Market politics

[Intl Professor]

How does this scholar describe the Obama economy which created more wealth inequality than any other before him?

I think he's on your page regarding Obama. It was clear from the outset according to Paul Krugman, the Obama stimulus was about 1/3 of what was needed. A buddy of mine, a distinguished and widely published developmental economist, confirmed this independently. Plus, Obama had a tremendous amount of flak from Republicans. Regarding his earlier error in the amount, the administration also missed any opportunity for mid course correction as Christina Romer wished to do. There is a lot of discussion about the sexism of her conflict with Larry Summers, and Obama's failure to pick up on it.

What really burned my ass was Obama buying into the analogy of a family budget and the Federal one. I wish I could print my own money, as Trump is doing. That's the Trump stimulus. Now even our conservative wealth manager is calling the economy being on a sugar high because of the tax bill.

 

[dmunjal]

I think he's on your page regarding Obama. It was clear from the outset according to Paul Krugman, the Obama stimulus was about 1/3 of what was needed. A buddy of mine, a distinguished and widely published developmental economist, confirmed this independently. Plus, Obama had a tremendous amount of flak from Republicans. Regarding his earlier error in the amount, the administration also missed any opportunity for mid course correction as Christina Romer wished to do. There is a lot of discussion about the sexism of her conflict with Larry Summers, and Obama's failure to pick up on it.

What really burned my ass was Obama buying into the analogy of a family budget and the Federal one. I wish I could print my own money, as Trump is doing. That's the Trump stimulus. Now even our conservative wealth manager is calling the economy being on a sugar high because of the tax bill.

Let's say the $787B stimulus was three times ($3.2B) bigger. It's still less than what the Fed pumped in via QE at $4T.

And the $4T QE has a larger multiplier than government stimulus due to fractional reserve banking.

Even if Obama and Krugman had their dream scenario, the Fed is still bigger and the rich still get richer. That's the real sugar high.

One day, we'll wake up as a country and realize that the bipartisan support of the Federal Reserve is the real reason for our many problems.

 

[Intl Professor]

Let's say the $787B stimulus was three times ($3.2B) bigger. It's still less than what the Fed pumped in via QE at $4T.

And the $4T QE has a larger multiplier than government stimulus due to fractional reserve banking.

Even if Obama and Krugman had their dream scenario, the Fed is still bigger and the rich still get richer. That's the real sugar high.

One day, we'll wake up as a country and realize that the bipartisan support of the Federal Reserve is the real reason for our many problems.

The key here is it was stimulus to the money economy not the real economy. The multiplier is a measure of money leverage not secondary and tertiary and more if spent on infrastructure. I think I agree with you but not on a single-factor analysis. I wrote an article on this for the NY Times at the time but never published.

 

[dmunjal]

The key here is it was stimulus to the money economy not the real economy. The multiplier is a measure of money leverage not secondary and tertiary and more if spent on infrastructure. I think I agree with you but not on a single-factor analysis. I wrote an article on this for the NY Times at the time but never published.

I'm not saying Krugman's or Obama's approach wouldn't be better for the average worker. Maybe it would have been better to have a larger government stimulus like infrastructure.

What I'm saying is the Fed policy is largely responsible for the wealth inequality and not what Obama or Trump do.

We need to limit what the Fed can do and let fiscal policy do its magic. But both parties (including Obama) are in bed with Wall Street and the bankers so that is always the first priority. Not to mention they have unlimited budget and very little oversight.

I would love to read your paper.

 

[Intl Professor]

I would love to read your paper.

I'll see if I can find it. Would love your critique and others.

 

[Intl Professor]

I found it. It was modified, according to Word, in 2015, but it was in response to Paulson's Plan in 2008.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

A lot of it doesn't make sense to me now. The basic point is the focus on money not the real economy.

 

[Intl Professor]

Sorry to posteth so mush but there is an interesting article on Fivethirty-eight.

How Money Affects Elections
.
With limited income (plus stinginess) I don't contribute much. Sometimes I wait, like the rich, but best for retail contributors is early backing. A lot of information and research shows much monetary effort is wasted. Not an advice! I think it is like many other, if not all, investing.

Here's a bfo: it matters why you pick a candidate for office or profit. I like Buffet's approach, move on fear, retreat on greed. Examine details and management of the companies. Unfortunately, he doesn't know and admits lack of knowledge of technology. I was an indifferent engineering student (except for fluids) but it really helps to have some understanding of how nature works. Both Musk and Bezos have sound technical backgrounds. That is not a mistake.

 

[dmunjal]

I found it. It was modified, according to Word, in 2015, but it was in response to Paulson's Plan in 2008.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

A lot of it doesn't make sense to me now. The basic point is the focus on money not the real economy.

I agree with what you're saying in your paper. The Stabilization Act of 2008 was meant to shore up the states who were hemorrhaging and to give homeowners some relief. But if you remember, what Hank Paulsen really wanted was to save the banking system via TARP. He even got on his knee and begged Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker) to act. Congress eventually gave in and the billions went to save the banks (with no conditions) instead of homeowners. McCain and Obama who were running for President supported it as Senators.

If a similar crisis happens again under Trump, what do you think he would do? He might not repeat this mistake.

 

[Intl Professor]

I agree with what you're saying in your paper. The Stabilization Act of 2008 was meant to shore up the states who were hemorrhaging and to give homeowners some relief. But if you remember, what Hank Paulsen really wanted was to save the banking system via TARP. He even got on his knee and begged Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker) to act. Congress eventually gave in and the billions went to save the banks (with no conditions) instead of homeowners. McCain and Obama who were running for President supported it as Senators.

If a similar crisis happens again under Trump, what do you think he would do? He might not repeat this mistake.

The tax bill is a similar mistake. Short term stimulus to the money economy to be paid for by cutting social security and medicare, increasing taxes in outer years for middle class, not increasing minimum wage. As I said before, not just sugar but heroin high for inequality of wealth.

 

[dmunjal]

The tax bill is a similar mistake. Short term stimulus to the money economy to be paid for by cutting social security and medicare, increasing taxes in outer years for middle class, not increasing minimum wage. As I said before, not just sugar but heroin high for inequality of wealth.

Agreed. This is trickle-down economics.

But then you also have to agree that what the Fed did after the financial crisis (with Congressional approval) was also trickle-down economics. Even worse, the follow-on QE1, QE2, and QE3 totaling $4T over 6 years was the ultimate in trickle-down economics. That this happened under a Democratic president (who campaigned as a progressive) is appalling, IMO.

But let's compare. The tax bill will cost $1.5T over 10 years I believe. That's still much smaller than what the Fed did.

I hope you're willing to stop looking at fiscal policy as the reason for our recent economic woes when monetary policy is so much bigger, powerful, and damaging. There was a time when the Fed was less active and fiscal policy was a primary source of setting economic direction. But those days are long gone.

I recommend reading this book to understand my point of view.

https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Central-Bankers-Rigged-World/dp/1568585624

This is the real collusion in today's world.

 

[Intl Professor]

But then you also have to agree that what the Fed did after the financial crisis (with Congressional approval) was also trickle-down economics. Even worse, the follow-on QE1, QE2, and QE3 totaling $4T over 6 years was the ultimate in trickle-down economics. That this happened under a Democratic president (who campaigned as a progressive) is appalling, IMO.

I'm too lazy to read the book you cite so rest my king and concede. One small quibble, and a sign of my defeat, the president doesn't control Fed except through appointments. I don't remember if a change in course was or could have occurred under Obama. For me his original sin was economic and that tinged with misogyny.

 

[dmunjal]

I'm too lazy to read the book you cite so rest my king and concede. One small quibble, and a sign of my defeat, the president doesn't control Fed except through appointments. I don't remember if a change in course was or could have occurred under Obama.

Obama appointed Janet Yellen when Ben Bernanke's term was up. She was thought as being even more "dovish" than Bernanke. That is, even more willing to use monetary policy as a way to steer the economy.

Interestingly, Trump didn't extend Yellen's term and chose Jerome Powell to run the Fed and all he's done is raise rates. Which Trump has criticized.

At some point, the Fed will raise rates enough to cause a recession. Like Bush, Trump will likely be blamed when it happens under his watch.

 

[wdolson]

The discussion about Obama's economic picks is in line with what I said about the Republicans controlling the narrative. Obama's focus was not economic. He had some concern via reform of things like health care, but he's not a money guy. He didn't choose "new blood" for his economic team, he went with Wall Street guys who were more status quo people. He perpetuated the Republican memes because he didn't want to push back in that area.

IMO that is a failing on his part and a mistake he may not make today if he came back.

 

[dmunjal]

The discussion about Obama's economic picks is in line with what I said about the Republicans controlling the narrative. Obama's focus was not economic. He had some concern via reform of things like health care, but he's not a money guy. He didn't choose "new blood" for his economic team, he went with Wall Street guys who were more status quo people. He perpetuated the Republican memes because he didn't want to push back in that area.

IMO that is a failing on his part and a mistake he may not make today if he came back.

I don't think so. These are all after he left office.

Obama Goes From White House to Wall Street in Less Than One Year

After Failing to Prosecute Bankers, Obama Cashes In With Wall Street Speeches

https://www.salon.com/2014/08/24/co..._a_wall_street_presidency_a_drone_presidency/

Why Obama getting remunerated by Wall Street for a job well done is good for progressives. – NewsParticipation

 

[wdolson]

Back in the 2016 campaign when the Republicans were making a big deal about Hillary Clinton giving talks to Wall Street bankers Barney Frank appeared on MSNBC and was asked what he thought about it. He said he's given talks to Wall Street banker events several times since leaving office. He made the point he hasn't changed his position one whit and they know it. He doesn't see a downside about it, he talks to them telling them what he thinks and maybe something will sink in.

 

[dmunjal]

Back in the 2016 campaign when the Republicans were making a big deal about Hillary Clinton giving talks to Wall Street bankers Barney Frank appeared on MSNBC and was asked what he thought about it. He said he's given talks to Wall Street banker events several times since leaving office. He made the point he hasn't changed his position one whit and they know it. He doesn't see a downside about it, he talks to them telling them what he thinks and maybe something will sink in.

Well, Barney should know.

A lot of people heard what Barney Frank said about the new banking law. Few knew he works for a bank.

 

[lolachampcar]

Most people are focused on how government can address income inequality. I believe this is a distraction. Going back to why our politicians are ever more incompetent at anything but enriching themselves, the solution to income inequality rests in our behavior and not that of government.

IMO, if you do well you have an obligation to contribute back to the society and environment (local and absolute) that allowed you the opportunity to be successful. There once was a business that set aside a healthy portion of its pre-tax profits for a bonus pool. On good years, and there were a lot of good years, the pool equaled the year's salary expense. People participated as a percentage of their earnings and thus their salary was doubled.

Fast forward to putting the company up for sale. The financial types come in and say "hey, you can not do this.... You sell on a multiple of earnings so if you give away X each year in this pool your are loosing 30 or 40X in yield from the sale of the company.". Amazing logic and perfectly valid on its face but what it did not take into consideration was that there would be no company without those very employees.

At no time were the employees consulted on this activity. Had they been, there would have been a since of entitlement and an expectation of reward. Instead, it just happened. What was understood is that any action taken by any employee contributed to the health of the company and, if all went well, their own health. It was just not a guarantee.

Its a subtle difference but one that means everything. Those that succeed have a moral obligation to ensure that success is shared. This obligation is also self serving. If you take too much, sooner or later those left behind will get pissed. If you are lucky, you will be politely asked to leave ala Cuba; if not, well there is always the Khmer Rouge example.

 

[dmunjal]

I found it. It was modified, according to Word, in 2015, but it was in response to Paulson's Plan in 2008.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

A lot of it doesn't make sense to me now. The basic point is the focus on money not the real economy.

Sounds like Krugman is echoing your point of view today.

Botching the Great Recession Opinion | Botching the Great Recession

 

[neroden]

Let me put it in terms of the budget. The things that the government has some real control over.

What a ridiculous statement!

The fact is that the most important things the government does are actually *quite cheap*. The things the government has the most control over are often the least expensive.

The aggressive Republican project to force women to give birrth when they don't want to -- the budget is tiny, but the government has massive power by regulating medical facilities, which they can close down.

The project to clean up the environment -- OK, so cleanup of past problems is expensive, but the cost of sending regulators around to make sure companies aren't doing illegal toxic dumping is *really low*. But it's one of the most important things the government does, and the government has power nobody else has.

There's a lot of stuff like this. Transportation policy isn't really super expensive, but it's absolutely dependent on eminent domain powers. Land usage policy is kind of expensive, but again, it's the zoning and eminent domain powers which make the government *powerful*.

The most important levers of government are actually pretty cheap.

I'm hopeful that Justice Democrats and progressives like Sanders, Khanna, Gabbard, and Ocasio-Cortez are going to reform the Democratic party.

Oh, we are pretty much in charge. The DLC types (if anyone remembers them) are a waning faction.

 

[neroden]

Most people are focused on how government can address income inequality. I believe this is a distraction. Going back to why our politicians are ever more incompetent at anything but enriching themselves, the solution to income inequality rests in our behavior and not that of government.

IMO, if you do well you have an obligation to contribute back to the society and environment (local and absolute) that allowed you the opportunity to be successful.

And when a greedy, malicious jackass like Charles Koch or Robert Mercer or Sheldon Adelson decides not to do so -- and decides to instead spend his money trying to buy control of the government -- who's going to make him contribute?

Basically a government is the only thing which can force him to.

Its a subtle difference but one that means everything. Those that succeed have a moral obligation to ensure that success is shared. This obligation is also self serving. If you take too much, sooner or later those left behind will get pissed. If you are lucky, you will be politely asked to leave ala Cuba; if not, well there is always the Khmer Rouge example.

True, the guillotines of the French Revolution or the firing squads of the Bolshevik Revolution *will* make Mr. Koch and Mr. Mercer hand their wealth to society But while that *is* one way in which government can address the problem (and certainly the backstop if other methods fail), most of us would like a more peaceful option for dealing with such *antisocial rich people*.

Which is where progressive taxation comes in.