I have many examples. The threads in this forum are oozing with my position. To borrow your own statement, you can look it up if you want.
However, I am not completely unreasonable so I will give you a concrete example.
Thanks to the policies of the disaster clown, a recession is descending into a depression.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363984173620692.html
He is proving himself to be an incompetent poseur.
I agree with a lot of what that article says, actually. But I was under the impression that you did not agree with these sorts of positions? I mean, the article is claiming Obama is incompetant and actually makes a decent case in some ways but a lot of the reasoning is weak(or wrong) or, in the case of a few passages, the author concedes the Keynesian view to be correct.... Which seems to be something you've overlooked, as I was under the impression you were among the "anti-keynesians" on these boards.
I'll break it down:
first,
The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.
The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.
Good points. However, it is entirely possible that the worse-than-usual report was only as bad as it was because of world events that took place during that timeframe. There was also the run-up in gas prices during that time that depressed demand, etc.... These are disturbances that aren't going to happen every quarter (crude went from $114 to ~$91 ATM, Japan's earthquake+Tsunami disaster didn't repeat itself this quarter, etc). Basically, my point here is that I feel like the author is trying to imply that Q1's report will be the new norm and that unemployment will continue to rise and I feel like that just isn't likely to be the case, QE3 would be more likely than continued weak growth reports IMHO. I think regardless of what any of us believe, the Fed is not going to stand idle in the face of dangerously slow growth; They're monetarists after all, that's what they're supposed to do. As of now, the Fed expects the second half of this year to be a good time for growth... If it's not, expect QE3.
Now, this is where it gets a little hairy...
The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.
So Cash for clunkers boosted motor-vehicle production, but only for a while? And the home buyer credit stimulated demand for homes, but only temporarily? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Sounds to me like
those programs worked while they were active, right? Keep 'em going untill full employment is reached.
That's the point of stimulus spending, it's temporary.
As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.
This is the best part.
Notice the bolded part, that's the keynesian argument. I really shouldn't have to say more here, but the obvious solution is
more stimulus. Funny how that works?
In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.
First bold, amen. I could've lived with military investment as stimulus but wouldn't you prefer roads, rail, etc? Either way, we agree on one thing... direct government spending is the most effective form of stimulus.
Second bold, there was growth but not enough - so the author is trying to mislead a little bit here... That goes back to the argument that the stimulus was poorly structured and was not enough, which is the Keynesian argument.
Overall, pretty good paragraph. Mostly accurate too, maybe WSJ isn't so bad after all... Or maybe this guy isn't a regular columnist with them?
A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president's emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.
A third problem stems from the administration's lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses.
I'm breaking partway into this next paragraph because I want to touch on a very important point. This "confidence" and "certainty" that he is referring to is known as the "confidence fairy" among those of us who actually pay attention to evidence. As we've gone over on these boards several times, Austerity is not expansionary. Obama's team(at least seemingly, wont know for sure until re-election or not whether his rightward shift is political or if it's real) and the Republicans believe in this confidence fairy; They believe that balancing the budget will restore "business confidence" and spur investment... In reality, it just worsens the demand problem - thus worsening our slump.
My position has always been to work a long term Austerity plan along with short term stimulus spending. If Austerity is to happen it needs to include tax increases as well as spending cuts... But I'm not an advocate of Austerity and so I disagree with the position Obama has taken. So the author is sort of right here, mainly in that Obama shouldn't be focused on tax increases as the author said but he also shouldn't be focused on immediate cuts and the author is wrong in beleiving in the voodoo economics of the "confidence fairy".
The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that.
Okay? He just threw this in here to remind everyone the U.S. is in debt, I guess... But it's been worse - debt reached 124% of GDP post WW2. We'll be fine in the short term as long as we deal with the unemployment issue, which is costing billions if not trillions in economic activity each year(which would generate revenue to help balance the budget!).
The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president's boast that his health legislation would not "add a dime" to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.
Repealling Obamacare adds ~100 billion to the deficit each year... Sounds like it's going to be saving money rather than cost it to me... It's advertised to save even more in between 2020-29. Let's say those taxes and cuts never happen... How much will it cost per year then? The medicare cuts were, what, $500 billion over 10 years? So assuming that never happens that's 50 billion a year extra from 2010-2020 on the deficit... So? Longterm Obamacare bends the curve and so after 2030 or so there will be net savings regardless of what happens to the money "stolen" from medicare. You can argue that government intervention cannot produce savings but to refute that point I only need to point to France, Germany, UK, etc... All of which pay HALF as much per person as we do for healthcare.
Finally, there is the administration's incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that "a strong dollar is good for America" while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.
Back to the whole "confidence fairy" agument here... sigh.
The weaker dollar has helped manufactoring, and likely helped exports in general(haven't actually checked this claim, but generally a weaker dollar leads to stronger exports in the short term).
The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax ratesby cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.
All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.
And this is where the authors agenda is exposed in full. Lets see... Cut taxes, cut government spending, "reform" SS and medicare(he likely backs Ryan's plan), etc.
Sure, all of those things are doable but should we do them -at least in the short term? No. Long term? Sure, deficits, tax reform, entitlement reform... But right now we need jobs.
