With the possibility of a recession who would you want in charge?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Bluesguy, Mar 16, 2020.

?

With the possibility of a recession who would you want in charge?

  1. The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11

    75.0%
  2. The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse

    25.0%
  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's about what will get businesses back up and running and hiring people right and left to fill jobs. It's not about transforming anything, we have to have an up and running economy before we can discuss "reforming it".

    But what little you touched on, the Republicans after the recession ended tighten the work rules for welfare and unemployment and people went back to work and became taxpayers, Gingrich and Kasich did the same thing mid 1990's and with both we had some of the strongest employment records in modern history. The Democrats and Obama HUGELY expanded both lessening the work rules continually expanding and extending benefits, how'd that work out getting people back the workforce? Not only did unemployment soar to 10% when he said his stimulus would hold it a 8% and then rapidly fall it stayed above 8% for four years. So explain to me why you would want the Dem/Obama policies over the Republicans?

    Obama also tried trickle up put money in peoples hands and compared to supply-side it was a joke, the worst employment and what should have been a robust recovery after such a fall a lackluster limping along barely keeping it's head above water. Bush tried the same thing only light, the $600 prebate for the coming tax rate cuts, it did nothing. It was the tax rate CUTS that got business and industry back and growing and creating jobs and increasing incomes. So again why would you want to go back the Democrat policies over the successful Republican policies to get us back on track to the best economy in our history that we were experiencing, why would you change those polices?
     
  2. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your main argument is that we did A, and B policies, but the economy was worse than predicted, therefore the policies completely failed. It could have been that A & B policies did help, but the recession was worse than expected, and A and B policies weren't done enough.

    The biggest mistake from the 2008 crisis was the amount of partisanship and gridlock which prevented us from doing enough. Both parties failed to predict just how bad the recession was going to be which is why the 8% unemployment figure was so wrong and why we failed to do enough.

    That 900 billion stimulus was spread out over several years, and it takes time for money allocated to eventually be spent. That bailout was also too focused on political objectives like green energy, research and a whole lot of stuff. We should have focused on getting money flowing through the economy in our current industries instead. That flaw is on the democrats.

    We should have also done a lot more bailing out of businesses and industries that were failing and extended unemployment benefits for longer than we did. We should have helped the housing industry more than we did and helped those were going to lose their homes.

    The democrats also focused too much on healthcare and wall street regulation when they should have focused completely on helping the economy. The Republicans were wrong to try to cut off unemployment benefits, oppose any stimulus, and oppose the auto industry bailout. They were wrong to just say no to anything and had no real plan to help the economy. The Republicans were more afraid of the national debt than the actual recession.

    People like to argue whether supply-side or demand-side will work best. In reality, you need both. You need to bailout businesses and help them survive to prevent millions from losing their jobs. But only helping businesses and the supply side won't encourage them to hire and expand if comsumer demand is in the dumps. We also need money in the hands of consumers to create revenue for businesses and encourage them to hire.

    We got 2008 wrong because so many didn't understand that we needed both supply side and demand side economics, and were too afraid of going into debt, and should have come together to do a lot more to get the economy running again.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well we two parties one of which will be end up with majority control of government policies. You can wish there were others but wishes ain't realty which you seem desperate to avoid.

    We were 2/3's of the way through the recession when Obama moved over to the WH. GDP bottom out the 4th quarter of 2008. The job loss rate bottomed out January 2009 again the month Obama moved over to the WH. They knew exactly how deep the recession was and it ended 6 months later.

    Oh those shovel ready jobs?

    Extending those benefits and liberalize the requirements by the Obama administration extended unemployment it's one reason the LFPR went over the cliff and we still have not recovered although Trump seems to have turned it around and it in a slow increase. We have a glut of jobs and people out there out of the workforce we should force back in. If you pay people not to work guess what you get?

    So we already have a huge increase in people out of work and will have more, which policies worked to get people back into the workforce and unemployment back to full employment

    The Republicans of the pre-2001 recession, DotCom bust and stockmarket collapse, 9/11
    The Democrats of the pre-2008 recession, Mortgage bust and stockmarket collapse


    They didn't cutoff unemployment, they just didn't explode for they see the harm long term unemployment does to the workforce and the country. And there was no auto bailout, there was a GM/Chrysler bailout which failed and cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars.

    Define bailout? Bridge loans to keep liquidity so the businesses can recover especially since it IS GOVERNMENT that has shut them down? I think we can all agree on that, but that is now, I'm asking about what comes after, why is that so hard for you to grasp?

    It think the Republicans have got it right twice and the Dems failed once and we have the boost more supply side has given recently. We are sending money to working people who have lost their jobs because of government and to get them by it is not a stimulus for the economy and should not be thought of as and attempted to use as one. They don't work as the Dems and Obama showed. Or when government takes over business as Obama showed with GM/Chrysler instead of cutting the cost of their capital and labor and regulations and getting out of the way as the Republicans do.

    So again those will be our choices in November which is it.
     
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You made an interesting claim that extending unemployment benefits hurt the labor force participation rate. I am assuming you think this because people would just be lazy and just live off the government. We had seven seekers for every job, and there simply were not jobs. If we had cut off unemployment benefits immediately, this would have the crash much worse, and consumer spending would have fallen even more. If anything, we should have extended unemployment longer and allowed any person to get them. Once there were enough jobs, we can then set the unemployment benefits back to normal.

    I agree that the auto bailout was very flawed. We should have done a lot more for the auto industry and that would have saved many jobs in manufacuring that were lost. And for some reason everyone forgot about the housing market that collapsed.

    And the stimulus was very flawed. That 900 billion should have been for the first year only, and we should have spent a couple trillion more over the next few years. More of the stimulus should have been devoted to bailing out sinking businesses, and unemployment benefits, not research spending and wind farms.

    Both parties failed to come together and do what was necessary. As a result we had a recession that officially lasted until mid-2009, but for most people, it lasted until 2014. Our covid crisis is far worse than 2008. If we repeat the partisanship and weak policies of the past we are doomed to repeat history even more tragically.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  5. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed.

    Fortunately, both Biden who said: "the treasury will pay for [the rescue package]"; and Trump: " we are one people, we issue our own currency*, and we will do whatever it takes", indicates the possibility of real bi-partisanship......

    * this sounds like Trump and maybe even Biden have been informed about MMT, which states that sovereign currency issuing governments can issue their own currency (money), and don't need to borrow in order to fund the costs of food and accommodation for unemployed workers, if the resources - ie food and accommodation, are available in sufficient supply during the crisis (which they are, baring a logistics catastrophe).

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

    1. The sovereign government can pay for food and accommodation for unemployed workers, without borrowing the money, because sovereign currency issuing governments can issue their own currency (as explained by MMT).

    2. This government spending to support unemployed workers will not cause inflation, because the spending will not create any excess demand on the nation's present (sufficient) supply of available food and accommodation.

    3. Which is to say: an increase in the money supply will not mean a decrease in its value, provided the money is spent on available resources, as outlined above.

    4. Money is mostly numbers in computers, and these numbers can be entered into the bank accounts of unemployed workers, via combined treasury and central bank operations.

    ………..


    ...….so let's have no more talk of the massive 'post pandemic debt overhang' nonsense that mainstream neoliberal monetarists keep banging on about. It isn't necessary, and only serves as a means of indoctrinating us into accepting endless future government 'austerity'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  6. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Increasing the money supply will increase prices, at least eventually. When everyone has more money, then prices will naturally go up to match. We have to be in no illusions about what will happen.
     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We saw when Gingrich and Kasich forced Clinton to sigh their welfare reform and also during the recovery after the 2001 recession tightening the requirements back up gets to apply for jobs. And yes guess what, there ARE lazy people out there. There are people who will not take a lessor job if they are getting paid not to work. We had a GLUT of good paying jobs yet the LFPR was remaining flat of barely improving and one reason because we still had work rules that applied to a labor market back in 2009 still in place, why?

    You keep saying "auto industry" why? It was GM and Chrysler and Obama tried to play the boy auto executive and it was a total failure and cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions. It wasn't about saving the auto industry is was about union jobs and his union support. GM still went bankrupt, it should have been allowed to do so without Obama sticking his nose into it. Chrysler was sold to a foreign auto company.

    The principle of it was flawed, that government through handing out money will stimulate the economy. Business sees through that and had no confidence in his plans and policies. Again we can look back to the recovery after the 2001 and see successful policies that allow the market to correct itself and expand itself. And BTW we did spend those trillions more the next few years and again the worst recovery in modern history with the worst employment situation since the GD.

    The Republicans "came together" and stopped the calls for even more tax increases and government spending and expansion as they took back the Congress under Obama and forced some fiscal sense and the markets reacted and the more they took back that power the better things got. When have the Democrats ever worked with Republicans except for Clinton and only then after his political adviser told him either do so our you will not win reelection. Doomed to repeat history, which history the Republican or the Democrat one, which will you vote to institute their policies?
     
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you can see below, there were not enough jobs during the economic crisis. And this graph is leaving out the underemployed, who just gave up and dropped out of the workforce, or accepted part-time work or jobs below their skill level.
    [​IMG]

    I agree that the auto bailout was bungled, and as you pointed out that GM still went bankrupt. We should have given a much larger bailout to the auto industry in general.

    No, what was flawed was that these wind jobs and arts centers aren't the beating heat of the economy. Much of the money allocated to infrustructure projects, just sat around because of red tape. Also, the stimulus was very small compared to the hole left by the collapse. When you give people spending money, they will spend that money, and businesses will hire to keep up with the demand. We should also have helped businesses more as well. When you let people lose their jobs, cut off unemployment benefits, and let industries collapse, consumer demand drops up a cliff and more businesses are forced to shut down.

    The Republicans were right to stop the tax increases. Their opposition to helping the economy through stimulus resulted in a larger reduction in consumer demand, and more jobs being lost. When the economy is collapsing it is no time to think about the deficit. I am glad the Republicans have learned from their mistakes and approved a 2 trillion stimulus for this crisis.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  9. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the supply of tomatoes into a given market increases, the price/value of the tomatoes falls. (ie suppliers must accept the price offered by buyers/demand, in order for the market to be cleared).

    However, since producers facing competition from other producers will increase their production (if they can) and hence their profits, by increasing output rather than by raising prices, an increase in the supply of money (by government fiat) will not cause inflation if the nation's productive capacity can be increased/more fully utilised.

    Quite so, but both you and bluesguy are merely locked into various shades of mainstream neoliberal economics....as are both the Dems and Repubs.

    MMT guarantees above poverty work for all who want it.

    You need to move past mainstream neoliberal economics, and hope Trump really knows MMT - and that the $multi-trillion rescue package need not be funded by government piling debt upon debt.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2020
  10. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I voted in this poll for the Republicans to be in charge, although there's a hell of a lot about Trump, the RINO's, and their stock market casino devotees that I have little or nothing in common with. It's all pretty damned disgusting and depressing, actually....

    Nevertheless, in a real, no-bullshit crisis like this 'virus thing' is turning out to be, we must have people with clear vision, common sense, and the ability to actually shut up, punch through the confusion and lethargy, and get vital things DONE!

    There was a time in this country when Democrats had those attributes, and were very good at getting important things done -- quickly! That time has passed. Now about all that Democrats seem capable of doing is going off on endless, mile-long tangents involving political and racial 'correctness', 'inclusiveness', 'diversity', and setting up vast, permanent welfare programs -- while catering to illegal aliens, minorities, and an ever-growing population of bums, slackers, and parasites.

    Face it... the crisis is upon us! The Republicans are our only hope. And, if a senile, corrupt, demented has-been like ol' Joe Biden is all that Democrats can find to replace Trump with, then, yeah, we've got to stick with Trump, too.... :lonely:
     
  11. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. You will appreciate this rolling stone article:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...coronavirus-fed-bank-bailout-disaster-976086/

    Even critics of Wall Street agreed that this [$3T rescue package] isn’t a complete washout compared with the last disaster, when the taxpayer was asked to bail out the very people who’d caused the crisis (in the GFC).

    As happened in the run-up to September 2008, Wall Street in recent weeks warned of Armageddon if the Fed did not immediately start spending billions per minute to buy every conceivable kind of financial product.

    Taken in conjunction with the CARES Act, the Fed and the Treasury were now positioned to become a major ongoing buyer of everything from mortgages to U.S. government debt to exchange-traded funds to corporate bonds to money-market funds.

    The problem? A lot of these markets were already overinflated thanks to post-2008 bailouts and interventions like Quantitative Easing. We’re about to find out that the American economy has been living off dying, dysfunctional, or hyper-leveraged markets for more than a decade. The Trump administration just bought this undead economy at retail prices and committed the Fed and the Treasury to sustaining it.

    It’s been estimated, for instance, that as many as 16% of American companies are “zombie companies,” i.e., they don’t have enough revenue to even pay interest on their debt. As Kelleher points out, many of these firms might not have survived even a mild economic downturn. Propping up this freak show, even if indirectly, is now going to become part of the War on the Virus.

    The notion that the Fed can endlessly pump new money into the economy once inspired fears of inflation, but the COVID-era mantra is that “Unlimited QE” or “QE infinity” no longer carries such dangers.

    Markets will have learned well from the 2008 experience that this increase in balance-sheet size is not inflationary in any near-term sense,” Citigroup economist Andrew Hollenhorst said last week.

    The Fed “balance sheet” as of Friday was already at $5.3 trillion, nearly $800 billion higher than its previous peak in May 2016. Wall Street analysts are predicting this number will eventually reach $10 trillion, and why not? Fed chief Jerome Powell signalled that assistance would be unlimited when he said the central bank would not run out of ammunition*.
    ……….

    This last remark from Powell indicates that central bankers - and Trump who recently said : "we are one people, we issue our own currency, we will do whatever it takes" - are aware of MMT, a macroeconomic heterodoxy that is attracting attention around the globe.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

    Unfortunately MMT, though incredibly simple, is counterintuitive because private citizens think sovereign currency-issuing governments are subject to the same budgetary constraints as they are, which is wrong.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2020
    Pollycy likes this.
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you Democrat policies. And not just gave up, had no need to go back into the workforce as the Democrats kept expaninding and liberalizing unemployment and welfare. The job loss rate bottomed out January of 2008 and started to quickly recede. Then is was just a matter of restoring confidence and economic security into the markets and getting people out of the welfare cycle. The Obama stimulus was a total failure.

    Why do you keep calling it the auto industry. The auto industry was not threatened, the auto industry in the South is one of my biggest customers, they didn't need a bailout. GM should have gone through a normal bankruptcy then but instead Obama believing he could play boy industrialist decided he could take it over and bring it back. It was utter folly that cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Infrastructure projects can take years and years and years before they even get started. We need LIQUIDITY and towards that the administration is moving fast. People can't hardly get out of their houses now to spend money, stores are closed. It is not stimulus we need but maintenance until businesses can open and then the natural pent up market demand will get people back to work and it's not going to be a new green deal that does that or the other pet projects from both sides. Bush tried that let's dump money although not as the Democrats did he was just an advance of next years tax returns and it did nothing. It was the tax rate cuts and leaving business and the markets and investors that got the economy going. The Democrats and Obama tried the opposite, threatening tax increases, higher employment cost, more regulations and a take over of businesses and the healthcare system and the markets reacted accordingly and we had the worst recovery in modern history. Why would you want to repeat that?


    NOW, hardly. The governments have shutdown a vibrant and growing economy and again this is NOT a stimulus nor intended to be a stimulus, this is a get by. Too bad the Dems have not learned from their mistakes and are going to waste money on their failed policies.
     

Share This Page