The General Economy Sucks Thread

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

BECAUSE I'M FREEEEEE

FREE FALLIN'!

Free Fallin is a cool song.

I think I could add " Like a Rock" to the list as well.

[Flacolaco]

Oil is down to $87 a barrel....how long before Russia or Iran or Venezuela start some S because the low oil prices will kill their economies, and of course because high oil prices will kill our economy (like it needs help)

[rabbitproof]

EPIC BAD DECADE FTW

[DirkFTW]

-4833.55 Year-to-Date

Get up, come on get down with the sickness!
Get up, come on get down with the sickness!
Get up, come on get down with the sickness!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Oil is down to $87 a barrel....how long before Russia or Iran or Venezuela start some S because the low oil prices will kill their economies, and of course because high oil prices will kill our economy (like it needs help)

$87 is still sky high... but yeah, the Russians/Venezueans/Nigerians etc <<<<countries that have horribly mis-managed their economies over the last 5 years but have still seen spectacular "growth" because the value of the mud they pump out from under their ground has exploded in value--- but actually decreased in volume because they are too effin stupid to even feed the golden goose that is protecting them>>> will be collectively crapping bricks in the upcoming months.

[DirkFTW]

How low... can you go!
How low... can you go!



WOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[DirkFTW]

[Flacolaco]

Well the DOW is down to like 5000 or something...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Well the DOW is down to like 5000 or something...

8,600

[Flacolaco]

I miss sarcasm. I think it might have died.

[DirkFTW]

What your pet dog run away?

[alexamenos]

I'm so glad we "agreed" to give a bunch of bankers a 7 billion dollar boondoggle in order to avoid this very thing.

[DirkFTW]

DJIA -41.06% over the last year. Sobering.

EDIT: I forgot the song.

Do a little dance... make a little love... GET DOWN TONIGHT!

EDIT2:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Well the DOW is down to like 5000 or something...

Is Flaco prescient?? At this rate, we will know by this time next week.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm so glad we "agreed" to give a bunch of bankers a 7 billion dollar boondoggle in order to avoid this very thing.

7 billion? :-) You must have been dreaming about better times when you wrote that.

[rabbitproof]

I thought this was amusing:

President Bush Speaks on Ailing Economy
Friday Address Marks 10th Time Bush Has Recently Spoken About Volatile Markets
By MARTHA RADDATZ, LISA CHINN, JON GARCIA and KATE BARRETT
Oct. 10, 2008

President Bush tried to reassure the nation today that the economy is strong enough to weather the current crisis, but by the time Bush stopped speaking nine minutes later, the market had dropped another 107 points.

lol...

Fail? Not an epic mission accomplished fail but a normal Bush sized fail.

If we are not already there or past that point, there is a point where the stocks are not overvalued and good companies are at a discount (see Apple today). And it is just going to be about consumer confidence and faith in our economy by extension of faith in our leadership. I suspect those variables will not have a chance to swing the people's way until Nov 4th or Jan 20th. Be it McCain or Obama, I would expect the Dow to climb when Bush is gone.

A funny comment on another site: "Why is the stock market choke full of liberal bias?"

Ouch.

link to original article: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Econo...6002792&page=1

[alexamenos]

Well now, this oughtta work....

U.S., allies agree on general approach to crisis

WASHINGTON – The U.S. and its closest allies agreed on common guidelines to address the world financial crisis, a move that opens the way for a series of government actions....

....While global stock markets continued to fall, top finance officials from the Group of Seven major economic powers tried to add coherence to what has so far been an every-country-for-itself approach that, at times, has appeared to complicate the crisis.

"Never has it been more essential to find collective solutions to ensure stable and efficient financial markets and restore the health of the world economy," Mr. Paulson said in a statement released after he met with his G-7 counterparts.

This is quite reassuring....I mean, individually the central planning economic ministries of the individual Republics of the North Atlantic haven't been able to stem the tide of the inevitable results of their own actions, so why shouldn't they unite and centrally manage this on a much, much larger scale? Perhaps what we really need is a Union of North Atlantic Socialist Republics....

chinese curse: 'may you live in interesting times.'

Very interesting times these are, very interesting indeed.

[kg_veteran]

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Robert Barro, Harvard University
Gary Becker, University of Chicago
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Michael Block, University of Arizona
Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Michael Boskin, Stanford University
Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008
James Buchanan, George Mason University
Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund
Charles Calomiris, Columbia University
Jim Carter, Vienna VA
Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution
Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University
Ted Covey, McLean VA
Dan Crippen, former CBO Director
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt
Steve Davis, University of Chicago
Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania
Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Dan Feenberg, NBER
Martin Feldstein, Harvard University
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Kristin Forbes, MIT
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Gary Hansen, UCLA
Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions
Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute
Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008
Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
Owen Irvine, Michigan State University
Mike Jensen, Harvard University
Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago
Robert King, Boston University
Meir Kohn, Dartmouth
Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute
Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University
Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute
Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group
Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University
John Makin, American Enterprise Institute
Burton Malkiel, Princeton University
Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University
Paul McCracken, University of Michigan
Will Melick, Kenyon College
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University
Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland
Jim Miller, George Mason University
Michael Moore, George Washington University
Robert Mundell, Columbia University
Tim Muris, George Mason University
Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, University of Washington
Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute
June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Steve Parente, University of Minnesota
William Poole, University of Delaware
Michael Porter, Harvard University
Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder
Edward Prescott, Arizona State University
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University
Richard Roll, UCLA
Harvey Rosen, Princeton University
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
Mark Rush, University of Florida
Tom Saving, Texas A&M University
Anna Schwartz, NBER
George Shultz, Stanford University
Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University
David Spencer, Brigham Young University
Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers
Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago
Robert Tamura, Clemson University
Jack Tatum, Indiana State University
John Taylor, Stanford University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska
Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis
Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

[Epitome22]

The Economist's poll of economists

Examining the candidates

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.



The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

[kg_veteran]

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists....A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

So, of the 142 that responded, 62 (44%) without a party affiliation think Obama retains a strong edge. As opposed to the 530 who think McCain does.

Okay.

[dude1394]

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists....A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Well duh...and this is the

National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists,

If they are willing to put data out like this, they don't do much for their reputation...budda'...

[rabbitproof]

I wonder when that list was compiled.

Perhaps they have not heard of McCain's mortgage bailou- err, government home give away program.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So, of the 142 that responded, 62 (44%) without a party affiliation think Obama retains a strong edge. As opposed to the 530 who think McCain does.

Okay.

?? I'm confused by your statement. Are you implying that the 530 or so Economists who pledged support for McCain, don't have a party affiliation?

Also if you're point here was to compare the numbers of people in THE ECONOMIST survey who believe Obama has a better economic agenda (you left out the self identifying Democrats) to the number of economists (539) who have gotten together and allegedly signed a document supporting McCain, you do understand that this was a survey? A sampling of the opinion of a particular group of people, in this case economists who are current practicing research associates of the NBER over how they feel about the respective economic plans of the two candidates, not an actual tally of the number of economists sticking their pin to Obama? There are less than 700 total research associates in the NBER period. By contrast The American Economic Association, The premiere association for Professional economists in North America has over 17,000 members. My guess is more than a few of them will be pulling the lever for Obama.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well duh...and this is the


If they are willing to put data out like this, they don't do much for their reputation...budda'...

Sorry, I don't speak dummy. Could you restate the point you were trying to make in a way that makes sense conducive to English speakers?

[Epitome22]

Here's another survey of economists, this time of those belonging to the American Economic Association, commissioned by the creator of Dilbert!

Dilbert Survey of Economists

Democratic Economists Favor Obama. Republican Economists Favor
McCain. Independents Lean Toward Obama.

Dublin, CA (September 16, 2008) – Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip,
commissioned a survey of over 500 economists to find out which candidate for President of
the United States would be best for the economy long term.
Says Adams, “I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased
information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy. Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive. ”

At considerable personal expense, Adams commissioned a survey of over 500 economists,
drawn from a subset of the members of the American Economic Association, a non-political group, some of whose members had agreed in advance to be surveyed on economic questions. The results do not represent the AEA’s position. The survey was managed by The OSR Group, a respected national public opinion and marketing research company.

[BOLD]Nationally, most economists are male and registered as either Democrats or Independents.[/BOLD] The survey sample reflects that imbalance.

48% Democrats
17% Republicans
27% Independents
3% Libertarian
5% Other or not registered

86% of the economists surveyed are male, and 65% work in the field of academia or
education. The rest are spread across various industries or not working.

When asked which candidate for President would be best for the economy in the long run,
not surprisingly, 88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of
Republican economists pick McCain. Independent economists, who in this sample are
largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46% compared to 39% for
McCain. Overall, 59% of the economists say Obama would be best for the economy long
term, with 31% picking McCain, and 8% saying there would be no difference.

The economists were asked to rank the most important economic issues and pick which
candidate they thought would do the best job on those issues.

Rank Issues Obama McCain No Diff.

1. Education 59% 14% 27%

2. Health care 65% 20% 15%

3. International trade 26% 51% 23%

4. Energy 61% 22% 17%

5. Encouraging
Technology/innovation 43% 23% 34%

6. Wars and homeland security 58% 30% 11%

7. Mortgage/housing crisis 41% 18% 41%

8. Social Security 40% 24% 35%

9. Environmental policy 72% 9% 19%

10. Reducing the deficit 37% 29% 33%

11. Immigration 33% 29% 38%

12. Increasing taxes 79% 14% 7%
on wealthy

13. Reducing waste 16% 38% 46%
in government


The economists in the survey favor Obama on 11 of the top 13 issues. But keep in mind
that 48% are Democrats and only 17% are Republicans. Among Independents, things are
less clear, with 54% thinking that in the long run there would either be no difference
between the candidates or McCain would do better.

Adams puts the survey results in perspective: “If an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it. By analogy, a doctor can’t tell you the exact date of your death in 50 years. But if a doctor tells you to eat less and exercise more, that’s good advice even if you later get hit by a bus. Along those same lines, economists can give useful general advice on the economy, even if you know there will be surprises. Still, be skeptical."

To see more survey details, and a spirited debate about its results, go to
www.dilbert.com and select the blog page.

[Flacolaco]

After yesterdays gains, it seems Pacman Jones' suspension has sent the market tumbling again.

[DirkFTW]

MUTHA FLIPPIN'

*searches for the lounge scream thread*

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So, of the 142 that responded, 62 (44%) without a party affiliation think Obama retains a strong edge. As opposed to the 530 who think McCain does.

Okay.

do you want a mulligan on this one?


are you really trying to equate the number from a controlled survey (that demonstrates a clear percentage favoring Obama WITHIN the survey) to a random number outside the survey with some sort of equivelence?

How could you possibly drop that statement?


here is a comprable statement:

"Ha! only 530 "economists" endorsed Mac's plan... hell 14,000,000 million voted for Obama in california alone"

or how about this one:

"What do you mean that magazine costs 20,000 (zimbabwean shillings)...? I can't afford it, only have 1,000 (ounces of gold) .... <pout>"