Eggheads...
It didn't work? Sheeeeesh....
Egg+head at loink.....
http://news.yahoo.com/why-monetary-stimulus-didnt-203230442.html
Why The Monetary Stimulus Didn't Work
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
Eggheads...
It didn't work? Sheeeeesh....
Egg+head at loink.....
http://news.yahoo.com/why-monetary-stimulus-didnt-203230442.html
from the article
from the Obama administration*
from the Obama administration*
Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824#
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/b...re-to-back-bank-deal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/22/banks/index.html
By Glenn Greenwald
In mid-May, I wrote about the commendable -- one might say heroic -- efforts of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to single-handedly impose meaningful accountability on Wall Street banks for their role in the 2008 financial crisis and the mortgage fraud/foreclosure schemes. Not only was Schneiderman launching probing investigations at a time when the Obama DOJ was steadfastly failing to do so, but -- more importantly -- he was refusing to sign onto a global settlement agreement being pushed by the DOJ that would have insulated the mortgage banks (including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) from all criminal investigations in exchange for some relatively modest civil fines. In response, many commenters wondered whether Schneiderman, if he persisted, would be targeted by the banks with some type of campaign of destruction of the kind that brought down Eliot Spitzer, but fortunately for the banks, they can dispatch their owned servants in Washington to apply the pressure for them:
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.
In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.
Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.
But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general's participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Not surprising, the large banks, which are eager to reach a settlement, have grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Schneiderman. Bank officials recently discussed asking Mr. Donovan for help in changing the attorney general’s mind, according to a person briefed on those talks.
In response to this story, the DOJ claims that the settlement is necessary to help people whose homes are in foreclosure, an absurd rationalization which Marcy Wheeler simply destroys. Meanwhile, Yves Smith, whose coverage of banking and mortgage fraud (and the administration's protection of it) has long been indispensable, writes today:
It is high time to describe the Obama Administration by its proper name: corrupt.
Admittedly, corruption among our elites generally and in Washington in particular has become so widespread and blatant as to fall into the "dog bites man" category. But the nauseating gap between the Administration's propaganda and the many and varied ways it sells out average Americans on behalf of its favored backers, in this case the too big to fail banks, has become so noisome that it has become impossible to ignore the fetid smell.
The Administration has now taken to pressuring parties that are not part of the machinery reporting to the President to fall in and do his bidding. We’ve gotten so used to the US attorney general being conveniently missing in action that we have forgotten that regulators and the AG are supposed to be independent.
By Glenn Greenwald
In mid-May, I wrote about the commendable -- one might say heroic -- efforts of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to single-handedly impose meaningful accountability on Wall Street banks for their role in the 2008 financial crisis and the mortgage fraud/foreclosure schemes. Not only was Schneiderman launching probing investigations at a time when the Obama DOJ was steadfastly failing to do so, but -- more importantly -- he was refusing to sign onto a global settlement agreement being pushed by the DOJ that would have insulated the mortgage banks (including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) from all criminal investigations in exchange for some relatively modest civil fines. In response, many commenters wondered whether Schneiderman, if he persisted, would be targeted by the banks with some type of campaign of destruction of the kind that brought down Eliot Spitzer, but fortunately for the banks, they can dispatch their owned servants in Washington to apply the pressure for them:
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.
In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.
Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.
But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general's participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Not surprising, the large banks, which are eager to reach a settlement, have grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Schneiderman. Bank officials recently discussed asking Mr. Donovan for help in changing the attorney general’s mind, according to a person briefed on those talks.
In response to this story, the DOJ claims that the settlement is necessary to help people whose homes are in foreclosure, an absurd rationalization which Marcy Wheeler simply destroys. Meanwhile, Yves Smith, whose coverage of banking and mortgage fraud (and the administration's protection of it) has long been indispensable, writes today:
It is high time to describe the Obama Administration by its proper name: corrupt.
Admittedly, corruption among our elites generally and in Washington in particular has become so widespread and blatant as to fall into the "dog bites man" category. But the nauseating gap between the Administration's propaganda and the many and varied ways it sells out average Americans on behalf of its favored backers, in this case the too big to fail banks, has become so noisome that it has become impossible to ignore the fetid smell.
The Administration has now taken to pressuring parties that are not part of the machinery reporting to the President to fall in and do his bidding. We’ve gotten so used to the US attorney general being conveniently missing in action that we have forgotten that regulators and the AG are supposed to be independent.
My apologies R/C...I didn't want to muddle through that. I would have probably been more inclined had you highlighted the high points you thought relevant then left to me (or the reader) the opportunity to locate the entire context in the link.
FYI...there are articles out there suggesting some are simply hoarding capital. Even as such, I believe consumer spending will pick up and business will be forced to accommodate demand (by hiring).
i forgot this was a porn board
i'm offended that you're offended.
what i meant to say was this well reasoned factual rebutal
i'm offended that you're offended.
what i meant to say was this well reasoned factual rebutal
lol i've done that before and you ignored them
which is why i gave you those links above. yes, the banks ARE colluding even after been giving federal bailouts.....but the current administration is denying any investigation or accountability into the matter
Probably true...but you must admit I do deal with allot more bullshitters and refuting their bullshit than maybe others. So again, I would but if I don't at times it's only because I'm preoccupied on some other shit.
I'll take a look at it...(not promising a timeline though). You see how fast I post in other threads...
Obama's the worst.
If getting the unemployment rate back down to low single digits and creating 10 pct. GDP growth per quarter were the goal....it failed.
If keeping the unemployment rate from the mid to high double digits and negative GDP were a goal then it was successful.
I admit by the admin's own expectations it was a failure. However, based on past circumstances any realistic person should have been able to reason it most likely would just keep things from getting much worse and buy us some time. Not turn almost unprecedented circumstances completely around in a matter of months or a year. Obama's expectations on the stimulus were a gaffe on par with Bush's expectation that the Iraq war would cost a mere $87B but then costing 10x more.
Or maybe the expectations of both were just political salesmanship.:dunno:
Although as it stands just on sheer numbers (if you tend to credit economic circumstances to a president's actions), Obama's acts have outperformed Reagan's so far considering they inherited the two worst economies since the depression.
Sorry bud but these are just "talking ponts" with nothing really backing them. Its like saying if Bush didnt do TARP we would have had a depression. The Stimulus came and went and there is virtually nothing to show for it. Was unemployment gonna go into double digits without the stimulus? No because alot of the stimulus jobs were temp jobs. Jobs that have long ended for people who are unemployeed again. But has the Unemployment rate gone into double digits? nope it has not.
This stimulus reminds me of the govt policies during the depression. After the market crash unemployment stayed in single digits. Then govt intervention began and unemployment went into double digits. Almost any one who understand the economics behind the depression knows that FDR policies prolonged the depression by almost 7 years. That means if the FDR admin did absolutly nothing, the depression would have ended 7 years before it actually ended.
The same sort of policies are being used now by the Obama and Bush admin (towards their end). In trying to show that they are "Doing something" they keep making the problem worse. The stimulus was an utter fail and it didnt do what Christina Romer and the admin claimed it would do (keep unemployment around 8 %). So by the admin's own standards the stimulus failed. Then you have shovel ready project that never existed and then President Obama joked that "shovel ready wasnt as shovel ready as we thought".
Now i know Guys like Paul Krugman think that paying John to dig a hole and Paying Mike to fill it up is productive. But if that was productive then every 3rd world country that use such methods would be the gems in the economic world. But they arnt because such methods do not work and end up prolonging the basic problems that exist.
I don't disagree with your reasoning but I think you don't understand what the money from the stimulus went towards if you've concluded the majority of jobs created (and/or saved too) by it were temp jobs.
The temp job suggestion is a talking point btw.:2 cents:
No Sir the Temp Jobs is not a talking point. It is a fact based on what the admin themselves claimed the stimulus was for "infrastructure". Now infrastructure projects are often not projects that last 5 to 10 years. So based on what the admin said, these jobs were not meant to be long term jobs to being with.
My state also got alot of the stimulus money. They dug up roads and then they rebuilt them. That lasted about 6 to 8 months state wide. So these people had jobs that the stimulus created for a year lets say. But then the money was gone and the projects ended. The problem with such a stimulus is always the same, what happens when the money runs out? and what happens when the projects are completed?
Lastly this new political idea of "Saved Jobs" is a completly made up concept. It would be like Bush claiming that "if he didnt do TARP" we would have lost thousands of high paying jobs in the financial sector. my 2 cents.
Well...let's agree to get beyond the semantics. You're not wrong technically on the 'temp job' suggestion. But it is a talking point because of what most people consider temp jobs (low paying, insignificant work) and the fact that the stimulus wasn't designed to create perpetual g'ment work.
Did the stimulus create jobs that were lifetime, career jobs? No. Did it create jobs that were even 10 year, permanent jobs? No. But it was a 'stimulus' wasn't it?? It wasn't designed to create permanent jobs on the g'ment dole...it was a stimulus effort...
To that end did it work in creating jobs and injecting money into state and local economies? Yes.
In this example these Wyoming contracts were awarded in '09 for '10 completion dates. When they were awarded some people got jobs to work them. Those people did something with the money they earned that they otherwise wouldn't have or couldn't have done.
Again, it was a 'stimulus' therefore the theory goes that some company has a year worth of work through a g'ment contract. As the money from those working the contract filters it's way through the local economy...these businesses should be able to acquire new business on their own throughout the course of the g'ment contract and those 'temp' workers have more work to continue working.
In the real world, if you're are performing contract work for a contract employer by this very nature that is and can be considered 'temp' work. What is the reality though...these same people are working for these same contractors for years over the course of various contracts the company acquires.
So were the jobs technically 'temp jobs'? Yes but it was a "stimulus" not an attempt to fund the entire economy through the g'ment in perpetuity.
http://www.wyoming.gov/recovery/news/Pages/WYDOTStimulusContracts.aspx
What do these people do with the money they earned from these jobs? Most likely it saved or created a job somewhere else as they spent on goods and services and theoretically nvm...
Long story short, in this case it help to save and/or create jobs for those in the business sector experiencing the good/service consumption from stimulus workers. Now those people spend.....get it?They would have. What else do you think happens to employees when entities and business go bankrupt?
PS...get a little more real word experience.:2 cents: I don't mean that as a slight...just that if you couldn't see the logical conclusions I just raised ahead of time...either you didn't want to or you just don't know. I take it that you're debating on good faith...hence I hope you were stating a position from just not knowing as opposed to just not wanting to know.
I will not quote your whole post because alot of it was generally centered on the same basic point of the "broken window" fallacy. Your idea is that govt takes capital out of the economy and then gives a portion of it to orginization XYZ to do a certain job. According to you people get that job, get paid and then the money has this multiplier effect. But that is where your wrong, the money does not have a multiplier effect. What happens in reality is that less money ends up going into circulation because as we knew govt cant create money from thin air. The govt had to take the money out of the economy in the first place to give it to orginization XYZ. The basic economic facts are that when govt gives out capital , they actually have a negative effect on the economy as a whole. If i take $5 from you and then give you back $2 as a gift to buy yourself something nice. That will result in having a negative effect on the economy and not a postive.
This is the same thing that was happening in the depression. FDR had alot of money going into public works programs. However, the same ideas of spending through govt is what made the depression last 7 more years.
The stimulus i knew it was gonna do. It simply took money out of the economy and then threw a portion of it back into the economy. Again that does not do much in terms of economy growth or stimulating the economy for that matter. What you call real world logic is actually a basic fallacy that steams from a lack of understanding of real world finance and economics.
funny lil video based on the broken window fallacy below. But it holds true on the larger scale of govt stimulus also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMbhs9JG4fE&feature=related
This is the same thing that was happening in the depression. FDR had alot of money going into public works programs. However, the same ideas of spending through govt is what made the depression last 7 more years.
The stimulus i knew it was gonna do. It simply took money out of the economy and then threw a portion of it back into the economy. Again that does not do much in terms of economy growth or stimulating the economy for that matter. What you call real world logic is actually a basic fallacy that steams from a lack of understanding of real world finance and economics.
funny lil video based on the broken window fallacy below. But it holds true on the larger scale of govt stimulus also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMbhs9JG4fE&feature=related
Wait! See this is your textbook talking and not experience. What money was taken "out" of the economy for the stimulus? It is borrowed money so theoretically neutral in terms of the larger economy missing it at this point.
It is a fact that it has an exponential effect. Why are people working right now, today??? Because people are taking their money and consuming with it. That should be common sense. When you, I or anyone else has money it will be spent somewhere on something. More money in the hands of consumers automatically means more consumption. Again, that is just utter common sense. The only question is whether it amounts to enough activity in demand to spur employment growth, then repeat cycle.
I see now where you're wrong is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the analogous circumstances. Again, probably just based on your academic versus realistic experience.
You're right, if you take $5 from me then give me back $2 there will be a problem in the arithmetic. The problem with your analogy is that's not what happened. The g'ment didn't take x amount from some contractor then give them back y amount. Again, what tax was raised to then be turned around into stimulus money? That would have to be the case to make your analogy be reasonable and/or true.
The actual analogy would be if you had $5 and I came along with another $5 to give you open-ended that I borrowed from someone else. So now you have $10 and my expectation is that you will invest at least $7 of that $10 wisely and I will be repaid some amount...more or less than what I gave/extended you when you get back on your feet.
Again, your premise is wrong.:2 cents:
Ah im not gonna waste my time trying to explain basic economics to ya. You keep saying my understanding is of textbooks and not the real world. The reality is that you dont understand basic level economics. You keep mentioning theories that have been proven wrong by history and are generally rejected by most economist. Yet, in your world what you say makes sense. So to argue with you would be like trying to argue with someone who still claims the earth is flat.
I disagree, you need to be a bit more clearer
What am i being unclear about? I tried to explain the broken window fallacy as simply as i could. I even posted that 2 min video that tries to explain this fallacy in the most easiest terms possible.
After all that if people still do not understand it, then at that point. Its time to let people believe what they want because your not gonna change there mind.
If someone disputes the ideas of basic math, it would be impossible to explain calculus to them.
Uh, sir...you basic math isn't the problem. You premise is. Now you want to play the condescending card but the fact remains your premise is exposed for being wrong.
You claim to be basing your positions in reality but you come right back with some theoretical supposition that probably exists in some text example but wasn't what happened plain and simple.
In simple terms you claimed it was like taking $5 from someone (presumably in the form of taxes) then giving them $2 back (in the form of 'stimulus').
Can you explain the sense in your position again if the money being given in stimulus is actually borrowed money from China and no tax was raised to finance the it? Not money sapped from the economy as your example suggests....
:bigear:
To the video...I admit I didn't want to waste the time watching since your premise was so clearly flawed from your post I didn't feel the need to.
Presumably that would be what you're basing your flawed reasoning on ...hence I would expect it to be a parroting of what you just typed...or you parroting it.
What tax was raised to then be redistributed in the form of stimulus?
Last edited:
Similar threads
