Talk about politics and the global/national economy to your heart’s content, as much as it takes to get it out of your system so the rest of the site can stick to real estate and housing.
For previous economic open threads, click here.
As of 09/07/2010, global economic comments that do not directly relate to Seattle-area real estate go only in threads designated for this specific subject.
This is largely a test to see if this thread is locked at 300.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn’t put into enough productive assets. We have a lot of new lanes of road, but little else.
The government’s investment in the solar panel company has been largely panned, but that type of investment would have been much better. Instead of investing in the company though, we should have been buying its products, and then those products would have been producing energy for the future.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 301 – As far as I know the comment threads should be able to go on forever. I set it up to page them at 100 comments per page because much over that and the pages would time out and never load on some browsers.
I figure if the comments can page, why bother starting a new economic thread every month. Just have the conversation go on in the same post indefinitely.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: The Tim @ 302 – I was just wondering because it had been stuck at 300 for a few weeks!
Locked perhaps wasn’t the right word. Limited might have been better.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 301 –
“the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn’t put into enough productive assets”
That’s part of it. Hard to find projects that were productive enough to overcome the fact that each borrowed dollar of stimulus spending had a negative net return. All it did was dig the hole we were in deeper. tons of studies all over the net showing this, but people still won’t believe.
Cue pffffft: “millions of jobs created, just wasn’t big enough, blah, blah, blah.”
http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1846
http://market-ticker.org/uploads/2010/Mar/Diminishing-Prod.jpg
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 304:
no. almost no studies show this. almost all show that stimulus spending has a positive multiplier.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Scotsman, I’ve been wondering this for a while. With your outlook on this, what’s your prescription? Austerity? Lower taxes? Total deregulation? Hire a professional hand-shaker vulture capitalist like Romney?
I’m genuinely interested on your outlook. Having followed Zero Hedge and other apocalyptic outlets for a while, I simply come away with the fact that it’s easier to tear something down than to build it up again.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yet another way President Obama has not lived up to his promises:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/17/BUD41O40O4.DTL
The too big to fail banks are now bigger!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 307 – The fate of the free world is at stake. We need larger, more powerful banks.
Obama is going to lose some of his base.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 308:
But not Gitmo. ;-)
He promised to lose that base, but didn’t live up to that promise either.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 307:
banks are bigger in part due to an oversupply of savings. people are putting their money into banks instead of the stock market. corporations have cash like crazy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 8:
breaking up the banks is a joke. when the losses show up what does it matter if the 100 banks have $1 trillion in losses or 10 banks do?
does anyone remember the savings and loan crisis? just as bad for all intents and purposes and those weren’t large banks.
there are two things to do. one is to make sure banks have enough capital. the other to that thanks do dodd frank banks will have a plan to be broken up.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 311 – Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and protect depositors’ money from the destructive gambling on Wall Street. Remove any critical functions from investment banks so that when they melt down, we can have a party. And speaking of the S&L scandal, let’s elect a president who will make it a priority to prosecute the criminal bankers.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 312:
It should shock every financially literate American that after all this time, Glass-Steagal hasn’t even been seriously debated in Congress, let alone reinstated.
In fairness to the S&Ls, the industry was based on classic mismatched maturities. The Reagan era financial market deregulation made them insolvent overnight. The bone they were thrown was the opportunity to try and save themselves by quickly expanding into higher yielding, more risky business where they didn’t have any business being. Desperate times and all that.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 312:
that wasn’t the subject we were talking about.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 9:
congress blocked it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 13:
this isn’t true. the Volcker rule, irrespective of the London Whale, seems to be pretty punitive.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 316 – Nonsense. The Volcker Rule, for all its good intentions, will not end the need for future bailouts. A definitive firewall between depositors monies and the casino will, and only Glass-Steagal or something like it, can ensure this.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 316 – It’s not about punitive. The system cannot simultaneously protect the commercial bank, and control the investment bank, especially within context of tbtf, because the investment bank spouse can take it down. It is the perfect hostage situation. Ordinarily, I agree with you. Here, I am with Blurtman.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 315:
That was mainly a joke, but if you want to talk seriously about it.
I know Congress blocked it. Mainly because it was a stupid idea. Congress actually got one right!
Housing foreign terrorists on US soil. Trying them in NYC. Another example of Obama pandering for votes by saying stupid things. It worked three years ago, so that’s why he’s still doing it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Lots of bad news on California today. I don’t have the links handy, but they have 4 of the 5 cities with the highest unemployment rates (WSJ article) and lead the nation in the decline of tax revenue YOY for the quarter.
California and its government really has been an anchor on the national economy for at least 12 years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is ironic. The only US car company the government didn’t bail out is going to start making their cars out of money!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11270685-car-parts-made-from-cash-ford-tests-green-arm-rests-trays?lite
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 317:
I don’t think you understand. if it’s a choice between bailouts and the economy crashing they will choose bailouts. we can agree the Glass should be back but that won’t solve all of our problems.
I should also point out that MF Global was not bailed out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 19:
We have plenty of terrorists in US jails on US soil.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 21:
Ford would have gone under too if the rest weren’t bailed.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 323:
Irrelevant. By moving them to US soil they gain additional rights. But I guess a constitutional law professor who doesn’t know that the Supreme Court can enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional legislation wouldn’t know that. /sarc
Then there was the idea of trying them in NYC. Brilliant idea. /sarc
I’ll make the point again. President Obama needs to stop pandering to voters by saying stupid things. He knows they are stupid, but he says them anyway to get votes. And it’s hurting him and his chances of being re-elected.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 24:
I’m not sure what your logic is on that one. By having two major competitors stay in business, Ford would have been hurt? I could see some disruption of suppliers, but the suppliers could have stayed in operation with their own Chapter 11s if necessary, so over the long term it would have been a big plus for Ford and the other auto manufacturers.
Interesting aside, Ford didn’t need the bailout because they had reorganized their financing before the crisis. Cramer wanted to short them because of that deal. So he wanted to short the only US car company which survived the crisis without a government bailout.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Notice how this piece doesn’t even mention the Democrat’s payroll tax holiday as being a contributing factor toward the decline of Social Security.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11355323-social-security-trustees-see-earlier-fund-depletion-date?lite
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A nice speech to the NY Federal Reserve:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-new-york-federal.html
and his followup post on their reaction:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-fed-speech-details.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Which is worse? Four more years of anemic growth and out of control government spending under President Obama? Or four years of Romney telling jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
data shows a clear recovery albeit a slow one in the US.
Recovery Measures
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/04/recovery-measures.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:
obama is the most thrifty of all recent presidents. I don’t know where you get your data from.
can you post it?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 31 – Can you troll somewhere else? Seriously, jokes don’t require either analysis or a response.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 332:
can you post your data? I am just waiting. I have at least 3 links proving my case.
you move.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 33 – Are you really that dense? You’re trying to get me to prove a joke?
Get a life.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 334:
just provide a link. all I ask for is a just one link. I’ve got 3 waiting to disprove you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 35 – RE: pfft @ 31 – RE: pfft @ 33 – Three posts that prove you really are that dense.
It’s a joke. How hard is that to understand?
And the primary target of the joke wasn’t your precious President Obama, but instead Romney. You’re so dense you apparently didn’t even realize that! /shakes head
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 336:
so are you going to post those links? I am confused.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 37:
No, you’re a troll. Don’t pretend to be confused when you’re not.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 338:
I am confused.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Rubio made a good point on Fox News this morning. I’ve been saying that President Obama’s repeated talk of tax increases retards increases in employment because businesses plan for the long term, and the talk of taxes makes them take on fewer new projects. That was his second point. His first point was massive spending creates fear of higher taxes in the future, resulting in less employment. IMHO, that type of thinking would influence small business more than big business, but small business can create a lot of jobs.
Interesting argument because it cuts to the heart of stimulus spending, or at least long term stimulus spending.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yep, we’re clearly in the midst of a bad recession.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404086,00.asp
Seriously, ignoring the bad reporting of statistics there, I do think thing all that spending on smartphones and wireless data will have both short and long term problems for the economy and society.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 340:
how did those tax increases work for the Clinton admin?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 42:
You really need to take that economics course so that you can think at the margin. There are many things that effect the economy. During Clinton there was a huge amount of progress made in computer tech and technology generally. That lead to both a huge increase in employee productivity as well as a huge increase in tax revenues from market activity. Those events far overshadowed whatever effect any change in tax policy would have had.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 343:
you are wrong and just can’t admit it. there are always advances. pick any era. guess what, the wealth affect from housing is bigger than it is from stock gains. bush had a bigger wind at his back than clinton did.
the bottom line is studies show that done right tax increases don’t hurt the economy. clinton proved that. more importantly clinton raised taxes BEFORE the tech boom really took off.
I was young then but I remember republicans saying it would cost as much as 10 million jobs. Clinton CREATED 10 million jobs. in fact he has the best jobs record in recent memory.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 344 – You don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes there are always advances. It’s the rate of advances that is important, and what those advances are.
Your logic is foolish. I had more hair back in 1992-2000, so the economy won’t do well until I have that much hair again. Clinton proved that.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 345:
we were told that tax increases were going to crush the economy. they didn’t. we were told that the bush tax cuts would boost the economy. they didn’t.
anyways studies back me up.
and again. the wealth effect of the stock market is less than the wealth effect of the housing market.
studies also show that some of the most heavily taxed nations are some of the best place to live and have the highest standards of living. see scandinavia. high taxes also do not affect social mobility or income equality.
I’ve got tons of links to back all those claims up if you want me to.
clinton created 23 million jobs. bush created almost none with this two unfunded tax cuts for the very rich.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 46 – Again, the economy is has many things that impact it, not just one. It’s like the housing market.
But tell me wise one, just what is your theory as to why higher taxes cause all this prosperity that you claim? /sarc
If you think something does something, then how do you think it works?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 347:
because socieity benefits from a strong safety net and from making investments in education and infrastructure. If the rich have a little less it doesn’t matter but at the lower end people who are poor spend their money(and often in poor areas with poor workers).
The Reality of Raising Taxes at the Top, Part 5: Can Tax Increases Help Economic Growth?
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-reality-of-raising-taxes-at-the-top-part-5-can-tax-increases-help-economic-growth/
Tax Cuts and Job Growth: They’re Just Not That Into Each Other
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/tax-cuts-and-job-growth-theyre-just-not-that-into-each-other/
Big governments, big people?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/big-governments-big-people/2011/07/11/gIQAyladaI_blog.html
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/
The biggest driver of income inequality: capital gains
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-biggest-driver-of-income-inequality-capital-gains/2012/01/02/gIQA181EWP_blog.html
The Reality of Raising Taxes at the Top, Part 4: Would Tax Increases Affect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship?
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-reality-of-raising-taxes-at-the-top-part-4-would-tax-increases-affect-small-businesses-and-entrepreneurship/
Study: States With Higher Taxes Are Better For Children
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/19/406378/study-states-with-higher-taxes-are-better-for-children/
A More Complete Look at Inequality and Immobility
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/a-more-complete-look-at-inequality-and-immobility/
Inequality and Mobility, Revisited
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/inequality-and-mobility-revisited/
that should keep you busy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 348:
I got pretty board quickly. The first admitted they found no convincing proof. The second didn’t really say anything. The third is talking about the height of people! The fourth is addressing the Clinton era which we’ve already discussed.
As to the fifth, I would agree capital gains rates make little sense now. They made more sense when the maximum tax rate was 70% and the gain necessarily occurred over multiple years to qualify for the special rate.
The next one (Part 4) is total BS, apparently written by someone who doesn’t even understand taxes!
That’s as far as I got.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I love to read Tim’s posts.
Pfft’s waste of space comments are what drove me away. If we could vote to ban posters in the name of sanity restoration, count me in. I’ve saved countless hours not reading this thread.
TIM, if you are listening….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Former Poster Ben @ 350 – The poster’s name in bold is the first part of every post. So posts that you could have easily ignored drove you away? They really drove you away? That may be the lamest comment ever to have graced the Bubble. Pfft must be doing God’s work. I wouldn’t want you banned, though. I live in hope that I may see you top yourself.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I finally got around to watching This Week w/ George S. today (Tuesday). The liberals on the panel were making a big deal of consumer sentiment being high, as announced on the 25th. Today consumer confidence was announced to be lagging. I wonder which matters more for the election?
One person (I forget who) said something which made a lot of sense. There are a lot of people who are disillusioned by President Obama’s record on social and economic issues. But they’re not ready to jump to Romney. I think the implication was that they might accept his economic positions, but not his social positions. They’re upset because President Obama isn’t liberal enough, so the solution for that isn’t Romney.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not even former President Clinton is buying President Obama’s attacks on Bain.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/clinton-calls-romneys-bain-career-sterling.html?mid=rss
Seems like that has proven rather ineffective. I think pfft would have voted for President Obama anyway. ;-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The problem with Bain isn’t that it was a horrible company, it’s that Romney holds it up as his “Job Creation” credentials. That wasn’t what Bain was interested in. It was about making money (sometimes at the expense of the workers). If I was voting for someone to run my venture capitalist firm, I would surely pick Romney over Obama. Why doesn’t Romney want to talk about job creation when it was actually central to his job (Mass. Gov)? It’s obvious.
Anyway, businesses aren’t expanding because there is no demand, not because of phantom taxes that could possibly maybe happen someday. We had a big over-hang of debt, and if everyone tries to pay it down at once it cripples the economy (as we’re experiencing right now, and Europe is doubling down on with full-on austerity).
US interest rates are at all-time lows. Real interest rates are negative. Conservatives and business people have been saying for over 3 years that high interest rates are around the corner. Any day now. They are coming. Just wait. We’re going to get punished for our debt. It hasn’t happened.
When times are bad, the private sector cuts back, and interest rates are low, that’s when the gov. should be stepping in. This is Econ 101.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 354:
That Democratic line is just the opposite of the Republican line claiming that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Neither is true.
You’re not going to create wealth without creating jobs. Sometimes, however, you don’t create at much wealth as what you would like, and when that happens fewer jobs are created or even jobs or lost.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 54:
It’s both, but for a recovery to take hold you need business to start spending first. Absent that happening a recovery would be impossible–there would only be downward spirals. Threats of increased taxes (and the reality of Obamacare) keep a recovery from happening, or at a minimum slow it down.
Here’s three examples of why businesses are not hiring, and only one is related to demand, and that’s the artificial demand of government spending on infrastructure.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/US-employers-waiting-and-watching-before-hiring-3604468.php
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 54:
Generally I would agree with that. But when we’ve had over three years of that “stepping in” and dismal results, that indicates something else is wrong.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 55:
So the stimulus both did and did not create jobs?
Firms like Bain could create wealth for themselves without creating jobs by loading up struggling companies with debt, paying themselves high “management fees” with the borrowed money then watching the company fold under the weight of the debt. I would say a great deal of the finance world (which I actually work in, so I’m not completely anti-wallstreet) is about creating wealth without creating jobs.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:
Anecdotes are great and all, but every single survey I have ever seen has lack of demand/sales as the #1 issue. Businesses always whine about taxes and regulations. It’s an American Tradition.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 57:
That something is a massive lack of demand, that was misjudged in 2008/2009. When Obama went to the stimulus well we didn’t have a full picture of how bad the situation was and he was too timid anyway. For some crazy reason, he thought Republicans wouldn’t fight him on every single thing he wants to do. They actually thought that if the initial stimulus was too small, they could go back for more later! Total miscalculation.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 358:
I didn’t say that. What might be confusing you is that I have said other Obama policies reduced job growth.
The first part of that is another Democratic line, and again doesn’t fit with reality. That clearly is not the goal, because putting money into a company and then paying it back out to yourself isn’t a very good way to make money.
If you are going to put money into a company, you’re most likely going to do that as a secured creditor. And if things turn south, you’re going to thereby get paid first. And yes while you are working to save a company you are going to get paid for your efforts.
As to the last part, just how do you think you create wealth without creating jobs? Even if you’re dealing only in derivatives, you’re going to be having indirect effects which create jobs.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 60:
I was thinking more that something was the other Obama policies and rhetoric.
And while the Republicans can be blamed for the gridlock in DC, President Obama and the Democrats are not without blame. Remember the “we won the election” comments from both Obama and Pelosi? When you take that attitude and then the voters take the power away from you two years later, you should not be terribly surprised that the other side isn’t too willing to work with you going forward.
I agree with you that thinking they could get more stimulus was foolish. Ignoring the Republicans, the public has also no appetite for such things over the long term. That was apparently true after the Great Depression too.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 61:
Leveraged buyouts. Companies like Bain aren’t putting down 100%. I seem to remember another industry where it was very in fashion to put down only a small percentage of the overall cost, and yet reap large, mostly paper rewards.
• 1988: Bain put $10 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $184 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
• 1992: Bain bought American Pad & Paper, investing $5 million, and collected $107 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
• 1993: Bain invested $25 million when buying GS Industries, and received $58 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
• 1994: Bain put $27 million down to buy medical equipment maker Dade Behring. Dade borrowed $230 million to buy some of its shares. Dade went bankrupt in 2002.
• 1997: Bain invested $41 million when buying Details, and collected at least $70 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.
This whole discussion of “Job Creators” is just another example of how good the Republicans are at messaging (or mostly how much the Left sucks at it). Had anyone heard of this term until the past year and OWS? Obviously what’s wrong in this economy is that we haven’t given in to the blessed job creators enough. If we only give them a few more breaks. Corporations are people, my friend! They are the ones who are really hurting here.
One of these days that wealth is going to trickle down. I can’t wait!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:
But you would think that they wouldn’t be willing to let the country burn just to screw you over. Boehner is happy to set us up for another showdown over the debt ceiling, we all remember how well that went last August.
The only good side to Romney is the fact that he is obviously saying whatever he thinks it takes to be elected. He isn’t actually crazy. The problem is that he’s very clearly unwilling to stand up to the craziness he’s been forced to accept to get to where he is.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: uwp @ 363 – Leveraged buyouts were much more common 20 years ago–you have a point there. They’re more likely to be avoided now due to liability concerns.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 64:
The Republicans obviously are not letting a PR firm drive their decisions. Some of their decisions are just nuts, both from a policy standpoint and popularity standpoint.
President Obama on the other hand is crazy like a fox. Announcing a rule on religious entities and contraceptives, letting a firestorm erupt, and then changing the rule one day later while simultaneously spinning it as a women’s issue–pure genius. The Republicans fell right into that one.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 366:
I think you give Obama too much credit here. I wish he was playing 11-dimensional chess here, but I just can’t believe it.
Ultimately, I think Clinton would have been a better president for what the country needed in 2008. But I do not think she would have won the election. She would have energized the Right into fighting one of it’s favorite old enemies, and wouldn’t have had the cross-over appeal the Obama had. Plus, I don’t think McCain would have picked Palin in a hypothetical Clinton-McCain matchup (whether or not that helps or hurts, I’m not exactly sure).
Anyway, the thing to remember here is Supreme Court Justices. They are of huge importance, and Obama has done fine there. And whether we have Obama fighting congress to pass all the secret plans that he’s saved for his second term, or Romney having free reign with all 3 branches forcing us to bow when we come upon a Job Creator in the streets, the next term will probably decide which way the court swings for the coming decades. So, go vote for whomever you hate the least!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 67:
Maybe Obama’s team just stumbled into that, but it was so bam-bam fast it’s a bit hard to believe.
As to Clinton losing, I don’t know how. Given what was happening with the economy right before the 2008 election, any Democrat would have won. Unfortunately that voter blame didn’t extend so much to the House and Senate.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 63:
This comment stuck with my yesterday, and I’ve been thinking about it. I think the reason that the term “job creator” has come up is we’ve never had a president who has been so clueless about the economy and so hostile to business. President Obama thinks that to get more jobs again you can simultaneously spend a lot of money and make conditions less favorable to business, and somehow have that result in increased economic activity when the government spending ends. The problem is that when the government spending ends, you’ve made conditions worse for business, and that will mean fewer jobs, not more jobs.
Yesterday one of President Obama’s surrogates on a Sunday talk show said something that also stuck out. She said what President Obama wants is to have wealth created from the middle out, rather than the top down. I’m not exactly sure what the definition of “middle” is, but if they’re not including small business in the middle, that’s complete nonsense. You can’t create wealth by giving people in the middle a $20 a week tax cut. That is merely income redistribution, and does not result in growth. You need policies that result in sustained economic activity, and I’ve yet to hear that out of the Obama camp. If you want to tax high income earners to deal with the deficit, say that, but don’t pretend that’s going to somehow create a great expansion of the middle class.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Last week I said it was stupid of the Obama campaign to directly attack Romney’s record in Massachusetts on job creation, given that when he left office the unemployment rate was under 5%. That expected counter attack did materialize, with the Romney camp comparing under 5% under Romney to President Obama’s over 8%.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-ad-hits-romney-massachusetts-economy/story?id=16490692#.T8zTp7CWfcE
Not satisfied with stupid attacks, the Obama campaign is now turning to state ranking job creation numbers. Apparently what they’re doing is looking at BLS four year rankings, and the Romney campaign is countering that with the BLS individual year rankings, which shows a steady improvement from the bottom.
My question is why is the Obama campaign doing this directly? Seems like the stuff that would be left to super-Pacs. Doing it directly only leads to counterattacks showing that the Obama campaign is trying to deceive the voters, and hardly seems presidential.
Note the counterattack in the article: Something to the effect that President Obama has gone from “Hope and Change” to Hope to Change the Topic.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The Tim:
While all fine and dandy to ban non RE stuff to this thread (ref your comment 1 on the election poll post), you’ll have to make these ones reset more frequently to help . 300 something posts to this thread is very unwieldy. The Monday, mid week and weekend open threads are typically manageable in length to read through. There’s no way to stay on top of a thread this long.
Also, I’d point out that RE and the broader economy are highly interlinked. Fed policy, for example, has a direct result on RE.
My 2 cents.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 369:
It’s because rich people don’t like to be called rich people when so many of the rest are struggling. And the titans of industry are incredibly thin-skinned.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By No Name Guy @ 371:
That’s part of the reason that I’ve set comment threads to page at 100 posts. It seems like if you’re active in a long thread it isn’t usually too difficult to remember where you left off and just jump to that numbered comment. Perhaps I am incorrect in that assumption, though?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: The Tim @ 373 – It’s probably different if your just looking at the thread for the first time in weeks.
Is it possible to have two “recent comments” sections above at the top right? One that just has the other threads and one that just has the open threads? That might make it a bit easier to follow along without remembering the number of posts in each thread.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: The Tim @ 373 –
When I see these 300 something long posts, it’s that there are 300 plus posts that turns me off. I’m not going to read through them to see if the topic has already been discussed. That’s why I haven’t bothered to post here in this thread when ever I point out a macro economic matter over in the open comment thread. it’s a TLDR thing.
The generic open threads are topical, timely…..I can read 20-30-40 comments and then jump in….not going to do it with 300+.
My 2 cents is to not over moderate the generic open threads, FWIW. Then again, it’s your blog….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 346:
Not even former President Clinton agrees with your nonsense! ROTFLMAO at the poor foolish pfft.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577448924153849542.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Apparently President Obama’s plan of preempting Meet the Press this next weekend to avoid yet another surrogate going off message didn’t work. President Clinton decided he couldn’t wait two weeks.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I follow Spanish news and economy pretty closely; am a fan of Spanish food and culture, and the reserved, polite, and very warm people integral to both.
So here’s my update:
Spain’s view of the end game in euro zone. “Either protect the Euro throughout the Zone or bad things happen.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9307560/Spanish-premier-Mariano-Rajoy-calls-for-eurozone-centralised-control-authority.html
We are back to the bailout vs austerity argument. I think Spain is screwed and maybe a presage of US economy. Either kick the can down the road with liquidity, eventually having to face it, or tighten now and face a very bloody deconstruction sooner. I think either way our kids’ future will be very different.
Rick
I
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: The Tim @ 73 –
Tim,
Just a suggestion. This thread should re set occasionally so it is more topical. Very few of us come here ever or often, so it is not vibrant, and you already see a need to channel the open threads since they wander more than you like, methinks.
The macro economic topics are useful for folks like me who try to put local (Seattle) events in a larger context, regionally, nationally and globally.
Just thoughts.
Best,
Rick
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 346:
Another Obama defection on the tax increase issue! Not a good week for pfft and President Obama!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-former-wh-adviser-larry-summers-says-tax-breaks-should-stay-for-now-20120606,0,2262060.story
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: ricklind @ 78 – I might agree with you if SB had a better search function. As it is I don’t see what the big issue is since the most posts you’ll see is 100.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By ricklind @ 377:
And what about our kids’ current situation? Horrible unemployment now and forever stunted careers in the future because of how things are going.
But I guess they need to suffer through the pain now so we might not have to… suffer through possible pain later?
People don’t seem to understand that our current short run problems are forever worsening long-run problems. Austerity is not making things better. It is both worsening the current budget situations, and not helping the long-run crisises. WE HAVE THREE YEARS OF EVIDENCE! What does it take?!?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: uwp @ 81 – What austerity are you talking about? Do you think this country has been going through austerity? Maybe at the state and local government level, but other than that I’m not sure what you’re seeing.
BTW, I agree with you on the current situation as to those just starting out looking for work. It’s not the first time we’ve been through this, but it is perhaps the first time when those coming out have also been saddled with huge amounts of student loans.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Jon Stewart’s take on the Democrat’s spin of last week’s employment numbers: Polish that Turd!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/polish-that-turd
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 382:
I was mostly talking about Europe as evidence of the failure of austerity, but is there some reason US state and local levels don’t count?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
“Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut.” (Federal has grown by 143,000 employees.)
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fred-20120529-govemployment.png
Total government employment. (The source for the chart is FRED).
We would be a lot better off if we rehired all those teachers/police/firemen.
If the number of people employed by the government kept pace with the growing population these last 3.5 years, there would be around a million more people employed. The unemployment rate could possibly be under 7%, and this recovery might actually have some momentum (which would help the long run deficit problem).
It’s too bad our huge government liberal president is socializing every thing he sees.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By uwp @ 384:
No, it counts. I was just wondering what you were referring to. That explains it, thanks.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Part of the reason that the price of oil goes up is a number of countries either subsidize or regulate the price of gas. Here China is using it as economic stimulus, like a cut in interest rates.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-lowers-gasoline-diesel-prices-2012-06-08?link=MW_latest_news
When countries do that, those countries use more oil than they should, and don’t decrease their use of oil like in other countries. That makes prices go up higher.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Apparently it’s not only President Obama’s surrogates who he has to worry about going off message. ;-)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12127428-obama-it-is-absolutely-clear-that-the-economy-is-not-doing-fine?lite
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTzPmn-87w&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_hiEvTNV5k&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yonUgZ2Y6Qs&feature=watch_response
(8:16 begins an absolutely true analysis of the folly of our current economic system.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6KkF6aa_A&feature=watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDxufaKZLjc&feature=watch_response
(:50 – danger in derivatives. This is 1994.)
Laura Tyson, a seemingly well meaning UC Berkeley academic who has been shown to be quite wrong. Ditto Janet Yellen, but in a much larger way.
Tyson, BTW, worked (works) at the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE), an ostensibly academic economic think tank, that seems to establish expertise through the production of white papers, and then whores itself out to industry.
Yet another example of how our leaders fail us. Clinton, as is being shown, has been one of the worst presidents of all time, at the helm when critical regulatory structures were dismantled, setting the table for the destcruction of the middle class, and the destruction of the US financial system.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 388:
Not that I would ever defend Clinton — I have said many times I will never vote for another democrat or republican… but the destruction of the US financial system would have happened (will happen) anyway. Regulations or no regulation don’t make a d@mn bit of difference if corrupt administrations won’t enforce them.
Laws are for the little people. Bankers do what they want.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
How could anyone judge who the worst president was? There’s just too much competition! ;-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And Here Are The Charts That Will Get Obama Reelected…
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-economy-2012#ixzz1xLB8tDpy
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Blurtman @ 388:
I guess you don’t remember the 90s do you? There was more to it than that. We had the rise of the shadow banking system. We had massive fraud in mortgages. We had Greenspan ignoring non-existant lending standards. We had Hank Paulson lobby for banks to take more risk. Ben Bernanke was a Bush guy. All of this was after Clinton. How would Glass-Steagal have prevented AIG? The greatest responsbiilty resides with those at the helm or our banks and corporations while all these outsize risks were taken and subsequently failed. If I were a BOA or C shareholder I would be pissed at the CEOs. How hard is it to make a loan?
Let’s not forget how radical Republicans were in the 90s and how much Clinton blocked just by being there.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Obama has been great so far. I think with all the criticism that is warranted we forget what he inherited and what he did. He came in to two wars and a financial system on meltdown. He had a huge stimulus bill that saved millions of jobs, he saved the US car industry and the midwest, continued shoring up the banking system, got bin laden, responsibly ended the Iraq War and Obamacare will insure tens of millions of people for decades. Obamacare alone is a great accomplishment however flawed.
We forget was has happened the last 4 years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Obama’s cons:
Hasn’t done enough to prosecute Wall St.
Didn’t really want foreclosure relief
Didn’t get a climate/energy bill
Obama is flawed, should have gone for medicare for all
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“So far this year, President Obama has been to three times as many fundraisers as President Bush had attended by this point in the 2004 campaign. This is what the New York Post calls his “torrid pace,” although judging from those remarks in California he’s about as torrid as an overworked gigolo staggering punchily through the last mambo of the evening. According to Brendan J. Doherty’s forthcoming book The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign, Obama has held more fundraisers than the previous five presidents’ reelection campaigns combined.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302269
“For a donation of $35,800, he’ll pose with you in a Seal Team Six uniform with one foot on Osama’s corpse (played by Harry Reid). For a donation of $46,800, he’ll send an unmanned drone to hover amusingly over your sister-in-law’s house. For a donation of $77,800, he’ll install you as the next president-for-life of Syria (liability waiver required). For a donation of $159,800, he’ll take you into Sarah Jessica’s guest bedroom and give you the full 007 while Carly Simon sings “Nobody Does It Better.”
There are monarchies and republics aplenty, but there’s only one 24/7 celebrity fundraising presidency. If it’s Tuesday, it must be Kim Cattrall, or Hootie and the Blowfish, or Laverne and Shirley, or the ShamWow guy . . . I wonder if the Queen ever marvels at the transformation of the American presidency since her time with Truman. Ah, well. If you can’t stand the klieg-light heat of Obama’s celebrity, stay out of the Beverly Wilshire kitchen.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Scotsman @ 395 – I wonder how much you have to donate to get a job?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Scotsman @ 395:
Citizens-United duh! standard scotsman…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 397:
Yes, it’s so sad that the incumbent protection legislation was struck down, making those poor incumbent politicians actually have to do things to counter the truth about them.
And of course, President Obama has to work extra hard in that regard, because too many of his surrogates tell the truth!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 398:
don’t even know what you’re talking about…this makes it even tougher to defeat an incumbent as they are likelier to have rich friends once they get to Washington. Scott Walker had much more money than his challenger in Wis did.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
SPAIN! Most people dont know this but Spain is a very big mess and so is Italy. They suffer the same banana republic thinking that is beginning to effect the United States. The depth of the problems in many countries is very dangerous and I hope States like California dont make the same mistake as Spain.
Here is a great comment from the economist:
The UE is wasting his money. The 100 billions loan will go directly to fund the next issues:
1. Seventeen useless automous regions with his presidents, regional ministers, regional parlaments, regional official cars, assistants, advisors, supporting staff and regional corruption.
2. Unions and political parties that make billions in grants.
3. Unnecessary pharaonic ongoing infrastructures as high speed trains to remote villages as Cuenca or Albacete or airports without passengers in the middle of nowhere as Huesca, Castellon or Ciudad Real.
4. Over three million of unnecessary public servants (more than USA or Japan) that have almost two months of vacations per year and make “siesta” everyday.
5. More than one billion is funding directly the soccer teams (with tax exemptions) that’s why Spain can afford the best players in the world.
6. The best free health care system in the world (paradoxically in the most ruined country of Europe)
7. Over 200 regional embassies that regional governments mantain in many countries (e.g. Catalonian embassy in New York is based in the Rockefeller Center building, the most expensive rent in NYC)
8. 8000 town halls (4 times than Germany, albeit Spain has half population)
9. 5000 ruined public companies (created only to give a job to the relatives and friends of the politicians)
10. Over twenty ruined public TVs, but controled by central and regional governments as propaganda centers.
11. Over three years of umemployment coverage (highest in Europe)
12. The PER (rural unemployment system that in Andalusia pay for one year if you work for two months)
13. And of course 450.000 politicians.
As a result the UE is only funding the corruption and incompetence of Spanish political class. The worse problem in Spain is not a financial problem, the core problem is an economical problem,
What kind of goods or services is going to produce Spain to pay back the 100 billion European loan and also mantain his oversized welfare state?
None talk about this point because none has a realistic plan to overcome Spanish crisis. Meanwhile Spain has added to his current European unemployment record of 25%, the banks bailout world record with an astonishing 100 billions. Which will be the next record?
Rate this comment:
0 
0