Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
I believe in balance. In yin and yang. I believe in cycles. In symmetry. I believe big wild parties end with big, nasty hangovers. I believe that what goes up, must come down.
Unfortunately, our government does not agree.
I have railed time and time again on this blog about the scattershot and shortsighted nature of our economic response so far to the current financial crisis. In short, and with few exceptions, said strategy has consisted of spending as much money as possible to bailout and stimulate every sick, depressed segment of our economy, with a particular focus on those segments that cater to the rich and connected.
The policies of the incoming Obama team will only accelerate this process, albeit with a more tilted and welcomed focus on some of the not-as-rich-or-connected folks. There is talk of a new $1 trillion stimulus package being created early in the Obama presidency.
The Fed is fully aboard the stimulus party as well, yesterday slashing the fed funds target rate to basically zero and committing to buying mortgage assets to ensure long-term borrowing rates move lower in an attempt to stabilize and boost the housing market. There is even talk that the government will FIX interest rates at a certain level to ensure they accomplish that goal, though for now it appears the mortgage market is responding to the unprecedented stimuli.
Look, no one likes to see suffering. People out of work, going bankrupt. Home prices falling. Factories closing. Cities failing. It's nasty, nasty stuff. For politicians, it tends to lead their own unemployment. And for economists, it's a scary scenario as well, because it almost always results in deflation, a pernicious problem that tends to have long, strong roots once it sets in.
But did the Fed or government do anything when times were so good, when the price of housing was soaring to the moon and consumers were levering up to the hilt and taking on dangerous levels of debt???? Aside from nominal increases in interest rates, I don't remember any concerted effort, and certainly nothing approaching the desperation we've seen recently, to try and tame the animal spirits and gently guide the economy into a soft landing.
In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. You can't have bubbles without crash landings. We have stemmed the worst of the credit crunch and liquidity crisis - interest rates have fallen, banks are lending a bit again (at least to each other). It is now time to let the market work its way through this mess and find its equilibrium level. Yes, it will likely overshoot on the downside, just like it did on the way up. Yes, it may take longer to find that equilibrium level than we'd like. But you gotta take the yin with the yang.
I'm not saying we should sit on our hands and watch helplessly as the economy craters. By all means, spend money to reinvest in our roads and infrastructure; on new technologies, including alternative energy; on education, including the retraining of displaced workers; on strengthening the country's safety net to ensure that those hit hardest from the economic collateral damage don't suffer unduly.
But realize that all this profligacy will have consequences down the road. We are already staring down the barrel of the worst demographic situation in decades - as the baby boomer generation is getting ready to retire en masse, placing a huge burden on this country's resources as they move from being net producers to net consumers.
When times were better and tax revenues were flush, our government did nothing to reduce our budget deficit in any meaningful way or address long-term systemic issues threatening the economic health of our nation, like Social Security and Medicare. Yet it now has no problem dramatically increasing our country's burdens and obligations in order to try and avoid the bad end of the business cycle.
The only thing all this spending will do is take away the oomph from any subsequent recovery. We'll see a weaker dollar, higher inflation, bigger deficits, and higher taxes down the road. At least some, and maybe a lot of this money will be misplaced, leading to bubbles and wasted investments in other unforeseen areas.
But frankly, the prospect that most of this stimulus will be wasted, a misguided attempt to set an artificial floor on the economy, is actually not the worst-case scenario (though it is the most likely). My biggest concern is that the stimulus works too well and our animal spirits are revived before they've had a sufficient chance to reset. If that happens, we'd only be setting ourselves up for a bigger, more painful crash down the road.
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
I wonder if there will be much of a recovery.
I do love when you blog on this stuff. In response, welcome to the 21st century. Everything is bigger, faster, stronger and will progressively continue to be more so. The Red Bull souped up, multi-tasking, all-knowing, all sensors stimulated culture will not stand for slow growth or deterioration. Everything must be swift, painful and historic. 35% down days, 28% up days, 3 million monthly job cuts, $4 trillion stimulus packages I'm afraid are going to become the norm. Time is becoming increasingly valuable, too valuable for tedious L-shaped recessions. Our ability to handle these swings quickly and effectively will either become an evolutionary step or lead to our ultimate downfall. All-or-nothing, just how we've come to like it.
We're not addicted to spending or to things. We're addicted to instant gratification. That's why we don't save money. That's why we buy whatever we want, whenever we want it. That's why investors aren't adopting a wait and see attitude and the markets make Six Flags look like the kiddie rides at the state fair.
What's the solution? How can we teach ourselves to be patient again when we've spent the last twenty years behaving like spoiled children? Maybe Obama needs to give us all a lengthy time out.
Thanks Mort-dog for the props, tho I gotta tell you I am SICK of writing about the economy and only do it when the outrage reaches that magical boiling point.
What's really be getting me is that nearly all of the economists and pundits I've been hearing have been suggesting that all this stimulus is necessary, and we'll worry about the consequences later.
Frankly, everyone is using the '30s as the blueprint for what not to do and what to avoid. No one wants to go down as a Hoover, as someone who did nothing to try to stimulate the economy or mitigate the pain and suffering of Americans.
That may be the right tack to take, but I know that the world is a lot different than it was back then. The enormous size of our deficits, the dramatic extent of our bubbles, the global reach of the crisis, all have their own unique qualities that will likely make whatever happens next different than what happened then.
And these are the same economists and pundits who had NO FRIGGIN CLUE that shit was about to hit the fan. Gimme the name of 10 economists from last summer who predicted we were about to enter the worst downturn since The Great Depression.
Yet we are supposed to have faith that they will outsmart the market, and allow us to have lots of yin and very little yang??
Well-written and argued. People I know around the market take your position, that we must be resigned to the cycle and can only tweak at the margins. I fear Mort is right that economic policy has entered an era of instant, extreme movement. Hoping the constancy of the new President tamps that down, so we're led decisively, but not lurching among extremes in our attempts to ease the pain caused by the trough in lending, spending, etc...
On a separate note, I was really disturbed by the lack of clickable links in this piece either to rock videos or game-winning jump shots. Can you please link to a half-dozen or so of these, and maybe the Hamster on a Piano Eating Popcorn video?
Just wondered.
Every thread should feature a jump shot:
Nice post, D. I don't know enough to comment myself, so I wrote to a wise econ professor I know. He had the following to say: