Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: It's official: Analysis says bailouts saved economy
Source:
chron
URL Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7160768.html
Published: Sep 4, 2010
Author: FROMA HARROP
Post Date: 2010-09-04 04:03:22 by lucysmom
Keywords: bailout, economy, unemployment
Views: 133541
Comments: 163
Using econometric models, Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America from nothing less than another Great Depression. Blinder was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Had Washington not taken any aggressive steps starting in 2008, the results would have been horrific, their study says. Real gross domestic product would have fallen a "stunning" 12 percent, rather than the actual decline of 4 percent. Nearly 17 million jobs would have vanished, twice as many as the real count. And the unemployment rate would have peaked at 16.5 percent. ... Ignoring what might have happened had the government not launched a vigorous response may be irresponsible, but it can be good politics. That's because many Americans — seeing the weak job picture and forgetting their own terror during the early days of the economic freefall - can be convinced that such polices were ineffective and possibly counterproductive. They remind me of family members who, four weeks after a quadruple bypass, want to know why Grandpa isn't dancing. At least the family knows that the operation was needed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-92) not displayed.
.
.
.
#93. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#29)
It gives you something to be outraged about (the only thing the US manufactures anymore).
I don't hate Bush, but I do think he was a disaster of a president.
He can pay his Chinese workers $0.60 an hour, that might have something to do with it.
______________________________________________________________________________ You are a stubborn old coot because you refuse to listen to the people (like the Intel CEO) who actually know why the economy is languishing. It cost Intel $1 billion more (due to various government tax and regulatory insanities) to build (not operate, but BUILD) a fab in the U.S. than it does elsewhere (and not just in China, but in Taiwan too). Insofar as operational costs are concerned, the people in Taiwan do not make 60 cents an hour. Skilled workers in China make more than that too.
The problems started before that. In the 1910s we got: Panic of 1797, Duration, 3 years Recession of 1802–1804 Depression of 1807, Duration 3 years and on, and on
Recession of 1802–1804 Depression of 1807, Duration 3 years LOL - you just killed your own case. 3 years. 2 years. 3 years. compared to the Great Depression - 1929-1941 Every heard of boom/bust cycles? They are as old as capitalism itself.
______________________________________________________________________________ Then it was the founding fathers themselves that cast it aside.
Maybe the most accurate thing to say is the problems began when the Constitution was tossed aside. Then it was the founding fathers themselves that cast it aside. No ......................... Have you followed the discussion on this thread at all? If you have, how did you come to THAT conclusion?
______________________________________________________________________________ Recession of 1802–1804 Depression of 1807, Duration 3 years Great Depression -- 13 years. The Great Depression started after the Federal Reserve was created, which the left claimed they needed to "smooth out" short term boom and bust cycles. There was nothing smooth about the Great Depression. The Great Depression was primarily caused by the Federal Reserve. Even Ben Bernacke believes this. ROTFLMAO. It's happening again. If we didn't have TARP, "Stimulus", GM bailout, etc. we would have had a somewhat sharper decline (to correct past government distortions in the market), but we'd be well along the road to recovery today. We are NOT on the road to recovery today, because of the government.
Why thank you. That sounds almost friendly.
Before the Great Depression there was the Long Depression. In the United States, economists typically refer to the Long Depression as the Depression of 1873–79, which followed the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[4] [5] After the panic, the economy entered a period of rapid growth, with the U.S. growing at the fastest rates ever in its history in the 1870's and 1880's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
Yes you did.
Yep, and it was also caused by expansionary monetary policies. During the Civil War, the U.S. government temporarily left the gold standard and inflated the money supply to pay for the war. After the Civil War the country moved back to the gold standard (actually a bi-metal standard, which was another problem that we can discuss on another thread). The market had to correct past government actions. The severity of the correction depends on the severity of government interference in the economy. It still lasted half the amount of time as the Great Depression which occurred after the left got the monetary tools they needed to "smooth" these things out. Nothing has been smoothed out. Things have only gotten worse.
I apologize for that comment. I usually don't make personal attacks. I'm just on edge today for a few reasons.
No, the Long Depression lasted almost 2 years longer than the GD.
I'm sorry - hope everything is ok.
That is so opposite of what really happened. First off, money wasn't easy; it was tight and the "cause" of the panic had nothing to do with neither. What caused it was good old American Greed and Fraud. And if government policy had anything to do with it, then it was rooted in the nascent incestuous relationship between wealth and politics.
How so? We were bleeding jobs a half million a month and GDP was starting to go into free fall before the stim.
The problem with the system was that his FL campaign manager was also the person in charge of ensuring a free and fair election.
Are you claiming that the day Bush left office that it was the end of his effect? When he left office the recession was over a year old and showing no signs of abating.
You Obamabot! :-)
The first symptom of ODS is believing that the economic history of the US excludes the period from January of 2001 to January of 2009.
The problem with the system was that his FL campaign manager was also the person in charge of ensuring a free and fair election. You left out an important part - which I replaced. So let me try to follow your logic by using an analogy: A defective chicken (representing the system) lays a defective egg (representing Bush's FL campaign manager), resulting in a defective omelet (your "stolen" election by the sinister Bush). You're saying the egg was the problem - when in reality it would have been impossible for the defective chicken to produce a non-defective egg in any event. Just as it is impossible for a defective system to produce a non- defective referee of an election. I'm saying the system is broken, and it doesn't matter what happens beyond that. It's not even arguable, war (though I'm sure it won't stop you from trying) Any system that produces an Algore, a Bush, or an Obama is broken beyond repair.
______________________________________________________________________________ The first symptom of ODS is believing that the economic history of the US excludes the period from January of 2001 to January of 2009. The first symptom of BDS is believing that the entire economic history of the US begins in January of 2001 and ends in January of 2009
______________________________________________________________________________ This nation was on its way back to reasonable fiscal health prior to 2001. Do you remember how all of you laughed at Gore for his "lockbox" reference and his insistence that surpluses be used to pay down debt? So please, spare me the lecture about how Boy Blunder simply continued past policies. He didn't. There was absolutely no reason to cut taxes once let alone twice.
There weren't any surpluses. Only projected surpluses.
We can argue accounting gimmicks all that we want to. The fact is the fiscal health of the nation was handed over to Bush in much better condition than what was handed to Obama.
Riiiiiiiiiight. A politician promising NOT to spend a pile of money. Sorry. I stopped believing in politicians promises about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus.
______________________________________________________________________________ Regardless of how you wish to re-frame that issue, the fact is, there were two plans...one was to use the surplus to pay down debt and re-pay the trust fund and the other was to cut taxes. You do understand the dynamics of the Laffer Curve, do you not? It's not only that taxes can be too high but, at some point, tax rates are too low.
Tax revenuse increased after the Bush tax cuts.
They outright declined after the first cut. They increased after the second because the housing bubble was beginning. BTW, revenue growth was sluggish when it was increasing.
Excrement. The so-called "bailouts" simply delayed the inevitable, akin to using buckets to bail-out water from the Titanic... it sounds good, seems logical... But a complete waste. The entire article is pure propaganda, nothing more. If you understood the massive THEFT that the "bailouts" REALLY are, you would understand that you've been scammed. Posting such rubbish indicates your level of indoctrination is all-encompassing.
Or, just maybe - youse the guy what's been brain-washed. Have you considered that? Naa - can't be - but then again...
The so-called "bailouts" simply delayed the inevitable, akin to using buckets to bail-out water from the Titanic... it sounds good, seems logical... But a complete waste. The entire article is pure propaganda, nothing more. If you understood the massive THEFT that the "bailouts" REALLY are, you would understand that you've been scammed. Posting such rubbish indicates your level of indoctrination is all-encompassing. Well stated. I can NOT believe anyone with an iota of political sophistication would believe the so-called "Stimulus" was anything other than a scam to further bury the Middle Class, money-launder greenbacks into the DNC, the "Community," Unions, fake jobs, and Dem precincts. That was the quickest flush of freshly-printed $800 billion down memory hole...EVER.
And both were bogus and absurd to begin with. And EVERYONE knew it. Except those still sitting on Santa's lap.
And everything that happened during that period was Clinton's fault... or Obama's fault, before the fact. :- )
Eight years of bad decisions. One after the other. Padlock, Boofer...they were all declaring this presidency a failure in the Summer of 2009... Boofer, after one day of Obama in office, said his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, would be gone by June of 2009. For the record, he's still briefing.
Sure. I was taught, and for a while, believed in Keynesian economics, just as YOU do... But within a couple of years, I started to question such "conventional" wisdom. By the time I'd finished my Bachelors in Economics, I knew that Keynes was a fool... The "aha" moment occured when I was challenging a professor (who used to run the global strategic operations division for B of A) on fractional reserve policies, and how they endangered the power of the US dollar as the worlds' reserve currency. When I pointed out that this system will only work so long as the dollar remained the reserve currency, and would precipitate our economic collapse when the rest of the world went to something else...? His answer was "it hasn't happened YET." That day, was when I TRULY started to learn. For your sake, I hope you wake up before it's too late. Personally, I don't really care if you wake up or not... If you do, then you have a chance. If not, you'll simply be of *billions* of bodies, dead due to your own ignorance. I don't really care... But for your daughters' sake, you better get a clue... Think of it this way: If I'm wrong, you lose nothing. If I'm right, you'll die. Choose.
When has Keynesian economics ever failed? It certainly worked in Reagan's term.
ROFLMAO...Nebby is already Grand Marshal of the Halloween Parade this year and it's too early to lobby for next year. But what a man you are threatening a senior citizen.
Comments (134 - 163) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThat is all the "stimulus" and bailouts accomplished. Status quo.
#94. To: Ignore Amos (#30)
Again I ask - why do you folks hate him so?
#95. To: jwpegler (#31)
So why in the hell should he build a new plant in the U.S., rather than in Taiwan, or China? He shouldn't and he's not.
#96. To: lucysmom (#94)
I don't hate Bush
That's good. If you have hatred toward someone far removed from you (as I assume Bush is) and who probably doesn't know you, it only hurts you, not him. but I do think he was a disaster of a president.
See? Even people from opposite ends of the political spectrum can find agreement at times.
Zero diddled while America burned
#97. To: lucysmom (#95)
He can pay his Chinese workers $0.60 an hour, that might have something to do with it.
the era of big government is over -- Bill Clinton
#98. To: jwpegler, Ignore Amo (#66)
The seeds of the economic problems began with FDR. edit: on second thought, they probably began with Hoover
#99. To: lucysmom (#98)
Panic of 1797, Duration, 3 years
Zero diddled while America burned
#100. To: Ignore Amos (#70)
Maybe the most accurate thing to say is the problems began when the Constitution was tossed aside.
#101. To: lucysmom (#100)
Zero diddled while America burned
#102. To: lucysmom (#98)
(Edited)
Panic of 1797, Duration, 3 years
the era of big government is over -- Bill Clinton
#103. To: jwpegler (#97)
You are a stubborn old coot ...
#104. To: jwpegler (#102)
Great Depression -- 13 years. The Great Depression started after the Federal Reserve was created, which the left claimed they needed to "smooth out" short term boom and bust cycles.
#105. To: war (#34)
BTW, told ya...
#106. To: lucysmom (#104)
Before the Great Depression there was the Long Depression.
the era of big government is over -- Bill Clinton
#107. To: lucysmom (#103)
(Edited)
Why thank you. That sounds almost friendly.
the era of big government is over -- Bill Clinton
#108. To: jwpegler (#106)
It still lasted half the amount of time as the Great Depression...
#109. To: jwpegler (#107)
I'm just on edge today for a few reasons.
#110. To: jwpegler (#106)
Yep, and it was also caused by expansionary monetary policies.
#111. To: jwpegler (#102)
...but we'd be well along the road to recovery today.
#112. To: Ignore Amos (#51)
The problem isn't Bush - the problem is the system...
#113. To: jwpegler (#46)
Unemployment is worse today than when Bush left office.
#114. To: war (#113)
Are you claiming that the day Bush left office that it was the end of his effect?
#115. To: meguro (#114)
#116. To: war (#112)
(Edited)
The problem isn't Bush - the problem is the system...[that placed him in office]
All the disastrous decisions we're dealing with now started with Bush . . .
-Skippy, the boy wonder.
#117. To: war (#115)
(Edited)
All the disastrous decisions we're dealing with now started with Bush . . .
-Skippy, the boy wonder.
#118. To: Ignore Amos (#117)
(Edited)
The first symptom of BDS is believing that the entire economic history of the US begins in January of 2001 and ends in January of 2009
#119. To: war (#118)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#119)
(Edited)
#121. To: war (#118)
Do you remember how all of you laughed at Gore for his "lockbox" reference
All the disastrous decisions we're dealing with now started with Bush . . .
-Skippy, the boy wonder.
#122. To: Ignore Amos (#121)
#123. To: war (#122)
#124. To: A K A Stone (#123)
(Edited)
#125. To: lucysmom (#0)
Had Washington not taken any aggressive steps starting in 2008, the results would have been horrific, their study says. Real gross domestic product would have fallen a "stunning" 12 percent, rather than the actual decline of 4 percent.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#126. To: Capitalist Eric (#125)
Posting such rubbish indicates your level of indoctrination is all-encompassing.
#127. To: Capitalist Eric (#125)
Excrement.
#128. To: war (#122)
Regardless of how you wish to re-frame that issue, the fact is, there were two plans...one was to use the surplus to pay down debt and re-pay the trust fund and the other was to cut taxes.
#129. To: war (#115)
The first symptom of ODS is believing that the economic history of the US excludes the period from January of 2001 to January of 2009.
#130. To: meguro (#129)
(Edited)
#131. To: lucysmom (#126)
Or, just maybe - youse the guy what's been brain-washed. Have you considered that?
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#132. To: Capitalist Eric (#131)
(Edited)
#133. To: Capitalist Eric (#131)
If I'm wrong, you lose nothing. If I'm right, you'll die.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]