PDA

View Full Version : Obama Has Obama effectively paralyzed the economy?


petegz28
01-22-2010, 09:18 AM
Between health care and now the newly-energized attack on big banks, is Obama putting the economy in a position that it CAN'T grow? I say yes. Why? One word: Confusion.

Helath care put many companies on hold with thier future hiring plans because they had no idea how to adjust their business models for the proposed health care plans. And with the looming threat of the bill being enacted "next week", figuratively speaking, they sat on hold.

That knot may loosen up some now but here comes Obama again with the banks. I would hate to say to try and follow this logic because it doesn't seem logical but try anyway:

1. Fed Gov bails out banks and autos cause we need them for the economy to grow.

2. Fed Gov raises the reserve requirements of banks while at the same time telling them they need to lend more.

3. Obama threatens to tax the largest banks who have already paid back TARP funds but does not threaten to tax GM, GMAC, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This makes no sense to me at all.

4. And now the latest bolt from the Obama quiver, banks can only be so big.

Now, as the old saying goes, if you throw enough shit against the wall some is bound to stick. I think the idea of eliminating private trading desks for investment companies that serve investors is a good idea. I think elminiating any sponsoring of funding or private hedge funds by investment companies is a good idea. Those two things could easily be unraveled while jobs remains intact for the most part.

The problem in a nut shell is Obama is countering his own productive moves, or what were to be productive, with populist and\or far left agenda based moves. You cannot tell banks to lend more while at the same time raising their reserve requirments and threatening new taxes on them. You cannot expect companies to hire more people when health care legislation will potentially grossly change business models of companies.

Point of note: As an incentive to help Hati, Queen Nan-nan has said that any charitable donation made until March this year to help Haiti can be deducted from your 09 taxes. Why is that noteworthy? Because it is more than obvious that they do indeed understand that to provide incentive to spending for one thing or another, tax cuts do the job. Go figure!

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 09:24 AM
It's not just Obama but yes he is part of the problem. Thanks to Ron Paul it's been more difficult for Bernanke to be the Fed Chairman again. He still may get it but he's weakened.
Just don't listen to the same mainstream economists on the left ( especially Krugman the commie) or on the fake right. They're all touting a recovery when it's just another bubble that's developing....the real crash may happen when that busts which it surely will. Be careful and don't overspend or fall for it. This ain't over yet.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:24 AM
Well Duh.

Of course he is. He is a disaster.

talastan
01-22-2010, 09:27 AM
Honestly I see a complete repeat of the Great Depression. When the government started to get involved the economy everything stalled for several years. Obama and the Congress will heavy hand the economy just like FDR and the progressives did in the 30's.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:28 AM
Right now, the jackass is in Ohio, ground zero for unemployment, pushing--- get this--- GREEN JOBS! I shit you not:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNtk-82SRaupk5WfzQ7S8seQQeUA

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:31 AM
Between health care and now the newly-energized attack on big banks, is Obama putting the economy in a position that it CAN'T grow? I say yes. Why? One word: Confusion.

Helath care put many companies on hold with thier future hiring plans because they had no idea how to adjust their business models for the proposed health care plans. And with the looming threat of the bill being enacted "next week", figuratively speaking, they sat on hold.

No, he hasn't. With health care, the trend has been one of companies increasingly cutting their contributions. I don't think health care plays into hiring nearly as much as you. It's a factor but companies are much more likely to hold off on hiring due to economic circumstances of their business instead of health care.


That knot may loosen up some now but here comes Obama again with the banks. I would hate to say to try and follow this logic because it doesn't seem logical but try anyway:

1. Fed Gov bails out banks and autos cause we need them for the economy to grow.

2. Fed Gov raises the reserve requirements of banks while at the same time telling them they need to lend more.

3. Obama threatens to tax the largest banks who have already paid back TARP funds but does not threaten to tax GM, GMAC, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This makes no sense to me at all.

4. And now the latest bolt from the Obama quiver, banks can only be so big.

Now, as the old saying goes, if you throw enough shit against the wall some is bound to stick. I think the idea of eliminating private trading desks for investment companies that serve investors is a good idea. I think elminiating any sponsoring of funding or private hedge funds by investment companies is a good idea. Those two things could easily be unraveled while jobs remains intact for the most part.

The problem in a nut shell is Obama is countering his own productive moves, or what were to be productive, with populist and\or far left agenda based moves. You cannot tell banks to lend more while at the same time raising their reserve requirments and threatening new taxes on them. You cannot expect companies to hire more people when health care legislation will potentially grossly change business models of companies.

Point of note: As an incentive to help Hati, Queen Nan-nan has said that any charitable donation made until March this year to help Haiti can be deducted from your 09 taxes. Why is that noteworthy? Because it is more than obvious that they do indeed understand that to provide incentive to spending for one thing or another, tax cuts do the job. Go figure!

1) The Federal government bailed those entities out because if they would have failed we would have seen a massive increase in unemployment as the autos and all the related industries collapsed. For the banks, they had to be bailed out to prevent a collapse in the global payment system which would have thrown the entire world into a depression.

2) Reserve requirements have been raised so that banks have more cushion. IMO there is a massive fraud going on in the banking industry. These clowns are back to record bonuses on accounting fraud. When FASB removed mark to market accounting these companies had no reason to attempt to value their portfolios fairly. Right now these institutions still have all this crap on their balance sheets the difference between then and now is that they don't have to worry about carrying it at a realistic valuation. The Obama Administration knows this so reserve requirements have been raised to buffer against the real losses that are coming down the pipes.



3) The tax against the banks is a "Too Big To Fail" tax/fee. If these institutions want to continue to be huge institutions that pose very real systemic risks then they should be paying a fee to subsidize their eventual collapse so it doesn't fall on the taxpayers.

4)already discussed this in the other thread.

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:33 AM
Honestly I see a complete repeat of the Great Depression. When the government started to get involved the economy everything stalled for several years. Obama and the Congress will heavy hand the economy just like FDR and the progressives did in the 30's.

You should read more on the Great Depression because that's not how it worked at all.

petegz28
01-22-2010, 09:33 AM
No, he hasn't. With health care, the trend has been one of companies increasingly cutting their contributions. I don't think health care plays into hiring nearly as much as you. It's a factor but companies are much more likely to hold off on hiring due to economic circumstances of their business instead of health care.




1) The Federal government bailed those entities out because if they would have failed we would have seen a massive increase in unemployment as the autos and all the related industries collapsed. For the banks, they had to be bailed out to prevent a collapse in the global payment system which would have thrown the entire world into a depression.

2) Reserve requirements have been raised so that banks have more cushion. IMO there is a massive fraud going on in the banking industry. These clowns are back to record bonuses on accounting fraud. When FASB removed mark to market accounting these companies had no reason to attempt to value their portfolios fairly. Right now these institutions still have all this crap on their balance sheets the difference between then and now is that they don't have to worry about carrying it at a realistic valuation. The Obama Administration knows this so reserve requirements have been raised to buffer against the real losses that are coming down the pipes.



3) The tax against the banks is a "Too Big To Fail" tax/fee. If these institutions want to continue to be huge institutions that pose very real systemic risks then they should be paying a fee to subsidize their eventual collapse so it doesn't fall on the taxpayers.

4)already discussed this in the other thread.

I am not saying that some of those things aren't or don't need to happen. I am saying that Obama is playing both sides of the coin and it is a null end result.

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:37 AM
I am not saying that some of those things aren't or don't need to happen. I am saying that Obama is playing both sides of the coin and it is a null end result.

I think it is way to early to tell whether he's playing both sides of the coin. This latest proposal is a step in the right direction but until this still is passed I'm reserving judgement. I'm very happy to know that Volker hasn't been ignored though and it just took time for him to have an impact on the Obama Administration.

Bwana
01-22-2010, 09:38 AM
Wall street sure doesn't like the bank proposal. Stocks are taking a beating for a third day in a row, in spite of decent earning reports from GE and McDonald's.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:38 AM
Get ready for the double dip:

http://www.businessinsider.com/roach-40-double-dip-22-2010

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:44 AM
Wall street sure doesn't like the bank proposal. Stocks are taking a beating for a third day in a row, in spite of decent earning reports from GE and McDonald's.

Day to day movements are noise. Only ideologues seek to blame people for market movements. Consider the following 5 day chart

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/5-day-dow.gif

Now, look at the bigger trend

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1-year-SP.gif

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:45 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obamashame.jpg

petegz28
01-22-2010, 09:46 AM
The problem simply comes down to one word, JOBS! The fact of the matter is this "recovery" has been based on cost cutting and the absorbing of the Leahmen failure. There are still no jobs being created. And until that happens we are poised for a double-dip. The longer the jobless rate keeps going up the better the chances of the double-dip. But our tone deaf Congress is still wanting to cry about health care.

talastan
01-22-2010, 09:46 AM
You should read more on the Great Depression because that's not how it worked at all.

You have your interpretation of history, I have mine. FDR didn't save us from the Depression, WWII did.

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:46 AM
Wall street sure doesn't like the bank proposal. Stocks are taking a beating for a third day in a row, in spite of decent earning reports from GE and McDonald's.

Also, the reports from GE and McDonald's were decent however unless they have lights out reports much of this is already priced in.

petegz28
01-22-2010, 09:48 AM
Day to day movements are noise. Only ideologues seek to blame people for market movements. Consider the following 5 day chart

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/5-day-dow.gif

Now, look at the bigger trend

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1-year-SP.gif

I've started to take on some short positions. I think in the long, long run we are still heading up but we are out of steam here. IMO.

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:48 AM
You have your interpretation of history, I have mine. FDR didn't save us from the Depression, WWII did.

You don't have an interpretation. What you have is a twisted perspective that is loaded with revisionist history.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:49 AM
You don't have an interpretation. What you have is a twisted perspective that is loaded with revisionist history.

:drool:

talastan
01-22-2010, 09:49 AM
Once the banks start foreclosing on the unemployed, **it is really going to hit the fan.

KC native
01-22-2010, 09:50 AM
I've started to take on some short positions. I think in the long, long run we are still heading up but we are out of steam here. IMO.

Yea, I think we're getting near running out of steam. The market is pricing a return to prior profitability levels and that isn't going to happen. Right now, anything less than outstanding, lights out earning reports is going to send the markets lower.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 09:50 AM
You should read more on the Great Depression because that's not how it worked at all.

This should be interesting. How did it work?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:51 AM
Once the banks start foreclosing on the unemployed, **it is really going to hit the fan.

Yup.

http://dailyreckoning.com/files/2009/12/DRUS12-17-09-9.GIF

talastan
01-22-2010, 09:52 AM
You don't have an interpretation. What you have is a twisted perspective that is loaded with revisionist history.

Its amazing that you say my perspective is "twisted". You can choose to disagree, but is the name calling really necessary? Oh wait that is the tactic you liberals go to when you have nothing to prove your points. Yet again I didn't insult you Mr KC native, I was just saying you see things one way, I see them another. It's all perspective/interpretation.

KC native
01-22-2010, 10:01 AM
Its amazing that you say my perspective is "twisted". You can choose to disagree, but is the name calling really necessary? Oh wait that is the tactic you liberals go to when you have nothing to prove your points. Yet again I didn't insult you Mr KC native, I was just saying you see things one way, I see them another. It's all perspective/interpretation.

Where did I call you a name? Oh, that's right I didn't.

Yes, your perspective is twisted and just about the only people who share it with you are Miserableans and extreme right wingers. The overwhelming majority of people who have studied and written about the Great Depression disagree with you and them. It's annoying when you guys trot out that tired line of revisionist history about FDR and the Great Depression which conveniently ignores that the economy was turning around in 1938 which is a full 3 years before the US became involved with WWII.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:04 AM
blah blah blahYes, your perspective is twisted and just about the only people who share it blah blah blah with you are Miserableans and extreme right wingers. The overwhelming majority of people who have studied and written about the Great Depression blah blah blah disagree with you and them. It's annoying when you guys trot out that tired line of revisionist history about FDR blah blah blah and the Great Depression which conveniently ignores blah blah blah that the economy was turning around in 1938 which is a full 3 years before the US became blah blah blah involved with WWII.

http://www.moonbattery.com/Affirmative%20Action%20Obama.jpg

talastan
01-22-2010, 10:04 AM
Where did I call you a name? Oh, that's right I didn't.

Yes, your perspective is twisted and just about the only people who share it with you are Miserableans and extreme right wingers.

:shake:

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:06 AM
Miserableans

ROFL

petegz28
01-22-2010, 10:06 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/Affirmative%20Action%20Obama.jpg

That seems to be about my take on how he has been approaching things.

KC native
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
:shake:

Wow,:facepalm: Now I'm going to call you a name just so you can claim and be right that I called you a name. You are a schmuck.