What is the WH/Fed plan?

[wufwugy]

What is their actual plan to improve the actual economy? I honestly cannot make any sense with what they're doing. It seems the WH refuses to increase revenues enough for positive growth and the Fed refuses to increase inflation enough for positive growth. If we don't do those we cannot raise employment, cannot raise wages, and cannot reduce debt.

Please, anybody, explain to me what the White House's and Federal Reserve's actual plans to fix the economy are. The only guess I have is that No Balls Barry is being led around by lobbyists, and anybody who knows what they're doing are secretly being provoked into making sure things suck just enough in 2012 so they can get somebody like Palin in charge who will let the corporations do whatever they want. Maybe that's when they actually plan on devising a strategy that promotes growth

[Puppycow]

Well, the latest tax cut deal is described as a sort of stimulus, worth $900 billion or something, and the Fed's decision to purchase $600 billion of government debt is supposed to increase inflation enough for positive growth.

The tax cut deal isn't what the white house would prefer, but it's the only deal they could get republicans to agree to.

[wufwugy]

Thanks for the opinion. I like your posts and this forum in general, but was getting irked that this thread was not generating any discussion

Well, the latest tax cut deal is described as a sort of stimulus, worth $900 billion or something, and the Fed's decision to purchase $600 billion of government debt is supposed to increase inflation enough for positive growth.

The tax cut deal isn't what the white house would prefer, but it's the only deal they could get republicans to agree to.


That's not a plan though. We already know that the cuts don't have positive multiplying effects and that this QE isn't enough to beat population growth

[Puppycow]

I take it that you generally agree with Paul Krugman then?

So do I. However, we are a minority. It seems that the president and most of economic advisors are more centrist than Krugman. Even if they agreed with Krugman, I don't know if they could get congress to go along. Perhaps a savvier politician like FDR could have done it. We can only guess.

The same thing seems to be true with those in charge of monetary policy. A lot of people are more worried about inflation than unemployment, even though unemployment is the problem that is manifesting itself now, and inflation is actually lower than normal.

Here in Japan, it's even worse. The BoJ doesn't seem to have a clue. They've tolerated deflation for 15 years now, and there in no end in sight. Deflation is projected to continue. The BoJ only makes modest purchases of government debt. Not enough to stimulate the economy, reduce the debt or end deflation. It's strange, but true.

There's a cognitive bias against inflation. If you poll people, most will say that they would rather have high unemployment and low inflation than low unemployment and high inflation. (Cite) (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/why_americans_hate_inflation.html).

The distaste for inflation is such that a 1996 study (titled, aptly, “Why Do People Dislike Inflation?”), by Yale economist Robert Shiller, found that, in countries around the world, sizable majorities said that they would prefer low inflation and high unemployment to high inflation and low unemployment, even if that meant that millions of extra people would go without work.

So I guess you could say that this is what the people want. We live in a democracy and the majority care more about inflation than about unemployment.

[wufwugy]

Yes, I'm a Krugman guy

It seems to me that the WH plan is

1) Do what Goldman says, which we should predict wouldn't be a great strategy for the economy. This makes sense inasmuch as Goldman is largely in charge, and politicians like Obama will simply believe what their Goldman advisors tell them

2) The administration's philosophy is along the lines of trickle down free marketeer invisible hand stuff. They inadvertently cherry pick their data, and believe that the only way they *should* aid the economy is by letting it come from private industry decisions. This would explain why they're doing retarded **** like gutting revenues by not letting the tax cuts expire


I guess I feel that we're dealing with 1/3rd good policy, 1/3rd sinister motives, and 1/3rd bad policy. Maybe that explains why No Balls Barry is totally cool with unemployment being just as high two years from now as it is today

[Travis]

Well can you blame Obama? He said he wanted to reform health care and the response was like he had just proposed stealing everyone's first born. He approved of bailouts to keep the financial system from collapsing and everyone got on him for that. Then he proposed a stimulus and all everyone could harp on was "more tax breaks!"

He has idiot adversaries that think the solution to every problem is deregulation and tax breaks. It's not his fault that our education system has produced a nation of complete morons.

[wufwugy]

Well can you blame Obama? He said he wanted to reform health care and the response was like he had just proposed stealing everyone's first born. He approved of bailouts to keep the financial system from collapsing and everyone got on him for that. Then he proposed a stimulus and all everyone could harp on was "more tax breaks!"

He has idiot adversaries that think the solution to every problem is deregulation and tax breaks. It's not his fault that our education system has produced a nation of complete morons.


Actually, I can blame him. His adversaries are not the idiots (unless we're talking about voters). If anybody is an idiot, it's Barry No Balls. He has had the vast majority of the public on his side on virtually every single issue, but he threw it all away by buckling to pressure, not fighting, not making his case, not combating the propaganda, etc.

If Obama was a savvy politicker like the GOP he would have touted his Mission Accomplished banner once a day for every week of unemployment insurance he wrested from the grubby obstructionists' hands. The public would adore him for things like ending pre-existing conditions or loading local governments with infrastructure funds. The fact that most voters think that their taxes have gone up even though Obama has lowered them substantially is all the evidence I need to blame Barry's politically incompetent ass

The options are 1) he's playing a sinister game of good cop to the GOP bad cops, 2) he's politically retarded, 3) he legitimately thinks that the establishment isn't fundamentally effed up, or 4) things are so remarkably terrible that he has to bend over backwards for the powers that be lest they destroy him like they did Carter

Either way, I'm going to blame him. He had the potential to be a hero, but he squashed that

[Puppycow]

Perhaps your original messianic expectations were unrealistic?

If you don't expect too much, you are less likely to be disappointed.

I'm sorry to make excuses, but he's only the second president to be president in the Internet era. I think it's harder than ever before for a president to control the narrative in this new media world.

[wufwugy]

Perhaps your original messianic expectations were unrealistic?

If you don't expect too much, you are less likely to be disappointed.

I'm sorry to make excuses, but he's only the second president to be president in the Internet era. I think it's harder than ever before for a president to control the narrative in this new media world.


I didn't vote for him, I didn't think he was a messiah, I had only just started examining politics near the end of 08, and was a Paulite for the first several months. I was a staunch supporter of Obama's for at least his first year. He's done some very awesome things like nom Warren to CFPB, but has done some other bafflingly awful things

I'm forever partially a fence sitter with him, but the fact remains that he is making some egregious mistakes that could be easily avoidable. As to why those mistakes are being made, we may never know. Part of me still gives him the benefit of the doubt because I think there is a good possibility that if he doesn't bend over for the establishment, he'll be demonized and destroyed by that establishment. But I don't fully believe that, and I think that if he was willing to go out on his shield, he wouldn't have to because he would win. If this is a chess match, he's incessantly giving his queen to the opposition on the third move