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

[Dad2three]

Great example of twisting, manipulating, disingenuous talk of numbers.

Reagan added about 1.7 trillion of debt himself over his 8 years. Obama has already added 5.8 trillion of debt over his tenure. By the time he leaves it will probably be at least 6.5 trillion that just he himself added to the current 17 trillion. But I'll go with the more conservative number for you.

So let me spell it out again.

Reagan = 1.7 T
Obama = 5.8T

This isn't like comparing 1.7 million dollars and 5.8 million dollars.

We're talking about trillions!!!!


It is an unrefuted, unequivocal, undeniable fact that Obama is the biggest fucking spender in our history.

So stop trying to lie about it.

Yes, Reagan tripled US debt and Bush's policies weill be responsible for most of 'Obama's debt'. Be honest ONCE?

Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit and that have lasting effects.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

IDEOLOGUE POS

Ronnie raised the debt 189% ..


http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Nope, he tripled US debt. You are talking PUBLIC debt


Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion

Hell your way Clinton reduced the debt? lol

 

[Dad2three]

You haven't debunked a thing. You know why?

Any one with any common sense that has the smallest handle on middle America knows there is malaise everywhere, especially in the heartland.

I can throw out tons of statistics. They can be found all over the internet to counter your propaganda.

No one knows better than we econ wonks that there are statistics, damn statistics, and lies.

If I wanted to play your game, it would be easy to do exactly what you're doing. Hunt down the partisan links and thhhhhhhstats.

I asked for people to give what they know from the gut, not from endlessly manipulated numbers. I mean some numbers were ok, but you turned this thread into all the other threads in the economy section. Just a bunch of easily contested wonkish links and graphs.

I was asking you to talk about your "sense" of how Americans feel about the direction of the country. The Confidence Index for July is clearly being spun by both sides.

I'm still waiting for you to remove yourself from your crutches and do that.

YES, BUSH AND COMP LEFT US IN A WIDE AND DEEP HOLE


Dubya lost 1.2+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Obama has 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

WEIRD YOU'D THINK 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES THE US ECONOMY WOULD'VE BEEN BOOMING? LOL

Well thank you for at least making that readable, Dad2three.

I can finally read your post.

As for the numbers, the crash that happened in 2008 is separate from the earlier years of Bush's presidency. As G50000 has said, everyone was to blame for the crash.

Yes, it's true that we can't all of a sudden not hold Bush responsible at all for the jobs lost during the crash just because it was everyone's fault.

But the way you're reporting the numbers is you're giving Bush 100% of the blame for the crash.

Therefore your numbers are totally skewed....and in a massive way.

"As G50000 has said, everyone was to blame for the crash. "

NONSENSE

ONE GUY HAD REGULATOR OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI, SEC, FANNIE/FREDDIE, ETC

In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

 

[Rikurzhen]

I agree that labor scarcity definitely played a role, but you might want to look into the labor policies of the period as well. By the 50s and 60s there was vigorous support for unions. Americans had the highest labor rates in history. And, those high wages translated into massive purchasing power which in turn contributed to a main street boom, and gave an incentive to investors who added jobs and expanded capacity to capture those dollars.

Let's perform a Gedankenexperiment to see if we can isolate the effects of unionization from labor scarcity. Let's posit a US with Chinese level wages. We have millions of peasants in the US who are happy to work for $2 per day. Now come some unions at GM and Ford and other industrial companies and they strike for wages of $100 per day.

What is the bargaining power of unions in a labor market characterized by massive labor surpluses compared to a labor market suffering from scarcity?

Could the unions achieve their goals, the ones you focus on, if they operated back at that time, in an environment of labor surplus? If they tried to unionize the incentives for replacement labor would have been immense. The pay differential between union demand, replacement labor cost, and market wages would be very wide and give employers a whole lot of latitude.

My point is that the union gains you point to came about precisely because labor scarcity strengthened the bargaining hand of the unions. Unions were not driving the wave, they were riding it.

Let's try another Gedankenexperiment. Let's see what happens if China or India today began to replicate the unionization movement from American history. Unlike the US of the 40s-60s which had labor shortages, both India and China have massive oversupply of labor. Union wages are going to need to be above the market-clearing price for labor. The higher above market the greater the incentive to bust the union by using replacement workers. Do you really believe that China and India can use unionization as the DRIVER for increasing, THROUGHOUT THE ECONOMY, the returns to labor and decreasing the returns to Capital?

Regarding natural market forces, I can only add that during the period in question capital did not have anything close to complete control over labor costs nor the manifold regulations that affected it,

And why do you think that Capital so loves expansive immigration? It adds to their power because it weakens Labor.

nor the taxes that were recycled into things like affordable education (public universities) and transportation so the middle class could have even more purchasing power/opportunity. Large economies have always been managed by the state, so talk about natural market forces is a little misleading.

This is a common mistake made by policy aficionados. Just because DC writes a law which declares "dogs can fly" doesn't actually mean that dogs can fly. The changing of the societal landscape that you're pointing to cannot be done by simple fiat. More fundamental dynamics have to be in play. For Capital to gain oversize influence over Labor, simple changes of law are not sufficient to explain what is going on. Flood the labor market with a million new workers per year and you WILL, without a doubt, reduce the bargaining power of labor and increase the power of capital. You can AMPLIFY the effects and by working the legal policy levers but the core of what is happening is happening down at the market decision level - is there labor market scarcity or surplus and if surplus how much oversupply is there and how can this be used to depress the returns to labor.

But seriously, the Reagan Revolution was a response to the extreme government intervention of the postwar years. And, after a decade of Reaganomics, labor costs were aggressively lowered. Unions were busted and production was shifted to places like China where our capitalists benefited from the ultra cheap labor.

Reagan came into office 15 years after we opened the immigration pipeline again. Look at the graph I posted. The inflection points between rising share of immigrant population and increasing returns to capital arise almost at the same time. Keep pumping millions of new workers into the labor force and you release the pressure on Capital.

All of this preceded Reagan. You pointing to Reagan-era changes and post-Reagan changes doesn't do anything to explain pre-Reagan dynamics. This is important if you want to isolate the cause of the changes. If direction was reversed a decade before Reagan came into power, then it's wholly illogical to posit that Reagan was the cause of the changed direction.

 

[Dad2three]

Dad,

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

Who says its an either or question? Moreover, the fed not only has a banking regulatory power, if it chooses to use it, but it also can obviously affect liquidity. And Bushii's policies had an effect on no regulation and the demand for credit default swaps.

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]

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Sorry Bubba, ANOTHER FAIL. F/F DON'T GIVE RATINGS AT ALL

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[EconChick]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

 

[EconChick]

Dad2three, I admire your tenacity but your problem is you keep repeating things from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CBPP is a well know LEFT WING think tank. Just like AEI is a RIGHT WING think tank. I don't take what any of them say as gospel. I take AEI with as much a grain of salt as the left ones.

That's why you fail in your analysis. You need to draw from many sources, left and right, to get an honest answer.

Everyone of your graphs looks pretty, but the assumptions are botched.

I've gotta go soon but when I have a chance later, I'll talk about the assumptions in your graph showing alleged Bush commitments during O's tenure.

And I will concede right here that it's not 100% Obama, just as it never is for the guy before him, and so forth. (in fact in one sense that's why it comes out in the wash.)

But when I have time, I'll discuss why CBPP's assumptions are way off.

 

[EconChick]

And Dad2three, I want you to tell me how much of a financial impact you think the 9/11 attack had on the economy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Sorry Bubba, ANOTHER FAIL. F/F DON'T GIVE RATINGS AT ALL

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

You're either lying or stupid and the odds are on lying

 

[JakeStarkey]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

Who wins Congress does not validate your OP.

And if the consumer confidence has reached the pre-recession heights of early 2007 as is being reported, we may not get the Senate (yet once again, due to you clueless lunks).

You are as senseless as Edward Baimonte and that is saying quite a bit.

Faith does not replace data, and you are long on the first and short on the second.

 

[Dad2three]

The biggest falsehood on this thread is "You haven't debunked a thing."

The OP has been a failure from page one.

Period.

The only failure here is you, genius. PERIOD. Let's talk in November.

If Democrats take the Congress, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. I'll mea culpa for days if you want.

But you know how I know they won't? Because I know the overwhelming feeling in this country is one of malaise no matter how much you Dems try to spin it.

The well known malaise is what I keep trying to get one of you libs to admit. But since you won't, we'll know in just 3 months.

There's the big picture. Take it to the bank. PERIOD.

Yeah, because a midterm is SOOO indicative right? What happened to Prez Mittens again?

 

[Dad2three]

Dad2three, I admire your tenacity but your problem is you keep repeating things from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CBPP is a well know LEFT WING think tank. Just like AEI is a RIGHT WING think tank. I don't take what any of them say as gospel. I take AEI with as much a grain of salt as the left ones.

That's why you fail in your analysis. You need to draw from many sources, left and right, to get an honest answer.

Everyone of your graphs looks pretty, but the assumptions are botched.

I've gotta go soon but when I have a chance later, I'll talk about the assumptions in your graph showing alleged Bush commitments during O's tenure.

And I will concede right here that it's not 100% Obama, just as it never is for the guy before him, and so forth. (in fact in one sense that's why it comes out in the wash.)

But when I have time, I'll discuss why CBPP's assumptions are way off.

Got it, more crap without saying a thing

Weird how Dem Prez bring in more revenues but the GOPers GUT revenues and leave the country hanging right? Almost like they had a plan or something

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Dad2three]

And Dad2three, I want you to tell me how much of a financial impact you think the 9/11 attack had on the economy.

That thing where Dubya ignored over 40 high level warnings and even said this:

Aug. 6, 2001, PDB

Bush to briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

9/11 cost US about 1% drop in GDP the next quarter. Dubya's left office when the economy shrunk 9%+ the last quarter

 

[Dad2three]

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Issue: starting in 2004 Fannie and Freddie gave AAA rating to subprime paper setting up a certain collapse

Sorry Bubba, ANOTHER FAIL. F/F DON'T GIVE RATINGS AT ALL

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

You're either lying or stupid and the odds are on lying

Got it, you are an ignorant ideologue who doesn't accept reality!

 

[Spoonman]

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.

the economy is growing for the rich, that is what the economic data tells us. Obama apologists point to the market and say, see the economy is improving. well for the rich it is. how many living hand to mouth on entitlements are invested in the market? facts are, the poor have gotten poorer. retired have gotten poorer. government tries to convince us their is no inflation, yet costs are rising steadily.

here's an interesting article that explains what is really going on


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-poorest-shoppers-putting-discount-143818396.html

America's Poorest Shoppers Are Putting Discount Stores Out Of Business


Discount stores are slowly dying.

Yesterday, Dollar Tree announced it would buy Family Dollar, a chain that is in the process of closing hundreds of stores and firing workers.

Other discount stores have been struggling as well, writes Heidi Moore at The Guardian. Fashion discounter Loehmann's filed for bankruptcy, while Wal-Mart's sales have declined for the past five quarters.

"There’s just not enough money deployed by American families to keep all the discount chains in business," Moore writes.

Dollar stores saw their heyday during the recession, when middle-class shoppers came to buy smaller, cheaper packages of household necessities like toilet paper.

While middle-class shoppers have enjoyed economic recovery, America's poorest consumers have not, write Paul Ziobro and Shelly Banjo at The Wall Street Journal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Love it. We the GOP are now championing the lower 50%?

We are now a populist party?

OK, let's make it so.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

the economy is growing for the rich, that is what the economic data tells us. Obama apologists point to the market and say, see the economy is improving. well for the rich it is. how many living hand to mouth on entitlements are invested in the market? facts are, the poor have gotten poorer. retired have gotten poorer. government tries to convince us their is no inflation, yet costs are rising steadily.

here's an interesting article that explains what is really going on


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-poorest-shoppers-putting-discount-143818396.html

America's Poorest Shoppers Are Putting Discount Stores Out Of Business


Discount stores are slowly dying.

Yesterday, Dollar Tree announced it would buy Family Dollar, a chain that is in the process of closing hundreds of stores and firing workers.

Other discount stores have been struggling as well, writes Heidi Moore at The Guardian. Fashion discounter Loehmann's filed for bankruptcy, while Wal-Mart's sales have declined for the past five quarters.

"There’s just not enough money deployed by American families to keep all the discount chains in business," Moore writes.

Dollar stores saw their heyday during the recession, when middle-class shoppers came to buy smaller, cheaper packages of household necessities like toilet paper.

While middle-class shoppers have enjoyed economic recovery, America's poorest consumers have not, write Paul Ziobro and Shelly Banjo at The Wall Street Journal.

Conservative policy

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




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Whelp.......revised GDP #'s come out tomorrow for the first two quarters......we find out how much the fudged the originals.