[QUOTE=ewmayer;310191]Doubtful, because leaving a huge mess reflects more on him and his legacy than it does on his successor. Hoover/Roosevelt is an example of this.[/QUOTE]

More than this?

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/02/us-china-banks-steel-idUSBRE8810AM20120902]China's steel traders expose banks' bad debts[/url]: [i](Reuters) - China's banks are coming after the country's steel traders, hauling executives into court to chase down loans that some traders said they didn't initially need and can't now repay.[/i]
[quote]The heavy push to recover the loans is another sign of strain on China's financial system at a time when the country's leaders are contemplating another round of stimulus to boost the economy, and when banks are worried about bad debts piling up.

The battle between the banks and steel traders also exposes flaws in the 4 trillion ($629 billion) stimulus round in 2008, and offers a warning to those calling for pumping more money into the system. At that time, Chinese banks threw money at the steel trade - a crucial cog in supplying the country's massive construction and infrastructure growth.

But those steel loans, after offering a quick fix, became excessive, poorly managed, or a combination of the two. [u]Government officials insisted more money was needed to prop up the industry. Steel executives said the money flow was too heavy, and they had to put the money to work in real estate and the stock market[/u].

"After the financial crisis, when the government released its stimulus, banks begged us to borrow money we didn't need," Li Huanhan, the owner of Shanghai Shunze Steel Trading, told a judge at a recent hearing. "We had nothing to do with the money, so we turned to other investments, like real estate."[/quote]
This is the reason it is good thing that while the US Fed can pump trillions of free-money loans onto banks' balance sheets, it cannot force them to lend it out. In China the central planners said "thou shalt lend", and lend they did, with reckless abandon. That lending bubble fed into a massive resource-price bubble (hello, Australia!) and helped feed a wild real-estate bubble in urban centers like Beijing and Shanghai:
[quote]By the end of last year, China's steel industry had a total debt burden of $400 billion - around the size of South Africa's economy. Some of China's leading mills alone owe 200-300 billion yuan ($32-$47 billion), according to the China Iron and Steel Association.
...
In one Shanghai courtroom, steel trading firm boss Li tries to fend off a fed-up lender. China Minsheng Bank, the country's eighth-biggest lender, is trying to recover 3 million yuan ($472,100) of loans it made to the trading firm.

When the bank recalled the loan in June, Li tried to sell two Shanghai apartments she had used as collateral. In a flat property market, she came up empty-handed.[/quote]


[url=www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/business/economy/us-companies-prepare-in-case-greece-exits-euro.html?ref=business]U.S. Companies Brace for an Exit From the Euro by Greece[/url]: [i]Even as Greece desperately tries to avoid defaulting on its debt, American companies are preparing for what was once unthinkable: that Greece could soon be forced to leave the euro zone.[/i]
[quote] That is a striking contrast to the assurances from European politicians that the crisis is manageable and that the currency union can be held together. On Thursday, the European Central Bank will consider measures that would ease pressure on Europe’s cash-starved countries.

JPMorgan Chase, though, is taking no chances. It has already created new accounts for a handful of American giants that are reserved for a new drachma in Greece or whatever currency might succeed the euro in other countries.

Stock markets around the world have rallied this summer on hopes that European leaders will solve the Continent’s debt problems, but the quickening tempo of preparations by big business for a potential Greek exit this summer suggests that investors may be unduly optimistic. Many executives are deeply skeptical that Greece will accede to the austere fiscal policies being demanded by Europe in return for financial assistance.

Greece’s abandonment of the euro would most likely create turmoil in global markets, which have experienced periodic sell-offs whenever Europe’s debt problems have flared up over the last two and a half years. It would also increase the pressure on Italy and Spain, much larger economic powers that are struggling with debt problems of their own.

“It’s safe to say most companies are preparing,” said Paul Dennis, a program manager with Corporate Executive Board, a private advisory firm.

In a survey this summer, the firm found that 80 percent of clients polled expected Greece to leave the euro zone, and a fifth of those expected more countries to follow.

“Fifteen months ago when we started looking at this, we said it was unthinkable,” said Heiner Leisten, a partner with the Boston Consulting Group in Cologne, Germany, who heads up its global insurance practice. “It’s not impossible or unthinkable now.”

Mr. Leisten’s firm, as well as PricewaterhouseCoopers, has already considered the timing of a Greek withdrawal — for example, the news might hit on a Friday night, when global markets are closed.

A bank holiday could quickly follow, with the stock market and most local financial institutions shutting down, while new capital controls make it hard to move money in and out of the country. [/quote]

Or this?

Cheesehead,

Your reaction to critiques of McElvaine and the earlier article you linked to about "reckless spending spree" comes across to me as "No, no, no, those articles had [I]facts[/I] in them, the article and all its conclusions must be true!". I tried to show in my last post that it doesn't work this way.

McElvaine's article uses 100% true facts to show Obama doing well as a job-creator. Yet I showed a chart that is also based on 100% factual data that shows Obama is the worst jobs-creating President ever. How can two articles based on 100% factual data reach opposite conclusions? The only rational conclusion is that how facts are used and which facts are used are extremely important in creating a fair picture of reality rather than a propaganda piece. This is also where article analysis become completely subjective.

So where, in my opinion, did McElvaine mis-use facts and cherry-pick facts to paint, in my opinion, a rather one-sided pro-Obama version of reality?

McElvaine wants to portray Obama as being a good jobs creator. So he starts with a chart of how many jobs were created during their each President's time in office -- lets call these facts apples. He sticks Truman's through Bush's apples on the chart. Then he sticks Obama's apple on the chart -- "Damn that looks horrible" he says. So he looks at his data and says "if I exclude all the 2009 data my chart will look much better". So he sums up the jobs created during the President's term excluding the first 12 months -- lets call these facts oranges. He sticks Obama's orange on the apples chart. Ah, that's better.

Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. This is where it all goes subjective. Should 12 months data be excluded -- or would 0, 3, 6, or 18 be fairer? Who knows, I suspect the author chose 12 only because it made his chart look best. But there's more. Reagan inherited a crap economy. Clinton lucked into some boom numbers at his start. Perhaps some of the other President's apples should also be turned into oranges. Does the author care? Does he even address these issues? No. Instead he posts his apples and oranges chart and moves on.

Next up in the author's defense of Obama's job creation record -- comparing Truman to Eisenhower, Carter to Reagan, etc. Irrelevant. I'm fairly certain Obama had little to do with the numbers coming out of any of those administrations. I'm also fairly certain those President's had little to do with Obama's job creation numbers.

Next up the author creates a monthly jobs gain/loss chart since 2008. It's a small point, put notice how Obama's name is carefully placed over the Nov-2010 data when consistent monthly gains began. I thought the author had just argued that only 2009 should be excluded. I guess the author felt his chart looked better if he moved Obama's name away from the negative numbers at the start of 2010.

Next up the author calculates the rate at which Obama is creating jobs. Despite previously arguing that it is fair to exclude the 2009 data, now he excludes all of 2009 and 2010. Could it be that the author chose these facts because Obama looks better by citing 2.8M jobs over 18 months (155,000/month) rather than 2.8M over 30 months (93,000/month)?

McElvaine uses his analysis to refute Ryan's statement that Obama has made a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, since the author used carefully selected data and apples-to-oranges comparisons, in my opinion he did not make a very good case. I happen to agree with the author that Ryan's statement is way out there, but the author's analysis is way too slanted for my tastes.

My conclusion: In my opinion, McElvaine has created a left-wing propaganda piece based on a select set of facts. The chart I posted would fit in perfectly in with a right-wing propaganda piece based on a different set of facts. As I said before, the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

Or this?

Lack of curiosity also led Mr Bush to suspect intellectuals in general and academic experts in particular. David Frum, who wrote speeches for Mr Bush during his first term, noted that “conspicuous intelligence seemed actively unwelcome in the Bush White House”. The Bush cabinet was “solid and reliable”, but contained no “really high-powered brains”. Karen Hughes, one of his closest advisers, “rarely read books and distrusted people who did”. Ron Suskind, a journalist, has argued that Mr Bush created a “faith-based presidency” in which decisions, precisely because they were based on faith, could not be revised subsequently.

[URL="http://www.economist.com/node/12931660"]http://www.economist.com/node/12931660[/URL]

Crosspost from the Election thread
 

Americans feel, correctly, that the way things are functioning in the US today are grossly unfair. Unfortunately, the Tea Party types seem to be attacking the wrong targets. Stiglitz in a simple yet persuasive argument:

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/03/mitt-romney-tax-avoidance-society[/url]


PS: One of the reasons Obama has been a poor job creator is that federal and state governments have been letting go like heck. Obama is actually a better private sector job creator than Shrub ever was.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310135]In contrast to the previous case where I posted an article refuting a false assertion about Obama, this time no one has yet accused me of hyperpartisanship or "spinning", nor has anyone falsely attributed McElvaine's statements directly to me.[/QUOTE]

You sound almost disappointed to not have "again been the victim of a vicious slander campaign". Re. the "accusation" in question, there is no need for me to do so, because

[a] You have established beyond any reasonable doubt the extremely partisan nature of your political views;

[b] Unlike you, I don't find endlessly repeating myself in whiny, bickering fashion to be a discussion enhancer or worthwhile use of my time.

If I'm wrong w.r.to the first assertion above it should be the easiest thing in the world for you to prove: Show us the posts in which you express some criticism or skepticism of any Obama-administration economic or financial policy, or heck, any policy whatsoever. If you are not in fact a lopsided partisan, given your post count and voluminous portion thereof in the Soap Box, such posts should be easy to find.

------------------------------

[QUOTE=garo;310206]PS: One of the reasons Obama has been a poor job creator is that federal and state governments have been letting go like heck. Obama is actually a better private sector job creator than Shrub ever was.[/QUOTE]

The public sector didn't start with serious downsizing until at least a full year after the private-sector contraction speed had peaked. Governments are very-belatedly doing what must be done in order to stave off bankruptcy, as a result of decades of wildly profligate spending increases.

With regard to the private-jobs-creation claim, if I wanted a pro-Bush spin, I could very easily claim that "despite having inherited a very deep recession as a result of the Clinton-era dotcom bubble's bursting, compounded by the events of 9/11, Bush managed to create over 10 million private-sector jobs by the middle of his second term, at which point the completely unforeseeable events which brought the global financial system to the brink of disaster intervened."

[QUOTE=ewmayer;310217]...Bush managed to create over 10 million private-sector jobs by the middle of his second term...[/QUOTE]

Many of them related to "defense".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;310191]From the article:

It's very clear that McElvaine dates the start of the "Obama recovery" to mid 2009. [I][Edit: Or perhaps end of 2009; or maybe mid-2010, depending on which makes the numbers look best. See George's commentary on that below.][/I] You are apparently the only one around here who reads the above words and fails to see that.[/QUOTE]In contrast to you, I read ALL the words, and I study the graphs, too. If you did so, too, you'd see that what I wrote was correct.

[quote]And your getting into a frenzy about Truman - wtf?[/quote]Only your mind can transform a single mention into a "frenzy". I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.

[quote]Richard, I realize it must be incredibly frustrating to "know 100% that you are right",[/quote]I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.

[quote]and yet to fail repeatedly to convince others of the "indubitable correctness" of your conclusions.[/quote]I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.

[quote]I cannot say whether all the bizarre "discussion tactics" you like to employ when you encounter contrary views,[/quote]I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.

[quote]wild accusations of "slander" for literally months after one your patented hissy fits[/quote]I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310229]I dare you to criticize me fairly without using exaggeration, falsity or straw men.[/QUOTE]

Cheesehead... You often take things a little too seriously.

[QUOTE]I dare you…[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I dare you…[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I dare you…[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I dare you…[/QUOTE][QUOTE]I dare you…[/QUOTE]Dude, you have to "Double Dog" dare if you really want results.