Obama is lying again!

[gdnp]

Maybe. Or it might already have reached it's peak if the government hadn't interfered. You have to admit that government action has clearly prolonged the banking crisis, credit crunch and those are what put us in a recession. Maybe the recession wouldn't even have occurred had the government let the free market system deal with failed institutions the way it has done countless times in the past ... with success?

Had the goverment not interfered the world banking system would have collapsed, so no, I do not have to admit that government action has prolonged the banking crisis.

 

[gdnp]

But is it more dire than any recession since the Great depression, which is what he claimed to be fact? No. In fact, here is chart that shows job losses for the last 6 recessions (including this one so far).

[qimg]http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/six_recessions3.gif[/qimg]


You will note that the figure you posted only runs through December and thus leaves out the 600k jobs lost in January, which equals 0.4% of the labor force. This places the current recession job losses at 3%, only 0.1% below the worst recession on the graph.

Would you like to place a small wager that when February's numbers are released it will be worse than any of the recessions that you have listed? There is no sign that we are anywhere near the bottom.

 

[gdnp]

Now, gdnp, you have your chance to debate that subject here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134001

Are you afraid to do that? Were you just feigning interest when you claimed to have some expertise in reading x-rays and wanted to see the x-rays of Brown's skull for yourself? I provided them but you never showed up. Why the cold feet?

Huh. Because the thread got split from the one to which I subscribed, and I never followed the split thread. If the X-rays are there I will take a look.

 

[Meadmaker]

But most of those losses are not real. They are just paper losses which will disappear once the recession ends.

Keep telling yourself that.

How do you know that the losses will disappear? Is the market undervalued today? By what measure?

If you are asserting that these losses will disappear, then you are asserting that the invisible hand of the market has driven prices of securities below what a reasonable price would be. You are asserting that the collective wisdom of the free market has made a mistake, and people are leaving money on the table by not scooping up those stocks while they are cheap. Is that the case? I hope so, because I'm buying. However, I can't prove that.

What I can prove is that stock prices are influenced by current events, and anticipation of future events. The past isn't a factor. The fact that they were once high, resulting in "paper losses" as the prices fell to their current level, means absolutely nothing when it comes to anticipating future price moves.

I have bad news. Your 401k might never recover its losses. There's no reason to believe that it will.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why is it that Obama thinks the problem with our schools is one that can be fixed with more money (taken from taxpayers' pockets)? If he believes that, then he should be able to explain why the students in Washington DC, which spends about $12,000 per pupil per year, do much worse in testing than students in Utah, which spends about a third of that per pupil per year?

And when you meet him, you can ask him.

In the meantime, perhaps you can explain why, if investment bears no relationship to results, we don't try to educate children for a nickel apiece.

 

[BeAChooser]

Had the goverment not interfered the world banking system would have collapsed

That depends on what you mean by "collapsed".

Sure, a number of financial institutions would have had to declare bankruptcy and their stockholders would have been wiped out. So what? That happened during the 1981 recession and throughout the 1980s many times over. Yet our nation survived WITHOUT the government stealing 2 trillion from taxpayers and giving it to those who created much of the problem in the first place. And we came out stronger after each recession. If we'd let the problem institutions go into bankruptcy early on in this crisis, credit problems would already be easing ... as happened in all previous recessions by about this time in the business cycle. All that government interference has done is keep credit unavailable because everyone is waiting to see who will be lucky recipients of the bailout. Can't you see that, gdnp?

As Jeffrey Miron noted in that article I linked to you, bankruptcy does not necessarily mean the company disappears ... and it certainly doesn't mean its viable assets disappear. They just get owned by someone new ... someone who hopefully will be a much better manager than the previous owners and not take the same excessive risks that led to the earlier institution's failure. Bankruptcy is a way of punishing those who make bad financial decisions. Who is being punished with the government in control now ... other than people who had nothing to do with getting us in this mess?

Bankruptcy is a long established and very successful component of our economic system. Why all of a sudden do you think that government can do a better job of fixing problems arising out of poor management and excessive risk taking than the market and institutions that have been quite successful at doing it for so long?

We are in this problem because government interfered in the free market and did a very bad job of it. Our government and all governments throughout history have demonstrated that they do a very poor job of managing resources and economies. They quickly become full of deadwood. Decisions become politicized. They do a poor job of managing and handling financial risks. They are very inefficient. And they almost never punish poor decision making. Look at our congress. Democrats are rushing to pass an 800 billion dollar (over a trillion counting interest) bill without that bill even being available to be read before the vote. You think that would happen in the free market? Of course not. Why would you defend such nonsense, gndp?

And consider this, many in government are part of the reason we are in this mess. They made bad decisions. On both sides of the aisle. All that the bailout and stimulus allow them to do is escape responsibility. Pass off paying the costs of their bad decisions to a time when they will no longer be in government. If you let the free market deal with the problem ... let some people suffer now rather than many more suffer down the road ... current politicians would pay the price at election time. Again, the bailout and stimulus are like morphine to someone with a broken bone. It alleviates the pain but it doesn't fix the problem. In fact, the patient may then walk on that broken bone and do even more damage to himself.

As Miron noted, all the bailout did was transfer wealth from taxpayers (who didn't invest in those bad institutions) to those who know "knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus the bailout encouraged companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government." This creates "enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources." And it hasn't even solved the credit crunch. And the stimulus package is going to do the same thing. Reward those who shouldn't be rewarded and distort the proper allocation of resources. And it's going to make the credit problem even worse.

So again, why do you think the government can deal with this problem any better than the long established and well tested mechanisms that exist in a free market? Name the governments that have done this successfully in the past? You still haven't answered that question. None of you have. You are all avoiding it. Which is quite telling.

And I think it points to the fundamental flaw in your and Obama's position. The inability to answer that question is why Obama finds it necessary to lie to the public about the severity of this crisis and government's ability to solve it. Because Obama fundamentally does not believe in the free market or it's institutions. He's moving this country toward socialism ... or even communism ... and you and democrat party are content with that ONLY because you both think it will increase your power base and control over people's lives.

 

[BeAChooser]

Would you like to place a small wager that when February's numbers are released it will be worse than any of the recessions that you have listed? There is no sign that we are anywhere near the bottom.

gndp, you misunderstand.

I have no doubt that this recession is now GOING to be worse than any before it. Far worse.

But ONLY because government interfered.

Because many politicians on both sides of the aisle (including Bush but in particular those in the democrat party) had and have no faith in the free market institutions that have served us so well for so long.

It is the opinion of a great many very excellent economists, an opinion I share, that had we let those institutions work as they would have, the credit crunch would already be much reduced and thus there would already be an easing of recessionary pressures.

But as a result of the ill conceived bailout (which hasn't worked, by the way), things are going to get much worse. And this so-called stimulus monstrosity isn't going to fix things either. It's just going to make government bigger, increase economy inefficiency, waste a ton of money on things we don't really need, allow bad decision makers to not suffer the consequences of their mistakes ... and make the democrat party even stronger by making people even more dependent on government.

And when we realize the current bailout and current stimulus haven't fixed things, I hope you then realize the solution isn't throwing more trillions down that rat hole. All that solution will do is permanently rob us (and our children) of our free market economy and our freedom. But then maybe that's the plan?

 

[BeAChooser]

Huh. Because the thread got split from the one to which I subscribed, and I never followed the split thread. If the X-rays are there I will take a look.

Well perhaps you also didn't notice my response (linking you to the split thread) the last time you brought the Ron Brown matter into a discussion. In any case, I look forward to seeing you on that thread now.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your 401k might never recover its losses. There's no reason to believe that it will.

Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. What is it with you, Obamaites?

You just don't have any faith in business, the free market and the institutions that have made this country wealthy to begin with.

Instead you want to put your faith in socialism which is a system that has eventually bankrupted every country where it has been tried.

Go figure.

 

[gdnp]

That depends on what you mean by "collapsed".

I mean Chase, Citigroup, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Bank of America, Golman Sachs, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Lehman brothers, AIG, and a bunch of additional banks, financial firms and insurance companies all going bankrupt simultaneously. With catastrophic results.

So again, why do you think the government can deal with this problem any better than the long established and well tested mechanisms that exist in a free market? Name the governments that have done this successfully in the past? You still haven't answered that question. None of you have. You are all avoiding it. Which is quite telling.

Really? I recall reading just yesterday a post by Dr. A that showed that the recovery during the great depression coincided with Roosevelt's New Deal replacing Hoover's laisez-faire approach.

And I think it points to the fundamental flaw in your and Obama's position. The inability to answer that question is why Obama finds it necessary to lie to the public about the severity of this crisis

As I have posted repeatedly, you first claim that the crisis isn't so bad, and then claim that if it gets worse it's all because of government interference, not the underlying fundamental problem. So you can't lose. If it gets worse: See, the stimulus didn't work, it made things worse, Bad Obama! If things get better: see, things weren't so bad, it would have gotten better quicker without the stimulus, look at all this debt, Bad Obama!

Answer this BAC: what outcome over the next two years would you accept as evidence that the stimulus program was a success?

Well perhaps you also didn't notice my response (linking you to the split thread) the last time you brought the Ron Brown matter into a discussion. In any case, I look forward to seeing you on that thread now.

Believe it or not, reading your lengthy screeds is not the highlight of my day. Often I skim them or skip them entirely. Sorry. There are only so many hours in a day.

 

[BeAChooser]

In the meantime, perhaps you can explain why, if investment bears no relationship to results, we don't try to educate children for a nickel apiece.

I never suggested that investment, no matter what the amount, has no relationship to results. I can't keep you from reducing you arguments to strawmen, DA, but if that's what you want to do, so be it.

Obviously, up to some expenditure, spending does strongly affect results. But the data seems to indicate that above about $4000 (say) in spending per pupil per year, spending doesn't equate to much better results. Which is why Utah students can test far better than Washington DC students even though Utah schools spend a third as much as DC schools on each student.

Or perhaps even less than a third. Here's a recent report (in the liberal Washington Post, no less) that indicates Washington DC public schools are spending over $25,000 per student per year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html . That's even more than the average private school in DC spends! And what does the public school system in DC buy for that? Institutions that destroy dreams rather than build them.

TRY to be honest with yourself, just once DA. When Obama claims that lack of funding is the problem in schools, he's lying. He's just playing to the liberals who control and run the school system. The liberals who voted for him. The liberals who are working to make kill the ability of students to think critically and trying to make them more dependent on government ... and thus become good little democrat voters.

The truth (http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm ) is that spending on public education is at an all time high. For example, between 1984 and 2004, real expenditures per pupil increased by 49 percent in America. During which time democrat run school systems in city after city have fallen apart such that now half the students in some cities don't even graduate. While spending has more than doubled, reading scores have remained flat (http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif ).

Yet Obama and the democrats in congress seem to think the solution is more money. So the stimulus bill has upwards of a 75 billion dollars in new funding for schools around the country. Including more money for DC. Can you say ... Stuck On Stupid?

 

[gdnp]

Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. What is it with you, Obamaites?

You just don't have any faith in business, the free market and the institutions that have made this country wealthy to begin with.

I have plenty of faith in the free market. Unfortunately, someone wasn't minding the store, and a bunch of free marketeers ran up a housing bubble that has now collapsed, threatening to bring down the banks, insurance companies, auto companies, and a lot of other people. Unfortunately, the only people who have the money to recapitalize the banks are the chinese, the middle eastern sovereign wealth funds, and the federal government. Who else has the needed trillion dollars in capital, BAC?

Instead you want to put your faith in socialism which is a system that has eventually bankrupted every country where it has been tried.

...except for those where it hasn't.

go figure.

 

[Hindmost]

I have actually enjoyed reading some of the recent economic news just for the irony.

"Experts say:"
"What the pros are doing..."
"Economists predict...."

Pundits all...yet just about everyone on wall street screwed up. So, quoting anyone about the state of the economy is just a shot in the dark...

Well, except for...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121676977361275349.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Two things make this one very different...housing prices have crashed...and car sales have dropped to levels not seen in a very long time.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/12/real_estate/Latest_median_prices/index.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a91kPEWlcOos&refer=home

glenn

 

[Meadmaker]

Our government and all governments throughout history have demonstrated that they do a very poor job of managing resources and economies. They quickly become full of deadwood. Decisions become politicized. They do a poor job of managing and handling financial risks. They are very inefficient. And they almost never punish poor decision making.

I used to work for General Motors. This list sounds very familiar.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Heads up. Obama is LYING again, folks.

I am trying to discern the news content here.

Obama = politician

Lying = standard behavior

Uh, in other news, a plane crashed in Buffalo killing about fifty. Ron Brown didn't die in this crash, as he was already dead.

May I suggest to you a few more nights with pints of Guinness, and songs by the Pogues? If you have none, try Flogging Molly.

DR

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Banks failing at a rate of 1 a week (and the rate expected to rise) sounds pretty dire to me.

The unfolding financial crisis continues to take a toll on banks. If banks continue to fail at a rate of at least one per week, on average, then 2009 could see twice as many failures as in 2008. Last year, 25 banks were closed nationwide, which was the highest annual total since 1993, when 42 banks went under.

Economists expect the number of failed banks to continue rising this year, as the financial crisis plays out and the economic outlook remains dark.

Reference.

 

[gdnp]

Banks failing at a rate of 1 a week (and the rate expected to rise) sounds pretty dire to me.


Reference.

It's not only the numbers, it's also the size. There have been so many mergers that I would not be surprised if the banks that fail this time around are significantly larger than those that failed in 1991.

 

[Dragon-Master]

Let me spell it out for the hard of thinking.

You are wrong about the definition of a Ponzi scheme because your definition of a Ponzi scheme is completely different from any definition of a Ponzi scheme that you will find in any dictionary, such as, for example, the one that you yourself quoted.

If you really cannot understand that, then I do not see how I can make the point any clearer to you.

Really? Guess where I got my definition? Dictionary. Go figure. Obviously you do not want to debate anything here at all.

 

[Dragon-Master]

You might want to think this through carefully. A Ponzi Scheme has the following elements

1) Investors give money (Set A)--(tax payer pays in)
2) They get a return from Set B (new Investors)--(this part is a lie. BUT if you really want to get to the nitty gritty....we sometimes get money back)
3) They put more money in.(You do realize this bill will have us continually pay into the programs it is trying to create and keep alive right? All those social programs and alternative energy programs?)

How does the stimulus plan have any of that? (It doesn't, even if you think it's going to be misused)

I redid the sentences above to prove point. (in bold)
Point is this bill is a lie, nothing stimulus about any of it, if there is any, its like only under 10% of the bill. Basically the taxpayers are getting screwed out of their money for them and their childern in the future.

 

[Dragon-Master]

Like BAC said, let bankrupcy do its job and restructure the banks or whatever company. Now not only has my future been ruined, but my child and future child because of the monatary policy of this nation for the last 4 decades.
If I were to do this with my own budget I would of lost my house, car and many other things if not get in trouble with the creditors long ago.
It is saddening how Obama can not see past his own agendas of his party to see the flaw in his policy.

If anything we should be trying to redo our tax system, that would give more stimulus immediatly. Liek adopting the Fair Tax system. Maybe that will also encourage our politicans to start cutting spending too. There is a lot more they can do to "stimulate" the market, rather then throwing away upward to 3trillion dollars in a matter of couple years.