President Barack's news conference 2/9/2009

[freddyv]

It was about ten minutes into the Monday evening press conference, as he was answering the first question, that I realized that President Obama was babbling, and really had no idea what to say.

I voted for McCain but when Obama was elected I thoght that maybe he really is the better man for the job...not anymore!

So far what I have seen from this man is an ability to blame everything on someone else, which certainly may be true but he has provided no specific answers about how to deal with the problems that are now his to deal with. The answers are obvious to me:

1. Root out the people who are criminally negligent and allow those who speculated to pay the price.

2. Make sure the SEC and other's are doing their jobs.

3. Create a system that allows failed "too big to fail" companies to fail without bringing down our entire economy by propping them up for the shortest period possible and then selling off their assests, where possible.

4. Providing a safety net for the American people as they navigate this depression. No money for failed companies or investors except to keep a company from shocking the economy. In these cases we could keep a company going for a bit and put it into bankrupty with any proceeds from asset sales going to the American people first.

These are simple obvious answers that will not "solve" the problem since it is unsolvable but will allow us to get through this period with our economy intact, to the extent that is desirable.

I'm no genius and nobody elected me president but I hear these same type of solutions all over the Internet yet our politicians continue to drool at the possibilty of a trillion dollars to spend and don't seem to care a bit about doing what is right. Or is it that they are just so out of touch?

Obama has shown that not only is he not "a new kind of politician" but that he may well be incompetent, corrupt and unable to stand up to his peers, judging by his first weeks in office.

--Fred

[jgreenhall]

I didn't see it, but David Kaiser did on the T4T forums and had the complete opposite reaction.

As for Millies, there's very little chance that this will have much of an effect. Obama's got at least 8-9 months (though I'd double it) worth of cushioning where he can do very little wrong in my generation's eyes. We'll see what direction the financial crisis takes us. Right now, the world's people are slowly trending libertarian (that is, anti-government and anti-corporate) with Iceland and Greece leading the way and it being slightly more muted in the U.S.A. (On my campus, I do hear the rhetoric, but no action since we're still in the post-inaugural bliss.) As has been noted elsewhere, black swan events tend to accompany financial crises. I fully expect a nationalistic/fascist resurgence to occur around the world, probably simultaneously with the libertarian one. This will be a major source of conflict.

Interesting, obviously GenX will turn much quicker. I'd give him 45 days max. What frustrates me is that so far no-one has figured out how insanely easy it is to romance the Xers. Simply tell the truth. From the heart with full transparency. If Obama created a website where they put down all of the information they have, what is driving their thinking, their assumptions and reasoning and how and why they are making certain decisions - they would own the Xers. Regardless of the actual content. Even if it is gibberish - as long as they were willing to accept that gibberish is gibberish. The "yes, we know we don't know, but at least we aren't lying about it and maybe if we all look at it we can get some clarity." Xers are pragmatic - they don't expect anyone to have any real answers. But we also haven't ever had a situation where someone wasn't lying to us - so the simple truth would be so surprising and edifying that, by itself, would be adequate.

On the nationalist/fascist resurgence - remember that nationalism was a consequence of the media/technical boundaries of its timeframe. That is, the rise of nationalism was the result of the fact that the military/technical/economic reach of the time was larger than previously adequate organizational structures (e.g., the "kingdom) and needed a new organizing principle. Ideological resonance of a "nation" had become possible due to mass media (including mass education) - so suddenly the "nationalistic" state built around "ideological blocs" was created. We are in a different time. The underlying psychological elements that drove nationalism will likely (certainly?) re-appear, but they will look (and be) different. It largely depends on what kind of ideological/technical/media/military/economic/cultural structure can resonate in the modern environment in a way that "clicks" and can present a viable/competitive approach.

IMHO, we are going to be looking at a conflict between a libertarian (better: bottoms-up, self assembling, auto-catalytic) ethos and a "control" (hyper surveillance, deep "security", stratified) ethos. With likely more than one flavor of each.

J

[Witchiepoo]

Whatever he said last night seems to have triggered another nose-dive in the stock market. I don't think the guy has the slightest clue what he's doing.

[wvbill]

Geithner can't even look directly at who he is talking to. He's afraid people will discover his only real objective -- to save the Wall Street Banking System.

I think Obama is beginning to realize what a mess he has gotten himself into.

The only good thing I see is it is not going to take much longer for people to realize none of this will work and that they, the taxpayer, have been screwed. That's when the civil unrest will start.

I agree with John: a full scale revolution seens a likely outcome.

Incidentally, John, I agree that "moron" well describes the typical Washington elite -- However, I can think of alot of good adjectives that could go with it.

Bill

[Matt1989]

Whatever he said last night seems to have triggered another nose-dive in the stock market. I don't think the guy has the slightest clue what he's doing.

I think it's more of a 'buy on the rumor, sell on the news' type of thing.

[StilesBC]

Whatever he said last night seems to have triggered another nose-dive in the stock market. I don't think the guy has the slightest clue what he's doing.

I think it's more of a 'buy on the rumor, sell on the news' type of thing.

Or maybe traders and investors just thought stocks were priced too high and felt like selling so they could buy lower?

I get a kick out of these journalists making "matter of fact" statements about why markets moved on any given day. "Markets down 4% today on a lack of details from new Treasury Secretary Geithner." How do they know that? What if the market continued higher? Then it would have been, "markets higher on bold initiatives by Treasury."

They spin the same piece of news differently depending on the market reaction. This way they're never wrong and can justify their relevance.

[Witchiepoo]

I'll be the first to admit that I have absolutely no idea why stocks go up or down on any given day. I'm just more glad than ever that I no longer own any, and I'm realllly hesitant at this point to buy a condo, which I was planning to do this year.

[JLak]

I hear these same type of solutions all over the Internet yet our politicians continue to drool at the possibilty of a trillion dollars to spend and don't seem to care a bit about doing what is right. Or is it that they are just so out of touch?

No. They're actually acting ethically believe it or not.

Politicians have the same problem that traders at the banks have. They know that the result will be disastrous, but they are actually doing their jobs by doing what is in the best interest of their constituents. It's pure game theory with an unstable minimax, rape of the commons sort of problem. He who takes the least is punished the most. If they don't get money for their States, the other States' spending will crush them.

In the same way, traders have to keep bringing clients in with high leveraged returns or their current clients will be destroyed first in the deleveraging. This I got from a disaffected GS/ML trader (whom I happen to share a bed with).

That's the paradox of a Ponzi scheme. Once you're in it, it's in your best interest to make it bigger. Government is no different. I know. I'm in it.

[MisterB]

I share your view that the depression can not be stopped. Having said that, there must be some actions by Washington that may help lessen the impact and some actions that may make things worse. The unsettling thing about Mr. O. and Mr. G.’s plans (?) is that they appear to be clueless. They seem to have a vague outline of what their plans might be. Mr G. is starting to make Hank P. look good! There’s an old saying that following a bad plan is better than no plan at all.

The stimulus bill is a sad thing IMO. Instead of putting some demand into the economy the democrats have USED the crisis as an opportunity to put into place their social spending programs. Most seem to agree that the 2008 stimulus “didn’t work”. I think that it may have actually helped last year. It did create some “excitement” about spending this money. To expect that it would have solved our economic problems was not realistic. I think that another cash rebate would have helped. Some kind of government voucher to rebate money on a auto or other large ticket item could help. (BTW, I make too much money to get last year's rebate and I wouldn't get one again if Mr. O. had gone that direction again.)

President Obama was born in 1961 which should make him one of the last Boomers. He seems like a GenXer to me. What do others think?