LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

It kind of depends on how you define "recession," no? I mean, if its being used as a term of art and there are specific, finite indicators that make a particular situation qualify as a "recession" and those indicators steady, then from a technical standpoint, the recession is "over." If you are thinking of it colloquially, though, then it might seem like its hasty to state that the recession is over.

Yeah, I have to agree. I feel like it is an extremely subjective opinion. For example....if you are a stockbroker, as of right now, your recession is over. However, if you are an unemployed American that is still laid off, or about to be foreclosed upon, the recession is FAR from over.

[Kraftster]

It kind of depends on how you define "recession," no? I mean, if its being used as a term of art and there are specific, finite indicators that make a particular situation qualify as a "recession" and those indicators steady, then from a technical standpoint, the recession is "over." If you are thinking of it colloquially, though, then it might seem like its hasty to state that the recession is over.

Yeah, I have to agree. I feel like it is an extremely subjective opinion. For example....if you are a stockbroker, as of right now, your recession is over. However, if you are an unemployed American that is still laid off, or about to be foreclosed upon, the recession is FAR from over.

Right. I think that among economists, there are specific indicators that will lead one to use the word "recession." I don't know what they are, but, I believe that, out there somewhere, there is a more objective definition and the current state of the economy may actually lead one to conclude that the recession is over if you're operating under that definition.

[Troy Loney]

I just thought of something this morning....the fact that the Dow went over 10,000 is plastered all over the front pages this morning, trying to tout the economic genius of the president and his cabinet. At the same time, home foreclosures just hit an all-time high, and unemployment is about to surge back over 10%.

So here is my question. I know the NABE said that the recession is "over". I would argue that the only reason the Dow is up is due to the billions upon billions of dollars that were thrown at Wall Street. A lot of people predicted there would be a rise in the stock market after the stimulus (even conservatives), since it's almost impossible to not expect a rise after you inject that much capitaltaxpayer money into the market. The true indicators of a genuine recovery are not there....jobs are still being slashed at a rate of several hundred thousand a month. Consumer confidence is low. How can you honestly say the recession is over when the most conservative estimates have unemployment continuing to rise for numerous months? That seems a little disingenuous to me.

I know where your coming from and it is frustrating to see newspapers tout stock prices as economic improvement.

But I think you need to just be pleased that the economy is showing signs of improvement and stability and the free fall is over....we all know that it has doesnt have a ton to do with the change in the White House, most intelligent people would understand that...but don't you get a little tired of complaining about so many things?

[Troy Loney]

Right. I think that among economists, there are specific indicators that will lead one to use the word "recession." I don't know what they are, but, I believe that, out there somewhere, there is a more objective definition and the current state of the economy may actually lead one to conclude that the recession is over if you're operating under that definition.

Isn't it just two or more quarters of negative growth?

[Kraftster]

Right. I think that among economists, there are specific indicators that will lead one to use the word "recession." I don't know what they are, but, I believe that, out there somewhere, there is a more objective definition and the current state of the economy may actually lead one to conclude that the recession is over if you're operating under that definition.

Isn't it just two or more quarters of negative growth?

Hmm...that's what Wikipedia says!

[shafnutz05]

But I think you need to just be pleased that the economy is showing signs of improvement and stability and the free fall is over....we all know that it has doesnt have a ton to do with the change in the White House, most intelligent people would understand that...but don't you get a little tired of complaining about so many things?

Not really

I am not really complaining, just admitting that I really don't think we are out of the woods yet. I have a hard time believing that you can print and spend that much money, devaluing the dollar that much, and not expect massive inflation on the back end (even after the recession is indeed over). Yeah it's great the market is on the rise, but at the same time, the American dollar is being relegated to third-world status on a global level. Isn't this a bigger concern? I honestly admit I don't know. then again, I was a poli sci major (and not economics), so that shouldn't be a surprise

[bh]

I just thought of something this morning....the fact that the Dow went over 10,000 is plastered all over the front pages this morning, trying to tout the economic genius of the president and his cabinet. At the same time, home foreclosures just hit an all-time high, and unemployment is about to surge back over 10%.

So here is my question. I know the NABE said that the recession is "over". I would argue that the only reason the Dow is up is due to the billions upon billions of dollars that were thrown at Wall Street. A lot of people predicted there would be a rise in the stock market after the stimulus (even conservatives), since it's almost impossible to not expect a rise after you inject that much capitaltaxpayer money into the market. The true indicators of a genuine recovery are not there....jobs are still being slashed at a rate of several hundred thousand a month. Consumer confidence is low. How can you honestly say the recession is over when the most conservative estimates have unemployment continuing to rise for numerous months? That seems a little disingenuous to me.

This just affirms what most of us already knew; the purpose of "bailouts" is to steal money from the taxpayers to give to big buisness.

[Troy Loney]

But I think you need to just be pleased that the economy is showing signs of improvement and stability and the free fall is over....we all know that it has doesnt have a ton to do with the change in the White House, most intelligent people would understand that...but don't you get a little tired of complaining about so many things?

Not really

I am not really complaining, just admitting that I really don't think we are out of the woods yet. I have a hard time believing that you can print and spend that much money, devaluing the dollar that much, and not expect massive inflation on the back end (even after the recession is indeed over). Yeah it's great the market is on the rise, but at the same time, the American dollar is being relegated to third-world status on a global level. Isn't this a bigger concern? I honestly admit I don't know. then again, I was a poli sci major (and not economics), so that shouldn't be a surprise

There are potential concerns with countries holding all of those US dollars as reserves.....my thoughts on the subject are a little dated since i haven't had to much reading on it since my interenational finance class....but i think as long as countries like China are willing to hold those dollars and not flood the market things will go on as is...so a lot of countries have the value of the dollar in their hands, but its also in their economic interest for the US $ to keep value and for the US consumer appetite to be reenergized.


Your original post is a little whiney....just more vague complaints about Obama and the Media....but yeah, those are legitimate concerns and as long as the country keeps running a dual deficit people will look more and more gloomily at the future.

[Guinness]

Of course, everyone now knows that the recession is over. NABE interviewed 44 economic forecasters. Four-fifths of them said the recession was over.

But we don’t care what they said. These are the same seers who missed the biggest single event in financial history. There are many banking crises, recessions, panics and defaults in the record books. But none were as great as the one that hit September a year ago. Most economists didn’t see it coming; why should we trust them to tell us when it is going?

The author of THIS article is Bill Bonner - he's a contributor at Daily Reckoning. (Thanks to Shyster for turning me on to it, by the way. )

This Dow rally is prime for a bust.

[Guinness]

This just affirms what most of us already knew; the purpose of "bailouts" is to steal money from the taxpayers to give to big buisness.

Amen to that, bh.

[Guinness]

“I think it is pretty well conceded that we have reached or passed the bottom of this depression and from now on can look to gradually improving business”; industry should be back to normal by end of Q1 1931; company business in Sept. up 25% over Aug.; Business recession has been costly, but cost will be recovered thanks to removal of “deadwood acquired in prosperous times.” Looks forward to tremendous prospects in all industries.


~ G. Verity, Pres. American Rolling Mill Co.

In our opinion we have passed the bottom of the curve and business is slightly but unmistakingly better and in our opinion will continue to improve slowly.

~ W. Procter, Pres. Procter & Gamble

That's not a typo up there - these quotes are from 1930.

Happy Days Are Here Again!

[shafnutz05]

That's a fascinating quote

[PensFanInDC]

[youtube][/youtube]

Yes, it was on Glenn Beck. It's the only video of it I could find. Just focus on the video that he plays and listen to what Anita Dunn has to say...

[Guinness]

The economic argument that centralized banking is needed to deal with the boom and bust cycle is like a tobacco company saying that their goal is to fight lung cancer.

That's funny, I don't care who ya are!

[MWB]

Yes, it was on Glenn Beck. It's the only video of it I could find. Just focus on the video that he plays and listen to what Anita Dunn has to say...

Am I missing something? She was saying that it's important to make your own choices and find your own way. Is that a negative? Or is it just that she referenced Mao that got Beck upset?

[Guinness]

Am I missing something? She was saying that it's important to make your own choices and find your own way. Is that a negative? Or is it just that she referenced Mao that got Beck upset?

Please don't misunderstand me here - I'm not drawing a line between you and this woman - but if you were looking for an historical figure to frame as something of a role model (she cites Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers) to high school kids, would you consider a person who slaughtered millions of his fellow countrymen appropriate - in any context whatsoever? She did well with the Mother Teresa reference, but Mao? That's kind of a major 'oops'. Setting aside the issue of an administration figure finding Mao Tse Tong to be one of the political philosophers she most looks to.

Are there redeeming qualities about Mao? How about Stalin? Hitler? Would it be acceptible for a government official to cite Hitler as one of his or her favorite political philosophers?

[Guinness]

[youtube][/youtube]

Yes, it was on Glenn Beck.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're replying to with this!?

[doublem]

I don't think citing Mao was a good idea. She could have just said someone else that didn't do awful things to humanity. I understand the point she was trying to make, I would think Beck would be all about that though, since conservatives always talk about choice and overcoming.

[MWB]

If it was to a group of high schoolers, I can see the point I guess. Otherwise I think it's fairly easy for most people to delineate good from bad when you're talking about historic figures. Yes, a guy like Hitler was dreadfully awful, but he also had traits that made him a successful leader.

[Guinness]

I don't think citing Mao was a good idea. She could have just said someone else that didn't do awful things to humanity. I understand the point she was trying to make, I would think Beck would be all about that though, since conservatives always talk about choice and overcoming.

Agreed. And you would think it should be easy enough to come up with someone who didn't do such awful things.

I personally find it troubling to hear anyone say that a brutal dictator and mass murderer is one of their favorite political philosophers. I think at the point of "mass murderer/dictator" it becomes acceptable to throw the baby out with the bath water. But then again, Hitler DID have a lot of interesting things to say about healthy diets.

[Guinness]

If it was to a group of high schoolers, I can see the point I guess. Otherwise I think it's fairly easy for most people to delineate good from bad when you're talking about historic figures. Yes, a guy like Hitler was dreadfully awful, but he also had traits that made him a successful leader.

So did John Quincy Adams. So does Barak Obama.

It's murky water looking for the positive aspects of brutal dictators.

[MWB]

I guess I don't see it as people finding a brutal dictator and trying to pick out positives, but looking at a trait and matching it with a well-known person. And what is this murky water we're talking about? Is someone going to listen to this speech and say, "You know what, that woman mentioned Mao. He had a certain trait that she liked. I want to be like him"?

[Guinness]

I guess I don't see it as people finding a brutal dictator and trying to pick out positives, but looking at a trait and matching it with a well-known person. And what is this murky water we're talking about? Is someone going to listen to this speech and say, "You know what, that woman mentioned Mao. He had a certain trait that she liked. I want to be like him"?

I understand what you're saying, but don't you think that, of ALL the historical figures who've "done it their own way", Mao would be pretty well near the top of the list of people you don't want to use? Or, rather, near the bottom of the list of the people you do want to use? I'm not for erasing awful characters and ideas from history. But I don't really see the value in rehabilitating them, especially in the middle of a speech to some likely poorly-read (on the subject of Mao) kids.

I mean to say that it's 'murky water' because of the sum of the man's character - perhaps Mao had some redeeming qualities of leadership, or determination, or what-have-you. However, he put those qualities to the worst of uses.

She could have made it a really interesting speech by pointing out the wildly divergent manner in which the two figures put their qualities to work. But it seems that she only cites the guy as one of her favorite political philosophers, and likens his character to one of the great humanitarians of human history.

[MWB]

She could have made it a really interesting speech by pointing out the wildly divergent manner in which the two figures put their qualities to work. But it seems that she only cites the guy as one of her favorite political philosophers, and likens his character to one of the great humanitarians of human history.

I agree. Do we know that she didn't?

[Guinness]

She could have made it a really interesting speech by pointing out the wildly divergent manner in which the two figures put their qualities to work. But it seems that she only cites the guy as one of her favorite political philosophers, and likens his character to one of the great humanitarians of human history.

I agree. Do we know that she didn't?

No, and that's a good point - we're only seeing a snippet here. It would be good to see the whole speech, indeed. The manner in which she introduces Mao bothers me, frankly - to a group of impressionable kids who don't know the full story of Mao, "one of my favorite political philosophers" should really come with a disclaimer regarding his actions, if not his philosophy.

I think it really would have been a good speech to do it that way, though - "Many figures throughout history have exhibited attributes that we should admire and emulate. But how one puts the attribute to work makes all the difference. For instance, Chairman Mao Tse Tong and Mother Teresa..." Now that's a speech I'd like to hear!