Obama wearing Herbert Hoover's concrete booties.

They were handed down by George Bush.

Alas, RS, who thinks money is made in exploding stars, banks don't create money, and has an MBS hedge on (all worthy of a big fat HAHAHAHAHAHA!), the T. Party is expounding H.H.'s policies, not Obama (of whom I'm not a particular fan, BTW) - if executed, it will lead to disaster.

Not sure what point you're making, Stevejhx. Hoover's policies were basically the New Deal, though he didn't call it that. Everything in the New Deal started from something Hoover did. He was a big government interventionist when it came to the economy, and his interventions are arguably what turned the 1929 downturn into a 20-year depression.

To his credit, FDR did try to undo Smoot-Hawley, but by then most of the damage had been done, and FDR unfortunately continued many other Hoover economic interventions that he himself had criticized as a candidate.

Compare and contrast the 1932 presidential platforms:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595&st=&st1=

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29638&st=&st1=

Look at the banking regulations, farm subsidies, and tariffs advocated by the Republicans. Look at the vast and immediate spending cuts advocated by the Democrats. I think an honest reading of history, particularly from primary sources rather than biased history books, will show that the common myth of Hoover as a "laissez-faire" president and FDR as some kind of economic savior is just not accurate.

In much the same way, the transition from GWB to President Obama has been pretty seamless in terms of economic policy, in spite of each side's claim to be so different from the other. As with Hoover/FDR, it's just a hand-over from one big government interventionist to another. In both cases, we have a bipartisan effort to make a bad situation even worse.

steve doesn't make points. He lives in a bizarro world where facts and logic don't exist, and he just makes up his own facts.

excellent points post87. I enjoyed your response.

Post87 -- You missed one small, but very significant, point. You are quoting from the Democratic platform, from which FDR broke (although, as you note, he did so over time and not suddenly). For that, many Democrats considered him to be a traitor. It is too facile to say "Hoover, bad and FDR, good" but you cannot deny the evolution of FDR and, eventually, the Democratic party. It shocked all observers, who -- justifiably -- saw FDR as a patrician lightweight. But he overcame that; kind of shows how the expectations game cuts both ways. Of course, the better debate is whether FDR's policies really got us out of the Depression or the war did. (I say it was a mix of both, with the former providing a safety net). However, no one can seriously doubt that FDR's governmental reforms were landmarks. Hard to imagine a world without Social Security, the SEC (probably run), etc.

Sorry, meant "SEC (properly run)" not "probably," but may make for a decent double entendre.

I'm not totally sold on the argument that WWII even ended the Depression. It all depends how you define things I guess. Sure, WWII got GDP and employment up, and economists tend to define economic cycles by reference to GDP.

But what about living standards? With rationing at home, and a large portion of economic output being diverted to the war effort, it seems to me that in 1945 the average American still likely had a living standard worse than they did in 1928. Not sure what data there is to support that or if anyone has researched it, but in my opinion living standards of the lower and middle classes are just about the most important factor in judging any economy, and if living standards are still crap then as far as I'm concerned the economy is still crap. And if, by that standard, you end up with the Depression not ending until 1950 or so, then you have to consider other factors only tangentially related to WWII (such as the expansion of trade pursuant to the Atlantic Charter and the European Community, the high demand for American durable goods in the reconstruction of Japan and Western Europe, general technological advancements, etc.).

I don't really know enough to make this argument, but I just want to say that the whole "World War II caused the end of the Great Depression" argument seems intuitively fishy to me. It can't really help your economy in the long run to be wasting your economic output blowing other countries up. War might be necessary in certain circumstances, but I have a hard time believing that it can be productive. And the thesis that WWII ended the Depression is so universal (and so convenient for government propaganda purposes) that I wonder if anyone has really subjected it to the kind of scrutiny and research it deserves.

Flmaoz. You are comparing a time when the kkk was a viable political party to an economy mired in a huge recession brought on by vacations, prada shoe and breast implants paid for by helocs and re bubble? Flmao.

Please go on with your astute analysis of our economic and political failings. Wow! Don't we all wish we can go back to the 1940's, just count me out.... Being a minority is hard enough now can't imagine the kinda crap I'd have to deal with in the 40's. ....... Then 50's ....... Yeah 60's woulda still sucked for me......

Um, non-sequitur much? Was your comment intended for a different thread?

Was there a single person in this thread advocating a return to 1940s policies of any kind? And even if there was, was there anything here that could be construed as supporting Jim Crow laws, or opposing the Civil Rights Act?

reading comprehend mucho?

I like gov't... cause we've come from non-gov't country, or one that was minimally effective. So bitch as you might, don't like big gov't go live in Somalia. To me the success of gov't is the continuation of social equality... the fact you gotta pay more taxes... well you dont' see the top 64 ppl in american bitch muchly does one? maybe riversider and all the teabaggers should make more money, and stop worrying about their taxes....

Riversider excellent cashing of your SS check.

Post87, great point.

w67 thinks that the alternative to huge, overbearing government is . . . Somalia. Wow.

LICC - what you want is never going to happen. Supply side "economics," as it were, is very cute: it preaches that you can have your cake and eat it too, have all your favorite programs and NOT pay for them.

What are you going to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? The military? Veteran's affairs? Default on debt interest payments?

That's 90% of the budget. It's never going to happen. I can't wait to see what Boehner is going to propose.

PS: Not sad to see Nancy Pelosi go - Stenny Hoyer was always the better choice.

Keysnian economics teaches that when you bake that cake, there's no need to ever turn off the oven.

Hmm. An economics lesson by Riversider. That's really funny.

How's the money supply - gold - baked as it is inside of exploding stars?

Or, better yet, your MBS hedge.

HAHAHAHAHA!

More hypocrisy from steve. Keynesianism is having your cake and eating it too- spend more than you have, borrow, and it pays for itself.

steve, you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about. How is that reporting your 2011 income on your 2010 tax return working out for you?

Social Security- raise the retirment age for those currently 45 or younger, index benefits to inflation better, and means test benefits.

The military- Take politics out of the budget and some substantial cuts can be made without affecting its capabilities.

The biggest cuts- government labor costs. Reform the lavish public employee pension and health benefits and see how much better budgets will get.

I do think that Reductio ad Somalia is a rhetorical device with zero substance behind it, and it's not likely ever to be effective on someone who doesn't already agree with you. That would be one to avoid, rather akin to bringing up Hitler.

Mish has an interesting piece that I'm still considering. He doesn't believe in cost-push inflation but believes that inflation is driven by a loss of faith in the value of a currency. Relate to that is what others are saying that we don't really borrow to finance our debt or tax to support the government budget. Both are tools to sop up excess dollars from circulation. These two ideas put together paint an interesting and in my view likely view of what qe2 will result in, a ton of dollars in circulation.

The current thinking is that there's no velocity(m*v=p*y)so it's ok to increase y, but v is very hard to predict and is not something that's stable. When people start spending it will be very difficult to sop up the excess funds from the system. I doubt the political will would be there.It would require the Fed to jack up rates to very high levels or to increase taxes to very high levels, both things that are typically not very popular.

the current thinking is that if we do nothing we're screwed so trying something, anything is more appealing. which is great for you because it will give you more endless opportunities to criticize in minute and incorrect detail each and every step. good for at least another thousand stupid cut and pastes.

how thrilling to consider.

"When people start spending it will be very difficult to sop up the excess funds from the system."

RS - tell us, how are those extra funds "sopped up" from the system?

LICC: "Keynesianism is having your cake and eating it too- spend more than you have, borrow, and it pays for itself"

Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."

Both of you: HAHAHAHAHA!

Marco Rubio ---president in 2012 or 2016. Gets the latino vote and Florida. It kills the dems. That's why slick willie was do everything he could to defeat Rubio..

"Gets the latino vote"

Doubt it. Cubans aren't a good export to the rest of the country.

The dems are scared s--- of Rubio... A young articulate 'latino' who has the skills and philosophy of Reagan.

Rubio is a new star, but unlikely to be a Presidential candidate in 2012. His youth and what would be only a short amount of time in the Senate would work against him. Maybe down the road farther.

"His youth and what would be only a short amount of time in the Senate would work against him." Can you say 'leader of the regime'.

Most likely the Republican nominee will be a Governor. It's fairly unusual for a Senator to become President(Obama & Kennedy notwithstanding) due to their lacking chief executive experience.

Agreed licc/def87. So please select your desired level of govt spending and societal rewards and send me the airfare bill.

Flmaoz. Where in the us constitution does it say you gotta stay a us citizen? This ain't slavery, just leave.

I just watched the President's press conference and felt so bad for him...he looks really down.

Where's Hillary?

If you listen to his speech, he sounds like this is unexpected and now he understand the intrusiveness and over-reach etc. This makes no sense. The President gets feedback, has access to Democratic pollsters and has access to all the media, and speaks to elected officials and various advocates.

If he were truly shocked by all this, then it raises more questions than it answers.

I agree - where's Hillary?

http://video.ft.com/v/658417911001/Edward-Luce-on-Obama-s-worst-night-

Hey RS, how's the new Fed QE programme going to affect your MBS hedges?

HAHAHAHAHA!

What I love about RS & LICC is regardless of how little they actually know about economics and finance, they are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they are right. Hubris, I think it's called.

From the man who thinks mutual funds are derivatives . . .

julia
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

I just watched the President's press conference and felt so bad for him...he looks really down."

Did he look down when he demonized the banks?
Did he look down when he bullied the businessmen?
Did he look down when he blamed the insurance companies?
Did he look down when he squandered 1 trillion dollars down a rat hole?
Did he look down when he stole from the General motor bond holders?
Did he look down when he appointed czars to go around the constitution?
Did he look down when he signed bills that NOBODY read?
Did he look down when he bowed to the saudi king?
Did he look down when he didn't give a press conference for 1 year?
Did he look down when he brutalizes the top 5% income earners who pay 90% of the taxes?
Did he look down when he divides this nation?
Did he look down when he apologizes for America's greatness?

i'll assume you're not going to vote for him...

Julia... Did he look down when he sat through these sermons for 20 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mIVT0sWP4A

From the man who thinks Long Island City is in Manhattan....

(And mutual funds ARE a form of derivative - sorry!)

Mutual funds are not derivatives.

From the man who thinks you report the bonus you are paid in 2011 on your 2010 tax returns . . .

Mutual funds are not derivates- that is just as stupid a thing to say now as it was when you first said.

You pay income taxes for the money you receive.

Index funds, maybe. Their value is derived from a basket of other securities.

But not mutual funds. The fund manager can change the contents of the basket at will.

In clingers fashion, he once more is talking down to us, explaining that we confused his necessary solutions with a bogeyman increase in big government, and so typically, in fright and ignorance, lashed out at his party. He is claiming the outrage grew from the same frustration that elected him, rather than arising precisely because of him and his agenda. In short, we are angry because his EU-socialist agenda is progressing too slowly and hasn’t delivered as promised — as it will in time. Perhaps then we will thank him for his proper big-government, big-spending solution.

He seems bewildered (for the first time?) that his popularity as a campaign rhetorician did not last when he became responsible for actual governance. For most of the press conference, a humbled but deer-in-the-headlights Obama half-heartedly argued that the populist outrage against his own massive debt, huge wasteful government, and elitism was really outrage against the economy he inherited, an outrage that he shares. We don’t know it, the president hints, but we are still angry at the Bush years, and yesterday mistakenly took our wrath out on Obama’s methodical, albeit too slow, efforts at recovery. In short, there was little admission whatsoever that Obama’s message and the way he pushed it turned off millions — there was no repentant Clinton, circa autumn 1994, here; instead, a shocked Obama who seems hurt that we do not appreciate him.

I don’t think the American people — who just last week heard their president boast that Republicans had to sit in the back seat, and that Latinos should punish their Republican “enemies,” and who have now given him the greatest midterm putdown in over a half-century — suddenly will pay much attention to his calls for an end to the old divisiveness.

- Victor Davis Hansen

julia... did he look down or did he have a smile on his face?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

hey lic..nice pasty..the little propellers look great on you

have you ever noticed how licc never provides a link? that's because his sources are total nut jobs.

even if they weren't, if you were sourcing properly to something that you had confidence in you'd provide the link, no?

AR:

"Victor Davis Hanson: Where does the firing of Juan Williams lead? Americans no longer speak honestly — 10 things we are silent on. "American Groupspeak" 11/1/10"

http://www.victorhanson.com/

To liberals, who think anyone with whom they disagree is a "total nut", George Will's column is in the Washington Post. Some excerpts from today:

It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever - ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government.

The more he denounced Republicans as the party of "no," the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.

He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with "the toughest times any president has ever faced" - quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today's president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:

George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other "groups with harmless-sounding names" (Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" redux), "shadowy third-party groups" (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to "facts and science and argument." . . .

Recently, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decided, as the president has decided, that what liberals need is not better ideas but better marketing of the ones they have: "It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word 'liberal' is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow."

"Despite"? In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.

Responding to Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.

"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."

This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."

Yawn.

tired?