The Rapid Economic Recovery Republicans Are Praying Against

[ProSense]

The Rapid Economic Recovery Republicans Are Praying Against

Brian Beutler

Everything that’s supposed to happen in politics this year, and everything that has happened for the last several months, has been premised on the tacit, but seemingly safe assumption: The economy will remain weak for years.

This has underlined Congressional jobs bill theatrics, campaign rhetoric about Obama’s record, debates about who’s to blame for high unemployment, and which party best represents the interests of the middle class.

But what if that assumption is wrong?

A contrarian school of thought holds that it is wrong — and its proponents have a growing cache of evidence to back them up.

If these evidence-based optimists are correct the political implications will be vast...Karl Smith, an economist at the University of North Carolina and author of the Modeled Behavior blog, is a major proponent of this forecast — what you might call Recovery Winter. Slate’s Matt Yglesias explained it here. I went straight to the source to hear why Smith concluded that a real recovery was finally looming, and decided to take his prediction public at the considerable risk of embarrassment if the gloom-and-doomers turn out to be right.

- more -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/morning-in-america-the-rapid-economic-recovery-conservatives-are-praying-against.php?ref=fpa

EPI: A solid step in the right direction for the labor market
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137284

[hootinholler]

1. I thought the R were obstructing things to keep the economy weak

If the assumption is that the economy would remain weak, then they wouldn't need to be proactive to obstruct recovery.

Pent up demand? People reaching under their mattresses?

What planet is this dude living on?

[ProSense]

2. The

"I thought the R were obstructing things to keep the economy weak...If the assumption is that the economy would remain weak, then they wouldn't need to be proactive to obstruct recovery."

...assumption is by normal people. The Republicans are "proactive" in trying to destroy the economy. Isn't that evident?

[hootinholler]

3. No it's not evident from the quoted part of the article

It's circular. The assumption that the economy will be weak is driving the campaign against the Democrats, the Rs are sabotaging the economy to ensure it stays weak. The rest of us are feeling the pain and seeing the effects of the obstruction.

The article goes on to state that the economy is improving in spite of this and claims that it will heat up as people reach under their mattresses and are forced to replace their worn out cars. It claims this is demand driven, which is the same old supply side bull. You need 2 things for a demand to be established: desire and the means.

But people barely have mattresses these days let alone a pile of money underneath them. Buying a new car? Yeah, right.

Desire? yeah, that may be there, but the means? Consider me dubious.

[ProSense]

4. Are

It's circular. The assumption that the economy will be weak is driving the campaign against the Democrats, the Rs are sabotaging the economy to ensure it stays weak. The rest of us are feeling the pain and seeing the effects of the obstruction.

The article goes on to state that the economy is improving in spite of this and claims that it will heat up as people reach under their mattresses and are forced to replace their worn out cars. It claims this is demand driven, which is the same old supply side bull. You need 2 things for a demand to be established: desire and the means.

...you familiar with opinions? See this part clearly shows that some people are challenging the assumptions:

But what if that assumption is wrong?

A contrarian school of thought holds that it is wrong

You started out by asserting, "If the assumption is that the economy would remain weak, then they wouldn't need to be proactive to obstruct recovery."

Do you really believe that Republicans wouldn't be "proactive" in trying to further weaken the ecomony?

How would you characterize their obstruction?

"But people barely have mattresses these days let alone a pile of money underneath them. Buying a new car? Yeah, right."

It appears you believe the economy is weak and there is no recovery in sight. The OP presents a contrary vision.

[hootinholler]

8. I guess I wasn't clear, let me try again.

My first point is why would Republicans expend all that energy if they thought (if their opinion) was that the economy would remain weak under stimulus? Clearly they believe (their opinion is) that stimuli will work and for them to succeed they must obstruct it.

This 'contrarian' school of thought is the same supply side bull that's been reheated. It implies that we do not need further stimulus and holds up an assumption that people are sitting on piles of money under their mattresses.

Well the rental market is strong because no one is buying real estate. No one has the money to buy real estate or cars. You can't have demand with no money supply.

I believe (my opinion is) that without further stimulus of some sort, the economy will continue it's lackluster growth for while, possibly a decade judging on what happened to Japan. The contrary vision is Krugman's, not Smith's. Smith's arguments are republican retreads he's attempting to pass off as new tires.

Smith holds up the following as evidence:

[div class='excerpt']“Watching the rents rise, watching the used car prices rise, I thought at some point this is going to catch — it’s going to be a self-reinforcing cycle,” Smith said. “Eventually any recession is going to end from this very effect. Once things get old enough people are going to go out and buy new stuff.”


Rents rising and used car prices rising means no one has money to buy housing. No one has money to buy new cars. This is not evidence of a growing economy, it's evidence of stagnation at best. It's effectively a back door argument against a stimulus. No stimulus would benefit the 1%. A stagnant economy for prolonged periods means that the deficit will remain high, which will ultimately lead to austerity measures, which in turn benefits the 1% more.

[ProSense]

9. But

My first point is why would Republicans expend all that energy if they thought (if their opinion) was that the economy would remain weak under stimulus? Clearly they believe (their opinion is) that stimuli will work and for them to succeed they must obstruct it.

...the OP isn't about what Republicans think (and they would obstruct regardless). It's about a contrary argument to genuine assessments that the economy will remain weak for years.

I mean, you're making that argument.

I believe (my opinion is) that without further stimulus of some sort, the economy will continue it's lackluster growth for while, possibly a decade judging on what happened to Japan. The contrary vision is Krugman's, not Smith's. Smith's arguments are republican retreads he's attempting to pass off as new tires.

To clarify the first point, the OP isn't about what Republicans think related to the arguments for or against a rapid recovery.

[hootinholler]

11. Yes I'm saying that the contrary argument is bullshit

The contrary argument presented is that everything is going to be fine, which is pollyannish bullshit.

[ProSense]

12. And

"The contrary argument presented is that everything is going to be fine, which is pollyannish bullshit."

...you're entitled to your opinion. I was simply pointing out that Republican obstruction is a reality regardless of which side of the argument you come down on.

[hootinholler]

13. And

I'm saying that because they are devoting a lot of resources to it, that is more evidence the 'contrary' opinion is bullshit.

They would not spend all that effort if they didn't have to.

[ProSense]

14. Exactly

"I'm saying that because they are devoting a lot of resources to it, that is more evidence the 'contrary' opinion is bullshit."

...what resources are they devoting to simply block legislation?

That's not an argument. You claim the evidence shows the economy will be weak for years, but you're arguing that Republicans wouldn't be "devoting a lot of resources to it" if that was the case, but they are. So which is it: Are the Republicans "devoting a lot of resources" to obstruct the recovery because there are signs the economy is improving. Or are they "devoting a lot of resources" to obstruct the recovery because the economy isn't improving, and will not improve for years?

Either way, they're obstructing. So why do you think they are, if you believe the economy isn't improving?

[WI_DEM]

5. while recent economic reports are encouraging...

we need to watch things now that the holidays are over and see if things continue in that direction. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Its true

We have buying things that had to be replaced that we had been holding back on.

Stuff only lasts so long. Gets to where it costs more to keep some things repaired than it is to replace them.

Don

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. The number of manufacturing jobs are UP!! That's why I think the writer is right.

Manufacturing jobs are more permanent than seasonal jobs. That gives me hope. However, I remain cautiously optimistic.

As long as Americans expect immediate recovery the Democratic party will be attacked. And as long as Americans--including Democrats themselves--buy into the theory that the Democratic party hasn't put this country on the right track, the dangers of Republicans regaining control of government looms.

[great white snark]

10. Cautiously optimistic.

Just think how much better we'd be without the GOP obstruction. Every campaign should pound that point.