    Really? So the Lurch Rudd insulation fiasco was a success, was it? That was money well spent?

    ” You obviously are of the opinion that the rise in private business investment during the recovery has been a negative. ”

    Why would I be, Horace? You can only get recovery, no matter how meager through business investment.

  110. Peter Patton says:

    I don’t keep up with the hit parade so much, but are there similar tunes about Greenspan’s recession compared to this?

    I been laid off from work
    My rent is due
    My kids all need
    Brand new shoes

    So I went to the bank
    To see what they could do
    They said son – looks like bad luck
    Got-a hold on you

    Chorus:
    Money’s too tight to mention
    I can’t get an un-em-ploy-ment ex-ten-sion
    Money’s too tight to mention

    I went to my brother
    To see what he could do –
    He said bro-ther like to help you
    But I’m unable to
    So I called on my fa-ther fa-ther
    Oh my fa-ther
    He said

    Chorus:
    Money’s too tight to mention
    Oh mo-ney mo-ney mo-ney mon-ey
    Mo-ney’s too tight to mention
    I can’t even qual-i-fy for my pension

    We talk a-bout rea-gan-om-ics
    Oh lord down in the con-gress
    They’re passing all kinds – of bills
    From down on cap-it-ol hill – (we’ve tried them)

    Chorus:
    Money’s too tight to mention
    (spoken) cut-back!
    Mo-ney mo-ney mo-ney mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ ’bout the dollar bill
    And that old man that’s over the hill
    Now what are we all to do
    When the mon-ey’s got a hold on you?
    Mo-ney’s too tight to mention
    Oh mon-ey mon-ey mon-ey mon-ey
    Mo-ney’s too tight to mention
    Di-nero – mon-ey oh yeah
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey
    We’re talk-in’ a-bout mon-ey mon-ey…..

  111. Peter Patton says:

    Did the earth move for you Ayn,
    Did the earth move for you Ayn?

  112. JamesK says:

    82.Obumar’s broken promise to reject public campaign financing

    83. Obumar – the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general and Goldman Sachs in particular

    84. Messianic faux Greek Columned Dais

    85 .Remarks like “typical white person,” the “cling to guns and religion” speech, and the “spread-the-wealth” quip have proved the characteristic rather than any ‘mis-speak’.

  113. JamesK says:

    Charles Krauthammer: A worthy challenger
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-worthy-challenger/2012/01/05/gIQAGeRfdP_story.html?hpid=z2

    “After every other conservative alternative to Mitt Romney crashed and burned (libertarian Ron Paul is in a category of his own), from the rubble emerges Rick Santorum. But he isn’t just the last man standing. He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.”

  114. sdfc says:

    JC

    You’re quoting real GDP growth. Financial obligations are in nominal terms.

    Nominal income did not fall during the early 80s recession.

    Tell us how cutting household income is pro-growth. You keep avoiding this question.

  115. PSC says:

    So the Lurch Rudd insulation fiasco was a success, was it? That was money well spent?

    I dunno. Seriously I don’t.

    But I do know we were the only Western nation not to suffer a major recession/quasi-depression. Australia has performed comparatively brilliantly for the last 4 years.

    Now maybe it was China. Maybe it was John Howard putting our fiscal house in order. Maybe it was having a strong banking regulator and zero bank collapses (I think APRA deserves a lot more credit than it gets). But maybe it was Ken Henry going hard and going households.

    I suspect – but don’t know- that it was a combination. John Howard gave us the fiscal headroom to go hard and go households, so when fiscal stimulus was applied we got multiplier in spades.

    It wouldn’t surprise me that a careful analysis would show the pink batts were a macroeconomic triumph. They undoubtedly got ready cash out into hands of the public – particularly young people who are more likely to spend it and not save it – for doing quasi-useful labor, and fast. I do think more direct cash hand outs may have worked better, but I’m not sure what evidence we have that it was bad macro policy.

    Certainly it didn’t put the country into recession.

  116. JamesK says:

    P’haps Shane Wand, Krudd amd Nasty Ken apologist PSC likes sharing the love but US Federal Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf wouldn’t agree with him.

    http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2011/11/stimulus.html
    ELMENDORF in testimony to the Senate Budget Committee responding to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions :

    “What we said was, [the stimulus bill] would be a big boost in the level of GDP in the first 3 or 4 years, and then, relative to what would have happened to GDP without that law… the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.”

    Now even the early “big boost” to GDP growth Elmendorf predicted didn’t exactly happen.

    Growth has been very sluggish.

    So the stimulus has a longterm price for a short-term gain.

    It may have saved us a formal definition of ‘recession’ but in effect our ‘recession’/slowdown was and would have been even without insane Labor spending, shallow and short-lived.

  117. JC says:

    That’s reasonably fair, PSC. I but I think you’re wrong on the stimulus and and multiplier.

    Monetary policy was eased massively, the Dollar collapsed around 40% in two months and then China began signs of life and our terms of trade turned around.

    I think that if those things didn’t happen, they could have thrown what’s in Fort Knox into stimulus and it wouldn’t have mattered a bit.

    And by the way, our bank were basically fucked too and had to be bailed with the guarantee as the commercial paper market dried up.

  118. JC says:

    All the stimulus did was take the edge off the downturn so we wouldn’t register a couple of shallow negative months in GDP. That’s all it did.

  119. . says:

    “I dunno. Seriously I don’t.”

    Given 200 people died and the value of a life is costed by DOFA as $1.75 mn, it made a 350 mn loss off the bat.

    “Now maybe it was China”

    Our TOT are higher NOW. No maybes, you are wrong.

    “Certainly it didn’t put the country into recession.”

    Except that consumer spending has never recovered and cap ex at the time trended below the projections.

    It probably did.

    “It wouldn’t surprise me that a careful analysis would show the pink batts were a macroeconomic triumph.”

    Given the fact that the real cost of capital is about 7%, factor in the deaths and the project needs a net knock on effects multiplier of around 1.35.

    ” They undoubtedly got ready cash out into hands of the public – particularly young people who are more likely to spend it and not save it – for doing quasi-useful labor, and fast. I do think more direct cash hand outs may have worked better, but I’m not sure what evidence we have that it was bad macro policy.”

    Oh come off it if you think this level of intervention in economic decision making is wise you may as well embrace communism. Your ideas are built on a fallacy PSC. Saving does not cause recessions. Where is Singapore’s persistent and damaging recession?

  120. . says:

    “Given the fact that the real cost of capital is about 7%, factor in the deaths and the project needs a net knock on effects multiplier of around 1.35.”

    To break even…

  121. Alex Pundit says:

    The RBA cutting the official cash rate down from 7% to 1% had a bigger effect then $900 cheques given to dead people. Don’t believe me? Have look at what people were paying in interest rates in the period during the GFC? We had SVRs of 5.8%. This in turn lead to an increase of demand for housing which pushed up asset prices (I had at least $100K more in equity back then).

    The other big factor was the exchange rate. The AUD was worth around 0.62 USD. That lead to a flood of demand for imports and provided a big stimulus to industries like tourism.

    One of the advantages of owning property in places like Far North Queensland which are heavily influenced by factors like those mentioned is you get to see the ups and downs in the cylces of the economy before your very eyes.

    Wayne Swan saved the economy? Don’t make me laugh.

Comments are closed.