The 1991 recession IS Bush's fault, as the 2001 recession IS Clinton's fault, as this recession is GW Bush's fault. You really should leave the partisian stuff out of it, because it isn't that complex on an economic level.

Can't I throw a little 9/11 related blame in to the 2001 recession?

 

Anyway...I actually agree with you here on this at some level. While I also think that recessions are something of a natural cycle, all 3 of these recessions have been directly related to asset bubble bursts, and in that level, all 3 could have been avoided or at least lessened by specific actions at the top.

That would qualify both Bush and Clinton then, but Clinton's was pretty mild and I don't even know how he could've stopped it really. I was too young to know about Reagan and Bush 41 and what caused it. And Bush didn't really have the authority to stop the housing bubble either.

 

 

It was mild because Greenspan crushed interest rates.

 

 

Also, can someone tell me how Bush de-regulated the mkts?

Considering Obama has been in office for nearly four years as a senator, though not doing his job hardly at all for two of them so he could campaign, he can lay the blame squarely on himself and his legislative peers in addition for the soon to be former president. People seem to think that the president is the reason for everything wrong in this country. I highly doubt the change people speak of will end up being anything more than an election slogan.

 

 

It was mild because Greenspan crushed interest rates.

 

 

Also, can someone tell me how Bush de-regulated the mkts?

 

Aren't those really low interest rates part of the problem? It drove investors to look for "safe" options with better than 1% return, so they turned to mortgage-backed securities.

The mkts are bigger than any gov't or stimuli that a gov't throws its way. Obama has a terrible job ahead of him and I personally do not think anything the gov't does will be effective. But I have been quite the bear over the last 18 months. Once we test the 2002 lows at 768 and they do not hold, we ultimately head to 660ish on the S&P. I would look to that level for a bottom on the S&P, and somewhere around 6500 on the Dow.

 

Another thing, this bailout of the auto industry should have HUGE strings attached, i.e., UNION work rules. Putting 25- 75 billion into these companies without either a reduction in blue collar jobs and benefits, or benefits for retirees is like lighting 25-75 billion in a bonfire.

Aren't those really low interest rates part of the problem? It drove investors to look for "safe" options with better than 1% return, so they turned to mortgage-backed securities.

 

 

 

Absolutely, Easy, cheap money is what caused the bubble. And I'm afraid we have another 18-24 months of pain.

Absolutely, Easy, cheap money is what caused the bubble. And I'm afraid we have another 18-24 months of pain.

Except for the fact that I might be looking for a job during that time, I don't think I'd complain about 18-24 months of pain.

 

Because frankly, it could be a lot worse.

The mkts are bigger than any gov't or stimuli that a gov't throws its way. Obama has a terrible job ahead of him and I personally do not think anything the gov't does will be effective. But I have been quite the bear over the last 18 months. Once we test the 2002 lows at 768 and they do not hold, we ultimately head to 660ish on the S&P. I would look to that level for a bottom on the S&P, and somewhere around 6500 on the Dow.

 

Another thing, this bailout of the auto industry should have HUGE strings attached, i.e., UNION work rules. Putting 25- 75 billion into these companies without either a reduction in blue collar jobs and benefits, or benefits for retirees is like lighting 25-75 billion in a bonfire.

I'd rather see the conditions surround development of more fuel efficient cars.

 

I'd rather see the conditions surround development of more fuel efficient cars.

If we can't drive 10 mpg, the terrorist win.

I'd rather see the conditions surround development of more fuel efficient cars.

 

 

Can we all agree that these monoliths will not make money with the union legacy costs? Even after 2010 when the union takes over these costs, do they(unions) really think they have the funds to cover the costs? They are kidding themselves. I smell union bailout on the horizon. How anyone in the UAW can complain about this situation is beyond me. Job banks, full health care with no co-pays for life for entire family. Not realistic in today's market wouldn't you say?

Can we all agree that these monoliths will not make money with the union legacy costs? Even after 2010 when the union takes over these costs, do they(unions) really think they have the funds to cover the costs? They are kidding themselves. I smell union bailout on the horizon. How anyone in the UAW can complain about this situation is beyond me. Job banks, full health care with no co-pays for life for entire family. Not realistic in today's market wouldn't you say?

Because making people pay even more for health care will do wonders to drive consumer spending!

Because making people pay even more for health care will do wonders to drive consumer spending!

 

 

Or giving them money to pay people to do crossword puzzles is even better. What should be the cost to the auto makers then? Do you realize that if we applied the last $60 billion that is left of the TARP 1 as equity to GM it would bring GM's net worth to............0.

Edited November 12, 200817 yr by Cknolls

GM is more of an HMO that happens to make cars at this point. They really need to get out from under these crippling UAW contracts. It's their own fault for agreeing to them all these years, but they are just ridiculous.

Can we all agree that these monoliths will not make money with the union legacy costs? Even after 2010 when the union takes over these costs, do they(unions) really think they have the funds to cover the costs? They are kidding themselves. I smell union bailout on the horizon. How anyone in the UAW can complain about this situation is beyond me. Job banks, full health care with no co-pays for life for entire family. Not realistic in today's market wouldn't you say?

I agree that some aspects of the union contracts are crippling - no doubt. In particular, the standby engineer programs are ridiculous.

 

We'll give you tax money if you promise to hurt the middle class tax payers (voters) that you employ. That's a tough one to sell especially when the bank bailout resulted in top level executives getting bonuses and nice retreats at posh resorts.

 

I agree the union rules are hurting the auto industry and ultimately workers, but tying it into the bailout is probably the wrong path to change.

I can't wait to pull this one out later. 6 months and then we start counting his contributions.

Rush Limbaugh is already calling the bailout, the Obama Bailout Plan.

Rush Limbaugh is already calling the bailout, the Obama Bailout Plan.

LOL'ers.

 

Yeah, this bailout is Obama's like the the Lewinsky BJ was W's.

 

Didn't obama push for it? Didn't obama vote for it? Its much more his than that, but equally a whole bunch of other peoples and what rush said was is ridiculous.

Well let's see here. You have Democratic controlled House and Senate. Obama pushed this when he met with Bush the other day. Obama is by definition the leader of the Democratic Party right now. How could anybody possibly think this is Obama's bail out?

Well let's see here. You have Democratic controlled House and Senate. Obama pushed this when he met with Bush the other day. Obama is by definition the leader of the Democratic Party right now. How could anybody possibly think this is Obama's bail out?

 

Because despite some of his shortfalls, Bush has always stood up and done what he thinks is right. For example he has stood up against his party on immigration issues.

Because despite some of his shortfalls, Bush has always stood up and done what he thinks is right. For example he has stood up against his party on immigration issues.

 

He also was not receptive to Obama's suggestions on this if I heard correctly.