Comments on: Meet the New Boss

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:47:21 +0000

This is classic:

call me ahab Says:

March 4th, 2009 at 11:22 am
@ franklin411

would you drop it already- geez loweez- Reagan has been dead awhile last I checked. And when you say pay their fair share that means that the people who already pay all the taxes will now pay more so I guess that makes it even fairer- right? And all this talk about investing in health care and education- give me a break already. The Dept of Education has been around since 1979- please tell me one positive thing they have accomplished for education- how about nothing. Last I checked we are 50 states comprising the United States and each state is responsible for their citizens education and welfare. And where would be had Carter won the 1980 election- what a hand wringer he was- I was in the US Navy at the time and we would have much preferred to have accomplished something rather than floating around in the Indian Ocean for months on end while “hand wringer in chief” fretted on what to do during the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

not a reply–to simple fact, rationally laid out– in sight, from our newfound font of partisan BS

By: willid3

willid3 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:00:35 +0000

not sure why any body expects the Chinese (or Indians or Japanese) to rescue them. of these, one doesn’t have a domestic consumer to speak of. another has a declining population that might end up with nobody in that country in a few years, a first. The other only has %3 of its population that could be considered as consumers. of much of any thing. and while we might fight over politics (or economic views) we tend to be more pragmatic and expect competency and results from our government. when they fail to deliver we decide to change them. some times in mass. unlike a lot of countries, we try not to bang out heads against a wall, and expect different results when doing the same thing. the latter tends to be symptom of a medical problem if nothing else.
not that we won’t at times do both of those too. until it shoots right between the eyes.

By: Jlvngstn

Jlvngstn — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:59:13 +0000

So if the stress test they are using for the banks have a degree of accuracy regarding unemployment being at 10%, we can fully expect 500-700k monthly job loss for at least 10 months. What effect does that type of employment loss have on the economy? I would think in an 80% service economy that comparing job loss in ’81 and ’74 (which I believe we have surpassed from a percentage loss at this point) that we are entering a Great Recession and a free fall come October when the net effect of job loss combined with depletion of personal reserves hits. When does an emergency in the job market become a national crisis? I think we know all too well the consequences of failing to act in a timely manner to crises, yet job creation seems to be a live wire politically.

Does market stabilization have an appreciable effect on employment?

By: call me ahab

call me ahab — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:55:32 +0000

@ SanFranhobo-

good point- sorry for the segue :o(

By: call me ahab

call me ahab — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:37:56 +0000

@Greg0658

I do remember- a complete failure- just as I would expect from Carter- I was off the coast of Iran on the USS Constellation.

By: SanFranHobo

SanFranHobo — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:36:34 +0000

Can we get back on to the substance of the original post. Im sure the author is interested in hearing our take on what he has to say.

By: Greg0658

Greg0658 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:20:42 +0000

ahab
I was in the Army then .. let me refresh your in theatre memory a bit .. remember the sand storm rescue attempt that downed some choppers and loss of troops

and Marcus thanks for remembering that scandal and the one hokey (timely) transfer of the hostages

and imo I think the Hollywood cartel should have treated Ronny better for all our unions sakes

By: call me ahab

call me ahab — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:54:41 +0000

@ Marcus

I will stick by my statement that Carter was a “hand wringer” and could not make a decision because of the moral anguish it caused him. He would have made a good church pastor- but POTUS was not his calling.

By: Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:47:49 +0000

ahab:

Your comments on Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis do not accurately reflect what was taking place – conveniently ignoring the hand Reagan had in thwarting Carter’s efforts at a solution. The iran-Contra scandal was in full force, as was illegal tampering in foreign policy/diplomacy arenas by Reagan, prior to his election. There is a word for this kind of chicanery.

As for economics during the Carter era, he inherited (as did Ford, before him), the results of Nixon’s depegging of the dollar from the gold standard. Carter’s choice of Volker as Fed chairman (a choice Reagan dared not mess with) resulted in the only policy solution to the rampant inflation caused by Nixon’s decision/policy. Had Reagan not gone a deficit spending spree (emulated by Bush), we might still be dealing with 17% mortgage interest rates.

In the final analysis, Clinton seemed to be the only one capable of dealing with the economy he inherited – but, alas, he got a BJ, and had to be impeached.

By: The Curmudgeon

The Curmudgeon — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:28:15 +0000

“I want to see something good for all of this spending.”

Indeed. And even more, I think it would be prudent to match the terms of our liabilities to the expected life/s of the asset/s it is used to purchase. Like any good business, we shouldn’t borrow for thirty years to buy something that lasts three months. Juicing consumer spending with borrowed money (like Bush tried in ’08) is borrowing long to buy short. Stupid.