nm
Do you mind giving some specific examples of the horrors of which you write? Yeah the banks got bailed out - but that was when Bush was still president. And it was the right thing to do. Remember, when the first big bank was allowed to fail we almost lost the economy.
They should have forced more reforms onto the banks sure, but do you think Obama is mostly at fault for them not doing that? Remember, Trump is trying to gut what consumer protection laws did pass.
If you don’t want someone from Wall Street taking over Treasury, maybe you want someone from academia. Paul Krugman, perhaps?
Oh yeah? Well I died in 2009, and thanks to my fellow Democrats, I’ve been voting ever since. Looks like the Republicans are onto me, though.
Pfft. That’s nothing. I’m the one who hacked the election machine, unfortunately my code had a big and said if (vote.last_name == “Clinton” && rand() <= 0.33) { vote.last_name == “Trump”;}
…
Oops. Sorry about that.
Well in 1975 or so Dakin Williams, brother of Tennessee, ran for governor of Illinois. He once campaigned in the Chicago graveyards because, he said, that’s where the votes were.
Given that to the best of my knowledge he never went to jail, he clearly was smarter than recent Illinois governors.
Cite? I don’t need a cite that the financial system couldn’t be permitted to disintegrate, just a cite that it was salvaged in the right way.
GM stayed in business as a result of government-led reorganization and the big banks could all have been kept open the same way. Regulators should have required insolvent or illiquid banks to acquire new capital. Instead the government played favorites, requiring recapitalization of some firms but not others. Bear Stearns was merely illiquid rather than insolvent, but its stock was forced to collapse — the government provided the money for this liquidity bailout but let JP Morgan Chase take the profit. And so on. Financiers, so eager to prattle about the “moral necessity” to confiscate home-owners’ homes, let the big bankers profit from the shenanigans which had brought the world to the brink of financial collapse. The bankers learned their “moral lesson”: Gamble it up!! Heads we win; Tails the taxpayer bails us out!
Don’t others think it strange that the partners of Bear Stearns were wiped out while Jamie Dimon et al were made even richer than they already were? Were billions stripped away from Bear Stearns partners just because the in-crowd bankers had a grudge?
I think the OP needs to be parsed a bit further. When one says bad for business, the general assumption is bad for all business. There could be bad for business, or bad for everyone, or bad for the economy or bad for everyone and the economy, etc. Personally, my objectivity took a hit during the Wall Street Bailouts and outright nose-dived during Ca$h for Klunkers (:smack:). Trying to find an objective answer to the OP, I did a random google search (yes, not clearly not the greatest debate method) for “Obama bad for business.” Apparently, google was thinking I was searching for “Obama bad for Small Business.” There are articles all over the mainstream media on this. This article in USA Today seems to be the most fact-ridden and comprehensive, but I did not check any of the figures. Small businesses hope to see Obama-backed rules scrapped However, from my own company’s F500 perspective, we have some of the same issues laid out there.
From an economic point of view, Obama’s record on GDP, particularly his actual GDP vs forecasted GDP doesn’t look good, seen at CNN Also in that link is the amount of debt incurred during his time in office, imo, the two leading indicators of a healthy economy. There is also another chart elsewhere of Obama GDP vs historical average, and he also misses this mark quite a bit. I point this out as an indicator for an argument I had made much earlier that doing nothing or minimally nothing and letting the market work itself out is probably the best* course of action. (best* = of course, debatable, but that’s not what I was replying to with this post).
Given that you must be elected governor of Illinois before you can be convicted and sent to prison, you have no point. He pulled less than 18% in a two man primary, so it looks like he was never in any danger.
Do you hold Bush appropriately accountable? The bailouts began during his administration. Why? Because it was necessary to save the economy. No banks = no lending. Just think about how paralyzed our economy would be if nobody can realistically get a car loan, a home loan, a small business loan, a student loan, …
This is incredibly weak.
The subheadings on all those pesky regulations mentioned in the article that Obama had used to keep his thumb on the economy?
OVERTIME
CLEAN WATER
CLEAN AIR
EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS
Don’t be coy. What Fortune 500 company is being so hamstrung by requirements to do things like maintain clear water and air that times were bad under Obama? Clearly, as such a big and impressive business, it wasn’t impacted by the overtime rules that affected people like your local McDonald’s manager.
Or was it those draconian employment regulations that the article mentioned?
These are poor metrics. For any president that had a robust GDP, they were largely in line with the rest of the world. I know the current president can’t manage to understand this, but the world’s economy is interconnected. You can only make a fair and relative determination of the GDP under Obama by comparing it to other countries facing the same world economic conditions. If you do the research, you will see that slow growth is now the norm.
There is a lot of history to demonstrate that a perfectly laissez faire economy does not reliably work. Economic “panics” were routine in the late 19th century.
It is not clear they appreciated the impact of Bear Stearns collapsing. However, if your point is that the government should have taken more control of the banks, or put them under more regulation, in return for bailing them out I agree with you completely. That might have helped solve the other problems you mention. It still would be a bailout, like with GM, but with more consequences.
As it is the banks look like they are about to do the same thing today - not mortgages this time, but probably sometime else. Short term gain is always going to beat long term stability without regulation.
In the long run, says Mr. Bank President, I’m retired with a big payout.
… deposited in the local [del]S&L[/del] credit union.
Yes. Short answer: People and business need to fail. We can learn something from failure. Conversely, people need to be able to declare bankruptcy from student loans. Business and banks who ran properly, safely, shouldn’t be punished. Look up thread about how the government was picking winners and losers. That shouldn’t be the government’s job, it should be to create neutral rules and fair accounting.
I think you should read the article more closely. Look at the cost to comply with regulation. Small business paid $11,724 per employee on average to comply with new regulations compared to $10k for all over size business, where small business manufacturers were obscenely hit with $34,671 per worker. Does that sound like good business to you?
From a large company standpoint, let’s say it’s 10k per employee, then for my corporation these extra regulations costs ~$4,500,000 just for our US operations. But screw’em right? We can afford it. Except that $4.5M looks like a giant line item and starts the outsourcing and automation engine again. For some of my company’s clients in the SMB space, they will lean towards layoffs before outsourcing to us. I personally don’t think Obama targeted small business, but for whatever reason they ended taking the blunt of the hit.
Have you ever contracted with the government? They’re terrible, especially state entities. I have long advocated not to do business with state and fed agencies because negotiating with them is like buying car from a stereotypical used car salesman, just in reverse. No matter what’s written in their procurement laws or in the CFR, they all act like they is nothing they can do, that it’s the way the government contracts, for at least 3-12 months before we threaten to walk, and then they start to deal. In this case pertinent to the article, a fed agency was looking to cut costs so they outsourced their basic call center to us to pass on the cost of overtime and min wage to us. The irony!
Well then if slow growth is the norm then Trump must be really blowing expectations over the economy out of the water. He has 3 quarters in a row of 3% growth. Of course, I don’t believe it’s all Trump or even if any Trump (though he should get some (perhaps minimal) credit for sentiment and growth due to stock market rally (and blame should those decline as well)). Frankly, it’s too early to tell. However, we had 8 years of Obama and the data is in. Other nations went into austerity mode, which clearly wasn’t the answer either (and something also that I strongly disagreed with). I think our free (or freer, if you will) market economy was better suited and would have recovered better and more quickly without Obama’s tinkering. If we were going to use stimulus at all, it should have been directed at the people who needed it, better unemployment benefits, help keeping people in their houses, job training, helping people move, i.e put the money in hands of the people and let them decide how to use it.
This isn’t the 19th century, we’ve learned a thing or two about economics since Adam Smith. From what we’ve learned and experienced from previous recessions, we should have come out much stronger and much more robust, but instead we got something much more tepid.