Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

guderian

Members
  • Content Count

    5,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About guderian

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New Orleans Saints
  1. Unfortunately almost all of the sports media is about shoving hours and hours of the same story down your throat. Favre. Tebow. Lin. The last couple days have been "how is Lin like Tebow?"
  2. A: Kundera had it right. There's no way of knowing what the world looks like in an alternative universe.B: The economic plan was forecasting from an economy that was better than it actually turned out to be. C: Saying any objective measure is too strong. It compares against other recessions caused by banking crises. So compared against that objective measure, it looks like the recovery is about normal. At the end of the day, the real question becomes: what measures would someone else have done differently looking prospectively from 2009 and why would one think that that solution would be superior? I'd imagine that most critics of the Obama measures would say that they did too much, that they needed to allow the pain to be let out and have markets re-balance. But assumedly that baseline would look much, much worse right now from the metrics of GDP and employment. First, let me say that I sincerely respect debating these topics with guys like you, slapdash, timshochet, pantagrapher, and others. I waded into a hornets nest of morons the other day in another thread and that reminded me that while we often have heated disagreements amongst us, I sincerely appreciate the facts, knowledge, rationale and thought process you guys bring to a debate.With respect to the economic plan forecasting from the belief that the economy was better than it actually turned out to be...the problem with that argument is that people just sort of leap to that conclusion and the depth of the 2008 recession seems to be a function of the actual 2008 recession PLUS the shortfall of the subsequent recovery versus expectations. Now, if you're going to quote research done by an analyst at the Dallas Fed, we should consider that Fisher, the president of the Dallas Fed, has been pretty critical of our current economic policies. As far as what we should have done, I'm a strong believer in the crowding out theory and believe that our trillions of borrowing merely crowded out investment in the private sector. I also think that our deficit of 10-15% of GDP in recent years also hurt business confidence because they knew that radical changes would need to be made to our budget to get to sustainable levels. I'd also toss in the uncertainty argument related to the massive waves of new regulation-especially in health care and financial services.
  3. How about if we measure against the projected 33% unemployment that was being thrown around in September of 2008? Still a failure?If you can point to something credible like the Blue Chip economic forecast that cited 33% unemployment, sure. If you're talking about a couple of chicken littles or nut jobs, no.
  4. I think it's more about the attribution for credit for the employment numbers. Since you're posting in a thread that's over 2 years old, it's a tad bit late for the cheerleading.Lets look at it from the other side - something like positive employment numbers for what 16 months straight ?- and longer if going by private sector job reporting. All against the backdrop of our deepest recession and credit crunch since the 1930's, the constant drumbeat during that time of a double-dip recession or worse, and a European banking/credit crisis - certainly this deserves some cheerleading - and it certainly is better than the negative nancy's have been beating on since day one of the administration and their attempts to turn this around. Much to their chagrin the economy is improving in a whole lot of places - employment, retail sales, corporate profits, exports, energy, and guess what - soon the housing market. A lot more good news than bad lately.The benchmark as to whether our economic plan is working isn't '0' employment growth, but it's versus what was promised and what previous recoveries looked like. We're millions of jobs short of what we were promised the plan would deliver as well as where we would be in a normal recovery. We were promised 4% GDP growth and 7.1% unemployment by the end of 2011. By any objective measure, our economic plan is a failure.For a guy who is pretty intelligent and is usually pretty rational, I have no idea why you continue peddling this nonsense. The "promises" you're referring to were made in a fluid situation and were based on fresh economic data that we now know wasn't an accurate picture of how awful the economic crash really was. I have no beef with those who argue moral hazard or other angles, but the "we were promised" garbage is nonsense and you know it, yet you continue to repeat it. I have no idea why.You didn't bold the second half of my statement: "and what previous recoveries looked like." There's a lot of historical precedent that says that our recovery should be much further along--those precedents were validated in Obama's 2010 budget "But, a key fact is that recessions are followed by rebounds. Indeed, if periods of lower-than-normal growth were not followed by periods of higher-than-normal growth, the unemployment rate would never return to normal. Another key fact is that deeper recessions are typically followed by more rapid growth." I cite what was "promised" because (a) it's generally consistent with historical precedents and (b) no one can accuse me of using a biased source. I cheer the employment growth, but we had a lot of employment growth in the 90s during a period of gridlock and one year into gridlock we're having employment growth improve. So when people are going to attribute credit for these employment numbers, I'm going to put them into the context of where we should be and not let people re-define success down to anything better than '0' employment growth.
  5. I think it's more about the attribution for credit for the employment numbers. Since you're posting in a thread that's over 2 years old, it's a tad bit late for the cheerleading.Lets look at it from the other side - something like positive employment numbers for what 16 months straight ?- and longer if going by private sector job reporting. All against the backdrop of our deepest recession and credit crunch since the 1930's, the constant drumbeat during that time of a double-dip recession or worse, and a European banking/credit crisis - certainly this deserves some cheerleading - and it certainly is better than the negative nancy's have been beating on since day one of the administration and their attempts to turn this around. Much to their chagrin the economy is improving in a whole lot of places - employment, retail sales, corporate profits, exports, energy, and guess what - soon the housing market. A lot more good news than bad lately.The benchmark as to whether our economic plan is working isn't '0' employment growth, but it's versus what was promised and what previous recoveries looked like. We're millions of jobs short of what we were promised the plan would deliver as well as where we would be in a normal recovery. We were promised 4% GDP growth and 7.1% unemployment by the end of 2011. By any objective measure, our economic plan is a failure.
  6. I think it's more about the attribution for credit for the employment numbers. Since you're posting in a thread that's over 2 years old, it's a tad bit late for the cheerleading.
  7. I would add the Fed's Y2K liquidity injection as a contributing factor to the bubble. The Fed pushed it from "over-hyped" to "bubble" in my mind as capital chased the sector of the market that was working best. It was no coincidence that the bubble straddled 1/1/00 and that it all ended and blew up a couple of months later as the Fed quickly withdrew the excess liquidity. I think we're also benefiting from the assets that were built during the tech bubble that eventually went through bankruptcy (more than once in many cases) and ended up with owners that had very little capital investment in the infrastructure which made many business models profitable that otherwise wouldn't have been. For example, the thousands of miles of fiber optics that were laid that ended up being acquired for $0.01 on the dollar (literally) and are now being hooked up to cell towers that allow 4G speeds north of 10 MB. Do you work in the IT field? I worked in it back in Y2K and I don't think that liquidity had anything to do with the popping of the bubble. The popping of the bubble was ridiculous expectations and valuations. Right now, there is one dominant search engine. Back in 2000, there was Alta Vista, Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, Lycos, and a bunch of others I don't even remember. The rise of stocks like Amazon and Ebay in the late 90s led to the creation of zillions of wannabees based on venture capital that was probably built on the huge stock runs since 1987. The problem was that no one in the investment industry thought 99% of those companies wouldn't be in existence in a few years. Throw in all the cash people threw at IT folks for the Y2K issue that got yanked out and I can see my reasoning behind the tech bubble popping, but Fed liquidity isn't one of them.I was an equity research analyst covering telecom at the time. I think the reasons that you cited are also valid, but tech stocks doubled in the 6-9 months straddling Y2K and I don't think that was a coincidence. It's not uncommon for capital to chase after the sector of the market that's working at the time. I just think that last doubling of tech stocks is what pushed the tech market from "over-hyped" for the reasons that you cited to "bubble". Here's an article from the time worrying about this happening: Money supply soars as Y2K nears In the first months of 2000 the Fed sucked the excess liquidity out and tech stocks immediately started to crash.
  8. I would add the Fed's Y2K liquidity injection as a contributing factor to the bubble. The Fed pushed it from "over-hyped" to "bubble" in my mind as capital chased the sector of the market that was working best. It was no coincidence that the bubble straddled 1/1/00 and that it all ended and blew up a couple of months later as the Fed quickly withdrew the excess liquidity. I think we're also benefiting from the assets that were built during the tech bubble that eventually went through bankruptcy (more than once in many cases) and ended up with owners that had very little capital investment in the infrastructure which made many business models profitable that otherwise wouldn't have been. For example, the thousands of miles of fiber optics that were laid that ended up being acquired for $0.01 on the dollar (literally) and are now being hooked up to cell towers that allow 4G speeds north of 10 MB.
  9. This reminds me of when they tried to force a platform onto the plant and it wouldn't fit, so the old man grabs a torch and starts cutting into the main support so that the contraption will fit. I'm sure the engineers put it there just 'cuz.