What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Demonstrating why you have no issue with Dizzybooby spewing ethnic slurs.

Bravo Cap'n Bigot.

Demonstrating that you have no problem assigning people positions and putting words into their mouths...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GEITHNER says we gotta pay more taxes or the guvmint gonna shrink.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

One of the reasons that we could be thrust into a depression, thanks to the efforts of Democrats, is denial of causal actions and the the bills the cooked up to fix the consensually declared myth.

More recently we’ve witnessed the creation of a new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008. The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street’s greed. It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted. And they codified their manufactured history into a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, that completely avoided the true problem.

It’s both surprising and gratifying therefore to report that a great revisionist history has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

In Reckless Endangerment, Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators, and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near “Armageddon” of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.

Jim Johnson, advisor to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. “Under Johnson,” Morgenson and Rosner write, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.”

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation), and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists, and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank’s partner).

Reckless Endangerment includes the Clinton administration’s contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy; instead, “in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with . . . the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.”

Reckless Endangerment utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not “unregulated capitalism” — that led the economy to disaster.

Mona Charen
NRO
__________________
It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.
Chris Dodd
Co-Author Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act
Friend of Angelo

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Great Great Depression is already here.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Great Great Depression is already here.

No way dude, Merc has PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT WITH independent REPORT that we were "saved" by the Great Messiah's money!

U_D's probably willing to go $5 on it!
__________________

"Why are you here?"

"To get some money."

"What kind of money?"

"Obama money."

"Where's it coming from?

"Obama."

"And where did Obama get it?"

"I don't know... his stash, I don't know. I don't know where he got it from, but he's givin' it t'us to help us. We love him. That's why we voted for him... Obama! Obama!"

 

[busybody..]

Tee Hee

as predicted

he didnt

"see" this

yeah

right

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

the he

is NIGGER CURRY

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The problem with government stimulus is the same underlying fallacy of Bastiat's Broken Windows.

You get a visible (politically popular HEY VOTER! Look what I've done for you!*) surge of activity, as when the window is broken and the glazier called, but then you ignore the purposes to which the spent money would have gone for...

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf






* All in all it's just another brick in the wall...

 

[busybody..]

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

relying on that report, just shows that

1-One needs to protect teh NIGGER at all costs

2-The report was never read!!!!!!

Not only is it outdated, but it RELIED on teh CBO' assertion at first that teh jobs saved/created was anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 million, an assertion NO ONE HAS EVER DARED TO REPEAT

meanwhile I posted a report from a month or so ago

that I pre DICK ted

NIGGER CURRY would ignore

A year old report that says probably. (Thank you for BOLDING in order for me to spot what I already knew.)

That's an important word to mathematicians and logicians.

It means that probably, it did not. A probability is just that. A coin will be heads 50% of the time, but if you just flipped tails, the next flip is not guaranteed to be heads. This goes all the way back to my experiences as a modeler and programmer, when you model a chaotic system (the big provable fallacy of man-made global "disaster"), you make assumptions and ignore other factors, as this report had to. The stimulus did not work as intended because unemployment, at this point was to be 6.8% according to White House projections. It is 9.1%, AFTER a bookkeeping gimmick designed to make it look better. That means probably that we're in the same pattern as occurred during the Great Depression where every eight months we had signs of recovery for brief periods, and Bernake has just signaled this and he's an independent analyst/manager of the economy, at least in his mind.

If this is their economy, why did their economists flee?
__________________
"We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery, not go back to the policies of the past under the Bush administration that put us in the ditch in the first place."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Barry 2012 Says: ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Shows you what the real priorities are.

Geithner says that the government is more important than job creation.

I've been saying all along that the pols first allegience is to their patrons who benefit from government size and spending. I'm really seeing it with my local government, and almost all of these people are GOP.

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Even the good numbers they tout are LIES


US May Building Permits Revised To -8.2% From +8.7%

 

[MeeMie]

How the Democrats Nearly Destroyed the Economy



History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Winston Churchill




There is history -- a chronicle of human events -- and then there is perceived history. So often, the two are wildly at odds.



In 1963, a popular Democratic president was assassinated by a Marxist named Oswald, who had actually defected to the Soviet Union and returned to the U.S. with a Soviet wife, was an active member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and had attempted to assassinate a right-wing general named Edwin Walker earlier in the year.

Yet those who write history found these facts inconvenient. They created a different history in which the "atmosphere of hate" in the southern city of Dallas, Texas, led to the terrible political violence. In other words, it was political conservatism that led to John F. Kennedy's assassination. This perceived history was recycled as recently as the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. ABC's Christiane Amanpour, interviewing Jean Kennedy Smith, noted that the Kennedy assassination was "eerily relevant" and asked Kennedy to evaluate the "political atmosphere" in the country today.

Starting just a few years after the Kennedy assassination, American liberals began to consider anti-communism a kind of mental disorder. Hostility to communism was akin to racism, sexism and other character flaws. Reagan's description of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" cemented liberal suspicions that Reagan was a dangerous buffoon. Yet starting in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, liberals began to find their anti-anti-communism embarrassing. And so they created a perceived history -- one in which the Cold War was a time of consensus, a time when, as former Sen. Bill Bradley put it, "We knew where we stood on foreign policy."



More recently we've witnessed the creation of new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008. The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street greed. It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted. And they codified their manufactured history in a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, that completely avoided the true problem.

It's both surprising and gratifying, therefore, to report that a great revisionist history has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

In "Reckless Endangerment," Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near "Armageddon" of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.




Jim Johnson, adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. "Under Johnson," Morgenson and Rosner write, "Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008."


Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank's partner).



"Reckless Endangerment" includes the Clinton administration's contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead "in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with ... the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts."

"Reckless Endangerment" utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed -- when is there not?

But it was government distortions of markets -- not "unregulated capitalism" -- that led the economy to disaster.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Probably thinks it's more important than most anything else.

To modify Willie Sutton's revelation that banks are where the money is, IN 2011 GUVMINT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS, AND THE MONEY ATTRACTS ALL THE BANDITS.

 

[koalabear]

Updated: 06/24/2011 11:42 ET DOW 11,969.81 -80.19

Stocks sank on disappointing earnings results weighed on the tech sector and as continued concerns about the European sovereign debt crisis dampened market sentiment.

I guess they didn't read Moody's 2010 report.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Now that's fucking hilarious, you're more than willing to overlook his constant spew of ethnic slurs from every orifice, but stretching your screen is a "serious crime"..

Enablers are more blind than justice, apparently.

 

[richard_daily]

Enablers are more blind than justice, apparently.

Nah, they're just ok with it... It speaks volumes about their (lack of) character.

 

[busybody..]

Enablers are more blind than justice, apparently.

you are enabling teh NIGGER to NIGGERIZE our entire cuntry

and you have the gall to talk of enablers?

FUCKING LUNATIC!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Shut up white nigger. It's none of your fucking business.

Demonstrating why you have no issue with Dizzybooby spewing ethnic slurs.

Bravo Cap'n Bigot.

Demonstrating that you have no problem assigning people positions and putting words into their mouths...

I don't have to assign anything to you or put any words into your mouth Cap'n. Not only did you demonstrate exactly what I said, you underlined it by doing the same fucking thing he does.

Again, Bravo.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Ku+Klux+Klan+Holds+Annual+Gathering+Tennessee+dH7Vkkcu7gyl.jpg

Ahhh...no matter which angle you shoot him from, BusyShit's photogenic charisma just radiates from all sides like a pure yellow brick of raw urine-ium!

 

[jeninflorida]

this is why "their" way of things will not work and when I mean "their" we can add in Richard, Merc, Sean, Issy, UD and the other lefters

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43525532


we need jobs. we need start-ups. we need less government jobs. we need less spending. we must have less taxes

I don't have to assign anything to you or put any words into your mouth Cap'n. Not only did you demonstrate exactly what I said, you underlined it by doing the same fucking thing he does.

Again, Bravo.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"Independent" does not equal correct.

"Independent" does not mean anticipated outcome.

"Independent" doe snot reach hasty conclusions: compare Merc's link to the one I offered in which a scholarly analysis conclusion was this is an interesting result, but we need to look deeper into it.

And one more thing there, as a personal aside, and something which I think your declared area of expertise would lead you to dwell upon, and that would be psychology of the market participants; Obama did not raise their taxes to "stimulate" them, but he did not do it for long term hoping that their success would allow him to raise taxes on them in the longer run. It's hard for Pavlov's dawg to salivate when he knows he's about to get an electric shock from his collar for "good" behavior.

And now, to clairvoyance, the "Independent analysis that says our market intervention staved off a depression is much like the Administration's stand that their actions in Libya staved off a massacre.

The punch line to both of them is that the remedy very much resembles the malaise.

And to get back to my Bastiat remark, here's something from the Libertarian website, Reason.com:

According to an old joke, if you ask any two economists a question you will get back at least three opinions. As humor goes it’s only mildly funny. But as a gloss on the discussion of the stimulus, it’s terrifically on point.

Conservatives have slammed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as a grotesque waste of money, claiming it has not created any jobs. Liberals counter that, to the contrary, it has created or saved millions. For instance, the White House Council of Economic Advisers claims the stimulus deserves credit for perhaps as many as 3.6 million jobs created or saved. Writing Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, economist Alan Blinder says, regarding the claim that federal spending of more than $600 billion had zero effect, "that would be quite a trick."

He’s right—at least in a very superficial sense. If you throw a rock that big into a pond it is bound to make some ripples. And it is categorically undeniable that the stimulus has funded positions which otherwise might not exist. State governments alone have increased payrolls by more than 40,000 since the recession began, generally using stimulus dollars to cut the paychecks. Just the other day a Republican lawmaker who had blasted Obama’s "failed stimulus" attended a ceremony at a jobs placement center in Rome, New York. Stimulus money paid local youth to refurbish the building. Would they have been jobless otherwise? Impossible to say.

Still, more than 7 million jobs have disappeared from the economy since Barack Obama took office. He will be only the second president since Herbert Hoover to face re-election with fewer people working than when he started. (George W. Bush was the other.) So it seems fair to ask whether stimulus projects have increased the net number of jobs in the United States—or whether they simply have moved a diminishing number of jobs around.

Analogy time. Consider a robber who steals a purse containing $500, who then uses the money to buy himself a new TV. It is categorically undeniable that the theft has created a sale for the TV store. Conservatives who pretend the stimulus has not created any jobs whatsoever stand in the position of an observer trying to deny the TV has been sold. [Broken Windows, Bastiat - A_J]

Yet the liberal analysis lacks any recognition that the purse owner now has $500 less to spend on the laptop computer she was going to buy. The theft has generated one sale only by destroying another.

The first effect is easily seen. The second is not. But only the economically illiterate would conclude that just the first effect occurred, and that therefore the way to increase consumption is to encourage more purse-stealing. So in addition to looking at the number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus, shouldn’t we also consider the number of jobs destroyed or forestalled?

That all might sound rather speculative. But it is no more speculative than the methods used by the administration’s supporters. If you think they audited every single one of the jobs the stimulus ostensibly created to make sure each position can be traced back to the ARRA, then you have another think coming. Note how the various pro-stimulus studies estimate the program created somewhere between 800,000 and 4.2 million jobs. That’s a huge variation. What accounts for it? Huge variations in the assumptions built into the studies.

For instance, the White House Council on Economic Advisers supports its claims by comparing real changes in GDP to projections—i.e., against educated guesses. Then it declares the stimulus deserves the credit for any difference. This is known as assuming the conclusion.

True, other sources—such as the Congressional Budget Office—also say the stimulus has created or saved jobs. Yet still more sources say the opposite. Last month economists Timothy Conley of the University of Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State University found that while the ARRA created or saved about 443,000 (mostly government) jobs, it destroyed or forestalled more than 1 million private-sector jobs—for a net loss of 595,000.

Liberals say that’s bunk. "I don’t find that very compelling," says a director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. (So there!) Conservatives retort that the pro-stimulus studies are programmed to produce a positive result, so they’re no good either.

That’s one of the fun things about economics: You can always find a study to support your position. And the human tendency toward confirmation bias means you’ll probably believe the studies that support your view, and dismiss the ones that don’t.

Given how economists still vigorously debate the economic effects of the New Deal, it’s not surprising that they would differ over the 2009 stimulus as well. So remember the old joke. You might ask for a definitive answer about the stimulus. The best you’ll get back is conflicting opinions.

A. Barton Hinkle

Of course, here's the difference between our support of our sources. Some of us are reading sources that are more correct than others while some of us are reading from sources that impeach themselves with observable outcome while railing at the right observations as narrow-minded and partisan.
__________________
A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”

 

[Sonny Limatina]

doe snot

I agree with that part.

 

[mercury14]

Stocks sank on disappointing earnings results weighed on the tech sector and as continued concerns about the European sovereign debt crisis dampened market sentiment.

I guess they didn't read Moody's 2010 report.

How come you only post news about the Dow sinking? When it rises it's "not news" and doesn't mean anything. When it dips it's hot off the presses critical info about Obama willfully destroying the economy.

By the way, the Dow is up 4000 points from a couple years ago after Obama took office. That's not news though. The real news is when it's -70 some day.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

doe snot...heh heh heh.

And to get back to my Bastiat remark

Hey, I liked Basquiat, too!

http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=500&uid=2537778192