US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

[lisab]

(snip) But it's not surprising that you believe he supported it (snip)

And that's just what I find so shocking! It seems there are many people want so, so badly to believe every wacko thing they hear about Obama. The other thread on bogus claims shows this too (the cost of the India trip, e.g.).

Critical thinking: OFF.

 

[Al68]

Okay, moved.

LOL, it looks like someone just moved it back:

And that's just what I find so shocking! It seems there are many people want so, so badly to believe every wacko thing they hear about Obama.

It's "shocking" and "wacko" that Obama might agree with many Democrats on the "fairness doctrine"? Incorrect, yes, but not wacko like the other stuff Gokul43201 mentioned.

 

[Astronuc]

That's two falsehoods in a sea of hundreds. Hardly a representative sample.

(nor is this ...)

How many conservatives believe Obama ... is a Muslim, ... is the antichrist, ... is a Nazi style eugenist, ... has recreated a version of the Hitler youth, ... wants to implement Sharia Law in the US, ... plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the US, ... is already snaking foreign Muslims into the US, ... plans to reinstate the fairness doctrine, ... is diverting 10% of the US Navy for a personal trip, ... plans to take away our guns, ... is anti-America, ... wants government to take over private industry, ... wants to end all drilling in the Gulf, ... ? (and that's only the crazy stuff)

You don't think falsehoods spread by Republicans have had a significant role in this election?

You forgot the one about the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) being responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, or that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (or the government) forced banks to issue bad mortgages, which I recently read from someone who fancies himself as a mainstream republican/conservative.

 

[Gokul43201]

To clarify, I don't personally hold the opinion that CAC wants to believe untrue things. My statement was expressing a lack of surprise over the knowledge that he would have heard/read this falsehood from one or more sources that I imagine were keen on propagating it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You forgot the one about the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) being responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, or that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (or the government) forced banks to issue bad mortgages, which I recently read from someone who fancies himself as a mainstream republican/conservative.

Can of worms. Can we leave it shut?

 

[lisab]

To clarify, I don't personally hold the opinion that CAC wants to believe untrue things. My statement was expressing a lack of surprise over the knowledge that he would have heard/read this falsehood from one or more sources that I imagine were keen on propagating it.

I don't think CAC1001 is in that group either. In fact I find most of the righties on PF to be clear thinking and principled, even if I hold different views on many issues.

 

[Al68]

You forgot the one about the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) being responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, or that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (or the government) forced banks to issue bad mortgages, which I recently read from someone who fancies himself as a mainstream republican/conservative.

Forced or bribed? The fact that private banks issued the bad mortgages to sell to Fannie and Freddie voluntarily (persuaded by extra profit from Fannie and Freddie) instead of being forced does not mean that Fannie and Freddie aren't to blame.

It's not like the mortgage problem was caused by mortgages that met private mortgage underwriting standards. The problem was caused by mortgages that met politically motivated, government promulgated standards.

And if we hide our heads in the sand and pretend that government didn't cause the problem, it will happen again. Maybe worse next time.

Can of worms. Can we leave it shut?

Oops, too late. But it does belong in another thread.

And it has been discussed extensively in other threads already, but each thread seems to fizzle out when denial of the government's obvious responsibility for the mortgage fiasco is no longer tenable. Then it sprouts back up for another cycle. Amazing how that works.

 

[Astronuc]

It's not like the mortgage problem was caused by mortgages that met private mortgage underwriting standards. The problem was caused by mortgages that met politically motivated, government promulgated standards.

Um no - that's misinformation.

Subprime mortgages were generated by mortgage brokers (e.g., Countrywide), in some cases which were owned by the big commercial banks or investment banks, and were not covered by CRA.

Fannie and Freddie bought mortgage back securities, which were put together by investment banks - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Morgan Stanley, . . . . Fannie and Freddie were late comers to the sub-prime market and MBSs, and they were not required to do so by the government, they were just competing with Wall Street for a lucrative market.

The government did fail regulate the financial markets.

Interestingly, I heard a comment last night that the rating agencies cannot be sued for their false ratings, because they are expressing 'an opinion', which seems to imply there is no underlying collection of information or analysis.

But yes - the details of the collapse of the housing and mortgage markets are subjects for another thread.

However, the point I was making was the misinformation (fantasy fiction) being passed along to and among voters.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is that if one accepts the economy is to a large extent a deterministic system

It is an insanely complex system with several strongly interacting subsystems. For all practical purposes it isn't terribly deterministic.

then some levers will tend to encourage faster and sharper recoveries, others the opposite.

Yet, if you poll the academic community on which levers to pull, you get answers ranging from "none" to "over $2T in direct Govt spending" to "$1T in tax relief", through virtually every combination thereof.

Clearly this time around the federal government has tried some unprecedented policies.

And I don't think it's unreasonable that the government try unprecedented policies, when the nature and scope of the problem is similarly unprecedented. Moreover, I don't see the direct connection between that and the question here.

In short, the research community will likely tell you that it's really, really difficult to predict how long a recession can be expected to last in the absence/presence of different government interventions. Yet, you think it is reasonable that the average person making up the voting electorate be able to determine these numbers from his/her gut?

The way I read it was mheslep was saying that historically, in terms of the lengths of recessions, this recession is past due for the time it was expected to recover.

You know, as well as (mheslep or) I do, that using a historical average to determine when a recession ought to turn around is essentially useless. Might as well vent your anger at the government for any long stretches of bad weather.

 

[BobG]

Interesting perspective on how Democrats succeeded/failed during their two year control of government:

Pelosi's Triumph

The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:

"Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?"

Even during the victory celebration, Republican leaders are hedging on what they can accomplish. Will they toss out their chances in 2012 for a battle they can't win (a Dem Senate & President will make many efforts futile)

What Would Pelosi Do? What Tea Party activists are expecting from the Republican Congress

Now, all Hecker wants is for Republicans to live up to the contract. Doing so, he says, will require them to be like President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—and make decisions that aren't popular. "Pelosi, especially, was very bold," Hecker says. "She knew health care reform wasn't popular after a certain point, but she kept pushing it because she believed in it. That's what we need from our guys—they have to de-fund health care. They have to take it on the chin and repeal the popular parts of it, too."

 

[CAC1001]

To clarify, I don't personally hold the opinion that CAC wants to believe untrue things. My statement was expressing a lack of surprise over the knowledge that he would have heard/read this falsehood from one or more sources that I imagine were keen on propagating it.

I do know Obama came out against the Fairness Doctrine later on as you pointed out, I could swear I had read somewhere that way back before he was a presidential candidate though, that he had supported it (back in his State Senator days), however upon doing some Googling, I cannot find this, so either I am remembering wrong or the source was bogus.

You know, as well as (mheslep or) I do, that using a historical average to determine when a recession ought to turn around is essentially useless. Might as well vent your anger at the government for any long stretches of bad weather.

I get what you are saying (as each recession is unique), but cannot one partially gauge the severity of a recession by comparing it with the average historical length of past recessions? Like basically reason this recession is unusually bad because by historical standards, it should be over by now?

 

[CAC1001]

The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:

"Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition?

I don't think the Republicans are keen on actually repealing the bill, unless they maybe get a Republican President in 2012, and even that chance is really iffy. What I have heard however is that the Republicans are looking at all sorts of ways to basically pour tar into the gears of the healthcare bill, ranging from de-funding it, to calling up all the heads of the various agencies enforcing parts of the bill, if the individual mandate were to be overturned by the SCOTUS, that would cause problems, also different states can gum up the works as well, etc...

How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?"

This one I don't know if people would mind all that much...?

 

[mheslep]

Um no - that's misinformation.

Subprime mortgages were generated by mortgage brokers (e.g., Countrywide), in some cases which were owned by the big commercial banks or investment banks, and were not covered by CRA.

Fannie and Freddie bought mortgage back securities, which were put together by investment banks - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Morgan Stanley, . . . . Fannie and Freddie were late comers to the sub-prime market and MBSs, and they were not required to do so by the government, they were just competing with Wall Street for a lucrative market.

Astronuc - no, you are incorrect on several points here and above, some grossly so.

 

[WhoWee]

That is...classic...really!

" how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition"

How many votes will Obama KEEP when (possibly millions) of retirees are notified in the next year that their former employers will no longer be paying for their group health care policies - because the tax credit has been eliminated.
Also, would anyone care to venture a guess how many Medicare recipients received a letter on October 1st that their current plan (mostly PFFS - but quite a few PDP's) would not be renewed for 2011 (hint-it's more than 6 figures).

IMO anger over the emerging details of health care reform will be driving seniors to the polls in 2012.

 

[Al68]

Um no - that's misinformation.

No, it's fact. I'm not claiming it was the entire problem, just that it was part of it.

But yes - the details of the collapse of the housing and mortgage markets are subjects for another thread.

Yep.

However, the point I was making was the misinformation (fantasy fiction) being passed along to and among voters.

Like the misinformation in your post. Fannie and Freddie were not latecomers by any stretch of the imagination, unless you define an aspect of the problem so narrowly as to ignore its cause, as you did.

 

[CAC1001]

It is an insanely complex system with several strongly interacting subsystems. For all practical purposes it isn't terribly deterministic.

Just curious, but what are these subsystems?

 

[Gokul43201]

I get what you are saying (as each recession is unique), but cannot one partially gauge the severity of a recession by comparing it with the average historical length of past recessions?

Sure you can!

Like basically reason this recession is unusually bad because by historical standards, it should be over by now?

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying there? How can you say those two things in the same sentence?

It is unusually bad = it will not be over in the typical time

How is it meaningful to recognize that this recession is particularly bad by any historical standards, and simultaneously hold the contradictory position that it is well past time for it to be over?

 

[russ_watters]

How can you say those two things in the same sentence?

It is unusually bad = it will not be over in the typical time

How is it meaningful to recognize that this recession is particularly bad by any historical standards, and simultaneously hold the contradictory position that it is well past time for it to be over?

Setting aside the fact that the recession is over, there is no contradiction in those statements: the second statement is the reason (CAC's reason) for the first. Ie, the fact that it was long is how it is judged to be severe (not that I like that criteria -- I prefer depth, or perhaps an integral sum, as the better judge of severity).

 

[Gokul43201]

Setting aside the fact that the recession is over,

This was clarified in an earlier post. The word is being loosely used here to reflect employment levels.

there is no contradiction in those statements: the second statement is the reason (CAC's reason) for the first. Ie, the fact that it was long is how it is judged to be severe (not that I like that criteria -- I prefer depth, or perhaps an integral sum, as the better judge of severity).

I don't disagree with that - in fact, it is essentially what I said in the equation line. But, how does one argue that it is "well past time" for the recession to be over (and that is the statement being defended)?

 

[Gokul43201]

Just curious, but what are these subsystems?

savings banks, investment banks, GSEs, fiscal legislation, monetary policy, exchange rates, international economies, foreign trade, derivatives and securities, housing markets, demographic changes, ... butterflies?

 

[CAC1001]

I don't disagree with that - in fact, it is essentially what I said in the equation line. But, how does one argue that it is "well past time" for the recession to be over (and that is the statement being defended)?

I just mean if we take an average of the length of previous recessions, then by that average, this "recession" probably should have ended by now.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let me rephrase. I believe you are saying that this recession should have long ended if it were similar to the average recession.

How does one go from that statement to the statement that it is well past time for this particular recession to have ended? That statement necessarily demands that this recession be no worse than the average recession. What is the justification for such a demand, and whose fault is it that such a demand is not met?

 

[CAC1001]

I see what you mean, although now I am more confused! I think I was originally saying that one can determine this isn't an average recession, because if it was, then historically, it would have ended by now (healthy economic growth and unemployment down to a healthy level).

 

[Gokul43201]

I see what you mean, although now I am more confused! I think I was originally saying that one can determine this isn't an average recession, because if it was, then historically, it would have ended by now (healthy economic growth and unemployment down to a healthy level).

Well, the original point was slightly different.

To recap:

Well http://www.nber.org/feldstein/bg120401.html" time for it to go up; I expect people know that and make voting judgements accordingly.

The way I read it was mheslep was saying that historically, in terms of the lengths of recessions, this recession is past due for the time it was expected to recover.

I believe the implication was that because this recession is taking longer to end than the average recession one must conclude that it's the fault of the government in office.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe the implication was that because this recession is taking longer to end than the average recession one must conclude that it's the fault of the government in office.

If it wasn't for Obama [and the final actions of Bush], we would be in a depression, not a recession. But I doubt the right would ever acknowledge this as it would mean admitting that their entire platform is a fallacy.

The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie. Bush did the right thing, but had this been Obama instead of Bush, we never would have heard the end of it!

 

[CAC1001]

If it wasn't for Obama [and the final actions of Bush], we would be in a depression, not a recession. But I doubt the right would ever acknowledge this as it would mean admitting that their entire platform is a fallacy.

The extreme right perhaps, but most on the Right acknowledge that the government intervening to bailout the financial system was a necessary evil. Also how is acknowledging this "admitting the entire platform is a fallacy"?

The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie. Bush did the right thing, but had this been Obama instead of Bush, we never would have heard the end of it!

I agree here, but that's politics for you.

 

[Al68]

The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie.

Are you really not aware that Fannie and Freddie were government sponsored enterprises (GSE's) since their creation? Did you think they were completely private entities, chartered by private stockholders for private purposes? Despite private stock ownership in them, they have never been private institutions in the sense that would make anything "ironic".

The only thing ironic here is that some of Bush's other actions were pretty socialist, yet you pick this one to label as socialist.

Did Clinton "turn socialist" when he had them relax their mortgage buying standards for the CRA? :uhh:

Gee, I wonder how those on this forum who routinely object to the word "socialist" being used to describe government control of completely private companies will react to your use of it to describe Bush exercising control of GSE's?

 

[Gokul43201]

Bloomberg better be ready for the heat he's going to have to take for his remarks yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/08/bloomberg-newly-elected-pols-read/

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, traveling in Hong Kong over the weekend, warned that the new crop of politicians elected to Congress last week could spark a trade war with China because their criticism of the Asian superpower is bred in ignorance.

The billionaire mayor reportedly said Americans who voted for these politicians may do a disservice to U.S.-Chinese relations because the incoming freshmen aren't worldly enough to grasp diplomacy or the economic upside of China's emerging economy.

"If you look at the U.S., you look at who we're electing to Congress, to the Senate -- they can't read," The Wall Street Journal quoted Bloomberg as saying.

"I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don't have passports. We're about to start a trade war with China if we're not careful here only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is," he reportedly said.

I liked the lone comment at the bottom of the article:

There are no comments about that arogant A*S - BECAUSE WE CAN'T READ! ​

 

[WhoWee]

Bloomberg better be ready for the heat he's going to have to take for his remarks yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/08/bloomberg-newly-elected-pols-read/

I liked the lone comment at the bottom of the article:

There are no comments about that arogant A*S - BECAUSE WE CAN'T READ! ​

The citizens of NY should probably wonder if Bloomberg is representing them on this trip - or himself?

 

[CAC1001]

Bloomberg is a leftist in centrist's clothing. As for China, they ought to be lucky America doesn't put a tariff on all their imports to make up for their artificially keeping their currency de-valeud to benefit themselves.