Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Congrats! You found an issue both you and Obama and every fucking democrat believe is the number one issue!

We've had three republican presidents in the last 35 years including a president whose economy he presided over is referenced daily who not only didn't address the issue but whose economy has been bested by Obama.


http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

FT_15.01.29_MiddleClass_310px.png




Middle class continues to decrease.
Economic inequality continues to increase.
Obama's supporters find situation "massively improved"...

Uno:whiste:
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Yes Obama has been great for hedge fund managers. And finance guys in general. Regular joes? not so much.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
I'm sure this collapse of the middle class had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard in 1971 :whiste:

If one looks at graphs going back to the beginning of the 20th century, we see that inequality also exploded in the 1920's, which was another period of rapid monetary expansion and loose lending standards.

Income-Inequality-Graph-from-Robert-Reichs-New-Film.png


It's almost as if lending huge amounts of money to the super rich at very low interest rates encourages them to buy everything that has positive cash flow, but poor people use credit to get poorer because they borrow money to buy consumer goods.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Silly goose - the rich will take care of the Regular Joes!

5nkbpe.jpg

You seemed to have confused one of the faithful with the truth. Isn't it funny that when you point out how the rich keep getting richer they complain about jobs while forgetting they support and worship trickle down! DERP
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I'm sure this collapse of the middle class had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard in 1971 :whiste:

If one looks at graphs going back to the beginning of the 20th century, we see that inequality also exploded in the 1920's, which was another period of rapid monetary expansion and loose lending standards.

And also another period under the gold standard. SMH

The gold standard is what morons people who don't know anything about economics think is sound economic policy.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,720
47,409
136
I'm sure this collapse of the middle class had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard in 1971 :whiste:

If one looks at graphs going back to the beginning of the 20th century, we see that inequality also exploded in the 1920's, which was another period of rapid monetary expansion and loose lending standards.

Income-Inequality-Graph-from-Robert-Reichs-New-Film.png


It's almost as if lending huge amounts of money to the super rich at very low interest rates encourages them to buy everything that has positive cash flow, but poor people use credit to get poorer because they borrow money to buy consumer goods.

It's almost like all those graphs conveniently leave out the gilded age where inequality also exploded while under the gold standard. Also, can you explain why the super wealthy waited an entire decade to start increasing their income share after 1971?

I wonder why they do that? Probably because tying inequality to leaving metallic standards for currency is bullshit. No one should ever wish the misery of the gold standard on anyone.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,446
136
He's right.. compared to January 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, things have massively improved.

Of course it has improved... for Billionaires.
Middle Class still don't have !@#$ for purchasing power.
And until that changes, there will be no recovery.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
FT_14.12.11_wealthGap2.png

Yes Obama has been great for hedge fund managers. And finance guys in general. Regular joes? not so much.

Not to mention what has happened to racial, ethnic, wealth gaps during Obama's administration...

Obama's fans spin this as 'amazing?'

Uno
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
You seemed to have confused one of the faithful with the truth. Isn't it funny that when you point out how the rich keep getting richer they complain about jobs while forgetting they support and worship trickle down! DERP

and you complain about the trickle down all the time, then vote for a guy that doubled down on it, TWICE.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You seemed to have confused one of the faithful with the truth. Isn't it funny that when you point out how the rich keep getting richer they complain about jobs while forgetting they support and worship trickle down! DERP

They function on the basis of screwy idealizations of the past, particularly the 50's when New Deal financial regulations hadn't been circumvented by the shysters, Unions were strong, high end taxes were much higher & wealth distribution flatter.

Hedge funders in general aren't too pleased with the Obama economy & Democrats in general-

101415krugman2-tmagArticle.png


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body
 

Lash444

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,708
63
91
Thank god it is the age of the internet, and the spin of national tv news outlets reaching viewers decreases with time. Because if this thread isn't the indication of how individuals can try to write their own history, and force it down your throat, I don't know what is.

One party has preached that their objective was to allow the "Job Creators" keep more of their money in order to expand and grow. We would all reap those benefits they say. Those high paying jobs all left the country, but the billionaires all prospered.

"Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class. "

2016 is the next great opportunity to chip away at wealth inequality. If you think the GOP is the group who will fight to correct this, then you really need to change your news sources.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Measuring how high the dead cat bounces. I like this hedge fund billionaire choice of past time.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It's almost like all those graphs conveniently leave out the gilded age where inequality also exploded while under the gold standard.
The US was moving away from a metallic standard at that time. I'm surprised you have never heard this before. The Wizard of Oz was a book about abandoning the silver standard, and it's probably one of the most famous stories in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1873

The common theme in these standard changes is that people always want to ban things they don't have and then mandate the use of things they do have. Back in the gilded age, Americans had silver. Money was silver, and silver was money. The people who held gold had an idea. Let's outlaw silver money and make a rule saying only gold is money. That's great for the super rich people who own gold, but it's really bad for the millions of Americans holding silver. Leaving the silver standard robbed the American people blind. When one introduces fractional reserve banking on top of this, we get a special kind of power grab. If owning 1 ounce of gold allows one to lend out 10 ounces of gold certificates, it means those rich people hoarding gold also have complete control of the banking system - they lend money to those millions of Americans who held silver. That is how you enslave an entire country. Control the country's money supply. JP Morgan famously said that gold is the only valid form of money because he owned enormous amounts of gold. If he held silver, he would be saying silver was the only valid form of money.

If we look a few decades after the crime of 1873, we find that Americans have finally adjusted to the change and Americans own gold. Now that the proles have money, it's time to change the rules. Everyone must turn in their gold. They turn it in for $25, but it will cost $35 if they want to buy the gold back. It's the crime of 1873 all over again. As expected, stealing money from average Americans extended the depression. Mission accomplished.

Where are we right now? It's the exact same thing. We don't have a silver standard to abandon, and we don't have gold to confiscate, but the fed can devalue our money by printing more of it. People still get paid $50,000 at their jobs, but that money doesn't buy as many goods. As expected, being able to buy fewer goods causes people to buy fewer goods (duh), so the economy slumps, and the only parts that are not slumping are propped up by credit (car sales). The ruling class are intentionally extending the depression. They did this in 1873, they did this in 1933, and they're doing it now.
I'll believe the fed and the government want inflation to help the middle class when they agree to give money to the middle class. If they wanted inflation to help us, we would all get $5,000 checks in the mail. It would accomplish all of the things the fed claims they want to achieve. Some people would pay down debts, and some people would go out and spend it.


Also, can you explain why the super wealthy waited an entire decade to start increasing their income share after 1971?
Interest rates were rising in the 1970's, and the fed's policy was to stop inflation from destroying America's middle class. Remember those Whip Inflation Now buttons? High interest rates are good for Americans. Imagine being able to get 10% interest on your savings while taking no risk. That would be amazing. You could save for retirement, or you could save for your child's college education. Right now we have the opposite, and "junk" bonds yield 5.6%. The current policy is to have old people lend their life savings to companies and people who probably won't pay the loans back. The savings rate is near all time lows. Young people just give up and say they won't be able to retire at any point in the future. That's what happens when the system is rigged in such a way that it's very difficult to save money without taking tremendous risks. The current system is designed to destroy low risk savings and encourage speculation. This is not a new concept. Keynes wrote this back in 1919.

That all changed in 1980. Interest rates peaked and they decided it was time to cause runaway inflation. Just as one would expect, the explosion of credit from 1980 caused exploding inequality. The middle class was collapsing long before jobs started moving to China.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,720
47,409
136
The US was moving away from a metallic standard at that time. I'm surprised you have never heard this before. The Wizard of Oz was a book about abandoning the silver standard, and it's probably one of the most famous stories in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1873

No, the coinage act did not move the US away from a metallic standard, it did the opposite.

The common theme in these standard changes is that people always want to ban things they don't have and then mandate the use of things they do have. Back in the gilded age, Americans had silver. Money was silver, and silver was money. The people who held gold had an idea. Let's outlaw silver money and make a rule saying only gold is money. That's great for the super rich people who own gold, but it's really bad for the millions of Americans holding silver. Leaving the silver standard robbed the American people blind. When one introduces fractional reserve banking on top of this, we get a special kind of power grab. If owning 1 ounce of gold allows one to lend out 10 ounces of gold certificates, it means those rich people hoarding gold also have complete control of the banking system - they lend money to those millions of Americans who held silver. That is how you enslave an entire country. Control the country's money supply. JP Morgan famously said that gold is the only valid form of money because he owned enormous amounts of gold. If he held silver, he would be saying silver was the only valid form of money.

If we look a few decades after the crime of 1873, we find that Americans have finally adjusted to the change and Americans own gold. Now that the proles have money, it's time to change the rules. Everyone must turn in their gold. They turn it in for $25, but it will cost $35 if they want to buy the gold back. It's the crime of 1873 all over again. As expected, stealing money from average Americans extended the depression. Mission accomplished.

If there is a single, solitary unifying economic policy that countries that escaped the Great Depression share, it is abandoning the gold standard. The sooner the abandoned it, the sooner they recovered. You are saying bizarro history.

Where are we right now? It's the exact same thing. We don't have a silver standard to abandon, and we don't have gold to confiscate, but the fed can devalue our money by printing more of it. People still get paid $50,000 at their jobs, but that money doesn't buy as many goods. As expected, being able to buy fewer goods causes people to buy fewer goods (duh), so the economy slumps, and the only parts that are not slumping are propped up by credit (car sales). The ruling class are intentionally extending the depression. They did this in 1873, they did this in 1933, and they're doing it now.

This is empirically false. Inflation has been very low in recent years by historical standards.

I'll believe the fed and the government want inflation to help the middle class when they agree to give money to the middle class. If they wanted inflation to help us, we would all get $5,000 checks in the mail. It would accomplish all of the things the fed claims they want to achieve. Some people would pay down debts, and some people would go out and spend it.

If things were dire enough we could resort to helicopter drops, yes. That's probably not going to create credible market beliefs in sustained inflation though. (it would also require a change in the law most likely)

Interest rates were rising in the 1970's, and the fed's policy was to stop inflation from destroying America's middle class. Remember those Whip Inflation Now buttons? High interest rates are good for Americans. Imagine being able to get 10% interest on your savings while taking no risk. That would be amazing. You could save for retirement, or you could save for your child's college education. Right now we have the opposite, and "junk" bonds yield 5.6%.

This is entirely backwards, yet again. High interest rates are bad for average people. The average person is a net fixed: debtor (your mortgage!). Inflation reduces the real value of that debt, meaning it hurts the lenders, not the borrowers.

High interest rates increase unemployment and reduce investment. If you already have money then high interest rates are good, but I hope you have enough to save for when you lose your job, haha.

The current policy is to have old people lend their life savings to companies and people who probably won't pay the loans back. The savings rate is near all time lows. Young people just give up and say they won't be able to retire at any point in the future. That's what happens when the system is rigged in such a way that it's very difficult to save money without taking tremendous risks. The current system is designed to destroy low risk savings and encourage speculation. This is not a new concept. Keynes wrote this back in 1919.

That all changed in 1980. Interest rates peaked and they decided it was time to cause runaway inflation. Just as one would expect, the explosion of credit from 1980 caused exploding inequality. The middle class was collapsing long before jobs started moving to China.

I'm seriously baffled by your description of history. It seems to have almost no bearing on the empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
The US was moving away from a metallic standard at that time. I'm surprised you have never heard this before. The Wizard of Oz was a book about abandoning the silver standard, and it's probably one of the most famous stories in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1873

The common theme in these standard changes is that people always want to ban things they don't have and then mandate the use of things they do have. Back in the gilded age, Americans had silver. Money was silver, and silver was money. The people who held gold had an idea. Let's outlaw silver money and make a rule saying only gold is money. That's great for the super rich people who own gold, but it's really bad for the millions of Americans holding silver. Leaving the silver standard robbed the American people blind. When one introduces fractional reserve banking on top of this, we get a special kind of power grab. If owning 1 ounce of gold allows one to lend out 10 ounces of gold certificates, it means those rich people hoarding gold also have complete control of the banking system - they lend money to those millions of Americans who held silver. That is how you enslave an entire country. Control the country's money supply. JP Morgan famously said that gold is the only valid form of money because he owned enormous amounts of gold. If he held silver, he would be saying silver was the only valid form of money.

If we look a few decades after the crime of 1873, we find that Americans have finally adjusted to the change and Americans own gold. Now that the proles have money, it's time to change the rules. Everyone must turn in their gold. They turn it in for $25, but it will cost $35 if they want to buy the gold back. It's the crime of 1873 all over again. As expected, stealing money from average Americans extended the depression. Mission accomplished.

Where are we right now? It's the exact same thing. We don't have a silver standard to abandon, and we don't have gold to confiscate, but the fed can devalue our money by printing more of it. People still get paid $50,000 at their jobs, but that money doesn't buy as many goods. As expected, being able to buy fewer goods causes people to buy fewer goods (duh), so the economy slumps, and the only parts that are not slumping are propped up by credit (car sales). The ruling class are intentionally extending the depression. They did this in 1873, they did this in 1933, and they're doing it now.
I'll believe the fed and the government want inflation to help the middle class when they agree to give money to the middle class. If they wanted inflation to help us, we would all get $5,000 checks in the mail. It would accomplish all of the things the fed claims they want to achieve. Some people would pay down debts, and some people would go out and spend it.



Interest rates were rising in the 1970's, and the fed's policy was to stop inflation from destroying America's middle class. Remember those Whip Inflation Now buttons? High interest rates are good for Americans. Imagine being able to get 10% interest on your savings while taking no risk. That would be amazing. You could save for retirement, or you could save for your child's college education. Right now we have the opposite, and "junk" bonds yield 5.6%. The current policy is to have old people lend their life savings to companies and people who probably won't pay the loans back. The savings rate is near all time lows. Young people just give up and say they won't be able to retire at any point in the future. That's what happens when the system is rigged in such a way that it's very difficult to save money without taking tremendous risks. The current system is designed to destroy low risk savings and encourage speculation. This is not a new concept. Keynes wrote this back in 1919.

That all changed in 1980. Interest rates peaked and they decided it was time to cause runaway inflation. Just as one would expect, the explosion of credit from 1980 caused exploding inequality. The middle class was collapsing long before jobs started moving to China.

This goes here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNfUscKPC5g
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
The fellating the gold standard part. And the inflation boogeyman part. And... actually what part isn't?

So 2 things.

When did the gold standard become an Austrian thing? I have always been working under the idea that Austrians were in favor of a free banking system that would allow banks to do any standard with regulations against fraud.

When you say inflation boogeyman, what do you mean? Do you mean to say inflation is not risky or harmful?