Thread: Failure of Obamanomics

Originally Posted by michael h

I don't disagree they were protectionist and still are but Germany has a few trick up their sleeves to protect without abandoning free trade.

I never wanted Japanese goods in our market ... their market was closed. The US has no such loyalties to country and citizens. The long term plan came to fruition with good lobbyists and both parties selling the benefits of NAFTA. They were unwilling to step back and protect the economy after failure of economic policy. Still they hang on to China like a long lost brother.

I don't disagree with you perse. I was just pointing out that the reason manufacturing did not decline in Germany and Japan while it did in the US was due to the different economic conditions which existed in the respective nations and therefore the reason for manufacturing decline in the US is remains valid.

Originally Posted by Lost Time

I don't disagree with you perse. I was just pointing out that the reason manufacturing did not decline in Germany and Japan while it did in the US was due to the different economic conditions which existed in the respective nations and therefore the reason for manufacturing decline in the US is remains valid.

Germany in my opinion is quite complex and loyal to their citizens ... note both Germany and Japan (WW2). Japans wages ... not that high ... Germany ... way higher but flat in growth. A lot of cooperation between unions and manufacturers in Germany. The US with lower compensation had a much more adversarial relationship.

Corporations plans to exit the US have much to do with cheap labor and long term plans ... profits were good and a plan starting in the 60's would not have known the bottom line in the future. China itself may have been the target ... not just for cheap labor ... but power ... hence the exchange of our economy for theirs. One cannot truly know what's in the minds of the elite ... conspiratorially speaking ... but I suspect it was the potential of controlling China.

Obamanomics certainly is a failure:


Michael J. Boskin: The Obama Presidency by the Numbers - WSJ.com

If we look at point #4, where the federal debt is 67% of the GDP, isn't that higher than most of the European countries that are facing their debt crisis? Could this be why S&P downgraded the federal debt?

The other most troublesome from my view is point #10. A lot of the population is dependent on the government, too many. If we could just change 1/2 of that population to self-sufficient and contributing to the pot, we'd be in a much better situation, IMHO.

The most telling part is that the economy has been losing ground with the advent of this policies and regulations.

I prefer Bush as the main reason for our mess, but if you want to blame Obama for the slow recovery, that's cool. Bush and Obama has failed to destroy one main factor of our past two bubbles. Cheap and Easy Credit I think having our debt been nearly doubled by Bush is worst then having a downgrade

Originally Posted by Cudorp

I prefer Bush as the main reason for our mess, but if you want to blame Obama for the slow recovery, that's cool. Bush and Obama has failed to destroy one main factor of our past two bubbles. Cheap and Easy Credit

I'll have to disagree with both of you ... I'll blame Clinton.

Originally Posted by michael h

I'll have to disagree with both of you ... I'll blame Clinton.

Yes, it is sad that he exported jobs, but the worst thing about is disguising the mess by allowing the easy credit, so people would assume there was no money taken of circulation in this country.

If we never did Print money, people would have less cash to buy cheap goods, which would dry up China's exports

Originally Posted by Cudorp

I prefer Bush as the main reason for our mess, but if you want to blame Obama for the slow recovery, that's cool. Bush and Obama has failed to destroy one main factor of our past two bubbles. Cheap and Easy Credit I think having our debt been nearly doubled by Bush is worst then having a downgrade

I dunno how you can blame Bush over Obama, when on Obama's watch, the debt pretty much doubled. Much slower increase in the debt when Bush was in office.

All of that is overridden by the fact that it's congress that spends the money, not so much the administration. Perhaps that's why congressional approval rating are lower than the administration's approval ratings?

Blaming Clinton has some merit to it, in that's when the Glass-Steigall Act of 1932 was repealed (which separated investment banking and commercial banking), but again, that was by congressional act, signed into law by then president Clinton.

Originally Posted by Cudorp

Yes, it is sad that he exported jobs, but the worst thing about is disguising the mess by allowing the easy credit, so people would assume there was no money taken of circulation in this country.

Easy credit gave us the housing boom ... which could have lasted longer with proper regulations. Still a bubble in the end ... but an extension of the boom would have been better.

I can't see a way to escape easy credit with huge current account deficits ... you can regulate it ... but if you regulate to much ... you lose the benefit of the capital. Also where do you invest the capital? What profitable ventures exist here while cheap labor markets have access to the economy? It just makes things cheaper to be produced overseas in China.