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

[nodoginnafight]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Translation:
"Has the far right been successful in sowing discontent to the point that you will ignore the data?

 

[EconChick]

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.

I certainly agree with you on this part, Rikurzhen. I agree with some of your subsequent posts about labor too, but I think your explanation is too labor-centric.

 

[g5000]

As for the GSEs, yes George Bush did try to get Congress to force the GSEs to shrink their portfolios. He sure did. And yes the Democrats stopped him, even though they were a minority party at the time.

It's funny how some right wingers can't see how the minority Republicans in the Senate can totally deadlock our government, but scream from the rooftops about how Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stopped George Bush from saving the GSEs.

It is absolutely true Frank and Dodd killed the GSE portfolio shrinkage. Yes, indeedy.

But there was a reason Bush wanted to shrink the GSEs, you see. Wall Street wanted that action. Wall Street was moving into the secondary market in a big way and wanted the GSEs market share.

By 2006, the GSE market share had shrank from about 90 percent to less than 50 percent of the secondary market. This was not so much due to them buying and selling less, but more because of the supernova explosion of Wall Street's action.

So Bush's motives were not pure, kids. If he was truly worried about systemic risk, he would not have shrunk the SEC or allowed them to unanimously approve the lowering of capital reserve requirements for the five biggest Wall Street broker-dealers, see? He would have been making less noise about the GSEs and raising all kinds of alarms about the explosion on Wall Street.

But complaining about more people being able to borrow money to buy houses would not have been popular at the Wall Street fundraising trough, now would it.

Did you know that Bush grew every single government agency while in office? He even created a massive new Cabinet department so as to create a surveillance State that spies on every Merkan.

He grew every agency...except two.

Guess which two he shrank. I already told you one.


The SEC. The other one was the EPA.


Bush was not about saving us from systemic risk in the financial services sector. He was about throwing GSE market share to the big donors on Wall Street.

 

[bendog]

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.

I certainly agree with you on this part, Rikurzhen. I agree with some of your subsequent posts about labor too, but I think your explanation is too labor-centric.

you guys may want to rethink that.

US Gross Domestic Product GDP History United States 1950-2010 - Federal State Local Data

 

[EconChick]

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.

That's why I said the devil's in the details. I don't fall into the categories of either extreme. Some government spending is needed, as are some regulations.

Your questions are spot on. Which I've spent at least two decades pondering as well. I've even worked in a state sponsored technology incubator where the government chose "winners and losers." I had the power to choose the winners and losers. I got to see firsthand why fiscal conservatives like myself absolutely loathe the government getting to do that, even in an industry like national security where the government has to play.

It's one thing to be learning and discussing this stuff in the Ivory Tower, but there's nothing like getting out there and being in the middle of it firsthand.

That's why people like me feel as strongly as we do about getting government out of as much as possible.

 

[EconChick]

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?

Ballooning the deficit? That was nothing compared to the uber-balloon Obama has created. $17 trillion ring a bell? And Reagan got a ton more for his investment. Obama has gotten anemic employment and even worse growth.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

Ballooning the deficit? That was nothing compared to the uber-balloon Obama has created. $17 trillion ring a bell? And Reagan got a ton more for his investment. Obama has gotten anemic employment and even worse growth.

Gee what happened to the "there are much bigger forces at work" speech???

LOL

 

[EconChick]

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?

I've already accomplished exactly what I came here to do, airhead. Don't you have a shoes sale to go to?

 

[EconChick]

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.

So immigrants didn't come over BECAUSE US Corps needed more labor?

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite



Andrew Mellon had a few distinctly progressive ideas. Of particular note, he suggested taxing "earned" income from wages and salaries more lightly that "unearned" income from investments. As he argued:


The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man's life and it descends to his heirs.

Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mental and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.



Tax History Project -- The Republican Roots of New Deal Tax Policy

Blah blah blah...can't you piece together a complete fricken sentence?

No one can read your posts. Even the bobble heads that claims they can read it can't. They just recognize the talking points as theirs. If you pulled those bobble heads away from the computer - or you for that matter- and made them debate without notes, their answers would be buhhh buhhh buhhh buhhh buhhh, uhhhh, uhhhh, buhhhh.

If you want to be taken seriously, try communicating the way humans are taught to write.

 

[Siete]

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?

I've already accomplished exactly what I came here to do, airhead. Don't you have a shoes sale to go to?

what would that be? Drop a turd or showcase your inability in the economics arena ?

at least you're boring.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

Consumer confidence soars to highest level since 2007

US consumer confidence is back to 2007 peaks - Fortune

 

[EconChick]

The latest Consumer Confidence number just came out:

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE SPIKES TO 7-YEAR HIGH



The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence jumped to 90.9 from 85.2 in June.

This smashed expectations for an increase to just 85.4.

“Consumer confidence increased for the third consecutive month and is now at its highest level since October 2007 (95.2)," said the Conference Board's Lynn Franco.

Read more: Consumer Confidence, July 2014 - Business Insider

Thanks for giving Exhibit A of the bullshit spin engaged in by biased sources. LMAO, Business Insider leans way to the left and the people hitting the thanks button too stupid to see it.

Didn't you read the posts early on about the Conference Board's Consumer Index for July??????

Love when you libs demonstrate with great clarity how pathetic your critical thinking skills are.

 

[EconChick]

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

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

Consumer confidence soars to highest level since 2007

US consumer confidence is back to 2007 peaks - Fortune

Obviously YOU didn't read what came straight from The Board's confidence index either.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The latest Consumer Confidence number just came out:

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE SPIKES TO 7-YEAR HIGH



The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence jumped to 90.9 from 85.2 in June.

This smashed expectations for an increase to just 85.4.

“Consumer confidence increased for the third consecutive month and is now at its highest level since October 2007 (95.2)," said the Conference Board's Lynn Franco.

Read more: Consumer Confidence, July 2014 - Business Insider

Thanks for giving Exhibit A of the bullshit spin engaged in by biased sources. LMAO, Business Insider leans way to the left and the people hitting the thanks button too stupid to see it.

Didn't you read the posts early on about the Conference Board's Consumer Index for July??????

Love when you libs demonstrate with great clarity how pathetic your critical thinking skills are.

Wow - I thought this was supposed to be an intellectual discussion???

pffffffft

I'm lying. I knew all along it was just some poster who would devolve into a typical name-caller when confronted with conflicting data.

btw who hit the thanks button?

 

[Moonglow]

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?

Ballooning the deficit? That was nothing compared to the uber-balloon Obama has created. $17 trillion ring a bell? And Reagan got a ton more for his investment. Obama has gotten anemic employment and even worse growth.

And do you remember the jobless recovery during Boosh? Not to mention the tax breaks companies got even if they moved over seas?

 

[bendog]

Econchick's got at least some communication problems, but it may be that if you get past some non sequiturs, there's at least a kernel.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country

There is a general unease and fear about where the country's going.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

I've already accomplished exactly what I came here to do, airhead. Don't you have a shoes sale to go to?

Hiya, dummy.

I noticed that you did not respond to the new consumer confidence index. You know....the July numbers. What gives?

A "shoes" sale? Macy's? You've got a strange hang up, there. Am I supposed to be offended by you talking about your shopping habits?

I also noticed that you began kissing Moonglow's ass and you gave Londoner a sweet reach-around this afternoon. Wise choice. That uber-arrogant approach you took yesterday wasn't working. Let's see if you can save enough face with this new version of you.

 

[EconChick]

I've already accomplished exactly what I came here to do, airhead. Don't you have a shoes sale to go to?

what would that be? Drop a turd or showcase your inability in the economics arena ?

at least you're boring.

Wow, another one that claims it's a boring or failed thread....but you just can't resist posting in it. LMAO

I'm not surprised that libs don't get the conservative axiom: We don't listen to what you say, we watch what you do.

Yepppp, just like Barry. Bunch of hot air.

And I'm sure you'll feel compelled to post yet again.

 

[EconChick]

I've already accomplished exactly what I came here to do, airhead. Don't you have a shoes sale to go to?

Hya, dummy.

I noticed that you did not respond to the new consumer confidence index. What gives?

A "shoes" sale? Macy's? You've got a strange hang up, there. Am I supposed to be offended by you talking about your shopping habits?

I also noticed that you began kissing Moonglow's ass and you gave Londoner a sweet reach-around this afternoon. Wise choice. That uber-arrogant approach you took yesterday wasn't working. Let's see if you can save enough face with this new version of you.

LOL, I know you're a little bit fascinated with me, Looney Loner, but just to be clear, I don't swing that way, so you're wasting your time. I see you've yet to contribute anything of substance to this thread.

 

[bendog]

Hya, dummy.

I noticed that you did not respond to the new consumer confidence index. What gives?

A "shoes" sale? Macy's? You've got a strange hang up, there. Am I supposed to be offended by you talking about your shopping habits?

I also noticed that you began kissing Moonglow's ass and you gave Londoner a sweet reach-around this afternoon. Wise choice. That uber-arrogant approach you took yesterday wasn't working. Let's see if you can save enough face with this new version of you.

LOL, I know you're a little bit fascinated with me, Looney Loner, but just to be clear, I don't swing that way, so you're wasting your time. I see you've yet to contribute anything of substance to this thread.

There she goes again.