Political Economy category archive
Throwing Worse Money after Bad . . . 1
. . . is pretty much how Robert Reich characterizes bailing out banks and businesses by giving them moola, pointing out that
He goes on to say that
Introductory economic courses explain that aggregate demand is made up of four things, expressed as C+I+G+exports. C is consumers. Consumers are cutting back on everything other than necessities. Because their spending accounts for 70 percent of the nation’s economic activity and is the flywheel for the rest of the economy, the precipitous drop in consumer spending is causing the rest of the economy to shut down.
I is investment. Absent consumer spending, businesses are not going to invest.
Exports won’t help much because the of the rest of the world is sliding into deep recession, too. (And as foreigners — as well as Americans — put their savings in dollars for safe keeping, the value of the dollar will likely continue to rise relative to other currencies. That, in turn, makes everything we might sell to the rest of the world more expensive.)
That leaves G, which, of course, is government. Government is the spender of last resort. Government spending lifted America out of the Great Depression. It may be the only instrument we have for lifting America out of the Mini Depression. Even Fed Chair Ben Bernanke is now calling for a sizable government stimulus. He knows that monetary policy won’t work if there’s inadequate demand.
The Current Federal Administration, of course, has perpetuated a policy of making the rich richer, while making the poor poorer.
This is not a slogan.
This is an accurate description of what they have done.
Read Mr. Reich’s entire post. He suggests that the way out of this mess is to adopt strategies that steer money to those who must spend it, not to those who are able to hoard it.
Bushonomics: Not a Pot To Pee in Dept. 0
New Jersey to close restrooms in state parks on weekends.
What precentage of visitors go to their state parks on weekdays? one wonders.
Bushonomics 0
Over at the Booman Tribune.
Bushonomics: Scapegoat Dept. 0
One of the stories making the rounds is that current economic situation is the fault of poor folk: specifically that government efforts to stop racial and ethnic profiling in bank lending practices somehow forced lending institutions to make loans to persons who couldn’t afford to repay them.
One of the laws mentioned in this urban legend lie is the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977. This law was intended primarily to end the practice of redlining, under which lending organizations would refuse to lend to persons living in particular areas regardless of the creditworthiness of the loan applicants.
Joe DiStefano points out in yesterday’s local rag that (emphasis added):
In Philadelphia, CRA-compliant banks such as PNC and Mellon PSFS were pushed out of the inner-city home loan market in the late 1990s by subprime lenders. The latter weren’t subject to either the CRA or to traditional credit discipline, but found a ready market for higher-priced, high-risk loans on Wall Street.
In other words, the CRA had nothing to do with the ditzy mortgages that started all this. Blaming the CRA is as nonsensical as blaming Franny Mae and Freddie Mac, who got into ditzy mortgages late and only because it seemed the only way they could keep business. By then, the merry-go-round was already spinning too fast (follow the link for a fact-filled discussion of the roles of Fannie and Freddie).
But, you see, under Republican Economic Theory, the poor must be to blame.
Here’s how it goes:
-
1. Wealth = Virtue (see the proof here).
2. The wealthy, having wealth, are virtuous.
3. The virtuous do not do bad things.
4. The poor, having no wealth, are not virtuous.
5. The poor, not being virtuous, are to blame. For everything. Q. E. D.
No, poor folk did not cause this mess. (But other folks believe the scapegoating because, I guess, they just don’t want to take the time to determine whether there’s a fact behind each talking point.)
The current economic situation results logically from Republican Economic Theory.
Republican Economic Theory does not attempt to understand economics.
It is no more than a fancy suit of clothes to disguise the purpose of the Republican Party: to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
(Slightly edited to correct poor phrasing at 20:08 EDT 11/03/2008.)
Bushonomics 0
Change we can trust:
Why such worry? On top of watching their retirement savings dwindle and foreclosure notices rise, reports about mass layoffs keep rolling in. With weekly initial claims for state jobless benefits hugging the half million mark, a bottom of the labor market doesn’t appear to be in sight.
Bushonomics 0
One more time:
It wasn’t the fast-and-loose bankers, the shady mortgage sellers, the throw-caution-to-the-winds investment banks, the deal-from-the-bottom-of-the-deck hedge funds, or any of the other the miscreants who made it happen.
It was Republican Economic Theory that did it.
It was the Republican policies–the ones that allowed bankers to be fast and loose, mortgage sellers to be shady, the investment banks to throw caution to the winds, the hedge fund managers to deal from the bottom of the deck, the policies that worship wealth as a sign of virtue–that did it (emphasis added below).
The nation has been hemorrhaging jobs all year, and consumers already had cut back on their shopping sprees. Housing prices were well into a downward spiral, and consumer confidence started dropping in January.
Perhaps all that’s left is for an official declaration that the U.S. economy is in a recession. The first step in that pronouncement could come next Thursday, when the government is to release its initial estimate of third-quarter gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy.
Bushonomics 1
The Newark closure will be effective at the end of the year and affect about 1,000 jobs, the company said in a news release.
Of course, it doesn’t help that the American automobile industry is headed by idiots.
Too Big To Fail 0
Robert Reich:
We used to have public policies to prevent companies from getting too big. Does anyone remember antitrust laws? Somewhere along the line policymakers decided that antitrust would only be used where there was evidence a company had so much market power it could keep prices higher than otherwise.
We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful.
(snip)
Maybe the biggest irony today is that Washington policymakers who are funneling taxpayer dollars to these too-big-to-fail companies are simultaneously pushing them to consolidate into even bigger companies.
And the rest of us are too small to be helped.
Bushonomics 0
My project got cancelled.
My current customer’s client, which is not a member of the financial sector, is going into armadillo mode until the economy settles down.
My customer had to lay off two of his full-timers, in addition to me, a contractor, and reshuffle the remaining work to his most senior guys (I would have done the same thing, by the way).
Bushonomics 0
Robert Reich:
The “living beyond our means” argument, with its thinly-veiled suggestion of moral turpitude, is technically correct. Over the last fifteen years, average household debt has soared to record levels, and the typical American family has taken on more of debt than it can safely manage. That became crystal clear when the housing bubble burst and home prices fell, eliminating easy home equity loans and refinancings.
But this story leaves out one very important fact. Since the year 2000, median family income has been dropping, adjusted for inflation. One of the main reasons the typical family has taken on more debt has been to maintain its living standards in the face of these declining real incomes.
It’s not been persons indulging extravagance. It’s been persons desperately treading water.
And sinking deeper with every successive year of Reago-Bushonomics.
First, the water lapped at their our chins, then our mouths, and now we tilt back our heads and strain to get our noses above water to take a breath between passing waves.
The Republican assault on the American middle class has, in fact, been an assault on the basis of the success of the American economy.
But in their greed, the Republican Party and its corporate masters saw and cared not for such things, all the while distracting the polity with their bleating about “family values” and “voodoo economics” and sending young persons to die in a war for a lie.
All along, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.
But, through the magic of Ameriquest, no one really noticed.
Until now.
Until now, when the rich awaken to realize that the impoverishment of the middle class threatens their private jets, their helicopters, their six, seven, eight houses, their private cell phone towers.
And come crying to the taxpayer, to you and me, to throw money at them.
It’s a Republican thing.
Pah!
Then, again, there is a bright side. Stupid stores are disappearing.
Bushonomics 0
$700,000,000,000 bailout divided by 9,387.61 increase in the DJI yesterday = $74,566,369.93 per point.

Don’t worry. Be happy.
Bushonomics: DOWn 1
Not that the DOW is the end all and be all–after all, it’s fewer than 50 stocks–but, well (emphasis added) . . .
Bushonomics: Creampuff Dept. 1
Wanna buy a used car dealership?
The national outlook is likewise grim. Last week, Ford Motor Co. reported U.S. sales had dropped 34 percent in September. And yesterday, normally bulletproof Toyota Motor Corp. saw its shares experience their largest one-day drop in decades on fears of a global recession.
Penske Chevrolet is among a batch of dealerships in Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey to close or merge during the last month. Dealerships in Hammonton and Elmer, N.J., also shut down in recent weeks or are on the chopping block, and others are rumored to be next.
Most affected are dealerships selling autos by the Detroit “Big Three” – Ford, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C., said John Devlin, vice president of the Pennsylvania Automotive Association in Harrisburg.
Bushonomics 1
Bonddad looks at the long(er) term:
In addition, this isn’t going to end anytime soon. Inventory is still sky high and consumer demand is still hampered by massive debt and low confidence.
(snip a discussion of consumer confidence)
Short version: this is bad news all the way around. Period.
Link to the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index here.
Ray, who’s off working on his post on how hedge funds work, thinks the Republicans are trying to stave off the crash the fruits of their economic failures until January 21, 2009, so they can then pretend that their policies of the last umpty-ump years had nothing–nothing!–to do with the results thereof.
Tipping Point 0
The Associated Press reports that persons who depend on tips for a substantial part of their income are hurting, because their customers are hurting.
Remember that the minimum wage for the folks in food service is, well, minimal.
Bushonomics: Making the rich richer and the poor poorer in myriad ways.
I Send Mail 3
The Geek News Central podcast is relentlessly non-political. Nevertheless, in Friday’s show, Todd asked his listeners to let him know what they think about opening up ANWR and the continental shelf for oil exploration.
So I did:
You asked for comments about opening up ANWR and the continental shelf for oil exploration.
No.
According to the discussion on this episode of the Diane Rehm Show, opening these areas would have little or no effect on current or future oil prices or on U. S. oil reserves.
The discussion indicated that one of the reasons for pressure to open these areas from the oil companies, who already have oil leases for areas that they have not yet started to explore or use, is the oil companies’ stock prices. One of the factors that affects their stock prices is how many reserves they have. In short, their interest may not be primarily oil supplies, so much as Wall Street supplies.
Opening up these areas would do little or nothing to help the everyday person and lots to help the rich get richer with paper profits.
The policy that got us into this mess is ably dissected in this article from The Nation.
Bushonomics: It’s Not Over Yet 0
Follow the link to see the evidence. Bonddad:
Belaboring the Obvious 2
I wonder how many MBA’s it took to figure this out. From Market Watch (I highly recommend reading the comments):
“Obviously this market is in lockstep with three things, the most important of which is the price of a barrel of oil,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co.
On Friday, stocks sank as crude-oil futures gained, a trend that played throughout the week, as the weaker U.S. dollar added to the allure of oil and other commodities as a currency hedge. And, more trouble in the financial sector compounded market anxiety.







