Thursday, March 12, 2009

Can You Hear Me Now?

Obama will not listen to reason, or apparently to anything but his radical left ideology. Why is Obama messing up the economy? Read on for the answers.

Case in point: An editorial in the WSJ today (Old Europe Is Right on Stimulus) notes that Europe is rejecting US lobby for increased social spending. Selected excerpts:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner heads to Europe today to lobby for a "global stimulus" from the G-20 countries that are holding an economic summit two weeks hence. This follows White House economic czar Larry Summers's weekend call for a "global stimulus," which leaders in Europe roundly rejected Monday. They were right to do so.

The Obama Administration came into office promising to listen to its friends and allies, so when Europe says non to gargantuan spending, maybe the President and his advisers should listen.

Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker delivered the Continent's verdict on global stimulus. "Recent American appeals insisting that the European make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis were not to our liking," he said. That's putting it nicely.

For decades, countries like Greece, Italy and Belgium had run up huge national debts trying to pay for social-welfare programs and keep their economies afloat at the same time. The chief result of these policies was a huge pile of IOUs. In Italy, the
national debt stood at 107% of GDP in 1999. In Belgium and Greece it was 104%. Freece's fiscal house was so disordered that it was excluded from the first group of euro countries.

Question: Who are these countries borrowing from? Or is the question what are they borrowing?


While he's in the U.K., perhaps Mr. Geithner should also ask his European counterparts whether any of them have ever seen a 1.5 Keynesian "multiplier" in the wild. That's the idea -- promoted by Mr. Summers -- that every $1 of deficit spending yields $1.5 in economic growth. If that were true, Italy would be the richest country in Europe, instead of merely one of the most indebted.

On a related topic, the WSJ notes that the best Keynesian economic models show Obama's stimulus will fail. Head over to the WSJ and read the whole enchilada.

[W]e recommend a recent paper by a trans-Atlantic team of four economists -- two Germans and two Americans. The authors -- John Cogan and John Taylor of Stanford and Tobias Cwik and Volker Wieland of Goethe University -- subject the Administration's stimulus to the most recent Keynesian scholarship... What the four economists found is that the Administration's estimates for stimulus growth were six times as high as they could produce under a modern Keynesian simulation.
As we have already noted, Obama's growth forecast is not based on Keynesian economics, but Reaganomics.

So President Obama (or as I call him, BO-44), the Great Depression told you Keynesian spending will not succeed, Argentina told you, California told you, and now Europe is telling you. Keynes is dead. Only removing barriers to capitalism, like China is doing, will help the economy.

Obama, can you hear me now?

My take? Obama's hearing is fine. Nor is he as big an idiot as he appears to be. He knows it won't work. He just doesn't care. He will impose socialism at any cost.

11 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

> The Obama Administration came into office promising to listen to its friends and allies, so when Europe says non to gargantuan spending, maybe the President and his advisers should listen.

"WHAT, whaaat, whaaaaat...?

Yu tawt I wuz seryus 'bout dat?"

-- Translation of recent Obama response to questions in that regard.

OBloodyHell said...

> Freece's fiscal house

Freece ?

:oD

That's a typo, F for G...

OBloodyHell said...

> Question: Who are these countries borrowing from? Or is the question what are they borrowing?

They're borrowing from Mr. Paper. He's ALWAYS got money!

bobn said...

As we have already noted, Obama's growth forecast is not based on Keynesian economics, but Reaganomics.

Which as I recall was:

1)Tax cuts

2) Massive defense spending

3) Rapidly escalating national debt

Which is the part that is not Keynesian in so-called Reagonomics?

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Well, I don't think I would characterize Reaganomics like that, but I agree he did not succeed in reducing spending as much as he could have. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

Obama spending is about 27% of GDP?

OBloodyHell said...

> Which is the part that is not Keynesian in so-called Reagonomics?

Well, at the very least, the "tax cuts" part is rather f'in OBVIOUSLY not Keynesian.

A brain addled trepaning victim might be unaware of this. What's your excuse?

Anonymous said...

Name-calling will not solve our problems. Do you have any ideas that might work?

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Our "Anonymous" poster must be reading another blog and posting comments here.

OBloodyHell said...

Bob: I think he was making an aside at me personally.

Anon: bobn, while not an idiot, often plays one while blogging. I stomp on him sometimes when he gets too egregious about it.

He knows better than to post up stupid, obviously flawed comments, but he does it sometimes anyway thinking I might just once not pay enough attention to call him on it.

As far as Ideas that might work?

Do the first recall election in US History and get that socialist moron out of office?

That's about the first thing that has to happen. And we know it won't, too many idiots out there still Have Faith In The Big O.

A lot less than did in November, but still too many to actually do anything.

The other obvious thing is for the @#$@$#%$#$^ GOP to get its head out of its collective asses, fire every single moron who has been in charge for the last 8 years and not been vocally opposed to the NeoLeftist policies they've been following, and for the new blood to apologize contritely and ask for another chance -- to establish a second Contract with America, only, this time, with less vague expectations, including blatant penalties for failure to follow through.

Things like the GOP leadership NOT backing financially, or endorsing, anyone who chooses to run past their term limits... And to actively push for changes to the rules that massivly benefit people who have been in office for the longest time. And to actually push to shrink the government like they promised.

We also need to start working towards taking back the schools and the media. Letting the defacto communists get in complete charge of teaching kids and the media. THERE was a real genius idea. What part of the Leninist plan did that not exactly resemble?

bobn said...

Well, at the very least, the "tax cuts" part is rather f'in OBVIOUSLY not Keynesian.

From wikipedia:

"Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation."


Spending more than you're taking in is the essence of Keynesianism. (And cutting taxes is another way to "increase aggregate demand".)

How you arrive at that point is just details.

bobn said...

bobn, while not an idiot, often plays one while blogging.

You old softy, you!