Obamanomics

[Chef Jim]

 

Duh! Since commodity prices are so volatile, the Fed and most analysts focus on the "Core CPI."

Which is even more useless seeing it removes the two biggest non-fixed expense line items from personal budgets. Energy and food.

[GG]

No one eats shares of stock....You aren't complaining about those high prices are you?

 

Duh! Since commodity prices are so volatile, the Fed and most analysts focus on the "Core CPI."

No I'm talking about twisting the inflation interpretation. Prices of goods have held up. But with ms Yellen propping up the Obama economy with free money has created a dangerous asset bubble.

 

You know you'd be screaming about it daily if it were a gop president.

[B-Man]

UNEXPECTEDLY!................................... The U.S. Economy Isn’t Growing as Quickly as People Thought.

[TPS]

No I'm talking about twisting the inflation interpretation. Prices of goods have held up. But with ms Yellen propping up the Obama economy with free money has created a dangerous asset bubble.

You know you'd be screaming about it daily if it were a gop president.

Of the G-7, which country has the highest 10-year government bond yield? do you think the US experience is unique?

[GG]

Of the G-7, which country has the highest 10-year government bond yield? do you think the US experience is unique?

Of course it's not unique. It adds another data point to what happens to the rest of the world when the US leads from behind.

[TPS]

Of course it's not unique. It adds another data point to what happens to the rest of the world when the US leads from behind.

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

[GG]

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

 

You've had 7 years to see Keynesianism in action with all the stimuli that the government can provide. At first you blamed it on the rebound from a financial crisis because those tend to take longer. But the financial sector recovered quickly, and there certainly hasn't been any shortage of credit to fund growth. But still, the worst recovery ever and the worst growth rates in presidential term in modern times.

 

So your solution is to jump start consumption, even though consumption isn't what's holding real growth back.

 

And if we rewind the clock back to 2009, you may recall some voices sounding concern about the looming change in the regulatory environment, and how the US could turn into a version of Europe where "well-meaning" bureaucrats take control of the steering wheel and stifle growth by imposing greater burdens on starting and growing private enterprises.

 

You may also recall a quote I shared from a CFO of a company in 2009 when he said, anyone would be an idiot to start hiring more people in this environment. That was in the lead up to ACA when people didn't know what was coming and weren't going to take more risks by adding staff. They also figured out they could do 95% of the jobs with 90% of the people, and the rest is history.

 

This is the economy we get now. A massively intrusive regulatory state that's inserting itself into nearly every private transaction because people are too stupid to manage their lives. You get what you deserve when your economic patron saints are Obama, Sanders & Warren.

[Magox]

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

 

That is quite a revision of what really has been happening. The US has been adding regulations, adding new taxes, pumping money into the system via stimulus measures. You've got all that backwards.

 

The policy prescriptions that it appears you are advocating for is more stimulus. I'm not opposed to "stimulus" per se, but this is hardly a sufficient corrective response to economies that are going through major structural headwinds. The only way to combat structural issues are with structural solutions. Pumping money only temporarily alleviates downturns, with the hopes that it helps kick start recoveries. That is not what is needed, if anything it is just a supplement to real substantive solutions.

 

Innovation at the end of the day will be the key to getting things on the right track. Let's just hope that government regulations don't get in the way from that happening.

[B-Man]

Glen Reynolds theorizes it's excessive regulation, and he's likely correct.

 

Why we still don't have flying cars http://usat.ly/27gWeVq

 

 

After regulation exploded in 1970, innovation hit a sustained speed bump.

[Chef Jim]

 

Glen Reynolds theorizes it's excessive regulation, and he's likely correct.

 

Why we still don't have flying cars http://usat.ly/27gWeVq

 

After regulation exploded in 1970, innovation hit a sustained speed bump.

Really?? I agree 100% about over regulation hurting growth but how can you with a straight face say innovation hit a speed bump after 1970? I'd say just the opposite.

[keepthefaith]

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

 

Which nations are practicing fiscal austerity?

[/dev/null]

 

Which nations are practicing fiscal austerity?

Gotta understand that to Lefties, Austerity means:

 

Program budget FY16 $100B

Requested FY17 budget $105B

Allocated FY17 budget $104B

 

And a Draconian cut is allocating only $103B

[keepthefaith]

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

Consumer confidence has to be a big driver of demand.

Flat wages suppresses consumer confidence. I'll add that totally uninspiring political leadership also suppresses consumer confidence.

More regulation and business expenses (taxes, health insurance, compliance) reduces business development, employment and wages.

[IDBillzFan]

No. The advanced countries are all struggling because they have relied on the belief that monetary policy could kick start a post debt-deflation world,while at the same time pursuing fiscal austerity. Meanwhile inequality continues to worsen--yes, even under Obama-- which means more money chasing risky assets when yields are near zero and going negative. You can't fix this economy with the failed policies of supply-side--cutting regulations and taxes on the top won't generate more business sales. This country needs some dramatic policy changes focused on stimulating consumption, and nothing will generate solid growth until that happens.

 

 

How can any conscious human look at the past seven years and somehow think that pumping more money into the economy is the answer?

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you wish the government would eliminate the free markets and just run everything?

Edited August 29, 2016 by LABillzFan

[TPS]

 

You've had 7 years to see Keynesianism in action with all the stimuli that the government can provide. At first you blamed it on the rebound from a financial crisis because those tend to take longer. But the financial sector recovered quickly, and there certainly hasn't been any shortage of credit to fund growth. But still, the worst recovery ever and the worst growth rates in presidential term in modern times.

 

So your solution is to jump start consumption, even though consumption isn't what's holding real growth back.

 

And if we rewind the clock back to 2009, you may recall some voices sounding concern about the looming change in the regulatory environment, and how the US could turn into a version of Europe where "well-meaning" bureaucrats take control of the steering wheel and stifle growth by imposing greater burdens on starting and growing private enterprises.

 

You may also recall a quote I shared from a CFO of a company in 2009 when he said, anyone would be an idiot to start hiring more people in this environment. That was in the lead up to ACA when people didn't know what was coming and weren't going to take more risks by adding staff. They also figured out they could do 95% of the jobs with 90% of the people, and the rest is history.

 

This is the economy we get now. A massively intrusive regulatory state that's inserting itself into nearly every private transaction because people are too stupid to manage their lives. You get what you deserve when your economic patron saints are Obama, Sanders & Warren.

The share of federal spending is the lowest it's been in almost 15 years, and has been declining since 2010. Total government spending has been declining since 2009, and you'd have to go back to the 1980s to find a lower share of GDP.

"A guy I talked to." You sound like Trump. "People say" ... any data or studies to back it up? The environment at the time also was in the middle of the crisis!

 

As the IMF has shown, countries that pursue greater fiscal contraction over the passed 8 years or so have experienced slower growth. We are not in some supply constrained world, we suffer from insufficient demand associated with the worst level of inequality among the advanced nations.

 

That is quite a revision of what really has been happening. The US has been adding regulations, adding new taxes, pumping money into the system via stimulus measures. You've got all that backwards.

 

The policy prescriptions that it appears you are advocating for is more stimulus. I'm not opposed to "stimulus" per se, but this is hardly a sufficient corrective response to economies that are going through major structural headwinds. The only way to combat structural issues are with structural solutions. Pumping money only temporarily alleviates downturns, with the hopes that it helps kick start recoveries. That is not what is needed, if anything it is just a supplement to real substantive solutions.

 

Innovation at the end of the day will be the key to getting things on the right track. Let's just hope that government regulations don't get in the way from that happening.

I am not advocating short term stimulus. It has been a structural issue associated with household debt. We bailed out the banks and took most of the crap off their balance sheets. Households, on the other hand, have been reducing their debt load since 2007, and consumer spending is what drives the economy. Investment spending by businesses responds to demand. A generation of new households is constrained by student debt, which means low household formation, home ownership, etc. We will experience slow growth until that gets resolved, unless there is some new innovation that helps create a bubble.

 

How can any conscious human look at the past seven years and somehow think that pumping more money into the economy is the answer?

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you wish the government would eliminate the free markets and just run everything?

How do you derive that conclusion? Central banks of the world are telling governments they can't do it alone--pumping money doesn't work when there's insufficient demand.

 

Which nations are practicing fiscal austerity?

The US for one; and the UK has also.

As mention above, Federal spending as a share of GDP is the lowest it's been since 2001/2. In fact, the most fiscally conservative president since 1980? Bill Clinton. Check the numbers.

[GG]

The share of federal spending is the lowest it's been in almost 15 years, and has been declining since 2010. Total government spending has been declining since 2009, and you'd have to go back to the 1980s to find a lower share of GDP.

 

 

Let me guess, you're excluding entitlements out of that number

[TPS]

 

Let me guess, you're excluding entitlements out of that number

Let me guess, you don't know the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending?

If you didn't know, there's this demographic bubble called the baby-boom generation....

[GG]

Let me guess, you don't know the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending?

If you didn't know, there's this demographic bubble called the baby-boom generation....

 

I wonder who said that in the long run we're all dead.

 

Funny how you like to mix on-budget & off-budget receipts when they suit your argument, but suddenly want to parse out discretionary & non-discretionary spending. In the long run, the difference doesn't matter, because the government is taking over an increasingly larger share of output and is squeezing out private enterprise.

 

It's a bit naive to ignore entitlements from the discussion, particularly because there's a demographic time bomb that's ticking down.

[Chef Jim]

 

If you didn't know, there's this demographic bubble called the baby-boom generation....

 

With an even larger generational bubble coming along to prop up this ponzi scheme so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Alaska Darin]

Nice to see TPS is here using his cherry picked statistics to prop up statist policies. Some things never change.