Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Republicans love to mock Carter for this speech but these days they're saying that the economic problems we currently face are "psychological" and that people who are out of work or aren't finding their pay going as far as it needs to are "whiners."

The only "top Republican" I've seen actually say its psychological was one guy that Senator McCain quickly threw under the bus.

However, I'm eager to know if other people here think its just mental.  That the fact the American GDP barely grew in past half year, and that the economy has lost jobs for the past 6 months is just in people's heads.

His speech really dealt with the practical aspects of energy availability to the nation, and the future costs of simply buying energy instead of investing in it.

He's Vice Chairman of UBS. He'll come begging like the rest when the time comes.

I can't believe it's been 29 years.

Tallgeese wrote:

Republicans love to mock Carter for this speech but these days they're saying that the economic problems we currently face are "psychological" and that people who are out of work or aren't finding their pay going as far as it needs to are "whiners."

Damn poor people. The least they could do is stand back and not disturb my 20 course $100 meal.

It makes one wonder what the economy would be like if it weren't based on debt.

I just can't believe so many people are letting partisan loyalty influence their judgement on whether this is a recession or not.

As in, "Bush is doing just fine, there is no recession."

OR

"Republican policy sucks, just look at this recession."

Presidents and their administrations have little influence on the economy in the short term, good or bad.

Clinton didn't make this mess, and neither did Bush. I don't expect Obama to be the one who makes it better or worse. The main reason I prefer him to McCain is that his foreign policy would be a huge improvement. The Clinton campaign had the famous motto, "It's the economy, stupid." But the main innovation there was to convince people you care deeply about their problems. Not much was done (not much could be done in the first year of an administration), and big surprise the economy recovered on its own.

Further, anyone with an ounce of perspective should be amazed that the mess isn't much worse. I'm still waiting for these cheap houses to come on the market.

To answer Jake's question, in the sense that there are huge wealth losses, it's not mental. In the sense that this is crushing the economy at the macro level, it is mental, or at least premature. It simply hasn't happened yet. The signals are mixed. It would be nice to see an ideology-free discussion of actual macro conditions.

Tallgeese wrote:

No, I mean if it weren't based on people carrying credit card balances and using home equity loans for quick cash.

... which is a rational thing to do when rates are pushed down. And how are rates pushed? By pumping more dollars into the banking system.

See 2001-2003 in the link:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

sturner wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Republicans love to mock Carter for this speech but these days they're saying that the economic problems we currently face are "psychological" and that people who are out of work or aren't finding their pay going as far as it needs to are "whiners."

Damn poor people. The least they could do is stand back and not disturb my 20 course $100 meal.

Those must be pretty small courses.

freecat wrote:

I just can't believe so many people are letting partisan loyalty influence their judgement on whether this is a recession or not.

As in, "Bush is doing just fine, there is no recession."

OR

"Republican policy sucks, just look at this recession."

Presidents and their administrations have little influence on the economy in the short term, good or bad.

Clinton didn't make this mess, and neither did Bush. I don't expect Obama to be the one who makes it better or worse. The main reason I prefer him to McCain is that his foreign policy would be a huge improvement. The Clinton campaign had the famous motto, "It's the economy, stupid." But the main innovation there was to convince people you care deeply about their problems. Not much was done (not much could be done in the first year of an administration), and big surprise the economy recovered on its own.

Further, anyone with an ounce of perspective should be amazed that the mess isn't much worse. I'm still waiting for these cheap houses to come on the market.

No, it wasn't Clinton or Bush's fault - completely. Presidents and their administrations have certain effects on the economy. This mess started with Carter and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Shrub all continued the deregulation and blind eye to the blatantly faulty practices that the banks were doing. Anyone with an ounce of sense saw that not only was the subprime lending an untenable practice but that the debt trading going on with the financial institutions behind the scenes was only going to make a bad situation disastrous.

Then there's the effect that oil prices are having on the economy. That's also a bipartisan failure of leadership. Reagan and Bush had no desire to reduce our petroleum dependence. Clinton probably didn't either. Gore saw the impending crisis but instead we elected someone who not only didn't see it coming but failed to boost alternative energy programs when the crisis was obvious.

No, the President can't control the job market or the stock market. I don't think we'd all be happy and wealthy if we elected a Democrat instead of a Dunce but past and current presidents could have made decisions that would have mitigated our current situation.

What does the gold standard have to do with anything?

freecat wrote:

Presidents and their administrations have little influence on the economy in the short term, good or bad.

Clinton didn't make this mess, and neither did Bush. I don't expect Obama to be the one who makes it better or worse. The main reason I prefer him to McCain is that his foreign policy would be a huge improvement. The Clinton campaign had the famous motto, "It's the economy, stupid." But the main innovation there was to convince people you care deeply about their problems. Not much was done (not much could be done in the first year of an administration), and big surprise the economy recovered on its own.

Further, anyone with an ounce of perspective should be amazed that the mess isn't much worse. I'm still waiting for these cheap houses to come on the market.

I would argue that the deficit didn't help things out; but more the regulation, and the piss-poor, moral-hazard filled measures being taken now are having a dramatic effect on the economy.


Finally, I think the mess is that bad, it just takes time for it to "trickle down" to consumers.