Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Obama, worst president since FDR!

  1. #1
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423

    Default Obama, worst president since FDR!

    Not that it's even remotely surprising to anyone who's been paying any attention at all, mind you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forbes
    The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression
    Peter Ferrara


    The record of President Obama’s first three years in office is in, and nothing that happens now can go back and change that. What that record shows is that President Obama, with his throwback, old-fashioned, 1970s Keynesian economics, has put America through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

    The recession started in December, 2007. Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org) to see the complete history of America’s recessions. What that history reveals is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.

    When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month. His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. Based on the historical record, that recovery was imminent, within a couple of months or so. Despite widespread fear, nothing fundamental had changed to deprive America of the long term, world-leading prosperity it had enjoyed going back 300 years.

    Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930s as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.

    That was the beginning of President Obama’s Rip Van Winkle act, pretending not to know anything that happened over the previous 30 years proving the dramatic, historic success of the new, more modern, supply side economics, which holds that incentives for increased production are what promote economic growth and recovery. Indeed, that Rip Van Winklism pretended not to remember the 1970s either, when double digit inflation and double digit unemployment proved Keynesian economics grievously wrong.

    As should have been long expected, Obama’s trillion dollar Keynesian stimulus did nothing to promote recovery and growth, and almost surely delayed it. That is because borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion back into it does nothing to promote the economy on net. Indeed, it is probably a net drag on the economy, because the private sector spends the money more productively and efficiently than the public sector.

    The National Bureau of Economic Research scored the recession as ending in June, 2009. Yet, today, in the 49th month since the recession started, there has still been no real recovery, like recoveries from previous recessions in America.

    Unemployment actually rose after June, 2009, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December, 2010. Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression, under President Obama’s public policy malpractice. Even today, 49 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed and discouraged workers is still 15.2%. And that doesn’t include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama’s economic oppression. The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at www.shadowstats.com as about 23%, which is depression level unemployment.

    Today, over 4 years since the recession started, there are still almost 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months. Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression.

    Notably, blacks have been suffering another depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 49 months after the recession started, still at 15.8%. Black unemployment has been over 15% for 2 ½ years under Obama. Black teenage unemployment today is over 40%, where it has persisted for over 2 years as well.

    Hispanics have also been suffering a depression under Obama, with unemployment today still in double digits at 11%. Hispanic unemployment has been in double digits for three years under President Obama. Over one fourth of Hispanic youths remain unemployed today, which also has persisted for years.

    The Census Bureau reported in September that more Americans are in poverty today than at any time in the entire history of Census tracking poverty. Americans dependent on food stamps are at an all time high as well.

    Real wages and incomes have been falling so steadily under Obama and his confused, throwback, Keynesian/neo-Marxist Obamanomics, that the Census Bureau also reported that real median family income in America has fallen all the way back to 1996 levels.

    Obama apologists cannot argue that this is because the recession was so bad, because the historical record in America is the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on historical precedent, we should at worst be finishing the second year of a booming recovery by now.

    Compare Obama’s lack of a recovery 2 ½ years after the recession ended with the first 2 ½ years of the Reagan recovery. In those years under Reagan, the American economy created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate fell by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long term decline.

    While Obama crows about 200,000 jobs created last month, the most for a month during his entire Administration, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. Under Obama, we are still almost 6 million jobs below the peak before the recession started over 4 years ago! In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

    The chief excuse of the Obama apologists is that what we have suffered was not just a recession, but a financial crisis, and, they argue, recovery from a financial crisis takes a lot longer than recovery from a recession. But that is not the experience of the American, free market, capitalist economy.

    The experience of the American economy is reported in full at the National Bureau of Economic Research, as cited above – recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously 16 months, and the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. That is the standard by which the performance of Obamanomics is to be judged. Which of those American recessions was a “financial crisis” that breaks the pattern?

    The apologists cite in their support the book, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff. That book “covers sixty-six countries over nearly eight centuries.” It “goes back as far as twelfth century China and medieval Europe.” The data “come from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and Oceania.” The experience from 12th century China, medieval Europe, spendthrift demagogues and socialist economies from Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia, do not set the standard of expectations for post depression, free market, capitalist America over the last 70 years, the most powerful economic engine in the history of the world.

    The data in the book is marshaled to explain why, in fact, “this time is different” is actually always wrong. Seizing upon the data in the book to try to give some sort of pass to Obamanomics for failing the economic performance standards of American history is just political propaganda.

    Indeed, exactly none of President Obama’s policies have been well designed to restore economic recovery and traditional American prosperity. They have consistently been the opposite of everything that Reagan did to end the American decline of the 1970s, and restore booming growth for 25 years. That is why Rush Limbaugh is saying Obama deliberately wants to trash the economy, thinking the resulting dependency will lead a majority to continue to vote for the liberal political machine. President Obama certainly thinks that traditional American, world leading prosperity is morally embarrassing because of the global inequality it represents.

    The American economy will likely show continued, long overdue, signs of life in 2012, which will amount to way too little, way too late, based on historical standards. But even worse than his first term is what Obama is brewing up for 2013 on his current course.

    Most people do not know that already enacted in current law for 2013 are increases in the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. That is because the tax increases of Obamacare become effective that year, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for singles reporting income over $200,000 per year, or couples reporting over $250,000 per year (in other words, the nation’s small businesses, job creators and investors, in plain English).

    As a result, if the Bush tax cuts just expire for these upper income taxpayers, along with the Obamacare taxes, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will jump nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, the tax on corporate dividends will nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax will leap by 62% for those disfavored taxpayers.

    This is on top of the U.S. corporate income tax rate, which is virtually the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%, with state corporate rates taking it close to 40% on average. But even Communist China has a 25% rate. The average rate in the social welfare states of the European Union is less than that. Formerly socialist Canada has a 16.5% rate going down to 15% next year.

    These U.S. corporate tax rates leave American companies uncompetitive in the global economy. Yet under President Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead, he has spent the past year barnstorming the country calling for still further tax increases on American business, large and small, investors, and job creators.

    Higher tax rates mean producers can only keep a smaller percentage of what they produce. So tax rate increases reduce the incentive for productive activities, such as saving, investment, starting businesses, expanding businesses, job creation, entrepreneurship and work, resulting in less of each. And that is what the tax tsunami of 2013 would do, which would once again swamp the weak economy.

    Most small business profits are reported from households earning more than $200,000/$250,000 per year, and those small businesses produce more than half the new jobs. So the 2013 tax tsunami effectively targets small business, and the nation’s job creators. That will hurt working people the most, because they will lose the jobs and the wage income they need to maintain their basic standard of living.

    In addition, the Obama administration is in the process of imposing a blizzard of new regulatory costs and barriers that will be building to a crescendo by 2013 as well. Academic studies estimate the total costs of regulation in the economy to be rapidly rising towards $2 trillion per year, or $8,000 per employee. That is close to 10 times the corporate income tax burden, and double the individual income tax. When the resulting effects on the economy are considered, the total losses due to regulatory burdens may total $3 trillion, or one fifth of our entire economy.

    But by 2013 these regulatory costs will have exploded in unprecedented fashion. That reflects the Obama Administration’s global warming crusade, assault on private energy production, the still oncoming Dodd-Frank regulatory burdens on the financial community, Obamacare regulations, particularly the job killing employer mandate, and many others.

    By 2013, the Fed may be in contractionary mode as well. If history is any guide, the Fed might decide that right after the election would be the perfect time to cut back on its historically loose monetary policy with record low interest rates that have persisted for years. Adding rising interest rates to the above brew of soaring marginal tax rates across the board and exploding regulatory costs would accumulate to a powerful contractionary force.

    Art Laffer predicted the Coming Crash of 2011 on the basis of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the upper income earners alone. Those tax rate increases were extended to 2013 in December, 2010 out of fear that prediction was right. But now in 2013 in addition to those tax rate increases we have all of the tax increases of Obamacare, the further exploding costs of Obama’s building regulatory blizzard, and the possible contractionary effect of the Fed’s monetary policies, all at the same time. Unless we reverse course, the result may well be one big, bad crash in 2013.

    Adding that on top of Obama’s first term, the entire period will look like an historical reenactment of the 1930s. Unless the American people choose to change leadership this year, we will have achieved that result the old fashioned way – we will have earned it.
    Ah, the fruits of socialism... and insert some comment here about repeating history because we failed to learn from our mistakes the first time... or the second time.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  2. #2
    No offense, but that's a pretty terrible analysis. I think there's plenty to critique about Obama and it's fine to disagree with his policies, but the length and depth of the recession has more to do with the characteristics of the crash than the specific policies enacted by Bush and Obama. They both could have acted better (along with Congress, of course), but this was not a garden-variety recession, and to pretend it is is silly.

  3. #3
    I'm less inclined to blame Obama for the length of the recession as I am to blame him for the massive spending that he claimed would significantly improve the economy, which it has not. If you're going to blow trillions of dollars, you better cut the unemployment rate in half.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm less inclined to blame Obama for the length of the recession as I am to blame him for the massive spending that he claimed would significantly improve the economy, which it has not. If you're going to blow trillions of dollars, you better cut the unemployment rate in half.
    To be fair, you'd have to admit Obama relied on a team of advisors, just as all Presidents do. He relied on the same "Economic Experts" from the Bush Administration. Summers, Rubin, Paulson, Geithner....

    Even the academic experts were having arguments about monetary policy, fiscal stimulus, throwing around their theories about freee markets and government oversight or invisible hands. Conflating debts and deficits. Obama got blasted from the left for not "blowing" more stimulus dollars, and blasted from the right for "daring" to intervene at all. He was in a no win situation, apparently.

    The Great Depression took more than a decade to repair, after a total banking meltdown, stock market crash, World War, and restructuring global debts. It's a bit outrageous to expect ANY president to turn today's ship around in less than four years. The changes were global and structural. Cutting today's US unemployment by half should have started decades ago, with leaders anticipating the changing world, and preparing for it. But that takes taxes and expenditures that were seen as investments for the future.

    Our politicians are still not having the right discussion, IMO. Penny wise but pound foolish.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    To be fair, you'd have to admit Obama relied on a team of advisors, just as all Presidents do. He relied on the same "Economic Experts" from the Bush Administration. Summers, Rubin, Paulson, Geithner....
    Uhh? Larry Summers worked for Clinton and Obama, not Bush. Paulson worked for Bush, not Obama. Geithner was technically under Bush as NY Fed, but he only really worked for Obama (the NY Fed presidency is not a president appointed position, it comes from the NY Fed board and such). Rubin worked for Clinton and advised Obama. So, 0 for 4.

  6. #6
    Pardon me, I meant to say "previous" Administrations, including Bush's.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Doesn't take away from the fact that Obama was not acting on the basis of a dead and buried economical theory, but on the basis of present-day anglo-saxon understanding on how the markets work. What Obama is doing is preached on all business channels on a daily basis. Just look at how Germany is being lambasted for not spending enough.
    Congratulations America

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Doesn't take away from the fact that Obama was not acting on the basis of a dead and buried economical theory, but on the basis of present-day anglo-saxon understanding on how the markets work. What Obama is doing is preached on all business channels on a daily basis. Just look at how Germany is being lambasted for not spending enough.
    You mean by talking heads who get paid to lambast anyone in power, regardless of what they do?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You mean by talking heads who get paid to lambast anyone in power, regardless of what they do?
    No, by market 'experts' who tell you in impeccable accent-free english that governments never should cut costs in a weak economy. Especially when Merkel has said something about fiscal responsability again.
    Congratulations America

  10. #10
    See point above. These people are as much "experts" on the economy as engineers are experts in physics.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    See point above. These people are as much "experts" on the economy as engineers are experts in physics.
    Market experts Loki, not academics, but people working for banks as analysts and making 6 figure incomes doing their job. I don't know in which thread I said it, but I think the problem of the US is not that Obama is a socialist or even left-leaning. The problem is that your entire financial sector and those of its previous members that moved over to government duty is ruled by the sort of group think you get when everybody involved basically went to the same select group of schools. Our problem is that they can't think outside of the box. Obama's problem is that he gets blamed for it.
    Congratulations America

  12. #12
    The problem isn't that these people went to the same school; the problem is most of them are mediocre, and make their decisions on the basis of guidance provided by a handful of truly intelligent investors (the Buffets of the world). So it's not so much group think as it is a few individuals having a disproportionate impact on how market events are interpreted by most of the financial sector.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #13
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm less inclined to blame Obama for the length of the recession as I am to blame him for the massive spending that he claimed would significantly improve the economy, which it has not. If you're going to blow trillions of dollars, you better cut the unemployment rate in half.
    And you don't think that pissing trillions of dollars down the drain has lengthened (and worsened) the depression?

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    The Great Depression took more than a decade to repair,
    Right, which should have been a sufficient clue that socialism and discredited Keynesian lunacy wouldn't help this time either. But doing the same thing that didn't work last time and expecting a different result is truly brilliant leadership when it's an articulate negroid doing it, I hear.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    And you don't think that pissing trillions of dollars down the drain has lengthened (and worsened) the depression?
    Government spending money does create income, which provides an immediate benefit, but it also undermines confidence in the long-term state of the economy, which makes private firms less likely to invest. In the short term, the former effect is probably marginally larger, but it's certainly not worth the long-term cost. The stimulus probably increased the duration of economic malaise, but we'd be starting from a higher unemployment/lower growth point without it, which makes it hard to tell where we'd be now without it. Of course Obama didn't exactly sell the stimulus as "we'll keep unemployment 2% lower for 2 years in exchange for preventing a strong economy for several additional years, along with massive long-term uncertainty".
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Loki making fun of "certain" experts, huh. People are so busy criticizing Obama, using the stimulus and bail-outs as political weapons.... instead of asking how and why we got here. It didn't happen overnight, but took decades of bad policy, short term myopia, plus Greenspan (shocked! I found a flaw in my theory!) and Bernanke. Bush has made himself absent since he left office, and for good reason. He'd kill any Republican he endorsed. It's hard to turn around those 8 years of spending, 2 wars, bleeding 700,000 jobs a month in just 3 years, no matter who'd been his replacement. Even though Obama continued the stimulus plans and Federal Reserve/Treasury started by Bush, and house control changed hands in '08, it's easy to blame Obama because he's there.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Right, which should have been a sufficient clue that socialism and discredited Keynesian lunacy wouldn't help this time either. But doing the same thing that didn't work last time and expecting a different result is truly brilliant leadership when it's an articulate negroid doing it, I hear.
    Actually, the length of the Great Depression had a lot more to do with monetary policy than fiscal policy - countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier had shorter recessions, and in general monetary policy was far too timid and an enormous failure in the 30s. There were other issues - FDR raised taxes just when a recovery was finally getting underway, which was a big problem - but I'm not sure that the New Deal did that much to hinder (or, frankly, that much to help) the length and depth of the Depression.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Actually, the length of the Great Depression had a lot more to do with monetary policy than fiscal policy - countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier had shorter recessions, and in general monetary policy was far too timid and an enormous failure in the 30s. There were other issues - FDR raised taxes just when a recovery was finally getting underway, which was a big problem - but I'm not sure that the New Deal did that much to hinder (or, frankly, that much to help) the length and depth of the Depression.
    You forgot to mention that the Fed was pursuing an incredibly contractionary monetary policy, including by buying up vast quantities of pound sterling.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    ...which was tied into trade flows and being stuck on the gold standards. It was all a connected mess. The Fed failed big time.

  19. #19
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Actually, the length of the Great Depression had a lot more to do with monetary policy than fiscal policy - countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier had shorter recessions, and in general monetary policy was far too timid and an enormous failure in the 30s. There were other issues - FDR raised taxes just when a recovery was finally getting underway, which was a big problem - but I'm not sure that the New Deal did that much to hinder (or, frankly, that much to help) the length and depth of the Depression.
    Well, America lucked out big time in that we got astronomically huge sums of money to help Europeans kill each other, and thus managed to avoid being bankrupted by the "New Deal" through what really amounts to sheer dumb luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The Fed failed big time.
    A concise history of the organization, right there. A series of unmitigated failures interrupted only by big unmitigated failures.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    A concise history of the organization, right there. A series of unmitigated failures interrupted only by big unmitigated failures.
    Why do you want to be a citizen of this failed country? Canada is looking pretty good.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  21. #21
    Obama apologists cannot argue that this is because the recession was so bad, because the historical record in America is the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on historical precedent, we should at worst be finishing the second year of a booming recovery by now.
    This is where Mr. Peter Ferrara lost me.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    A concise history of the organization, right there. A series of unmitigated failures interrupted only by big unmitigated failures.
    No, they wised up in the late 70s/early 80s. They haven't had a perfect track record since then, but they've gotten the basic idea at least.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    No, they wised up in the late 70s/early 80s. They haven't had a perfect track record since then, but they've gotten the basic idea at least.
    Do you mean Volcker? He was criticized for raising interest rates during really bad times (Carter years) that led to massive farm foreclosures and bankruptcy, with big Ag buying up land very cheap and dominating the industry. I'm old enough to remember the Farm Aid concerts, interest rates on mortgages at 18%, and credit cards charging such high interest rates they were tax deductible.

    Yes, it brought down inflation eventually, but with it came all sorts of policy changes and subsidies for farmers. I recall Bob Dole and senate doing something to connect "welfare" and foodstamp programs to benefit farmers at that time (gov't cheese anyone?), but it's a little fuzzy right now and I need more coffee.

  24. #24
    Volcker ended stagflation and began the Great Moderation. I'd chalk that up as a success.

    I'm not impressed with uncompetitive farms.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Volcker ended stagflation and began the Great Moderation. I'd chalk that up as a success.

    I'm not impressed with uncompetitive farms.
    True, the Volcker Fed began the end of stagflation...by raising interest rates. That made debt less appealing, and saving more profitable. That's when savings accounts offered 6% interest---and little kids like me could start a passbook savings account, and others could start a Christmas savings account---and learn the value of compounded interest and the value of savings.

    I'm not impressed by today's banks that offer less than 1% compounded interest for savers, or banks that prefer borrowers over depositors. That's just another way of monetizing debt, using fancy financial products that only benefit the banks/bankers. Private profits with social losses.

  26. #26
    Oh, please, we've been through this before. Rates are very low, yes, but so is inflation (and, I'm afraid, growth). Expecting a good spread over inflation on cash investments is unreasonable and you know it. I doubt the spread was ever much, and most of the time it was negative. It just happened to be that in the late 70s/early 80s inflation was rampant, justifying high savings rates.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Volcker ended stagflation and began the Great Moderation. I'd chalk that up as a success.

    I'm not impressed with uncompetitive farms.
    Because the government at the time was some combination of idiotic and incompetent.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    True, the Volcker Fed began the end of stagflation...by raising interest rates. That made debt less appealing, and saving more profitable. That's when savings accounts offered 6% interest---and little kids like me could start a passbook savings account, and others could start a Christmas savings account---and learn the value of compounded interest and the value of savings.

    I'm not impressed by today's banks that offer less than 1% compounded interest for savers, or banks that prefer borrowers over depositors. That's just another way of monetizing debt, using fancy financial products that only benefit the banks/bankers. Private profits with social losses.
    I'd like you to reconcile your anti-job creation views (which is what a low interest rate does) with your claim to care about job creation. We both know you won't though.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Oh, please, we've been through this before. Rates are very low, yes, but so is inflation (and, I'm afraid, growth). Expecting a good spread over inflation on cash investments is unreasonable and you know it. I doubt the spread was ever much, and most of the time it was negative. It just happened to be that in the late 70s/early 80s inflation was rampant, justifying high savings rates.
    I was agreeing that Volcker was more successful than Bernanke today, or Greenspan years before. But that was before the housing bubble and financial crisis, partly created by cheap Fed money for banks and investment firms.

    No, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cash deposits to gain more than 1% interest! The basic foundation of plain vanilla banking should still exist: where banks reward depositors/savers by borrowing other peoples' money, and make their profits by lending to others at slightly higher rates. The Fed's low rates only help the banks and bank-holding firms, who can make just as much profit by buying treasuries instead of making loans from deposits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'd like you to reconcile your anti-job creation views (which is what a low interest rate does) with your claim to care about job creation. We both know you won't though.
    Excuse me? I'm not anti-job creation. But I am questioning the Fed's monetary policy, with their dual mandate for containing inflation and "full employment" (less than 5% unemployment). If nearly 0 interest for the Fed window "created jobs"....we would have millions more by now.

  29. #29
    We probably lost millions fewer than would be the case if the interest rate was significantly higher.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    We probably lost millions fewer than would be the case if the interest rate was significantly higher.
    I'd like you to reconcile the Fed's monetary policy the last decade, with jobs. Connect the dots between 'cheap' central bank monies used by banks/mortgage lenders/investment/re-insurance firms, the housing bubble, the financial crisis, and unemployment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •