O-Doodoo Economics
Posted: November 7, 2008 Filed under: Equity Markets, U.S. Economy | Tags: Hope Economics, Obamanomics 6 Comments
After spending four lectures today explaining fiscal policy and why it was important for the President-elect to come up with some specifics to calm the market, I’m not looking forward to Monday. I told them how the last two days have set a record for the few post election slumps and some sense of direction and detailed actions were necessary. A bold move would be to name a Treasury Secretary. At the very least, we could hear some of the components he supports of the democratic stimulus plan and which he feels are give aways or symbolic only.
I’ve decided to put my resume out to the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg or perhaps Qatar. I lived in a banana republic here in New Orleans for the last 10 years and I might as well get out before it goes nationwide.
The one industry that might be slightly happier tonight is the auto industry. Maybe that was because of the presence of the governor of Michigan in the room and the newly minted blue states containing auto workers that need to be kept in the fold for the midterm elections. If you’re part of the automobile industry it does look like you might get a bailout. It looks like we might nationalize the big three. So, I guess what’s good for GM really is good for America in Obama’s eyes. The auto industry was the ONLY industry singled out for about two paragraphs worth of speech. Since when did the auto industry get a special place ahead of retail, banking, the energy industry and agriculture?
The speech gave a laundry list of the very bad labor market statistics that came out this week first. I knew those already. Largest jobless claims in 25 years. Looks like we’re in for the largest jump in the unemployment rate since World War 2 ended. The Dallas Fed’s projections include no positive movements in GDP for the entire year of 2009 and unemployment of 8% by the end of the year and 10%+ within six months. That was the interesting part of the speech. The rest of the speech was a blur of talking points straight off the Obama election site. Obama may have just been overwhelmed by a day spent with folks that know what they’re talking about. (Can we say ONE TERM PRESIDENCY?? YES, WE CAN!!!)
One answer to a Candy Crowley question really grabbed me. Our President-elect said bravely “I think I’ll pass on that.”
The news is awash with speculation that Larry “Women don’t have the brain capacity to do math and science” Summers is going to be Treasury Secretary Redux. He has written some seminal papers in finance and economics. (Believe me, the math wasn’t that tough in any of them.) He was once the Secretary of Treasury under Clinton. Let me ask you, if you inserted ‘African Americans’ where the word ‘WOMEN’ is in that sentence, do you think ANYONE would want to be seen in public with this man, let alone appoint him to a cabinet position?
So Obama is studying Economics 101 and 102 now when he should be saying what points need to be pushed as part of a stimulus package. We got some nebulous discussion about extending unemployment compensation and possibly bailing out cash strapped states. But the bottom line is that he spent almost an hour giving no more information than he did during his election. That is probably why he extended the press conference long enough to see the close of the stock market. Maybe the entire set of investors in the US will have very nice weekends and forget the Obama fog-of-war on reality.
As for the press, it seems that the BIG question was the decision over the first dog. Well, at least they can fluff something other than Obama for a change.
Like I said, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Bermuda … Qatar? Any one coming with me? If Reagonomics was Voodoo Economics, Obamanomics seems to be O-doodoo Economics and we’re going to be deep in it.





It is mind-boggling that GM et al will not be allowed to fail. This really is a (fascist) banana republic when incompetent, shortsighted management, poor designs, and little real innovation result in govt subsidies.
Mind-boggling, but not terribly surprising.
Scary stuff. I’m a 55 year old baby boomer who would be retiring in 10 years. But with the decimation of my IRA’s, and the scary talk about social security, this is about the worse time in my life for something like this to happen. And Obama, of course, is the most clueless hack that could possibly have been elected. I would love to be able to solve the problem by moving overseas, but it just doesn’t feel that simple to me. I think there is going to be a lot of pain and suffering the next 4 years. And it probably won’t be the idiots who elected him who have to go through it.
Ben: because Congress promotes Monopolies because they subsidize their campaigns, instead of using the Justice Department to break up these behemouths, it’s just going to continue.
Dakinikat, I studied world economic history in the 1980s, but have merely watched what was happening since then in terms of the various long-term cycles.
Some time, could you do a post on the long cycles in the US and worldwide and how they are impacting us now (and whether some of them really have accelerated)? In other words, can you give us a big picture look at recent decades?
Yes, I can do that always … and there have been some changes in the cycles since ww2 but basically they have been less volatile and slightly longer on the expansion side and shorter on the contraction side …
the one big thing that is hard to factor into this is that we are no longer in a semiclosed economy so that the global economy is making up a bigger portion of our expenditures … our marginal propensity to import is huge now which dampens the multiplier impact of fiscal policy, also, we have gone from savings of 10% to a negative savings during the last bush term …
if anything, these kinds of behavioral changes are influencing things … also, we’ve had this VERY activist Fed under Greenspan …low interest rates possibly fueled the last two bubbles … we may have to relook at a monetary rule rather than a hyperresponsive fed … that may actually have been MORE destabilizing recentlly than stabilizing …
another factor, in my mind is that there is a trade cycle that runsconcurrently with any business cycle … I’m working some theory out on that right now … if it’s true , that could add another dimension to the problem
thanks so much. It will be very valuable to see what your findings look like after factoring in all the recent policies and complexities plus the global acceleration. Interesting also about the re-look at a monetary rule.
I look forward to reading what you discover.