jerseyhoya wrote:I know we've kind of moved on from Daschle, and apparently this has been making its way around the internet but I hadn't seen it till tonight.

Wow.

I think someone posted it on page 27 of this thread.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't watch TV news anymore apparently. Nothing more informative/current events related than Pardon the Interruption for me.

The awful thing about PtI is that it takes the dynamic of "Crossfire" or "The McLaughlin Group" and uses it to talk about the Cowboys. Both those guys are fairly decent sportswriters, but I can't stand them as TV "personalities." In Kornheiser's case, if I ever killed someone on a Tuesday in autumn, I'd seriously consider using his MNF contributions as an insanity defense.

I've only ever seen this program (PTI) at the gym. It's still annoying with the sound off. Someone should tell the guys at ESPN that sports talk radio doesn't make good television. Who wants to watch guys talking about sports? Why not show a clip every now and then. Put the vision back in television.

Does anyone think that all the cries of "crisis" and "impending depression" do more harm than good? While it helps politicians get their bills passed, it certainly doesn't improve the mindsets of the consumers that will be counted on to spend our way out of the recession. Specifically, the doomsayers are hurting aggregate demand by stressing how shitty the economy will get. It's self-fulfilling. I think it would be better for Obama to say "the economy is turning around," and trumpet every piece of good news. Currently, people aren't spending because everyone thinks/knows the economy is tanking, causing it to tank further.

When the Democrats talk about the upcoming Depression, they're trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility (ie. We've been predicting it since Bush was in office). But all the negative talk makes it more likely to be worse. Quite the dilemma for a politician who cares about re-election.

Werthless wrote:I think it would be better for Obama to say "the economy is turning around," and trumpet every piece of good news. Currently, people aren't spending because everyone thinks/knows the economy is tanking, causing it to tank further.

Yeah, that worked great for Bush and McCain.

Your political insight continues to impress.

You're badly understating the actual, concrete fear that people have for losing their jobs. If you reasonably think you're going to be laid off in the next six months, you're pretty unlikely to go out and buy that new washing machine, no matter what President Obama says about sunshine and ice cream and flowers and unicorns.

There is a small point to be made in there though that recessions tend to be self-fulfilling to a certain extent

Bakestar wrote:You're badly understating the actual, concrete fear that people have for losing their jobs. If you reasonably think you're going to be laid off in the next six months, you're pretty unlikely to go out and buy that new washing machine, no matter what President Obama says about sunshine and ice cream and flowers and unicorns.

I made this point to jeffstoned in a PM. Fear is the single most relevant emotion to consider when talking about anything financially related. Fear can make even the most rational person act in an irrational manner.

Woody wrote:There is a small point to be made in there though that recessions tend to be self-fulfilling to a certain extent

That's true, and not necessarily a small point. But it's both more politically effective and more consistent with reality as it's generally perceived for the message to be "Yes, things are bad right now and the trajectory is pretty scary. But we're trying to take action here to stimulate demand--your government is on the case, and we're going to get through it together."

Pretending that things are swell is an excuse for doing nothing. Now, Werthless has made it pretty clear that his preference is essentially to do nothing. That's fine as a political position, but at least try to honestly explain why it's the best course of action.

I think the idea of the stimulus package is to provide a bridge holding up demand until credit starts flowing again--which the administration is hoping their new bailout plan, to be announced tomorrow, will accomplish. The problem is that Obama didn't explicitly present it that way; he tried to be too cute by half and include "a down payment on long-term growth." Personally I'm strongly in favor of those kinds of investments in sustainable energy, education reform, improving the performance of the health care system, etc. But it's a fair point to argue, as Werthless did last week, that those things should get separate consideration.

The problem is that assessing the state of the economy is tricky and in the end at least somewhat subjective. I think people probably have enough information to make a pretty good guess of their real chances of being laid off. And anyone close to retiring who is counting on a 401k type plan has got some serious adjusting to do. (Note to self: As you approach retirement age, take those portfolio risk adjustment thingies seriously.) Those things are real. Another problem is the economy isn't producing many new jobs.

And, as Vox likes to point out, much of our consumption was unsustainable, depending on easy credit and the belief that our real estate assets would rapidly appreciate forever. And that is clearly untrue. People are adjusting their saving and spending habits, and that while painful, is probably necessary.

On the other hand, now is probably a great time to buy certain assets. I know that the foundation my wife works for is now telling people that certain contributions people make will not be put in the endowment right away, but will be deferred. The purpose of this is to encourage people to continue to contribute to the endowment, and addressing the fear that if I contribute money now, stock market declines will wipe the contribution out. However, it might be the case that the market has already bottomed, and the endowment is missing an big investment opportunity. That's psychology at work.

Werthless wrote:Does anyone think that all the cries of "crisis" and "impending depression" do more harm than good? While it helps politicians get their bills passed, it certainly doesn't improve the mindsets of the consumers that will be counted on to spend our way out of the recession. Specifically, the doomsayers are hurting aggregate demand by stressing how $#@! the economy will get. It's self-fulfilling. I think it would be better for Obama to say "the economy is turning around," and trumpet every piece of good news. Currently, people aren't spending because everyone thinks/knows the economy is tanking, causing it to tank further.

When the Democrats talk about the upcoming Depression, they're trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility (ie. We've been predicting it since Bush was in office). But all the negative talk makes it more likely to be worse. Quite the dilemma for a politician who cares about re-election.

Yes, this is a problem at an economic time when lack of confidence by just about all segments of the economy is fueling the problem. This started when Bush/Paulson threw down the gauntlet, proclaiming action without amendment within 3 days or catastrophe -- your choice, Congress. The Dems gave him action, but the Republicans dug in their heels and there was delay, debates over whether the plan could actually work, and then implementation of the original plan with added pork and 'safeguards' and 'transparency' requirements (that never really came into force to change the operation of the program in any way). Then post-adoption came Treasury confusion, that they weren't really sure whether the plan they had proposed would work or could be implemented fast enough, and they'd like to fundamentally change it. Followed by more doubts and debate as Treasury scrambled to get underway. Then we had Obama achieving approval of the second half of the bailout, followed by delays from the Geithner debacle. Now we have the rescue plan mired in delay and partisan politics, to a chorus of can it possible work because, take your pick, it is too small, too large, doesn't cut taxes enough, isn't focused enough on any of 20 different varieties of spending, has too much pork, or won't pass over my dead body until my pork is added. Yes, this hurts and has hurt from the very start of the downturn. The best we can hope for, and won't get, is that the Senate passes the current compromise on Tuesday, Obama leans on the Dems in the House to simply adopt the Senate bill intact with no changes, and the Treasury actually is ready, this time, to start implementation on day 1, without dithering about how they want to modify the plan, coordinate it with 20 othe people, or make sure it is rolled out correctly, but slowly. The biggest problem with stimulus programs historically is that they are too small and too late -- talked to death until the ideal time to tackle the downturn and stimulate is well past and the program has been watered down to the level of a CYA exercise. The late stimulus then adds to the next cycle's inflation.
On your second point, no economic happy talk from Obama won't help any more than it helped from Bush. Same unbelievable speech with more polished delivery. What is needed is not spinning an illusion that the economy or its trajectory is better than it is, but raising confidence in a plan to turn things around. I think that is why Obama instinctively wanted to go bipartisan on this, in addition to political CYA. The more denigration of the plan by the other side, the less confidence the plan inspires, and the less likely it is to work. The Dems realized this and responded responsibly to the cockamamie Bush/Paulson plan. The Congressional Republicans have let the nation down badly, then and now.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:There is a small point to be made in there though that recessions tend to be self-fulfilling to a certain extent

That's true, and not necessarily a small point. But it's both more politically effective and more consistent with reality as it's generally perceived for the message to be "Yes, things are bad right now and the trajectory is pretty scary. But we're trying to take action here to stimulate demand--your government is on the case, and we're going to get through it together."

Pretending that things are swell is an excuse for doing nothing. Now, Werthless has made it pretty clear that his preference is essentially to do nothing. That's fine as a political position, but at least try to honestly explain why it's the best course of action.

I think the idea of the stimulus package is to provide a bridge holding up demand until credit starts flowing again--which the administration is hoping their new bailout plan, to be announced tomorrow, will accomplish. The problem is that Obama didn't explicitly present it that way; he tried to be too cute by half and include "a down payment on long-term growth." Personally I'm strongly in favor of those kinds of investments in sustainable energy, education reform, improving the performance of the health care system, etc. But it's a fair point to argue, as Werthless did last week, that those things should get separate consideration.

It takes someone to agree with me for you acknowledge the merit. Even when I post something you agree with, you find the need to be dismissive. Your close-minded is revealed.

Going back to econ 101, inflationary expectations DO influence inflation. In a similar mechanism, consumer confidence can be construed as a crude predictor of demand (say that 5 times fast). Beating down consumer confidence with overly negative rhetoric probably further hurts consumer confidence. I can see why it may be politically advantageous to do this.

Let's say the stimulus has a 50% chance of preventing a depression if it was passed. Let's define depression has a universal definition (say 12% unemployment and 10% fall in GDP from peak to trough), to separate those that use that word loosely. I'm saying that repeated predictions by Obama, someone who the American people trust, likely increases the chance of depression. Maybe it moves to 51%. Maybe it moves to 60%. But I'm saying it moves it. But... it also increases their chance at re-election. Do people tend to agree with the 2 points?

My post has nothing to do with my support or opposition to the stimulus or bailout.

Bakestar wrote:You're badly understating the actual, concrete fear that people have for losing their jobs. If you reasonably think you're going to be laid off in the next six months, you're pretty unlikely to go out and buy that new washing machine, no matter what President Obama says about sunshine and ice cream and flowers and unicorns.

It's a real fear. It's a rational fear, for many. And the fear is increased by people predicting a return to bartering (note: not something that Obama has said). And if you have a great fear of losing your job, then you're likely to withhold making big purchases.

allentown wrote:On your second point, no economic happy talk from Obama won't help any more than it helped from Bush. Same unbelievable speech with more polished delivery. What is needed is not spinning an illusion that the economy or its trajectory is better than it is, but raising confidence in a plan to turn things around. I think that is why Obama instinctively wanted to go bipartisan on this, in addition to political CYA. The more denigration of the plan by the other side, the less confidence the plan inspires, and the less likely it is to work. The Dems realized this and responded responsibly to the $#@! Bush/Paulson plan. The Congressional Republicans have let the nation down badly, then and now.

That's a good point. Opposition to the bill by the Republicans, while ineffective because of their small numbers, likely hurts the effectiveness of the plan, through the mechanism I described. It's a nuanced point, but Republicans were not claiming that the economy is in the shit-ter, just that the stimulus is a shit-ty plan. Either way, it neutralizes the benefits of the stimulus to the economy, if you accept that:

feelings about stimulus=feelings about economy.

I don't think that way, but I'm sure a lot of Americans do. And that's what matters.

Werthless wrote:Let's say the stimulus has a 50% chance of preventing a depression if it was passed. Let's define depression has a universal definition (say 12% unemployment and 10% fall in GDP from peak to trough), to separate those that use that word loosely. I'm saying that repeated predictions by Obama, someone who the American people trust, likely increases the chance of depression. Maybe it moves to 51%. Maybe it moves to 60%. But I'm saying it moves it. But... it also increases their chance at re-election. Do people tend to agree with the 2 points?

My post has nothing to do with my support or opposition to the stimulus or bailout.

What's so irritating about you--beyond the avatar, I mean, and the dumb user name, and the general arrogance--is that you're blind to your own biases.

The underlying premise of your statement seems to be that the content of the stimulus proposal itself is more or less irrelevant to the prospects of avoiding an economic catastrophe and/or (my point) ameliorating the consequences of the current downturn--but that Obama's rhetoric is strongly influential upon what will happen. If you think the stimulus is irrelevant or harmful, that's one thing, though you're pretty far out on the fringe in that view.

The other argument--that the bummer-language rhetoric is, or at least is supposed to be, instrumental in getting the legislation passed, and that Obama is betting that the legislation will have far more impact on what happens with the economy than his words in a given news cycle--seems to be lost on you. As does the point that Obama's electoral chances are probably much more tied to the actual performance of the economy (the correlation between GDP growth and presidential election outcomes is very well documented) than to his ability to make an I-told-you-so claim or blame Bush or anyone else who came before.

The more I think about this, the more I don't believe the politics were handled very well. Obama probably should have come out of the gate characterizing the stimulus as part one of a two-part recovery scheme, part two being the revised bailout provisions. And maybe he should have broken out the long-term investments from the short-term measures in the stimulus package itself, though I get the rationale in doing that part the way they did. But this is the picture that's emerging now. If it works, or if the economy turns around anyway, he'll probably win re-election. If it doesn't, he and the Democrats probably go down over the next two cycles.

dajafi wrote:The underlying premise of your statement seems to be that the content of the stimulus proposal itself is more or less irrelevant to the prospects of avoiding an economic catastrophe and/or (my point) ameliorating the consequences of the current downturn--but that Obama's rhetoric is strongly influential upon what will happen. If you think the stimulus is irrelevant or harmful, that's one thing, though [b]you're pretty far out on the fringe in that view.

The other argument--that the bummer-language rhetoric is, or at least is supposed to be, instrumental in getting the legislation passed, and that [b]Obama is betting that the legislation will have far more impact on what happens with the economy than his words in a given news cycle--seems to be lost on you. As does the point that Obama's electoral chances are probably much more tied to the actual performance of the economy (the correlation between GDP growth and presidential election outcomes is very well documented) than to his ability to make an I-told-you-so claim or blame Bush or anyone else who came before.

The more I think about this, the more I don't believe the politics were handled very well. Obama probably should have come out of the gate characterizing the stimulus as part one of a two-part recovery scheme, part two being the revised bailout provisions. And maybe he should have broken out the long-term investments from the short-term measures in the stimulus package itself, though I get the rationale in doing that part the way they did. But this is the picture that's emerging now. If it works, or if the economy turns around anyway, he'll probably win re-election. If it doesn't, he and the Democrats probably go down over the next two cycles.

Underline are disagrees, bolds are agrees. I found it easier this way.

You see, you're switching between saying, as you originally did, that rhetoric has no effect. Now, you say that the stimulus has a greater effect than the rhetoric. I never compared the 2, just said that the rhetoric (which is unnecessarily doomsday-ish, considering he has the political capital to pass what he wants) hurts the economy.

Summary of my position: The rhetoric is not necessary to get the stuff passed. The Dems have the numbers. They're doing it to lower expectations. They believe it will help them in case the economy continues to tank. They shouldn't do this, and should focus on policy, which is a better predictor of elections anyway. The rhetoric hurts the economic recovery plans, by hurting consumer confidence. Dems are either ignorant of this last mechanism, or just figuring that the stimulus plan will overcome it. I think they could have it both ways if they passed it without being doomsayers.

Jesus you're like 40% more likeable just with a simple avatar change

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:The underlying premise of your statement seems to be that the content of the stimulus proposal itself is more or less irrelevant to the prospects of avoiding an economic catastrophe and/or (my point) ameliorating the consequences of the current downturn--but that Obama's rhetoric is strongly influential upon what will happen. If you think the stimulus is irrelevant or harmful, that's one thing, though [b]you're pretty far out on the fringe in that view.

The other argument--that the bummer-language rhetoric is, or at least is supposed to be, instrumental in getting the legislation passed, and that [b]Obama is betting that the legislation will have far more impact on what happens with the economy than his words in a given news cycle--seems to be lost on you. As does the point that Obama's electoral chances are probably much more tied to the actual performance of the economy (the correlation between GDP growth and presidential election outcomes is very well documented) than to his ability to make an I-told-you-so claim or blame Bush or anyone else who came before.

The more I think about this, the more I don't believe the politics were handled very well. Obama probably should have come out of the gate characterizing the stimulus as part one of a two-part recovery scheme, part two being the revised bailout provisions. And maybe he should have broken out the long-term investments from the short-term measures in the stimulus package itself, though I get the rationale in doing that part the way they did. But this is the picture that's emerging now. If it works, or if the economy turns around anyway, he'll probably win re-election. If it doesn't, he and the Democrats probably go down over the next two cycles.

Underline are disagrees, bolds are agrees. I found it easier this way.

You see, you're switching between saying, as you originally did, that rhetoric has no effect. Now, you say that the stimulus has a greater effect than the rhetoric. I never compared the 2, just said that the rhetoric (which is unnecessarily doomsday-ish, considering he has the political capital to pass what he wants) hurts the economy.

Summary of my position: The rhetoric is not necessary to get the stuff passed. The Dems have the numbers. They're doing it to lower expectations. They believe it will help them in case the economy continues to tank. They shouldn't do this, and should focus on policy, which is a better predictor of elections anyway. The rhetoric hurts the economic recovery plans, by hurting consumer confidence. Dems are either ignorant of this last mechanism, or just figuring that the stimulus plan will overcome it. I think they could have it both ways if they passed it without being doomsayers.

Well, that's at least coherent and internally consistent, other than the bolded and underlined section which confused me. But whether or not they "need" the rhetoric, which is debatable--I do think it might have made the difference in tipping Collins/Snowe/Specter; if not the general "things are lousy" talk, the specific points about job loss in Maine and PA that Obama and surrogates rolled out last week--they perceived that they did.

And "political capital" is a tricky concept. Most Republicans perceive, probably correctly, that they have nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain by reflexive opposition. In terms of polling on the stimulus, Obama is "winning" by a lot; in terms of actual votes, he'll barely squeak by in the Senate--and he'll do that, if he does, with the support of the endangered-species Republican moderates. He can exert political pressure on them, especially Specter and whichever Mainer didn't just win re-election, but otherwise the capital isn't very relevant.

(Note also the Republican Senators who are retiring for 2010 in states that Obama won--Martinez, Burr, Voinovich among others. If they were up next year, they would have taken political heat as well. But while their retirements probably improve Democrats' chances next year, they don't help much today.)

The core disagreement here is that I think the purpose of the rhetoric is to pass the bill, not to lower expectations or offer political cover--which you agree that it won't do anyway if the economy stays lousy. If you and I grasp this, I don't think it's too much to suggest that the professionals do as well. As for consumer confidence, it doesn't have much further to fall, and I think (and I believe the Democrats strategists think) that it will be much more buoyed by action than hurt by talk.

There's also a public confidence component to this: Bush and the Republicans were perceived as out of touch with the lived experiences of Americans because they didn't acknowledge, or didn't sufficiently acknowledge, that times are tough. Remember "mental recession"? Obama is at least trying to send the message that he sees what the public is seeing, which itself could be said to raise confidence in elected leadership.

dajafi wrote:There's also a public confidence component to this: Bush and the Republicans were perceived as out of touch with the lived experiences of Americans because they didn't acknowledge, or didn't sufficiently acknowledge, that times are tough. Remember "mental recession"? Obama is at least trying to send the message that he sees what the public is seeing, which itself could be said to raise confidence in elected leadership.

That makes sense. This is what I was trying to figure out. I was slightly dissatisfied with my explanation, because I didn't actually think politicians were ignorant to recessionary feedback loops. But I didn't have a good explanation beyond "they think it will garner them votes."

I wasn't a fan of my avatar either, but inertia is a powerful force. I wouldn't want Mrs. Clinton diluting the werthless message and brand. haha.

Scott Adams with a funny (if not slightly accurate) take

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/ignorance_will_save_us/

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's also a public confidence component to this: Bush and the Republicans were perceived as out of touch with the lived experiences of Americans because they didn't acknowledge, or didn't sufficiently acknowledge, that times are tough. Remember "mental recession"? Obama is at least trying to send the message that he sees what the public is seeing, which itself could be said to raise confidence in elected leadership.

That makes sense. This is what I was trying to figure out. I was slightly dissatisfied with my explanation, because I didn't actually think politicians were ignorant to recessionary feedback loops. But I didn't have a good explanation beyond "they think it will garner them votes."

I wasn't a fan of my avatar either, but inertia is a powerful force. I wouldn't want Mrs. Clinton diluting the werthless message and brand. haha.

A Werth home run trot sends a needed positive message in difficult times.