This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Media Can't Save Barack From Obama Economy
by John Tamny, Toreador Research and Trading (Guest Contributor)
With the Obama economy limping along thanks in part to the Administration’s policies in favor of extreme dollar weakness, there’s growing speculation as to his re-election chances in 2012. Will a difficult economic situation that includes high levels of unemployment make Obama a one-term president? History says no given the power of incumbency.
Added to that, another popular narrative of late points to an Obama victory owing to the supposed economic illiteracy of the electorate, along with a media that will provide our weakened president with positive media coverage no matter the state of the economy. Of course the problem with this bit of theorizing is that Americans aren’t stupid, and after that, past elections suggest that those same Americans tend to tune out the media.
Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office tell the tale here. As USA Today media reporter Peter Johnson has put it, “Over the course of his campaigns and eight years in office, Ronald Reagan’s press peaked and fell but was always negative. … In his re-election bid in 1984, 91 percent of his coverage was negative.”
The above is important. Despite a rising economy and millions of new jobs, the media invariably stuck to a number of gloomy themes during the Reagan years, including the rising homeless population, twin deficits, and a generalized assumption that the supposed economic gains of the 1980s were only being enjoyed by the wealthy few. Amidst this constant negativity, Reagan was returned to office in 1984 with one of largest landslide victories in electoral history.
To gain access to our best stock picks and most extensive buy/sell lists, click here to sign up for our free weekly newsletter Investment Advisor Ideas.
Back then, stocks confirmed what voters already knew — that the economy was doing very well. Despite a major recession brought on by Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve’s needless flirtation with quantity money targets in the early 1980s, the Dow Jones Industrial Average still returned 134 percent during Reagan’s presidency. Markets and the Electoral College told the truth about an economy and presidency that the media regularly tried to cast in a negative light.
To put it simply, voters aren’t dim and they know when the economy is performing well. Conversely, when the economy is acting badly, voters are well aware once again.
For evidence supporting the above, we must first journey back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. As William Greider put it in Secrets of the Temple, “Despite the aggravations of inflation, President Carter had presided over one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in postwar history, four years of recovery starting in 1976.”
So while GDP, the frequently faulty measure of economic health, was rising during Carter’s presidency, neither the stock markets nor the electorate were fooled. The recession during the Carter years was the falling dollar, as evidenced by spikes in gold and oil. A falling dollar is always recessionary for limited capital flowing into hard, commoditized assets, and away from innovative ideas that fund our economic advancement.
Though the media certainly preferred Carter over Reagan heading into the 1980 elections, the electorate felt differently and handed Reagan a 44-state landslide. The economy was weak, voters knew it, and the Reagan Revolution began.
Moving to George W. Bush’s presidency, GOP partisans continue to talk about “52 months of uninterrupted economic growth”, along with mostly low unemployment that prevailed during his presidency. But thanks to a falling dollar that once again drove gold and oil skyward, voters expressed their displeasure.
Luckily for Bush, the dollar’s most substantial decline began after the 2004 elections, thus saving him from certain defeat. But by 2005-06 the dollar was in freefall, real estate was the hot asset much as it was during the Carter years, and as capital flowed into the proverbial ground as an inflation hedge, voters knew something was amiss on the way to voting out happy talking modern Republicans who wouldn’t know a supply-side principle if it smacked them in the head.
Of all people, the usually brilliant economist Thomas Sowell opined about the Bush economy in 2006 that the “liberal media and intelligentsia are strenuously trying to preserve the vision of poverty and economic distress”, but in truth, the voters didn’t need a media that disliked Bush to tell them something was wrong. They knew things weren’t right, the symptoms (rising gold, oil and all other commodities) of a weak dollar were the telltale sign of a weakening economy, and the Republicans rightly experienced major losses in 2006, followed by the White House in 2008.
Moving to the present, no doubt most in the media worship President Obama, and because they do they’ll strive mightily to create the impression that all is well, or at the very least that the economic malaise isn’t Obama’s fault. They would have a point, though for reasons none could articulate. Simply stated, the Bush bailouts remain a big weight on economic growth for failure always authoring capitalism’s advancement, not to mention that the Bushies handed Obama a dollar that was already severely debased.
Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback, and then once in office, Obama’s economic team poured gasoline on the fire; most notably with policies meant to mimic the Bush economic disaster in the form of nosebleed spending and an even weaker dollar. The economy is weak, its weakness by definition has Washington and the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it, and no matter how the media spin that which isn’t working, Obama is in serious trouble.
What’s unknown is if there’s a Republican who truly knows why the Obama economy sags, and who can talk about anything other than tax cuts which, at this point, are not the point. Specifically, is there a Republican who can explain to voters that $100 trips to the gas station are the direct result of the Administration’s currency policies, not to mention that a weak dollar decreases the very investment that drives company formation and job creation.
If such a Republican exists Obama will be a one-term president. If not, the Republicans don’t deserve to retake the White House.
»
- advertisements -
Another book to ignore:
Joe Atwill, _Caesar's Messiah_. There's a new edition out with "The Flavian Signature" added.
I know you're not reading much these days but if you RILLY want to learn what happened...
CW
I hope we get republicans.. so they can enact austerity measures against the "We the Working Sheepeople"!
Tax Cuts for the Rich!
and..
Benefits cut for the Poor!
and..
Make the Working Man pay for ALL of it!
the Top 1% owns 39% of everything.. and pays 4% of the collected Taxes!
and NOT! the Dems or Reps Lobby Whores work for majority. They Love Minorities! The Rich Minority!
The sooner They piss off everyone with more Austerity the sooner we can get the revolution under way! SO!! More! Austerity for the Poor / Working Man Please!!
By taxing income the property differential remains, the class system becomes more rigid, and upward mobility is hampered.
I hear that hunger is a powerful motivator. You can't eat those SNAP IOU FRN-backed TBTF-issued bank cards.
+ 44m food stamps and a total of 59% of Americans receiving some kind of assistance!
Rockefeller, who lives in Manhattan, has received nearly $330,000 in taxpayer money over the past 10 years for his "farm" on the Snake River in Idaho. Rockefeller did not respond to an interview request made by ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/city-dwelling-landowners-paid-millions-farm-secondary-estates/story?id=13916915
Go wipe the 2008 Hope & Change off your chin. You are a bamster voter.
you are to stupid to even grasp how fucking off page you are..
there is no difference between one or the other.
quelling people by providing a peticular type of dog and pony show for 4 years at a time is all this is about.
do you understand newbie? are you catching on?
how about this Mr. Republican.. give me 10 difference between Obama and Bush.
"Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback"
I'm not sure Bush was the autos but regardless if you look back Andrew Mellon went exactly the route of liquidated banks/businesses en mass. I have his wiki snapshot below. He is largely credited with making the Great Depression much worse than it should have been. Hell there was a strong move to seize family assets by the government. There was no snapback to his actions, it was a massive and unmitigated deflationary spiral for several years until they barely pulled neutral with all kinds of policy intervention and then WWII changed things. I'm not saying this time wasn't different but to simply believe that taking the same route in similar situation would produce vastly different results and a fast snapback is an assumption and more than a bit of a stretch.
Mellon's liquidationist approach helped end the panic in 1920-21. Prices of goods declined sharply to a level that folks could afford. Real estate, goods and services were put to use rather than rotting.
Enter 1930 and a different president, Herbert Hoover and a balance sheet recession rather than excess inventory slowdown. Hoover ignored Mellon and spent taxpayer funds on banks and business cronies. Industries were asked to keep on staff at pre- crash wages. None of this helped (as the US banking sector was overleveraged to real estate, overseas bonds and gold arbitrage).
See, 'Reconstruction Finance Corp' for more ...
Mellon faded into well- deserved obscurity, Hoover's activist approach was corrupted and his presidency became irrelevant as a result. The same fate awaits Obama's presidency. Can be worse: a Bachmann presidency ...
Roosevelt's first step was to end a raging banking bankruptcy crisis and credit freeze by taking US off gold, taking specie out of circulation and replacing it with paper currency. The president also ordered the Treasury to buy gold and silver, devaluing the dollar by 40% in the process (defaulting). By doing so, Roosevelt saved the banks and the deposits of millions of Americans.
Roosevelt did not create or end the recession but came close to ending it on several occasions. The 'depression' effects were an ongoing class war taking place between industrialists and finance on one hand and ordinary people on the other. The 'Great Depression' was a social- economic shift from a local- scale agrarian/small business model with a limited finance sector toward a centralized financial/industrial state dominated by credit/business monopolies. The weapon of the little people was their willingness to hold currency and thereby give it value while denying it to the plutocrats.
Mellon was a man of his time. Had his prescription been followed in the 1930's the likely outcome would have been an outright collapse leading to a revolution ... that the US narrowly avoided nevertheless. See, William Manchester's 'Glory and the Dream'.
Business liquidations are the consequence rather than the cause of our current economic unraveling. Our's is an net energy crisis that inexorably gets worse with each passing minute. Our rates of resource extraction have long ago been unable to keep up with our rate of resource waste.
At some point the end is reached then the 'real' liquidition takes place. Peeps will be too por to kill each other.
Just two minutes, extremely passionate ... just catch the fire in Farrakhan's voice toward the end when he says it, actually shouts it; this is very intense:
Louis Farrakhan on Obama: 'That's a Murderer in the White House'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjX7KPfguI
If a white man said this shit about Obama, he's be branded a racist and ostracized by the media.
Obama is a Muslim.. He can Not! be killing his own kind! LULZ!!! dumb fucking republicans!
Obama is a Liberal Pussy! I mean Dictator!! I mean??? you fucking idiot republicans dont know what you fucking mean..
what Obama is.. is just like lil Bush on steriods! you fucking Moe-Rons! You should Love Obama! He does just like your Boy Bush wanted too do / did!!
I hated bush junior too.
Nah - you are an Obama voter and a** ****er and you put him in power. Bush was heaven by comparision.
Hope your neighbors do not know you voted for him when it all implodes soon. Citizens will be looking for payback.
I feel the same about Obama as I do Bush, so it makes sense.
The boomers are going to slaughter Obama. No one with a nest egg is at all happy with this bozo.
Wait 'til that nest egg goes from "ostrich" to "hummingbird" in the coming months...
That republican exists...his name is Ron Paul!!!
There's nothing Republican at all about Ron Paul, besides the tag next to his name. He shares none of their professed neo-con values and their media arm, Fox News, is doing everything they can to silence him.
The people playing the part of the republican party are more active in stopping Dr. Paul than any group in the country.
like his vile offspring rand?
Rand is an opportunist, not a Libertarian. He seems to know less about Libertarianism than the talking heads on MSNBC.
if by opportunist you mean he's israel's bitch like the rest.
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/6200-senator-rand-paul-d...
ergo ron is controlled opposition, ironic that you think he exists
outside the dog and pony show.
If Ron is 'controlled opposition,' we might as well start eating each other.
Libertarianism is a poor man's anarchism.
Wait, so early America was an anarchy?
I always thought the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian was the size of their wallet.
Truer words have never been spoken.
But they were written, weren't they?
Here's a brain teaser for you: a barber shaves all men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?
Answer: If, and only if, he does not.
Truth is an illusion. Hypothesis can only be falsified, never proven. (Science 101)
by Kevin MacDonald
<snip>
IGNORING THE REAL WORLD: LIBERTARIANISM AS UTOPIAN METAPHYSICS
Several prominent libertarians have advocated open borders except for immigrants clearly intent on violating personal or property rights. As Krejsa notes, libertarians ignore the reality that the peoples crowding our shores often have powerful ethnic ties and that they are typically organized in well-funded, aggressive ethnic organizations. These ethnic organizations have a vital interest in a strong central government able to further their interests in a wide range of areas, from welfare benefits to foreign policy. In other words, they act far more as a corporate entity than as a set of isolated individuals. Further, the immigration policy advocated by Libertarians ignores the reality of racial and ethnic differences in a broad spectrum of traits critical to success in contemporary societies, particularly IQ, criminality, and impulsivity. Social utility forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism.
In reading these articles, one is struck by the fact that libertarianism is in the end a metaphysics. That is, it simply posits a minimal set of rights (to ownership of one’s own body, ownership of private property, and the freedom to engage in contracts) and unflinchingly follows this proposition to its logical conclusion. The only purpose of government is to prohibit the “physical invasion” of another’s person or property. It is a utopian philosophy based on what ought to be rather than on a sober understanding of the way humans actually behave. Not surprisingly, as Simon Lote and Farnham O’Reilly point out, there have never been any pure libertarian societies. There are powerful reasons for that.
<snip>
Similarly, the libertarian idea that we should alter government as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity, whether based on ethnicity or on a voluntary association like a corporation. They will continue to engage in networking (often with co-ethnics) and they will pursue policies aimed at advancing their self-interest as conditioned by group membership. If they have access to the media, they will craft media messages aimed at converting others to agree with their point of view—messages that need not accurately portray the likely outcomes of policy choices. Media-powerful groups may also craft messages that take advantage of people’s natural proclivities for their own profit without regard to the weaknesses of others—a form of the unleashing of Darwinian competition discussed in the following.
<snip>
The libertarian utopia would thus be chronically unstable. Indeed, Krejsa quotes Peter Brimelow who notes that a libertarian society with completely open borders would result in enormous pressures for powerful state control — immigration as the “Viagra of the state”: “Immigrants, above all immigrants who are racially and culturally distinct from the host population, are walking advertisements for social workers and government programs and the regulation of political speech — that is to say, the repression of the entirely natural objections of the host population.”
A libertarian utopia would also unleash exploitation of the weak and disorganized by the strong and well-organized. Both Pert and Krejsa point out that a libertarian society would result in violations of normative moral intuitions. For example, parents could sell their children into slavery. Such behavior would indeed be evolutionarily maladaptive, because as slaves their reproductive opportunities would be at the whim of their master. But such an option might appeal to some parents who value other things more than their children as the result of genetically or environmentally induced psychiatric impairment, manipulative media influence, or drug-induced stupor in a society lacking social controls on drugs.
<snip>
http://www.toqonline.com/blog/libertarianism-and-white-racial-nationalism/
So some people still think the American 'elections' are real?
Some people believe the fairy tale that the Republicans and Democrats are two different political parties and voting for one or the other actually has an impact on legislation.
Silly, I know, but they really want to believe it.
Yeah, sort of like arguing whether Stalin or Mao was the better leader.
+1
Ireis--Truly, the partisan ZH bickering is so cute isn't it? Bread and Circus.
Republicans want to cut taxes and democrats want to raise them. Is that not a big enough difference for you?
topcallingtroll
Deficits are future taxes (plus compounded interest)
It looks like tea party republicans are trying to slow down the deficit. If the tea party owned the house and senate i dont believe they would raise taxes and increase government spending like the democrats.
Taxes have nothing to do with it. I always wondered why everyone was going nuts over the sunset on the Bush tax cuts. A quick look down 100 years and one could easily see the average taxes on the wealthiest Americans averaged in the low 20s and at this point where the lowest ever. This was when the marginal rate was 90% on high income earners during the GOP 8 year run in the 50s.
The GOP has never been about tax cuts, but that is the one thing they say that gets them elected. If you ask someone how much more taxes did they pay when Clinton was President before Bush, you'll get a "uh, my accountant has that". It was actually hilarious, a big fight over 300 basis points that maybe one person in the country was going to pay.
Liberals fault the Tax cuts for everything, as they excitedly talk about higher taxes and a trajectory towards a balanced budget while conveniently leaving out the mass amount of revenue pouring into the treasury from the dot.com bubble. It was like the govt won the lottery and tax increases were being cited as the reason. Of course by 2001, all of that was gone, a war started and Mitch my man Daniels couldn't seem to figure out that the influx of revenue during Clinton years was due to a massive , massive bubble that hit the middle class much harder as they were buying and selling stocks with fevered abandon and paying full income tax rates on it.
22 Million jobs have been cited, yet, no causal effect, well fuck, that's what happens when Goldman Sachs and fellow shysters were cranking out IPOs every day of Bullshit.coms who all needed new office furniture, the best mind you, computers and all the other gizmos at the time. All the VC companies flush with cash from the earlier successes was throwing money at start-ups if they had a website. All that trickled down and walla you have a shit pile of new jobs, supply side was completely and finally fully discredited as a pile of revenue poured in from our Bubble economy.
What sunk all that was the not the tax cuts, it was the amazing ever growing massive expansion of the govt to an unbelievable size under Bush and the GOP congress while hosting two wars.
Companies who swore they would never let a young marketing exec right out of college earn 200G plus perks in year one or have a programmer come in for an interview in shorts quickly caught on to the sheer giddiness of getting rid of all those self entitled assholes to hire Indians at a rate of 10 Jobs for every American job.
Their GOP and DEM buddies with blanked out memories about revenues matching expenses grinned in equal delight at the massive outflow of jobs and capital along with the tax revenue that went with it as they incessantly expanded govt.
Who could ever forget the massive medicare entitlement where taxpayers would pay for drugs with no caps on prices. Oil prices went through the ceiling housing was going up until it came down , the stock market was going up on housing stocks and defense stocks as the banks went hog wild in personal deficit fianacing for the middle class who realized , yes something was wrong.
The GOP raises taxes far more than the Dems, it's just that they cut out the middleman , which is the govt and let their benefactors get their pound of flesh directly from the middle class who less than a few years ago were riding high with their home values and stock portfolios sky high. Jobs were so plentiful anyone could work that wanted it. Then by 2006, this lower tax bullshit started to finally settle in. If lower taxes create jobs, where are the good-paying fucking jobs we just had? Answer: In India and the money saved in the executives hands that moved them there.
The Dems just picked it right up from there and went to "11". Stock Performance was better under the Dems, sure it was manipulated but wtf? It worked until it didn't. There is no daylight between parties and the Dems don't take care of the working class and the GOP don't lower taxes. Not one iota. The money it costs the majority of people is significantly higher as prices rise under the GOP to unsustainable levels as income and the wealth effect was cleaved in half in record time as debt stimulated GDP finally came to a stop. Supply side? HAHAHAHAHA
Keynesian? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Get a fucking clue. The GOP doesn't want full power. Goddamn, wtf do you think they would do?. Good ol White Boys club. The Tea Party? Total Bullshit.
In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is opportune to do so. That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered by something, must be classed among the knaves and the rascals. If a national leader should come from that lower class of politicians the evil consequences will soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up courage to take a definite stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk his position and his career, if needs be, in support of a determined line of policy.
One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (On Austrian empire politicians)
Be very careful; Hitler is, afterall, the gestalt of insanity...if he said 2+2=4 that makes 2+2 impossible to equal 4.
I dont care if lower taxes create jobs or causes unemployment, i just want lower taxes.
"The GOP doesn't want full power."
You nailed it. Nor do the Dems.
hahaha....Wow....people still believe that non-sense. TCT, please keep your comments to yourself. You are making some of the more intelligent U.S. posters look bad.
no joke, what an asshat
I think it is pretty clear the democrats will raise my taxes. I think all of you heard obama and geithner say we need to raise taxes. If I vote i will take my chances with the tea party republicans.
I have to agree that, given a chance, a Democrat will always raise taxes. Historically, that has been the case. Republicans will raise them too. They just won't call it a tax. Maybe they will call it a fee, like Pawlenty did. The Democratic Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, wants to raise taxes and is planning on shutting down state government if he doesn't get what he wants. While they have been assuring us that most of us will never feel this tax increase and they are only going to require the rich to pay their fair share, I have grave doubts about his veracity regarding this issue. The "rich" will leave if they can. Taxes collected will decrease, if that is possible. The rest of us will pay, as they will raise sales tax and this tax and that tax and pretty soon we too will be paying a solidarity tax. It is enough to make me want to move to South Dakota, where they continue to live perfectly well and provide services their citizens are content with on property taxes and a sales tax.
Awww, that's so cute, you even believe in those silly little stereotypes. They're owned by the same plutocracy. Republican vs Democrat is as scripted as any sitcom on television. It's a wonderful side-show that keeps the simple minded and gullible distracted while the real powers rob, rape and burn the country to the ground.
48% of the country is yelling about how the liberals are forcing them to have gay marriages and mandatory taxed abortions. The other 48% is pointing and yelling that the conservatives want to tatoo the 10 commandments on their children's foreheads. While this scripted game plays out, your pockets are being emptied.
48% of the country is yelling about how the liberals are forcing them to have gay marriages and mandatory taxed abortions. The other 48% is pointing and yelling that the conservatives want to tatoo the 10 commandments on their children's foreheads. While this scripted game plays out, your pockets are being emptied.
Well said, sir, well said.
OK Dipstix.
IF you can't figure this out, then you shouldn't have the vote or take advantage of the first amendment:
If my taxes are raised, I keep LESS of what I EARNED.
If my taxes are lowered, I keep MORE of what I EARNED.
That's right, E-A-R-N-E-D. Labor. Work. Are any of you working or sucking from the gubmint teat at some ivory tower?