Thanks to Obama Policies, DOW is up 8,000 points from Bush debacle

[Rshermr]

That surplus under Clinton had negative consequences for the private sector. It resulted in the the first recession of the 21st century. The surplus caused the domestic private sector to accrue more indebtedness to finance consumption which created instability in the private sector.

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268

Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why.
The most common assumption is that we are going to have to pay it back. And no one can clearly tell you why, or to whom. They simply know it must be paid back.
And, any time you try to defend increasing deficits, it becomes an immediate excuse for name calling. Because many have been fed the pablum that indicates that our economic problem is the deficit, and the national debt. Even when the economy improves, if the deficit increases, those who have the unnatural hatred of deficits will tell you that the economy is only improving because we are soon to face doom, when we will have to pay it back. And then there is the whole thing with interest on the debt. Another supposed killer of the economy.
So, if you suggest that you increase gov spending by creating infrastructure, then since that will increase the deficit, it is a BAD, BAD idea. And though it will increase employment, they will tell you it will not, or that those jobs are not 'real' jobs. And, you will, somewhere along the line, be called a socialist, a communist, and just for shits and giggles, perhaps even a fascist. And it will not help anyway, because there is no lack of demand, and if there were (which, they will tell you, there ISN'T) stimulus spending only hurts the private economy.

Funny.

 

[asterism]

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268

Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why.
The most common assumption is that we are going to have to pay it back. And no one can clearly tell you why, or to whom. They simply know it must be paid back.
And, any time you try to defend increasing deficits, it becomes an immediate excuse for name calling. Because many have been fed the pablum that indicates that our economic problem is the deficit, and the national debt. Even when the economy improves, if the deficit increases, those who have the unnatural hatred of deficits will tell you that the economy is only improving because we are soon to face doom, when we will have to pay it back. And then there is the whole thing with interest on the debt. Another supposed killer of the economy.
So, if you suggest that you increase gov spending by creating infrastructure, then since that will increase the deficit, it is a BAD, BAD idea. And though it will increase employment, they will tell you it will not, or that those jobs are not 'real' jobs. And, you will, somewhere along the line, be called a socialist, a communist, and just for shits and giggles, perhaps even a fascist. And it will not help anyway, because there is no lack of demand, and if there were (which, they will tell you, there ISN'T) stimulus spending only hurts the private economy.

Funny.

I remember all this talk of "infrastructure" during the time before the 2009 ARRA. How'd that work out?

 

[Oldstyle]

That rings a bell, Ast...something about "shovel ready" jobs not being as "ready" as Barry and his minions thought? Real funny ha ha stuff at the time as millions of Americans continued to be out of work.

Right after that was when we started getting the whole "jobs saved" schtick...

 

[Oldstyle]

Where did you get THAT right wing pearl of wisdom?

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268

Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why.
The most common assumption is that we are going to have to pay it back. And no one can clearly tell you why, or to whom. They simply know it must be paid back.
And, any time you try to defend increasing deficits, it becomes an immediate excuse for name calling. Because many have been fed the pablum that indicates that our economic problem is the deficit, and the national debt. Even when the economy improves, if the deficit increases, those who have the unnatural hatred of deficits will tell you that the economy is only improving because we are soon to face doom, when we will have to pay it back. And then there is the whole thing with interest on the debt. Another supposed killer of the economy.
So, if you suggest that you increase gov spending by creating infrastructure, then since that will increase the deficit, it is a BAD, BAD idea. And though it will increase employment, they will tell you it will not, or that those jobs are not 'real' jobs. And, you will, somewhere along the line, be called a socialist, a communist, and just for shits and giggles, perhaps even a fascist. And it will not help anyway, because there is no lack of demand, and if there were (which, they will tell you, there ISN'T) stimulus spending only hurts the private economy.

Funny.

It's ignorant posts like THAT one...that had me thinking that you were talking out your ass when you said you taught college level economics.

"Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why." Tommy Flanagan economist emeritus.

You took four years of college for THAT? Really, Tommy? LOL

 

[AmazonTania]

I remember all this talk of "infrastructure" during the time before the 2009 ARRA. How'd that work out?

I really don't understand what most people think infrastructure is for, but people don't seem to think it's to increase the nation's productivity.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ng-paved-roads-with-gravel-2.html#post7709765

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...h-the-bush-tax-cuts-helped-4.html#post7704339

Apparently we're only suppose to keep bridges from falling and our roads pothole free. Not to reduce travel congestion or increase operability.

 

[Rshermr]

I got into more detail here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/308191-krugman-obama-has-deficit-dropping-like-a-rock-but-who-knows-this-4.html#post7694268

Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why.
The most common assumption is that we are going to have to pay it back. And no one can clearly tell you why, or to whom. They simply know it must be paid back.
And, any time you try to defend increasing deficits, it becomes an immediate excuse for name calling. Because many have been fed the pablum that indicates that our economic problem is the deficit, and the national debt. Even when the economy improves, if the deficit increases, those who have the unnatural hatred of deficits will tell you that the economy is only improving because we are soon to face doom, when we will have to pay it back. And then there is the whole thing with interest on the debt. Another supposed killer of the economy.
So, if you suggest that you increase gov spending by creating infrastructure, then since that will increase the deficit, it is a BAD, BAD idea. And though it will increase employment, they will tell you it will not, or that those jobs are not 'real' jobs. And, you will, somewhere along the line, be called a socialist, a communist, and just for shits and giggles, perhaps even a fascist. And it will not help anyway, because there is no lack of demand, and if there were (which, they will tell you, there ISN'T) stimulus spending only hurts the private economy.

Funny.

I remember all this talk of "infrastructure" during the time before the 2009 ARRA. How'd that work out?

AARA was insufficient. It was about 40% taxes. And the net, according to the cbo, was that it helped. BUT, infrastructure was what the jobs programs were aimed at. They have been voted down each and every time they came up. So, of course, still the same. Not enough.

 

[AmazonTania]

Agreed. Sequester doesn't go nearly far enough.

Dunno.

Either it's going to take a couple more bridges falling into the ground or a visit to Shanghai to show what happens when you don't spend on infrastructure and innovation.

Are you talking about the one that wasn't designed to have a large truck crash into it?

Truck crash caused Washington state bridge collapse: officials | Reuters

Oh yeah, and people seem to find it rather interesting the China spends much of their money on infrastructure. Very surprising that a developing nation is spending money to improve it's infrastructure, because that doesn't happen...

 

[asterism]

Problem is, both sides of the aisle want to let everyone know that a deficit is a bad thing. And a larger deficit is a worse thing. And a decreasing deficit is essentially the same unless it turns into a surplus.
And no one really knows why.
The most common assumption is that we are going to have to pay it back. And no one can clearly tell you why, or to whom. They simply know it must be paid back.
And, any time you try to defend increasing deficits, it becomes an immediate excuse for name calling. Because many have been fed the pablum that indicates that our economic problem is the deficit, and the national debt. Even when the economy improves, if the deficit increases, those who have the unnatural hatred of deficits will tell you that the economy is only improving because we are soon to face doom, when we will have to pay it back. And then there is the whole thing with interest on the debt. Another supposed killer of the economy.
So, if you suggest that you increase gov spending by creating infrastructure, then since that will increase the deficit, it is a BAD, BAD idea. And though it will increase employment, they will tell you it will not, or that those jobs are not 'real' jobs. And, you will, somewhere along the line, be called a socialist, a communist, and just for shits and giggles, perhaps even a fascist. And it will not help anyway, because there is no lack of demand, and if there were (which, they will tell you, there ISN'T) stimulus spending only hurts the private economy.

Funny.

I remember all this talk of "infrastructure" during the time before the 2009 ARRA. How'd that work out?

AARA was insufficient. It was about 40% taxes. And the net, according to the cbo, was that it helped. BUT, infrastructure was what the jobs programs were aimed at. They have been voted down each and every time they came up. So, of course, still the same. Not enough.

Perhaps because every time some "infrastructure" bill is passed, most of the money flows to other stuff. It's certainly why I don't trust this administration's claims. Assuming your number is correct and 40% was "taxes" (I assume you mean tax credits) then there should have been over $400 Billion spent on infrastructure and "shovel ready" jobs. So why was only $105 Billion actually allocated?

 

[oldfart]

I know that the questions were not directed to me, but since I've already answered them from another thread, I'll repeat it here.

Wouldn't we know what the deficit is only be the end of the year?

Generally no. The Bureau of the Debt issues a monthly report and revises the year end estimates. Close to the end of the year, they are usually very close.

How many months left does the deficit have to grow?

Two. Since we use a fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30, we have ten months in the books and two to go for this fiscal year.

Where does the 80 billion a month in stimulus spending that the FED-R does get counted?

The Fed Open Market Operations are not fiscal stimulus, they are monetary policy. They have no direct effect on the deficit.

does the near trillion dollars in stimulus this year alone not get recorded on the books?

What trillion dollars? Seems to me you are adding fiscal deficit to monetary policy. It's apples and oranges and you are making fruit salad.

What happened to the deficit this year being around 400 billion... Year ain't up and we're almost 800 billion.... We'll prolly be around a trillion.

If I knew where and when your numbers came from, I could make a reply; but I don't and therefore I can't.

For the record, I get current deficit numbers from Bureau of Debt, deficit & debt projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO/JCT), labor force, employment, and inflation stats from the Labor Dept's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and a bunch of other stuff from the Commerce Dept's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the Federal Reserve database maintained by the St. Louis Fed (FRED), and the annual Economic Report of the President (ERP). All are online and free.

Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
http://www.bls.gov/
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
The National Bureau of Economic Research
Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed
2013 Economic Report of the President | The White House

And for international stats: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

If you have any interest in doing this right, I suggest saving these bookmarks.

Jamie

 

[asterism]

I know that the questions were not directed to me, but since I've already answered them from another thread, I'll repeat it here.

Wouldn't we know what the deficit is only be the end of the year?

Generally no. The Bureau of the Debt issues a monthly report and revises the year end estimates. Close to the end of the year, they are usually very close.

How many months left does the deficit have to grow?

Two. Since we use a fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30, we have ten months in the books and two to go for this fiscal year.



The Fed Open Market Operations are not fiscal stimulus, they are monetary policy. They have no direct effect on the deficit.

does the near trillion dollars in stimulus this year alone not get recorded on the books?

What trillion dollars? Seems to me you are adding fiscal deficit to monetary policy. It's apples and oranges and you are making fruit salad.

What happened to the deficit this year being around 400 billion... Year ain't up and we're almost 800 billion.... We'll prolly be around a trillion.

If I knew where and when your numbers came from, I could make a reply; but I don't and therefore I can't.

For the record, I get current deficit numbers from Bureau of Debt, deficit & debt projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO/JCT), labor force, employment, and inflation stats from the Labor Dept's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and a bunch of other stuff from the Commerce Dept's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the Federal Reserve database maintained by the St. Louis Fed (FRED), and the annual Economic Report of the President (ERP). All are online and free.

Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
The National Bureau of Economic Research
Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed
2013 Economic Report of the President | The White House

And for international stats: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

If you have any interest in doing this right, I suggest saving these bookmarks.

Jamie

All correct in my opinion except for the "monetary policy" part. The $80 Billion per month being created by the Federal Reserve is stimulus. While it's true that there is no budgetary accounting for it, there is most certainly a cost. $85 Billion per month x 12 months = $1.02 Trillion this year.

 

[oldfart]

The Fed Open Market Operations are not fiscal stimulus, they are monetary policy. They have no direct effect on the deficit.

All correct in my opinion except for the "monetary policy" part. The $80 Billion per month being created by the Federal Reserve is stimulus. While it's true that there is no budgetary accounting for it, there is most certainly a cost.

Traditional monetary theory has no easy classification for QE. At the zero lower bound traditional monetary theory, working through interest rates, is not functional and fiscal stimulus is not politically possible. Therefore the Fed has tried non-traditional monetary measures. I think it's fair to say that whatever good they may have achieved, they are not a good substitute for robust fiscal policy.

That said, the Fed's balance sheet and the Treasury's budget are two different animals. As I said, there is no direct effect on the deficit. Further, virtually all of the infusion from bond buying (what you are calling "stimulus") has gone to excess reserves at the Fed. Since this infusion has not left the banking system and entered the real economy, I don't see how it has much effect beyond a psychological one. I find it ironic that those who rail against the deficit and QE see no message when the markets have a panic attack when the Fed hints that at sometime the Fed will start reducing QE. What are they afraid of, losing the 0.25% per annum on their excess reserves?

I fail to see a cost to QE. The excess reserves will be reeled in by reversing how they were pushed out. A couple of conservative think tanks have looked at the issue and generally come to the conclusion that there does not seem to be any major problem in doing so. The Fed will sell bonds and soak up reserves, reducing possible inflationary pressure. But in the current liquidity trap, I don't see much danger of rising interest rates.

 

[asterism]

The Fed Open Market Operations are not fiscal stimulus, they are monetary policy. They have no direct effect on the deficit.

All correct in my opinion except for the "monetary policy" part. The $80 Billion per month being created by the Federal Reserve is stimulus. While it's true that there is no budgetary accounting for it, there is most certainly a cost.

Traditional monetary theory has no easy classification for QE. At the zero lower bound traditional monetary theory, working through interest rates, is not functional and fiscal stimulus is not politically possible. Therefore the Fed has tried non-traditional monetary measures. I think it's fair to say that whatever good they may have achieved, they are not a good substitute for robust fiscal policy.

That said, the Fed's balance sheet and the Treasury's budget are two different animals. As I said, there is no direct effect on the deficit. Further, virtually all of the infusion from bond buying (what you are calling "stimulus") has gone to excess reserves at the Fed. Since this infusion has not left the banking system and entered the real economy, I don't see how it has much effect beyond a psychological one. I find it ironic that those who rail against the deficit and QE see no message when the markets have a panic attack when the Fed hints that at sometime the Fed will start reducing QE. What are they afraid of, losing the 0.25% per annum on their excess reserves?

I fail to see a cost to QE. The excess reserves will be reeled in by reversing how they were pushed out. A couple of conservative think tanks have looked at the issue and generally come to the conclusion that there does not seem to be any major problem in doing so. The Fed will sell bonds and soak up reserves, reducing possible inflationary pressure. But in the current liquidity trap, I don't see much danger of rising interest rates.

The direct cost is inflation. Arbitrarily increasing the money supply dilutes every dollar currently in existence. At $4 Trillion and counting, that's a medium term 4% hit over time so it's negligible (this assumes a value of $100 Trillion total domestic assets). An indirect set of costs is that of propping up the stock market. When earnings take a back seat while liquidity rules, we are already paying that cost in missing capital appreciation for innovative enterprises. We will pay the brunt of the cost when a robust economy causes sinking equity values due to discontinuing QE. At that point the $4 Trillion out of the total market cap of $18 Trillion will be much more significant, possibly 20% depending on the previous integration of this expansion through inflation.

I don't necessarily disagree with this approach, but there are costs involved with expanding the money supply to prop up equities.

 

[drivebymedia]

Obama policies recovered the economy from the Bush/Republican debacle:

Stocks have rallied as corporate earnings have topped estimates. Some 463 companies in the S&P 500 have reported quarterly results so far this earnings season. Among them, 72 percent have exceeded analysts’ profit estimates and 55 percent have beaten sales projections, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Keep dreaming, i know it makes you feel better. The only thing obama has done is slow the recovery.

The only thing Republicans have done is help Bush and Reagan wreck the economy ...

 

[drivebymedia]

Actually closer to 9,000 - but why quibble.

America's 401K's and IRA's have doubled under Obama policies.


Excellent!

 

[Mr. H.]

You're a delusional idiot.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Actually closer to 9,000 - but why quibble.

America's 401K's and IRA's have doubled under Obama policies.


Excellent!

Name the exact policies and how they have cause the DOW to climb.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Actually closer to 9,000 - but why quibble.

America's 401K's and IRA's have doubled under Obama policies.


Excellent!

It's nice to see you so happy that the 1% is getting richer.

 

[Redfish]

Actually closer to 9,000 - but why quibble.

America's 401K's and IRA's have doubled under Obama policies.


Excellent!

Tell us exactly what obama has done to cause the DOW to go up.

Could it be allowing the FED to continue printing money that has caused inflation and the value of the dollar to go down.

In terms of actual purchasing power, the increase in the value of 401K accounts has stayed constant or dropped slightly.

But, if you think the obama has caused the DOW to go up,,,,,,,,,,,tell us which of his policies has caused it and how.

 

[drivebymedia]

Actually closer to 9,000 - but why quibble.

America's 401K's and IRA's have doubled under Obama policies.


Excellent!

Tell us exactly what obama has done to cause the DOW to go up.

Could it be allowing the FED to continue printing money that has caused inflation and the value of the dollar to go down.

In terms of actual purchasing power, the increase in the value of 401K accounts has stayed constant or dropped slightly.

But, if you think the obama has caused the DOW to go up,,,,,,,,,,,tell us which of his policies has caused it and how.

One important thing he has done is ignored Republicans in Congress and gone his own way!



Purchasing power? ... the Fed's big worry for 5 years is DEflation !

Obama has kept interest rates down to prevent the oil and bank cartels from dragging the country back into the Bush-hole

 

[AmazonTania]

It's awesome for people like me. I don't see how this helps the little guy like you, but great for the financial industry.