The BUSH Economy in 2012

[BonzaiDuck]

I haven't posted much here. Probably -- not at all. And I'm posting this because I used an expression in "Audio/Video and Home Theater" in passing to describe why some of us haven't been so eager since 2007/2008 to spend money on computer-hardware upgrades.

The expression -- which I first heard several years ago on an episode of "Weeds" [that Mary Louise Parker is some dish!] -- is "The Bush Economy." In the other forum, I'd said "The B*** economy."

So -- brief editorial -- and the activists can go nuts over this thread. I hold graduate degrees in business administration and economics; have some experience in economic statistics; taught computer-sci and information-systems to grad-students (based on my work-experience). I can lecture and discuss "market economics," "free-markets," "competitive markets" and the "Kinked Oligopoly Demand Curve" in ways and extent that would put Ron Paul or Dick Armey to shame. They've probably read Frederick Hayek, or some other Libertarian author; they adulate the speed-freak-addict, narcissist and (in the end) social security Medicare recipient Ayn Rand. I've read Hayek, Menger, von Mises, Friedman, Knight, Buchanan, (Oh-my-god!) Marx, and just about everybody else -- including that prolix lunatic Rand (a novelist, and bad one at that).

I'm aware of economic lags between good or bad public policy (or lack thereof) and good or bad effects on the economy. I once did a research paper on "rational expectations and the business cycle." Politicians may count on a natural swing in the business cycle to coincide with either their election or their campaigns. But in this case, the business cycle is a "tsunami," and we're not going to come out of the trough very soon -- no matter what Etch-a-Sketch says.

A year or two ago, someone told me his father blamed Obama for losing his job. His father was laid off during summer, 2008. Obama didn't take office until January, 2009.

I call this the "long comet-tail of the Bush economy" -- prolonged by an intransigent House in Congress that fails with grade "F" for heeding James Madison's remark in Federalist Paper #10 -- discussing what we can call "class conflict," "human nature," and the need for a legislature to mediate and compromise.

Some will call it the "Obama economy." But the Executive can only "create jobs" through public employment or programs to provide "public goods" like roads, infrastructure, education and other things. Perhaps -- tax policy, which takes a long time. Perhaps, a national economic policy and round-table of industrialists. There IS a balance between private interest and some nebulous "public interest;" the private sector cannot "create wealth" without public goods which promote commerce and investment in human capital. You can't have agricultural wealth without public dam projects; you can't hire valuable workers without public education; you can't have consumerism and demand-growth without a middle-class.

And I rather doubt that a Wall Street equity-firm exec either understands the economy "enough," or sees all the issues on the table. There's a fallacy I call the "fallacy of large numbers:" "The guy with all the money makes fewer mistakes." Will the real George Bush, Jaimie Dimon, and others . . . please stand up?"

There's also the argument of wealthy conservatives: "We have a greater right to govern, because we have more to lose." Not your house! Not your job! Not food on the table and a roof over your head! And not basic security and justice, since you can hire your own paramilitaries!

Americans get the weight of deceptive propaganda every time they look at a dollar bill: "In God We Trust." Could it be a confusion about whether God is green? As Marshal McLuhan said, has the medium become the message?

Y'all can "mix it up" over this. I just posted it so I can dismiss more queries on a technical, non-political thread about "what do you mean by 'B***'?" and point them over here.

On the personal side, I've reined in all my credit cards and don't buy computer hardware if the old stuff does just as well. That's the origin of this . . . . screed . . . . this . . . diatribe . .. this manifesto . . . . or whatever you want to call it.

THE END . . . [for now]

 

[cybrsage]

The economy certainly takes a few years to change when events or policy changes happen (unless they are major like the 9-11 attacks or dropping the interest rate to 0%).

The primary function of the President, for immediate purposes, is to provide stability and encouragement to the people. Make the people feel like a recovery is mere months away, not years away. Make them believe it is safe to spend. This is where Obama is lacking - he has not tried to make us feel everything is OK. Bush was blasted for doing it, but it is what the President should be doing.

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

 

[dmcowen674]

The BUSH Economy in 2012

I haven't posted much here. Probably -- not at all. And I'm posting this because I used an expression in "Audio/Video and Home Theater" in passing to describe why some of us haven't been so eager since 2007/2008 to spend money on computer-hardware upgrades.

So -- brief editorial -- and the activists can go nuts over this thread. I hold graduate degrees in business administration and economics; have some experience in economic statistics; taught computer-sci and information-systems to grad-students (based on my work-experience). I can lecture and discuss "market economics," "free-markets," "competitive markets" and the "Kinked Oligopoly Demand Curve" in ways and extent that would put Ron Paul or Dick Armey to shame.

I'm aware of economic lags between good or bad public policy (or lack thereof) and good or bad effects on the economy.

A year or two ago, someone told me his father blamed Obama for losing his job. His father was laid off during summer, 2008.

Obama didn't take office until January, 2009.

I call this the "long comet-tail of the Bush economy" -- prolonged by an intransigent House in Congress that fails with grade "F" for heeding James Madison's remark in Federalist Paper #10 -- discussing what we can call "class conflict," "human nature," and the need for a legislature to mediate and compromise.

Some will call it the "Obama economy." But the Executive can only "create jobs" through public employment or programs to provide "public goods" like roads, infrastructure, education and other things. Perhaps -- tax policy, which takes a long time.
There's also the argument of wealthy conservatives: "We have a greater right to govern, because we have more to lose." Not your house! Not your job! Not food on the table and a roof over your head! And not basic security and justice, since you can hire your own paramilitaries!

Americans get the weight of deceptive propaganda every time they look at a dollar bill: "In God We Trust." Could it be a confusion about whether God is green? As Marshal McLuhan said, has the medium become the message?

Y'all can "mix it up" over this. I just posted it so I can dismiss more queries on a technical, non-political thread about "what do you mean by 'B***'?" and point them over here.

On the personal side, I've reined in all my credit cards and don't buy computer hardware if the old stuff does just as well. That's the origin of this . . . . screed . . . . this . . . diatribe . .. this manifesto . . . . or whatever you want to call it.

THE END . . . [for now]

Well P&N has died too, has to be Obama's fault as well.

No worries, Republicans and President Romney will save us.

 

[nageov3t]

it will be the Bush economy until it turns around.

when the turn-around comes, it will suddenly be the Obama economy that caused it.

but personally, I think the Presidency's impact on the economy is pretty overrated.

 

[Infohawk]

It's neither the Bush or Obama economy. It's the "creative" destruction associated with labor being redistributed to cheaper areas in a global economy. We don't have to be in this system, but both parties buy into it and the electorate isn't really aware of the options.

 

[Anarchist420]

[...]So -- brief editorial -- and the activists can go nuts over this thread. I hold graduate degrees in business administration and economics; have some experience in economic statistics; taught computer-sci and information-systems to grad-students (based on my work-experience). I can lecture and discuss "market economics," "free-markets," "competitive markets" and the "Kinked Oligopoly Demand Curve" in ways and extent that would put Ron Paul or Dick Armey to shame. They've probably read Frederick Hayek, or some other Libertarian author;[...]

Dick Armey wasn't pro-market and neither was F.A. Hayek. Both were far from libertarians.

I do agree with you that most of the Republicans think they can create jobs, but their plans are to do it are through extremely moderate means (e.g., cutting marginal tax rates, barely reducing the corporate tax rate) or even intervention (e.g., Keystone XL) in some cases. The least they could do is sell the National Parks and most of the military's weapon to the highest bidder to pay off a good portion of the debt, then fire Ben Bernanke and replace him with Thomas Hoenig. However, they won't do that because they don't want the Federal funds rate to go up because then the government couldn't spend like it does. They also don't want to do that because it would cause severe short term pain leading to us getting out of this mess.

 

[Thump553]

Loki: Similar, I suppose, to Hoover and FDR in the Great Depression. Hoover (alone) didn't cause the Depression (but he certainly made it worse by slashing federal spending at the very worst time) but it occured on his watch. Bush, in this particular case contributed mightly to the crash (two unfunded wars, a tax cut program that drastically unbalanced the federal budget) but, to his credit, he stepped up and took some needed action at the tail end of his term, actions that surely ran counter to his philisophical leanings. It took real courage and some understanding for GWB not to be Hoover II.

Cybrsage: I'm pretty Pollyannish by nature, but even I would choke on a prediction that a recovery is "mere months" away, and I highly doubt "many people" think so. We are facing years of a slow recovery, especially regarding employment-and I doubt you will find many of any political persuasion that disagree with that. What frustrates me is the deficit and inflation hawks have done everything within their most considerable power to defeat and sabotage Obama's reasonable efforts to promote economic recovery. It's like dealing with Christain Scienctist parents in an ER. That we have had any recovery at all is a testament to the half measures Obama did get through congress and the resilency of the American economy in general. We are fighting against headwinds caused by a big chunk of our do-nothing legislative branch (do nothing on anything important, that is-plenty of time for bogus GOP poster children like abortion, endless investigations and so-called balanced budget amendments).

Good post OP, don't feel reluctant to discuss your thoughts in real life with people. This country desperately needs some common sense to counterbalance the 24 news commentary channels.

 

[xBiffx]

but personally, I think the Presidency's impact on the economy is pretty overrated.

I agree partially with this statement. I think that there is little that the President can do alone to impact the economy in a positive way. That is there is little he can do alone to fix it. However, there is plenty that a President can do to make it worse or break it. It's not a double edged sword like many other things.

This, of course, is true of much more than the presidency and the reason why it takes so much longer to recover than go down the shitter in the first place.

 

[blankslate]

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

You know that initial Budget that led to the balanced "deficit free" spending by the end of Clinton's terms? Interesting fact that people don't quite remember....

Al Gore had to cast the tie breaking vote.

Reagan cut taxes when he first came in and raised them a little by comparison during his terms but overall the rates were lower after his term.

Clinton was barely able to raise the top rates.

The president gets too much credit because it's Congress who appropriates spending. The president can and does ask for particular spending items but if there aren't enough people in Congress from his party he doesn't always get what he wants.

He still can veto or sign the spending bills, but all the haggling and arguing occurs mostly in the legislature.

 

[nehalem256]

The economy certainly takes a few years to change when events or policy changes happen (unless they are major like the 9-11 attacks or dropping the interest rate to 0%).

The primary function of the President, for immediate purposes, is to provide stability and encouragement to the people. Make the people feel like a recovery is mere months away, not years away. Make them believe it is safe to spend. This is where Obama is lacking - he has not tried to make us feel everything is OK. Bush was blasted for doing it, but it is what the President should be doing.

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

And do you blame Clinton for the first Bush recession. Or is that also part of the "Bush Economy".

 

[nageov3t]

And do you blame Clinton for the first Bush recession. Or is that also part of the "Bush Economy".

tbh, I think GHWB deserves some credit for it... he kinda fell on his sword working with Democrats to raise taxes. it cost him the election, but it was probably the best move for the country given the economic situation at the time.

and while it's a reality that GWB entered office amidst a recession and the internet bubble burst that started deflating under Clinton, he probably made matters worse passing massive tax cuts, increased Medicare benefits, and engaging in an unnecessary war.

 

[nehalem256]

tbh, I think GHWB deserves some credit for it... he kinda fell on his sword working with Democrats to raise taxes. it cost him the election, but it was probably the best move for the country given the economic situation at the time.

and while it's a reality that GWB entered office amidst a recession and the internet bubble burst that started deflating under Clinton, he probably made matters worse passing massive tax cuts, increased Medicare benefits, and engaging in an unnecessary war.

So the way to combat a recession is to increase taxes and cut social spending? 😵

 

[Anarchist420]

[...]Hoover (alone) didn't cause the Depression (but he certainly made it worse by slashing federal spending at the very worst time) [...]

This myth needs to die... Hoover massively increased federal spending and raised taxes that at least offset the revenue lost from the depression. Harding was the last President to cut spending during a depression.

 

[jackstar7]

So the way to combat a recession is to increase taxes and cut social spending? 😵

Why do you ask? Do you think that when something is the wrong choice that the opposite action must be the right choice?

Is everything binary?

 

[nageov3t]

So the way to combat a recession is to increase taxes and cut social spending? 😵

the Medicare Part D handout wasn't exactly anti-recession social spending.

 

[Greenman]

It's a pity that with all that education you still can't tell shit from shinola.

 

[werepossum]

It's a pity that with all that education you still can't tell shit from shinola.

Now now, don't be harsh. He could just be lying for political gain.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

"Just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in . . . " [Godfather III]

Ok, then . . .

CybrSage:

You have to look at several factors. Again-- the business cycle, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs -- teams of thousands without which they would not so easily have succeeded, ARPA-net and INternet -- a complete paradigm shift in business and government-related information processing and how work is done.

Clinton's "people" also were "not watching." They allowed repeal of Glass-Steagal. Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner were all culpable (this was back in the '90s). Only one person among them -- a woman and I forget her name -- raised the alarm and predicted the housing bubble and the whole enchilada. Clinton might have done much better as Pres but for his "problem" -- not helped by the Gingrich Congress of '96 and all the witchhunts.

Loki8481: YEs! Over-rated! Electorate may be thinking with one side of their brain while the other side is out to lunch, then reacting like fans at the Roman Games -- "Thumbs up -- pass me a grape -- Thumbs down." There is the "Great Leader Myth" that I and my colleagues probably assumed when we were young, and may have led to low youth-vote turnout in 2010. "IF we only had a great leader, he would solve all our problems."

What does Bush get? Executive control of DOD and CIA; Gorgon in the CAve with the oil people like Hunt whispering to him; an ability to manipulate facts to Powell's embarrassment, and take the focus away from Afghanistan -- the original target and home to Al Qaeda. $1 trillion plus -- and Economist George Stigler puts the "real" cost at $3 trillion because of "Saddam's ability to exterminate the world several times over." [I got a four page letter from Sen. McCain in Jan 2003, which reiterated this drivel -- signed in blue ink . . . with an auto-pen. I laughed! I laughed out loud!

Easy to start wars; hard to get out of them. Easy to start wars with unwarranted influence of industrialists; hard to get the industrialists to pull back. What's left? The presidential veto? Lemme tell you what's going on with that . . .

A murderer doesn't admit to murder; a thief doesnt' admit to theft. But the signs are all there. We had a balanced budget in 2000, and never disarmed during the Cold War. It would seem reasonable we could've waged war in Afghanistan by only adding another $100 billion to the $250 billion defense budget. Look at the tips of the ice-bergs -- Randy Cunningham, Abramoff, Halliburton's sole-source contract -- and Bush in both Cheney's and Hunt's back pocket. The defense budget ratcheted up to $850 billion in 2008, and add another $200 billion for additional Homeland Security.

Ever hear of "crowding out" with the money supply? This looks like "crowding out" of domestic expenditures -- programs and public goods that Colin Powell recently said the American people should have if they wanted them -- which the GOP "doesn't like." Inflate the guns side of the budget; cut taxes when you should raise them; then say "We can't afford environmental protection or education." Spend it on guns; we can squeeze out the butter from the budget. A "conspiracy?" Well, someone will have to talk. The Masters of the Universe, like Hunt or Cheney or Bush -- they won't talk. No, No. It was all about "the war on terrorism and protecting our precious bodily fluids."

Obama is not going to veto ongoing domestic spending programs because the GOP went on a defense-industry shopping spree to push us into a corner. DON'T TELL ME he "spent all the money" or caused the deficit. Grover Norquist -- BA economics but no "economist" and just a worthless idealogue -- the idealogues on the GOP Right wing and all the rest. Blame them.

Info Hawk -- yes to you too. Look at the marvelous "invisible hand" of the globalized market. All these people acting independently, like Carly Fiorina -- whose only claim to fame was "she went to work at HP." Outsourced by one estimate 30,000 jobs; despised by an HP founder who accused her of destroying California's engineering human capital.

Suppose you could just "renegotiate wages?" Why wouldnt' that work? Because the mortgage market is a separate market. You decide where you're going to live; you figure you can pay for it; you get into a long-term contract -- the mortgage. The "invisible hand" doesn't renegotiate mortgages overnight, but you can lose your job in a new york minute.

Meanwhile, the Japanese in the '70s and '80s, and now the Chinese have national industrial policies -- reins on "the free market" which coordinate even the competitors within the same industry toward one purpose: capture the customer-base of American companies over the long term.

Golly, wolly, Carly! Maybe you could outsource those mortgages, like some femme Harry Potter, waving a wand! Don't tell me these people have extraordinary talents! Don't tell me that their wealth or their income is the sign of anything worth voting for! Get your head out of a place where the sun don't shine, and stop being serfs to the Galactically Venal!.. . . . . Mr. Greenman . . .

"If you are human, then you should choose sides." [The Quiet American, 2001]

 

[leper84]

Lol you want the Bush economy buddy, look where we're at right now! The soon-to-be Romney economy is the Obama economy is the Bush economy is the Clinton economy is the Bush economy is the Reagan after he got shot economy.

There is no difference, they're all the same. Keep blaming the puppets, it makes them happy.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you ask? Do you think that when something is the wrong choice that the opposite action must be the right choice?

Is everything binary?

There would seem to be 3 choices. Do nothing. Raise taxes, cut spending. Lower taxes, raise spending.

Now, no President is going to do nothing in face of recession. So if you are saying lowering taxes, and increasing spending makes the economy worse then the only choice is raising taxes and cutting spending.

And of course the only reason cutting taxes and increasing spending would be bad for the economy is because they were deficit spending. Weren't liberals the people who were claiming we needed a $3 Trillion deficit spending program to combat the current recession?

the Medicare Part D handout wasn't exactly anti-recession social spending.

It was basically the Republican version of Obamacare. In away it is ironic how similar Bush and Obama are domestically. Both launched a "stimulus" plan and then spent 100s of billions of dollars on healthcare.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Lol you want the Bush economy buddy, look where we're at right now! The soon-to-be Romney economy is the Obama economy is the Bush economy is the Clinton economy is the Bush economy is the Reagan after he got shot economy.

There is no difference, they're all the same. Keep blaming the puppets, it makes them happy.

With a weak presidency no matter who is "it," I'd rather have someone in there who isn't in the back pockets of big oil. You can say O is "in the back pockets of Wall Street," but I don't think he's selling us out. So -- my rule of thumb in voting: If the GOP runs Jesus and the Apostles -- vote for the other guy. If a candidate is from Texas and has friends in Big Oil -- having come up through their network of business associations -- vote for the other guy. Alway vote for the community organizer who actually may have read Posner's "Economic Analysis of Law."

Politics is WAR. Every morning, I wake up and choose to trim my beard when I look more and more like John Brown. It is war without guns -- so far. But problems demand solutions which minimize pain. The longer the decision-makers take, the more they obstruct and fail to compromise . . . . well, the GOP on Wall Street has all the Gold. Gold is scarce. But there's another heavy metal in abundance. . . . .and plenty to throw around.

But . . . regaining composure . . . . Institutiional momentum. Eisenhower warned of one aspect of it. Revolving door between defense, CIA and the oil industry. That's what you get for putting all the eggs in one basket.

Hobbes had said that people will relinquish their freedom for relief and security from a life that is nasty, brutish and short. George Will started with that same quote in an op-ed where he argued "There really isn't a military-industrial complex."

But there is. Will is a fool for that. He'd have to stand on my shoulders just to Ki . . . touch Ike's coattails . . .

People complain about Obama "hanging around in Afghanistan." When I chose him above the others in mid-2007, I knew about "momentum." I'm not upset at the alacrity or lack thereof in getting us out of these quagmires.

Another point -- the "Great Roman Empire Myth." More than others, the GOP will tell you on the one hand that "America doesn't have an empire." On the other hand, "we can't make the same mistake as the ancient Romans." I've heard this over and over. We're the biggest suckers in the world for assuming that we have to be able to project force anywhere in the world, at any cost, for any reason. Even advisors to the Joint Chiefs are saying that now.

It's been an empire of petro-dollars. It is slowly collapsing. You can drill all you want; run the Keystone pipeline and then sell out the American people by shipping the product from Galveston or Houston to China or whomever bids the highest. There is a finite supply. The price will continue to rise. Forget about global warming if you want, but I advise against it. And there is no guarantee that a "free market" will get us out of the corner we've painted ourselves into.

So -- back to Hobbes. It isn't the government I'm worried about. It's Texas, Big Oil and the suppliers of the one thing for which there's barely any substitute. "Give up your freedom and wealth -- to have some bit of security." I SAY -- Find another Solyndra to subsidize -- find a pile of them. And take those tax subsidies away from the Tory Texans.


The polite word for it is "Corporate Fascism." The writing was on the wall when Congressman Barton stood up for BP, accusing the President of "shaking down" the corporation. who does he think he's kidding? Maybe he's kidding us, while walking away from unlimited campaign donations from a multi-national.

that's another thing. In the '50s and '60s, corporations operating here had boards of directors who voted here and lived here. Now, companies like Exxon Mobil are headed by foreigners, and deal with 160 different governments in a choose-it-or-use-it game to maximize oligopoly profits. Then -- they buy American elections. Oh! We don't have to believe all those political advertisements! But if someone paid for them and their pony got elected, they'll come back asking for this and that favor.
"And thus, the Great Horse Culture of the Plains vanished . . . " [Dances with Wolves]

 

[cybrsage]

"Just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in . . . " [Godfather III]

Ok, then . . .

You created a thread, you really should expect to be part of the discussion of it.

CybrSage:

You have to look at several factors. Again-- the business cycle, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs -- teams of thousands without which they would not so easily have succeeded, ARPA-net and INternet -- a complete paradigm shift in business and government-related information processing and how work is done.

Clinton's "people" also were "not watching." They allowed repeal of Glass-Steagal. Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner were all culpable (this was back in the '90s). Only one person among them -- a woman and I forget her name -- raised the alarm and predicted the housing bubble and the whole enchilada. Clinton might have done much better as Pres but for his "problem" -- not helped by the Gingrich Congress of '96 and all the witchhunts.

Can you actually answer the question?

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

Yes or no is really required, you can pontificate on your answer if you wish after actually providing the answer. So far it appears you blame Bush for the economy given to Obama but still want to give Clinton credit for the economy given to him by Reagan. I seek the answer to the bolded question to see if you are a partisan hack or if you actually believe the economy works the way you say you believe it works.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Glad to see someone else really gets it Bonzai. More people like you should be teaching, running this country, and just existing period. This is stuff that is all very plain and easy to see if you just take off the blinders for awhile, but so many refuse to do so and cling to their beliefs as something that will save them no matter what conflict or disaster may come. It is shocking to live in this era, to say the least.

 

[Bitek]

Nice posts OP and welcome. An injection of original thought is always needed.


Is it even fair to call this a Bush economy? To me it seems like we are still on the long arc of the Reagan economy. Clinton and Bush(s) have pushed the edges around a bit, but the fundamental premise seems to still be built on Reaganomics. W just took all the old dials up to 11.

I'd say Obama has done little to change any of this. What policy changes have been made? What paradigm shifts have happened? Obama can't even get some of the Bush taxcuts repealed, and he'll likely get boxed out again in 2013.

I think you could boil Obama's operating philosophy as a "smarter" Bush economy, with little net action.

Shocking that the recovery is still waiting...

 

[dud]

If I had a nickel for every time someone blamed the (then) president for our woes I would be rich. OP, please go back to school and learn how the US Government is structured and SUPPOSED to work. The constitution separates and divides power among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. In the case of proposing a budget and actually geting it passed ... that is a drug deal done via negotiations between the house, senate and the president.

Both the Republicans AND the Democrats hold resposibility for each fiscal budget. Stop blaming a single man for all of our woes. Yes, the guy has veto power but we are ALL responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in ... that is, except for you of course.