The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Sal Paradise 57]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_..._biden_stimulus

Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration's spending designed to combat rising joblessness.

uhhhh... they did? even all the people that said it wouldn't work?

[hblask 1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_..._biden_stimulusuhhhh... they did? even all the people that said it wouldn't work?

What Biden and Obama and team fail to understand is that the rest of us are not "guessing", we are appying well-established theories along with a healthy dose of common sense to predict the disasterous effects of their self-glorifying spending binge.The idea that Biden admits that they were "guessing" should frighten everyone. Next time they should probably consider asking a real economist, and ignore people like Krugman.

[Sal Paradise 57]

yep. "soo, looks like we wasted 787 billion dollars... oops!"

[vbnautilus 48]

To be fair, what Biden said was that "Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed." He's not saying they "guessed" about the effect of the stimulus, he's saying they made estimates about the starting conditions that they were dealing with. ( i realize defending biden is a lost cause, but the article's opening paragraph is a bit misleading)

[hblask 1]

To be fair, what Biden said was that "Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed." He's not saying they "guessed" about the effect of the stimulus, he's saying they made estimates about the starting conditions that they were dealing with. ( i realize defending biden is a lost cause, but the article's opening paragraph is a bit misleading)

Either statement is equally wrong and frightening. Economists do not "guess" about economics, they measure, analyze, and predict.I do believe that the Obama team was "guessing", because there doesn't seem to be a competent person among his economic advisors (or if there is, that person is being ignored).The question remains: why are we spending close to a trillion dollars on a "guess" when there are thousands of competent economists who could've given him actual information.Even Bill Maher, who practically orgasmed every time he mentioned Obama's name before the election, has finally had enough, and is telling Obama to get his act together.

[vbnautilus 48]

Either statement is equally wrong and frightening. Economists do not "guess" about economics, they measure, analyze, and predict.I do believe that the Obama team was "guessing", because there doesn't seem to be a competent person among his economic advisors (or if there is, that person is being ignored).The question remains: why are we spending close to a trillion dollars on a "guess" when there are thousands of competent economists who could've given him actual information.Even Bill Maher, who practically orgasmed every time he mentioned Obama's name before the election, has finally had enough, and is telling Obama to get his act together.

They do make estimates and predictions. Biden is just being colloquial about that with the term "guess". He's saying that they had made an estimate about what the unemployment rate would be at the time the bill passed, but it turned out to be higher than expected. No one has "actual information" about what the exact unemployment rate will be six months from now, you have to estimate and extrapolate. Not really a big deal.

[CaneBrain 95]

Even Bill Maher, who practically orgasmed every time he mentioned Obama's name before the election, has finally had enough, and is telling Obama to get his act together.

this is really misleading. I saw that segment on Real Time and Maher wants him to get his act together on things like Dont ask dont tell and government run health care. He wants Obama to be more like Bush and ram a liberal agenda down the GOP's throats.He was not criticizing Obama's economic policies beyond a "yeah, we should rein in spending a little I guess".The idea that economists are not guessing most of the time is fantasy too. The only thing I learned from my Econ 101 class at Wharton was that you are always guessing to a degree. Measure, analyze and predict = educated guess.

[hblask 1]

The idea that economists are not guessing most of the time is fantasy too. The only thing I learned from my Econ 101 class at Wharton was that you are always guessing to a degree. Measure, analyze and predict = educated guess.

Uh, sure, the people who have been consistently correct for the last 30 years have just been guessing all this time.There are certain statistical ranges that can be given to predictions, and a good economist can take these into account, and still make a prediction on the most likely result of some event. For example, the prediction that the threat of tax increases, plus an actual pork-filled federal spending binge would lead to higher unemployment could be given something like a 98% confidence. If you are just guessing, you may claim that these same two events would lead to *lower* unemployment.Another prediction is that huge increase in deficit spending plus a large increase in the money supply during a time of economic slowdown will lead to high inflation in 18-24 months unless agressive policies are pursued to prevent inflation. This also can be given a high degree of confidence, over 90%. People who are guessing just claim the economy will recover and prevent inflation.I could go on and on, but these two are relevant and timely and are good examples of the difference between economists and politicians.

[CaneBrain 95]

Uh, sure, the people who have been consistently correct for the last 30 years have just been guessing all this time.There are certain statistical ranges that can be given to predictions, and a good economist can take these into account, and still make a prediction on the most likely result of some event. For example, the prediction that the threat of tax increases, plus an actual pork-filled federal spending binge would lead to higher unemployment could be given something like a 98% confidence. If you are just guessing, you may claim that these same two events would lead to *lower* unemployment.Another prediction is that huge increase in deficit spending plus a large increase in the money supply during a time of economic slowdown will lead to high inflation in 18-24 months unless agressive policies are pursued to prevent inflation. This also can be given a high degree of confidence, over 90%. People who are guessing just claim the economy will recover and prevent inflation.I could go on and on, but these two are relevant and timely and are good examples of the difference between economists and politicians.

who the hell has been consistently correct about economics for the last 30 years and what cave were they hiding in from 1995--2009? from what I can tell the only two guys who were right about what just happened to America's economy were Peter Schiff and Max Baucus (Democrat from Montana I think). I agree with you about inflation but increase in money supply = inflation is one of economic thoeries' cornerstones. I didnt know anyone was disagreeing with that. I assume both Bush and Obama's administrations felt that the risk of inflation down the road was outweighed by the catastrophe of here and now.

[LincolnK 1]

Krugman at NYTimes.com:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/...;pagewanted=all

The debate over economic policy has taken a predictable yet ominous turn: the crisis seems to be easing, and a chorus of critics is already demanding that the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration abandon their rescue efforts.

err, what? aren't things still shitty and looking to get worse?he goes on to compare the period we're in with the US in 1933-1937 and Japan in the 1990's. I was under the impression the US tanked again in the late 30's and that Japan is facing their own economic problems now as a result of their spend-to-save plan during the previous decade. he goes on to say how we don't have to worry about inflation because of something I didn't bother to read.so I'll admit I tend to gloss over things and have only a basic understanding of what's happening in the world, but uhh... what?

[hblask 1]

who the hell has been consistently correct about economics for the last 30 years and what cave were they hiding in from 1995--2009? from what I can tell the only two guys who were right about what just happened to America's economy were Peter Schiff and Max Baucus (Democrat from Montana I think). I agree with you about inflation but increase in money supply = inflation is one of economic thoeries' cornerstones. I didnt know anyone was disagreeing with that. I assume both Bush and Obama's administrations felt that the risk of inflation down the road was outweighed by the catastrophe of here and now.

There are a lot of economists who have been consistently correct within the bounds allowed by statistical noise. Schiff and Baucus are the two visible ones, but they get their information from other sources. The Austrian school of economics, for example, has been remarkably correct for a very long time. They don't make predictions of the exact moment when an economy will change, but look at some of Ron Paul's old speeches -- he has been right on the money for decades. Dig up some old CATO papers from the 80s, they have also been correct again and again.When pushed on inflation, the Obama administration laughs it off and says deflation is a bigger threat. I can't wait until Biden tells us "everyone guessed wrong" on that one, too, lol.

[hblask 1]

Krugman at NYTimes.com:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/...;pagewanted=allerr, what? aren't things still shitty and looking to get worse?he goes on to compare the period we're in with the US in 1933-1937 and Japan in the 1990's. I was under the impression the US tanked again in the late 30's and that Japan is facing their own economic problems now as a result of their spend-to-save plan during the previous decade. he goes on to say how we don't have to worry about inflation because of something I didn't bother to read.so I'll admit I tend to gloss over things and have only a basic understanding of what's happening in the world, but uhh... what?

Yeah, pretty much. The Obama administration seems determined to repeat the mistakes of FDR in the 30s and the Japanese in the 90s. It's people like Krugman and Obama that caused those decade-long events.

[vbnautilus 48]

People who are guessing

I know there's no way you're going to resist using this rhetorical gem, but I'm pretty sure when Biden says "guess" he is just being chummy in reference to statistical predictions. A "guess" in the derisive sense that you are using it is a prediction based on no information, and that's doesn't seem to be what was done. You can argue that you have a better method of predicting, that their models used for prediction are flawed, etc., but one prediction is not more a guess than the other.

[hblask 1]

A "guess" in the derisive sense that you are using it is a prediction based on no information, and that's doesn't seem to be what was done.

So you are saying they didn't guess, they are just really, really stupid? Well, if you want to go with that, we can, but I was giving them the benefit of a doubt.

[vbnautilus 48]

So you are saying they didn't guess, they are just really, really stupid? Well, if you want to go with that, we can, but I was giving them the benefit of a doubt.

If "really really stupid" means "unable to predict the exact unemployment rate 6 months from now to within a tenth of percentage point" then yes. But I don't accept that making such predictions is a such an exact science.

[hblask 1]

If "really really stupid" means "unable to predict the exact unemployment rate 6 months from now to within a tenth of percentage point" then yes. But I don't accept that making such predictions is a such an exact science.

No, nobody expected them to get it that close, but they were wrong on both magnitude and direction at a time when a majority of real economists were telling them exactly what would really happen. The current unemployment rate is absolutely a predictable consequence of their policies, and in fact was discussed as the most likely result in this very forum, not to mention all the scholarly papers, op ed pieces, etc that were written saying the same thing. We don't need an exact science, but we would like them to be in the same ballpark, or even the same city or state. Every move Bush made for his last six months, plus every move Obama has made since then has been the wrong move, and for exactly the reasons their critics have specified. At some point, they need to listen to people with a track record, not the people who contributed to their election campaign.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

No, nobody expected them to get it that close, but they were wrong on both magnitude and direction at a time when a majority of real economists were telling them exactly what would really happen. The current unemployment rate is absolutely a predictable consequence of their policies, and in fact was discussed as the most likely result in this very forum, not to mention all the scholarly papers, op ed pieces, etc that were written saying the same thing. We don't need an exact science, but we would like them to be in the same ballpark, or even the same city or state. Every move Bush made for his last six months, plus every move Obama has made since then has been the wrong move, and for exactly the reasons their critics have specified. At some point, they need to listen to people with a track record, not the people who contributed to their election campaign.

Here's the problem that I have with your position. You may be right about all of their policies being wrong, I'm not going to debate that point. What I will say is that the fact that the unemployment rate is what it is in no way proves that those policies are wrong. Economics is often referred to as the dismal science. It really isn't a science because it's often impossible to quantify cause and effect since it's impossible to isolate the effects of one thing in a dynamic economic system.In the time frame that we're currently looking at no policy of any governement would have been able to affect the unemployment rate in the short term in much of a positive manner. Many predictions that I was seeing 6 months ago were predicting even higher unemployment numbers than we currently have.I guess what I'm saying is that using the current unemployment numbers to make your point about whether the policies are good or bad isn't a strong argument.

[vbnautilus 48]

Here's the problem that I have with your position. You may be right about all of their policies being wrong, I'm not going to debate that point. What I will say is that the fact that the unemployment rate is what it is in no way proves that those policies are wrong. Economics is often referred to as the dismal science. It really isn't a science because it's often impossible to quantify cause and effect since it's impossible to isolate the effects of one thing in a dynamic economic system.In the time frame that we're currently looking at no policy of any governement would have been able to affect the unemployment rate in the short term in much of a positive manner. Many predictions that I was seeing 6 months ago were predicting even higher unemployment numbers than we currently have.I guess what I'm saying is that using the current unemployment numbers to make your point about whether the policies are good or bad isn't a strong argument.

And in fact Biden's whole point was referring to what happened before their legislation was passed - he was saying that by the time their stimulus was passed things had already gotten worse than expected.

[El Guapo 8]

I guess what I'm saying is that using the current unemployment numbers to make your point about whether the policies are good or bad isn't a strong argument.

I am not fully caught up with the last few days here, but Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Historically unemployment has increased and financial markets have rebounded, well before the recession is over. Unemployment tends to continue rising slowly after the recession is over. This has been the case in all but on recession since WWII.

[hblask 1]

Here's the problem that I have with your position. You may be right about all of their policies being wrong, I'm not going to debate that point. What I will say is that the fact that the unemployment rate is what it is in no way proves that those policies are wrong. Economics is often referred to as the dismal science. It really isn't a science because it's often impossible to quantify cause and effect since it's impossible to isolate the effects of one thing in a dynamic economic system.In the time frame that we're currently looking at no policy of any governement would have been able to affect the unemployment rate in the short term in much of a positive manner. Many predictions that I was seeing 6 months ago were predicting even higher unemployment numbers than we currently have.I guess what I'm saying is that using the current unemployment numbers to make your point about whether the policies are good or bad isn't a strong argument.

I agree with part of this -- the actual spending is not what caused the unemployment numbers to go up. It was the *threat* of higher taxes and higher spending that is causing the sudden upsurge in unemployment -- this is what was predicted, and what has come true. Businesses saw their expenses going up at the same time money was being moved from productive sectors to non-productive sectors. Do you think they will hire under these conditions, or avoid making long-term financial commitments? The answer is obvious and accounts for most of the rise in unemployment. This is a perfect case where theory = actual result, and for all the right reasons.As for the actual plan, this also has failed to have a positive impact on unemployment, also for the predicted reasons. The main reason is that there is only one theory by which such spending could even theoretically work, and that is if the spending caused a sudden surge of economic activity *now* that grows the economy enough to compensate for the reduced economic activity later and that this spending was in areas that are more productive than the private sector provides. As I and others predicted, this has not happened, again for the exact reasons we predicted: the government is incapable of spending money in a timely fashion. Less than 10% of the money has been spent, and it will not reach 50% until well into 2010. What this means is that 1. we have the damaging effects of the threat of future taxes, 2. people actually *reduce* spending while the government puts that money into a holding pattern, 3. the sudden increase in the federal debt reduces the values of the dollar, and 4. people have to pay the taxes for this program before the money is actually spent. This part hasn't played itself out yet, but where this is going is obvious.So yeah, when we can make accurate predictions based on logic and common sense and historical data, and the actual numbers match those predictions, then yes, it is time to admit that the program was a failure. We'll see more in the next year, of course, as the evidence of that failure becomes more obvious, but when the case is this cut-and-dried, do we really have to wait until the last penny drops to say "ok, that didn't work"? All the historical data, all the accurate models, we have to ignore those? And wait for this administration to do more stupid stuff that wrecks the economy worse? My answer is no, we're not waiting, we are going to point out their errors during the planning stages AND as the results reveal themselvses. We can't afford to wait until sometime next year to point out what a disaster this program is, because by then they will try to shove even more of this nonsense down our throats.As for the "dismal science" it is only dismal in the sense that it is based on probabilities, which allows stupid people (*cough *krugman* *cough*) to call themselves economists and just spend their whole career saying "sure I missed, but it would've been worse without this". In reality, a good economist can even predict what percentage of the time they will be correct based on probability models. And for certain narrow subject areas, such as the unemployment rate under the threat of tax increases, more regulations, and political-based competition, it's not difficult to predict the direction things will go.

[hblask 1]

And in fact Biden's whole point was referring to what happened before their legislation was passed - he was saying that by the time their stimulus was passed things had already gotten worse than expected.

Sure, right Biden. At any rate, imcompetence is imcompetence is imcompetence -- no matter which timeframe he was talking about. The truth is, most economists were correct, the Obama administration was wrong. There is no other way to spin it.

[Loismustdie 0]

Obama +1That historic speech influenced the Iranian election. Here is Obama's comment on it.Yes, Obama is taking credit for the Iranian election results.

This Obama fellow truly is amazing, and the press that covers him should all get prizes. I laughed out loud today when I saw Glenn Beck on TV hold up a picture of a Pulitzer and say "See this, NYTimes? This is a Pulitzer prize. You can EARN one of these by covering stories!!" I was pleased to see Bill Maher call Obama out. I don't agree with Maher on much but slowly I have seen a bit of a shift, maybe, just maybe people will start to realize what we knew all along- this dude is a huckster politician at best, arrogant and spineless all at once. What a waste of four years of history.

[Loismustdie 0]

So you are saying they didn't guess, they are just really, really stupid? Well, if you want to go with that, we can, but I was giving them the benefit of a doubt.

I will raise you, not only are they not stupid they are purposeful. Obama needs unrest and fear to sell his brand of bullshit as much as Bush ever did.

[hblask 1]

Another day, another broken promise. Yawn.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/po...cs-white_house/The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies. (continued)

[Nimue1995 1]

Another day, another broken promise. Yawn.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/po...cs-white_house/The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies. (continued)

This is far more disturbing to me than the economic crisis and what I hated about the Bush administration. It's part of the continuning secrecy and overreaching by the executive branch that got going under Bush and is growing under Obama.