A Different View of the Economy

#3
#3
therealUT said:
The question is though, in this day where political campaigning is, for the majority, summed up in thirty second video clips, how do you enlighten the voting public?
Click to expand...

I think a start would be more even-handed or objective headlines. Most people are smart enough to cut through the crap but the constant drumbeat of a negative message is harder to ignore.
 
#4
#4
It would be hard to. Saying good things about the economy makes the candidate appear as if he is not "in touch". It would go completely into how rich McCain is, of course he does not see anything wrong with the economy.
 
#5
#5
allvol123 said:
It would be hard to. Saying good things about the economy makes the candidate appear as if he is not "in touch". It would go completely into how rich McCain is, of course he does not see anything wrong with the economy.
Click to expand...

I more concerned with the media - I expect candidates to frame issues in a way that helps them.

I wish the media would do it's homework better but I suppose we keep buying it so they keep selling it.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
I more concerned with the media - I expect candidates to frame issues in a way that helps them.

I wish the media would do it's homework better but I suppose we keep buying it so they keep selling it.
Click to expand...

Of course. But you think every candidate gets a fair even handed deal from the mass media?
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
I think a start would be more even-handed or objective headlines. Most people are smart enough to cut through the crap but the constant drumbeat of a negative message is harder to ignore.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The ads are tailor-made for the American public and their attention span. They need their 30sec commercials and McNews to tell them how/what to think. What % of voters will spend an adequate amount of time learning about the differences between the candidates (not that there are that many)?
 
#8
#8
utvolpj said:
I disagree. The ads are tailor-made for the American public and their attention span. They need their 30sec commercials and McNews to tell them how/what to think. What % of voters will spend an adequate amount of time learning about the differences between the candidates (not that there are that many)?
Click to expand...

I think vinbham was referring more to the voting public.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
The guy is a McCain advisor so take it for what it's worth but there are some interesting facts included.

washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

I have some problems with that article. First, the oft quoted 3.4 percent gdp growth relies on a more or less unrealistic gdp deflator number as outlined in a recent edition of Barrons. There's a site shadowstats.com which outlines a "bear" case for alternative calculations for all of these macro stats. Of course, it's as prone to spin as anything else, but they do try to use formulas that BLS used before various revisions and "hedonic" accounting techniques were introduced to make the numbers more palatable.

As far as the mortgage situation, that could be a total wipe out becuase of the amount of leverage the lending institions were carrying. It doesn't take a large drop in asset prices to wipe out institutions equity under those circumstances -- as we're seeing. So a small number of loans in default doesn't necessarily guarantee that everything's fine in general.

Of course, if you want to extend the time line out far enough, I'd say everything's fine, no worries, too.
 
#10
#10
kptvol said:
I think vinbham was referring more to the voting public.
Click to expand...

so was I (unless I missed his point entirely). I believe the vast majority of US voters are uninformed when they walk into the voting booth. They've made their mind up based on the short ads and soundbites the media puts out for them.
 
#11
#11
I actually disagree with the article in general. Certain segments are accurate, but if you think all the bearish economic and financial analysts are that way because BO made certain claims, that's just not true. Maybe he coined an inappropriate phrase about comparing this to the Great Depression -- I will agree that this is over the top. However, on the flip side the numbers and comparison used in this article are also misleading. He talks about bank closures and number of home foreclosures as if they are in line with historical trends. He seems to cherry pick the data here though -- ex: using number of banks vs. total dollar value and bank size.

1) We've had the largest bank failure in U.S. history (IndyMac);
2) the largest servicer of mortgages in the U.S. (Countrywide) had to be bought to avoid bankruptcy;
3) Bear Stearns, for all intents and purposes, failed;
4) Lehman is filing for bankruptcy (largest in history);
5) Merrill and Wachovia are in a bad state of affairs;
6) Unemployment and jobless claims are rising (more important that it's actual current figure);


The sheer size of banks on the watch list is what is staggering. The nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is not a small issue -- these companies are enormous. So yes, we can talk about shutting down around 100 small banks or we can start talking about some of our largest financial institutions shuttering their doors. There is a big difference.

I'm not saying we are as bad as it's been since the Great Depression, but on the flip side I'd argue this article is a little misleading in choosing it's supporting arguments.
 
#12
#12
The entire issue has been driven by the massive overvaluation of homes that happened over much of the decade. Unrealistic rates with the scramble to originate anything is coming home to roost. Unfortunately, all of our lenders, large and small, are firmly imbedded in the mortgage market. They're going to take their licks, likely come under new ownership and move on. The current equity holders in many of those large entities are going to get the short end of the equity equation, but the profitability of the businesses will entice new investors and they will become the new equity.

It's essentially a sale at the bottom of the cycle instead of the top.
 
#13
#13
VolByBirth said:
I'm not saying we are as bad as it's been since the Great Depression, but on the flip side I'd argue this article is a little misleading in choosing it's supporting arguments.
Click to expand...

That's the irony no? The point is how continual referrals to the Great Depression distort the view of the current condition of the economy but to make the point, the author uses some facts out of context.

Overall, it makes the larger point that we don't get the objective reporting about the economy that we should.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
That's the irony no? The point is how continual referrals to the Great Depression distort the view of the current condition of the economy but to make the point, the author uses some facts out of context.

Overall, it makes the larger point that we don't get the objective reporting about the economy that we should.
Click to expand...

Yep. I guess I could have actually stated that instead of just inferring it. :p
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
That's the irony no? The point is how continual referrals to the Great Depression distort the view of the current condition of the economy but to make the point, the author uses some facts out of context.

Overall, it makes the larger point that we don't get the objective reporting about the economy that we should.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no. The point of the article is that you can't say that the economy is bad because there are just "trouble spots in the economy," and things "aren't that bad." Heck, the title is "Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line." :banghead2:

It is pretty clear that the purpose of this article is not to say that we need to use accurate language to describe the economy, not what amount to metaphors, but to try and take the economy out of play in the election by saying it's not that bad. If you believe that its not bad right now, I have some land to sell you. :mf_surrender:
Will it get better, most likely. Will tax cuts, irresponsible fiscal policy, and conservative economics gone off the rails get us there. No. :salute:

The banks aren't the only ones who can't pay their debts. Americans owe $943.5 billion in credit card debt. The banks got two bailouts this year. One this month, and one when the tax rebates came out. Are individuals responsible for their own debt? Sure, but it hurts all of us in the long run. This is a time bomb waiting to explode. Simple math shows that 943.5 billion equates to over three thousand dollars in C.C. debt for every man, woman, AND child in the US. When after 9/11 Bush told Americans that their duty to their country was to continue to consume, it was hardly patriotism, and hardly responsible economics. Sometime the chicken will come home to roost.
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
=cibai;1616547
Will it get better, most likely. Will tax cuts, irresponsible fiscal policy, and conservative economics gone off the rails get us there. No.
Click to expand...

will socialism and government programs get us there? no.
 
#19
#19
cibai said:
Simple math shows that 943.5 billion equates to over three thousand dollars in C.C. debt for every man, woman, AND child in the US. When after 9/11 Bush told Americans that their duty to their country was to continue to consume, it was hardly patriotism, and hardly responsible economics. Sometime the chicken will come home to roost.
Click to expand...

are you seriously blaming personal CC debt on GWB? Unless he said "go spend money you don't have since your CC is clearly an extension of your paycheck" then I don't see how it's his fault people are stupid.
 
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
are you seriously blaming personal CC debt on GWB? Unless he said "go spend money you don't have since your CC is clearly an extension of your paycheck" then I don't see how it's his fault people are stupid.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that I am "seriously blaming personal CC debt on GWB?"

It's a little thing called NUANCE. :)

There is a difference between saying one is to blame, and saying one is complicit. What I am saying is that when you support deregulation, a free market, and make speeches equating patriotic duty and consumer consumption, you support both idiots and banks making bad decisions. It is funny how we call people who make bad financial decisions with money they don't have idiots (hint: that is code in class warfare for "undeserving poor"), but when CEOs do it, they are rewarded with golden parachutes. That is the bankruptcy of conservative free market economics. I will take my chances with starting with the assumption that people have a responsibility for each other, rather than the assumption that if we give all the breaks to the rich then they will know what to do with it and it will in the long run help the poor. :birgits_giggle:
 
#21
#21
cibai said:
That is a broad brush you got there MG! :eek:hmy:
That pesky New Deal, what a failure.
Click to expand...
I don't know how well you know American History, but that pesky little New Deal was a colossal failure without WWII. WWII made was a strong enough force to overcome the disastrous policies of the New Deal in the short run, so FDR's actions get great acclaim today. However, our disastrous and growing welfare state can trace its footsteps right back to FDR and many of our overburdensome social policies can be laid at his feet.

What FDR did right is get us into WWII, which pushed us to become the industrial and technological leaders in the world. That success has greatly overshadowed all of his socialist efforts.
 
#22
#22
cibai said:
It is funny how we call people who make bad financial decisions with money they don't have idiots (hint: that is code in class warfare for "undeserving poor"), but when CEOs do it, they are rewarded with golden parachutes.

CEOs do fail to suffer from the damage they cause - on that I agree with you.

That is the bankruptcy of conservative free market economics. I will take my chances with starting with the assumption that people have a responsibility for each other, rather than the assumption that if we give all the breaks to the rich then they will know what to do with it and it will in the long run help the poor. :birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

At the risk of you calling my argument BS or weak, what do you consider to be the bankruptcy of government-controlled economics?
 
#23
#23
cibai said:
Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that I am "seriously blaming personal CC debt on GWB?"

It's a little thing called NUANCE. :)

There is a difference between saying one is to blame, and saying one is complicit. What I am saying is that when you support deregulation, a free market, and make speeches equating patriotic duty and consumer consumption, you support both idiots and banks making bad decisions. It is funny how we call people who make bad financial decisions with money they don't have idiots (hint: that is code in class warfare for "undeserving poor"), but when CEOs do it, they are rewarded with golden parachutes. That is the bankruptcy of conservative free market economics. I will take my chances with starting with the assumption that people have a responsibility for each other, rather than the assumption that if we give all the breaks to the rich then they will know what to do with it and it will in the long run help the poor. :birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

ahh, so when you paint with a broad brush it's called "nuance"

if free market capitalism has you in such a bed wetting tizzy, why don't you go live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe?
 
#24
#24
cibai said:
Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that I am "seriously blaming personal CC debt on GWB?"

It's a little thing called NUANCE. :)

There is a difference between saying one is to blame, and saying one is complicit. What I am saying is that when you support deregulation, a free market, and make speeches equating patriotic duty and consumer consumption, you support both idiots and banks making bad decisions. It is funny how we call people who make bad financial decisions with money they don't have idiots (hint: that is code in class warfare for "undeserving poor"), but when CEOs do it, they are rewarded with golden parachutes. That is the bankruptcy of conservative free market economics. I will take my chances with starting with the assumption that people have a responsibility for each other, rather than the assumption that if we give all the breaks to the rich then they will know what to do with it and it will in the long run help the poor. :birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true champion of Marxism. Impressive.

By the by, I want no one on earth assuming they have any responsibility to me. Maybe that's why I like capitalism and you like systems full of free loaders. Maybe the Swiss economy excites you.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
Spoken like a true champion of Marxism. Impressive.

By the by, I want no one on earth assuming they have any responsibility to me. Maybe that's why I like capitalism and you like systems full of free loaders. Maybe the Swiss economy excites you.
Click to expand...
Or Austria or France?

Believe me, my friend that works in Vienna LOVES giving 50% of his paycheck to the welfare state of Austria. :crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top