The speech was bad. - - Yes, Jindal is dealing with morons (look who they voted in) - - - but you can't be so obvious in your delivery to let them know you think they are morons. Obama is much more skilled at this. He uses terms like 'hope' and 'change' - - and the morons eat it up.
You can't possibly believe that Obama himself is making the detailed economic decisions relative to how everyone hopes the economy mends. You write as though he didn't appoint a Nobel Prize winning econmist and multiple PHD level wonks to advise him. Do you think the mess, regardless of how we got into it, is an easy thing to fix? Do you think McCain or anyone could have fixed it by now? Its commonly understood the Presidency has always been ceremonial in that, it doesn't proport to have the technical understanding of economics to get in there with a wrench and make the necessary adjustments, its to try to inspire confidence in markets so liquidity makes a comeback -otherwise Stephen Hawking or Ray Kurzweil would have made the best candidates. He's been candid at every step about the task not being simple. I'll grant you there are probably earmarks but no conservative could have gotten that comittee designed racehorse through w/o them either ...such is the state of Democracy as we know it.
I do agree that the president does not need to be an economist but my simple argument is that we should have voted for a president with at least some economic experience in order to have an appreciation for history and a perspective when it comes to making future decisions. If his job is to inspire confidence in the markets then why isn't he doing that? Being honest about the numbers is important but talking down the market with multiple weekly addresses of how he will punish the heart of the market is not the best idea in my opinion. Omega you have to on some level agree that if you tax a business the employees will suffer during a recession/depression.
Markets know better than the general population the depth of the problem. When the market does come back it won't be dramatic it'll be incremental almost imperceptible but when the ecomomy does come back the market will lead, anticipating ...smelling money to be made. We may be undergoing that final shakeout everyone says will be the bottom now. When Obama addresses the population he doesn't formulate his words so that people at the level of economic understanding that users of ET have get it, you've got to know the message has to be a common denominator so little old men and ladies can understand it too. In my view if a small businessman still has an income of 250000 dollars in this environment and doesn't want to pay tax on over that then put the money back into the business by hiring someone or buying a new copy machine. Rereading your statement about his addresses about the market tanking when he talks, he probably is trying to circumvent what his people view as resistance to his policies by going straight to the people. Not just that, he basically takes a community minded approach towards governing ...nice to be included in what goes on isn't it.
Are you saying the market moves down because Obama dumbs down his economic statements? I would have to argue that dumbing down a statement or philosophy on the markets in no way changes the statement or philosophy. If Obama says he will raise taxes then the market will go down. If Obama releases 1,000 pages worth of information regarding the increase of taxes then the market will go down. The final conclusion of what Obama plans to do is what the market cares about. The market conclusion so far is that Obama is bad for the economy. "Rereading your statement about his addresses about the market tanking when he talks, he probably is trying to circumvent what his people view as resistance to his policies by going straight to the people." In other words keep his base happy at the expense of the market tanking?
The market is principally responding to the unraveling economy brought to you in large part by 8 years of the Bush Administration. Sowing, reaping and all that. And rather than glazing bullshit with honey, as Bush would be apt to do, Obama is engaging in a bit of straight talk and transparency. What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Evidently, you're just not used to it. Neo, it is clear that you really care. It is also clear that you have no knowledge, experience, credentials or clue.
The President isn't a servant of the secondary markets as much as he is of the economy. Obviously they're related in intricate ways but that the market tanks every time he speaks is the cringing at the medicine being administered in his approach to reviving the flow of credit. If you don't allow the argument to dead end into words like nationalizing or socialism then regulating what banks do is necessary. Thain and AIG both, when they thought they had the cover of darkness went out and divided up taxpayer funds amongst their cronies ...the Paulson stimulus ... figures from the CEO of Goldman Sachs his loyalties on the way out would be towards the nest he hopes to reinfest someday. Everybody wants banks to get back to lending someday and of course to applicants who can actually afford to pay the loans back --so where to from here? Jobs, spending that comes from jobs creating more jobs and more spending ...turning the vicious circle into a virtuous circle requires some sort of intervention and its always been my contention that if it don't trickle down and include the middle class then we'll have what we have. Its not like people don't want work and only want to sit around and get free money. I know someone who heads HR at a mid level company and she tells me the resumes come in by the hundreds for every single job thrown out. If you don't start out your day with a "GET OBAMA" memo then you can begin to dig out of the hole we're in.