Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

[pantagrapher]

EurofailFor some reason events in European bonds markets aren’t making big headlines. But they should be: even as the GOP does its best to destroy America’s credit, things are falling apart, with a vengeance, on the other side of the Atlantic.The interest rate spread between Italian and German bonds is now higher than it was before the big European rescue package was announced. Since the purpose of that package was, first and foremost, to calm markets before Italy and Spain sank into self-fulfilling debt spirals, this is very bad news.Also, German interest rates are plunging. This does not reflect greater confidence in German solvency; if anything, investors are less confident in that respect, as the potential costs of a peripheral bailout start to get reflected in credit assessments of the core economies. What this is surely about, instead, is the growing sense that European recovery is sputtering out, and that the European Central Bank — which sets short-term rates — will eventually call off or even reverse its planned rate hikes, with rates staying low for a long time.In short, what the markets seem to be seeing is disaster on the periphery and the Japanification of the core. And I can’t say they’re wrong.

 

[Statorama]

even as the GOP does its best to destroy America’s credit

Good grief

 

[pantagrapher]

Stagnation NationThe GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

 

[Joe T]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

Serious question:I assume you are a pretty smart guy based on some of your posts. Do you think the U.S. can borrow into infinity or that there is a limit at some point to the U.S. borrowing potential?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

The point is that it's politically impossible.

 

[pantagrapher]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

Serious question:I assume you are a pretty smart guy based on some of your posts. Do you think the U.S. can borrow into infinity or that there is a limit at some point to the U.S. borrowing potential?

Yes, we can borrow into infinity and that is what Krugman and others are recommending.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

Serious question:I assume you are a pretty smart guy based on some of your posts. Do you think the U.S. can borrow into infinity or that there is a limit at some point to the U.S. borrowing potential?

Borrowing more does not equal "borrowing into infinity". Why are you more concerned with our borrowing than our actual creditors?

 

[Joe T]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

Serious question:I assume you are a pretty smart guy based on some of your posts. Do you think the U.S. can borrow into infinity or that there is a limit at some point to the U.S. borrowing potential?

Borrowing more does not equal "borrowing into infinity". Why are you more concerned with our borrowing than our actual creditors?

I never stated I had a concern. I only asked a question that you didn't answer and then you asked an unrelated question in return.Nicely done.

 

[Joe T]

Stagnation Nation

The GDP estimates for second quarter are out, and they’re ugly. Basically, very weak growth for the first half of 2011 — indeed, growth well below the economy’s potential, so we’re actually losing ground in the effort to reduce the gap between what we should be producing and what we’re actually producing. This is a recipe for rising, not falling, unemployment.

What’s causing the stagnation? A big factor is falling government spending: “government consumption and investment spending” has been falling sharply as the stimulus runs out and state and local governments slash. Anyone talking about fiscal austerity should know that in practice we’re already doing it, with the usual results.

So given a stagnant economy suffering from falling government spending, what is all our political debate about? Spending cuts! After all, we have to appease those invisible bond vigilantes, who are suckering us in by cutting long-term rates to 2.87% as of right now.

Just where does he think we're going to get the money to do another round of stimulus big enough to appease him?

Perhaps I missed it - has the interest rates for US Treasuries skyrocketed?

Serious question:I assume you are a pretty smart guy based on some of your posts. Do you think the U.S. can borrow into infinity or that there is a limit at some point to the U.S. borrowing potential?

Yes, we can borrow into infinity and that is what Krugman and others are recommending.

Another great non-answer. Props to you guys.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Another great non-answer. Props to you guys.

Do you have a question that's not based on non-sense like borrowing another $1 = "borrowing until infinity"?

 

[Chadstroma]

So if the numbers don't provide the inflation you want, you get to say it's there but we just can't see it. That's great.

Yea, that is just silly! It is like you are for a stimulus package and say that the success of that stimulus package looks like X and then it miserably fails but then you get to say that if we did not do it, we would have been sent back to the dark ages economically. But of course no one would ever say such silly things like that.

Except that we can look at the data that the stimulus projections were based on at the time and see that in hindsight conditions were far worse than the data suggested at the time the stimulus projections were made. Or we can just ignore the data and act like the recession data was perfect in Jan/Feb of '09.

It is pointless because the 'tax every class we don't like and have government spend to fix everything crowd' will always say that the recession would have been worse or the stimulus was not big enough or just about any other excuse to come up with to explain away the fact that the stimulus did not even do what they said it would do.

Come one.Private section is not spending. Who is going to pump money/jobs into the economy?The economy is not working because any new jobs go overseas and why hire domestic workers when they are working 150% and afraid of losing their job? Often times you make more profit off les volume and more productivity.Instead of being upset that these companies have access to our market. We bow to them and let them pay no taxes because they provide the minimal jobs necessary.Yes, companies should be looking to make the most profit they can but we shouldn't bend over as U.S. workers work for peanuts as they raise prices.You know a candy bar is $1.19 in my town. It was $0.50 for like twenty years.Bow-down to those who provide meager jobs and enjoy our marketplace while paying no taxes. Lil #####es. Get a backbone. NRA phonies.

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear. If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks. Overall, I did enjoy your anti-capitalist rant full of lack of understanding of basic economics. Your fear of globalization is particularly cute and obviously force fed to your by your favorite demagogues.

 

[urbanhack]

So if the numbers don't provide the inflation you want, you get to say it's there but we just can't see it. That's great.

Yea, that is just silly! It is like you are for a stimulus package and say that the success of that stimulus package looks like X and then it miserably fails but then you get to say that if we did not do it, we would have been sent back to the dark ages economically. But of course no one would ever say such silly things like that.

Except that we can look at the data that the stimulus projections were based on at the time and see that in hindsight conditions were far worse than the data suggested at the time the stimulus projections were made. Or we can just ignore the data and act like the recession data was perfect in Jan/Feb of '09.

It is pointless because the 'tax every class we don't like and have government spend to fix everything crowd' will always say that the recession would have been worse or the stimulus was not big enough or just about any other excuse to come up with to explain away the fact that the stimulus did not even do what they said it would do.

Come one.Private section is not spending. Who is going to pump money/jobs into the economy?The economy is not working because any new jobs go overseas and why hire domestic workers when they are working 150% and afraid of losing their job? Often times you make more profit off les volume and more productivity.Instead of being upset that these companies have access to our market. We bow to them and let them pay no taxes because they provide the minimal jobs necessary.Yes, companies should be looking to make the most profit they can but we shouldn't bend over as U.S. workers work for peanuts as they raise prices.You know a candy bar is $1.19 in my town. It was $0.50 for like twenty years.Bow-down to those who provide meager jobs and enjoy our marketplace while paying no taxes. Lil #####es. Get a backbone. NRA phonies.

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- greed, stock price and feeding the corporate fat cats

fixed

 

[tommyGunZ]

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear. If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks.

Once you get past the Tea Party talking points, there's a very logical reason corporations aren't spending: there's NO DEMAND. Believe me, corporations would have no problem expanding if the demand was there, despite the Obamacare boogey man being touted by the economically challenged. Why is there no demand? Maybe b/c even today data is being revised and painting an even bleaker picture of how bad the economy was back in 2007-2009.

 

[pantagrapher]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

 

[jon_mx]

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear. If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks.

Once you get past the Tea Party talking points, there's a very logical reason corporations aren't spending: there's NO DEMAND. Believe me, corporations would have no problem expanding if the demand was there, despite the Obamacare boogey man being touted by the economically challenged. Why is there no demand? Maybe b/c even today data is being revised and painting an even bleaker picture of how bad the economy was back in 2007-2009.

 

[Orange Crush]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

 

[pantagrapher]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

So instead of believing the obvious—that excess capacity and low demand give the private sector no reason to invest—you prefer to believe this convoluted, unquantifiable explanation instead? If household debt were low and consumers were spending freely and the private sector was struggling to keep up with demand, do you honestly believe they would ignore the prospect of making more revenue—that they would opt instead to sit on their hands—because of "uncertainty"?

 

[Joe T]

Another great non-answer. Props to you guys.

Do you have a question that's not based on non-sense like borrowing another $1 = "borrowing until infinity"?

My question is simple, do you (and other noted liberals on this board) think there is a limit to what the U.S. can borrow?Sorry for using the term "infinity" as that is clearly below your intellect.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Pantagrapher - why do you think consumer demand is low?

 

[pantagrapher]

Pantagrapher - why do you think consumer demand is low?

I figure the two major reasons are high unemployment and high household debt.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Pantagrapher - why do you think consumer demand is low?

I figure the two major reasons are high unemployment and high household debt.

So is consumer demand down by roughly an amount equal to what those additional people on unemployment would normally be spending?Or is it that and that those currently employed are spending less? If it's the latter, is it only because of debt, or are there other factors?

 

[pantagrapher]

Pantagrapher - why do you think consumer demand is low?

I figure the two major reasons are high unemployment and high household debt.

So is consumer demand down by roughly an amount equal to what those additional people on unemployment would normally be spending?Or is it that and that those currently employed are spending less? If it's the latter, is it only because of debt, or are there other factors?

1. I wouldn't think so.2. & 3. This is definitely a significant factor. Plenty of the employed are deep in debt. Meanwhile banks aren't lending as freely as they did before the slump, obviously. At the same time, many people's biggest asset—their home—decreased in value, in some cases dramatically. Then throw in things like stagnant wages and low job security.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

2. & 3. This is definitely a significant factor. Plenty of the employed are deep in debt. Meanwhile banks aren't lending as freely as they did before the slump, obviously. At the same time, many people's biggest asset—their home—decreased in value, in some cases dramatically. Then throw in things like stagnant wages and low job security.

So is government stimulus, intended to pick up where consumer demand slacks off, supposed to simply get us to a point beyond where consumers pay down debt and start purchasing again?I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm really trying to unserstand the perspective here...

 

[pantagrapher]

2. & 3. This is definitely a significant factor. Plenty of the employed are deep in debt. Meanwhile banks aren't lending as freely as they did before the slump, obviously. At the same time, many people's biggest asset—their home—decreased in value, in some cases dramatically. Then throw in things like stagnant wages and low job security.

So is government stimulus, intended to pick up where consumer demand slacks off, supposed to simply get us to a point beyond where consumers pay down debt and start purchasing again?I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm really trying to unserstand the perspective here...

I don't think it's supposed to pick up where consumer demand slacks off; I believe that's more of an intended consequence of directing money toward stimulus projects. Filling the gap until consumer demand starts catching up, then pulling back as the private sector starts investing again.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't think it's supposed to pick up where consumer demand slacks off; I believe that's more of an intended consequence of directing money toward stimulus projects. Filling the gap until consumer demand starts catching up, then pulling back as the private sector starts investing again.

Filling the gap is what I meant. I guess I wasn't clear there...If it's just a matter of paying down debt and then people will start buing again, that's one thing. But if it's more than that, then we have a problem if people simply don't purchase at the levels they once did.Seems like a chicken/egg problem.

 

[tommyGunZ]

2. & 3. This is definitely a significant factor. Plenty of the employed are deep in debt. Meanwhile banks aren't lending as freely as they did before the slump, obviously. At the same time, many people's biggest asset—their home—decreased in value, in some cases dramatically. Then throw in things like stagnant wages and low job security.

So is government stimulus, intended to pick up where consumer demand slacks off, supposed to simply get us to a point beyond where consumers pay down debt and start purchasing again?I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm really trying to unserstand the perspective here...

I don't think it's supposed to pick up where consumer demand slacks off; I believe that's more of an intended consequence of directing money toward stimulus projects. Filling the gap until consumer demand starts catching up, then pulling back as the private sector starts investing again.

The idea is to pull some of the future demand forward and somewhat "round off the dip". Not to mention that purchasing labor for infrastructure projects during severe recessions is an excellent time for the gov't to "buy low".

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The idea is to pull some of the future demand forward and somewhat "round off the dip". Not to mention that purchasing labor for infrastructure projects during severe recessions is an excellent time for the gov't to "buy low".

I get the theory. But what happens if you can't wait out those pesky non-spending consumers?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear.

If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks.

Once you get past the Tea Party talking points, there's a very logical reason corporations aren't spending: there's NO DEMAND. Believe me, corporations would have no problem expanding if the demand was there, despite the Obamacare boogey man being touted by the economically challenged.

Why is there no demand? Maybe b/c even today data is being revised and painting an even bleaker picture of how bad the economy was back in 2007-2009.

Where's the joke? Do you not believe there is a shortage of demand? Or are you laughing at my contention that new data is showing that the recession was worse than anyone believed at the time? If it's the latter, you have beef with the Bureau of Economic Analysis who again revised 2007-2009 GDP data down just today: Link

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Where's the joke? Do you not believe there is a shortage of demand? Or are you laughing at my contention that new data is showing that the recession was worse than anyone believed at the time? If it's the latter, you have beef with the Bureau of Economic Analysis who again revised 2007-2009 GDP data down just today: Link

I was wondering how you made the leap that people are choosing not to spend today because the economy was bad 2-4 years ago.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Where's the joke? Do you not believe there is a shortage of demand? Or are you laughing at my contention that new data is showing that the recession was worse than anyone believed at the time? If it's the latter, you have beef with the Bureau of Economic Analysis who again revised 2007-2009 GDP data down just today: Link

I was wondering how you made the leap that people are choosing not to spend today because the economy was bad 2-4 years ago.

Where's the leap? If we now know that the economy was much worse 2 years ago than previously reported, it should be easier to understand why consumer demand in the aggregate is still an uphill battle today.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Where's the joke? Do you not believe there is a shortage of demand? Or are you laughing at my contention that new data is showing that the recession was worse than anyone believed at the time? If it's the latter, you have beef with the Bureau of Economic Analysis who again revised 2007-2009 GDP data down just today: Link

I was wondering how you made the leap that people are choosing not to spend today because the economy was bad 2-4 years ago.

Where's the leap? If we now know that the economy was much worse 2 years ago than previously reported, it should be easier to understand why consumer demand in the aggregate is still an uphill battle today.

Why? What, in your opinion, is the average consumer that's not spending his/her money thinking?

 

[Chadstroma]

So if the numbers don't provide the inflation you want, you get to say it's there but we just can't see it. That's great.

Yea, that is just silly! It is like you are for a stimulus package and say that the success of that stimulus package looks like X and then it miserably fails but then you get to say that if we did not do it, we would have been sent back to the dark ages economically. But of course no one would ever say such silly things like that.

Except that we can look at the data that the stimulus projections were based on at the time and see that in hindsight conditions were far worse than the data suggested at the time the stimulus projections were made. Or we can just ignore the data and act like the recession data was perfect in Jan/Feb of '09.

It is pointless because the 'tax every class we don't like and have government spend to fix everything crowd' will always say that the recession would have been worse or the stimulus was not big enough or just about any other excuse to come up with to explain away the fact that the stimulus did not even do what they said it would do.

Come one.Private section is not spending. Who is going to pump money/jobs into the economy?The economy is not working because any new jobs go overseas and why hire domestic workers when they are working 150% and afraid of losing their job? Often times you make more profit off les volume and more productivity.Instead of being upset that these companies have access to our market. We bow to them and let them pay no taxes because they provide the minimal jobs necessary.Yes, companies should be looking to make the most profit they can but we shouldn't bend over as U.S. workers work for peanuts as they raise prices.You know a candy bar is $1.19 in my town. It was $0.50 for like twenty years.Bow-down to those who provide meager jobs and enjoy our marketplace while paying no taxes. Lil #####es. Get a backbone. NRA phonies.

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- greed, stock price and feeding the corporate fat cats

fixed

It is greed, stock price and feeding corporate fat cats that usually drives the strong desire for growth. Growth, in return, is what creates jobs. But I know that that is a hard concept to grasp when you feel that government is the only way anything ever gets fixed (while ignoring how almost everything government does gets royally messed up). It is fear. Fear of two things which I think are closely related. 1) The future health of the economy. 2) Unknown/expectation of more regulation and higher taxation. These two things stop decision makers from deciding to hire new employees (i.e. grow their business for greed, stock price and to feed corporate fat cats).

 

[Chadstroma]

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear. If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks.

Once you get past the Tea Party talking points, there's a very logical reason corporations aren't spending: there's NO DEMAND. Believe me, corporations would have no problem expanding if the demand was there, despite the Obamacare boogey man being touted by the economically challenged. Why is there no demand? Maybe b/c even today data is being revised and painting an even bleaker picture of how bad the economy was back in 2007-2009.

My talking points he says.

 

[Chadstroma]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

You guys are too much. Why is there no consumer demand? It is tied to consumer confidence. Which is driver by.... you guessed it- fear. The only difference is that the fear is of slightly different things and reasons.

 

[urbanhack]

So if the numbers don't provide the inflation you want, you get to say it's there but we just can't see it. That's great.

Yea, that is just silly! It is like you are for a stimulus package and say that the success of that stimulus package looks like X and then it miserably fails but then you get to say that if we did not do it, we would have been sent back to the dark ages economically. But of course no one would ever say such silly things like that.

Except that we can look at the data that the stimulus projections were based on at the time and see that in hindsight conditions were far worse than the data suggested at the time the stimulus projections were made. Or we can just ignore the data and act like the recession data was perfect in Jan/Feb of '09.

It is pointless because the 'tax every class we don't like and have government spend to fix everything crowd' will always say that the recession would have been worse or the stimulus was not big enough or just about any other excuse to come up with to explain away the fact that the stimulus did not even do what they said it would do.

Come one.Private section is not spending. Who is going to pump money/jobs into the economy?

The economy is not working because any new jobs go overseas and why hire domestic workers when they are working 150% and afraid of losing their job? Often times you make more profit off les volume and more productivity.

Instead of being upset that these companies have access to our market. We bow to them and let them pay no taxes because they provide the minimal jobs necessary.

Yes, companies should be looking to make the most profit they can but we shouldn't bend over as U.S. workers work for peanuts as they raise prices.

You know a candy bar is $1.19 in my town. It was $0.50 for like twenty years.

Bow-down to those who provide meager jobs and enjoy our marketplace while paying no taxes. Lil #####es. Get a backbone. NRA phonies.

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- greed, stock price and feeding the corporate fat cats

fixed

It is greed, stock price and feeding corporate fat cats that usually drives the strong desire for growth. Growth, in return, is what creates jobs. But I know that that is a hard concept to grasp when you feel that government is the only way anything ever gets fixed (while ignoring how almost everything government does gets royally messed up).

Please point me to where I've ever said anything related to this.

 

[Chadstroma]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

There is a lot of uncertainty out there and it is created by both parties. It is not one party blame here. It has also been created by the administration as well. The answer to why business is not hiring is because of the uncertainty. The answer why consumer confidence is low is the uncertainty. Even the debt ceiling issue is one of uncertainty. There is uncertainty everywhere you look. Do we not raise the limit and default? Do we raise the limit and continue to watch the debt increase in an unsustainable way and possibly default years down the road while it is a drag on the economy over the long haul? Are we going to make serious cuts in spending and if so where are those cuts? How will it change the immediate business climate? Are we going to increase taxation to make up for the difference? If so, how much, how and who pays? Companies are making money but they are taking defensive positions. Not because there is no demand (again, there is demand enough for them to be making record profits) but because they do not know what is going to happen down the line that will impact their business. Consumers are taking defensive positions because of unemployment. One of the biggest things we can do to help the economy is eject the uncertainty out of the system.

 

[Chadstroma]

Why is the private sector not spending? I'll give you a hint- fear.

If you are worried about the price of a candy bar going up over the last twenty years you should be more worried about the policies of this administration than anything else because the only reason why we don't have runaway inflation is because the economy sucks.

Once you get past the Tea Party talking points, there's a very logical reason corporations aren't spending: there's NO DEMAND. Believe me, corporations would have no problem expanding if the demand was there, despite the Obamacare boogey man being touted by the economically challenged.

Why is there no demand? Maybe b/c even today data is being revised and painting an even bleaker picture of how bad the economy was back in 2007-2009.

Where's the joke? Do you not believe there is a shortage of demand? Or are you laughing at my contention that new data is showing that the recession was worse than anyone believed at the time? If it's the latter, you have beef with the Bureau of Economic Analysis who again revised 2007-2009 GDP data down just today: Link

Why the shortage in demand? And if the reason why business is not hiring is because of lack of demand then how are they making record profits?

 

[Chadstroma]

Please point me to where I've ever said anything related to this.

Ok, what do we need to do in order to get out of this economic hell?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Companies are making money but they are taking defensive positions. Not because there is no demand (again, there is demand enough for them to be making record profits) but because they do not know what is going to happen down the line that will impact their business. Consumers are taking defensive positions because of unemployment. One of the biggest things we can do to help the economy is eject the uncertainty out of the system.

You keep making arguments that virtually every economist out there disagrees with. Demand IS a huge problem Chad. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your political narrative.

 

[Chadstroma]

Companies are making money but they are taking defensive positions. Not because there is no demand (again, there is demand enough for them to be making record profits) but because they do not know what is going to happen down the line that will impact their business. Consumers are taking defensive positions because of unemployment. One of the biggest things we can do to help the economy is eject the uncertainty out of the system.

You keep making arguments that virtually every economist out there disagrees with. Demand IS a huge problem Chad. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your political narrative.

Why is there no demand? How are corporations making record profits with no demand?

I'll hang up and listen to the spokesperson of virtually every economist.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Companies are making money but they are taking defensive positions. Not because there is no demand (again, there is demand enough for them to be making record profits) but because they do not know what is going to happen down the line that will impact their business. Consumers are taking defensive positions because of unemployment. One of the biggest things we can do to help the economy is eject the uncertainty out of the system.

You keep making arguments that virtually every economist out there disagrees with. Demand IS a huge problem Chad. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your political narrative.

Why is there no demand? How are corporations making record profits with no demand?

I'll hang up and listen to the spokesperson of virtually every economist.

That liberal beacon the WSJ had a piece on this just last week - I'm surprised you missed it Chad.

Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring

BY PHIL IZZO

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.

"There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited ...

But please keep ignoring the facts and insisting that there isn't a demand issue.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Many policymakers misidentify the fundamental bases of small business problems, leading to promotion of faulty policy. The principal immediate economic problem for 51 percent of small employers remains slow or declining sales, six percentage points more citing the problem than one year ago. Uncertainty was identified by over one-fifth (22%) as theirs, followed by access to credit (8%) and falling real estate values (8%), virtually the same as last year. Even among owners who report they cannot get credit, twice as many cite poor sales as cite credit access.

So demand is cited as the key issue by most small businesses, more than twice as many as those who cite uncertainty. Yet in Chad/FOX/Hannity/Tea Party land, it's all about "uncertainty" due to Obama.

 

[Parrothead]

I don't deny there is a lack of demand, and the lack of demand is due to uncertainty of consumers.. Nobody trusts the government.

 

[Chadstroma]

Companies are making money but they are taking defensive positions. Not because there is no demand (again, there is demand enough for them to be making record profits) but because they do not know what is going to happen down the line that will impact their business. Consumers are taking defensive positions because of unemployment. One of the biggest things we can do to help the economy is eject the uncertainty out of the system.

You keep making arguments that virtually every economist out there disagrees with. Demand IS a huge problem Chad. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your political narrative.

Why is there no demand? How are corporations making record profits with no demand?

I'll hang up and listen to the spokesperson of virtually every economist.

That liberal beacon the WSJ had a piece on this just last week - I'm surprised you missed it Chad.

Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring

BY PHIL IZZO

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.

"There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited ...

But please keep ignoring the facts and insisting that there isn't a demand issue.

Man, I love ya but sometimes you are dense. I am not saying demand is not soft. I am asking you why it is soft. I am also further stating soft demand is not the primary reason for business not hiring because if it was then we would see very low profits.

You refuse to accept anything that might mean a slight crack in your liberal worldview.

So, let me ask again.

Why is demand lacking?

If demand is lacking so much to make business not hire then how are they (as a trend) coming up with record profits?

 

[Chadstroma]

Many policymakers misidentify the fundamental bases of small business problems, leading to promotion of faulty policy. The principal immediate economic problem for 51 percent of small employers remains slow or declining sales, six percentage points more citing the problem than one year ago. Uncertainty was identified by over one-fifth (22%) as theirs, followed by access to credit (8%) and falling real estate values (8%), virtually the same as last year. Even among owners who report they cannot get credit, twice as many cite poor sales as cite credit access.

So demand is cited as the key issue by most small businesses, more than twice as many as those who cite uncertainty. Yet in Chad/FOX/Hannity/Tea Party land, it's all about "uncertainty" due to Obama.

And what is the driving factor for the slow or declining sales? Please let me know the explanation from Tommy/MSNBC/Maddow/AFL-CIO land.

 

[Orange Crush]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

So instead of believing the obvious—that excess capacity and low demand give the private sector no reason to invest—you prefer to believe this convoluted, unquantifiable explanation instead? If household debt were low and consumers were spending freely and the private sector was struggling to keep up with demand, do you honestly believe they would ignore the prospect of making more revenue—that they would opt instead to sit on their hands—because of "uncertainty"?

Actually, my post was supposed to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as a sarcastic critique of the Republican "uncertainty" mantra when most of the uncertainty out there that they claim to be so concerned about is the result of Republican policies and partisan demagoguery.

 

[Chadstroma]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

So instead of believing the obvious—that excess capacity and low demand give the private sector no reason to invest—you prefer to believe this convoluted, unquantifiable explanation instead? If household debt were low and consumers were spending freely and the private sector was struggling to keep up with demand, do you honestly believe they would ignore the prospect of making more revenue—that they would opt instead to sit on their hands—because of "uncertainty"?

Actually, my post was supposed to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as a sarcastic critique of the Republican "uncertainty" mantra when most of the uncertainty out there that they claim to be so concerned about is the result of Republican policies and partisan demagoguery.

And I responded as such. I am sure that since you view this as a party vs party problem that you thought I would not respond as I did. It is not. Both parties have a bloody hand in creating the uncertainty. Some uncertainty is always going to be part of our system- it is one of the many ways the system self-checks and is balanced out. I ignored the point by point of your sarcasm because I do see that both parties are at fault. On each little point you made, a good and powerful point could be made to show the Democratic blame as well. Of course you, panty and tommy would never accept that but it is there and it is true. You seem to only accept a worldview that has the Republicans as the sole ill of all bad things. The only time the Democrats are wrong is when they are not left enough for you, I mean dang it- Obamacare would be perfect if we just had it as single payer. Keep up with your partisan campaign. I will sit back and blame both parties because right now if we listen to the Republicans we default now. If we listen to the Democrats we default in some years down the road. Both are morons.

 

[Orange Crush]

Amazing how some people still just deny all the evidence of stagnant consumer demand. So much so that they've created this fantasy that everything would start churning along if Obama would quit baffling the delicate private sector with his uncertainty cloak.

I don't know. Some of the uncertainty argument makes a lot of sense. I mean, businesses have no idea if Obamacare is going to stay or be overturned. They have no idea if the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended or allowed to expire next year. They have no idea if their customers who are government employees are going to be thrown out of their jobs due to upcoming spending cuts, thus lowering the demand for their products. They have no idea if the tax loopholes they've gained through their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years are going to be thrown overboard in new tax reforms. They have no idea whether the regulations on their business are going to be enforced because of gov't agency budget cuts, or are going to be overturned by Congressional Republicans ... so they'd prefer to not abide by them as that would save money, but technically they still are legally required to comply. They have no idea if their gov't subsidies are going to continue. There's a lot of uncertainty out there.

So instead of believing the obvious—that excess capacity and low demand give the private sector no reason to invest—you prefer to believe this convoluted, unquantifiable explanation instead? If household debt were low and consumers were spending freely and the private sector was struggling to keep up with demand, do you honestly believe they would ignore the prospect of making more revenue—that they would opt instead to sit on their hands—because of "uncertainty"?

Actually, my post was supposed to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as a sarcastic critique of the Republican "uncertainty" mantra when most of the uncertainty out there that they claim to be so concerned about is the result of Republican policies and partisan demagoguery.

And I responded as such. I am sure that since you view this as a party vs party problem that you thought I would not respond as I did. It is not. Both parties have a bloody hand in creating the uncertainty. Some uncertainty is always going to be part of our system- it is one of the many ways the system self-checks and is balanced out. I ignored the point by point of your sarcasm because I do see that both parties are at fault. On each little point you made, a good and powerful point could be made to show the Democratic blame as well. Of course you, panty and tommy would never accept that but it is there and it is true. You seem to only accept a worldview that has the Republicans as the sole ill of all bad things. The only time the Democrats are wrong is when they are not left enough for you, I mean dang it- Obamacare would be perfect if we just had it as single payer. Keep up with your partisan campaign. I will sit back and blame both parties because right now if we listen to the Republicans we default now. If we listen to the Democrats we default in some years down the road. Both are morons.

I can be pretty partisan at times. But I do criticize Obama when I think he deserves it (frequently on foreign policy). And my response wasn't meant to say "Dems don't cause any uncertainty." It was more a lampoon of Republicans who last November and December wouldn't say anything about the economy other than "uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty" and then turned around and created more uncertainty.If Republicans really thought uncertainty was the primary obstacle to strong economic growth, then they should make pragmatic compromises on these issues their top priority. Instead they seem to go out of their way to re-open old battles and fabricate new crisis, all adding additional uncertainty to the situation rather than lowering it.