Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[EconChick]

I don't know about the area you live in, but in my area people are working and living....They are hiring and need skilled workers along with general laborers, professional positions are in need of people to fill positions. It's good where I live and people are filling restaurants, shopping malls, bars, the streets are packed with spenders and visitors, vacationers, campers, canoeist, and the lakes are loaded with boats....It's great to be here and vibrant with activity.. It's a hell of a lot better than 2008 when the day was darkened by gloom and doom.....
carry on pragmatics, cynics and naysayers...It's your Constitutional right and you get to enjoy what many in the world do without....the glass is half full, not half empty...



See The Glass Half Full Or Empty? Why Optimists Are Happier, Healthier & Wealthier! - Forbes

By the vie, the veggie garden is doing great this year and the harvest is most bountiful....

Cute post, Moonglow. Liked it!

I'm an optimist too. When I was constantly under rocket fire in Iraq, I too would always look at the cup half full. Unfortunately I'm not comparing optimism with pessimism here. I'm talking about the impact of our President's policies.

Comparing it to the financial crash is not really a valid comparison. That's like saying you're now only 80,000 in debt instead of 100,000 in debt.

As of today I am 10k in debt.....in 2008 I was 60k in debt....I reduced my debt liability by frugal living. I have worked through 40 years of presidents and the state of the economy . I have always found work and even ran a business. I made money even in the worst of times..Because I do what it takes to survive, no matter what I must do..
This president and his policies have allowed the US to regain much of what was lost during the last president. I never determine my abilities or my income by what a president does or says. I keep my nose to the grindstone and know that you must learn to live through the good times and bad times,and cherish what matters most, love of my family and my dogs..Love of the beautiful planet and what it has to offer..
Money will come and go, but that is not what happiness is about.

Love your rugged individualism.

 

[EconChick]

great more nothing

Great, another partisan pretends to act objective.

If this were 2007 and Bush was president, I'd expect the responses to my question in the title to reflect on him.

But your hero's now the President. Not anyone else. It's a reflection on him.

Do I see you answering the question about his policies? No............ of course not.

Where in this thread do you mention Obama's policies. No where. You libs are soooooooooooo fucking sensitive about his fuck ups.

Busted dude.

Because my issues with Obama stem in the spying, constitutional aspect of things. Economically he is no better than bush. Same people, same crap, just rotate the person in charge..

Your problem here is you like to assume positions without asking. Look hey that might work with other people, but it doesnt for me.

The problems stem from carter, to Reagan putting greenspan in charge, who is a less government is better type guy ( even though he says he was wrong) To clinton repealing glass/seagal, too Bush appointing more wall street men, to Obama doing the same.

Meanwhile nobody really went to jail, bailouts happened when they shoudnt have and we are right back where we started. Its a giant circlejerk, between our Government, Wallstreet, and the Credit ratings.

So please, assume my position all you like little girl....Its been done by better.

Again you bring nothing new

And I said I brought something new where???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I don't care how many times it's been said in other threads, fiscal conservative principles need to be repeated over and over while big spenders need to be pointed out.

While I agree with your broad brush economic statements, and am a limited govt type myself, the devil's in the details. Saying Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi are exactly alike because they're both politicians is unsophisticated. So is saying all politicians are the same on economics.

 

[EconChick]

Dream on. It's ALL you have. Dreams and myths

Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, that explains it, you get your economics from polls, lol

I'm not surprised your limited brain would conclude that.

 

[EconChick]

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE

So a president has no opinions on anything because spending originates in the House. WTF?

 

[Dad2three]

Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, that explains it, you get your economics from polls, lol

I'm not surprised your limited brain would conclude that.

"Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



lol

 

[Dad2three]

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE

So a president has no opinions on anything because spending originates in the House. WTF?

Opinions? Bubbette, you are as bad as Ed B. Just A RIGHT WINGER PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS. lol

 

[EconChick]

I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE

So a president has no opinions on anything because spending originates in the House. WTF?

Opinions? Bubbette, you are as bad as Ed B. Just A RIGHT WINGER PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS. lol

Yeah, guess what dumbshit. I started my economic doctoral thesis years ago. The only one pretending to understand economics is you. I've seen 12 year olds argue economics better than you.

 

[EconChick]

OK, that explains it, you get your economics from polls, lol

I'm not surprised your limited brain would conclude that.

"Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



lol

I think his polls in the 30s is fricken hilarious too.

 

[Moonglow]

The many posters and Americans that are so busy badmouthing this president and all other presidents are laughable...
I find the crowd that says the president won't fix my economy and get me a job are as pathetic as the welfare bums, they are waiting for someone else to do their thinking for them..
I had the pleasure of being raised around people that lived through WWI, The Great Depression and WWII...These people did not wait around for someone to hand them a job or give them a hand out. These people had to live through harder times than what today's Americans have never experienced(except the very elderly)...They lost more than the majority of Americans have ever had to lose, but they NEVER gave up.....

I had to start working at 13 to help support my family, by 14 I was filing tax forms and have ever since..at 17 I dropped out of high school and entered college, I was tired of low info education and wanted to learn all I could. I joined the US Army at 21 and was a Missile technician, during the basic electronics course they crammed down our throat in 6 weeks, my Dad's old Army buddy who was the instructor, always told the class, "If a man was able to figure this out, you can do it also". I still carry those words today to remind me I can do whatever I put my mind to task..I also smoke pot and have since I was 16. It has never stopped me from obtaining an education, a family with great kids that are veterans also and employed.
I appreciate your service and thank you for standing in harms way for our nation. My cousin just retired from the Marines, she was a firefighter at airports in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope you met her cause she is a great person and I am sure you are also....

 

[Dad2three]

So a president has no opinions on anything because spending originates in the House. WTF?

Opinions? Bubbette, you are as bad as Ed B. Just A RIGHT WINGER PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS. lol

Yeah, guess what dumbshit. I started my economic doctoral thesis years ago. The only one pretending to understand economics is you. I've seen 12 year olds argue economics better than you.

Sure, I believe you, sure

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not surprised your limited brain would conclude that.

"Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



lol

I think his polls in the 30s is fricken hilarious too.

These polls are not a true reflection of the populace at large. Asking 1,100 people out of 300 million and trying to assert a consensus is illogical and a fallacy...
If you want to know the true feelings and have an accurate idea, then all adult Americans have to be polled to make it accurate and concise.....the poles are eschewed to bias and misrepresentation...and are not true in a mathematical representation....

 

[Londoner]

Londoner, you make some good points (esp about credit) but you also make some statements that undermine you somewhat. When you say "postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73," it didn't work so effectively at all. The 70s were the most stagnant in decades....because of Keynsian policies.

I saw both Keynesian policies and Reaganomics as being effective in the beginning but ultimately overcooked as they became entrenched fixtures in Washington, each with zombie-eyed followers, special interest groups, think tanks and intellectuals who had a financial incentive to keep the system going even after it started to fail. Regarding Keynesian stimulus: it was intended to maintain full employment during the downturn of the business cycles. The criticism was that it lead to inflation, which destroyed the very gains of the poor workers it was intended to serve, not only by raising their cost of living but by putting them in a higher tax bracket (i.e., uncle Milty > law of unintended consequences, etc., etc.,). But it should be noted that the left was always willing to accept modest inflation in exchange for full employment. However, in 1973 the Keynesian system fell apart. We had high inflation and high unemployment. This, FYI, was predicted by Milton Friedman, who said there was no long term tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. He and Edmund Phelps wrote a very influential paper claiming that Keynesian stimulus could only sustain employment in the short run but not the long run. When they turned out to be right, the consensus for Keynes was replaced by the 2nd coming of classical liberalism > neoliberalism, which advocated low taxes, deregulation and a "let failures fail" approach to downturns so as not to clog free market incentives with moral hazards. Even worse: it became clear the government was incapable of applying Keynesian policies with competence or honesty. Rather than merely priming the pump during severe downturns, our presidents turned to easy-money-stimulus for political reasons, i.e., whenever they needed a bump in the polls. Presidents like George Bush, in order to prevent a deeper recession, advocated a Fed rate policy that basically dumped liquid on asset markets, including housing. This created a mini-boom which got him past Kerry, but it ultimately did what over-extended credit always does: blow up.

The world benefited greatly because thinkers like Hayek and Friedman helped us see the limitations of government intervention in the economy. Our problem is that the neoliberals have become so powerful and entrenched that they lack a similar counterbalance. Nobody has gained any traction in explaining the conflict between capitalism's desire for ultra cheap labor and its need for robust purchasing power. That conflict was solved by a high wage system from '45-'80, and buffeted by any number of programs which targeted middle-class cost-of-living, especially financial support for public universities. And then... starting in 1980, we started to save our dying middle class with credit cards. Each solution to the conflict has severe limitations that certain special interest groups were/are paid to obscure. The challenge for the neoliberals is to explain why the economic growth from '45-'73 was greater than any other period in our history. This was they heyday of the New Deal and state managed capitalism. They Left has to explain why this system all the sudden stopped working in 1973. What is odd about this stuff is that there actually is an interesting debate here, though you wouldn't know it from how angry people get when they deliver their POV.

 

[Moonglow]

Why did it work from '45-'73? We had the advantage of industrial power and world markets that were lost by the world during WWII.

 

[Dad2three]

Londoner, you make some good points (esp about credit) but you also make some statements that undermine you somewhat. When you say "postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73," it didn't work so effectively at all. The 70s were the most stagnant in decades....because of Keynsian policies.

I saw both Keynesian policies and Reaganomics as being effective in the beginning but ultimately overcooked as they became entrenched fixtures in Washington, each with zombie-eyed followers, special interest groups, think tanks and intellectuals who had a financial incentive to keep the system going even after it started to fail. Regarding Keynesian stimulus: it was intended to maintain full employment during the downturn of the business cycles. The criticism was that it lead to inflation, which destroyed the very gains of the poor workers it was intended to serve, not only by raising their cost of living but by putting them in a higher tax bracket (i.e., uncle Milty > law of unintended consequences, etc., etc.,). But it should be noted that the left was always willing to accept modest inflation in exchange for full employment. However, in 1973 the Keynesian system fell apart. We had high inflation and high unemployment. This, FYI, was predicted by Milton Friedman, who said there was no long term tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. He and Edmund Phelps wrote a very influential paper claiming that Keynesian stimulus could only sustain employment in the short run but not the long run. When they turned out to be right, the consensus for Keynes was replaced by the 2nd coming of classical liberalism > neoliberalism, which advocated low taxes, deregulation and a "let failures fail" approach to downturns so as not to clog free market incentives with moral hazards. Even worse: it became clear the government was incapable of applying Keynesian policies with competence or honesty. Rather than merely priming the pump during severe downturns, our presidents turned to easy-money-stimulus for political reasons, i.e., whenever they needed a bump in the polls. Presidents like George Bush, in order to prevent a deeper recession, advocated a Fed rate policy that basically dumped liquid on asset markets, including housing. This created a mini-boom which got him past Kerry, but it ultimately did what over-extended credit always does: blow up.

The world benefited greatly because thinkers like Hayek and Friedman helped us see the limitations of government intervention in the economy. Our problem is that the neoliberals have become so powerful and entrenched that they lack a similar counterbalance. Nobody has gained any traction in explaining the conflict between capitalism's desire for ultra cheap labor and its need for robust purchasing power. That conflict was solved by a high wage system from '45-'80, and buffeted by any number of programs which targeted middle-class cost-of-living, especially financial support for public universities. And then... starting in 1980, we started to save our dying middle class with credit cards. Each solution to the conflict has severe limitations that certain special interest groups were/are paid to obscure. The challenge for the neoliberals is to explain why the economic growth from '45-'73 was greater than any other period in our history. This was they heyday of the New Deal and state managed capitalism. They Left has to explain why this system all the sudden stopped working in 1973. What is odd about this stuff is that there actually is an interesting debate here, though you wouldn't know it from how angry people get when they deliver their POV.

"which advocated low taxes, deregulation and a "let failures fail" approach to downturns so as not to clog free market incentives with moral hazards."

Yeah, because THAT always works *shaking head*

As you pointed out, 1946-1980?

Since 'Classical economics' has been in vogue, we've rescued the Banksters with Reagan's S&L crisis, Clinton's Latim America/Asian debt crisis then Dubya's subprime

Where is the corresponding 'growth' from lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators' in 90 years?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


DUBYA HAD A REGULATOR FAILURE, NOT A MONEY POLICY FAILURE, BTW

NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.


FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010




Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas

 

[Dad2three]

Why did it work from '45-'73? We had the advantage of industrial power and world markets that were lost by the world during WWII.

Bzz, 90% of the world was back and running by 1955, and 100% by 1960....

 

[Londoner]

Why did it work from '45-'73? We had the advantage of industrial power and world markets that were lost by the world during WWII.

Bzz, 90% of the world was back and running by 1955, and 100% by 1960....

Even better: the 50s-60s saw staggering economic growth while New Deal Liberalism was in full effect. These liberal policies created the highest paid middle class in world history. And guess what happens when the middle class has huge amounts of disposable income? Answer: the capitalist has an incentive to re-invest and add jobs so as to capture those dollars. This in turn adds even more workers to the labor force, which in turn puts more consumers on main street, which leads to even more investment/jobs. . . a la virtuous cycle. Or, you can do like we did starting in the 80s. Ship jobs to Chinese sweatshops, and replace high wages with high interest credit cards. This turned out to be great for the capitalist, who benefited from cheap labor, but it ended the American middle class.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Even better: the 50s-60s saw staggering economic growth while New Deal Liberalism was in full effect. These liberal policies created the highest paid middle class in world history.

Policies have a horrendously difficult time of actually producing economic results of significant effect. Washington policies really aren't effective levers which move the economy.

What does have an effect on the economy? Why that's simple - market forces.

What created the middle class boom? That's simple too - rising wages in relation to declining share of National Income which went to corporations. What is National Income? To simplify, when Labor + Capital are combined, we get an output, National Income. All the goods and services we produce. The wealth that is created has to be allocated between Capital and Labor. When Labor is strong, then Capital has a weaker hand. When Capital is strong, then Labor has the weaker hand.

Well, it just so happens that that period had Labor with a very strong hand and, as required by this economic law, Capital saw erosion in how much wealth it could capture to itself. Why did Labor have such a strong hand? That's easy to answer too - labor scarcity. Employers found that there weren't enough employees to hire at low wages so they kept bidding up wages and they had to sacrifice corporate profits in order to hire the needed labor.

What created that labor scarcity? This is what created it. We didn't import people into the US and inject them into the labor market. Any moron should be able to understand that if we allow immigrants into the US they must enter the labor market and as soon as they do so they add to the labor supply, thus cutting out the legs of any developing labor scarcity and, like a steam release valve, they vent the rising pressure for increased wages.

 

[Londoner]

While I agree with your broad brush economic statements, and am a limited govt type myself, the devil's in the details. Saying Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi are exactly alike because they're both politicians is unsophisticated. So is saying all politicians are the same on economics.

Exactly. Reagan tripled Carter's spending and Bush doubled Clinton, yet we think of them as fiscally responsible because their party has invested more into opinion management.

It's our job to read between the lines, especially when it comes to our own party or beliefs.

My point is this. Just as there are differences between Washington politicians, there are different kinds of government spending, some of it useful, most of it not. You might try asking some questions that help you see how/where/if your own thoughts are limited, like: is there a difference between the spending that went into the Hoover Dam (which allowed us to fully settle the Southwest) and the spending that went into Johnson era welfare projects or protecting the dung beetle because of some enviro-asshole special interest group?

Or what about the GOVERNMENT spending that went into military technology or the NASA program and was later converted to insanely profitable commercial applications? Do you know where our satellite system came from? There are many people that think GOVERNMENT spending (mostly through defense contracts) on Boeing and aero-technology paid off huge. Study commercial aviation. The Left hates Reagan, but his military Keynesianism put tens of thousands of defense and weapons jobs in Southern California, which had the effect of putting more spenders in the SoCal economy (psst: like all workers, government workers buy things, and when they spend money at a main street store, they help keep it in business). Study the big government industrial capacity that was spawned because of WWII. Then study how this capacity was converted to profitable commercial applications. You should at least know how much money your government has invested in profitable technology. You should understand the costs associated with an advanced industrial infrastructure, or a patent system or the unbelievably expensive legal system that protects private property. Be careful with news sources that give you catchy generalizations about spending but zero data.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your knowledge of the Reagan years comes from David Stockman????????? Stockman is a flippin idiot. Reagan gave him a real big boot in the ass from his Administration once he figured that out.

By all means keep showing your incredible ignorance.

Oh when he said 'trickle down' was a failure? Sure.. lol

Reaganomics went to to destroy the middle class, but hey, we created a few new billionaires!

When a president gets growth roaring to levels almost unmatched....and when that president gets unemployment to almost "full employment" it takes a real dullard to not realize those policies help the middle class more than any other policy impacts.

The very def of low enough unemployment to be called "full employment" means you've created conditions that allows almost everyone who wants to work to work. How can you possibly think that only billionaires benefit from that.

You must be regurgitating some dumbass class out at Berkley. No wonder so many stats are at your fingertips.

So Reagan's policy of ballooning the deficits by cutting taxes while increasing spending was the proper formula in the eighties, because - cause and effect issues aside for the moment -

those policies were followed by greatly improved GDP and unemployment numbers?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am posting in this failed thread in order to remind you that it is a failed thread. It's fun.

And.....you are not paying attention. Nutters tend to be a bit self absorbed like that.

No one pays attention to your dumbass, illogical, incongruent, small-minded, petty posts. But you ARE like the class clown that makes people laugh. You sure make me laugh. You remind me of an idiot savant, except your savant is in online shopping, not critical thinking.

No one? Really?

Here is a tip for you. Don't announce the fact that you are an expert in a field unless you are. You have not performed well here thus far.

You began this thread by telling everyone how you are too smart for us...so you wanted to have a dumbed-down discussion about why Americans feel so down on the US economy. You know....because if we started using charts and graphs and data.....you'd bury us all with knowledge.

While that was very thoughtful of you, you failed to establish the premise. You never proved that Americans feel down about the economy in comparison to just a few years ago. You asked us to accept that......to join you in your assumption.

I gave you some info about how I feel.....and how my local economy is fairing. You didn't accept it. You suggested that you were looking for nationwide feelings. In other words.....you asked for charts, graphs and data. I presented the consumer confidence index as proof that Americans are FEELING BETTER ABOUT THE ECONOMY. You responded with the GDP numbers. I gotta tell ya......you really blew my mind with that depth.

Unfortunately for you.....and to my great pleasure......we have some members here who have a pretty good grasp on economics. You have been schooled by them. You sure can type the word "Keynes", though. Very impressive.

Thus far, you have claimed to be in the midst of your Doctoral thesis in Economics and you dropped a turd about serving in Iraq. How about a little detail regarding those two items?