home

Economy Contracts By 3.8% In 4th Qtr Of 2008

The bad news continues:

The economy shrank at a 3.8 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as the deepening recession forced consumers and businesses to throttle back spending. The new figure, released Friday by the Commerce Department, showed the economy sinking at a much faster clip in the October-December period than the 0.5 percent decline logged in prior quarter.

This information makes clear that the stimulus plan proposed by the Obama Administration is simply inadequate for the crisis we face. Unlike in other recessions, the instruments of monetary policy are not available. As the NYTimes reports (and as Krugman has been explaining for months now (google liquidity trap + Krugman)), Fed rates are already at virtual zero. We need a huge fiscal stimulus in excess of a trillion dollars. The Obama plan is entirely too timid. In my opinion, it will fail.

Speaking for me only

< Insubordination In the Pentagon? | When Governance Dictates Politics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The clock is ticking (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    In reading Krugman today about healthcare, it struck me that this should have been bundled into the stimulus mix. Corporate America would be much more competetive if they weren't harnessed with healthcare costs. We're the only industrial nation that's still clinging to the 1950's mentality. Also as Krugman pointed out, with all the new layoffs,  there are millions of new unemployed that are now without healthcare insurance

    The situation is critical. We're not going to correct it by trying to stop the bleeding with a band aid. If ever there was a time and opportunity to really change the dynamics of the country, this is it.

    Obama needs to add the word vision into his hope and change rhetoric.

    Well, he seems to be proposing Massachusetts-lite. (none / 0) (#7)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    The MA health plan sucks, even our own Governor calls it unsustainable, and a non-binding ballot initiative to adopt single payer won a whopping 73% of the vote.  If that's the direction he's going in, it's a gimmick and a boondoggle for the private insurers.

    Parent
    Kennedy acknowledged it is in the MA (none / 0) (#38)
    by suzieg on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    direction that he's headed in.

    Parent
    Well, then, it's crap. (none / 0) (#40)
    by masslib on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    What is really inadequate has been (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    the Democrats' approach to the whole issue.  The mechanics of economic recovery are enormously complex, such that there is no way this one bill was ever going to be "the fix" that would get it on track, but you would never know from anything you are hearing or reading that there is more to the plan than this one bill, and if there is more, what it is.

    Why wasn't there an effort to get Democrats out there to explain why we have to spend now?  Why haven't they explained what the next steps are?  Why haven't the Democrats stressed how the Republicans' irresponsible handling of the economy helped get us to this point, and painted a picture of what will happen if those policies are allowed to continue?

    If ever there was a time the American public needed to be educated about the economy, it is now, and for the life of me I do not understand why all the effort seems to have gone into charming a bunch of spoiled politicians instead of driving public support for the Democratic plan.  Maybe it's because it's hard to call a bill a plan, even if it does come with an enormous price tag.  A plan is something with organization and defined steps and stages and bullet points and flow charts, and all of those pieces and parts have targeted goals and timelines and benchmarks and options for when results deviate from what was expected.  A plan has people whose job it is to go out and explain it to people, to sell it, to use it to assuage fear and inspire confidence.  Where is all of that?  

    I'm sorry, but Barack Obama's considerable charm is not a plan, winning the WH is not a plan.  The American people elected Democrats because they believed Dems were the ones who could fix this mess, and they deserve more than what they are getting.  I'd be willing to bet there are millions of people who no longer believe that the health care system stands a snowball's chance in hell of being reformed - not if this is the way the Dems are approaching the problems with the economy.

    High approval ratings, big majorities in both houses of Congress, but no real plan.  Way to go!


    You make some good points (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by cotton candy on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    If ever there was a time the American public needed to be educated about the economy, it is now,...

    You are right but who wants to hear about complex economic policy besides you and I and those that are interested in the line by line details of the plan. Who can even understand most of what is going on besides "I've lost my job and my savings now what?"   I spoke with a friend of mine who I consider fairly knowledgeable about economics and who has been following this economic stimulus plan and after he gave me this long rundown on what is supposed to happen he even admitted that he wasn't sure what the result is going to be as to whether or not it will fully work but he asked what else is there to do? He does believe that not doing anything was not a solution.

    I do disagree with you however that winning the White House was "not a plan."  Actually it was a big part of the plan as we would have been stuck with John McCain who would have continued to follow the last eight years of policy that got us into this situation to begin with. (Phil Gramm anyone?)

    We shall soon see whether or not this stimulus plan works.

    Parent

    Winning the WH does not fix the economy, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    or reform health care, or guarantee anything else.  It is a step, maybe the first one, but it is not, in and of itself, a plan.

    As for educating the public about the economy, it doesn't have to be done at the Wharton School level.  If Paul Krugman can write easily understood columns that help shed light on what the heck is going on, it seems to me that an education offensive would not - should not - be beyond the abilities of the Obama/Democratic leadership team.  At a minimum, there should at least be an effort - and I am not seeing that effort.

    More and more, I am hearing people ask, "(H)ow will spending money on this or that create jobs?  How will it help me get a job?"  They're asking because no one in charge is giving them an explanation.  I hear people ask how we can afford to run the deficit up, how it can be good for the economy?  I don't hear the Dems explaining that, or explaining how the spending they propose would be a benefit in the long run - I just hear the GOP feeding the people's fears that spending - any spending - by Democrats is bad, and there's no pushback from the Dems at all.

    The Dems are losing the PR war on this, and that's at least half the battle in garnering support for any plan - and giving the people the impression that you have some idea what you're doing!  

    And on the eve of Super Bowl weekend, I just have to say that if the Dems were a football team, we'd all be asking if they'd bothered to watch any game film in, oh, the last decade, and we'de be questioning the coaching that didn't game plan for the opposition.


    Parent

    I'm not saying that (none / 0) (#19)
    by cotton candy on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    Of course winning the White House won't fix the economy automatically but winning it from a party that has been a disaster for the country is a start.

    I agree that the dems could probably do a better job selling their plan but what more is there to sell besides the plan going towards jobs? My local news listed how much was going towards education, infrastructure and healthcare with bullet points.   Should there be someone out there like a Dr. Sanjay Gupta or an Oprah that could break it down to where people understand what is going on since the dems are doing such an awful job of selling it? How about a Suze Orman?  I think it is all well and good that we can request accountability but then what?  Do you have a fix besides saying that Obama's "charm" won't help?

    Also, how are the dems losing the PR war? Is it because the media has decided that they were only going to have GOP members on tv blabbing nonsense?  Are there poll numbers that back up your assertion that Obama and the dems are doomed?

    It has been exactly a week. The economic stimulus plan if it works is not going to show returns for awhile and I guess for me all of this "I know it is not going to work but I don't have a plan" talk is doing nothing to alleviate the problems we face right now.

    Parent

    you said: (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    Of course winning the White House won't fix the economy automatically but winning it from a party that has been a disaster for the country is a start.

    It's a start that is going to go nowhere fast if the overall impression is that nothing much has changed.

    I agree that the dems could probably do a better job selling their plan but what more is there to sell besides the plan going towards jobs? My local news listed how much was going towards education, infrastructure and healthcare with bullet points.   Should there be someone out there like a Dr. Sanjay Gupta or an Oprah that could break it down to where people understand what is going on since the dems are doing such an awful job of selling it? How about a Suze Orman?  I think it is all well and good that we can request accountability but then what?  Do you have a fix besides saying that Obama's "charm" won't help?

    Oh, for heaven's sake - simply saying that the bill will create jobs explains nothing - it's why people are asking how the bill will do that.  And no, I don't want Suze Orman or Oprah out there explaining it - I want an elected member of the Congress, or maybe about a dozen of them - to go out and answer those questions.  Not only will it help people understand "the plan," but it will help people feel like the Dems actually understand what the problem is and understand what is needed to fix it.  

    Also, how are the dems losing the PR war? Is it because the media has decided that they were only going to have GOP members on tv blabbing nonsense?  Are there poll numbers that back up your assertion that Obama and the dems are doomed?  

    The Dems are losing the PR war because they aren't participating in it in any substantive way, and while it is easy to blame the media for the disproportionate emphasis on GOP opinion, I suspect that the Dems actually do have the muscle to get themselves before the public if they want to.

    As for polls, there was a poll showing that independents are moving the support/don't support numbers over to the don't support side - I think it was Rasmussen or Gallup.  

    It has been exactly a week. The economic stimulus plan if it works is not going to show returns for awhile and I guess for me all of this "I know it is not going to work but I don't have a plan" talk is doing nothing to alleviate the problems we face right now.

    Obama was president-elect for 10 weeks before he was sworn in.  He had a battalion of economic advisors on staff for months leading up to the election.  There was time to formulate not just a plan, but a plan for rolling out the plan.  

    The stimulus bill is too weak a package for a new president with a high approval rating and solid majorities in Congress to offer to the people.  I never said it wasn't going to work, but when you start with a weak plan, you're likely to get weak results.  Weak results are going to ripple out in a negative way and it will be even harder to get a do-over right.


    Parent

    Bravo, Anne (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    I think you have it exactly right.

    Parent
    We needed a "work horse" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by mogal on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    who had already plowed the field.

    Parent
    Well, at least we can rely (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    on his experience and record as indications of what he can achieve as POTUS.

    Parent
    Anne, please stop! (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    This is not the era of logic and common sense - this is the era of "hope" and "change" - as in "I hope this plan will change the direction of the country before we follow in the path of the Roman Empire as it was overrun by Barbarians!"

    Parent
    Sorry! Don't know what came over me... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    Will work on the Peter-Pan-Saves-Tinkerbell method - lots of clapping and believing.

    Oy.

    Parent

    But watch out ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by cymro on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    ... for those GOPirates sneaking up behind you. They don't care about Tinkerbell, and they will tie up all the innocent lost Democratic boys when you're not looking.

    Parent
    To me you have only one shot at the ecomony (none / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:41:55 AM EST
    By Obama using fear tactics and telling us the urgency of getting something out quick or else is wrong IMO.  You better get this stimulus bill right now and it won't be right if everyone is so eager to rush something out just to say that they did something.  I see a lot of items that IMO have nothing to do with stimulating the economy or creating jobs.  I rather wait and bring in more pros to discuss what the best stimulus bill could be.  Exhaust all possible avenues on getting it right to include ideas from Republicans as well.

    Obama has only two options.  Get it close to perfect as possible or just throw out a willy nilly plan that even 11 democrats did not agree with in the house.  I doubt if you will get a second chance at this.


    In fairness, Obama tried to lay the groundwork for (none / 0) (#36)
    by jawbone on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    getting more than one chance, talking about FDR saying some things would work, if things didn't, they would be dropped, etc. But, FDR, while having to cajole his Southern Dems, had less to worry about from Repubs--and didn't feel he had to win with bipartisan votes.

    And, imho, if FDR felt as Obama does, that Repubs had to be won over, we would never have SocSec, the WPA, FDIC, etc. etc.

    I fear that Obama doesn't have strong enough support of the public to be able to get several tries at a fix. If this fails, we are in deep doodoo, and the Dem Party may be dead as a dodo.

    Plus, the public may be wondering why this rock star of political speakers doesn't speak on the issues. Especially one so overwhelmingly important as keeping the economy together. This worries me as well quite a bit, actually.

    Parent

    The stimulus package (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:43:42 AM EST
    is already out of date.  It's not nearly enough.  If it fails, Obama fails.  I don't get why he can't see that.  He needs a more diverse groups of economic advisers.  Even Bill Clinton had a more diverse set of advisers.

    Oh, it's not all bad (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:54:18 AM EST
    Exxon-Mobil shattered record profits for 2008 by making over $45 billion in profits for the year.

    We're all just in the wrong line of work.

    Verbiage (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:02:47 AM EST
    Corporate results: Oil producer Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500) reported a 33% plunge in profit to $7.8 billion because of plummeting oil prices.

    But Exxon Mobil reported annual net income of $45.2 billion, an American record.

    Notice the adjective in losses and nothing for 45.2 billion.

    How about this:

    Exxon reported profits at 7.8 billion, and they would have been 18 billion if oil prices remained outrageously high.  Their annual net income was a staggering 45.2 billion, an American record.  


    Parent

    Shrug (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    You can apply whatever adjective you like, but it doesn't matter if you have a trillion dollars in income if your expenses also happen to be a trillion dollars.  Profit is the important measure.

    Parent
    you are correct (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    How about not using "plunge" to record a 7.8 billion dollar profit

    Parent
    Hmmmm..I'm confused (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:20:06 AM EST
    The article says:

    Exxon Mobil Corp. today reported a profit of $45.2 billion for 2008, breaking its own record for a U.S. company, even as its fourth-quarter earnings fell 33% from a year ago.

    Net income fell to $7.8 billion for the quarter (Oct-Dec)

    Irving, Texas-based Exxon said net income slid sharply to $7.8 billion, or $1.55 a share, in the October-December period.

    The $45 billion was the profit for the entire year.

    Parent

    What is pass fail here (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    What are the measurements for success?  Is it lowered UE? Fewer foreclosures? Less bankruptcies?  Number of jobs created this year?  Whether or not we sink into a worser (thanks dubya) recession?

    I don't think it large enough either, but I think it needs to be twice what it is because of the delay in introducing the legislation which should have been done last summer.  

    The economy has contracted too much and as I predicted on numerous occasions last year, layoffs accelerated accordingly.  

    It is too late now to prevent a record number of foreclosures and bankruptcies although I think UE will rise to 9 and hold for at least a year.

    When you wait too long to enact legislation that takes months to hit the street, you have to deal with the spiral effect.  Welcome to twisterland.

    So here is what needs to be done.  Stop negotiating with the banks for more funding to paying bonuses (ok so maybe the money was not directly used for bonuses but when you "need" help and blame the "lying mortgage applicants who could not afford so much home" and then take bonuses) and create a gov't controlled mortgage financeer that owns at risk mortgages.  I have summarized it here previously.

    Tell states they have 7 days to present shovel ready projects and costs for review.  That means states have to get estimates which they probably already have for overdue projects and be ready to start 30 days post passing of the legislation.

    Declare February and March payroll tax free for employees and employers.

    Tell taxpayers that anything they pay OVER on April 15th will be counted as double for 2009 (this puts in extra cash now to help fund projects but truth be told I don't know what it means for next year, trouble?).   This will also help collect tax revenues for 2009 that normally would be collected in 2010 and my guess is that with all the bankruptcies there will be lots of outstanding monies owed the IRS because people will be too broke to pay and will not have access to credit to pay.

    What you want to do is stem the tide now because if there is no money on the street for the next 60 days, we are going to see even more layoffs March through June.  Companies will continue to cut and people will continue not spending.  

    Seems to me... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    if the bank bailout is any indicator, "pass" is still having a semi-functioning country, and "fail" is food riots.

    Parent
    Question for economist types? (none / 0) (#22)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    I guess I see what happens if the stimulus is not big enough, though big enough and targeted correctly are questions just as big.  My question is what is the risk of a stimulus that is too big?  Outside of being politically stupid, what is the real world risk?

    My view (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:09:16 AM EST
    Not from people you are asking to answer, is there is no risk other than dealing with the deficit later.

    Parent
    The deficit will come (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    way down when the economy gets going again.  Also, although most folks in the blogosphere don't seem to want to hear about it, all that money that's going into the financial system will start to come back because the government owns a lot of preferred stock in those financial institutions now.

    There will be a deficit, but a few years down the road, it won't be anywhere close to what it looks like now.

    Parent

    We can always raise taxes later. . . (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    Deficit risks? (none / 0) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    Can you have a "sound" economy and have a large deficit?  

    Parent
    Simple answer (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    Yes.

    Until Bill Clinton came along and wiped it out, the U.S. government pretty much always ran big deficits.  Screaming about the deficit was-- and we should all understand this-- a highly successful GOP tactic to cut the size of government.  IOW, "balancing the budget" was no more than an excuse to cut entitlements and other government spending, handicap the government and try to cut off Democrats' heavy support from poor people, minorities and elders.

    Parent

    What andgarden said (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    Krugman has written about the (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    whole issue of the size of the stimulus, with some regularity - you might try perusing his columns and blog; I think he does a pretty good job of explaining it.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#27)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    Krugman doesn't realy talk about the downside of too much (or what too much is).  This isn't a Obama vs. anti-Obama question, it is just an academic question.  

    Also, who is the anti-krugman?  Knowledgeable economist, from a major institution, world wide respect, that can dumb down his words enough so I can understand them?  

    Parent

    For an intelligent critique (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    from the Right, see Martin Feldstein.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#31)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    Maybe the "bad bank" idea (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    will get to the heart of the real estate free-fall....The RTC in the early 90s took care of the savings & loan failures....

    Read Karl Denninger on Obama Stimulus and bad Bad (none / 0) (#37)
    by jawbone on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:47:50 PM EST
    Bank idea:

    LINK to longish but very strong take on the situation. Notes that a current predictive tool indicates possible 75% plunge in stock markets. There's also an upside to the predictor, which he had felt would occur (an increase in value, then another downward trend), but now feels the downside is stronger.

    I don't know about the chart and the techniques used to come to his conclusion, but I can understand most of what he writes in the copy portion of the post. Worth reading.

    He's one of the economists very strong on the idea of declaring unbacked Credit Default Swaps (CDS) null and void. Imperative to do before nationalizing banks to keep them in business.


    Parent

    maybe, just maybe he doesn't understand the (none / 0) (#39)
    by suzieg on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    dynamics of the economy or the plan put forward by his advisors, after all Bill Clinton  did let it out on the campaign trail, in Florida, that Obama had called him and Hillary and 14 other people asking for their help because he admitted to them that he knew nothing about economics therefore needed to learn quickly because this was very important for him to get it right.