I don't have a ton of confidence in government, but I'd imagine implementing a carbon trading/tax system here would be a bit easier than doing it across all of the EU with all their various economies at varying states of prosperity and growth.

3/2/2009 11:55:37 AM

Plus, assuming we wanted to have government-mandated limits on carbon emissions (and I know that's a big assumption for many of you), what would be a better option?

3/2/2009 2:40:42 PM

A better option would be a small and reasonable carbon tax at the source of production.

3/2/2009 3:22:50 PM

What advantage would that have over a cap and trade system?

And what would you consider to be the source? Mines? Smokestacks?

3/2/2009 3:43:56 PM

stock market loses 300 points today.

3/2/2009 4:38:36 PM

I SENSE THE JOY IN YOUR DISAPPOINTMENT

3/2/2009 4:39:12 PM

I don't recall him posting anywhere back in Oct 08 when the market lost double that even on under the former Presidents watch.

3/2/2009 4:44:05 PM

no joy here.

we all know you hate Bush and that he is Satan. however, he is not the President now, nor did he just ram a fucking preposterous economic stimulus plan up our asses promising to fix everything. obviously Wall Street doesnt like it. it is tied to Obama. deal with it.

3/2/2009 4:46:45 PM

lol

for like 4 or 5 of the last 8 years i got to hear how the president has very little to do with the economy and how it takes more than 6 or 7 years for a president's policies to have an effect (i.e., all this failure in the 2000s is Clinton's fault)

now i guess that shit is done

3/2/2009 4:50:37 PM

^I haven't read this thread but I'm curious....either one of the other...either it WASN'T Bush's fault, but rather Clinton's fault AND it isn't Obama's fault, but Bush's....OR it was Bush's fault AND it's Obama's fault.... Can't have it both ways

3/2/2009 4:52:52 PM

Quote :

"we all know you hate Bush and that he is Satan. however, he is not the President now, nor did he just ram a fucking preposterous economic stimulus plan up our asses promising to fix everything. obviously Wall Street doesnt like it. it is tied to Obama. deal with it"

Jury is still out on why Wall Street is continuing to sell but if I started talking about that stuff you'd be immediately lost.

3/2/2009 4:56:33 PM

^^ it's still way too early for anything economy wise to be Obama's fault. We'll know in a couple of months.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2009 4:57:05 PM

Quote :

"lol for like 4 or 5 of the last 8 years i got to hear how the president has very little to do with the economy and how it takes more than 6 or 7 years for a president's policies to have an effect (i.e., all this failure in the 2000s is Clinton's fault) now i guess that shit is done"

only an idiot thinks that Presidential administrations are mutually exclusive.

however, only an idiot keeps blaming the former administrations for all the sins of government. that schtick only lasts so long. please react to the fact that the economy is continuing to drown despite new "fast acting" policies put in place by your savior.

3/2/2009 4:58:35 PM

Quote :

"Jury is still out on why Wall Street is continuing to sell but if I started talking about that stuff you'd be immediately lost."

Wall Street is selling because it has no confidence. quit acting like a tool.

3/2/2009 5:01:09 PM

Quote :

"put in place by your savior."

you'd think i would have had to vote for someone to have them called "my savior"

NOT IN DABIRD'S WORLD!

3/2/2009 5:21:46 PM

Quote :

"^I haven't read this thread but I'm curious....either one of the other...either it WASN'T Bush's fault, but rather Clinton's fault AND it isn't Obama's fault, but Bush's....OR it was Bush's fault AND it's Obama's fault.... Can't have it both ways"

i would love to give clinton credit for the economy up to the point in the bush administration we are at in the obama administration, I.E. LESS THAN 6 FUCKING WEEKS

3/2/2009 5:23:32 PM

Quote :

"Wall Street is selling because it has no confidence. quit acting like a tool."

What does that have to do with the stimulus bill?

3/2/2009 5:37:23 PM

it has no confidence in the plan put forth by Obama. I think there is a direct connection.

3/2/2009 5:39:12 PM

they're just making it easier(read: CHEAPER) for more shit to get nationalized

wall street should fight for its freedom if they're really scurred of TEH S0CI4LIZM

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 5:59 PM. Reason : the gov't never could have bought GM when the stock was at 81 dollarbucks a share]

3/2/2009 5:58:45 PM

Quote :

"it has no confidence in the plan put forth by Obama. I think there is a direct connection."

Ok you sage market guru, where would it be without a plan at all?

3/2/2009 6:38:27 PM

lol, what stimulus bill? I'm aware of a spending bill. Stimulus? Don't kid yourself.

3/2/2009 6:41:17 PM

Thank you Bush for discrediting the Republican Party and giving the democrats a majority in the house and senate.

3/2/2009 7:18:14 PM

Quote :

"Ok you sage market guru, where would it be without a plan at all?"

Pretty much every business analyst is panning the "stimulus plan" and the continued bailouts, not to mention that Geitner has pretty much disappeared when he should be out there more than anybody. So far, the Obama administration has epically failed. Wall Street wants to know something, anything, about the financial bail out/credit unfreezing, and absolutely no details have emerged.

Look at AIG, more money thrown away. We are continuing to throw money after bad money. It's like the government is saying, "Well, we already spent 100 billion, so whats a 100 billion more? We don't know what else to do." Where as most on Wall Street want these firms to go ahead and fail, the government refuses to let them. The markets aren't going to hit a bottom until they do.

3/2/2009 7:35:26 PM

I have never been to fond on Obama or any democrats views on teh economy and kinda disappointed on the state/content of the stimulus but...

Quote :

"So far, the Obama administration has epically failed. "

come give me a fucking break. take your mental ejaculation elsewhere. Yes, Obama having not even been in office for 10 weeks has epically failed because the market took a dump today with the economy in the shitter due to over 15 years of failed policies, unethical business practices, greed, and consumer incompetence. If McPalin were elected we would by mid-February have already entered the 2nd 90's economic golden age.

3/2/2009 7:46:11 PM

Quote :

"So far, the Obama administration has epically failed. Wall Street wants to know something, anything, about the financial bail out/credit unfreezing, and absolutely no details have emerged."

Quote :

"Where as most on Wall Street want these firms to go ahead and fail, the government refuses to let them. The markets aren't going to hit a bottom until they do."

Hmmm...so, the street doesn't like the stimulus bill, yet the bottom hasn't been reached. That...doesn't really add up. Could it not be that the stimulus bill provided a short term prop in the market and it's becoming clear that the prop isn't working or enough so there is a slow sell off? The point is, we simply don't know. Sure, the pundents and every other talking head on the street will claim Wall Street isn't happy with uncertainty, but what is the alternative? That we be certain about the bankrupting of all the insolvent banks (all the big ones) and instead of a slow bleed it becomes 1000 points and a triggering of short circuit breaks at the NYSE?

I'm with you that the uncertainty about the bank situation isn't good for the market, but to say the sell off is because of the stimulus bill is horseshit.

3/2/2009 8:21:50 PM

Quote :

"I'm with you that the uncertainty about the bank situation isn't good for the market, but to say the sell off is because in spite of the stimulus spending bill is not horseshit."

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM. Reason : -]

3/2/2009 8:29:55 PM

Great case you've made!

3/2/2009 8:34:10 PM

Wasn't 9/11 Bush's fault because it was "on his watch"?

or more specifically, wasn't it his responsibility and wasn't he ultimately, as President, to blame?

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2009 8:35:19 PM

Obama certainly is not responsible for most of the mess we are in.

however, he is responsible for getting us out of it and by most accounts, he is not doing a good job. he has talked the talk, but talk isnt doing shit right now.

he still deserves a few more months to really see the impact and be judged on it, but it will define his presidency. dont kid yourself on that.

3/2/2009 9:35:25 PM

i agree that obama's ability or inability to get us out of this financial mess will define his presidency, and the fact that it DOES take time to get out of a bad recession won't matter since, like you said, he talked about big plans but thus far hasn't delivered in a way that positively impacts most people

but to a lesser extent my point is still valid in the sense that terrorist attacks arent planned overnight, and terror networks take years to grow, so my post was in response to all the "9/11 is Bush's fault, after all he was President during it"...and obviously 9/11 was an individual event while an economy is an ongoing mechanism, but again my post was just to test the political double standard

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ,.]

3/2/2009 9:41:36 PM

Quote :

"he still deserves a few more months to really see the impact and be judged on it, but it will define his presidency."

I agree and am glad someone has common sense around here.

Although i'll forget for the moment the excuses about cycles and "policy lag" 2-3 (during the dotcom bust); 7-9 (during the housing/credit bust) for economic policies to take effect since these recessions were all the fault of the evil economy crushing liberal Clinton according to Republicans.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 9:59 PM. Reason : l]

3/2/2009 9:58:36 PM

Quote :

"stock market loses 300 points today"

The market is reacting very negatively to Obama's stimulus/budget spendarama. Last fall, Bush, Obama and the congress all pushed through the first bailout spending bills for failing banks. This huge amount of money quickly vanished and did little to fix the economy.

And now, Obama's plan is to give even larger amounts of money to failing endeavors. So it's no surprise the market won't get on board the Hope & Change bus.

3/2/2009 10:17:21 PM

the money didn't vanish, it went to pay big bonuses to stockholders and chairmen so regardless of what happens they can still live their lavish lives

3/2/2009 10:22:47 PM

I'd like to see a coherent argument for causation, because I really don't think the recent slump can be viewed through the lens of presidential politics. Should we next talk about how Obama is influencing college basketball? It seems almost as relevant.

There's been bad news day after day (unemployment, GDP) that would sufficiently explain the fall; what specific events coming from the White House are making an impact?

The only thing that would have a direct impact was when the administration's made it clear that a bank take-over would not pay top dollar. And frankly, in that case it's not a bad thing the bank stocks reacted negatively.

3/2/2009 10:57:06 PM

My point is that pretty much everything IS viewed through the lens of presidential politics, for right or most likely wrong...but on to other things

Can you explain your last paragraph a little better for me, as far as negative stocks being not a bad thing? Somebody said something to the effect of "capitalism without bankruptcy is like christianity without hell" and i think theres truth to that even though i'm not religious...i don't agree with all the bailouts, especially since the banks dont seem to be putting the money towards loans or anything that would stimulate the average american's finances, instead putting it towards billions of dollars of bonus payouts to shareholders...but i definitely wish their stocks would rebound, because that would be good for everyone because they could in a sense get back to "business as usual"...and i dont necessarily mean corrupt banker business as usual, but just putting money back in the working economy to stimulate everyone's growth

3/2/2009 11:17:16 PM

Quote :

"the money didn't vanish, it went to pay big bonuses to stockholders and chairmen so regardless of what happens they can still live their lavish lives"

Agreed.

Lets also not forget teh bank bailout was originally the brainchild of our republican president.

3/2/2009 11:19:54 PM

seems to me like its beneficial to any powerful politician

3/2/2009 11:24:44 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to see a coherent argument for causation, because I really don't think the recent slump can be viewed through the lens of presidential politics."

Most businesses are dependent upon banks for a relationship they need to operate. Privately owned and operated businesses tend to have similar cultures and understandings. Meanwhile, government bailouts can and have led to nationalizations. Nationalized entities, such as banks, have politicised cultures and therefore, from a private business perspective, are feared to behave unpredictably as partners. Hence, I can see why private entities would get skiddish as more of their brethren become beholden to, if not directly run by, Washington.

3/2/2009 11:57:01 PM

the harsher reality is that we live in a global society in which we are increasingly less competitive. We lag in education and innovation. We lead in having a sense of entitlement, in whining, rather than winning.

3/3/2009 12:02:38 AM

This question of whether or not to take federal funds also perplexed some of the governors in the 1930s during the massive federal spending of the Hoover and Roosevelt presidencies. For example, in 1932, under the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, welfare was first made a federal function. Before that, states and private charities provided one on one relief service for hungry and jobless people in their communities. With the promise of federal funds, the governor of Illinois (and the mayor of Chicago) declared urgent and dramatic need. In doing so,they secured over $55 million of this fund--more than New York, California, and Texas combined....

Governor Joseoh Ely of Massachusetts asserted his independence from federal aid. "Whatever the justification for relief," Ely said, the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by any administration." In 1934, Massachusetts succumbed to pressures to take federal funds. Governor Ely retired and James Curley won election to replace him. Under Governor Curley, Massachusetts claimed massive federal need and received over $100 million in federal aid for welfare by 1935. Here was the new game from Washington: Which states could argue most convincingly for need and attract more federal dollars than they paid in?

One of the many dangers of the stimulus bill is that it will remove incentives for states to solve problems they created and encourage states to look to Washington to try to secure more money than they pay in taxes. This is not responsible constitutional government, but grab bag politics and democracy at its worst.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/64296.html

3/3/2009 12:24:55 AM

can i just throw out there one more time how much i love that

1. everyone assumes i'm a huge obama fan boy because i defend him

2. people assume i'm a huge fan of the stimulus

its hilarious because i didn't vote for the guy, and i'm just trying to make people understand he's been president for 3 fortnights

and i want businesses to fail more than most people at this point
especially anyone who owns my debt

remember

1 million seconds is 11 days
1 trillion seconds is 31,000 years

we're fucked on a whole new level

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 12:39 AM. Reason : WHOLE NEW LEVEL, THE RHYTHM IS THE BASS AND THE BASS IS THE TREBLE ]

3/3/2009 12:37:16 AM

Quote :

"the harsher reality is that we live in a global society in which we are increasingly less competitive. We lag in education and innovation. We lead in having a sense of entitlement, in whining, rather than winning."

aint that the truth. great political cartoon from 1993 in yesterday's N&O.



Obama's problem will be that he promised all of those things.

3/3/2009 8:08:03 AM

Sigh.

Citi is at 1.23, and Bernanke just said on national TV that they are well capitalized.

THE MARKET DOESN'T BELIEVE YOU BEN

3/3/2009 11:36:11 AM

Quote :

"Interesting Comparison March 2, 2009, 10:52 pm Which of these spent more political contribution and lobbying money in the last election cycle: Two largest defense contractors Four largest oil companies Two largest teachers unions Yes, it was the teachers. I am sure it was for the kids, though. This actually understates the teacher’s efforts. The corporate donations of the oil and defense companies are spread pretty evenly between both parties. They are simply trying to buy access. The teachers gave their money almost entirely to the Democrats."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/03/interesting-comparison.html

3/3/2009 11:38:44 AM

unions have used up their usefulness. they have gone from being a noble institution based on serving their workers to greedy power brokers who have no problem killing their own industry and jobs if necessary. they are seemingly incapable of any compromise.

with today's oversight, media and transparency, the public protects the workers. unions seem unnecessary to me.

teacher's unions refuse to let teacher's pay be performance based, (like any other job) thereby making their profession incapable of competing with the marketplace (in terms of attracting talent), which ultimately harms the children because most of the best and brightest have no desire to teach.

3/3/2009 11:54:20 AM

Quote :

"unions have used up their usefulness. they have gone from being a noble institution based on serving their workers to greedy power brokers who have no problem killing their own industry and jobs if necessary. they are seemingly incapable of any compromise. "

Agreed. Realistically we do not need the unions with the democratic party

3/3/2009 11:57:18 AM

Sure, teachers' unions are bad for education

but

you can't lump together all teachers' groups into one, monolithic group. Even the reform-minded groups favor the Democrats. It's simply a recognition that the Republicans' slash-and-burn mindset towards public education is a bad idea.

3/3/2009 12:08:43 PM

Quote :

"so what's that as a % of GDP from the private sector? (note that gov spending is included in the total GDP calculation)"

just ran across this today on NPRs Planet Money

3/3/2009 12:17:52 PM

Quote :

"It's simply a recognition that the Republicans' slash-and-burn mindset towards public education is a bad idea."

I have never in my life heard a Republican suggest burning down a school. The libertarian minded ones will suggest building charter schools to replace public schools, but what is slash-and-burn about that? And why would it be a bad idea?

3/3/2009 2:19:49 PM

I would agree with the Dems in that our school systems need more money...however I would disagree about how that money should be used.

we should make teacher's salaries competitive and attractive to college grads. they currently are not. put that money towards salaries and you will attract better teachers, retain more experienced teachers and have better-educated students.

3/3/2009 2:24:01 PM