Top economists give Obama, Geithner F+

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Top U.S. economists have given both Obama and Geithner failing grades on their attempts to revive the economy.

    The experts believe the Obama team has failed miserably in each action taken in relation to the economy.

    This isn't surprising given that Obama's agenda is basically an instructional manual on how to extend a recession and shackle opportunities for economic growth.

    Hopefully the Administration will learn from its failures and make more effective economic policy decisions in the future. However, that outcome is unlikely.

    Throwing money at the problem is one thing. Throwing money at everything but the problem is another thing altogether.

    I will not disclose my grade of the Administration's economic policy-making decisions. For now, I'll leave the grading/assessment to the national experts cited in the attached link.


    WSJ.com Economic Forecasting Survey Gives Obama, Geithner Low Grades - WSJ.com
     
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    For the last few years, some of the so-called "top economists" have been just as bad at predicting the economy as meteorologists predicting the weather. In other words, nobody gives a fuck what they think.

    If they were so "top", then they would have helped to prevent the economic collapse two years ago. How can average people sense something wrong with the economy going back as far as 2006, when the "experts" didn't acknowledge it until after more than 1/4th of the Dow Jones Average evaporated?
     
  3. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Did anyone actually read the article? It's rather hilarious how starinvestor translated what it says into "Top economists give Obama, Geithner F+", as well as the way the article itself is worded. If you ever needed evidence of bias in either the OP or the WSJ, here it is.

    Example:

    Starinvestor's translation: "Top economists give Obama, Geithner F+"

    Here's another way to word the same thing:

    Devil's advocate's translation: "An easy majority of top economists approve of Obama, Geithner's stimulus package."

    Thanks for that, starinvestor. You've just provided us with an article from a right-biased source that says the majority of top economists think the stimulus bill was enough and that we won't need another one.

    I'm actually surprised you'd post something that is so supportive of the administration and the stimulus package that you clearly don't support.
     
  4. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    The economists who predicted all this are the Austrian School guys. I listened to them and I pulled out while the getting was good. Damn Keynesians like to build castles in the sky and pretend they'll never fall down. Nothing has vindicated the Austrians like the credit bubble. Pity it had to come to that.
     
  5. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    I wonder if star listened to any of Obama's speeches while he was on the campaign trail. It may have been helpful. Obama told the American people that there were tough times ahead. Look... tough times are upon us. Those of us who voted for him (more than half of the country, btw), knew this was coming. We're not surprised.

    On the other hand, Johnny-boy thought the american economy was rock solid and nothing could hurt it or us. Had he been president right now, we'd be just where we are now, only the Bush-league cover-up would still be in full force. "We are NOT in a recession. It's just a bit of an economic slow down."

    Oh, and star, just in case you're wondering: we lefty liberal types usually pay attention to both sides of the argument. Most of the time we know exactly what the other side is saying. You really don't need to point it out to us (in an over-inflated and wildly misinterpreted manner).
     
  6. Notaguru2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Meh, it took Bush 8 yrs to ruin our country. I'll give Obama 8 to fix it. /shrug
     
  7. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    It wasn't supportive in any way. Some view that we need another stimulus because the first Obama stimulus plan is ineffective and loaded with non-stimulus pollution.

    You made a great attempt at spinning the article. You really only need re-read the first paragraph to get the gist of the economists' view:

    U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

    For the record, I would upgrade their mark to D-. At least they are trying, and I don't believe you should fail anyone that at least tries. They are horrific, but at least put forth effort.
     
  8. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Top economists ? That's a laugher, take a good look at the economy, anyone can Monday morning quarterback/coach the game after a blowout loss. Any of these guys ever see that inflation (greed) was the real cause and nobody can do anything about that but the people that perpetuate it themselves ? Madoff by himself defrauded to the tune of $ 50 billion, that's just one @sshole, how does anyone much less this nation recover from that theft alone ? Just to give everyone an acid test on the magnitude, the S&L bailouts under Reagan/Daddy Bush in the late 80's/early 90's, $ 160+ billion. Madoff is nearly a 1/3 of that on his own. Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow took down Enron, the 7th largest corporation at the time. Yes, economists, experts that they are, where are their real solutions and not one's they're hyping and billing to the tune of 6 figures plus ?
     
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    How can an economist forecast fraud?

    BTW, Madoff fraud is now up to $65 billion and counting.
     
  10. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    You, sir, are an idiot.
     
  11. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually it's quite easy to predict those kind of things. Let's see, 2001, Bush announces a tax rebate for economic stimulus. Inflation occurs prior to it's distribution, then recurs when the actual distribution happens. Every time he announced economic stimulus, tax cuts and so forth, inflation occurred. How tough is that to predict ? Tell those that have the means to raise prices that every taxpayer in America is going to get at least $ 300-600 in August 2001 and guess what, htere is going to be a mad rush to be the first in line to get that money. That tax rebate was spent before anyone even got a check. Then when they got the check, the money was in hand and they double dipped on it. The 2001 tax rebate was a deficit. And then was followed up with 9/11/2001.

    9/11/2001, the Airlines got a $ 20+ billion bailout, those executives promptly gave themselves a bonus, as they laid off labor. So was there any doubt Wall Street was going to do similar @ $ 18+ billion in bonuses ?

    In January, Obama announced his economic stimulus to the masses. I don't know about where you live, but gasoline has spiked to $ 2.15/gallon from $ 1.65 where I live ? And this while the price of a barrel of oil dropped.

    I lived thru Daddy Bush starting off my career, I knew when "W" came around any traction and good that came under Clinton would be gone/lost and right now we're multiple times worse off than the father's 4 year mistake. So be forewarned, when the 3rd Bush coming around for a Presidential pension, it'll be exactly what the rest of that damn family and their entourage has done to this nation.

    The greed of Wall Street, a 70 year old man like Madoff grabbing the last of what he thought he could get away with, his last hurrah before retiring off into a Florida sunset and living lavishly off "OPM, Inc." (other people's money). That was a movie in the 80's starring Danny DeVito. Basically, the 1980's had corporations raiding pension funds. They came up with 401-k/403-b's after that theft/defraud. And between the corporations and Wall Street, they've succeeded to raid that retirement buildup as well. How else do you explain 20 years of savings and a 90 year old man losing $ 3/4 million to Madoff ? Hell, "W" wanted to put Social Security in Wall Street's hands. So the top economists can't predict this ? Did they even take a basic psychology course, much more pass it to become an economist (not even one of the tops in their field) ? I'll go ahead and say it, I bet I can I find a "C" student at a community college that could predict this type of activity/behavior with that kind of track record for cause and effect. All I know is I took an auditing course in college, ethics was a major emphasis throughout that semester, they even required us to prepare and submit a paper on the S&L bailout and junk bonds of the prior years. I know firsthand who were the players and guess what, the Bush's were so deeply involved it wasn't even funny.

    Neil Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  12. jj8inch

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids (MI, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Isn't it funny Obama has been on the job since mid January and the economy hasnt rebounded. EPIC FAIL
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Isn't it funny that you expected Obama to have a magic wand to make everything better in just 50 days. EPIC DELUSION.
     
  14. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    VinylBoy, I read that post to be facetious ? But if Obama needs them, I have a bag of pixie dust, along with a handful of magic "economic prosperity" beans he can use. But I expect to get at least an old cow for either of them in trade ? :wink:
     
  15. mistergrasso

    mistergrasso Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    All over the place
    This line of reasoning is just plain stupid and only the hardcore ditto heads are repeating this nonsense that Obama should have some how righted this upside down ship of a country in 50 days. I include, in that group, the conservative economists who peddle their tired wares in the Wall Street Journal.
     
  16. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,384
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Nothing in the comic strip Wall Street Journal is 'top' anything. Except tops in feeding hard right wing propaganda to the gullible.

    Other lovely WSJ Obama articles:

    08/26/08 WSJ The Racism Excuse
    08/26/08 WSJ Hillary's Missed Moment
    08/25/08 WSJ The Democrats Field a Liberal Dream Team
    08/25/08 WSJ Obama's Cheney
    08/25/08 WSJ Say, It's Joe. So?
    08/22/08WSJWashington Is Quietly Repudiating Its Debts
    08/21/08 WSJ Obama's Health-Care Tipoff
    08/21/08 WSJ We Can't Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
    08/20/08 WSJ McCain Is the Pro-Choice Candidate
    08/20/08 WSJ Obama's Abortion Position?
    08/20/08 WSJ White Fright
    08/20/08 WSJ Democrats Move Left on Abortion
    08/20/08 WSJ A Closer Look at Senator Obama's Tax Proposals
    08/20/08 WSJ Democrats and Drilling
    08/19/08 WSJ Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan
    08/18/08 WSJ Obama on Clarence Thomas
    08/18/08 WSJ Why So Slack, Barack?
    08/17/08 WSJ Darragh vs. the Obama Bots
    08/17/08 WSJ The Clinton Coup
    08/15/08 WSJ Obama's Abortion Controversy
    08/14/08 WSJ Too Eloquent and Idealistic
    08/14/08 WSJ The Obama Tax Plan
    08/08/08 WSJ Barack and the Buck
    08/07/08 WSJ Obama's Commodity Play
    08/06/08 WSJ How Might Sen. Obama's Policies Change Economy?
    08/04/08 WSJ Obama's Drill Bit
    08/04/08 WSJ What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
    08/04/08 WSJ Obamanomics
    08/02/08 WSJ Does Sen. Obama Transcend Old Paradigms of Race?
    08/01/08 WSJ Robbing Peter to Pay Peter
    08/01/08 WSJ Obama's Bad Turn
    08/01/08 WSJ Pelosi's Energy Stonewall
    08/01/08 WSJ Democrats Get Drilled
    07/31/08 WSJ Jesus Christ, Superstar
    07/31/08 WSJ Obama's Iraq Fumble
    07/30/08 WSJ Barack Obama, Shaman
    07/29/08 WSJ Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
    07/29/08 WSJ Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime
    07/29/08 WSJ The Berlin Obama Didn't See
    07/29/08 WSJ The Obama Principle
    07/25/08 WSJ Obama and the German Question
    07/24/08 WSJ Obama's Experience Doesn't Match Up
    07/22/08 WSJ Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama
    07/18/08 WSJ What Would Obama Die For?
    07/18/08 WSJ Obama's 'Judgment'
    07/17/08 WSJ Who Obama Should See in Iraq
    07/14/08 WSJ Obama's Bear Market?
    07/12/08 WSJ Obama's Liberal Shock Troops
    07/12/08 WSJ Praising Himself
    07/11/08 WSJ Obama Doesn't Have to Run as a Liberal
    07/11/08 WSJ Obama The Blur
    07/10/08 WSJ Obama Loses a Running Mate
    07/10/08 WSJ Will Obama Let the Sunshine In?
    07/09/08 WSJ Obama's Next Pivot?
    07/08/08 WSJ The Department of Racial Development
    07/08/08 WSJ Obama's Nixon Reprise
    07/07/08 WSJ Obama: Equality Rather Than Growth
    07/03/08 WSJ The Keepers of Clintonism
    07/03/08 WSJ Obama Should Embrace His Muslim Heritage
    07/03/08 WSJ Can Barack Buy the Presidency?
    07/01/08 WSJ Dissecting Barack Obama's Social Security Proposals
    07/01/08 WSJ Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates
    06/30/08 WSJ Name Change We Can Believe In
    06/30/08 WSJ Obama's Dry Hole
    06/27/08 WSJ Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates
    06/26/08 WSJ It's All About Obama
    06/25/08 WSJ Obama's Social Security Fine Print
    06/23/08 WSJ 'Did I Mention He's Black?'
    06/21/08 WSJ Sen. Obama and Economics 101
    06/20/08 WSJ Farewell, New Democrats
    06/20/08 WSJ Hillary for Veep? Check Back Later
    06/20/08 WSJ Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
    06/19/08 WSJ Mrs. Obama and the Tuskegee Superstition
    06/21/08 WSJ Sen. Obama and Economics 101
    06/20/08 WSJ Farewell, New Democrats
    06/20/08 WSJ Hillary for Veep? Check Back Later
    06/20/08 WSJ Obama Turns FDR Upside Down
    06/19/08 WSJ Barack of Arabia?
    06/19/08 WSJ Mrs. Obama and the Tuskegee Superstition
    06/19/08 WSJ Obama and McCain Spout Economic Nonsense
    06/17/08 WSJ Why Iraqis Back McCain
    06/12/08 WSJ Leaving Obama
    05/30/08 WSJ The Obama Gaffe Machine
    05/29/08 WSJ Obama's Revisionist History
    05/23/08 WSJ The Obama Learning Curve
    05/12/08 WSJ Obama and the Values Question Mark
    05/08/08 WSJ It's Obama, Warts and All
    05/05/08 WSJ Why Obama's Fans Seemed Scarce As Things Got Hot
    05/02/08 WSJ Obama's Other Radical Friends
    05/01/08 WSJ Wright Is Right
    05/01/08 WSJ Pastor Millstone
    05/01/08 WSJ Where Were Obama's Friends?
    04/30/08 WSJ The Wright Side of the Brain
    04/29/08 WSJ Yeah, Wright
    04/24/08 WSJ Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
    04/23/08 WSJ Don't Call Me a Protectionist
    04/23/08 WSJ Obama's Media Army
    04/22/08 WSJ The Obama Quarantine
    04/18/08 WSJ A 'Bitter' Misstep
    04/18/08 WSJ Bad Night for Barack
    04/18/08 WSJ Obama's Tax Evasion
    04/15/08 WSJ Obama's Flaws Multiply
    04/15/08 WSJ The Wright Stuff and Senator Obama
    04/14/08 WSJ Are You Bitter Off?
    04/09/08 WSJ Obama's Minister Problem
    04/05/08 WSJ Obama's Capital Loss
    03/27/08 WSJ Where Does Obama Invest His Money?
    03/21/08 WSJ Democrats Are Still Weak on Security
    03/20/08 WSJ Obama and the American Flag
    03/13/08 WSJ Obama and the Race Card
    03/04/08 WSJ Obama's Border Incident
    03/03/08 WSJ Obama and Chicago Mores
    02/27/08 WSJ Obama's 'Patriot' Act
    02/27/08 WSJ Obama Inspires Many to Participate in Politics, but on His Terms
    02/22/08 WSJ Obama's Cash Games
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama's New Vulnerability
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama's Teamster 'Diplomacy'
    02/21/08 WSJ Obama and Race
    02/18/08 WSJ Has Obama Crested?

    So yes the WSJ has a serious personality disorder.
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I doubt that's a bag of actual pixie dust, but if you don't mind I would like to borrow it. There's a rave coming up and I think it will come in very handy. :biggrin1:
     
  18. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    I read the Journal regularly, but sometimes it goes for sensationalism. It used to be that the editorial page was the only place for opinion, but under News Corp. more articles are like this one.

    The major fallacy here is the 'false analogy'. WSJ surveys 54 economists throughout the year and describes this as a grade. What's wrong with that?

    -- Grading (<snark>at least outside of liberal arts</snark>) is quantitative and based on factual results, e.g., answering correctly 7 questions out of ten nets a C grade. For a national economy like the US, there is definitely no single 'correct answer' to the myriad of issues.
    -- Most economists don't agree with themselves, let alone other economists. So, taking an *average* (for crissakes not even the frackin' *median*) result is somewhat random statistically. Maybe the guy who gave Obama a 0 is right, maybe the guy who gave him a 100. The fact is, no one knows with certainty right now. Averaging this to a 50 does not make the individual results any more meaningful.
    -- The problems are complex enough that all solutions have some risk. Thus, we should expect that even an 'ideal' President would get mixed results. In other words, a result of 70 might be the best that anyone could reasonably attain with the WSJ methodology.

    Bottom line, this is opinion masquerading as statistics. Carefully constructed to look like quantitative fact, but really just a scoring mechanism for poll answers.

    We used to get better content from the WSJ.

    BTW, I don't agree with a lot of what Obama has done. For example, I think we should just nationalize the major zombie banks. Right now, we (the taxpayer) own the risk and the shareholders and management own the reward. That is not right.
     
  19. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well said.

    One disturbing part of the article is that it does not define who the economists are. Supply siders, Keynesians, Austrian schoolers (von Mises)... all would give Obama and Geithner differing marks depending on their perspective. Given it's so early in the recovery process (if one is beginning at all...), how can one fairly assign a "final" grade?

    As Laurence J. Peter (originator of the peter principle, which is somewhat appropriate here) opined: "An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today."

    As others wisely pointed out here if all of these economists were so wise, they all would have predicted the depth of the current recession. To my knowledge, only Nouriel Roubini (NYU) has publicly stated this would happen, and he falls squarely into the Keynesian school of thought. He is for even more stimulus than we have put into play.

    Although I too am not happy either with the direction, and lack of details in the Obama/Geithner plan, it is far too early to make final judgments about it's effectiveness, and as Star fairly points out at least they are trying, which is far more than one could say for Bush/Paulson.

    As to the quality of the WSJ... it was sadly partisan even before Murdoch, but subsequently it has become even more vitriolic. Read the following editorial by Daniel Henninger, which is about how Obama is (heaven forbid) is making a moral argument that the top 1% of all taxpayers should shoulder more of the tax burden, as their share of national wealth has increased from 11-to-22% since Reagan.

    The Obama Rosetta Stone - WSJ.com

    (it's an interesting piece in that he cites the work of two French economists Piketty and Saenz whose work has heavily influenced Obama's economic policies)

    You would think that with the jobless rate at 8% and heading to 10%, and the under-utilization rate of labor (meaning those working at less than capacity, or full earning power) at 14.1%, the Journal would be promoting growth, and meaningful jobs, not class warfare.

    BTW Gerald Seib's articles are often worse than Henninger's. Here's his take on class warfare in the form of the eternal tax fairness debate (which just screams for a tiered flatter tax... to me).

    Taxes Test Obama's Support - WSJ.com

    While these guys argue "fair" tax percentages for those who will continue to have a roof over their head and food to eat, tent cities are sprouting in Sacramento. But hey, the WSJ is the paper of capitalism, not laborism.
     
  20. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Well, the rhetoric wasn't supportive, but the actual data they presented was, in spite of how they spun it.

    Thanks, I thought I did okay. At least, almost as well as the WSJ did in the original article. But, as in the quote that you reproduced just now, they right-slanted an entire article whereas I just did one short paragraph.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted