cinepro wrote:Do keep in mind that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under the Clinton administration, and that was a factor in laying the groundwork for the bubble and crash.
Sure. I considered mentioning the previous decades of deregulating, but I was specifically talking about not laying all the blame on W.
The debt is a problem, but I don't think it's as big a problem as you say.
Dick Cheney certainly didn't think there was a problem when he the veep. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. But it has now suddenly become a huge problem with a Democratic president in office, even to the point of pursuing large spending cuts at exactly the time when we needed to spend more in an effort to stimulate the economy.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
krose wrote:Sure. I considered mentioning the previous decades of deregulating, but I was specifically talking about not laying all the blame on W.
The debt is a problem, but I don't think it's as big a problem as you say.
Dick Cheney certainly didn't think there was a problem when he the veep. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. But it has now suddenly become a huge problem with a Democratic president in office, even to the point of pursuing large spending cuts at exactly the time when we needed to spend more in an effort to stimulate the economy.
The debt mattered to me when the GOP racked up trillions in debt during the Bush years. I'm an American first, a Republican second, and it's foolish for anyone to say deficits don't matter. Someone has to pay for our spending sprees, and despite what some people say, we can't just keep printing more money.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Brackite wrote:If the Polices of Ronald Reagan were so bad for the Economy, than why did the Unemployment rate dropped from 10.8% in November of 1982 to 7.3% in September of 1984?? Why did Ronald Reagan win re-election in a landslide in November of 1984??
so can we infer from your comments that if a president brings the unemployment rate down a couple of points from where it stands at the midway point of his/her presidency, then that president is good for the economy and deserves to win reelection in a landslide?
Bob Loblaw wrote:I think it's ludicrous to blame a president for unemployment. It might make sense if he were a autocratic dictator, but he's not. And, in case people don't realize this, our economy does not exist in a vacuum. We've been in a global recession, and one cannot pin the blame for that on a single president, whether it's Bush or Obama.
Kevin Graham wrote:[And yet, that is basically the entire theme of the Republican argument this election season.
As it was for the democrats in 1992..."Its the economy stupid..."
As it is for Barak Obama for his entire presidency. " It's all George Bush's fault."
Bob Loblaw wrote:I'm far more concerned about long-term debt, which ought to scare the bejeezus out of Americans. We have far more debt per capita than any country.
not to minimize the problem (which is real), but let's not exaggerate -- saying we have far more debt per capita than any country is meaningless since we also have a far larger GDP than any other country.
Bob Loblaw wrote:I second Brackite's question: Which Reagan policies made things worse, and how did they make things worse?
i'm not going to argue whether it was good policy or not, but economists all seem to agree that Volcker's rapid raising of interest rates (with Reagan's blessing) was a primary cause of the sharp 1981-82 recession.
in general, i agree with you that presidents and congresses don't have much impact on the economic cycle, but this would be one of those cases where there was a clear impact. other cases i would point to would be NAFTA, 1990s banking & telecom deregularion, the Iraq War, and Obama's stimulus act (again, i'm not arguing that any of these were good or bad policy, whatever their immediate impact)
Kevin Graham wrote:But what you keep ignoring is the fact that the "Carter recession" was really nothing compared to the economic collapse of 2008. As the stats show, the economy had already started turning around for the better before Reagan even got settled in, whereas Obama came into office when unemployment was literally falling off the cliff with no sign of improvement in sight. After the economy started improving under Reagan, unemployment then jumped four percentage points upwards and stayed above 10% for 13 months before it started to gradually go back down.
The average rate of unemployment under Reagan's first term is still higher than that of Obama's first term. Something you folks on the Right conveniently ignore.
I am not an economist. But I did live through the Carter recession as well as the early Reagan years. I was a young adult in the late 70s and married starting a family 81-84. I often wonder how one determines whether this past economic crisis was worse than the During Carter early Reagan. But the tone was pretty bad then. Manufacturing was hammered. The US Steel industry basically shut its doors. The auto industry was decimated. Chrysler went under but cut deal under Lee Iacocca for a rescue. There was a lot of pain. It lasted for some time as well. The term stagflation-high inflation and high unemployment, became popular. During this recession inflation ran 18% or more. Mortgage rates were double digit. You could get 15% on a money market fund. Personally as I have reflected on this I and I keep hearing that this recent crisis is the worst one since the great depression but I am skeptical that it was any worse and maybe not as bad as the late 70s and early 80s.
Jason Bourne wrote:As it is for Barak Obama for his entire presidency. " It's all George Bush's fault."
As I said earlier, neither president had a significant hand in the downturn, but Bush certainly had a larger one (deregulation, etc.).
In fact I'm having a hard time identifying an Obama action that increased unemployment, or something he should have done (and could have done, given the dogged dedication of the opposition) during the last three years that would have made the economy better.
If you can tell me, please do. As it is, I don't see a valid reason to assess any blame at all to the current administration.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
Kevin Graham wrote:Because the only downside to deficit spending is the potential for inflation, which just isn't happening.
Other downsides are a risk of default, a weakening dollar, inability to pay entitlements, a downgrade of our credit ratintg which increases interest on borrowings.
Kevin Graham wrote:You're not really suggesting our debt could lead to the same problems Spain and Greece are facing, are you? We issue our own currency, they don't. That's the difference. They literally have to go out and borrow money using currency provided by the EU. We don't. Contrary to popular myth, we don't go beg China to lend us money. Too many people make the mistake of thinking our Federal budget is something like a household budget.
Sure I agree. We can print our own money. We can monetize or inflate our way out of our debt. I am sure our creditors will love that as will you when you are 65 and your $1 million dollar 401k's purchasing power drops by 50% over a few year period. Now there is a plan.