Yet more proof that the average American is clueless when it comes to economics

[ProfJohn]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126100346902694549.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

From an article about Obama and the Democrats falling approval rating comes this little gem of a quote that once again shows that the typical American is completely clueless to how economics works and can only repeat what they have heard via the media.

Julie Edwards, 52, an aircraft technician for Boeing Co. in Mesa, Ariz., said she voted Democratic in the past two elections but wasn't sure how she would vote next time. She wondered why Wall Street firms were bailed out when average Americans needed help. "We can bail out Wall Street, but everybody else has to suffer in spades for it," she said.

Some facts for Julie:
1. In the long run the bailout of Wall Street is expected to actually bring a profit to the government.
2. Had there not been a bailout one can only guess at what the current state of the economy would be because:
3. The recent improvement in the economy was proceeded by a loosening up of capital by the banks. ie. We don't bailout the banks then the banks don't loan out more money and the economy crashes even worse than it did.
4. Nearly anything good that happens in our economy requires a strong banking system. Anyone remember the story about the cookie company that had to close down because the revolving line of credit it used to pay its employees was revoked?

The quote just shows how clueless so many Americans are and just how much class envy there is out there. I don't see her, or anyone else in the article, complaining about the amount of money we GAVE to GM & Chrysler (money that will never be repaid)

Instead we focus on those rich SOBs on Wallstreet and how they are ruining the country. (BTW we will just ignore the fact that without Wall Street's help Boeing would not have been able raise the millions of dollars it it spending on designing and building its new 787 and thus helping people like Julie keep their jobs.)


BTW none of what I said above excuses the bad behavior we saw on Wall Street during the last few years. No doubt that Wall Street was a major cause of the current economy mess we face, but at the same time Wall Street was also a major part in the massive increase in the standard of living we have seen in this country over the past three decades.

 

[piasabird]

I cant wait to see how thay argue this. What do you think about tax breaks for some of these companies on the government dole? The tax break proposed for one company would in fact make the payback of the government loan free.

 

[Zebo]

in on pp1 this will be another PJ classic

PS: John nothing to do with class envy but rather most everyone on the planet understands you can't solve debt problems with more debt, you'll see.

 

[Robor]

Someone please bump/link PJ's 'the economy is doing great' thread just before the crash.

 

[marincounty]

Yeah the average person is clueless, how do you think Reagan and Bush got elected?
We're going to increase spending and decrease taxes, and everything is going to come up roses.

 

[IronWing]

Some facts for Julie:
1. In the long run the bailout of Wall Street is expected to actually bring a profit to the government.

Buzzz. Nope, the bailout is expected to cost the taxpayers in the long run. Portions of the bailout are expected to net a profit (the TARP money to some banks will net sufficient interest and fees to show a profit to the gov) however the losses from the bailouts of AIG, Freddie, and Fannie are expected to swamp the profits from the other portions of the bailout. The bailouts of GM and Chrysler are likewise expected to cost big bucks.

Points 2-4 are simple statements of opinion, not facts. We all got those.

 

[NeoV]

nearly every one of your posts is proof that you are indeed among the clueless - and not just about economics

 

[StageLeft]

Well PJ I'm impressed, you are rehashing the exact same points we had all heard about many months ago during initial defense of these measures.

 

[First]

Someone please bump/link PJ's 'the economy is doing great' thread just before the crash.

Yeah, amazing PJ even pretends he's taken seriously here. Especially a thread like this, so dripping with the irony that he once posted that the economy was doing fine just weeks before the mid-September Lehman crash last year despite people here on AT including me and others telling him we were already well into a full-blown recession that could get much worse.

 

[Siddhartha]

Anyone who wants to cut federal government spending during a bad recession is either clueless or somehow would benefit from a depression

 

[Ausm]

Well PJ I'm impressed, you are rehashing the exact same points we had all heard about many months ago during initial defense of these measures.

yes i was thinking the same thing because that was the original rationale that Bush's cronies used on the initial TARP layout.

 

[Hacp]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126100346902694549.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

From an article about Obama and the Democrats falling approval rating comes this little gem of a quote that once again shows that the typical American is completely clueless to how economics works and can only repeat what they have heard via the media.


Some facts for Julie:
1. In the long run the bailout of Wall Street is expected to actually bring a profit to the government.
2. Had there not been a bailout one can only guess at what the current state of the economy would be because:
3. The recent improvement in the economy was proceeded by a loosening up of capital by the banks. ie. We don't bailout the banks then the banks don't loan out more money and the economy crashes even worse than it did.
4. Nearly anything good that happens in our economy requires a strong banking system. Anyone remember the story about the cookie company that had to close down because the revolving line of credit it used to pay its employees was revoked?

The quote just shows how clueless so many Americans are and just how much class envy there is out there. I don't see her, or anyone else in the article, complaining about the amount of money we GAVE to GM & Chrysler (money that will never be repaid)

Instead we focus on those rich SOBs on Wallstreet and how they are ruining the country. (BTW we will just ignore the fact that without Wall Street's help Boeing would not have been able raise the millions of dollars it it spending on designing and building its new 787 and thus helping people like Julie keep their jobs.)


BTW none of what I said above excuses the bad behavior we saw on Wall Street during the last few years. No doubt that Wall Street was a major cause of the current economy mess we face, but at the same time Wall Street was also a major part in the massive increase in the standard of living we have seen in this country over the past three decades.

We don't need to bailout wall street. Just get rid of their corporate charters. Once CEOs and shareholders become personally responsible for all their losses, they might think twice before taking additional risk.

 

[rudder]

Some facts for Julie:
1. In the long run the bailout of Wall Street is expected to actually bring a profit to the government.
2. Had there not been a bailout one can only guess at what the current state of the economy would be because:
3. The recent improvement in the economy was proceeded by a loosening up of capital by the banks. ie. We don't bailout the banks then the banks don't loan out more money and the economy crashes even worse than it did.
4. Nearly anything good that happens in our economy requires a strong banking system. Anyone remember the story about the cookie company that had to close down because the revolving line of credit it used to pay its employees was revoked?

1) We will see
2) Maybe some smaller companies that are run correctly could have taken the opportunity to expand into new markets.
3) Credit is still tight. banks are hjacking up interest rates to as high as 30%.. even with people who never miss a payment.
4) Sounds like the cookie company should have gone under. If they had to rely on credit every time to pay employees... they were just a hiccup away from failure anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

I was a full throated supporter of the bank bailouts and I still am. I think that recent history has shown them to have been a massively good idea. That being said, I find it unlikely we will turn a profit on the whole deal. That wasn't the point anyway.

The lady has a fair point, huge corporations get interest free loans from the government while times are super tough for a lot of individuals. I don't know if we can actually address this problem, but it's certainly a valid concern. And yes, I think she's right in voting for the Democrats if that's what she's worried about. Sure they are 75% as bad as the Republicans in that respect, but that's still a 25% improvement.

Rudder, many businesses use revolving credit for expenses like payroll. If you want them all to go out of business we will have another economic catastrophe on our hands.

 

[Acanthus]

nearly every one of your posts is proof that you are indeed among the clueless - and not just about economics

This.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't know if we can actually address this problem, what with virtually everybody in Washington balls-deep into the industry's lobbying dollars, but it's certainly a valid concern.

Fixed.

And yes, I think she's right in voting for the Democrats if that's what she's worried about. Sure they are 75% as bad as the Republicans in that respect, but that's still a 25% improvement.

Do you really believe that, though? Is it worse--is it harder being a banker, for example, under Obama than Bush? Certainly not if you work for Citi it isn't.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you really believe that, though? Is it worse--is it harder being a banker, for example, under Obama than Bush? Certainly not if you work for Citi it isn't.

Oh its definitely harder to be a banker under Obama, or at least it will be.

Both Obama and Bush enthusiastically bailed out failing financial firms, I think that they are totally equal in that regard. (and again, something I support). Obama and Congress are in the process of passing some pretty sweeping financial regulatory reform that the Republicans almost universally oppose, along with the banks. (shocker) I think it's pretty unlikely Bush would have signed on to such legislation.

 

[cubeless]

Yeah the average person is clueless, how do you think Reagan and Bush got elected?
We're going to increase spending and decrease taxes, and everything is going to come up roses.

ummm, and bo...

 

[StageLeft]

Oh its definitely harder to be a banker under Obama, or at least it will be.

Both Obama and Bush enthusiastically bailed out failing financial firms, I think that they are totally equal in that regard. (and again, something I support). Obama and Congress are in the process of passing some pretty sweeping financial regulatory reform that the Republicans almost universally oppose, along with the banks. (shocker) I think it's pretty unlikely Bush would have signed on to such legislation.

Notwithstanding such examples as Citi's tax break, from what I understand this reform is heavily gutted and caveated.

 

[fskimospy]

Notwithstanding such examples as Citi's tax break, from what I understand this reform is heavily gutted and caveated.

I'm not really up on the particulars of the reform bill, but even in whatever form it is now, the Republicans opposed it unanimously if I remember. Now I'm sure that half of the Republican opposition just comes from the fact that if the Democrats were to try to pass a resolution against puppy murder the Republicans would come out in favor of puppy murder, but there's some real ideology there as well.

I think both Obama and Bush are quite banker friendly, but I think that we can both agree whatever financial reform were to be passed by Republicans would most likely be considerably more lax.

 

[Deeko]

We don't need to bailout wall street. Just get rid of their corporate charters. Once CEOs and shareholders become personally responsible for all their losses, they might think twice before taking additional risk.

This is just beyond foolish.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Thread: Yet more proof that the average American is clueless when it comes to economics

That's impossible.

The average American knows that economic salvation may only be achieved through more tax cuts.

Right?


(heh heh)



-

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thread: Yet more proof that the average American is clueless when it comes to economics

That's impossible.

The average American knows that economic salvation may only be achieved through more tax cuts.

Right?


(heh heh)


-

...or a hell of a lot more spending.

 

[exar333]

This.

+1.

OP - You definitely supported your point that most Americans are clueless. What better way to do this than be one yourself?

 

[bamacre]

Some facts for Julie:
1. In the long run the bailout of Wall Street is expected to actually bring a profit to the government.
2. Had there not been a bailout one can only guess at what the current state of the economy would be because:
3. The recent improvement in the economy was proceeded by a loosening up of capital by the banks. ie. We don't bailout the banks then the banks don't loan out more money and the economy crashes even worse than it did.
4. Nearly anything good that happens in our economy requires a strong banking system. Anyone remember the story about the cookie company that had to close down because the revolving line of credit it used to pay its employees was revoked?

And some facts for PJ who won't show up in this thread again...

1. Not from what I have read.
2. It would have been bad, but not "total disaster" as the fear mongering we were led to believe.
3. The "recent improvement" has been the only improvement. Banks are still not loaning, btw.
4. We had a "strong" banking system just before the crash. How many were recommending financial stocks a year before the crash?