Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisyphus
What economic agenda? That's been my frustration....
|
Well, the main thrust of Obama's economic agenda seems to involve spending as much money as possible!
On that front, he certainly has succeeded. Even before he took office, he was pushing an $800 billion "stimulus" spending bill, claiming it was just the elixir the ailing economy needed. Of course, it was really just loaded up by congress with a bunch of payoffs to favored political constituencies. Obviously it was designed to be a
political stimulus package, not an economic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
As for Obama's economic policies, the jury is still out.
|
The reason the jury is still out is that the economy is being artificially stimulated with negative real interest rates and massive quantities of unconventional monetary policy (QE). None of that is sustainable over the long term. I think there's a good chance it will work long enough to get Obama re-elected, but that's not a given. The next crisis (and there
will be one; policy decisions have assured that) will, in my view, probably be more severe than the last one. When you build up pressure over an extended term and kick the can down the road with massive borrowing and money-printing, that tends to be the way it works. The first time a Treasury auction goes badly and is undersubscribed, the whole world will realize that we're in serious, serious trouble. Everything might appear to be OK until all of a sudden it isn't.
If we're lucky, we'll simply suffer something like Japan's "lost decade." There's little chance that we'll see sustained year-over-year GDP growth anything like what we saw in the '80s and '90s anytime soon. Big, entrenched increases in government spending make the economy worse, not better. History is very clear on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
It took years of the Busy Administrations failed economic policies for 9/15/08 to occur. By the same token, it will take quite some time, possibly years, to dig our way out of the financial collapse left behind by GW.
|
Yes, under any set of circumstances it would take time to recover from the balance sheet depression of 2007-09. But rather than set a course to "dig our way out" of the problem, Obama chose to dig an even deeper hole with bad policy prescriptions.
Recovering from our current mess will be very painful. No one is going to cut spending enough to significantly reduce the deficit, which now stands at about 11% of GDP. That's not even remotely possible politically. Once you pass out goodies and entitlement expansions, you can't just yank them. People would start rioting in the streets, like in Greece. And no one has the courage to impose the sort of European-level tax system needed to pay for all the largesse. That's another political non-starter.
I believe that taking action in some of these areas will eventually be forced, but that in the meantime -- for as long as it "works" -- we will simply try to print our way out of the problem. It may work -- for a while -- but it's a dangerous game that builds a bridge to a fiscal crisis, not to a more prosperous future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisyphus
To bring that full circle to the OP, I don't see the Donald being that guy. Too much of a lightening rod, I would think.
|
Not only a lightning rod, but a self-aggrandizing clown. I don't think many people will vote for somebody like that.
I do think it's amazing, however, that despite the existence of so many left-leaning people in this forum, Trump decisively beat Obama in the recent poll thread.
I came too late to that thread, but would have voted "Fuck it, I'm going home to drink myself silly until 2016!"
(And I don't even drink that much.)
] sort of operation from jump street. Either that, or, he's trying to be everything to everyone while only managing to annoy damn near everyone. Either way...
