If Obama was a significant leader...

[B_starinvestor]

What he needs to do is tell people to stop buying t-bills. That's a bubble that needs to be stopped before it gets too big

Bingo.

Our gov't and many global governments' central banks have reduced key rates to zero or close to zero - to discourage people from pouring money into deposit accts and treasuries, etc.

The strategy is correct; but it just hasn't worked. Fear has paralyzed the investment community and the only place its going is toward safety. The percentage relationship between 'cash' and equities is at its highest point in U.S. history.

At some point, the fear pendulum will swing back - and money will surge into equities as investors will be 'fearful' that they will miss out on the next big bull run.

That won't happen while our gov't spends like a drunk sailor.

When companies restructure, become lean, re-set business models and determine how to become profitable again....earnings will begin to recover and stocks will become healthy again.

Taxing carbon and writing gazillion dollar checks for education will not expedite the recovery process.

Expectations and goals have already been reset in the private sector...give it some time to work.

Someone needs to explain to Obama that you can't 'fix' an economy like you can 'fix' a lawnmower.

 

[Bbucko]

Significant leaders think 'out of the box'*. They lead.

*trite, but thought it was good enough.

My point was that Americans recoil instinctively from the concept of "leader": it brings up images of Führer to the right or Kim Jong Il on the left or Vladimir Putin doing whatever it is he does. All are equally abhorrent, albeit for different reasons. The only time the US fell for such ideas was when they elected FDR in 1932, when a second revolution was immanent, not just likely, and FDR was polarizing as much as he was uniting, and his entire reign was such an [FONT=&quot]aberration that, after it was all said and done, the constitution was amended to ensure that it could never happen again.

Lincoln is a better example of what Americans demand of their best presidents; he was an executive and administrator with a brilliant mind and profound rhetorical skills. We also require that they govern by consensus, not fiat, and understand that they represent all Americans, not just their supporters' capricious ideology. Teddy Roosevelt was an excellent example of this when he busted the monopolies that dictated American industry at the time, or Bill Clinton who reformed welfare practically out of existence after having been trounced in the '94 midterms.

We hold in particularly low esteem presidents who seem out of control and/or run amok, appealing almost exclusively to the base that got them elected and pushing through programs that are more ideological than pragmatic. Grant, Harding and Carter all seemed unable to control the troubles of their day and were viewed as detached. But Wilson, LBJ and GWBush were seen as too partisan and pie-in-the-sky, ramming through such boondoggles as the League of Nations, the Great Society and the Patriot Act, all subsequently derided by thinkers across the political spectrum as un-American.

Occasionally, things are so terrible that we look to the president as morale boosters, but this is rare, and their efforts are not always successful. Ford did an especially poor job at uniting us after Nixon and Watergate, but Reagan's popularity came from his ability to rally the country with an optimism that seemed genuine to many (I, personally, never bought into it, but I was in the minority). GWBush had a great chance to do this post-9/11 but blew it when he rallied Americans to consume rather than sacrifice.

Obama seems to be headed down a similar path, but it's really too soon to tell: he hasn't even been in office 90 days yet. And it's telling that the loudest voices of "disenchantment" with him are those who've never held him in high regard in the first place, and it's easy to dismiss such grumblings as a bad case of partisan sour-grapes.

Because of the results of the elections in '88, '92 and '00, when there was a real threat from third-party candidates, both parties (but most especially Republicans) have adopted the 50%+1 mindset: it doesn't matter how much scortched earth is left in the wake of election day, so long as your candidate wins. Instead of trying to build greater consensus through pragmatic compromise and the consideration of differing viewpoints (which is perceived as "wimpy" and unprincipled), the elections are all about delivering as much red meat to the base as possible and eking out a victory in the margins. Obama's absolute majority win, seen from this perspective, is doubly infuriating for Republicans.

As to the actual point of the OP: you seem to labor under the illusion that all this downsizing is discretionary, which is ludricous. Layoffs and other cost-cutting measures are not a whimsey on the part of corporate management, they are the painful steps required to keep the balance sheets as black as possible. If they could reduce layoffs by 1%, they'd be doing it. But this recession/depression will only deepen. There will be much, much more pain before any real growth begins again, and it will take years, not months.[/FONT]

 

[Drifterwood]

When companies restructure, become lean, re-set business models and determine how to become profitable again....earnings will begin to recover and stocks will become healthy again.

Expectations and goals have already been reset in the private sector...give it some time to work.

Someone needs to explain to Obama that you can't 'fix' an economy like you can 'fix' a lawnmower.

Well Star, what you fail to nail is how long it will take the private sector (people like me) to restructure. I give it three painful years with many casualties along the way.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Well Star, what you fail to nail is how long it will take the private sector (people like me) to restructure. I give it three painful years with many casualties along the way.

That's the million dollar question. Those that survive this have windfall profits waiting for them in the recovery.

 

[B_spiker067]

As to the actual point of the OP: you seem to labor under the illusion that all this downsizing is discretionary, which is ludricous. Layoffs and other cost-cutting measures are not a whimsey on the part of corporate management, they are the painful steps required to keep the balance sheets as black as possible. If they could reduce layoffs by 1%, they'd be doing it. But this recession/depression will only deepen. There will be much, much more pain before any real growth begins again, and it will take years, not months.

Well written post. Like it all except the last paragraph.

1) It is fairly evident that the downsizing isn't discretionary, your point being?

2) Moral leadership is exactly what all presidents practice (to varying degrees of success). What people aren't getting is that Obama's moral leadership is left wanting in certain key areas. In this post I gave a simple example that hardly seem worth arguing against. Either tell the people to spend money or tell the people to collectively hire back. Which works best for you?

 

[Bbucko]

Well written post. Like it all except the last paragraph.

1) It is fairly evident that the downsizing isn't discretionary, your point being?

2) Moral leadership is exactly what all presidents practice (to varying degrees of success). What people aren't getting is that Obama's moral leadership is left wanting in certain key areas. In this post I gave a simple example that hardly seem worth arguing against. Either tell the people to spend money or tell the people to collectively hire back. Which works best for you?

My point is that asking corporations in the midst of a financial meltdown to not lay off their employees (no matter the percentage) is like asking a guy with $20 in his pocket, $30 in his checking account and $500 available on his Visa card to buy a round of drinks in a crowded bar: it's not that he mightn't want to, but the funds required for such largesse simply don't exist.

Any attempt to live beyond one's means in such troubled times is irresponsible if one has any hopes of survival at all, and it's indicative of the magical thinking that an overabundance of credit-card cash having value is what got us into this mess in the first place. All this downsizing and the accompanying pain is an honest response to reality and reflects the consequences of the last two decades. Reducing the pain by 1% could well swamp anyone who attempts it, and smaller, more restricted businesses are better than none at all.

As is always the case in our system, government steps in where private enterprise, with their omnipresent profit requirements cannot. I always like to bring the example of the GI Bill when discussing this, because it's something that was not just universally popular, but which also reshaped American life. If banks could have provided low-interest mortgages to veterans without being subsidized by the feds, they would have, obviously. But the conflict between what was profitable for their industry and what society demanded required government intervention, with the result of creating a wholly new American lifestyle still preferred by the majority of our citizens: suburbanization. Without the GI Bill, we'd be living in a completely different country today; as an urbanist, it's one I find repellent, but that's for another thread.

My point is that government action isn't always the socialist, utopian money pit it's so often derided as. It works really well sometimes, more times than not in my opinion. We cannot ask the private sector to pick up the ball when it's beyond their power to do so; if such endeavors were profitable, they'd do so in their own best interest. And capitalism is always, inevitably, about the gaining profit from actions motivated by the self-interest of a corporation's stock-holders.

You cannot insist that people (or corporations) spend money they don't control. These bleak times are the result of money supplies having dried up. Those with any capital to speak of are painfully aware of how limited their funds have become, and the credit market is dry as a bone. Keeping budgets within their limits is a sign of sanity, not greed. And you cannot get blood from a stone.

That's why these bail-outs and stimulus efforts are crucial to our continued economic well-being. Pointing out waste and folly in the margins of such enormous numbers as are being proffered is probably satisfying to the "drown the government in the bathtub" crowd, and allows them to take a "principled" stand against measures even they understand to be necessary, but to me it comes off as nit-picky and detail-obsessed at a time when we need broad-brush thinking. It's also a (frequently) disingenuous denial of how Washington works. Every item of pork is the price paid for a vote to pass the bill in question; anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of the process recognizes that.

So, no...I don't believe it's in our best interest to insist private enterprise ignore their profit and loss reports, because if they do that they won't be around in a short time. And no, I don't believe that president Obama can responsibly request that individuals empty their wallets (light as they are right now) in such dangerous times when their financial well-being requires caution and restraint. I believe that it's the government's role to be the free spenders right now, because they're the only ones with the means to do so.

If everything still collapses (a distinct possibility) anyway, it won't be because we didn't try. But financial analysts were nearly universal in their incompetence in predicting this terrible crisis, and are still incompetent in trying to explain its gravity and scope, in common English, so that we might actually understand what the fuck's going on. As their ineptitude becomes increasingly obvious, it's no wonder why we're becoming increasingly hostile to everything. And our hostility is stoked to bonfire levels by people like Lou Dobbs, whose simplistic opinions are far easier to digest than the nuances and intricacies of the actual crisis at hand.

 

[pym]

Hey Bbucko, In case you are wondering if anyone appreciates your points of view.......I do. A very nice change of pace from the mind numbing drivel of some around these here parts.
Do you really think Lou Dobbs is so inflammatory? I do not always agree with him.....but as far as i can tell{or have seen}he is the only one who seems to be concerned{on record} with Rampant Illegal immigration and it's concurrent effects, an issue that concerns me greatly. God only knows how to deal with it sympathetically, but it is a primary issue {amongst many} of our times.

 

[B_spiker067]

@Bbucko

Another good read. But do you really think that the growing confidence that everyone is committing to a 1% growth would be a waste of time? That businesses would go bankrupt because of the initiative?

I think you are wrong. You'd only be right if the critical mass of employers did not respond to moral leadership.

The economy is a CONfidence game in the end.

 

[HazelGod]

but as far as i can tell{or have seen}he is the only one who seems to be concerned{on record} with Rampant Illegal immigration and it's concurrent effects, an issue that concerns me greatly. God only knows how to deal with it sympathetically, but it is a primary issue {amongst many} of our times.

The statistical data don't support your supposition.

Playboy magazine interviewed Bill Richardson in 2007, when he was still in the running for the democratic primary and the immigration rhetoric was at its media peak. Several issues later (3/08), a reader letter took the editor to task for only posing him with a single question on border security. The editors responded:

According to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll released in December, only 15% of respondents listed illegal immigration as an issue that should be a top priority for a presidential candidate. The war, economy, protecting the country from terrorist attacks, and health care were seen as more pressing.

Illegal immigration doesn't even make the breakout list these days:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. (Jan. 11-15, 2009. N=1,112 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3)
"What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?" [Open-ended]

60% - Economy/Jobs
3% - War in Iraq
3% - Moral values/Family values
2% - Education
2% - Health care/Health insurance
2% - Poverty
2% - Budget/Deficit
2% - Oil dependency/Energy policy
2% - Politicians/Corruption
20% - Other
2% - Unsure


Even when it's explicitly spelled out as a choice, people still don't rate it that important:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. (Dec. 19-21, 2008. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.)

"Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today: [see below]?" (Options rotated)

75% - The economy
7% - Health care
6% - The war in Iraq
6% - Terrorism
5% - Illegal immigration
1% - Other (vol.)

 

[B_FruitFly]

Patriots don't need to be told what to do, and most business men aren't patriots.

Seems to me like he is helping those who would be patriots and hurting those who would be thieves.

 

[pym]

Well H.G.......you certainly have de-bunked my idea that illegal immigration is a concern, but i think only to a point.And i think its extraordinary that you would prefer to debunk my assertion rather than discuss it. Rather like the media approaches this subject. Hence,my at least begrudging respect for LOU DOBBS even being willing to broach the subject. You may have heard of an infamous incident recently that occured in the actual neighborhood that i grew up in.....Patchouge NY. In which a Hispanic gentleman was stabbed and beaten to death by a group of High school kids. I can assure you that the issue of Immigration reform and border control is a hotbed topic here on Long Island.
On any given day here in Suffolk county, One can easily spot several HUNDREDS of Illegals gathered on specific steet intersections DAILY hoping for day-work. In fact, The media here has taken to substituting the term ILLEGAL ALIENS to 'DAY-WORKERS' in sensitivity over the issue.
And while i am sensitive to there 'PLIGHT' up to a point, our particular township is quite simply OVERWHELMED by this issue you have gone out of your way to assert is not a particular concern of our times.
Is this America's dirty little secret? Not in the town that i live in.

 

[Bbucko]

Hey Bbucko, In case you are wondering if anyone appreciates your points of view.......I do. A very nice change of pace from the mind numbing drivel of some around these here parts.
Do you really think Lou Dobbs is so inflammatory? I do not always agree with him.....but as far as i can tell{or have seen}he is the only one who seems to be concerned{on record} with Rampant Illegal immigration and it's concurrent effects, an issue that concerns me greatly. God only knows how to deal with it sympathetically, but it is a primary issue {amongst many} of our times.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, pym. It's the "mind-numbing drivel" that often makes me decide to not even bother posting around here anymore.

I make it a point to educated myself as much as possible on a spectrum of viewpoints, especially those with whom I disagree, provided it stays civil.

I watch Dobbs about 2-3 times a week, which is about all I can stand. His show panders to his very select point of view, which is socially conservative (albeit with a secular perspective) and financially moderately right. But his bias against Obama makes it very difficult for me to take him seriously. It infects everything that comes out of his mouth. Last night, for instance, he had a long segment on "Obama's Bear Market", as if the Dow wasn't tanking prior to the inaguration.

His view on illegal immigration is totally without nuance and ignores much larger forces at play, much like his protectionist rhetoric and his distinctly anti-gay social perspective. I find it difficult to have both my person and intelligence insulted over and over. he may be "Mr Independent", but his perspective is so reactionary that party affiliation seems pretty moot, really. And he rarely, if ever, has guests with viewpoints that challenge him. There's a "self-evident" echo chamber quality to his program that seems more interested in polemics than understanding. FWIW, I don't watch MSNBC or Fox at all, but then I rarely watch more than six or so hours of TV a week, and when I do, it's almost always CNN. I get nearly all my news and opinion online.

@Bbucko

Another good read. But do you really think that the growing confidence that everyone is committing to a 1% growth would be a waste of time? That businesses would go bankrupt because of the initiative?

I think you are wrong. You'd only be right if the critical mass of employers did not respond to moral leadership.

The economy is a CONfidence game in the end.

I don't think it's a waste of time, I just don't think it's possible given the lack of credit as it exists right now. I truly believe that business is doing all it can to stay afloat.

One of the main reasons why I stopped working for large corporations and started working exclusively with entrepreneurs over twenty years ago is that I was disillusioned by the way they operate. Altruism, as such, only fits into business plans when there is profit to be gained by doing so, otherwise it's naive to expect otherwise. There is a ruthless, top-down quality to decisions in major corporations, which is why they rarely innovate. Entrepreneurs are compelled to think outside of the box, just as the Fortune 500 are compelled to construct the box: individualism is considered seditious and counter-productive, and anyone with a novel, innovative idea runs the risk of putting segments of the company out of business. Risk (which I consider a requirement for growth) is the province of small business. Big business has too much to lose by attempting it. When an entrepreneur gambles on a risky undertaking, s/he's risking his/her own capital. When big business does that, they're risking the stock-holder's money, which is a whole different ball game.

I wish I could summon your optimism about big business' being willing to risk their profits on the greater public good, but my experience has taught me that considering their motivations to benefit the public good isn't likely to be rewarded.

Pick your poison:

The automotive industry had 35 years to develop alternative fuel capacity after the first oil embargo, but gave us the Hummer;

Pharmaceuticals resist patent expirations (and allowing generic equivelants) by "innovating" their formulas just enough to constantly keep their products at the highest possible prices;

Energy companies have resisted efforts to wean us off foreign oil and have allowed the nation's power grid to go to seed;

The chemical industry was responsible for wreaking environmental disasters from coast to coast. The EPA was required to address this issue before any suggestion of self-regulation was considered, and brown field superfunds are still bearing the brunt of clean-up costs;

Those are just a few of the industries that I came up with off the top of my head. Can you think of any large American industry that considers altruism on their balance sheet?

 

[HazelGod]

Well H.G.......you certainly have de-bunked my idea that illegal immigration is a concern,...

our particular township is quite simply OVERWHELMED by this issue you have gone out of your way to assert is not a particular concern of our times.
Is this America's dirty little secret? Not in the town that i live in.

If I got you to open your eyes and see the issue with some new perspective, that's a good thing. Too often we become fixated on situations or details and imbue them with a greater sense of importance than they deserve. (OVERWHELMED? Seriously?) I'm as guilty of doing this as the next guy, but I'm not unwilling to blink and look around when it's been pointed out to me.

What's disturbing are the profiles of the small minority of folks who seem to focus on this issue. I shouldn't need to raise the spectre of Nazi Germany to drive home the dangers in such a rabidly xenophobic mentality. The incident you mentioned, the nutjob down in Florida who shot up a house full of South American college students, and others like it speak to just what some elements will do when given an "enemy" to blame for their ills.

Personally, I think it's mostly a red herring...but I never said it wasn't an issue at all, just that we've got a lot bigger fish to fry.

 

[B_starinvestor]

What's disturbing are the profiles of the small minority of folks who seem to focus on this issue. I shouldn't need to raise the spectre of Nazi Germany to drive home the dangers in such a rabidly xenophobic mentality.

:lmao: Nazi Germany? Profound.

Personally, I think it's mostly a red herring...but I never said it wasn't an issue at all, just that we've got a lot bigger fish to fry.

Yeah. Its not a big deal at all.

 

[HazelGod]

Nazi Germany? Profound.

Was there some point to your idiotic interjection? Are you actually suggesting that the express identification of an ethnic group as the focus of that nation's crises was not the lever used to manipulate the people of that society into tacit acceptance of genocide? Or that there is no lesson we ought to have learned from such xenophobic ignorance?

Yeah. Its not a big deal at all.

My point exactly, borne out by the statistical data.

 

[B_spiker067]

If I got you to open your eyes and see the issue with some new perspective, that's a good thing. Too often we become fixated on situations or details and imbue them with a greater sense of importance than they deserve. (OVERWHELMED? Seriously?) I'm as guilty of doing this as the next guy, but I'm not unwilling to blink and look around when it's been pointed out to me...

Sadly, the worse the economy the worse the strife will get between illegal aliens and natural citizens.

I know one guy who was let go. He thought he was let go because of the economy but then found out his boss hired two illegal aliens to do the work he had done.

We can only hope the economy improves before the scale of hatred grows and inculcates itself more in the American psyche.

 

[HazelGod]

Sadly, the worse the economy the worse the strife will get between illegal aliens and natural citizens.

Yes, I suspect things truly will get worse before they start getting better...both economically and socially. No man is quite so unpredictable as one beset with a sense of desperation.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Was there some point to your idiotic interjection? Are you actually suggesting that the express identification of an ethnic group as the focus of that nation's crises was not the lever used to manipulate the people of that society into tacit acceptance of genocide? Or that there is no lesson we ought to have learned from such xenophobic ignorance?

What a drama queen. To suggest that this issue of ILLEGALS would escalate into a genocide situation is ridiculous.

My point exactly, borne out by the statistical data.

Far too much of a drain on public funds, jobs and resources for anyone to dismiss as trivial.

 

[sexplease]

this just out today. Obama congressional speech touched on points from last years Addendum version. Perhaps our "leader" will mention these points in one of his future speeches as well.

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

 

[B_spiker067]

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

uHHHHHHHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

Thanks for the laugh. Some points made but drowned out by the rest of it.