patrick.net

Simple to explain:

When the economy does well under a Democratic president, it's because investors are anticipating the return of the Republicans, or because of Republican policies in past administrations.

For example: Rush Limbaugh listeners were telling everyone that Reagan's tax cuts were responsible for the prosperity under Clinton through 2001. And now, after 2 years of tax hikes plus health care regulations which added 10 million to the health insurance rolls, Republicans are taking credit for the improving economy because investors are welcoming the return of Republican Senate control in January, 2015.

Similarly, when the economy does poorly under a Republican, it's because Democrats are "talking down the economy", and because investors are dreading the return of Democrats to power.

Basically, the Reagan tax cuts boosted the economy up to 16 years after the fact, even through the Clinton tax increases, while at the same time mean things said about Republicans can hurt the economy instantaneously. This is the same thinking which allows one to think that BenghaziCare destroyed healthcare in the United States before it took effect.

You cannot make this shit up.

Doh - you just saved conservatives 10 minutes of googling time to find the right answer.

When positive events like the price of oil dropping a lot, coincides with Obama's presidency, it causes a lot of confusion in the GOP echo chamber.

"HEY CAN WE GET SOME BENGHAZI OVER HERE ?"

"REMEMBER, OBAMA AND GRUBER THINKS YOU'RE STUPID !!!!"

"IS HE ON VACATION,...AGAIN ?"

"WHAT COLOR SUIT IS HE WEARING ?"

Lax regulation and rampant financial fraud under W. Bush crashed the economy. A second great depression resulted. Obama picked up the pieces and maintained the status quo, unnecessarily prolonging the aftershocks.

Job growth is one thing. Wages are another. Normalize the new jobs by salaries and I would bet the picture ain't so pretty.

Blurtman says

Obama picked up the pieces and maintained the status quo, unnecessarily prolonging the aftershocks

what "aftershocks" and what should Obama had done differently in 2009-2010?

Bellingham Bill says

Blurtman says

Obama picked up the pieces and maintained the status quo, unnecessarily prolonging the aftershocks

what "aftershocks" and what should Obama had done differently in 2009-2010?

Obama should have let TBTF F. Instead, the banks are even larger, and chipping away at regulations designed to protect J6P.

Obama should have pressed for war crimes trials for W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. Instead these folks are celebrities to some, and Americans get that there is no accountability.

Obama should have pressed for criminal charges against financial criminals. Jeepers, you can even launder drug money for groups that kill American servicemen and not do any time. Americans get that there is no law for some.

He could have been a game changer, but instead, he became Stepin Fetchit. And Mr. Fetchit parlayed obsequiousness into a large fortune, incidentally, as will Mr. Obama.

Blurtman says

Obama should have let TBTF F.

That may be true, although it's hard to put yourself in that chair making that decision at a time when the stock market and housing prices are down something like 40% and employment is experiencing the worst downswing ever.

If he had let the banks fail, we don't know how much worse things would have gotten before getting better or whether it would have possibly taken longer rather than less time. WE also don't know the impact on the rest of the world or on our relative position in it.

The one thing we can be sure of though, is that there would have been even better opportunities for those with a lot of capital to pick up RE, businesses and stocks on the cheap.

YesYNot says

At this point in the Bush years, government employment was up by 1.2 million, but under Mr. Obama it’s down by 600,000. Sure enough, now that this de facto austerity is easing, the economy is perking up."

What do conservatives think about these government employee numbers?

Krugman is dishonest as usual. Care to break up the distribution between states and the federal government?

The states did shrink their sizes due to budget shortfalls, and they can't print money. The same is not true for Federal government.

marcus says

"HEY CAN WE GET SOME BENGHAZI OVER HERE ?"

"REMEMBER, OBAMA AND GRUBER THINKS YOU'RE STUPID !!!!"

"IS HE ON VACATION,...AGAIN ?"

"WHAT COLOR SUIT IS HE WEARING ?"

What about golf?

There's nothing dishonest about it. He didn't say or imply it was federal government jobs. Anyone who is likely to read Krugman's column knows that most of the government spending cuts were local, b/c local governments have to balance their budgets more so than federal. That is why he refers to the austerity as 'de facto.'

The point that I was making is that overall government jobs have decreased. Conservatives think or act like government jobs and spending have increased dramatically under Obama and due to Obama's actions.

YesYNot says

Conservatives think or act like government jobs and spending have increased dramatically under Obama and due to Obama's actions.

The Federal debts did increase quite a bit. Both Bush and Obama are very fiscally liberal. Neither of them is fiscally conservative.
Cheney even said debts don't matter. Obama OTOH, was saying very different things about debt when he was a senator. He was even against raising the debt ceiling.

So, these politicians lied and deceived. I don't see finding "lesser of two evils" is a useful exercise.

marcus says

Blurtman says

Obama should have let TBTF F.

That may be true, although it's hard to put yourself in that chair making that decision at a time when the stock market and housing prices are down something like 40% and employment is experiencing the worst downswing ever.

If he had let the banks fail, we don't know how much worse things would have gotten before getting better or whether it would have possibly taken longer rather than less time. WE also don't know the impact on the rest of the world or on our relative position in it.

The one thing we can be sure of though, is that there would have been even better opportunities for those with a lot of capital to pick up RE, businesses and stocks on the cheap.

That is what leadership is all about, isn't it?

gsr says

So, these politicians lied and deceived. I don't see finding "lesser of two evils" is a useful exercise.

There is a big difference in policies of say an Al Gore versus George Bush or Obama versus McCain/Palin. Are you saying that you think we are so far off course that the republicans and democrats are about the same? If so, what would you want to happen / who do you think would make a good president?

YesYNot says

Are you saying that you think we are so far off course that the republicans and democrats are about the same?

Correct.
We would still have wars. We would still have bubbles like we do right now. We would still have bank bailouts. Remember, glass-Steagall act was repealed under Clinton administration. And this time, we have just insured derivatives through FDIC.

Anyway, we have not seen the end of this administration yet. Remember, we had 4.4% unemployment in 2007. I am sure President Bush thought "mission accomplished".

Corporate profits are sky high and stocks are unaffordable

I'm confused. Here we have democrat cheerleaders seeming to root the same things on, that their saviour Obama campaigned on' fixing'

Actually, I'm fairly certain that I'm not the one confused here

More likely, the thoughtless bores that vote democrat and cheers them, forgot that corporations are evil. That the heritage founsation was public enemy number one. That was all before they were programmed to demand heritage foundation legislation (ppaca) which was designed to maximize revenues for those evil corporations (in the name of giving more people, better healthcare lmao)

YesYNot says

If so, what would you want to happen / who do you think would make a good president?

YesYNot says

YesYNot says

If so, what would you want to happen / who do you think would make a good president?

I already mentioned what I did NOT want to happen. Just apply "!" before the following:

"We would still have wars. We would still have bubbles like we do right now. We would still have bank bailouts. Remember, glass-Steagall act was repealed under Clinton administration. And this time, we have just insured derivatives through FDIC."

Please remember who/what has been driving the stock market today.
From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-01/corporate-bond-sales-in-u-s-surpass-last-year-s-record.html

In most cases, corporations themselves are issuing debts to buy back their own stock. So the sentiment of a "future profit" is all time high.

errc says

More likely, the thoughtless bores that vote democrat and cheers them, forgot
that corporations are evil. That the heritage founsation was public enemy number
one. That was all before they were programmed to demand heritage foundation
legislation (ppaca) which was designed to maximize revenues for those evil
corporations (in the name of giving more people, better healthcare lmao)

ACA will liberate humanity from cardio exercises, there's no need to worry about deseases anymore. The magic cup from indiana jones and the last crusades has been discovered at last and immortality has finally been achieved.

Why do you hate savers??

marcus says

The one thing we can be sure of though, is that there would have been even better opportunities for those with a lot of capital to pick up RE, businesses and stocks on the cheap.

gsr says

I already mentioned what I did NOT want to happen. Just apply "!" before the following

It's easy to point out problems. It's hard to come up with solutions that (1) would work and (2) would make it through the legislative process.

If I had to guess, you are a Ron Paul type, but I'd rather you just speak for yourself than have to guess.

errc says

Corporate profits are sky high and stocks are unaffordable

How are stocks unaffordable? One can always buy fewer shares.

Peter P says

How are stocks unaffordable? One can always buy fewer shares.

He probably means that the price to earnings ratio is high.

YesYNot says

Peter P says

How are stocks unaffordable? One can always buy fewer shares.

He probably means that the price to earnings ratio is high.

But stocks are worth exactly how much the next greater fool is willing to pay. :-)

YesYNot says

It's easy to point out problems. It's hard to come up with solutions that (1) would work and (2) would make it through the legislative process.

But bad solutions went through legislative process quite easily, right? Remember, even Elizabeth warren of your party was against the last spending bill. But since Obama approved it, it must be good.

YesYNot says

If I had to guess, you are a Ron Paul type, but I'd rather you just speak for yourself than have to guess

Kicking can down the road is not a solution. I would be more than happy if Ron Paul is proven wrong and you are right. Unfortunately, I don't see it. You simply cannot solve a debt problem with more debt. You merely have a wishful thinking at the moment.

Peter P says

But stocks are worth exactly how much the next greater fool is willing to pay. :-)

Even better if it is paid with OPM.

Peter P says

But stocks are worth exactly how much the next greater fool is willing to pay. :-)

Despite the half-witty statement, P/E ratios mean a lot.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PE-Ratios-and-Market-Valuation.php

YesYNot says

P/E ratios mean a lot

They mean a lot to people who get paid talking about P/E ratios.

Solar eclipses also mean a lot to people who get paid talking about financial astrology.

Remember, in a Keynesian Beauty Context, even I can win. :-)

P/E ratios aren't important because people talk about them. They are important, because stocks have oscillated about a P/E ratio of 15 for 140 years.

They are important for the same reason that price to rent ratios are important for housing.

YesYNot says

They are important, because stocks have oscillated about a P/E ratio of 15 for 140 years.

If you have infinite patience, by all means.

YesYNot says

They are important for the same reason that price to rent ratios are important for housing.

Definitely not as important as behavioral factors. Home prices appear to have high level of order-flow persistence. Trends, up or down, are more prevalent than mean-reversion.

But of course, price-to-rent ratio is important to housing consumers when they make the buy-versus-rent decision.

Prices do not fall because they are too high. They do so only when new losers fail to show up. Then they will not stop falling until buying resumes.

Peter P says

If you have infinite patience, by all means

Most people who buy stocks are investing in their retirement portfolio using a buy and hold philosophy, whether through individual stocks or funds. Hence, the P/E ratio is important and the expression 'stocks are expensive,' is used to refer to P/E ratios. These people might look for alternative investments when the P/E ratio is high. When the P/E ratio is low, people (should) look to move long term investments into stocks.

Only short term traders don't care about the P/E ratio, and most people don't (shouldn't) short term trade.

marcus says

If he had let the banks fail, we don't know how much worse things would have gotten before getting better or whether it would have possibly taken longer rather than less time. WE also don't know the impact on the rest of the world or on our relative position in it.

What would have happened, is nothing. Bad debt and assets would have been written off, Good debt and assets passed on to less risky institutions and boosted growing businesses who could pick up capital and capital tools for a steep discount, fueling growth.

This highly risky and unusual process that is seldom seen in America is called "Bankruptcy Proceedings".

In fact, beneficial effects would have continued for 20-40 years, once investors and board members of banking institutions realized Uncle Sam Deeppockets wouldn't bail them out in the future, and would invest and manage more conservatively. After that point, you'd get a new generation of MBA jerks who weren't around during the last bankster suicide and would go back to aggressive speculation.

However, US Foreign Influence due to weaker banks would have relatively declined versus the rest of the world, which is not an option for a late stage Merchant Oligarchy.

thunderlips11 says

However, US Foreign Influence due to weaker banks would have relatively declined versus the rest of the world, which is not an option for a late stage Merchant Oligarchy.

Bingo! The TBTF's are an arm of American foreign policy. So we all eat shit so the wonks can strut about and punish those who oppose the new world order.

errc says

which was designed to maximize revenues for those evil corporations (in the name of giving more people, better healthcare lmao

why are you laughing when something is true?

PPACA was the compromise everyone should have gotten behind in 2009, since the right didn't want government doing the insurance part at all. Keeping the complicated state-level exchange system was the left's attempt to meet you fuckheads in the middle.

What Dems wanted was universal health insurance for poor people so tens of millions of people would no longer have to beg for charity or try their luck in the ER, and also premium subsidies for the middle quintiles, paid by rich people in the top 5%.

We liberals got that -- two things the right did not actually want to pay for, which is why the right opposed PPACA when it was going down the ways in 2009-2010.

If we didn't have the conservative opposition controlling the Senate, the left would have passed Pelosi's bill, which did have single payer etc. But that's not how reality was configured in 2009.

gsr says

But bad solutions went through legislative process quite easily, right? Remember, even Elizabeth warren of your party was against the last spending bill. But since Obama approved it, it must be good.

No, there are some battles that cannot be won. In politics, if you're reduced to explaining your vote to your electorate, you've already lost. Warren as a blue state Senator has the luxury of being an opposionist and bomb-thrower.

Obama as CEO of the country has a wider portfolio and has to pick his battles with the GOP.

gsr says

Remember, we had 4.4% unemployment in 2007

shows how the Bush Boom was being funded from unsustainable (+10% pa) consumer credit expansion. When that party ended, the pullback was going to be epic.

I KNEW the crash was coming already in 2007, but the severity of 2H08 surprised, if not utterly stunned, me. Still have PTSD about it, actually.

I don't see anything particularly unsustainable about the current status quo. Deficits are falling, energy is cheap almost, we've got Gen Y arriving into the workforce to take over for their parents this decade and next.

gsr says

I don't see finding "lesser of two evils" is a useful exercise.

It is, since we don't live in Pretend Candy Cane Rainbow CountryLand.

The dominating fact of today's challenges is 30-40% of the country is throroughly bullshitted by rightwing propaganda. Another 30-40% are too apathetic about things to care one way or the other.

gsr says

Krugman is dishonest as usual. Care to break up the distribution between states and the federal government?

The states did shrink their sizes due to budget shortfalls, and they can't print money. The same is not true for Federal government.

FRED says otherwise, Quelle Surprise.

Since the 2011 takeover by the GOP, Federal Employment is down ~150,000.

for the wide-angle view

plus you're forgetting that ARRA had $144B of grant money for states to spend, and all the tax cuts and deficit spending helped keep the lights on in every local economy.

Could the title be: "Evil vs Evil" as in Democrat vs. Republican.
Please be sure to continue to vote Ds or Rs in the next election. It's worked out sooo well.

FMTT