• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

At what point will the economy be Obama's fault?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: rudeguy
How long after Obama takes office will the economy be his fault? How long is the economy going to be Bush's fault and not the Obama's?
Obama will continue to successfully ride the "Bush is your real enemy" sentiment well through the 2012 re-election.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
He's a long term investor with a lot of market moving capital to invest (even if he wanted to, he couldn't invest that nimbly because market would see his moves and pile on, increasing his cost basis to return killing levels).

He's not a momentum growth investor; he invests at depressed prices when there is blood on the streets.

He's probably doing now what he did in the 1970s, and is seeding outsize long term returns, despite his massive asset base, down the road.

One of the mutual funds I own, Longleaf Partners fund, recently said that their price to intrinsic value ratio was about 50%. If the market realizes that value in 2 years, annual return is about 50%. If it takes 5 years to realize that value, it is still 15% average annual returns, even if you have to wait 5 years to get it.

Warren Buffet's projection about length and depth of recession were in his recent Charlie Rose interview; you can watch it for yourself at the Charlie Rose website.

 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: rudeguy
How long after Obama takes office will the economy be his fault? How long is the economy going to be Bush's fault and not the Obama's?
In the year 2020, by then it should turn around if Obama has done his job right.

I do blame Roosevelt for not finding a way to make his regulations permanent.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
If things don't stabilize before the midterm election it'll be his fault.

Note I didn't say "improve", I said "stabilize". The Messiah should definitely be able to do that if he is half of what he claims he is during his campaign.
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
Analysts have found both Obama and McCain's plans would likely hurt the economy more than help (with Obama's actually being the worst culprit of the two). Now that he is elected, and is building a finance team that hopefully has a clue, I wouldn't be surprised if many of his original proposals disapear. If not, we will probably be hurting for a while longer.

As far as blaming Bush, well, hasn't the market been up 30% from the level it was when he took office until this decline began 6 months ago? He was in office 8 years, right? What happened 6 months ago that drove this dive? Don't get me wrong, I am not a huge Bush supporter or anything. I just hate the finger pointing and blame game.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: mshan
He's a long term investor with a lot of market moving capital to invest (even if he wanted to, he couldn't invest that nimbly because market would see his moves and pile on, increasing his cost basis to return killing levels).

He's not a momentum growth investor; he invests at depressed prices when there is blood on the streets.

He's probably doing now what he did in the 1970s, and is seeding outsize long term returns, despite his massive asset base, down the road.

One of the mutual funds I own, Longleaf Partners fund, recently said that their price to intrinsic value ratio was about 50%. If the market realizes that value in 2 years, annual return is about 50%. If it takes 5 years to realize that value, it is still 15% average annual returns, even if you have to wait 5 years to get it.

Warren Buffet's projection about length and depth of recession were in his recent Charlie Rose interview; you can watch it for yourself at the Charlie Rose website.
Good luck on your fund.
I looked at the top 10 holdings and some of those companies look like grade A investment crap.
Dell? Sun Microsystems? eBay? Level 3 Communications?
Wow...How do you even sleep at night?

For someone who quotes Warren Buffett a lot, neither you (nor your fund managers) seem to follow any of his principles.

I think I'll stick with my Fairholme(FAIRX) fund, thank you.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Simple, I don't sweat the details.

I look at macro factors such as a proven investment strategy, unemotional discipline, experience, and a knowledgeable shareholder base (i. e. minimal dumb, hot money that is only chasing last year's returns) that will not pull their money when the greatest investment opportunities are presenting themselves. The fact that they own the fund company and are the largest shareholders in their own funds doesn't hurt, either.

They will be right on some choices, they will be wrong on others, but ultimately the goal is to make a lot more money when they are right than wrong, and at the same time don't take any risk that would totally and permanently take them out of the game.

 

Toasthead

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,621
0
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
I still blame Franklin D. Roosevelt for fucking up our economy and starting social programs trying to get out of the Depression.

Edit - He lucked out with the war and ran things smoothly on that front.
winner winner
 

Toasthead

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,621
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Corbett

Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.
That would be wrong. Long before the economic meltdown, your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang FUBAR'd the economy for generations with their war of LIES in Iraq in which they squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars of current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

The Bushwhackos are also directly responsible for fiscal catastrophy caused by their failure to oversee the robber barons among their wealthy Wall Street and large business contributors. They all should face criminal charges.

They brought us catastrophy piled on top of catastrophy. Without the war in Iraq, we would still have to deal with the fiasco in the business sector, but at least, we would have the resources squandered in the war to help cover the damages.

The compounded damages are so great that Obama's success can only be measured in terms of how well, how far and how quickly he and his administration are able to start reversing trail of devastation the Bushwhackos' have left in their wake. Even with the best of leadership and good luck, just breaking even will take years, if not decades. :(
But how do you REALLY feel?
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Presidents actually have very little influence over the economy.

The man with the most power over our economy is the head of the treasury. They control interest rates and what not and those levers have an almost direct effect on our economy. Congress to a lesser degree also impacts our economy with the budgeting and spending they do, but they are such a slow moving beast it typically takes months to years to get programs pushed through.

I suppose if Obama stops the bleeding by his 1st term we can consider it a success.
 

deftron

Lifer
Nov 17, 2000
10,868
1
0

Everything bounces back.

He's actually in a good position.


No recession since the Great Depression has lasted more than 2 years.
It's going to bounce back. pretty much regardless of what he does.


The question is, will he get credit for the bounce (Presidents almost always get credit for gains and losses, even though it's not entirely their fault)

And when it does bounce back, how long does the expansion period last, before the next recession.

If Obama is lucky, we will be in an expansion period during his re-election.

.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I hope you're right, but I read somewhere that most post war recessions were v shaped because they were caused by the Fed raising interest rates and promptly recovered when they stopped doing so.

Last recession and current one were not due to that and unfortunately may be much more problematic and L shaped that any of us might wish.

 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: rudeguy
How long after Obama takes office will the economy be his fault? How long is the economy going to be Bush's fault and not the Obama's?




It will be his fault (or to his credit) when another lieing sack of shit politician can convince you that it is his fault (or not to his credit). Not a minute sooner or later.
 

rezinn

Platinum Member
Mar 30, 2004
2,418
0
0
It's already his fault. Look at what happened to the market after he won the election.
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
People... Dont be sucked in by the past couple weeks of ups and downs. The market drop after Obama's win has nothing to do with Obama. That is simply an example of people trying to make a quick buck selling high and buying low (ie: hedge funds). It started before Nov 4th and will continue for a while.

P.S. I have no bias, and did not vote for Obama.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.
What`s funny is the same people that are gonna throw a tantrum about this for the next four years, are the same one`s that were blaming stuff on Clinton over 6 years after he was out of office.

Even funnier how the Bush knob-slobbers are launching this pre-emptive hissy fit.

:)
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Reagan took office in Jan 1981 and his economic policies started to be felt in the economy around Nov 1982.

I would guess that it will take 18 months before anything Obama can do really takes effect.

Of course the economy could recover on its own and Obama will be able to take credit. Clinton had the same type of luck, the economy was already recovering when he took office.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan took office in Jan 1981 and his economic policies started to be felt in the economy around Nov 1982.

I would guess that it will take 18 months before anything Obama can do really takes effect.

Of course the economy could recover on its own and Obama will be able to take credit. Clinton had the same type of luck, the economy was already recovering when he took office.
Cliffs:
1) Reagan gets credit for the economy starting in 1982
2) Obama gets credit for economy starting in 2010
3) If the economy recovers in 2010, the economy recovered despite Obama
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan took office in Jan 1981 and his economic policies started to be felt in the economy around Nov 1982.

I would guess that it will take 18 months before anything Obama can do really takes effect.

Of course the economy could recover on its own and Obama will be able to take credit. Clinton had the same type of luck, the economy was already recovering when he took office.
Cliffs:
1) Reagan gets credit for the economy starting in 1982
2) Obama gets credit for economy starting in 2010
3) If the economy recovers in 2010, the economy recovered despite Obama
You mean if it recovered BEFORE 2010 it recovered without his help.
Unless he does something amazingly drastic, and I don't see that happening.

If there was an easy way to fix it Bush would have already done so. It just takes time for the economy to recover.

BTW I think it is pretty much accepted that changes to tax policy take about a year and a half to be felt.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.
What`s funny is the same people that are gonna throw a tantrum about this for the next four years, are the same one`s that were blaming stuff on Clinton over 6 years after he was out of office.

Even funnier how the Bush knob-slobbers are launching this pre-emptive hissy fit.

:)
The question was just a random thought that passed through my head. It was not meant to be a pre-emptive strike.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan took office in Jan 1981 and his economic policies started to be felt in the economy around Nov 1982.

I would guess that it will take 18 months before anything Obama can do really takes effect.

Of course the economy could recover on its own and Obama will be able to take credit. Clinton had the same type of luck, the economy was already recovering when he took office.
Cliffs:
1) Reagan gets credit for the economy starting in 1982
2) Obama gets credit for economy starting in 2010
3) If the economy recovers in 2010, the economy recovered despite Obama
You mean if it recovered BEFORE 2010 it recovered without his help.
Unless he does something amazingly drastic, and I don't see that happening.

If there was an easy way to fix it Bush would have already done so. It just takes time for the economy to recover.

BTW I think it is pretty much accepted that changes to tax policy take about a year and a half to be felt.


I don't think it will recover. Obama changes will be too drastic. At his core, I think Obama is anti-business. Personally, I think it will take 3-4 years.. Basically, I think that Obama's term will be a wash. Its going to be bad. IMHO, the markets don't have confidence in him -- basically, the people with money. Yea, the people who are currently sucking Obama's balls are having a great time -- but most of them don't own business.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: eleison
IMHO, the markets don't have confidence in him
As compared to the confidence the markets have in the Bush/McCain economic policy?

:laugh:

2016 must seem a long way off for you.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,121
14,307
136
From eleison-

I don't think it will recover. Obama changes will be too drastic. At his core, I think Obama is anti-business. Personally, I think it will take 3-4 years.. Basically, I think that Obama's term will be a wash. Its going to be bad. IMHO, the markets don't have confidence in him -- basically, the people with money. Yea, the people who are currently sucking Obama's balls are having a great time -- but most of them don't own business.
Please. The current situation is a classic example of over-leverage against "assets" whose value has been overstated. It's not that the markets don't trust Obama, it's that they don't trust themselves. The credit lockup and stock selloffs at cutrate prices tell us that- it's a classic flight to liquidity.

The choice to attempt to ease down the slope with cash infusions rather than allow a total faceplant means that we're stretching out the decline, *maybe* reducing the depth of the lowest end. A crash doesn't happen because it can, but because it's inevitable given the events leading up to it.

The new Admin can't change the past, wherein lie the reasons for what we're experiencing today. The Bush Admin and the Greenspan FRB had the opportunity to do so, but declined, adopting a "growth at any price" philosophy. The price is the collapse of the bubble they created, and the misery associated with it...

It's like a hangover- the real answer is not to indulge quite so foolishly in the first place...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY