Shocker: Second Quarter GDP Revised Downward

Okay, that’s not a shocker to anyone who’s actually paying attention. It wasn’t even a shocker to the supposedly expert economists upon which America’s Leftists depend — this time. But, while those “experts” expected a downward revision to 1.1 percent growth, the downward revision came in at an even more anemic 1.0 percent growth. And that after the Q1 GDP was revised downward to a flat-line 0.4 percent growth.

Ed Morrissey notes:

The change mainly came from inventories, which the previous estimate overshot. Real final sales of domestic goods — GDP less inventory adjustments — remained at 1.2%, making it a rare quarter in the last two years where this measure outstripped the topline GDP growth rate. Most of the GDP reports have been amped up by inventory expansions. Another bright spot is a revision in consumer spending, which increased 0.4% rather than the initial 0.1% estimate. However, exports got downgraded to a 3.1% increase from an initial estimate of 6.0%. [emphasis mine]

The radical Leftist Perry (who runs the laughably named Bridging the Gap blogsite), has made numerous claims that businesses aren’t producing or expanding because they want Barack Obama to lose his re-election bid. In Perry’s mind, businesses hate Obama more than they like their own bottom lines. But let’s continue to examine Perry’s delusion, shall we? According to Perry, Conservatives hate Obama because he’s black and we’re raaaaacists. So we want Obama to fail because we’re raaaaacists. And businesses are refusing to expand and hire because they hate Obama. So, that means all these businesses are raaaaacists. Which of course means the radical Leftist Perry doesn’t even have to engage his brain to think. (Barack Obama is 50 percent Caucasian and less than 50 percent black. My grandson is 50 percent black and less than 50 percent Caucasian.)

Let’s look at the facts, shall we? “Most of the GDP reports have been amped up by inventory expansions.” That means businesses have been producing more product in the US than they have been able to sell for most of the quarters since the recession began. Businesses have laid off large numbers of people but still have been outproducing demand. Despite all the layoffs and closures, businesses cannot sell everything they produce as it is. It would be foolish for businesses to expand in that environment. If a business cannot sell what it produces, the business needs to reduce its production, not expand it.

An overproduction (despite a spate of layoffs) can be acceptable and harmless in the short-run. Once purchases return to levels greater than production, the amassed inventory can be dwindled down to normal size again without the need for overtime or a too-quickly expanded work-force. But the longer a business overproduces demand, the more harm comes to the business. Doubly so in some states, which still levy an inventory tax on all the goods the business has warehoused.

Since most quarterly GDP numbers have been inflated by businesses outpacing demand and building up inventory, and some states levy an inventory tax, it would behoove businesses in those states to go on another spate of layoffs to reduce their tax burden and remain profitable, or at least lose less money. And since most quarterly GDP numbers have been inflated by businesses outpacing demand and building up inventory, the radical Leftist Perry’s claims that businesses are refusing to expand because they hate Obama is a verifiably false conspiracy theory.

Oh, by the way, third quarter GDP prospects appear no better than the first 6 months. It seems over-taxing and over-regulating and budget-busting spending does exactly what Conservatives said it does, and exactly the opposite of what radical Leftists like Perry (and the useless Paul Krugman) claim.
________
Cross-Post

57 Comments

  1. Gee – a demand-driven recession, with the wealthy and businesses not investing because consumers are not buying. And it’s starting to worsen as the stimulus spending ceases.

    I know – let’s cut government spending some more!

  2. Gee, the guy sitting on a thumbtack is starting to feel the pain again now that the novacaine is wearing off. I know, let’s all act like Liberals and pump him full of novacaine again instead of, you know, telling the guy to get off the thumbtack!

  3. I realise you’re Perpetually Baffled, jh, but the w1ngnut prescription is to shove the thumbtack harder and harder in. And, as the past experience with recessions has shown, a stimulus is medicine, not just novacaine.

    So a better analogy would be that we have a guy with, say, a bad systemic infection. Obama gave him some antibiotics, but because of Republicans screaming about the cost, not enough. Now they’ve run out and the guy is starting to go back down hill. The sane idea would be to give him more antibiotics until his system can get cloear and start working by itself. The teabaggers want to bleed him on the grounds that they think he has too many white blood cells…

  4. Still a point there to address, John. If businesses are overproducing, that means demand is down. And it’s well established that the poor and middle class spend more of their money than the wealthy. Isn’t this an argument for demand-side stimulus (in the form of food stamps, welfare, and unemployment, as well as payroll tax cuts) rather than supply-side stimulus (in the form of corporate and upper-income tax cuts)? And especially an argument against tax hikes on the 47% of Americans who don’t make enough to pay income tax, which, if I understand correctly, is the latest policy proposal from conservative pundits and presidential candidates?

  5. it’s well established that the poor and middle class spend more of their money than the wealthy.

    That’s part of how you’re looking at it wrong, Jeff. The poor spend more of their money as a percentage than the middle class, and the middle class spend more of their money as a percentage than the upper class. But the upper class spend more real dollars than the middle class and the middle class likewise spend more real dollars than the poor. That’s key. You want to make it more possible for the big spenders to loosen up their spending and investing, then the others will follow.

    And especially an argument against tax hikes on the 47% of Americans who don’t make enough to pay income tax, which, if I understand correctly, is the latest policy proposal from conservative pundits and presidential candidates?

    I have not seen any Conservatives advocating any tax increases, but I understand what you’re saying. Since half of the US workforce isn’t even paying any federal income taxes, they are more readily willing to advocate higher taxes on the wealth generators, thereby killing wealth generation and the GDP. Half the US workforce don’t have any skin in the game, and they should. But that’s an issue to resolve later, after the recession is fixed, not at this point in the economy.

    What you’re suggesting is reverse of how things actually work. Let me paint a picture to explain.

    There is oil in a region and people want the oil companies to come get it. One group of people want to build gas stations, grocery stores, shopping malls, schools, doctors offices, fast food restaurants, oil industry suppliers, etc, in the hopes of getting an oil company to come in. Another group wants to make taxes and regulations such that the oil company finds it desirable to come in, knowing that all the support structure will follow the oil company into the region on an as-needed basis.

    And that’s the difference between a Liberal “wag the dog” approach and a Conservative “get out of the way” approach. “Get out of the way” works far better and far more often than “wag the dog.”

  6. I think this is part of the answer as to why the GDP was revised downward, another part is myriad of Regulations by the Gov’t that suck money away from jobcreation and add nothing in overall value to improving the economy. I google over regulation and this article stuck out like a sore thumb. The best comparison to this would be over loading a pick-up truck. If it isn’t modified to carry its rated capacity, you make get away with a few overloads, but eventually you’ll break a spring.

    http://jhpplnewsandnotes.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/job-killing-uncertainty-in-the-overregulated-obama-economy/

    Job-Killing Uncertainty in the Overregulated Obama Economy

    The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today released Job-Killing Uncertainty in the Obama Economy, a new video in which CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder – an AmericanJobCreators.com participant – underscores a major reason why job creators aren’t hiring in the Obama Economy: uncertainty caused by new government regulations. To comply with just one of the hundreds of new regulations in the President’s health insurance law, CKE will be forced to spend approximately $1.5 million to replace all restaurant menus, according to Mr. Puzder. That’s 17% of what it invested in new restaurants in 2010, and it’s all capital the Obama Administration will divert from job creation.

    via Job-Killing Uncertainty in the Overregulated Obama Economy.

    So, Mr Puzder who may wanted to hire new people, renovate a restaurant or build in a new location and hire, is forced to revise the menus to comply with heatlh regulations. This regulation seems to be saying you are too stupid to know what foods are good for you or not. I would surmise that the majority of the people go to his restaurant for his specialties. Reading what is good or bad for you may not do a thing to dissuade you from what you planned to eat. At this point in the customers lives, they should know what are fatty foods, starchy foods, healthy foods, or just plain junk will not push a person one way or another. Big Brother Gov’t intruded into the workings of that restaurant which managed to kill productivity.

    It’s like I bought a table saw about a year ago. Of course included in the price was a blade guard. That guard says to me the nanny state thinks I’m too stupid to figure out a 10 inch saw blade rotating at hundreds of rotation per minute can cut my fingers off. If you have no respect for something that can do that much damage, then you’re too stupid to use it.

  7. That’s part of how you’re looking at it wrong, Jeff. The poor spend more of their money as a percentage than the middle class, and the middle class spend more of their money as a percentage than the upper class. But the upper class spend more real dollars than the middle class and the middle class likewise spend more real dollars than the poor.

    Christ, your illiteracy is laughable.

    Say the rich spend 40% and teh middle class 60%. A rich person with a million dollars will spend $400,000. Take that million off him and give it to 20 middle class people, and they will spend $3,000 each.

    Now bear with me, because this appears to be the point you have problems with – 20 x $3,000 IS GREATER THAN 1 x $400,000. Use a calculator if you have problems following that.

    M0ron.

  8. Say the rich spend 40% and teh middle class 60%. A rich person with a million dollars will spend $400,000. Take that million off him and give it to 20 middle class people, and they will spend $3,000 each.

    Now bear with me, because this appears to be the point you have problems with – 20 x $3,000 IS GREATER THAN 1 x $400,000. Use a calculator if you have problems following that.

    M0ron

    Better check your math, Pho. You’re missing a zero, somewhere.

    I believe the reason that this demand driven recession is so bad is because of overall debt, private and public as a percentage of GDP. I neither have the time nor the inclination to do the research necessary to speak convincingly about this, but I heard an interview with an Australian economist, Steven Keen, that addresses the topic. Google him, he says some interesting things.

  9. Sean Hannity dug up the video of then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), on the campaign trail, saying that the first 42 Presidents created a $5 trillion national debt, and then criticized the 43rd President for adding another $4 trillion to the national debt in eight years.

    Senator Obama said that it was irresponsible to add that much debt, it was unpatriotic to pile on that much debt. Then, as our 44th President, Mr Obama has matched the $4 trillion added to the debt under our 43rd President, but he’s managed to do it in just 2½ years.

    I guess it’s somehow responsible and patriotic now.

  10. jcw wrote:

    I believe the reason that this demand driven recession is so bad is because of overall debt, private and public as a percentage of GDP.

    One of the things that helped to frustrate the “success” of the stimulus plan is that the public did not behave as the President and his economists anticipated they would behave:


    Americans earning and saving more

    By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporter, February 28, 2011: 10:10 AM ET

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Americans earned more than expected in January, thanks to tax changes that boosted income, but consumers chose to add more to their savings at the start of year.

    Personal income surged 1% in January, following a 0.4% increase in December, according to data released Monday by the Commerce Department. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com were predicting a modest increase of just 0.3% in the month.

    But consumers chose to stash the extra cash, rather than spend it. Americans saved $677.1 billion during the first month of the year, compared with $620.9 billion the prior month. And personal savings as a percentage of disposable income rose to 5.8% from 5.4% in December.

    Meanwhile, spending by individuals ticked up just 0.2%, compared to a 0.5% increase the prior month. Economists were expecting an increase of 0.4% in January.

    “Consumers remain in a very cautious mood,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo. “They went out and splurged during the holiday season, but they’re not in the mood to do that again. In order to see spending grow faster than income, the economy needs stronger job growth.”

    Income was lifted by a reduction in employee social security contributions, which was part of the payroll tax cut passed by lawmakers in late 2010, as well as the expiration of the Making Work Pay tax provisions, rather than higher salaries and wages.

    In fact, private sector wage and salaries increased by $14.8 billion, or 0.3% last month, compared to a 0.4% rise in December.

    This has been a trend ever since the beginning of the recession. In uncertain economic times, people became more conservative and more cautious with their money, when what the President hoped they would do was go out and spend it. Thus, even though the stimulus provided some temporary jobs, consumer behavior slowed the velocity of money by parking a larger portion of what they earned in savings accounts.

    We’ve also seen that the public paid off more of their bills, while they had the money, so those bills wouldn’t be hanging over their heads, but many businesses and corporations slowed down the velocity of money themselves by saving that money rather than spending and investing it.

    A good part of the recession was caused by irresponsibility, by people borrowing beyond their means and banks lending beyond the ability of borrowers to repay. Then, when that came crashing down, a lot of people looked at what happened and figured out that the time had come to be more responsible, to live within their means and reduce or eliminate their debts. The trouble with that is that individuals behaving more responsibly has the aggregate effect of reducing demand, and thus the velocity of money. Yet the Nobel Prize winning economists who calculated up the President’s stimulus program, the ones who said that borrowing nearly a trillion bucks from the Chinese would add enough money to the economy to hold unemployment down to 8%, never anticipated that.

    But, then again, why should we have expected them to? The economy is controlled by the aggregate of decisions taken by over 200 million people, people with different needs, people with different wants, and people with different ideas. The oh-so-wise economic planners of the old Soviet Union thought that they could control and plan their economy, and even in a totalitarian system, they couldn’t anticipate everything or control everything; why should anyone think that, in a free country, our professional economists could anticipate, and our government control, the economic decisions of 200 million people?

  11. “Now bear with me, because this appears to be the point you have problems with – 20 x $3,000 IS GREATER THAN 1 x $400,000. Use a calculator if you have problems following that.

    M0ron.”

    Now bear with me. 20 x $3,000 is $60,000. That would be $340,000 less than $400,000. But that really dosen’t matter. The operative words were “take that million”. That’s why librarians shouldn’t bother with economics, not only is their math way wrong but their ideas are based in stealing.

    Moron.

  12. Dana said;

    “Yet the Nobel Prize winning economists who calculated up the President’s stimulus program, the ones who said that borrowing nearly a trillion bucks from the Chinese would add enough money to the economy to hold unemployment down to 8%, never anticipated that.

    But, then again, why should we have expected them to?”

    That is what I was trying to explaine to the two P’s in another thread. Please don’t tell me what “experts” or Nobel Economists say when they themselves have never been in business and have no clue how markets react in the real, not theoretical world. How do we keep allowing people with degrees in law, journalism, sociology, community organizing, et al run our economy? Just because some egg head has a degree from Harvard, Princeton or Yale suddenly he’s an economic guru? How does an Ivy League education make one an expert on everything? Hell, I have a degree in economics and let me tell you: The real world has very little similarity to the theories I was taught. Reading books or writing books will never replace going out and doing it. Experience is what counts and they don’t have any.

  13. Hoagie-John, I think you are having difficulty distinguishing between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Economists tend to focus on the former, like PiaToR as well, you on the latter.

    But let’s get down to brass tacks, specifically, addressing the so-called Texas miracle from a macroeconomic/political point of view:

    “As expected, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has announced that he is running for president. And we already know what his campaign will be about: faith in miracles.

    Some of these miracles will involve things that you’re liable to read in the Bible. But if he wins the Republican nomination, his campaign will probably center on a more secular theme: the alleged economic miracle in Texas, which, it’s often asserted, sailed through the Great Recession almost unscathed thanks to conservative economic policies. And Mr. Perry will claim that he can restore prosperity to America by applying the same policies at a national level.

    So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment.

    It’s true that Texas entered recession a bit later than the rest of America, mainly because the state’s still energy-heavy economy was buoyed by high oil prices through the first half of 2008. Also, Texas was spared the worst of the housing crisis, partly because it turns out to have surprisingly strict regulation of mortgage lending.

    Despite all that, however, from mid-2008 onward unemployment soared in Texas, just as it did almost everywhere else.

    In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the ”job-killing” Affordable Care Act. …. “

    Who wrote this, and do you agree with it?

    This is an important piece, because it is an attempt to get at the truth, which demonstrates that Governor Rick Perry is not what he would like to make himself appear to be, and which demonstrates that the Texas experience is hardly the model that will help pull us out of this near double-dip recession, exacerbated by the irresponsible Republican Party holding the nation hostage over the debt ceiling debate, thus further weakening our ability to recover by having our credit rating reduced.

    Getting at the truth is important in putting in place policies which will pull us out of the weak growth experienced in Q2, as per the title piece in this thread.

  14. Better check your math, Pho. You’re missing a zero, somewhere.

    True enough. It should be 200 middle class people – the m0ronity comes in insisting 200 x $3000 is less than $400,000

  15. This has been a trend ever since the beginning of the recession. In uncertain economic times, people became more conservative and more cautious with their money, when what the President hoped they would do was go out and spend it. Thus, even though the stimulus provided some temporary jobs, consumer behavior slowed the velocity of money by parking a larger portion of what they earned in savings accounts.

    This was already covered by the MMT stuff I pointed you at, Dana. Yes, they try to pay down debt in the middle of a recession. But the private sector as a whole cannot pay down debt unless the government runs a deficit (unless there is a trade surplus, which there isn’t).

    How does an Ivy League education make one an expert on everything? Hell, I have a degree in economics and let me tell you: The real world has very little similarity to the theories I was taught. Reading books or writing books will never replace going out and doing it. Experience is what counts and they don’t have any.

    Hey, d1mwit, how much experience do you have running a sovereign economy, then? When exactly were you responsible for pronting money, f0ol?

  16. Hoagie wrote:

    How do we keep allowing people with degrees in law, journalism, sociology, community organizing, et al run our economy?

    Well, that’s just it: they don’t run our economy. Oh, they think that they do, and are great at coming up with all sorts of plans and proposals and projects, but they don’t actually control it, because they can’t control people.

  17. Perry quoted the Democratic Party Talking Point:

    So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment.

    We know that’s what the Democrats would like for people to believe, but you have the Governor of a state with the largest job growth in the nation, versus a President with a significant net job loss, despite a massive stimulus program which he told us would hold unemployment down to 8%.

    The Democrats, Perry included, realize that President Obama’s record is one of failure, so their only hope is to tear down the record of his opponents. Maybe, just maybe, if the Democrats can trash and demonize whomever winds up the Republican Presidential nominee, and make the election about their demagogued image of that Republican, President Obama can squeak out a win. But if the election is about President Obama’s record in office and actual job performance, he loses.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if the economy turns around, and people see noticeable improvement, which includes a significant reduction in unemployment and the end to the general fears many people have that they won’t be able to keep their jobs, President Obama will be re-elected, regardless of whom the Republicans nominate. But if that doesn’t happen, he will be defeated. And the Congressional Budget Office, whose statistics you so often tout, doesn’t seem to think that President Obama is going to get much political help from the economy.

  18. Pingback: I’m sure that this is just a coincidence! « Common Sense Political Thought

  19. Pingback: I’m sure that this is just a coincidence! « Truth Before Dishonor

  20. This was already covered by the MMT stuff I pointed you at, Dana. Yes, they try to pay down debt in the middle of a recession. But the private sector as a whole cannot pay down debt unless the government runs a deficit (unless there is a trade surplus, which there isn’t).

    The economist I mentioned, Steven Keen, would agree with this. In the interview I heard, however, he said the current problem in the US is that private debt was 270% GDP and until it comes down to around 100% he thinks this recession or a Japan like malaise will stick around. He mentioned that he thought that government debt substituting for private debt would hide the real problem which was unrealistic debt taken on overinflated asset value. I’ll try to find the interview. I thought it was quite good.

    [Comment edited to fix formatting problem; no changes made in the text. -- DRP]

  21. Dana Pico says:
    27 August 2011 at 08:00
    Sean Hannity dug up the video of then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), on the campaign trail, saying that the first 42 Presidents created a $5 trillion national debt, and then criticized the 43rd President for adding another $4 trillion to the national debt in eight years.

    Senator Obama said that it was irresponsible to add that much debt, it was unpatriotic to pile on that much debt. Then, as our 44th President, Mr Obama has matched the $4 trillion added to the debt under our 43rd President, but he’s managed to do it in just 2½ years.
    I guess it’s somehow responsible and patriotic now.

    It appears the muslim came into office thinking all he needed was words and platitudes. No one said anything about work and understanding the job. But then he got the credit card that had no limit, and no responsibility. BO and MO found out the credit card came with Teleprompters, airplanes, convoys and a new $2M Bus. And off they went. Oh, he was supposed to get responsibility too, but he passed on that one.

  22. “It appears the muslim came into office thinking all he needed was words and platitudes.”

    Still a birther left, named Yorkshire! If Obama is a Muslim, you must be too!

    “But then he got the credit card that had no limit, and no responsibility. BO and MO found out the credit card came with Teleprompters, airplanes, convoys and a new $2M Bus. And off they went. Oh, he was supposed to get responsibility too, but he passed on that one.”

    Looks like our friend Yorkshire needs the same reminder one more time:

    Now let us see if you and your wingnut friends on here can digest some facts for a change. Stop cluttering your grey matter with myths!

  23. Perry, your Obama graph has been debunked nine ways to Sunday. You’ve been told about it repeatedly and you’ve been linked to the debunking, yet you continue to put up the Obama-lie-filled graph as if it actually means something. The chart is a lie. The chart is a lie. The chart is a lie. And it doesn’t matter how many times lying radical Leftists (treble redundancy) such as yourself put the chart up. The chart is still a lie and has still been debunked. So, take that liar’s chart and shove it.

  24. “We know that’s what the Democrats would like for people to believe, but you have the Governor of a state with the largest job growth in the nation, versus a President with a significant net job loss, despite a massive stimulus program which he told us would hold unemployment down to 8%.”

    Given the depth of the Great Recession he inherited from the spend-thrift war-hawk Repubs, Dana, I think it is remarkable that Obama and the Dems were able to bring unemployment down from 10.4% to 9% with TARP and the ARRA! Moreover, without a jobs plan, the Repubs would be happy to see unemployment rise again, as a prelude for the 2012 elections. It continues to be party over country for these disloyal Repubs! Yet Dana and his Repub friends continue to claim that these programs did not work. The reality puts a lie to this claim:

    (h/t Henry Whistler of Iowa Liberal)

  25. Perry says:
    27 August 2011 at 13:26 (Edit)

    I don’t know whether it is a coincidence or not, but to too simply make a correlation with the political party in power is naive, to say the least.

    The trick is to find a chart to promote your position. Unfortunately, in your eyes, BO can do no wrong. Therefore, you find anything pro-BO and promote it as the gospel. And what is the citation on this chart.

  26. It continues to be party over country for these disloyal Repubs!

    It is impossible to “bridge the gap” when you continuously spew forth with your hate-filled, lie-filled, radical Socialist ad hominem attacks like that, Perry. Not that you were ever honestly interested in “bridging the gap,” because you never were.

  27. Not that you were ever honestly interested in “bridging the gap,” because you never were.

    And that’s precisely it, in a nutshell.

  28. Perry, your Obama graph has been debunked nine ways to Sunday. You’ve been told about it repeatedly and you’ve been linked to the debunking, yet you continue to put up the Obama-lie-filled graph as if it actually means something. The chart is a lie. The chart is a lie. The chart is a lie.

    Bear in mind that the person making this claim is a documented liar.

  29. The lengths — or is it depths? — to which our friends on the left will go to claim that, yes, President Barack Obama has been a tremendous success, are amazing. His economic policies did not do what he said they’d do, and didn’t even come close, so now their wholly unprovable argument is that things would have been much, much worse had the President’s policies not been put into place.

    And, of course, if our friends on the left cannot prove that the President’s policies saved us from something much worse, we cannot prove that they didn’t; absent some window into an alternate quantum universe in which John McCain had won the election, died in January of 2009 and was succeeded by Sarah Palin, there is simply no way to know — know, as opposed to speculate or hypothesize or project — what would have happened.

    But, at least in 2010, the voters did not seem to accept the Democrats’ arguments that they saved the economy and saved the world. Perhaps the arguments of our friends on the left will be more persuasive in 2012, but I doubt it. To repeat what I said above, if the economy turns around, and people see noticeable improvement, which includes a significant reduction in unemployment and the end to the general fears many people have that they won’t be able to keep their jobs, President Obama will be re-elected, regardless of whom the Republicans nominate. But if that doesn’t happen, he will be defeated.

    Perry, do you really disagree with that?

  30. Bear in mind that the New Zealand Socialist and professional book putter backer is incapable of documenting much of anything, and his documentations, such as they are, have holes big enough to drive Australian road trains through them. Not that any right-minded person needs reminding, since the New Zealand Socialist and professional book putter backer has been banned from multiple blogsites for his utter mendacity and outrageous falsehood filled attacks.

  31. Bear in mind that the New Zealand Socialist and professional book putter backer is incapable of documenting much of anything, and his documentations, such as they are, have holes big enough to drive Australian road trains through them.

    Once again, here are the facts.

    You lose, liar.

  32. The Phoenician wrote:

    Comment in mod again – really, the filter here is just wierd.

    No, the word “liar” triggers the moderation queue.

  33. No, New Zealand Socialist and professional book putter backer, linking to a speech given by a governor of the Federal Reserve that was given in December of 2008 carries with it very little weight. The Federal Reserve is headed by Ben Bernanke, of the very outrageous QE1, QE2 and nearly QE3 fiascoes. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve refuses to open its books for proper non-Fed oversight, and, if opened, would look worse than Enron’s books. In short, New Zealand Socialist and professional book putter backer, you yet again linked to a notoriously unreliable source, and definitely not the last word in what is Truth.

    Like I said, your “documentation” has holes in it large enough to drive an Australian road train through it.

  34. And the guy that did the speech right after the credit crash wasn’t even as high up as Ben Bernanke in the super-secret pseudo-governmental, pseudo-private banking agency.

  35. Rant rant rant.

    Those facts again:

    Evidence on CRA and the Subprime Crisis

    Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods–populations that are the focus of the CRA.3 These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner.

    And the guy that did the speech right after the credit crash wasn’t even as high up as Ben Bernanke in the super-secret pseudo-governmental, pseudo-private banking agency.

    Oh yeah – he’s really secret:

    Randall S. Kroszner took office as a Federal Reserve Board Governor on March 1, 2006, to fill an unexpired term ending January 31, 2008. Before becoming a member of the Board, Dr. Kroszner was Professor of Economics at the Graduate School of Business of the University of Chicago from 1999 to 2006. He was also Assistant Professor (1990-1994) and Associate Professor (1994-1999) at the University. Dr. Kroszner was director of the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State and editor of the Journal of Law & Economics. He was a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a director at the National Association for Business Economics and a member of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. Dr. Kroszner was also a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from 2001 to 2003. Since submitting his letter of resignation to President Bush, Dr. Kroszner has returned to the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago to assume a newly created chaired professorship. Dr. Kroszner received a SB magna cum laude in applied mathematics-economics (honors) from Brown University in 1984 and an MA (1987) and PhD (1990), both in economics, from Harvard University.

    So, on the one hand we have a professor at both Chicago and Harvard, who served under Bush and has right-wing ties (American Enterprise Institute), and who cites his data and sources (follow the link).

    On the other hand, we have an unemployed ex-factory worker who is a documented l1ar.

  36. The professional book putter backer proves he cannot read for comprehension as evidenced by the following:

    My statement: “And the guy that did the speech right after the credit crash wasn’t even as high up as Ben Bernanke in the super-secret pseudo-governmental, pseudo-private banking agency.”

    The book putter backer’s retort: “Oh yeah – he’s really secret[.]”

    In my statement, “secret” modifies an agency. In the book putter backer’s retort, “secret” modifies a man. As usual, the book putter backer cannot read for comprehension. But that’s been a given for ages, as even Dana Pico explained on more than one occasion.

    But the Socialist professional book putter backer will continue with his dishonest, dishonorable memes because he doesn’t have anything else to offer. And that’s a given as well.

  37. But I’ll give you this: I should’ve said “super-secretive” instead of “super-secret” but anyone with any intelligence at all would understand either way.

  38. To repeat the comments about the facts:

    So, on the one hand we have a professor at both Chicago and Harvard, who served under Bush and has right-wing ties (American Enterprise Institute), and who cites his data and sources (follow the link).

    On the other hand, we have an unemployed ex-factory worker who is a documented l1ar.

  39. Except that your supposed documentation has zero credibility. And of course, you aren’t even capable of admitting your inability to read for comprehension. To use a word that you like to use, a word which fits your mental capacity very well: Moron.

  40. Except that your supposed documentation has zero credibility.

    On the one hand we have a professor at both Chicago and Harvard, who served under Bush and has right-wing ties (American Enterprise Institute), and who cites his data and sources.

    On the other hand, we have an unemployed ex-factory worker who is a documented l1ar.

  41. Sorry to interrupt your Perpetual Blather, jh, but, uh, where was your evidence again?

  42. Perry said:
    “Hoagie-John, I think you are having difficulty distinguishing between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Economists tend to focus on the former, like PiaToR as well, you on the latter.”

    I have no difficulty distinguishing between the two. I completely understand the difference but unlike you and Pho I also understand how they relate. Like “Love and Marraige”, you can’t have one without the other. And when you say: “Economists tend to focus” and add ; “like PiaToR” you fail to realize I’m an economist, he’s a librarian. You think a librairian knows more about macroeconomics than an economist? You think he would also know more about microeconomics than a businessman? The other thing you fail to realize is macroeconomics must relate and respond to the microeconomic market. Just “making up policies” won’t work (ask the communists). Similarly, policies which are based on force do not relate to the way “real people” will do things. That’s what a lot of “theoretical economists” don’t take into consideration: The Human Factor.

    Then Pho chimes in with:
    “Hey, d1mwit, how much experience do you have running a sovereign economy, then? When exactly were you responsible for pronting money, f0ol?”

    I have zero experience running a sovereign economy, the same amount you have, dimwit! But I’m an economist and I’m a businessman and you’re a phuckin’ librarian. That puts me at least two rungs higher on the credibility scale than you on economic policy, f0ol!

    Let’s see, how’d you do in the market last week? I sold my gold on Monday like I said I’d do. Then I waited till it dropped below $1800 (like I said it would do) and bought it back. That was Wednesday. On Friday a couple friends came over and we drank beer and watched my laptop till I once again sold it for another sweet profit. Prooving even a half-loaded capitalist can make money in a “socialist driven” recession. So I increased my net by 2.7% for the week. I won’t go into numbers since math is apparently your weak point, suffice it to say I made more trading against guys like you than you’ll make in a month.

    But you’re the economist. And guys like me are dimwits, morons and f0ols. Sure. You make me laugh.

  43. BTW Pho, repeating “On the other hand, we have an unemployed ex-factory worker who is a documented l1ar” over and over again dosen’t add credibility to your points. It makes you sound like a spoiled child, which perhaps you are and as I would say to a spoiled child: We heard you the first time! Your immaturity is showing again.

    What’s next? “I know you are but what am I”? Idiot!

  44. you fail to realize I’m an economist, he’s a librarian. You think a librairian knows more about macroeconomics than an economist?

    Given that you can’t seem to grasp the basic difference in the treatment of money between microeconomics and macroeconomics, the answer to that question is obvious. “Economist”…

  45. So, what do we have? One guy who isn’t a Harvard-educated economist, but who makes a clear pile of money somehow knowing what the economy is going to do, versus Harvard-educated, Nobel Prize winning economists, telling us that their plans will fix their economy and hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%.

    The non-Harvard guy invests his own money, and wins; the Harvard guys invest other people’s money, and lose. Yet, according to the two Ps in a pod, I should trust the Harvard guys!

    But, that’s hardly a surprise. After all, they are also telling us that President Obama’s record on the economy and unemployment is a success, despite higher unemployment than he predicted or when he came into office, and millions of jobs lost, while Governor Perry’s record on the economy in his state is just an illusion, not real, not good jobs, and nothing he had anything to do with anyway.

    Winston Smith would understand.

  46. So, what do we have? One guy who isn’t a Harvard-educated economist, but who makes a clear pile of money somehow knowing what the economy is going to do, versus Harvard-educated, Nobel Prize winning economists, telling us that their plans will fix their economy and hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%.

    Cite, please.

    Oh, by the way.

    Consider the Texas that Perry holds up to the rest of the nation for admiration. It has the fourth-highest poverty rate of any state. It tied with Mississippi last year for the highest percentage of workers in minimum-wage jobs. It ranks first in adults without high school diplomas. Twenty-six percent of Texans have no health insurance — the highest percentage of medically uninsured residents of any state. It leads the nation in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance. Texas has an inordinate number of employers who provide no insurance to their workers, partly because insurance rates are high, thanks to an absence of regulations.

    I’ve changed my mind – I now want Rick Perry as the US President. You deserve him.

  47. The Phoenician and I finally agree on something:

    I’ve changed my mind – I now want Rick Perry as the US President. You deserve him.

    Yes, we certainly do! He’ll certainly make a better President than the guy who has the job right now.

  48. Like I said before, our friends on the left can’t (credibly) ndefend President Obama’s record, so they have to try to trash the records of his opponents. The Phoenician notes that there are higher percentages of people living in Texas without high school diplomas and who have minimum wage jobs . . . without ever considering the fact that the high percentage of illegal immigrants in Texas is going to skew those numbers. Well, Texas is now trying to bill the federal government for Texas’ costs associated with illegal immigrant criminals, not that I think that’ll work, but the complaint that there are too many minimum wage jobs in Texas kind of rings hollow when compared to the fact that so many other states are losing jobs. Is a lower wage job somehow worse than no job at all?

  49. I could easily hold my nose and vote for Perry in the General. Ain’t no thang. He’s head and shoulders superior to Obama or anyone else the Democrats could muster. (Ever see Biden speak?)

    But I’m still endorsing Palin/West, with Bachmann/West as my second choice. Perry’s too much of a Big Government type, a Bell Curve Tenther instead of a Hyperbolic Curve Tenther as the Framers envisioned (could be due to his early days as an elected Democrat). So that leaves Perry as my third choice.

  50. Of course, when I said that Rick Perry would “certainly make a better President than the guy who has the job right now,” that is faint praise: it would be difficult to make a worse President than the guy who has the job right now.

    I wonder, with some amusement, what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must think about her boss. She spent months telling us that Barack Obama wasn’t ready for the 3:00 AM phone call, wasn’t experienced enough for the job, and just couldn’t do as good a job as she could. She’s got to be thinking now, “I told them so, but they just wouldn’t listen.”

    Well, I don’t have to wonder what other people are thinking: there are a whole lot of Democrats out there who now wish they’d voted for Mrs Clinton. (A Google search for Hillary told you so returned 14,000,000 hits.)

    Even the Democrats are admitting, at least to themselves, that Barack Obama is a failure as a President.

  51. Like I said before, our friends on the left can’t (credibly) ndefend President Obama’s record, so they have to try to trash the records of his opponents. The Phoenician notes that there are higher percentages of people living in Texas without high school diplomas and who have minimum wage jobs . . . without ever considering the fact that the high percentage of illegal immigrants in Texas is going to skew those numbers.

    How interesting – given that undocumented immigrants are estimated to have declined by millions over the last few years.

Comments are closed.