I am really perplexed that Angry Bear hasn’t picked up the torch on Bernanke’s attack on Social Security.
He really must be removed. He would rather cut SS than return to pre-Bush tax levels or cut defense spending. Greenspan proved the damage that can be done by a Randian Fed Chairman. Obama should get people on his team, on his team.
I didn’t read Bernanke’s comments to be about Social Security. It seemed to me that he was talking about Medicare & Medicaid. This is also an implied endorsement of Obama’s healthcare insurance reform because it would attempt to cut some clear waste out of Medicare. If you look at CBO’s analysis it’s pretty clear that most of the long run structural problem with the deficit is due to Medicare & Medicaid. Bush’s tax cuts contributed to a lot of the current level of national debt, but those tax cuts will soon be expiring, so their effect on the long run structural problem should dampen with time.
Bernanke got off to a rocky start, but over the last year I think he’s done pretty well. I have to admit that I was shocked when Bush nominated him because it was so unlike Bush to actually nominate someone who is qualified and a scholar. But I guess it only proves that stopped clock is right twice a day.
Well Bernanke has lost Krugman as a supporter. K. calls his remarks on stimulus “realy really bad.” But if he goes, who would replace him who would be better? We better let Palin weigh in LOL.
General comment: the US is milling about in confusion that is typical of a declining power. The road ahead for the US is not bright under any assumptions so the leaders haven’t a clue really what to do. So they go around in circles, doing mostly nothing or just keeping on with the present stupid policies. China with a luminous future is clear and united in policy. No going round in circles there. Big contrast.
Bernanke got off to a rocky start, but over the last year I think he’s done pretty well. I have to admit that I was shocked when Bush nominated him because it was so unlike Bush to actually nominate someone who is qualified and a scholar.
Paulson was a good pick too. So Bush put in the right people just as they were needed – Snow & O’Neil were a couple of duds that did no harm.
Fair enough. And I agree with PK that Bernanke’s comments were not helpful. But as Fed chairman his actions have been very helpful. Bernanke has been fighting off a lot of “Treasury View” regional Fed presidents that want to start looking down the road at inflation…despite the fact that inflation is nowhere to be found. Bernanke’s main job is to allow fiscal policy to work by resisting the central bank’s instinct to sterilize fiscal expansion.
And I suspect that Bernanke is a little nervous about congress critters looking over his shoulder. Yes, we could do worse than Bernanke. Try to imagine Rep. Boehner or Rep. Cantor or Sen. Grassley as Fed chairman.
The view of china as the future overlooks the significant demographic problem that China has, its workforce is about at a peak, taken as a whole. China is getting older faster than the US so there is a big question can China get far enough along with economic development before the aging population slow down occurs. (IMHO this is the untold story of Japan, who in 1980 was going to dominiate the US) Yes for a while China can continue the movement off the land to towns, (which is likley why they are building so fast) but combine the aging with vast water problems, ethnic tensions, and the like China has a plate full of problems also. Demography is destiny it is said and so the US with its younger population has an advantage.
It’s very comforting no doubt to try to find lots of problems in China, but it won’t work. Japan is hardly a good comparison since China is much much larger, has more resources, and a population about 5 or 6 times that of Japan. While most of the world fell into negative growth during the recent crisis, China’s growth rate simply slowed down a bit. Now it is ready to rise rapidly. I imagine the British told themselves in ca. 1910 that the US had terrible problems that would insure that it never surpassed the UK in wealth or whatever. The last thing “patriots” want to admit is that their nation is declining in most respects. Of course this is a prediction. Only the future will prove it right or wrong. But I am completely satisfied that in 20 years the US will be completely overshadowed by China, will have retreated from the western Pacific and most of the rest of the world, and be in confusion about how to keep its standard of living somewhere near what is has been in the past. The center of world finance will have moved to Shanghai, Asia in general will be under China’s thumb, etc. Recent Gallup poll indicates Americans have turned very isolationist. Obvious reflection of sense that our world status has shrunk and the world is no longer our oyster.
Of course we could do worse. The question is whether we can do better. Given the confusion in Congress re economic policy I can easily envision someone worse getting the job. Congress is a mess of wrangling dullards many of whom have no idea what to do.
It doesn’t seem to be slowing down the “Chinease” growth rate, does it, whatever it is? And the growth rate is the principal indicator of a nation’s economic health.
O’Neil was no dud by any means. He got sacked for asking Shrub for intelligent discussion of economic policy in cabinet meetings. Shrub has no brains to speak of, so the idea of intelligent discussion, alarmed and frightened him. So he showed O’Neil the door. Pointy heads not welcome.
O’Neil was emotionally unstable. And he was the weakest on the Bush economic team. Cutting taxes is core to the republicans as is raising them to democrats. Bush promised in the campaign to cut taxes and when he got elected he did just that. If you want to argue that O’Neil was a lousy pick, a failure in vetting, and unfit for the job then I plead no contest.
Bush didn’t believe in low taxes; he simply believed that the rich shouldn’t pay taxes. If Bush believed in low taxes, then he wouldn’t have spent like the drunk Air National Guard pilot that he was. It’s like pretending that you’re saving money when you charge everything on Visa instead of paying cash.
O’Neill did give us a revealing look at just how clueless Bush was. Gotta love their first introduction when the only thing that Bush talked about was his cheeseburger. And then there was that line about Bush never arguing with himself, by which he meant that he was completly and unashamedly unreflective about the big questions. A pure gut instinct kind of guy.
So how many containerships are at anchor rather then sailing? Dry bulk? Tankers? This is a country that made its money on exports to the world. And the world has dramatically cut back its imports. And their economy keeps growing. Again, who really believes that.
You have it all wrong, tax cuts were core for Bush and he got back what his father lost. Democrats are the party of tax hikes and if thats what people want they’ll be in power forever.
And give me a break on Obama and thoughtfulness. He spent months on Afghanistan and came up with a plan saying rather than cut and run now he intents to fight and then run latter. What a whack job. All those months were spent trying figure out how to sell a junk policy. If a president does not feel in his gut the need for victory in war he can’t be an effective commander in chief — and that’s a major part of the job.
Oh please. Just because he wasn’t stupid like Bush and the rest he was “unstable.” God what nonsense Shrubies like to tell themselves. If he was “unstable” how could he have run the businesses he did before he was named to the cabinet. If he was “unstable” why was he appointed in the first place? Tax cuts were a stupid obsession of Bush and the GOP because they shifted income from the relatively poor to the rich. And they got rid of the surplus that Clinton had achieved. Time the stupid GOPers get over their “tax cut” obsession. It don’t fly no more.
So what? Japan’s per capital used to be much much lower than ours; now it is 37th in the world. The highest is for nations with no economic clout at all like Luxemburg. It is the total national income, not the percapita that gives a nation its economic power. You, like so many Americans, tell yourself smug comforting stories. Typical US blindness and ignorance.
Oh please. China’s GDP growth in 2009 is reliably predicted to be 9.5%. The US will probably be around MINUS 3.3 % Wise up, buddy. You don’t know beans.
Many thoughtless Americans think China exports only to us. In fact in the first half of this year Chinese total exports were 521.7 billion $ of which only 133.4 or a bit over 25% went to the USA.
You didn’t really address my point. Just cutting taxes temporarily without cutting spending isn’t really a tax cut. It’s exactly the same as pretending that buying something with your Visa card is saving money because you didn’t pay with cash. In ordinary language we don’t think of a payment shifting as a savings. Bush was selling the free lunch theory of economics. What can I say? Slightly less than half the voters were nitwits in 2000 and bought into Bush’s free lunch theory.
According to the U.S. census our imports from China are down 15% through September, and our exports to China are down 32%. This really does not look like an economy firing on all cylinders. We hear all sorts of stories about idled factories and workers having to return to the country side, yet, the officials statistics keep painting a rosy scenario. On the surface I don’t believe it but we need more data to see if it real or if the Chinease with their obsession over saving face are pulling a potemkin on us.
Well if you want to redo Chinese statistics, that is up to you. Most experts accept them. China has experienced a decline in exports, of course, but its exports were so immense that it can suffer some decline and not go into negative growth. I have not checked on India but China has been among the rare nations not to have experienced negative growth during this downturn. For China it is not a question of growth or no growth, but of how fast the growth is. If Chinese growth falls from 11.5% to, say, 9% while ours goes from 2% to negative 3% we’re worse off relative to China than we were to start with.
Another thing most Americans forget is that China has an immense undeveloped internal market. As that develops it will have much less need to export for growth. US economic growth in the early 20th century came mainly from an expanding internal market. China’s will be much vaster than ours It will transition from being an export driven economy to being an economy driven by internal expansion. Then it will have much less need to export. And that will have bad consequences for us.
Cut it out. He was unstable because he took a post in a tax cutters administration and then went all crazy when the tax cutter cut taxes like he promised to.
I am really perplexed that Angry Bear hasn’t picked up the torch on Bernanke’s attack on Social Security.
He really must be removed. He would rather cut SS than return to pre-Bush tax levels or cut defense spending. Greenspan proved the damage that can be done by a Randian Fed Chairman. Obama should get people on his team, on his team.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/bernanke-channels-willie_n_378963.html
Guest,
I didn’t read Bernanke’s comments to be about Social Security. It seemed to me that he was talking about Medicare & Medicaid. This is also an implied endorsement of Obama’s healthcare insurance reform because it would attempt to cut some clear waste out of Medicare. If you look at CBO’s analysis it’s pretty clear that most of the long run structural problem with the deficit is due to Medicare & Medicaid. Bush’s tax cuts contributed to a lot of the current level of national debt, but those tax cuts will soon be expiring, so their effect on the long run structural problem should dampen with time.
Bernanke got off to a rocky start, but over the last year I think he’s done pretty well. I have to admit that I was shocked when Bush nominated him because it was so unlike Bush to actually nominate someone who is qualified and a scholar. But I guess it only proves that stopped clock is right twice a day.
Well Bernanke has lost Krugman as a supporter. K. calls his remarks on stimulus “realy really bad.” But if he goes, who would replace him who would be better? We better let Palin weigh in LOL.
General comment: the US is milling about in confusion that is typical of a declining power. The road ahead for the US is not bright under any assumptions so the leaders haven’t a clue really what to do. So they go around in circles, doing mostly nothing or just keeping on with the present stupid policies. China with a luminous future is clear and united in policy. No going round in circles there. Big contrast.
2slugbaits,
Bernanke got off to a rocky start, but over the last year I think he’s done pretty well. I have to admit that I was shocked when Bush nominated him because it was so unlike Bush to actually nominate someone who is qualified and a scholar.
Paulson was a good pick too. So Bush put in the right people just as they were needed – Snow & O’Neil were a couple of duds that did no harm.
Jim,
Fair enough. And I agree with PK that Bernanke’s comments were not helpful. But as Fed chairman his actions have been very helpful. Bernanke has been fighting off a lot of “Treasury View” regional Fed presidents that want to start looking down the road at inflation…despite the fact that inflation is nowhere to be found. Bernanke’s main job is to allow fiscal policy to work by resisting the central bank’s instinct to sterilize fiscal expansion.
And I suspect that Bernanke is a little nervous about congress critters looking over his shoulder. Yes, we could do worse than Bernanke. Try to imagine Rep. Boehner or Rep. Cantor or Sen. Grassley as Fed chairman.
Which Chinease unemployment rate do you thing is closer to reality, 4.2% or 20%. I vote for the high number (we get to do that here).
Which Chinease unemployment rate do you think is closer to reality, 4.2% or 20%. I vote for the high number (we get to do that here).
The view of china as the future overlooks the significant demographic problem that China has, its workforce is about at a peak, taken as a whole. China is getting older faster than the US so there is a big question can China get far enough along with economic development before the aging population slow down occurs. (IMHO this is the untold story of Japan, who in 1980 was going to dominiate the US) Yes for a while China can continue the movement off the land to towns, (which is likley why they are building so fast) but combine the aging with vast water problems, ethnic tensions, and the like China has a plate full of problems also. Demography is destiny it is said and so the US with its younger population has an advantage.
It’s very comforting no doubt to try to find lots of problems in China, but it won’t work. Japan is hardly a good comparison since China is much much larger, has more resources, and a population about 5 or 6 times that of Japan. While most of the world fell into negative growth during the recent crisis, China’s growth rate simply slowed down a bit. Now it is ready to rise rapidly. I imagine the British told themselves in ca. 1910 that the US had terrible problems that would insure that it never surpassed the UK in wealth or whatever. The last thing “patriots” want to admit is that their nation is declining in most respects. Of course this is a prediction. Only the future will prove it right or wrong. But I am completely satisfied that in 20 years the US will be completely overshadowed by China, will have retreated from the western Pacific and most of the rest of the world, and be in confusion about how to keep its standard of living somewhere near what is has been in the past. The center of world finance will have moved to Shanghai, Asia in general will be under China’s thumb, etc. Recent Gallup poll indicates Americans have turned very isolationist. Obvious reflection of sense that our world status has shrunk and the world is no longer our oyster.
Of course we could do worse. The question is whether we can do better. Given the confusion in Congress re economic policy I can easily envision someone worse getting the job. Congress is a mess of wrangling dullards many of whom have no idea what to do.
It doesn’t seem to be slowing down the “Chinease” growth rate, does it, whatever it is? And the growth rate is the principal indicator of a nation’s economic health.
O’Neil was no dud by any means. He got sacked for asking Shrub for intelligent discussion of economic policy in cabinet meetings. Shrub has no brains to speak of, so the idea of intelligent discussion, alarmed and frightened him. So he showed O’Neil the door. Pointy heads not welcome.
O’Neil was emotionally unstable. And he was the weakest on the Bush economic team. Cutting taxes is core to the republicans as is raising them to democrats. Bush promised in the campaign to cut taxes and when he got elected he did just that. If you want to argue that O’Neil was a lousy pick, a failure in vetting, and unfit for the job then I plead no contest.
Cantab,
Bush didn’t believe in low taxes; he simply believed that the rich shouldn’t pay taxes. If Bush believed in low taxes, then he wouldn’t have spent like the drunk Air National Guard pilot that he was. It’s like pretending that you’re saving money when you charge everything on Visa instead of paying cash.
O’Neill did give us a revealing look at just how clueless Bush was. Gotta love their first introduction when the only thing that Bush talked about was his cheeseburger. And then there was that line about Bush never arguing with himself, by which he meant that he was completly and unashamedly unreflective about the big questions. A pure gut instinct kind of guy.
Jim,
Did you know that China ranks 133rd in the world in GDP per capita, at $6,000 per? Right after Albania and El Salvador?
And US GDP per capita is 8 times higher at $47,500?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
So how many containerships are at anchor rather then sailing? Dry bulk? Tankers? This is a country that made its money on exports to the world. And the world has dramatically cut back its imports. And their economy keeps growing. Again, who really believes that.
You have it all wrong, tax cuts were core for Bush and he got back what his father lost. Democrats are the party of tax hikes and if thats what people want they’ll be in power forever.
And give me a break on Obama and thoughtfulness. He spent months on Afghanistan and came up with a plan saying rather than cut and run now he intents to fight and then run latter. What a whack job. All those months were spent trying figure out how to sell a junk policy. If a president does not feel in his gut the need for victory in war he can’t be an effective commander in chief — and that’s a major part of the job.
Oh please. Just because he wasn’t stupid like Bush and the rest he was “unstable.” God what nonsense Shrubies like to tell themselves. If he was “unstable” how could he have run the businesses he did before he was named to the cabinet. If he was “unstable” why was he appointed in the first place? Tax cuts were a stupid obsession of Bush and the GOP because they shifted income from the relatively poor to the rich. And they got rid of the surplus that Clinton had achieved. Time the stupid GOPers get over their “tax cut” obsession. It don’t fly no more.
So what? Japan’s per capital used to be much much lower than ours; now it is 37th in the world. The highest is for nations with no economic clout at all like Luxemburg. It is the total national income, not the percapita that gives a nation its economic power. You, like so many Americans, tell yourself smug comforting stories. Typical US blindness and ignorance.
Oh please. China’s GDP growth in 2009 is reliably predicted to be 9.5%. The US will probably be around MINUS 3.3 % Wise up, buddy. You don’t know beans.
Many thoughtless Americans think China exports only to us. In fact in the first half of this year Chinese total exports were 521.7 billion $ of which only 133.4 or a bit over 25% went to the USA.
Cantab,
You didn’t really address my point. Just cutting taxes temporarily without cutting spending isn’t really a tax cut. It’s exactly the same as pretending that buying something with your Visa card is saving money because you didn’t pay with cash. In ordinary language we don’t think of a payment shifting as a savings. Bush was selling the free lunch theory of economics. What can I say? Slightly less than half the voters were nitwits in 2000 and bought into Bush’s free lunch theory.
Jim,
According to the U.S. census our imports from China are down 15% through September, and our exports to China are down 32%. This really does not look like an economy firing on all cylinders. We hear all sorts of stories about idled factories and workers having to return to the country side, yet, the officials statistics keep painting a rosy scenario. On the surface I don’t believe it but we need more data to see if it real or if the Chinease with their obsession over saving face are pulling a potemkin on us.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009
Well if you want to redo Chinese statistics, that is up to you. Most experts accept them. China has experienced a decline in exports, of course, but its exports were so immense that it can suffer some decline and not go into negative growth. I have not checked on India but China has been among the rare nations not to have experienced negative growth during this downturn. For China it is not a question of growth or no growth, but of how fast the growth is. If Chinese growth falls from 11.5% to, say, 9% while ours goes from 2% to negative 3% we’re worse off relative to China than we were to start with.
Another thing most Americans forget is that China has an immense undeveloped internal market. As that develops it will have much less need to export for growth. US economic growth in the early 20th century came mainly from an expanding internal market. China’s will be much vaster than ours It will transition from being an export driven economy to being an economy driven by internal expansion. Then it will have much less need to export. And that will have bad consequences for us.
Cut it out. He was unstable because he took a post in a tax cutters administration and then went all crazy when the tax cutter cut taxes like he promised to.