How can any economist approve of Obama's economic plan? Even the hardest of hardcore Keynesians in the 1980s were saying that government debt (at a measly $1 trillion or so) and expansion of the money supply was going to seriously hurt the economy. Now we're backed into a corner where we'll have to monetize the trillions in losses from the various burst bubbles that we "fixed" over the years. When the currency bubble bursts (and all bubbles must burst) we're screwed.

Paul Krugman posted a lolcat in his NYTimes blog. I am unable to ever take him seriously again.

Why is that a "difficulty"? Krugman has been a strong critic of Geithner from Day 1.

eqtworld: I am pretty sure the word "asset" was used in place of "liability" at least 5 times in that article.

unfortunately the "assets" ended up being "liabilities" in reality

ScubaDude1960: How can any economist approve of Obama's economic plan? Even the hardest of hardcore Keynesians in the 1980s were saying that government debt (at a measly $1 trillion or so) and expansion of the money supply was going to seriously hurt the economy. Now we're backed into a corner where we'll have to monetize the trillions in losses from the various burst bubbles that we "fixed" over the years. When the currency bubble bursts (and all bubbles must burst) we're screwed.

Apparently, you have no idea what Paul Krugman's position is. He wants to spend *more* money on the stimulus, not less. He's been saying that from day one.

boxster: ScubaDude1960: How can any economist approve of Obama's economic plan? Even the hardest of hardcore Keynesians in the 1980s were saying that government debt (at a measly $1 trillion or so) and expansion of the money supply was going to seriously hurt the economy. Now we're backed into a corner where we'll have to monetize the trillions in losses from the various burst bubbles that we "fixed" over the years. When the currency bubble bursts (and all bubbles must burst) we're screwed.

Apparently, you have no idea what Paul Krugman's position is. He wants to spend *more* money on the stimulus, not less. He's been saying that from day one.

This.

Here's an economist diasapproving Obama's economic plans. Difficulty: It's Paul Krugman

What's his take on spelling?

/Won't make sense if the admins change the headline

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

No seriously, WTF?!?!....

Honestly though, how is it even possible that some sad little Republicans can say Obama's ecomomic plan is going to destroy the country after the quantitatively bizarre things Bush Jr did?

Sour grapes, much?


No seriously....PERSPECTIVE PEOPLE....Just let it go.

Is this a big surprise? Did anyone actually think the Obama administration had a clue?

The money we deposit in a bank is listed as its liabilities. They must be willing to pay that money back at any time - hence they are liable for it.

The stuff the bank invests in are its assets.

Even if those assets go bad, they are still called assets.

So the usage is correct.

eqtworld: Hobodeluxe: eqtworld: I am pretty sure the word "asset" was used in place of "liability" at least 5 times in that article.

unfortunately the "assets" ended up being "liabilities" in reality

yup. The wording is "buying up assets" but in reality we are "funding/paying off liabilities"

No offense, but if you took a single accounting class you'd know the difference.

Rickmansworth: Is this a big surprise? Did anyone actually think the Obama administration had a clue?

So what part of Krugman's analysis and commentary did you most agree with?

Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem

How fitting, since Obama is essentially a con(fidence)-man.

Yeah, three months now and we can see that Obama is ruining Bush's legacy of peace, prosperity, and low deficits.

I think Krugman's description of the issues with the Bush-Bama response to the crash makes logical sense, but I don't agree with his proposed solution (nationalization). However, like most of us I would certainly lose in a reasoned debate with any credentialed economist. My disagreement is probably mostly philosophical, a result of my recently discredited far-right opinions regarding financial markets.

/at least I've got honesty!

DJanomaly: WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

No seriously, WTF?!?!....

Honestly though, how is it even possible that some sad little Republicans can say Obama's ecomomic plan is going to destroy the country after the quantitatively bizarre things Bush Jr did?

Sour grapes, much?


No seriously....PERSPECTIVE PEOPLE....Just let it go.

How about this....they both suck. Bush increased govt. spending more than even Clinton and Obama is just spending the money in different places...and much more money. But only time will tell.

boxster: Apparently, you have no idea what Paul Krugman's position is. He wants to spend *more* money on the stimulus, not less. He's been saying that from day one.

Exactly.

These people don't even know what "Keynesian" means, but they'll throw it around, anyway.

Also, watch for them to yet again run around with their hair on fire trying to convince people that what is literally corporate welfare in its purest form is somehow "Socialism".

I do NOT like this plan. Not one bit. If the government is going to spend that much money equivalent to that much of the company's worth, it should be nationalized, stabilized, and sold off. Period.

But if they started doing that, you'd have the Santelli wing on Wall Street doing their equivalent of rioting in the streets: they would do everything they could to sabotage any attempt at nationalization or stabilization, even if it's temporary. The stock market would most likely implode due to infighting and partially-manufactured panic.

So yeah, Obama and Geithner are farking screwed no matter what they do. The investor class and the financial elite want hand outs hand outs hand outs, and no responsibility to reform their organizations in return. And unless they get that they will almost literally hold the stock markets hostage.

It's easy to say "let 'em fail" if you're sitting on mounds of cash or hard assets. For the rest of the country, not so much.

Fine, give the job to Paul Volcker then.

Krugman is an intelligent economist, but he needs to consider politics as well as economics.

If Obama actually seized failing banks instead of bailing them out, we'd be hearing about "liberals nationalizing banks" from now until the end of farking time.

And realistically, even with Dems in both houses, that's asking a lot to pass a bill like that.

Krugman makes some great points, but he also demonstrates that he is fundamentally an economist and not a political scientist, as he fails to demonstrate how his proposal would pass muster in congress.

Rahm Emanuel said it well (new window):

"They have never worked the legislative process," Emanuel said of critics like the Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued that Obama's concessions to Senate Republicans-in particular, the tax cuts, which will do little to stimulate the economy-produced a package that wasn't large enough to respond to the magnitude of the recession. "How many bills has he passed?"

"Now, my view is that Krugman as an economist is not wrong. But in the art of the possible, of the deal, he is wrong. He couldn't get his legislation."

The stimulus bill was essentially held hostage to the whims of Collins, Snowe, and Specter, but if Al Franken, the apparent winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race, had been seated in Washington, and if Ted Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, had been regularly available to vote, the White House would have needed only one Republican to pass the measure. "No disrespect to Paul Krugman," Emanuel went on, "but has he figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?" (Franken's victory is the subject of an ongoing court challenge by his opponent, Norm Coleman, which the national Republican Party has been happy to help finance.) "Write a farking column on how to seat the son of a biatch. I would be fascinated with that column. O.K.?" Emanuel stood up theatrically and gestured toward his seat with open palms. "Anytime they want, they can have it," he said of those who are critical of his legislative strategies. "I give them my chair."

Now Krugman will get respect from the right? They've been bashing him for months but if he disagrees with Obama, I guess he's A-OK! Farking yobs.

Any economist who isn't a disciple of Milton Friedman just isn't worth listening to.

Though is there a single economist outside of the Fed or Treasury who actually approves of Obama's plan? I can't think of any.

Everything Obama's done is undoubtedly a controversial gamble, but I fail to see how the alternatives offered up by his opponents are better. Most of his critics oppose him on ideological or partisan grounds, even when they do offer up actual alternatives they're based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

We're in a tough spot, there's no simple solutions or magic bullets. Nothing is going to take us back where we were before. Just get used to it. If McCain had won, nothing would be substantially different, just a few names would have changed.

Sum Dum Gai: If Obama actually seized failing banks instead of bailing them out, we'd be hearing about "liberals nationalizing banks" from now until the end of farking time.

Well, I think he actually mentioned that:

"Actually, that's not quite it: the Obama administration has apparently made the judgment that there would be a public outcry if it announced a straightforward plan along these lines"

'tho I think he should have used a more accurate word than "public". It's not like Joe and Jane on the street are gonna be pissed that we're taking over and selling off failed banks, they might even get a schadenfreude kick out of it.

It's the financial elite, their ideological allies, and their apparatchiks in the media who will revolt against the idea, screaming that the sky will fall and that we'll all be speaking French/Cantonese by the end of the year.

NYZooMan: Stupidity redacted

Yor parents, they were like, heavy LSD & alcohol & crystal meth abusers, right?

Sum Dum Gai: And realistically, even with Dems in both houses, that's asking a lot to pass a bill like that.

You wouldn't have to, really. FDIC and Treas. have sufficient powers. They can just demand an impossibly high reserve ratio and force them under.

It would be incredibly dangerous, and probably stupid, but they could do it if they wanted.

I have a feeling both Summers and Volcker would do this program differently. My theory that they had any say at Treas. is shot to hell with this one.

boxster: ScubaDude1960: How can any economist approve of Obama's economic plan? Even the hardest of hardcore Keynesians in the 1980s were saying that government debt (at a measly $1 trillion or so) and expansion of the money supply was going to seriously hurt the economy. Now we're backed into a corner where we'll have to monetize the trillions in losses from the various burst bubbles that we "fixed" over the years. When the currency bubble bursts (and all bubbles must burst) we're screwed.

Apparently, you have no idea what Paul Krugman's position is. He wants to spend *more* money on the stimulus, not less. He's been saying that from day one.

Yes. I understand Mr. Krugman's position. That's why I wrote what I wrote. They're pouring money into the banking system, basically moving the burst banking bubble into the money supply. When the money bubble bursts, there will be no way to prop up the mess they made any more.

eqtworld: I am pretty sure the word "asset" was used in place of "liability" at least 5 times in that article.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. these toxic mortgages that the banks own are 'assets' in accounting terms no matter who shiatty they are and how much money you lose off of them. the liability is the money the banks borrowed to buy the asset. i.e. deposits, since the bank must pay back people's deposits, that is a liability. and they used that liability to purchase their shiatty 'assets'

Unfortunately, Obama isn't going far enough, because he's still trying to "compromise" and find a solution that will at least partially satisfy the asshats who will find cause to hate him no matter what he does.

Obama's plan is not Keynesian. It might be closer to Keynes than the Reaganomics, Friedmanlicious, supply-side orgy of the last decade, that's about it.

Beyond the housing bubble of the oughts, beyond the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of '99, our current economic crisis has been building as a result of the last thirty years of trickle-down bullshiat, the popularity of the Friedman school and the rise of Reagan and the modern Republican party and how it has influenced the current political scene (including the modern Democratic party).

Half of the country is getting its panties in a bunch over economic policy that would have been seen as moderate before the 80's, and don't come anywhere close to FDR's reaction to the Great Depression (which, admittedly, was more dire than this situation, so far). The slightest move toward nationalization, the slightest murmur of raising taxes to the levels they were before Bush's 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut orgy in '01 (and not even coming close to the top levels under Reagan), the slightest possibility of tightening regulations on any industry, and the Reagan-Friedman worshippers scream (literally) and cry (literally) hold inexplicable "tea parties" to protest it. From an economic policy perspective, the pendulum insanely far to the right, to the point that any genuinely Keynesian approach to the crisis is met with calls for insurrection.

Krugman's complaint with this policy can be summed up with this snipped from TFA, and I'm inclined to agree:

Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan? Because it's not new; it's just another version of an idea that keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. It's basically a thinly disguised version of the same plan Henry Paulson announced way back in September.

TeddyBallGame: Now Krugman will get respect from the right? They've been bashing him for months but if he disagrees with Obama, I guess he's A-OK! Farking yobs.

Straw man?

Its not that he gets more or less respect from Republicans, rather when his expert supporters turn against him, it weakens his argument and credibility.

ScubaDude1960: Even the hardest of hardcore Keynesians in the 1980s were saying that government debt (at a measly $1 trillion or so) and expansion of the money supply was going to seriously hurt the economy.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Semi-Sane: Any economist who isn't a disciple of Milton Friedman just isn't worth listening to.

Though is there a single economist outside of the Fed or Treasury who actually approves of Obama's plan? I can't think of any.

Man, you must be stupid to not be able to use google. 58% of economists polled approve of Obama's plan.

I mean, it must suck, being that dumb, and what's worse, being PROUD of it. A FINE American Conservative!

At the time of stimulus bill we were told there wasnt a moment to spare and that we must act now eventhough the effects of the stimulus, we were told, would take an year or more. Why the hurry then? On the immediate issue of credit squeeze they have taken weeks to do nothing except sending confusing messages and making contradictory statements.

Tomorrow, Rahm Emmanuel is going to lie on his tax return just to keep the economy off the news.

NYZooMan: Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem

How fitting, since Obama is essentially a con(fidence)-man.

You know, I was neutral when Bush got elected. I gave him a chance. Even after 9/11, until he did the stupid thing in Tora Bora in letting the locals fight OBL and letting him get away, I supported him and gave him a chance (though disagreeing with this and that. My wife does NOT forgive me for supporting him, mind you)

YOU, on the other hand, came on full retard swinging like an 8-year old trying to fight the big bully who holds you off at arms length laughing at you. You didn't give him the slightest chance, and you launched into stupid mode from day -1. So I am glad you are so angry and pissed off (or having so much fun as a gay troll). Perhaps you'll have a synapse pop and that will return you to sanity or at the very least coherence.

I know you are a big fat troll, but I really don't give a crap: you are an idiot either way and you really deserve every last bit of disgust, ridicule and scorn from us adults here.

Bloody William: Unfortunately, Obama isn't going far enough, because he's still trying to "compromise" and find a solution that will at least partially satisfy the asshats who will find cause to hate him no matter what he does.

Bingo. Though, given that the pendulum is where it is, there's probably some limits on how fast he can move.

But I think he does need to come to terms with the fact that there are hordes out there whom he will NEVER satisfy. Time to come to terms with that and move on.

/as it were

ghare: Man, you must be stupid to not be able to use google. 58% of economists polled approve of Obama's plan.

They unquestioningly believe whatever their talker idiots tell them. Its the only way they can have any self-esteem at all. Thats all they really have left. The country has voted them out and rejected their ideology. Half of their major leaders are in legal trouble. The only function left for talk radio is a support group for those clinging to the last vestiges of a movement.

They are like Japanese found stranded alone on an island years after WWII ended still training to fight the war that has been over for a long time.

Its pathetic, actually.

I defy anyone to try and actually read a single chapter of any one of Keynes's book on money wealth and employment. It's not harry farking potter lemme tellyas.

Krugs wants Obama to spend EVEN more money, I know, I know, anathema to republicans who can sit contentedly and watch a president let billions disappear down a no-bid contract rabbit-hole, so long as they know that at least the man at the top getting paid is also elephantine in idealogical persuasion.

Really though, you submitter, fool not me in least, I know the game, and obstruction is the tune. It's going to hurt, but you are going to have to spend the next three years and nine months gritting your hypocritical teeth in rage as you biatch about free-speech zones, tax hikes, a birth certificate, tea parties, france, socialism, Ayn rand, and every other trick that you can possibly think of to distract those of us who have not forgotten how this country was hijacked by machiavellian millionaires who have to stop themselves from fapping in public to fantasies of our country being thrown into a permanent police state run by the very mega-corporation whom they chair.

But if you want those tax cuts for the rich again, by all means, enjoy your second and third job you need to take in order to pay your bills. That is if you haven't already been made redundant. I am going support those who want to close the income gap, not seek to widen it. You know shoe-shine boy used to be a respected profession, maybe some of you ought to stop sucking on sour grapes, moisten your tongues and get ready for your master Hannity's cowboy boots.

Palin/Hannity 2012garble

Phil Herup: Relax. I'm putting all the eggs we got in one basket.


BOO!

Hehehehe, only a libertarian would be naive enough to think they can "understand economics" by reading one book that tells them mostly what they want to hear.

Farking Hazlitt...

Prospero424: Hehehehe, only a libertarian would be naive enough to think they can "understand economics" by reading one book that tells them mostly what they want to hear.

Farking Hazlitt...

That book is HUGELY popular amongst homeschoolers.

We can always print more money right?
That will solve everything.

Hick: We can always print more money right?
That will solve everything.

That's not even remotely what's going on.

hawtsautz:

Yeah, three months now and we can see that Obama is ruining Bush's legacy of peace, prosperity, and low deficits.

Well done, old sport.
*golfy farking clap*

/you forgot "jump suit diplomacy"

PC LOAD LETTER: NYZooMan: Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem

How fitting, since Obama is essentially a con(fidence)-man.

You know, I was neutral when Bush got elected. I gave him a chance. Even after 9/11, until he did the stupid thing in Tora Bora in letting the locals fight OBL and letting him get away, I supported him and gave him a chance (though disagreeing with this and that. My wife does NOT forgive me for supporting him, mind you)

YOU, on the other hand, came on full retard swinging like an 8-year old trying to fight the big bully who holds you off at arms length laughing at you. You didn't give him the slightest chance, and you launched into stupid mode from day -1. So I am glad you are so angry and pissed off (or having so much fun as a gay troll). Perhaps you'll have a synapse pop and that will return you to sanity or at the very least coherence.

I know you are a big fat troll, but I really don't give a crap: you are an idiot either way and you really deserve every last bit of disgust, ridicule and scorn from us adults here.

Look at his history, FOOL!

He's a con-man.

But diss anyone who raises your stupid Obot feathers, asshole.

Personal attack flaming douchebag!

Go to your room and finish your homework little schoolboy!

HAHA!

itazurakko: That book is HUGELY popular amongst homeschoolers.

God, I don't doubt it. Seems tailor made for those who don't want to go through all that trouble of actually reading about the history of western economics, but want to get straight to the "good stuff" that reinforces their ideology without really making them learn anything new.

It's hilarious how 3/4 of this thread is about how republicans are shaping fiscal policy coming from the White House, and that this somehow explains why Obama's plan looks just like Bush's.

The reality is that Obama doesn't want to nationalize banks or allow them to fail, so he has no choice but to follow the same path as Bush. And he probably just doesn't have a better idea.

Most conservatives oppose pork and spending on govt programs disguised as stimulus, but they are not all opposed to nationalizing banks as a temporary measure.

Personally I don't like this plan precisely because it looks too much like Bush/Paulson II. The idea that this is required to appease a repub minority, after a stimulus bill was railroaded past them, seems more than a little silly. I'd like to see Geithner and Obama allow more banks to fail without absorbing so many assets that have gone bad. the combination of massive bailouts and massive deficit spending on other things raises the possibility of a terrible disaster. I sense hubris coming out of the white house when they saying the CBO's estimates and predictions for the debt burden are not reliable.

Then again, a lot of fans of Krugman have the same problem. I like the guy, but a lot of his stuff is fluff.

I like how some states are dealing with all this, by making moves to get back to gold & silver just in time for the fiat dollar's total collapse.