As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.
The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.
Posts
14 comments:
absolutely correct, catastrophic
but, don't doubt for a minute, that this isn't all intentional
the author seems reluctant to choose, between the idea that barky's plan is simply failing, or if it was meant to take down our financial underpinnings entirely...
our journalists are such pussies...
but folks don't want to believe the worst...
my policy is, remember the past, live the present, trust the future
sometimes, trusting the future, means accepting the bitter truths of today
this is redistribution of wealth, folks, or at least the start of it
this is redistribution of wealth, folks, or at least the start of it
and thank God, it's about time after the nearly entire redistribution to the super wealthy.
gotta love ya that socialism!:-)
Seriously, Everything that happened for at least 3 years after Bushs election was Clintons fault. Now this is all Obamas fault already? No time to see what happens. Markets go up and down just like weather gets hot and cold. The Dow is NOT the economy or even a very accurate gauge. Of course if the market was or does go up it will certainly have nothing to with anything Obama does here in clown world.
You guys can pontificate and hedge all you want. You can completely forget "Clintons fault" but you bored it in good and only the 25%ers are buy your crap now. You are truly pathetic. It's Bushs Fault!(TM)
Dick Morris, March 2008, Dow = 12,532
Obama's election will trigger a stock market crash and likely devastate the already slumping real estate industry. A selling psychology usually feeds upon itself and can often induce a market-wide panic. So the nearer Obama gets to power the faster the markets are likely to dip. So look for a sharp downturn as election day approaches, and especially in the period between the Democratic victory and Inauguration day. Obama will doubtless blame the drop on the outgoing Bush Administration, but it will be his own tax plans that send the markets into a tizzy.
Change!
Is this the same Dick Morris who said:
"How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him."
The guy's a regular Nostradamus!
McCain was in the lead for the first half of September. Though I get your point -- I personally wouldn't trust Dick Morris on most matters either.
That being said, it doesn't take a genius to deduce the impact of Obama's socialist vision on America's economy. I hope the Democrats get *everything* they want. They have had the banking and housing committees in House and Senate since 2006, though having the executive branch now makes all sorts of fetid Porkulus bills possible.
right, you wouldn't ordinarily trust him, unless his narrative parallels yours, in which case...
that's a psychological need on your part, to reinforce your point, by putting forth someone you believe "liberals" would find credible, to lend your own theory of the moment that much sought-after "authenticity"
i hate that...why not just use your own words to express your own theory, own it, in a direct and simple fashion?
that said, i really do agree, i just don't think the public will be so inclined to absolve your team's culpability as the "architects" behind it all
frankly, i might have just as easily quoted dr. paul, and gone over far better in the heartland
btw, anyone notice more vacant stores in their neighborhood or local mall, lately?
Every president works off what the last guy left him. There will be plenty of time in the future for economists and historians to evaluate whether putting (largely unqualified) Bush cronies in regulatory oversight positions contributed to our current conditions, or whether the economy was due for a "correction" and the economic downturn was unavoidable. Assigning blame now is moot. Taking potshots at the administration is petty and unbecoming of conservatives. Nor do I condone the incessant liberal bashing of Bush. He's gone and no longer belongs in the conversation.
That said, these references to "socialism" inspired govt spending are incorrect historically, and serve nothing more than to demonize the steps our govt is taking to turn things around.
And yeah, Hash, plenty of handsome office space in strip malls near me that were formerly occupied by Circuit City, Home Depot, etc. and are now available for temporary housing once the homeless shelters reach capacity.
that's a psychological need on your part, to reinforce your point, by putting forth someone you believe "liberals" would find credible
I already know liberals don't find Dick Morris credible. Remember, I used to hit for your team before 2005. Morris made the prediction; I did not.
I did predict that the stimulus bill Bush and McCain passed last October would be counterproductive. Sadly, we're judging policy by whether we want it to fail or not -- by the intentions -- rather than the available historical evidence.
We won't know how good his presidency has been until long after we are all gone...just like bush..right? Your standards for evaluation are wildly biased. Not that I am suprised.
Remember, I used to hit for your team before 2005.
I see why you got traded away too.
Let me apologize to Rush Limbaugh for being a socialist.
"I did predict that the stimulus bill Bush and McCain passed last October would be counterproductive..."
so did i
i also don't believe in this codswallop, about any company being "too big to fail"
banks being TOLD to take government money they do not want or need? perfidy....
"Sadly, we're judging policy by whether we want it to fail or not -- by the intentions -- rather than the available historical evidence..."
oh, you don't know the half of it
sound, sensible business decisions are no longer made with the company's business interests in mind, but according to how the meed-ya PERCEIVES them, how the stockholders and other onlookers will FEEL about them, how the populace will REACT, and will it INSPIRE them....ugh, disgusting
it's part of this namby-pamby philosophy we've taken on, to massage problems and tiptoe around reality, rather than work to solve them, sensibly and rationally
it's infuriating, this is business, not a joni mitchell concert, and our government was never meant to play papa over what are ultimately private enterprises' internal problems
I have noticed that people on the right keep refering to the bank/insurance bailout as "Bushs Stimulus". Bushs stimulus plan was tax cuts. You know, the 3 to 6 hundred dollar check you got. The bank bailout is a bank bailout not a stimulus.
By the way, I think Obama is screwing this up worse than anything he has done so far. Thanks likely to Geithner whom I said was a part of the problem in the begining.
Post a Comment