PDA

View Full Version : Economics Who is to blame for the economy?


banyon
03-31-2009, 06:48 PM
U.S. voters don't blame Obama for economy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033100055.html

Tuesday, March 31, 2009; 1:45 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama benefits from a broadly held perception that others bear the bulk of responsibility for state of the U.S. economy, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Tuesday.

Asked who was responsible for the economic meltdown, 80 percent in the poll blamed banks, financial institutions and corporations. Some 70 percent also blamed consumers for taking on too much debt and the former Bush administration for lax regulation. Only 26 percent said the Obama administration was not doing enough to turn the situation around.

Two-thirds of respondents approve of the way Obama is handling the presidency, and 60 percent approve of the way he is handling the economy.

Sixty-four percent said were confident Obama's policies will improve the economy, down from 72 percent just before he took office in January.


Forty two percent said the country was now heading in the right direction, a five-year high. Late last year, when then-President George W. Bush was in its final months, as many as nine in 10 American said the country was heading in the wrong direction.

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Thursday through Sunday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

(Reporting by Alan Elsner, editing by Alan Elsner)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_033109.html

7. How much blame do you think [ITEM] deserve(s) for the country's economic situation - a great deal, a good amount, only some or hardly any?
3/29/09 - Summary Table

a. Banks and other financial institutions, for taking unnecessary risks
b. The Bush administration, for inadequate regulation of the financial industry
c. Large business corporations, for poor management decisions
d. Consumers, for taking on too much debt
e. The Obama administration, for not doing enough to turn the economy around

--Grt deal/gd amt- ----Some/hardly any/none----
Great Good Only Hardly None No
NET deal amt NET some any (vol.) opinion
a. Banks 80 56 24 19 15 4 * 1
b. Bush 70 47 23 29 21 7 1 2
c. Business 80 57 23 19 14 5 1 1
d. Consumers 72 39 33 28 20 7 * *
e. Obama 26 13 13 72 27 39 6 2

SNR
03-31-2009, 06:57 PM
Well no fucking shit. How can they blame someone who took power in the middle of it all?

mlyonsd
03-31-2009, 06:57 PM
I don't think I know anybody that blames Obama for the current economy.

Things could change in a year or so though.

Hopefully congress kills his idiotic cap and trade idea. Otherwise watch out for the public to turn on him quickly.

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 06:58 PM
Obama owns Afghanistan, and GM now. We will see how those two expeditions fair out.

wild1
03-31-2009, 07:08 PM
The country has made a bigger monetary investment in him already than all other presidents combined. He owns it.

Saul Good
03-31-2009, 07:12 PM
Only 26 percent said the Obama administration was not doing enough to turn the situation around.

That's an interesting way to word the survey. I don't think that he's not doing enough. I think he's doing way too much, and what he's doing is exacerbating the damage and prolonging the problems.

If I have an ant problem, and the exterminator burns down my house, I might blame him for a lot of things, but I certainly couldn't fault him for not doing enough.

***SPRAYER
03-31-2009, 07:42 PM
The country has made a bigger monetary investment in him already than all other presidents combined. He owns it.

The guy is a friggin' scumbag.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 07:52 PM
Lemme see?

Bush inherited Clinton's recession ( 'er market correction or bust ) and used a Keynesian inflationary schtick. And Clinton inherited Bush senior's recession who inherited RR's recession who inherited Carter's recession who inherited Nixon's recession.

The wonder ball, goes round and round
To pass it quickly, you are bound
If you’re the one, to hold it last
The game for you has surely past, and you are out
O-U-T spells OUT!

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 07:54 PM
The Glorious Free Market is teaching us a lessson! Pray to the Glorious Free Market! Ask for forgiveness! We must sacrifice a virgin to the Glorious Free Market! We must do what will please Her!

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 07:54 PM
The Glorious Free Market is teaching us a lessson! Pray to the Glorious Free Market! Ask for forgiveness! We must sacrifice a virgin to the Glorious Free Market! We must do what will please Her!

We don't have a free market. We have a mixed economy that is mercantilist, fascist and socialist with some free-markets mixed in.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 07:55 PM
The Glorious Free Market is calling! Release me from your bonds of humanity, She screams! We must release Her!

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 07:56 PM
I'm so sorry Glorious Free Market! I must sacrifice my family for You!

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 07:58 PM
I'm so sorry Glorious Free Market! I must sacrifice my family for You!

Hosanna
Hosanna
Hosanna in the highest

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:00 PM
Glory to MARKETS in the highest
and on earth prosperity to people who work hard
We praise you
We bless you
We adore you
We glorify you
We give thanks to you for your great glory

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 08:04 PM
A message from the Glorious Free Market: The Glorious Free Market anxiously awaits when the bonds of democracy and human dignity are released from Her grip and Plutocracy and Monopoly becomes celebrated once again.

Dave Lane
03-31-2009, 08:07 PM
Obama! He's the debbil you know!

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 08:09 PM
And a Marxist!

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:10 PM
Bush! He's the debbil you know!

FYP

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:10 PM
And a Marxist!

yes, that too. NTTAWWT with you right?

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:12 PM
A message from the Glorious Free Market: The Glorious Free Market anxiously awaits when the CHAINS of democracy and human dignity are released from Her grip and Plutocracy and Monopoly becomes celebrated once again.

We're not a democracy. Free markets don't lead to plutocracy. Mercantilism and socialism do that. Monopoly is a creature of govt not the market.

Jenson71
03-31-2009, 08:14 PM
OOOOOooohhhhh

petegz28
03-31-2009, 08:15 PM
We don't have a free market. We have a mixed economy that is mercantilist, fascist and socialist with some free-markets mixed in.

Where do you get mercantilist from? We are far from that in my opinion. Mercantilsim represents things like "protectionsim" and would champion things like the Gold Standard.

petegz28
03-31-2009, 08:16 PM
We're not a democracy. Free markets don't lead to plutocracy. Mercantilism and socialism do that. Monopoly is a creature of govt not the market.

Modern-day plutocracy has been acheived via the current oligarchy we have going.

Again, we are not mercantilist.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:19 PM
Where do you get mercantilist from? We are far from that in my opinion. Mercantilsim represents things like "protectionsim" and would champion things like the Gold Standard.

The protectionist part true but not the gold standard per se. But we do have protectionism despite the phoney "free trade" label. In fact Bush was pretty protectionist. Take a look at the steel industry. And our free trade agreements, including NAFTA have loads of protectionism in them too. They're really mercantilist set ups for politically connected corporations. The also socialize losses and are free trade on profits. There's your mercantilism right there. Free trade my arse! They're managed trade that benefit's certain corps.

I get it from reading free-market economic's books that cut through the bull.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:22 PM
Modern-day plutocracy has been acheived via the current oligarchy we have going.

Again, we are not mercantilist.

Ah, well I didn't say we were I said we were a mixed economy ...and that includes mercantilism. We live in Hamilton's America with an intermarriage of Marx via Lord Keynese who was connected to the privileged. These guys love socialism because it prevents capital accumulation via savings which could lead to competition in their markets.

Sorry but you're wrong on the mercantilism.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:23 PM
OOOOOooohhhhh

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! :)

Amnorix
03-31-2009, 08:23 PM
Ah, well I didn't say we were I said we were a mixed economy ...and that includes mercantilism. We live in Hamilton's America with an intermarriage of Marx via Lord Keynese who was connected to the privileged. These guys love socialism because it prevents capital accumulation via savings which could lead to competition in their markets.

Sorry but you're wrong on the mercantilism.

:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 08:24 PM
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

petegz28
03-31-2009, 08:37 PM
The protectionist part true but not the gold standard per se. But we do have protectionism despite the phoney "free trade" label. In fact Bush was pretty protectionist. Take a look at the steel industry. And our free trade agreements, including NAFTA have loads of protectionism in them too. They're really mercantilist set ups for politically connected corporations. The also socialize losses and are free trade on profits. There's your mercantilism right there. Free trade my arse! They're managed trade that benefit's certain corps.

I get it from reading free-market economic's books that cut through the bull.


I never said we were "free trade" based. Just not mercantilistic. If anything we are a Socialist country specializing in global socialism as a gift from the Oligarchs.

Dave Lane
03-31-2009, 08:43 PM
I never said we were "free trade" based. Just not mercantilistic. If anything we are a Socialist country specializing in global socialism as a gift from the Oligarchs.

I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more external affairs.

petegz28
03-31-2009, 08:50 PM
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more external affairs.

Ok, use short-bus words for me here...WTF is a "anarcho-syndicalist commune"?

headsnap
03-31-2009, 09:34 PM
Ok, use short-bus words for me here...WTF is a "anarcho-syndicalist commune"?

here are two shorter words: Monty Python



;)

KILLER_CLOWN
03-31-2009, 10:27 PM
Wall street 100%, if it's good for wall street it's bad for main street and vice versa. Too bad most do not see Barky for what he is, a puppet of derivatives brokers same as Bush.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 06:52 AM
I never said we were "free trade" based. Just not mercantilistic. If anything we are a Socialist country specializing in global socialism as a gift from the Oligarchs.

I didn't say you said we were free trade either. I just added that to this idea that our so called "free-trade" agreements are actually free trade when they're not because they have features of mercantilism and socialism in them.

Hamilton's system became the American system of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures


Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" laid forth economic principles rooted in both the Mercantilist System of Elizabeth I's England and the practices of Jean-Baptiste Colbert of France.

Hamilton's ideas formed the basis for the American School of economics.

Please note his subsidies to industries in that link too. Now it is wiki and it has some omissions( it's a brief explanation) because Hammy did favor a high tariff.


American School (economics)
Roots
Hamilton's ideas and three Reports to Congress formed the philosophical basis of the American School.

The American School of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, who in his Report on Manufactures, argued that the U.S. could not become fully independent until it was self-sufficient in all necessary economic products. Hamilton rooted this economic system, in part, in the successive regimes of Colbert's France and Elizabeth I's England, while rejecting the harsher aspects of mercantilism, such as seeking colonies for markets. [not sure about the latter point because that can be done without colonies]

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 06:56 AM
Post #99 on Hamilton

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205052&page=7

In case you don't read it I'll excerpt this:

As Yale University social scientist William Graham Sumner said: " [Hamilton ] was completely befogged in the mists of mercantilism."


Hamilton also wanted a parliamentary system like the British too. He admired the British system. Amnorix is an advocate for a parliamentary system too.
Amnorix is a classic Hamiltonian on economics/domestic. ( not on FP)

petegz28
04-01-2009, 07:48 AM
Post #99 on Hamilton

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=205052&page=7

In case you don't read it I'll excerpt this:

As Yale University social scientist William Graham Sumner said: " [Hamilton ] was completely befogged in the mists of mercantilism."


Hamilton also wanted a parliamentary system like the British too. He admired the British system. Amnorix is an advocate for a parliamentary system too.
Amnorix is a classic Hamiltonian on economics/domestic. ( not on FP)

Yea, ok. But this is the 21st century.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Yea, ok. But this is the 21st century.

So. Those features remain as part of our mixed system. In fact, the Lincoln administration was the resurgence of the Federalist/Whig/Mercantilist system. It ebbed and flowed before then but after that was a permanent feature in our mixed system. In fact a good argument can be made that is enables socialist policies. Even Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln Jan 28, 1865 praising him. Marx admired Lincoln's governing.

Obama is giving subsidies to the larger corporations and banks. That's the same thing as Hamilton...and Bush and other Republicans...the party of Lincoln.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7NMJKeg4qBQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7NMJKeg4qBQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
04-01-2009, 08:04 AM
So. Those features remain as part of our mixed system. A lot of it is the same things as now. In fact, the Lincoln administration was the resurgence of the Federalist/Whig/Mercantilist system. It ebbed and flowed before then but after that was a permanent feature in our mixed system. In fact a good argument can be made that is enables our socialist aspects. In fact, Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln Jan 28, 1865 praising him. Marx admired Lincoln's governing.

Obama is giving subsidies to the larger corporations and banks. That's the same thing.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7NMJKeg4qBQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7NMJKeg4qBQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sweetie, we have a record trade deficit. We are a consumption based economy rather than a manufacturing based. We are not mercantilist. We may have a small thread here and there but that is it, a small thread. We have shipped out more jobs than anyone ever imagined. We hand out welfare around the world, including to the Oligarchs that run this country and they take it and run overseas with it. Sorry, I just keep seeing you use the word "mercantilist" and it just does not apply anymore, imo.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 08:43 AM
Sweetie, we have a record trade deficit. We are a consumption based economy rather than a manufacturing based. We are not mercantilist. We may have a small thread here and there but that is it, a small thread. We have shipped out more jobs than anyone ever imagined. We hand out welfare around the world, including to the Oligarchs that run this country and they take it and run overseas with it. Sorry, I just keep seeing you use the word "mercantilist" and it just does not apply anymore, imo.

Oh, I agree with all of that. But it's being commanded by wealthy mercantilist interests for a empire of trade that suits their interests. It's just a mixed economy of mercantilism/socialism/fascism on a global scale instead of on a national level.

petegz28
04-01-2009, 08:47 AM
Oh, I agree with all of that. But it's being commanded by wealthy mercantilist interests for a empire of trade that suits their interests. It's just a mixed economy of mercantilism/socialism/fascism on a global scale instead of on a national level.

No it is not. Mercantilism implies protectionism. We are nothing of the sort any more. We have more illegal immigrant\imported\exported labor that it is rediculous.

You cannot have Mercantilism on a global scale. That is sort of self-defeating.

We have a globalsim-capitalist based economy controlled by an oligarchy that has no problems subscribing to corporate welfare to insulate them from the rest of the poor\wroking class.

Garcia Bronco
04-01-2009, 08:56 AM
I don't think anyone blames Obama for the economic metldown. I mean you could look at his voting record in congress, and he wrote zero bills. But the response in the wake of his election has been less than favorable and with the flood gates open from his radical leftist members in congress he has been terrible. He has no plan. This is why his approval rating has dropped 10 points in two months, and why his disapproval rating has gone up 20 points.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 08:58 AM
No it is not. Mercantilism implies protectionism. We are nothing of the sort any more. We have more illegal immigrant\imported\exported labor that it is rediculous.
I said we had a mixed system. How many times do I have to say it? I also said there's protectionism buried in those international trade agreements earlier—for the interests you claim are an oligarchy as opposed to being on a national basis. Bush has actually been a protectionist president too.

You cannot have Mercantilism on a global scale. That is sort of self-defeating.
Not if it's mixed. Not if you don't read the details of the trade agreements. My point is the same interests behind Hamilton are the ones pushing the form of globalization we're getting too.

We have a globalsim-capitalist based economy controlled by an oligarchy that has no problems subscribing to corporate welfare to insulate them from the rest of the poor\wroking class.
See above.



Oh, I really hate to be a nitpicker over spelling but it's "ridiculous". I just keep seeing it spelled wrong regularly enough to not think it's a typo. Not just you but others.

Rigodan
04-01-2009, 09:05 AM
How is congress not an option on this poll? They deregulated it during the Clinton administration and then voted down tougher regulations several times during Bush's administration. I'd say congress and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac have the most to blame and they are even listed.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:08 AM
How is congress not an option on this poll? They deregulated it during the Clinton administration and then voted down tougher regulations several times during Bush's administration. I'd say congress and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac have the most to blame and they are even listed.

Actually, they re-regulated different things. So even if they removed some regs, newer regs were added. Besides, where was the SEC? Govt can't regulate effectively either. Glass-Stegall made sense within the system we had, but GS doesn't make sense in a non-fractional reserve 100% deposit, no FDIC, central banking system. They didn't do it right. You can't take the bumper off a volskwagon and put it on a Mercedes. It doesn't work.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:51 AM
Ultimately it is the fault of the American people individually. The majority of us allow the the government to educate us and our children poorly. We choose to jump on the treadmill of consumer debt, forever chasing the latest disposable gizmo or gadget. We place our lives in the hands of government and then want to act surprised when power hungry control freaks are drawn to government office.

The list goes on and on.

Velvet_Jones
04-01-2009, 10:32 AM
How is congress not an option on this poll? They deregulated it during the Clinton administration and then voted down tougher regulations several times during Bush's administration. I'd say congress and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac have the most to blame and they are even listed.

This can't be the cause. jAZ and Banyon told me so.

banyon
04-01-2009, 07:32 PM
Actually, they re-regulated different things. So even if they removed some regs, newer regs were added. Besides, where was the SEC? Govt can't regulate effectively either. Glass-Stegall made sense within the system we had, but GS doesn't make sense in a non-fractional reserve 100% deposit, no FDIC, central banking system. They didn't do it right. You can't take the bumper off a volskwagon and put it on a Mercedes. It doesn't work.

Yeah, but the NEW regulations involved less oversight and less strict requirements. To anyone with common sense, that's DE-regulation.

banyon
04-01-2009, 07:33 PM
Oh, I agree with all of that. But it's being commanded by wealthy mercantilist interests for a empire of trade that suits their interests. It's just a mixed economy of mercantilism/socialism/fascism on a global scale instead of on a national level.

I think this is a pretty paradigmatic exemplar here.

It's just terrible that you really think all of these things are the same thing, but that pretty well explains most of your posts.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:28 PM
Did you say something?

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:34 PM
Did you say something?

I think this is like the 100th time you've said this to me. Do I get a door prize or something?

KC native
04-01-2009, 10:55 PM
Actually, they re-regulated different things. So even if they removed some regs, newer regs were added. Besides, where was the SEC? Govt can't regulate effectively either. Glass-Stegall made sense within the system we had, but GS doesn't make sense in a non-fractional reserve 100% deposit, no FDIC, central banking system. They didn't do it right. You can't take the bumper off a volskwagon and put it on a Mercedes. It doesn't work.

I know I won't get an answer to this question but I'm going to ask anyways. Exactly what did they re-regulate? You are talking out of your ass again.

Another quibble I have with your economic idiocies. How are banks supposed to lend money if they have to have a 100% deposit coverage? If a bank must keep all deposits covered then they wouldn't be able to lend any money at all which would mean that the economy wouldn't grow.

Der Flöprer
04-01-2009, 10:59 PM
The guy is a friggin' scumbag.

LMAO Almost straight out of Monty Python.