RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Barack Obama Drives the Economic Clown Car Off the Cliff

Let’s start with the “good” news. We may see the U.S. stock market surge as much as 1000 points in the next week. Why? No good technical reason, although there are some bargains to be had, but, after talking with a buddy of mine who is a broker, he indicated there is a crazy psychology that may lead to a temporary rally. But it will not be long lived and the stocks will dive again.

Remember Barack’s speech in February where he said:

My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.

This is why I call this clown clueless–”doing little or nothing will result in even greater deficits.” Huh? So you prescription, Mr. President, is to propose a budget that quadruples the budget deficit? So deficits are good? Jesus Christ!! The man is so busy playing the political cards and saying the things that sound terrific on the stump that he is not able to offer a coherent vision of what he wants to do for the economy. So if we do little or nothing we get greater deficits and that is bad? Okay, but then he proposes a budget that produces the largest deficit ever in the history of America and somehow, magically, his deficits are swell? This is an economic policy bordering on nuttiness.

We are in the early days of a global depression. No, not recession, DEPRESSION. Demand is collapsing around the world and it is cascading. What do I mean? Think of a boulder rolling down a rock strewn mountain slope. As it picks up speed it also kicks loose other rocks and the size of the slide grows.

The U.S. has been insulated, so far, from the worst of the effects. Why? Because wealthy people in other countries–China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, etc–are buying up dollars in the person of U.S. Treasury bills. They are seeking safety and stability. There will come a point when the surfeit of dollars will collapse. Not my opinion, that is a warning from Warren Buffett:

Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N) sits on $25.54 billion (17.8 billion pounds) of cash, said worried investors are making a costly mistake by buying up U.S. Treasuries that yield almost nothing.

In his widely read annual letter to Berkshire shareholders, the man many consider the world’s most revered investor said investors are engulfed by a “paralyzing fear” stemming from the credit crisis and falling housing and stock prices. Treasury prices have benefited as investors flocked to the perceived safety of the “triple-A” rated debt.

But Buffett said that with the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department going “all in” to jump-start an economy shrinking at the fastest pace since 1982, “once-unthinkable dosages” of stimulus will likely spur an “onslaught” of inflation, an enemy of fixed-income investors.

“The investment world has gone from underpricing risk to overpricing it,” Buffett wrote. “Cash is earning close to nothing and will surely find its purchasing power eroded over time.”

“When the financial history of this decade is written, it will surely speak of the Internet bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble of the early 2000s,” he went on. “But the U.S. Treasury bond bubble of late 2008 may be regarded as almost equally extraordinary.”

The problem with Barack and his team is that none of the top economic advisors have done anything of significance in the private sector. Timmy Geithner has suckled at a government tit for most of his career. Larry Summers? Academic and government bureaucrat. Not a entrepreneur or business owner in the lot. And Barack? Until he wrote his book he had no money and has spent most of his life as a politician or “community organizer.”

In the midst of a deflationary collapse the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. Yet the Barack budget makes clear that hefty tax increases are on the way. He might be able to get away with that if he was proposing to reduce the Federal deficit and impose some fiscal restraint on government spending. But when you raise taxes and you still expand the deficit? That is insanity and the subsequent slide in the stock market reflected that judgment.

More to this point where CNBC’s Jim Cramer’s comments the other day:


Finally, is there any one out there who has recorded the questioning of Tim Geithner by the House or Senate budget committees? I would love to get a clip of him talking about the need to go after corporate “tax cheats” who are using legal shelters overseas. How about let’s go after ignorant-ass Secretary of Treasury who forgot to pay his taxes until nominated for a big time Federal job? Just asking.

  • MrMike

    We would be able to weather this storm a little better if Bush hadn’t already run up the deficit, so much for his touted business acumen. Perhaps some of my money Barack is spending to keep his Wall Street cronies in their life styles might be justified but not the pork. I would think a responsible leader would put paying off favors on the back burner until after the economy was back on it’s feet but I forget he is from the “I want it now generation”.

    • truthorconsequences

      Perhaps Obama is in the process of trying to buy future votes. Who knows? A $3.6 trillion budget can hide so damned many secret projects (or agendas) how can anyone or any nation sort it all out? Someone on CBS said this morning “Obama seems to be trying to talk it (the financial crisis) away”‘

      • andrew191

        If Obama’s real intention is the destruction of the stock exchange, and capitalism along with it, he couldn’t be doing a better job. That was the intent of the 9/11 terrorists when they brought down the twin towers, but where they failed, Obama may succeed.

        • RebelCarol

          <blockquoteIf Obama’s real intention is the destruction of the stock exchange, and capitalism along with it, he couldn’t be doing a better job.

          I firmly believe that Obama is intentionally letting the stock market go down the toilet. He thinks he can crush the “Rich” by destroying the Market but he doesn’t realize that approximately 70% are small investors whose 401Ks are tied into the Stock Market and are being gutted by the minute. But He just doesn’t care. He is having too much fun playing games with our money just because he thinks he can.

          • andrew191

            I think his motives are deeper and more sinister than just having fun playing games with the economy. Everything he has done for years is consistent with the actions of a one man sleeper cell, intent upon helping to destroy western capitalism and democracy. I’m not saying he IS a sleeper cell, just that he is acting remarkably like one. His associations with creeps like Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and his communist mother, father, and grand parents also support that possibility.

            • Janice

              I can’t believe you are allowed to post this kind of crap. communist mother and grandparents?? You sound like a republican – much worse!!

              • WhatNow

                Janice – it’s obvious you haven’t read the background information on the Dunhams. Check out the high school that Ann Dunham attended, the mentor Obama had in Hawaii while growing up, and the clubs Obama joined in High School. You will find the reading fascinating.

                • andrew191

                  The Dunhams actually attended a church of sorts not far from the neighborhood where I lived at the time. It was well known in the community for having many communist members and so was called “The Little Red Church”. Frank Marshall Davis (Obama admits that Frank was his mentor in his book) was a card carrying member of the communist party.

                  Of course, if Obama had dared to run as a Republican, these facts along with the multitude of other disturbing facts about him would have been common knowledge. The MSM would surely have produced vast enough information about him, that even someone of Janice’s limited perception would catch on.

      • Obamastolemyboyfriend

        That is what happens when the people elect the talker, instead of 2 workhorses, either one we should have elected!

    • lark

      If it wasn’t because Obama is a pathological liar, the problem would be that Obama or his administration is essentially no different than all the ones that preceded this one. All they are after is the holy grail of GDPs and GNPs that show positive growth, preferably anything over 2.5 pc. To this aim they are willing to sacrifice their children at the altar of success.

      The problem with government is that we measure its success in terms of GDP or GNP growth. And deficit spending is one simple (but very stupid) way to raise GDP and GNP into positives over 2.5 pc.

      All that Bush did was assure himself of growing GDPs. That’s why he deficit spent. All Obama is doing is setting up a GDP for 2012 that would be hovering over 3.5 pc. Theoretically, a GDP of that rate of growth should have Wall Street moving steadily upward.

      But what’s wrong now? Why do growing GDPs even future ones like in 2011 will no longer assure the citizenry of growing personal prosperity and a good retirement base? Why?

      • Welcome Back Carteh

        Because people have lost 40% of their retirement funds? Because Obama is driving up unemployment with punitive taxes for “the wealthy” (otherwise known as small business owners)? Because investors are nervous about the government killing medical innovations? I don’t know.

    • nancy sabet

      Right on Larry. This clown is thinking about his re-election and does not care, or know about, what happenes to our economy.

    • FranSC

      As the Obama Team would say, “What pork?” And gets away with it.

      • TexasBuckeye

        More like, “That’s not the Pork I knew.” Then can we expect him to throw this Pork under the bus?

  • JM

    A PART OF THE COLLAPSE GOING WITHOUT NOTICE:
    The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country relies to screen
    employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6. E-Verify has been in
    use since 1997 by businesses nationwide – but Congress is ‘hoping’ We the People won’t notice that they removed the extension of this crucial service from the “Stimulus Plan” and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media news coverage. Millions for pay-offs and pork, but nothing to
    support LEGAL EMPLOYMENT – THIS EXEMPLIFIES dangerous behind-the-scenes moves of the Obama regime to flood the country with his illegal sympathizers!

    Please HELP SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed to the hiring of illegal aliens. SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now – and send this link to your friends to sign on in support of this “Smart Business Practice.” Go here for more info and PETITION to SIGN:

    http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html

    • lark

      Again the same thing. E-verify is a form of negative thinking that only serve to protect the natives from the ravishes of a poor education. Foreigners, specially Hispanics come here with a work ethic that beats the home grown work ethic. So… illegal aliens do provide work that ends up booting productivity rates and raising GDP and GNP. That’s the problem with the E-verify program. It prevents people who will do the most disgusting and difficult jobs from being employed. When natives are asked to do these jobs, they do them until they have accumulated enough to qualify for unemployment. Now that Obama plans to increase aid to those with poor or non-existent work ethic nationals, the fix is on for employers to prefer to employ those willing to work without rest.

      • wodiej

        geez, I hope you’re not implying illegal aliens have a better work ethic than Americans! We do have some lazy people here but we also have millions of hardworking ones and they obey the law too unlike illegals.

        Less illegals would provide more welfare to work.

        • lark

          I am not implying that illegals have a stronger work ethic, but that many nationals are unable to suffer the demands of following directions and obeying orders from their superiors, so their jobs last until they can qualify for unemployment and out the door they go. Many employers can’t handle the trauma of training people so they leave at the first chance they have. They end up relying on illegal aliens for a full hard days work during the full busy season.

          • Docelder

            We probably need to accept as a nation that we do still need, at least at this point in our development… indigent labor. We probably just need to rethink immigration and work visas as it applies to indigent labor. On the other hand, we should stop the practice of public assistance being used to subsidize the farm industries in this country. If farmers had to pay wages equal to what these indigent workers made… including public funds… then we might find these workers would just work from home. Because, it might be cheaper to grow strawberries in Mexico. Plus the workers might be better off at home if they could make a descent wage picking them from home… if we would stop subsidizing farming them here.

          • RebelCarol

            but that many nationals are unable to suffer the demands of following directions and obeying orders from their superiors,

            Oh really? Are you saying us “Americans” just don’t like to follow directions or follow orders from bosses? I resent that statement very much. Before I started my own business, I worked for various employers and did follow the dictates of the employer, plus I did more than I was asked. So don’t say we don’t like to follow directions and/or orders, because you are 99.9% wrong.

        • destardi

          No one can EVER convince me that illegals are a good thing.

          1)How many more water bottles (for example) are filling our landfills, or just tossed along our highways? Exponential growth in waste and refuse is NOT GOOD.

          2)Any unnatural exponential increase in population is NOT GOOD

          3)Illegals help to keep wages low…check out the chicken farm down south, when after the small town was raided of illegals, the chicken plant had to increase pay by almost 2.00 an hour to pay American workers…some immediately quit Walmart, and went to work in the chicken plant.

          4)Illegals working for greedy American businesses can hurt themselves on the property, but not be covered by workman’s comp. They would be better off staying in their own country and working towards improving their own country. Meanwhile, American businesses are paying less, and making more on the backs of illegals. Dems are clueless when it comes to dealing with illegals, and Reps are greedy when it comes to them. These are generalizations I know, but seriously.

          And FYI, not sure what jobs lark is referring to, but 1)migrant workers have been around for a long time; I’d say their “productivity” is already imbedded in our GDP, and 2)If you’re referring to janitorial service jobs, etc, I’d like to know what city YOU work in? I’ve lived in several major cities, a couple medium cities and small towns.

          I can tell you for a fact that in the small towns where illegals have not yet invaded, there are many janitorial jobs that Americans of all ethnicities are gladly taking.

          I reject the propagandized line “They take jobs Americans don’t want.”

          • lark

            Illegals are hired by employers who become tired of dealing with people who prefer to game the system toward their own personal benefit. The only benefit that illegals game is their ability to send remittances to their extended family back home. And by the way they pay dearly for those services.

            • lorac

              My number one concern about this is that while it helps individual families in Mexico, it perpetuates the dismal conditions down there. I believe that remittances are the 2nd highest factor in their economy – therefore, it can be said that it enables the country to not reform itself. Without the remittances, the people might rise up and demand accountability and reform, leading to a better environment for all Mexicans, rather than having to be dependent on people coming to the US, a dangerous and illegal “solution”.

              • lark

                I agree. I don’t understand the Mexican culture one bit. Never have understood it. It is some kind of diluted form of Catholicism. Stranger than strange. And a lot of the Mexicans I have known are very smart people. But they rarely take the bull by the horns. Is more like waving the bull with their hats so it hopefully goes where they want. Rarely happens. Mexicans can ignore anything and go along with everything.

                • orion

                  Mexico is a very wealthy country. The problem is that the wealth, thus the country, is owned by a handful of families.

        • lorac

          My understanding is that Obama gutted welfare reform, so there is no more “welfare to work”. Now, as before Clinton, you can get on welfare forever, and not prove you are looking for a job. You can once again raise your children with that mindset and resume the generational transmission of poverty.

          Am I remembering what I read right? Can anyone verify that he gutted the welfare reform?

      • cynic

        E-verify is simple, very accurate, non-intrusive, and the mechanism is already in place. It’s a highly effective basic tool if we wish to control illegal immigration, which is obviously totally out of control at present. I was very disappointed that democrats buckled under lobbying pressure and removed it from the stimulus package, and I’ll be mad as hell if it isn’t renewed in separate legislation. It an economic time when millions of American citizens and legal alien residents are losing their jobs, they don’t need competition from those who have willingly shown total disregard for our immigration laws.

        By the way, the single biggest source of lobbying pressure against E-verify has been the American Chamber of Commerce–”the voice of American business”. It’s simple: They want dirt cheap labor–even if it’s at the expense of US citizens and law-abiding legal immigrant workers.

        • tek

          cynic: The U. S. Chamber of Commerce should be called the Nazi Council of America–they are totally evil. I notice in all the headline news about sending the military to the border and into Mexico (yes, the U. S. military is now operating inside Mexico, just like Iran and Pakistan) what we are not seeing is any news that the border is being secured or that the Obama administration is planning to secure the border. Seems like a perfect WPA project to me. Trouble is, about the only people who can get construction jobs in the U. S. nowadays are illegal hispanics (like the men who kidnapped and raped an 11-yr-old school girl in Orlando a week ago–they were actually on the job and admittedly drunk when the saw the child walking to school and went after her).

          Obama’s not going to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, those people are one of the biggest Democratic constituencies in Chicago.

      • Welcome Back Carteh

        It goes back to his reelection, as well. Amnesty is a carrot he’ll dangle for his second term, while he personally oversees the census in the meantime. It’s the typical social engineering. As for the “jobs Americans won’t do”, illegal immigrants pay no taxes and get state benefits for their children and welfare for themselves, if they can scam it, all paid for by taxpayers.

  • http://BREAKINGNEWS.COM Oisafraud

    Where are the Obots now? Hope you are still in coma after drinking tha Obama KoolAid.

    The number one problem with the Obama’s economy is that not a single businessmen has confidence in it, or Obama’s economic team or Obama himself.

    How I missed seeing Hillary with Jim Cramer breaking down the basic economic issues in the market during the primary. Could get anyone more informed and has a plan like her her?

    What a moron got forced on us?

    • Docelder

      I don’t blame the bots really for anything more than not thinking for themselves. Because, if it weren’t Obama, it could have just as easily been somebody else… anybody else really. Think about it, if we can elect somebody with no verifiable job skills as President… then maybe we are lucky it wasn’t some Hollywood actor or maybe a movie director. The media forced the Obama “win” through sheer will. It was not easy, it was a two year long propaganda event. We know how, Question is… why? To what end? Until we answer that question definitively, we won’t be safe as a nation.

      • jbjd

        I am so happy to see this comment posted here. I wrote an article on my blog entitled, “MESSIAH V. SAVIOR: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE,” pointing to the fact that, people so willingly look to others to make the appropriate decisions to improve their own lives, even clinging to people who would ‘save’ us from BO.
        http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

      • tek

        Docelder: exactly right. Two puppet presidents in a row and still, Americans fall for the media PR sting.

  • Animal Control

    Any more of this “briliant” presidential moves and I’ll need to up my blood pressure meds.

    • truthorconsequences

      Hope you don’t have to depend on the VA for the meds.

      • Animal Control

        One of the few good moves he’s made so far is Sinsheki (sp? Veterans deserve much better than they’ve been getting under any administration.

        • candymarl

          Yes, but Obama wants to cut VA, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

          However, he wants no limits no food stamp benefits or welfare checks. These are things most middle class Americans are not eligible for.

          Shinseki is a good guy. But he was appointed by Obama and now works for him. I’m hoping the General will stand his ground.

          • candymarl

            That’s ‘no limits on food stamps or welfare benefits ‘.

            • Animal Control

              I’m hoping the General will stand his ground.

              If he atays true to form that should be no problem. He is honorable in the vein of an Eisenhower. I don’t believe he will become anything other that who he is.

          • Janice

            Please provide proof that he is cutting VA, Social Security and Medicare – actual policy statements FROM Obama that he plans to propose this. I’ll be waiting candymart.

  • termo

    Great Post!!!

    Most people are not economists so they believe whatever their politicians tell them.

    The fact is that Recessions are a naturally recurring event in a free market capitalist economy. It is like eating. A person will eat as much as they can until they are full. A market will grow in value until it becomes over valued and then will recede (recession) until it finds a base level of value before growing again.

    But recessions do expose systemic problems we have that may have nothing to do with the recession but do require correction.

    Presidents do not start recessions or end them. But they can manage them by doing what past Presidents have done and allow the market to correct them and only address the systemic problem. In this case it was a decades old practice of bad mortgages that eventually affected the entire credit market and the banking system.

    Where we disagree is that I think Obama is abusing this recession and using it to his own advantage to restructure this country into a socialist government. Socialists do not care about capitalism or free markets. The hired help (Summers and Volker) are a distraction and at some point i would expect one or both to resign.

    Finally:
    I would love to get a clip of him talking about the need to go after corporate “tax cheats” who are using legal shelters overseas.

    I saw that one and just broke out laughing – particularly since he was addressing the other star tax cheat Charlie Rangel! It was like bizzaro world.

  • Economics

    Nothing wrong with adding to the deficit to try and pull the country out of a dive. Keynesian economics.

    Tax increases proposed in the budget are for individuals earning more than $250,000 per year. The stimulus actually has tax cuts for the middle class.

    I am sure the government would like to rely on the private sector to pull the country out of this mess, but the private sector is paralized. Not sure there is any advantage with having private sector individuals calling the shots in government. There are plenty of private sector advisors. More important to have someone who can straddle both worlds and knows there way around government.

    • tango

      Tax cuts for families making less than $250,000? Big deal. Not when any savings recognized by those families are wiped out by higher energy prices due to Obamas Cap and Trade policy. Not when those business owners making more than $250,000 pass their increased costs onto lower earning consumers.

  • ahs

    The macroeconomic logic of increased government spending is really quite simple, and it’s not controversial among economists.

    The problem: The recession has devastated consumer spending. Demand from the private sector is down in all areas. This is Bad.

    Interest rates are effectively at zero, so there’s no way to use monetary policy to pump cash into the system. The only way to replace the demand no longer coming from the private sector is with public spending.

    Yes, this means deficits. But it means the recession will be less deep than it would be without the deficit spending, which means incoming government revenues would be even lower than without the stimulus. So with flat government spending, we’d see a) a worse economy overall and b) quite possibly, even larger deficits due to plummeting revenue. Find me a credible economist who disputes this.

    You’re failing Econ 101 here Larry, but at least you’re doing it loudly.

    • Docelder

      Demand from the private sector is down in all areas

      Because people are scared. People are already in debt and all they see are the banks getting free money and closing their credit limits and even as the bank rates fall, credit card rates and fees are going up. If people want a new car, or major appliance and they don’t have cash… how are they supposed to buy it? Provided they aren’t so scared by Obama harping on the words “depression” and “the thirties” even back to when this was just an early 80′s style recession. Obama is a confidence killer. I think the thing that will define his Presidency above all else will be this one thing… that he nearly killed capitalism. At least he is trying with everything he has.

      • lark

        Because people are scared

        No it isn’t because people are scared. It is because products no longer respond to local needs and the local economy. The fact that products come from as far away as China and are sold in places like Home Depot do not match exactly what people have in mind as the solution to their needs.

        We need dozens of products that we are more than willing to pay for if those products would actually do the jobs they are expected to do. But people are tired of purchasing products that don’t live to expectations.

        What we need are local ‘engineers’ to design and produce products that fit local use and personal expectations. We need a local economy that responds to local needs.

        • Docelder

          I am of a somewhat different mindset on that. For example, take cars… To me, if we need to pay $70 an hour to build cars in this country… then we probably ought not be building cars here at all… were that the case. We ought to be building something else, or developing and producing something else. We need to let go, and delegate to countries that can do those things more economically than we can. I see money simply as an exchange medium for our energy expended. I look at life as a certain amount of allotted time. It does not make sense to spend our time here doing things that can be done more efficiently elsewhere. But, on the same thought we also need to constantly be growing and developing new technology and tasks that we can do better here. These same things we will ultimately delegate to elsewhere and the cycle can repeat and we can all continue to grow. I think the danger of protectionism is that we will lose that growth and will stagnate. Not only will we stagnate, but our choices will help stagnate the world. There is plenty out there for everybody, we just need vision and the will to create it.

          • lark

            Take the example of cars. Taxi cars come from the same production lines as family cars. Why? Taxi cars could be produced locally, say in NY city for NY city taxi cab users; in LA for LA users and in Miami for Miami users. All would look different because they are produced locally to supply different local needs. Taxi cars can even be produced individually by taxi car drivers. They should be able to build their own cars. Then you would not have that many drug addicts and delinquency when people are allowed to make things like cars for those they know personally.

          • lark

            Why was Galveston completely wiped out? Why was New Orleans devastated by the waters from lake Puntchartrain? Because the levi systems were design by people from areas other than New Orleans and because the house construction in Galveston mimicked those of Los Angeles.

            • Jules

              Why was New Orleans devastated by the waters from lake Puntchartrain? Because the levi systems were design by people from areas other than New Orleans

              Oh, good to know. All this time I thought George Bush had caused it by being a racist.

        • tek

          lark: you’re right. The Bush administration got the nutty idea that we should buy toxic junk from China. Rove kept saying he was going to take the U. S. back to the Gilded Age. That’s when American producers made toxic junk that wasn’t regulated in any way, no FDA, no nothing. The auto makers have refused to produce what people want for years. They rely on propaganda campaigns to convince Americans that they need whatever the corporations decide is cheapest to produce. If it doesn’t sell, they come running to the government for a bailout.

          It should come as a surprise to no one that the corps are begging bailouts, Bush got bailed out by Daddy from every business he ever engaged in.

        • Cubs in 09

          …products come from as far away as China…do not match exactly what people have in mind…

          It’s called “junk.”

      • ahs

        Market psychology is no doubt part of it, and Obama could certainly be doing a better job with that part. I won’t argue with that.

        But it’s not the whole story. Demand is down because both lenders and borrowers reached the end of the line in terms of available credit — the decline in home values alone erased a tremendous amount of the notional “wealth” that had been fueling consumer spending. Nobody, not even a president, can just say “be optimistic and start spending!” and expect it to work when people don’t have money to spend, and banks don’t have money to lend (or won’t lend it).

        In times like this (Japan in the 90′s, for example) government spending is, for all its drawbacks, the least bad option by far.

        • Docelder

          Then, let the spending be such that it will encourage new technology. We should be looking forward to developing energy sources such as solar and geothermal. We should look past internal combustion engines altogether. That technology has served us well, but is past it’s time. This could be the most exciting and interesting time to live on this planet. It does not have to be depressing. I think that is one of the things people thought they were getting from Obama, having had years of yellow alerts and war news coverage. People thought they were getting some optimism. We need to hold Obama’s feet to the fire here and make him cheer up for this nation’s sake. We deserve better, we deserve leadership. If he has it in him, now is the time.

          • ahs

            I completely agree. Public investment will be doubly effective if it’s for infrastructure and new technologies that can serve as a foundation for long-term economic growth.

    • lark

      The only way to replace the demand no longer coming from the private sector is with public spending.

      Don’t call that type of thinking socialism. Call it communism. Okay. It works very well under communism.

      It is precisely all wrong for the type of country America is and for preserving freedom and liberty. The end result of public spending is slavery.

      • ahs

        It worked out OK for “this kind of country” in the 1930′s. Better than your alternatives would have, anyway.

        If you want to cripple the nation with a free market ideology that has spectacularly crashed and burned over the last few years, well… that’s why your team lost the election.

        • The Real HC

          For free markets to have caused our current problems we would have had to have them in the first place.

          As far as the rest of your “your team lost the election nyah nyah”, put a sock in it. I have never seen a bigger bunch of brats in my life since you Obots came to the fore.

          • ahs

            What, you think fewer regulations (i.e. none at all) would have prevented this mess?

            Re: losing the election, I’m (inartfully) making a broader point. It’s this: the economic ideology kicked off by Reagan and carried out by every subsequent administration has failed, in spectacular fashion. Deregulation combined with tax policy favoring the super-rich just doesn’t work. It creates a massively unstable bubble economy.

            The GOP stands for this way of thinking a bit more than the Democrats do (although there are or were Dems who embrace it as well), and so when the mother of all bubbles popped in an election year the GOP had to face the music. Rightly so. “That’s why you lost the election” is shorthand for “the economy can no longer be entrusted to your control, and Americans have figured that out.”

            • The Real HC

              Obots use a lot of “shorthand”.

              Deregulation combined with tax policy favoring the super rich made this problem? Are you talking about the community reinvestment act? Do you realize that when governments redistribute wealth it just creates new and different haves and even more have nots? Probably you dont care because you plan to be one of the few new haves. Because you won! Yay! Go do a victory lap or something, really.

              Americans didnt figure anything out in 2008 other than they were very mad at Bush 2 and felt like lashing out. Oh, and that they really dont like voting for women. I guess they learned that too.

              Most people who post here arent Republicans, at least do us the courtesy of knowing your audience.

              • ahs

                The Community Reinvestment Act contributed, but it didn’t have nearly as much to do with this mess as, just to cite one example, Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

                Regulation of the financial exists to prevent fraud and excess in the financial markets — in other words, to prevent bubbles. Deregulation presents a greater possibility for bubbles to develop, like the one that developed in the mortgage securities and derivatives markets. Disproportionately low taxes on the rich creates a vast pool of investment capital, which will naturally flow into the fastest-growing financial sectors — in this case, the mortgage markets.

                Deregulation planted the seeds, and Reaganomic tax bracketing watered them. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both. We’ve seen now what happens when you do have both. FWIW, I’m much more concerned with the regulatory side than the tax side.

                • The Real HC

                  I am so glad that we agree that we have never seen actual free markets.

                  They dont exist, so blaming them for all life’s ills is speculation at best. I’m fairly sure you wont let that stop you, but at least its out in the open.

                  Its wonderful when personal philosophy meets creative economics, especially when one wants to play the political blame game.

                  Blame on, it wont stop that clown car from driving right off the cliff. Nice turn of phrase Larry.

                • Welcome Back Carteh

                  Who repealed Gramm Leach Bliley? Clinton. Who created those bubbles as a trademark of his administration? Clinton. At least three: the dot com, telecom and Y2K.

                  The Bush administration was aware of the housing market manipulation and economic threat posed by the GSEs and tried repeatedly to reduce any of the potential damage, possibly averting it altogether.

                  And the problem with the market now is investors are worried about the regulatory side than the tax side. They know the stimulus check from Odumbo will be $13. They’re more worried about our government following the example of Japan’s in the 1990s.

            • lark

              No you are wrong. Our problems come from a government that wants to take over the role and rule of God. God knows how to fix people and economies better than anything else. God is harsh but merciful. God punishes but preserves the purpose of living.

              • ahs

                I don’t think the ups and downs of any one nation’s economy is something God spends a lot of time thinking about. Our ability (and need) to self-govern comes from our free will, which I’m guessing you’d say is God-given.

                So, we had better do the best we can with our own behavior. Both as individuals and as a nation. God can give strength and purpose, but he’s not going to do anything for the Dow.

                • lark

                  God simply provides punishment for dishonesty and injustice. The subprime mortgage rise in default is because those mortgages were wrought with dishonesty 360 degrees. As dishonesty grows, punishment for dishonesty grows.

                  Every time Obama steps to the microphone and tell lies, we pay. Why? If you look at the Bible you will see that leaders are expected to act with honesty, otherwise God punishes the people. All of them. Usually most punishments come in the form of revolts and other times by invasion of foreigners.

            • Welcome Back Carteh

              Forcing banks to loan to unqualified recipients was a regulation we did not need. Gramm Leach Bliley was regulation that should have stayed. Likewise net capital rules. M2M was a bad idea. All of this let banks pass their mistakes on to the general public, creating a world wide crisis, let CEOs and FNMA FMAC execs get their big bonuses, let our corrupt (mostly Democrat) Congressmen fill campaign coffers, and let the taxpayer go to hell. It makes more sense this was one of those famous bubbles reaching Stay Puff proportions rather than the failure of a system that has served us well for 75 years, and at least an economic system that worked for the past 30 years with only a few periodic recessions.

        • termo

          It did not work out well for this country in the 1930′s – we had the Great Depression. The only thing that got us out of it was World War II.

          Socialism has not worked well for anyone anywhere, ever.

    • termo

      Try taking Eco 101 again because your analysis is empty and leaving out much.

      You are probably one of those who actually believe that government cause or end recessions. If that is the case then you are nothing more than a kool aid drinking obat.

      Recessions are a natural recurring event in free market capitalism. If the government did nothing it would happen and it would end.

      The problem is government intervention that can force a recession to be extended and deepened.
      By our government pumping far too much money into the market they are forcing a massive inflation cycle that will result in paralyzing stagflation.

      You are also unable to separate events. The systemic problem of credit/banks have nothing to do with the recession but require fixing. That has nothing to do with buying votes with so-called bogus stimulus bills.

      The real test of Obama’s clown policies is the stock market – not some bogus political poll. People who invest – who create jobs – who build businesses are putting their money into gold and into mattresses. There is zero confidence in Obama’s policies and his people (Geithner) other than left wing nut economists who should know better.

      • ahs

        Yes, governments can lengthen recessions if they do the wrong things, and they can also make them shorter and/or less deep if they do the right things. The idea that government can have a negative impact but not a positive one is just nonsense.

        Yes, recessions are naturally occurring and will eventually end on their own. But smart regulation and monetary/fiscal policy can (and have in the past) make them less frequent and less severe. The economy’s peaks won’t be as high, but the valleys won’t be as low, either. The question, given that the valleys are inevitable, is how much human suffering you’re willing to tolerate in pursuit of your free market ideals. Apparently, it’s quite a damn bit.

        • termo

          This recession was to be over in the 2nd or 3rd Q this year. All signs were pointing in that direction. The stock market had bottomed out in December and there were positive inidications that we would see renewed growth by mid year.

          Obama takes over and does everything wrong. His so-called stimulus bill is nothing more than a massive spending bill to buy votes. His massive budget is to realign the economic dynamics of this country. His economic policies are completely incoherent – his Treasury Secretary is incompetent – Obama’s rhetoric damns investors and is fear mongering. Just track the Dow in January and February and you will see proof positive that investors have zero confidence in Obama and he is too reckless to do anything about that – just pour more oil on the fire.

          As far as human suffereing, ask a worker if they would rather have a $13/week increase in the paycheck or would they rather not have that and have a job and have their pension?

          As far government intervention, i would look at what JFK, Reagan, and Bush did with the economic situations they started with. Not much except for tax cuts. And please don’t ape that empty mantra that those tax cuts caused this recession because that is flat out stupid.

          • ahs

            Nice revisionist history.

            In December, there were just as many people projecting 2010 or 2011 recovery as there were projecting Q3 of 2009 recovery. And I note that the most optimistic projections — every single one of them — was factoring in some form of federal stimulus spending. ;)

            Re: tax cuts, are you talking about Bush I (one recession in one term) or Bush II (two recessions in two terms)? Not that it matters, I guess.

            FWIW, the volatility caused by deregulation had much more to do with each of the recent recessions than tax cuts did. It’s not the cuts themselves that concern me, anyway. It’s the fact that they went disproportionately to the highest income brackets, where they fueled vast amounts of (deregulated) financial investments that created bubbles. And those bubbles created recessions — in this case the worst one we’ve seen for a loooong time.

            It’s fun when you pretend I don’t know what I’m talking about. Please continue.

            • lark

              You know what you are talking about but you dismiss the damage Obama causes when every time he uses the microphone, he lies.

              • ahs

                a) I don’t think he’s lying every time, or even most of the time and b) you’re off on your own if you think the workings of the economy are dictated by God based on some measure of social “sinfulness.” Or at least if you think it’s useful to talk in those terms, rather than in terms of what is or is not helpful policy.

                Sorry, I’m just not going to get into a discussion of a divinely managed economy.

                • lark

                  I respect that. You gravitate toward humanism. That’s okay. Then you’ll need to wait 20 or 40 years to understand what happened today. Be patient then, in 20 years you will see things much more clearly and in 40 you will see them even more clearly. That’s not to say that the Bible was not written by looking back. I on the other hand, am revealed things today because I know that God made rules of engagement.

            • termo

              Re: tax cuts, are you talking about Bush I (one recession in one term) or Bush II (two recessions in two terms)?

              You just lost any argument you have. President and politicians do not create or end recessions. Anyone thinking that has zero credibility. (By the way if you are keeping track, the first recession Bush had was one he inherited).

              Your other comments are political dribble and have zero to do with real economics.

            • QueenofHearts

              ahs, is that a typo? I’m sure you meant to type your real name, which is ass.

              And no one is pretending. You don’t know what you are talking about. For real.

            • RebelCarol

              Bush II (two recessions in two terms)?

              Recession #1 – inherited from Clinton and exacerbated by 9/11 – it was also short-lived and not deep.

              • termo

                This one would not have been very deep (despite what the media myth and campaign rhetoric was). But thanks to Captain Zero (who today equated the stock market is like a popularity political poll)we will have a deeper and longer recession.

      • lark

        You are right. Recessions are the penalty and punishment of immorality in the market. God provides for punishment to come to those who betrayed honesty in dealing with others and recessions occur. Once the punishment is felt, the market corrects itself. When pastors and preachers fail and get caught in the immorality of immoral market practices, then the amorality of the system takes care of showing users that what’s wrong is wrong and what’s right is right and people need to stop doing wrong and start doing right.

        When a humanist government wants to replace God, and tries to prevent the punishment and ameliorate the pain to those who did wrong, like our government tries to do, then the pain spreads to more and more people and last longer.

        God demands only one thing from commerce, that is honesty.

    • Cubs in 09

      Find me a credible economist who disputes this.

      http://mises.org/

      The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)…

  • http://watchpaul.blogspot.com Rose

    I blame Buffet as much or more than anyone else. He backed this catastrophe (Obama) over McCain. He and Soros. And the two of them will undoubtedly make billions as this thing plays out. But if we all have to go down, I HOPE Mr. Buffet loses everything and ends up having to scrub toilets for food.

    • barb

      I hope Buffet looses everything too.

  • http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

    I feel like Obama is purposefully trying to destroy our economy. He is in many ways worse than I feared.

    • SueM

      I haven’t posted here in quite some time, but I just had to say I agree 100% with your statement.

      Obama is one scary dude. If he’s given his way, he’s going to ruin this country and that’s exactly what he wants.

    • Docelder

      I believe it’s capitalism he hates, and our capitalistic economy. I think he, Pelosi and Reid are of the mindset that you need to break eggs to make an omelet… or some rationalization to that effect. Every indication was that he was raised around socialism. Well, it appears to have stuck. Most of us here knew better. If only 2% had voted the other way, we wouldn’t be here in this spot now.

      • http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

        I don’t think Obama hates capitalism as much as he loves to see his own face plastered on posters everywhere. He’ll take down the economy just to feed his ego and become despot of America.

      • barb

        I hope the only ones to suffer more than Buffet will be those snotty Republicans who stayed home rather than vote for McCain or pulled a little haha in voting for Obama in the primary to deny the nomination to Hillary. Hillary was what America needs!

        • Docelder

          voting for Obama in the primary to deny the nomination to Hillary

          Yes, when you do things for the wrong reasons, with less than above board intentions… they never work. That is what this “operation chaos” was all about.

        • RebelCarol

          Hillary was what America needs!

          Amen to that!

  • lark

    America has only one way out of the economic disaster that looms ahead. It is to re-industrialize. To move in the direction of Brazil. To drill for new crude deposits and to allow engineers to have free reign with the resources found everywhere in the nation. That includes local as well as rural spaces.

    The only thing the government should subsidize at this juncture if the government wants to take America back to its former glory is to subsidize commercial real estate leases to R&D engineering firms and to relax the codes that prevent them from conducting their research and development. Nothing else needs to be done.

    Once that is done, the colleges and universities will expand their engineering and science departments and the country will be back on its feet in less than 10 years.

  • Seattle Moss

    Obama and his minions are working to create a permanent majority by destroying the middle class and forcing them into government programs for jobs and assistance.
    Obama will also work on rigging the census to further the democrats electoral advantage and give amnesty to illegals who will then reward democrats with their votes.

    Looks very much like Chavez

  • Mercedes

    During the Democratic campaign, Hillary seemed to take the most hits by the media on her “flimsy” foreign policy experience (although no one ever explained why that same criticism did not apply to Obama). Now Hillary is SOS. During the Democratic campaign, Obama presented himself as an admirer of Mr Trickle Down Ronald Reagan and Hillary was everywhere emphasizing fiscal responsibility. Now Obama is jacking up the national debt to astronomical levels. What is wrong with this picture?

    Somebody above called Obama a pathological liar. He certainly seems to be. But does he know what he is doing? I think he does, but he can’t tell us because most of us are not going to like it. But we can’t say he didn’t warn us…he did say we will all have to sacrifice.

    Big Brother has arrived.

    • tek

      Mercedes: if you notice, Hillary’s name is in the headlines more often than Obama’s. Why? Because Hillary knows what she’s doing.
      Larry: I also agree that Obama is acting nuts talking about tax cuts. What is the point? He just passed the “stimulus” and bragged that the Bush tax cuts were permanent, then he turns around the next week and announces he’s raising taxes. This guy is playing too many sides against the middle. He’s trying to be Ronald Reagan when we need the Clintons.

  • devildog666

    Laugh of the day; Investor optimism was also buoyed by news out of China suggesting the world’s third-largest economy may be on the brink of a recovery. Nonsense, we are on the brink of a global meltdown. How can the Chinese economy recover when we are the major purchaser of their goods?
    12,000 Chinese factories have closed putting 20 million unemployed Chinese on the street. This can turn into a major internal security problem for the Chinese. The Chinese are not going to be financing our debt if they start to crumble internally.
    We’re going over the cliff and it’s probably too late to stop it. Thanks Obama.
    Effectively nationalize the banks, destroy personal wealth and declare a national emergency, is this the future?

  • http://BREAKINGNEWS.COM Oisafraud

    It’s done ladies and gentlemen. The economy has been destroyed by Obama. Done.

  • Citizen70

    I predict that Turbotax Timmy will be under the bus by the end of March! His wimpy personality is so wrong for the play that Obama is producing and the prez won’t stand for bad reviews. The tone of voice, the waving hands, the guilty look…..not good.

    On another note….I keep hearing that Obama “snubbed” British PM Brown. Being ignorant of Washington protocol, I’m at sea on this one. Can someone explain if this is true and, if so, why this happened?

  • cynic

    Would a 1000 point rise in the market be perceived as a set-back by the far right? Something to be discounted and talked back down, to avoid a politically inconvenient rise in national confidence levels?

    I guess I’ve concluded that some far-right conservative media voices aren’t just pitching the virtue of hoping for Obama’s failure–they’re placing all of their political bets on it, and trying to tip the table. If the economy pulls out of its dive and a recovery trend is clearly established by the middle of next year, they know they’re up a creek. They’ll start sounding toxic long before that if there’s a sudden perception that they’re trying to talk down national confidence.

    Centrist republicans need to be very careful about that. I rather like a lot of centrist republican thinking. They’re the counterbalance that will serve to course-correct the democratic majority, because they resonate with centrist democratic thinking. I don’t believe the far right can ever do that.

    • Docelder

      placing all of their political bets on it

      Or, why the far right abandoned McCain and why he in turn abandoned Palin. Yes, the right is planning on Obama to overreach and fail miserably. It’s like we are on some kind of pendulum amusement park ride and the guy running it is drunk and it won’t stop. Here’s the shocker though… we are that drunk amusement park guy… not posters here, but the American people led by the media and their lust for ratings and advertising dollars. I don’t know what is worse to be truthful… the heavy hand of either the left or the right. Only a third party can right this.

  • jbjd

    Larry, now that I know you passed an economics comp, I read your economics-related posts with a different perspective. (Are you an ABD?)

    • http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

      yes.

      • lark

        You are not the only one. I quit on the dissertation proposal because I found inconsistencies in the faculty and school between reality and jargon. Sorry but I am nobody’s fool. I am happy with who I am.

  • tek

    Larry, great article! Keep up the good work. You are exactly right that Obama is obsessed with making sure he pays off his “constituencies” who betrayed Hillary to push him into office. He has now nominated the FIFTH person who owes the federal government taxes he “didn’t think he needed to pay.” No doubt about it, it’s AMATEUR HOUR at the WH.

  • Patience

    I would imagine if the DOW were to climb 1000 pts., a lot of investors will sell at that point (some sooner) and take their profits, since there’ve been very few opportunities for profit-taking since the POTUS and our legislators made their intentions clear.

    Today the DOW ended a 5-day losing streak and gained nearly 150 pts.

    One very heartening thing I read today is that some moderate Democrats in the Senate are prepared to put pressure to bear on the POTUS’ budget as well as a new spending bill proposed by Congress. This is a very good sign but I’m hoping they can also pressure the administration to focus more on the credit crisis.

    I like and respect Evan Bayh who appears to be leading this effort, yet the media repeatedly label him a soft-spoken bore. That’s one reason why we’re now stuck with an American Idol presidency — he doesn’t cause leg tingles. Since the POTUS has dug in his heels when it comes to betraying his bi-partisanship pledge, let’s hope these Democrats will hold some sway and that Obama’s ego doesn’t prevent him from heeding their counsel. They deserve a lot of credit for speaking out during the POTUS’ honeymoon period, but then again, it just shows how dire the economic situation has become.

    • termo

      Saw that McCain and Feingold are putting together a coalition to stop this out-of-control spending and bring some sanity back with a line item veto.

      The problem is will the Chosen One listen or just dismiss this effort as a distraction?

      • Patience

        The Supreme Court ruled against the presidential line item veto during the Clinton administration.

        But this is still good news — it’s more evidence the ranks are breaking at last. I was beginning to think no one had the backbone to stand up against Movement Progressive tyranny.

        I still believe in the end most Americans are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. I could be wrong though! But IMO we’ve unfortunately elected presidents lately who drive more people to the extremes. And now, we have a POTUS who’s exploiting this dire economy for political expediency. I can understand why his poll numbers are high — people are vulnerable to the Santa In Chief routine.

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    good article as always LARRY..that”s why i come here every day for the real news..

  • Wisewoman

    Thanks Larry. Can’t get enough of your expositions. I agree with your point of view entirely.

  • RaiulBaztepo

    Hello!
    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language ;)
    See you!
    Your, Raiul Baztepo

  • http://dev.winamp.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=112&target=Aldor4 PiterKokoniz

    Hi !!!! :)
    I am Piter Kokoniz. Just want to tell, that I’v found your blog very interesting
    And want to ask you: what was the reasson for you to start this blog?
    Sorry for my bad english:)
    Thank you:)
    Your Piter Kokoniz, from Latvia

  • HARP

    Did you sneak out on Mom again?

  • wodiej

    I am not skeptical, I am positive I would not support Barack Obama when he can’t even produce a $10 birth certificate, school or medical records.

    So, where’s that birth certificate TROLL??