Obama's policies contributing to anemic private sector hiring

[Rob's House]

Did you guys hear that this heat wave is Obama's fault too?

 

I did, but it could be worse. The last guy commissioned a hurricane to kill black people.

[IDBillzFan]

I did, but it could be worse. The last guy commissioned a hurricane to kill black people.

That's just damn funny.

[drnykterstein]

Oh, so THAT's why it failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised. It was too small. Got it.

 

By the way...who are these "many economists?" I mean, beyond Paul Krugman, who is presently the laughing stock of the "many economists" world.

 

So assuming that "many" means "more than one," what other "economists" say it was too small?

Only people who have no clue what they are talking about laugh from ignorance at Krugman. I know that includes you. Among the educated, he is taken serious.

 

As per your request, here is a list. I'm sure there are many many many many more, but I think you get the idea.

Greg Anrig, Laura Tyson, James Galbraith, Warren Buffett, Mark Zandi, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, John Judis

[drnykterstein]

.... when all the scientists are liberals, and all the economists are liberals, and all the college professors are liberals, and all of the historians are liberals ...

 

... but you guys have Sarah Palin. She's smart.

[3rdnlng]

So the stimulus bill was too small because it wasn't intended to completely replace shortfall in demand, but rather intended to be a stimulus?

 

Don't you know that we must extend unemployment benefits in order to create jobs?

[Magox]

Wow, what a stupid post! So, after the financial crash the government isn't suppose to make changes to try and stop some of the worst aspects because business leaders may or may not be perfectly clear on exactly how the changes will pan out? And when all else fails, blame the health care bill!

 

This sounds like business leaders trying to pass the buck to government for the failures of the free market.

Oh David, anyone who thinks rationally on this board knows that you're just an ignorant partisan gob swallower, right Mr. "Carter who ended inflation" . So, how does it taste Michelle?

 

Anyhoo, for those of us who were right in that these disastrous policies are deterring further private sector job growth. Here is what Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said today:

 

 

 

 

 

Congress and the government have inhibited growth by creating uncertainty about business costs, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told CNBC Wednesday.

 

“We need clarity," said Fisher. "My background [in business] tells me that you can’t eliminate uncertainty, but you have to reduce it as much as possible.”

 

Questions about healthcare expenses, for instance, have kept businesses from hiring new workers, said Fisher, because executives don't know how much it will cost them. Businesses also have concerns about other costs, such as whether a VAT [value-added tax] will be imposed.

 

"How do you cost a worker?" Fisher said. "Let’s say you run a delivery-truck system. What’s the price of a new delivery-truck driver? You don’t [know]. So how, as the CFO, do you go to your CEO or the board and say, 'I need to budget a new workforce.' And they say: 'What's it going to cost us?' And you say, 'I can’t tell you the answer.' "

 

Oh by the way, Phelan, Williams, Warsh, Greenspan and Fisher, you know the one's I quoted in this thread, aren't "business leaders" they are either policy makers or macro economists that compile data to the business community, so where's the skin in their game? YA Big Dummy!

[Rob's House]

Only people who have no clue what they are talking about laugh from ignorance at Krugman. I know that includes you. Among the educated, he is taken serious.

 

As per your request, here is a list. I'm sure there are many many many many more, but I think you get the idea.

Greg Anrig, Laura Tyson, James Galbraith, Warren Buffet, Mark Zandi, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, John Judis

 

You should watch James Galbraith spar with Milton Friedman. It's educational.

 

EVEN IF a bigger stimulus is a good idea (which I do not concede) this type of stimulus is not. It's at least plausible (if not correct) to assume pumping currency through the private sector could stimulate growth, a la "priming the pump" philosophy. I've not seen instances of this being successful, but I'm not omniscient so perhaps some of our enlightened bretheren can share some with us.

 

The idea of pumping money into government agencies and municipalities to create temporary "make work" jobs that create no increase in production is foolhardy at best. It's the equivalent of building a monument rather than starting a business.

[Magox]

Only people who have no clue what they are talking about laugh from ignorance at Krugman. I know that includes you. Among the educated, he is taken serious.

 

As per your request, here is a list. I'm sure there are many many many many more, but I think you get the idea.

Greg Anrig, Laura Tyson, James Galbraith, Warren Buffett, Mark Zandi, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, John Judis

The last time Keynesian economics was fully implemented here in the US was after WWII through 1976, I am sure you did not know that, did you? You know what the end result was?

 

Not only was their massive inflation, but also stagnation other wise known as STAGFLATION. It isn't until recently that this philosophy has emerged as our potential savior. I argued against this 2 years ago at the beginning of this crisis, when many economists including politicians such as our much esteemed president were preaching that this would work. I argued that it wouldn't because it didn't address the underlying structural problems that we face today.

 

Guess what pumpkin? The proof is in the pudding, it didn't work in the 70's and it isn't working today. So while you apologists continue to keep making excuses, I will continue to keep pointing out to you why you are wrong. I will remind you of this, constantly, I promise.

[IDBillzFan]

Oh David, anyone who thinks rationally on this board knows that you're just an ignorant partisan gob swallower, right Mr. "Carter who ended inflation" . So, how does it taste Michelle?

 

Anyhoo, for those of us who were right in that these disastrous policies are deterring further private sector job growth. Here is what Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said today:

Here's a similar story (albeit from The Daily Beast).

 

I believe these are people who were clear Obama supporters, who are now sounding the alarm on how bad his policies are for private businesses.

 

You know you're in the crapper when your supporters are against your policies, and in stating as much, you get Barbra Streisand to agree with you.

 

“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.

 

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

 

Ferguson was joined in his harsh attack by billionaire real estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman. Both lambasted Obama’s trillion-dollar deficit spending program—in the name of economic stimulus to cushion the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown—as fiscally ruinous, potentially turning America into a second-rate power.

“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world,” Zuckerman said. “The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”

 

Zuckerman added that he detects in the Obama White House “hostility to the very kinds of [business] culture that have made this the great country that it is and was. I think we have to find some way of dealing with that or else we will do great damage to this country with a public policy that could ruin everything.”

 

Ferguson added: “The critical point is if your policy says you’re going run a trillion-dollar deficit for the rest of time, you’re riding for a fall…Then it really is goodbye.” A dashing Brit, Ferguson added: “Can I say that, having grown up in a declining empire, I do not recommend it. It’s just not a lot of fun actually—decline.”

[GG]

Which all goes back to the sage President acting as if auditioning for the next Oliver Stone movie, then actually recognizing the importance and gravity that his words carry. If you keep beating up the people you need to restart the recovery, eventually they take their ball home.

[Magox]

Here's a similar story (albeit from The Daily Beast).

 

I believe these are people who were clear Obama supporters, who are now sounding the alarm on how bad his policies are for private businesses.

 

You know you're in the crapper when your supporters are against your policies, and in stating as much, you get Barbra Streisand to agree with you.

I'd much rather trust our "business leaders" when it comes to hiring REAL people in the REAL world, who actually have experience in this field as opposed to Paul Krugman, an agenda filled partisan shill academic who has NO EXPERIENCE in hiring workers.

 

Let's see here. Do I listen to the most successful business leaders in the world, who have remained profitable in this tremendous downturn who knows what it takes to hire workers, or the academic that knows how to opine on the subject who's recommendations failed in the past and are failing today who also has a political agenda? hmmm thats a tough one.....

[Rob's House]

.... when all the scientists are liberals, and all the economists are liberals, and all the college professors are liberals, and all of the historians are liberals ...

 

... but you guys have Sarah Palin. She's smart.

 

Actually, the overwhelming number of economists support free market ideals. The one's of which you speak tend to exist primarily in academia where there is no penalty for being consistently wrong.

[Dan]

Question, and a serious one as I'm not an economist in any sense of the term:

 

How much of the current stagnation, slow growth, whatever is due to the economy just finding a new point of stability that's lower than where we were?

 

What I'm driving at is, it seems a couple of years ago our economy was booming along and everything was marked up, expanding daily, all was good. But, then we find out its all built on a house of cards so to speak. So, is it reasonable to expect an economic recovery back to 2008 levels and higher? If I may try my hand at an analogy: If you're driving a car designed to travel 55mph, but your steadily keeping the peddle down and climbing to 60, 60, 75; then the engine blows. You patch the engine, you keep going, but do you keep going at 75mph or is 55mph the new stable speed until you find some way to overahaul the engine?

 

Make sense?

[Magox]

Actually, the overwhelming number of economists support free market ideals. The one's of which you speak tend to exist primarily in academia where there is no penalty for being consistently wrong.

Exactly!

[GG]

I'd much rather trust our "business leaders" when it comes to hiring REAL people in the REAL world, who actually have experience in this field as opposed to Paul Krugman, an agenda filled partisan shill academic who has NO EXPERIENCE in hiring workers.

 

Let's see here. Do I listen to the most successful business leaders in the world, who have remained profitable in this tremendous downturn who knows what it takes to hire workers, or the academic that knows how to opine on the subject who's recommendations failed in the past and are failing today who also has a political agenda? hmmm thats a tough one.....

 

Actually, if it's the Paul Krugman who won the Nobel for his theories on labor mobility, then he makes economic sense. Too bad it's not the same Paul Krugman who writes for the NYT.

[Magox]

Question, and a serious one as I'm not an economist in any sense of the term:

 

How much of the current stagnation, slow growth, whatever is due to the economy just finding a new point of stability that's lower than where we were?

 

What I'm driving at is, it seems a couple of years ago our economy was booming along and everything was marked up, expanding daily, all was good. But, then we find out its all built on a house of cards so to speak. So, is it reasonable to expect an economic recovery back to 2008 levels and higher? If I may try my hand at an analogy: If you're driving a car designed to travel 55mph, but your steadily keeping the peddle down and climbing to 60, 60, 75; then the engine blows. You patch the engine, you keep going, but do you keep going at 75mph or is 55mph the new stable speed until you find some way to overahaul the engine?

 

Make sense?

Makes a lot of sense, and great question btw. To answer your question, it isn't reasonable to believe that we would return to 2007 levels, not anytime soon anyway. There are major structural impediments that we have to overcome. The construction boom that took place won't be realized again, at least not in this generation. The excess supply of homes, and lack of real demand will ensure of this. The manufacturing base had been on the decline as it is, relative to jobs vs. population growth. Albeit we did see a surge a few years ago, but as you pointed out, it was a house of cards. Credit GONE WILD, that should of not been there in the first place. Technology is also another deterrent, sure it improves the bottom line, and efficiency for companies, but in regards to adding workers, well.....

 

Then of course there is the residual effect of having these components working at full throttle. The service industry suffers as these other parts of are economy falter. We could reasonably see our economy get back to a 6.5%-7% unemployment levels in the next 2 years, if the right economic policies were to be enacted, but to get back to that sub 5% levels, I'm afraid we are a long way away from that happening.

[GG]

Question, and a serious one as I'm not an economist in any sense of the term:

 

How much of the current stagnation, slow growth, whatever is due to the economy just finding a new point of stability that's lower than where we were?

 

What I'm driving at is, it seems a couple of years ago our economy was booming along and everything was marked up, expanding daily, all was good. But, then we find out its all built on a house of cards so to speak. So, is it reasonable to expect an economic recovery back to 2008 levels and higher? If I may try my hand at an analogy: If you're driving a car designed to travel 55mph, but your steadily keeping the peddle down and climbing to 60, 60, 75; then the engine blows. You patch the engine, you keep going, but do you keep going at 75mph or is 55mph the new stable speed until you find some way to overahaul the engine?

 

Make sense?

 

It makes some sense. But add this to your analogy. The car crashed not because it wasn't made to go 75MPH, but because while driving 75MPH, you started fiddling with the radio, eating a Big Mac, talking on the phone, and checking out the hot chick next to you. After you crash, your nanny tells you that you really should be driving 50MPH to be safe, but the nanny does absolutely nothing about you fiddling with the radio, eating a Big Mac, talking on the phone, and checking out the hot chick next to you while you're driving, and insists that the speed is the only thing that caused the crash.

 

Said another way, the economy can grow faster, but not with the shift in demographics, growing entitlements, higher taxes and growing uncertainty about the future business environment.

[IDBillzFan]

I'd much rather trust our "business leaders" when it comes to hiring REAL people in the REAL world, who actually have experience in this field as opposed to Paul Krugman, an agenda filled partisan shill academic who has NO EXPERIENCE in hiring workers.

 

Let's see here. Do I listen to the most successful business leaders in the world, who have remained profitable in this tremendous downturn who knows what it takes to hire workers, or the academic that knows how to opine on the subject who's recommendations failed in the past and are failing today who also has a political agenda? hmmm thats a tough one.....

But...but...but....Krugman has a Nobel Prize!

 

Interesting article from Feb. 2009 "Deconstructing Krugman."

 

Of note, relative to your comments above:

 

Paul Krugman knows how mathematical models work as well as anyone. His problem is that he has a much more pedestrian understanding of how people work. This problem typifies the whole Obama Administration, which pays close attention to Krugman at his perch in Princeton, and professes to revere data rather than ideology.

[Dan]

Makes a lot of sense, and great question btw. To answer your question, it isn't reasonable to believe that we would return to 2007 levels, not anytime soon anyway. There are major structural impediments that we have to overcome. The construction boom that took place won't be realized again, at least not in this generation. The excess supply of homes, and lack of real demand will ensure of this. The manufacturing base had been on the decline as it is, relative to jobs vs. population growth. Albeit we did see a surge a few years ago, but as you pointed out, it was a house of cards. Credit GONE WILD, that should of not been there in the first place. Technology is also another deterrent, sure it improves the bottom line, and efficiency for companies, but in regards to adding workers, well.....

 

Then of course there is the residual effect of having these components working at full throttle. The service industry suffers as these other parts of are economy falter. We could reasonably see our economy get back to a 6.5%-7% unemployment levels in the next 2 years, if the right economic policies were to be enacted, but to get back to that sub 5% levels, I'm afraid we are a long way away from that happening.

Good points. And pretty much what I was thinking. Maybe I'm not an idiot afterall.

 

A key point I was hoping to see addressed in more detail over the last year was new industry which would provide completely new jobs. Given many of the points above, it would seem to make sense that getting into something like the alternative energy market could solve some, if not many, of those issues. I liked the thought of puuting Americans to work devloping the technology and equipment that supply the next generation with power that's being used here. Perhaps people are working toward that, but it would be nice to see it more of an emphasis.

 

It makes some sense. But add this to your analogy. The car crashed not because it wasn't made to go 75MPH, but because while driving 75MPH, you started fiddling with the radio, eating a Big Mac, talking on the phone, and checking out the hot chick next to you. After you crash, your nanny tells you that you really should be driving 50MPH to be safe, but the nanny does absolutely nothing about you fiddling with the radio, eating a Big Mac, talking on the phone, and checking out the hot chick next to you while you're driving, and insists that the speed is the only thing that caused the crash.

 

Said another way, the economy can grow faster, but not with the shift in demographics, growing entitlements, higher taxes and growing uncertainty about the future business environment.

If you think I'm not going to be checking out every hot chick driving by, well we're just scewed. Because I'm sorry if it comes down to hot chicks or the fate of the free world, I'm taking hot chicks every day of the week.

 

I do see your points. And that's been one of my biggest concerns over the past year. Not so much each specific piece of legislation. But the volume of it all at once.

[Alaska Darin]

Only people who have no clue what they are talking about laugh from ignorance at Krugman. I know that includes you. Among the educated, he is taken serious.

George W. Bush was "educated" at Yale. You'll have to forgive me for laughing at you and the ridiculousness of YOU telling someone else they have no clue.

As per your request, here is a list. I'm sure there are many many many many more, but I think you get the idea.

Greg Anrig, Laura Tyson, James Galbraith, Warren Buffett, Mark Zandi, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, John Judis

It's the "N'Sync" defense. Popularity automatically means good. Nice work, simp.