Documenting The POR Economy’s Damage
My next Pajamas Media column will go up on Friday or Saturday (Update: It’s here).
I have put together two graphics that will be in it. Following up on a request from the sensible center-right blogosphere to chart the POR Economy through to its trough (we hope), I am showing the first one now:
I’m using June 1, 2008 to approximate when The (POR Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy began.
The column will also have another graphic with more lookback detail that places the markets’ decline in historical perspective and considers inflation.
I’ll link to the column as soon as I learn of its appearance.
Further elaboration requires waiting until the column appears, but the above chart does a pretty good job of speaking for itself.
Those who think we should be impressed that the markets have bounced back should note that yesterday’s closes of 7487, 794 and 1491 for the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ were still:
- 47.1%, 49.3%, and 47.8% below their respective October 2007 highs. Given that October 2007 is the first month during which a Pelosi- Reid-passed budget was officially in place, it is fair to say that they deserve a significant share of the blame for the markets’ decline from that point forward.
- 40.8%, 43.3%, and 40.9% below their respective closes on May 30, just before The POR Economy began. For reasons discussed when I made the call in early July, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and their handiwork get the overwhelming share of the blame for the declines in the indices since then.
As to the last 10 days: Relieved? Yes. Impressed? No Nyet.
[...] Bizzyblog has a great post today, fully describing the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy. [...]
Pingback by Professor Athena: What’s with the $300 Billion Fed Loan? « Temple of Mut — March 19, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
So, Tom, let me get this dead horse of an argument you keep beating straight. You convenient decide that the POR economy began in June for no other reason than that’s a good starting point to show how far the economy has detoriated since then. Yet, in your own post, you concede that the first budget passed under the Pelosi-Reid lead Congress didn’t even take effect until October. And then, incredible by a sane person’s standard, you suggest, without any support, that it was their budget that “deserve a significant share of the blame for the market’s decline that point forward.”
So, tell me, Tom. Educate me. What was in that federal budget that was responsible for the market to crash the INSTANT it went into effect and why didn’t Congressional Republicans oppose it and President Bush veto such a “reprehensible” budget?
Comment by Modern Esquire — March 22, 2009 @ 11:51 am
#2, you’re so comprehension-impaired I fear there is no hope. But if you go to my latest PJM column or wait about 90 minutes here, you might understand that it’s not only budget- and spending-driven.
But, I fear it will escape you no matter how clearly stated.
UPDATE: OMG, I think you actually read the article and commented as you did.
You convenient(ly) decide that the POR economy began in June for no other reason than that’s a good starting point to show how far the economy has detoriated since then.
There are at least two, probably three, good reasons why that’s the starting point. Please read or re-read.
As to the budget, POR’s responsibility (for the budget) formally began on 10/1/07. The market peaked that month, and went downhill from there. It’s not the only cause, but it’s an element. Then in June 2008, their budget, which increased spending by 9% or 11% depending on whether you view stimulus payments as spending (of course they are) or “negative receipts” (as Uncle Sam called them), and after the last GOP budget only increased spending by only 3% in its last budget, their recklessness combined with the factors you’ll have to read or re-read about accelerated the slide and tanked the economy.
The horse is alive, kicking, and correct.
Comment by TBlumer — March 22, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Ever hear of it? You do know that it’s a logical fallacy, right?
Comment by Modern Esquire — March 23, 2009 @ 10:20 am
#4, except for three things: I called it at the time, there has been no acceptable alternative explanation, and there is anecdotal evidence galore. Resorting to this shows you’re out of arguments.
It’s no different than this observation, which you can’t “prove” either. The world is not a courtroom.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2009 @ 10:47 am
#6, Let’s apply your “‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ logic” to globaloney. ROTFLMAO.
If you and your compadres think globaloney is “settled science,” you are forced to conclude that the POR Economy is etched in stone.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2009 @ 11:42 am
You’re right, Tom, it was entirely the federal budget. It had nothing to do with some of the world’s largest financial firms reporting BILLIONS in losses in October. It was because federal spending in the U.S. went up. You’re ridiculous explanation fails to explain why this economic crisis is a global one. I don’t think you’ll find a single economist who would pin the DOW loses in October on the federal budget. It was one bad economic report and business reporting catastophic losses after another. The pain of the collapsing house bubble has spread through Wall Street, and in the end, the federal budget had nothing to do with it.
No, Tom, this isn’t a courtroom, but facts, evidence, logic, and common sense is hardly the exclusive providence of a courtroom.
I’m not forced to consider June 2008 as the start of the Obama economy when the man wasn’t even President yet. It’s a ridiculous notion that suggests you are using other reasons (like the fact that’s when the Dow showed relative strength) to obscure exactly how much your party is responsible for what has occured. Never before has ANY President been credited or blamed for an economy that collapsed over six months before they took office (with maybe the exception of candidates who were sitting Vice-Presidents.)
It’s a ludicious notion that Obama was “in charge” of the national economy at that time. I know it’s your conservative fantasy, but your Big Lie isn’t true, no matter how many times you repeat it to the sheeple at Pajama Media.
I’d be willing to give you since Obama took office on January 20th, even though technically you’d be hard pressed to believe a President could have that much impact on the economy on their first day. I think the market needs to have actual policies in place to react to first. But to say he was influencing the economy that much that the October collapse in the market was his, Pelosi, and Reid’s fault is just ignorant.
You, Tom, are not an economist. You can’t compare your partisan rantings as the equivalent of the scientific community on global warming. What economists support your “theory” that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are particular responsible for the economic conditions in the nation beginning on June 2008? Did the Congressional Republicans, the sitting President, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve just disappear? It’s not even theory. It’s conservative conspiracy theory at its worst.
Comment by Modern Esquire — March 23, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
#7, you parody yourself. I’ll just let your nonsense stand for the nonsense that it is, except for two things:
- It’s the Pelosi-Obama-Reid Economy, not the Obama Economy. You know that’s what I call it, but you deliberately misrepresent it.
- I never said “it was entirely the federal budget.” You know that too, but you deliberately misrepresent it.
You’re simply not worthy of engagement as long as you deal in such fundamentally dishonest tactics.
So, I’ll repeat: I called it at the time, there has been no acceptable alternative explanation, and there is anecdotal evidence galore. Resorting to what you have resorted to shows you’re out of arguments.
Buh-bye.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2009 @ 10:51 pm