BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Hopes for Obama's news conference

Justin Webb | 17:35 UK time, Tuesday, 24 March 2009

My hope for tonight's news conference - a hope seemingly shared by Tina Brown - is that Mr Obama leaves out the stuff about how Air Force One IS the best way to travel and the Secret Service are very bossy and the Presidential Waffles are wicked fattening. Let's hope he keeps it sober and grown-up, which, after all, he does rather well.

My question, if I get the chance: will the new White House dog get rewards for finding the president's missing shoe, even if he was the one who hid it?

UPDATE: In case I get several questions: what would you like me to ask the President? Let me know in the comments...

Comments

  • 1. At 6:55pm on 24 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    Why are we taling about something that hasn't happened yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:15pm on 24 Mar 2009, arclightt wrote:

    The real significant issue is not what O says. It's what Pelosi and Reid do, either on their own volition or "in response to the President's leadership".

    Whatever is said, I don't expect any real focus on the debt, nor on manufacturing, nor on the need to retrain adults.

    Time will tell, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:18pm on 24 Mar 2009, bere54 wrote:

    You have to reward the dog because he lives in the moment, and he would think he was being punished for finding the shoe. This "living in the moment" is why we love our dogs but do not trust them with our finances.

    Unfortunately, those we did trust with the money behaved like dogs after a bone, only not lovable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 7:36pm on 24 Mar 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Sometimes perception is reality, but in this case, substance is required.

    If you saw the Charlie Rose show last night, and believed Paul Krugman,
    then Geithner's plan is just a screw-up. That's what the media should be
    focussing upon, not demeanor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 8:23pm on 24 Mar 2009, seanspa wrote:

    Justin, I saw Obama earlier today defend Geitner by saying he has a lot to deal with. Please ask the president why on earth Geitner hasn't got round to appointing any assistants. Or is it just that he can't find any yet who have paid their taxes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:25pm on 24 Mar 2009, U13817236 wrote:

    Well since you're apparently reluctant - or unable - to take your own advice and "keep it sober and grown up" (however that may be variously interpreted) perhaps it would be better if you didn't get beyond your urgent dog issue? However, should you ever decide to ask a serious question just for variety, perhaps you could ask AIPAC stooge Obama why he continues to maintain a complicit silence about Gaza and why he doesn't do anything about Israeli state terrorism instead of rewarding the outlaw Jewish State with record new levels of military aid?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 8:51pm on 24 Mar 2009, Andy Post wrote:

    "Let's hope he keeps it sober and grown-up, which, after all, he does rather well."

    I don't know, Justin. It may be a cultural thing, but Americans like to think their presidents are just regular folks. Yucking it up a bit is what regular folks do. Laughing in the face a adversity shows strength (at least in this country). Dead seriousness in a President is reserved for catastrophe ("a date the will live in infamy", etc.). That's the last thing the President wishes to convey tonight.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:53pm on 24 Mar 2009, priva4221 wrote:

    I watched Geitner handle the questions well this mornign and hopefully his good performance will strengthen Obama's resolve to see this through. If you can ask a question Justin, try one that is not about politicing (which Congress seems hell-bent on doing with every pronouncement or question)... how about:
    "Mr. President, as the global financial services industry is so inter-woven, could you estimate the negative impact on the American bailout expenditure versus the amount the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese are having to cough up to their failing institutions - most of whom are busy whining about paying American institutions?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 8:55pm on 24 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    I hope Mr Obama is asked the eleven-trillion-dollars question.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 9:15pm on 24 Mar 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    I expect an eloquent delivery focused on the economy, the need to guarantee the liquidity of our financial institutions, and Afghanistan. I expect a sobering description of the problems we are facing, and an optimistic view of the future. What the latest plan to rescue Wall Street tells me is that the Obama Administration recognizes that government can not save our economy without private investment. I expect a lot of reassurance to reinforce the message in the latest plan, a plan that places 94% of the risk on the public sector but allows the private sector to get 50% of the profits. If this is what some people consider socialism, I would hate to see what capitalism looks like.

    Perhaps you should ask him, if you get the chance, who does he think is going to pay for the accumulation of debt incurred during the previous and present administrations, and if it us how does he think we are going to pay that debt when most Americans can not pay their own personal debt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 9:30pm on 24 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote:

    4, guns.
    "If you saw the Charlie Rose show last night, and believed Paul Krugman,
    then Geithner's plan is just a screw-up. That's what the media should be
    focussing upon, not demeanor."

    And maybe this is just another turf war.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 9:42pm on 24 Mar 2009, timewaitsfornoman wrote:

    Well, this blog might spontaneously ignite if he gives a direct answer, which is doubtful but..... "Mr. President what is your position on the Middle East?"

    And... you are not serious about the shoe, are you? I'm not even sure who hid it? The dog? Does Obama have a history of losing shoes that I am unaware of?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:23pm on 24 Mar 2009, OldSouth wrote:

    1. How does He possibly expect to repay the money that will have to be borrowed to fund His 'vision', without resorting to a combination of huge increases in taxation and printing unprecedented amounts of money? How do 9.2 TRILLION in deficits benefit this country?

    2. Since this approach didn't work anywhere else in the world, at any other time in history, why does He believe it will work this time?

    3. Is He aware that He will be indebting the country more in the next four years than all forty-three of His predecessors combined?

    4. Has He ever heard of Argentina?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 10:29pm on 24 Mar 2009, TrueToo wrote:

    I would ask Obama if he thinks talking to the Iranians will stop them from funding, arming and training Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad for terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

    From his statements even before he became president, it was clear that Obama is well aware that Iran is a terrorist state. He has insisted a few times that Iran must stop supporting terrorism. Let's hope he keeps that in mind if it ever gets to the stage of "talks."

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 10:39pm on 24 Mar 2009, Orville Eastland wrote:

    I like having someone talk about things seriously. It doesn't make me feel like a guy at a metal detector hearing someone joke about a bomb in their luggage. (In fairness, I'd be less alarmed by someone who jokes about the bomb in their luggage. They may not klnow how to make a bomb. When it comes to politicians, they most definitely have the power to do things they may joke about.)

    As for the questions I'd ask, they include:
    You have proposed a greater reliance on renewable energy. Will you remove the subsidies on non-renewable energy to help cover any costs? (Even if you think Climate Change is a swindle, you have to agree that the oil and coal industry makes enough money now to not require the billions in subsidies.)
    The US's acquisition of AIG includes their aircraft leasing business. Would these aircraft be used to help bring our troops home from Iraq sooner?
    You have called for a civillian national security force, and you call for an increase in AmeriCorps personnel and funding to help deal with disasters. Would you favor similar funding and incentives to established organizations like the FEMA Citizen Corps, the Civil Air Patrol or the Coast Guard Auxiliary? (Full disclosure: I am a member of Civil Air Patrol, and have taken various FEMA courses.)
    You, your Vice-President, and your Secretary of State all state that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. However, your National Intelligence Director and the last National Intelligence Estimate say otherwise. Could you explain this difference of opinion?
    Will the United States reevaluate its diplomatic relations with the Republic of Georgia, including any NATO-related cooperation, after the Republic of Georgia's actions last year against South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 11:51pm on 24 Mar 2009, U13873932 wrote:

    Here are some that will never be asked:

    (1) When will you cut off all aid to the major cause of trouble in the Middle East- Israel?

    (2) Pakistan has atomic weapons- do you envision US troops in Afghanistan invading parts of Pakistan?

    (3)Will you permit long-term US installations and military personnel to remain in Iraq?

    (4)In the event that the bail-out efforts fail, will ypou begin large-scale government works projects to provide employment?

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 00:07am on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #9

    Which, Peter, since no one knows what the heck you mean, is unlikely.

    Obvious Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 00:10am on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    Justin,

    Since you have been offered few meaningful questions to ask, may I suggest that if you are stuck you may ask:

    'Mr President. Could you please explain why since the election the First lady appears to have a permanently, how can I say, 'satisfied' look?'

    Inquisitive Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 01:12am on 25 Mar 2009, rodidog wrote:

    My questions:

    Mr. President,

    1. What is the timeline for our troops in Afghanistan and how much more money will it cost. Please explain your benchmarks for success and our exit strategy should you fail to achieve those goals within your timeline. If you believe in a flexible strategy and staying the course, what would you describe as the main difference to your policy and that of your predecessors in Iraq. If they are the same, is your administration not endorsing the policies of President Bush in Iraq by implementing similar polices in Afghanistan.

    2. Please explain to the American people why you're considering the largest budget in US history and the expansion of government programs at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are still being laid-off from work.

    3. Sorry, I ran out of time, it's my turn to cook diner.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 01:58am on 25 Mar 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    "the Presidential Waffles are wicked fattening."

    Is that what he really said - wicked fattening? It sounds and looks like very ethnic speech, something which the President cannot be accused of. Is this some of Justin's needling - if so, it's neither fair nor nice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 02:35am on 25 Mar 2009, smileytm303 wrote:

    "Please ask the president why on earth Geitner hasn't got round to appointing any assistants."
    Because you guys keep nixing his picks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 02:36am on 25 Mar 2009, smileytm303 wrote:

    Why the allusion to the racist "Obama Waffles" of the campaign?

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 02:53am on 25 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    "17. At 00:07am on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
    #9

    Which, Peter, since no one knows what the heck you mean, is unlikely.

    Obvious Sam"



    Are you Venezuelan, ooops, are you American, Sammie?

    This is what the Congressional Budget Committee's director predicts:


    http://tinyurl.com/cjgv75

    $11 TRILLION long-term budget deficit (incl. interest) as a result of The One's taxing and spending for the next four years. Start sending in the payments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 03:17am on 25 Mar 2009, David Cunard wrote:

    By the way, why would Tina Brown (whose primary claim to fame is as the editor of tittle-tattle magazines and her very tenuous "friendship" with the late Princess of Wales) be considered an authority in the political arena? Just because she established The Daily Beast gives her no more credence about what happens in Washington than if I were to do the same thing. Perhaps it is her husband, who is a full quarter-of-a-century older than she, who does the thinking in her household and for her website, which purports to be an antidote to the Huffington Post. Of course, that might be the reason that Justin finds her opinions worthy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 03:48am on 25 Mar 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Justin Webb:
    My question, if I get the chance: will the new White House dog get rewards for finding the president's missing shoe, even if he was the one who hid it? I hope that the new White House dog will get an reward for finding the President's (missing) shoe...
    ~Dennis Junior~

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 1:24pm on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #23

    Peter,

    A number isn't a question. It could be an answer (e.g. 42).

    So what's the question?

    Curious Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 3:30pm on 25 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    Sammie, the number question begs a few other questions:

    - WHo will finance the deficit, and how (as ChiComs indicate no interest in buying worthless paper, and the Fed started printing $$$$$, but cannot cover the folly in its entirety; taxing the rich to death does not come close to covering the deficit either; the cap-and-trade tax will, hopefully, only cover the "free" healhcare for the middle class, but will raise cost of doing business and living through the roof)
    - What will be the level of the resulting (hyper)inflation, interest rates, unemployment
    - How low the the US$ go with all macro/microecon consequences attached

    Get familiar with your numbers, Venzuelans of USSV.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 4:07pm on 25 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    26 what is the metric size of my foot?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 4:27pm on 25 Mar 2009, bere54 wrote:

    20, David -

    "Wicked" is a common New England adjective. "Man, that's some wicked weather out there." Perhaps Obama picked it up at Harvard, if he is in fact the one who said it. In the context in which it was used, it is perfectly acceptable. It just means "really, really fattening." Something can even be "wicked good."

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 6:01pm on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #27,

    LOL again Peter.

    The number is a number not a question. Your other 3 questions may have been good, if you hadn't tried to phrase them in 'When did you stop beating your wife?' style.

    But I'll give it a shot for you:
    - Combination of growth, increased taxes on the wealthy, capital gains as the market rises, the international pool of money (including China), cap and trade, indirect taxes and reductions in spending as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
    - Inflation 4%. interest rates 6%, unemployment 6% at the end of Obama's second term
    - Based on current performance against other currencies over the last 6 months the dollar will remain overvalued for the next 6-12 months followed by 10-15% loss in value against a weighted basket of currencies.

    See that was easy.

    Economist Sam


    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 8:50pm on 25 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    #30 Sammy, you're wasting your time here with all those sure fire bets. The cash piles are elsewhere: set up your hedge fund/FX ASAP. Or contact Geithner for that deputy secretary spot at the Treasury of Venezuela. As most economists/investors cannot agree on anything happening in USSV within the next 4-8 months, I'm sure your expertise and revelations will be embraced.

    Today's first failed bond auction for the last 24 yrs. in the UK shows not all is well in the realm of the balooning sovereign debt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 9:50pm on 25 Mar 2009, saintDominick wrote:

    Ref 27, Peter

    "...taxing the rich to death does not come close to covering the deficit either..."

    Bear in mind he is only raising taxes on those with an adjusted taxable income of over $250,000 from 35% to 39%, the same tax rate they had in the Reagan era. I do agree, however, that that will not be enough to finance healthcare reform, improvements in education, energy independence efforts, etc. I suspect the administration hopes private investment will help pay for all his programatic proposals, but that is definitely an elusive expectation at the moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 9:50pm on 25 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #31

    Ah Peter,

    Deputy Secretary is below my pay grade, and as we've gone through here before. I'm fully diversified and, fortunately for me, insulated from this whole mess on a personal level.

    I'm really not wasting your time, those are predictions from some long term analyses I've been looking at. Of course 7 years out it isn't worth a tinkers cuss. 9 months out every economic prediction shows slim or significant growth. If we can reduce the cost of healthcare (which under the Obama plan we will, perhaps not to European levels of GDP but at least close the gap) those reforms can pay for themselves and in 2 years the good old US of A economy will be moving forwards again quite nicely.

    Of course, you can fret about hyperinflation (hyperstagflation would be the real fear, but whats a few letters to chap who has trouble differentiating legislation from leadership) but we are not even close to that point and all economists agree we will not get there.

    As for the UK. Oh well, Mr. Brown (Reservoir Dogs springs to mind) kind of dropped the ball. Butter fingers. The UK has a far narrower economic base than the US, it's going to be bad over there for a long time.

    Bummer.

    American Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 10:51pm on 25 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    "9 months out every economic prediction shows slim or significant growth."

    You're spilling out of your cup. My dog could've come up with a similar meaningless forecast growl, when in reality every .1 matters. Your answer to my first question was Obama par excellence. Not a single number, plus conflicting assertions (growth in one line with cap-and-trade, higher taxes, "free healthcare"?! Yep Iraq's being folded, hopefully not prematurely, but Afg's unfolding, etc?!). The rest of your crystal ball stuff indeed's not worth a bowl of dog's food, as you generously agree.

    Plus, today was a problem day for the Obama Venezuelan paper (gotta sell $2.5 TRILLION this year alone). Yields are up, enthusiasm's down. EU's making negative noises re any further Keynesian bonanza. Where and when 's that stuff ever worked?



    Canada has a "free" universal healthcare system. Insurers that cover special categories of employees (police, firerighters, etc.) send them to PRIVATE providers of healthcare services - it's cheaper. I've sat on a board of a non-profit hospital, the typical entity here: it's a black hole for taxpayers monies. ON spends 40% of its provicial revenue on healthcare, crouding out investment in education, infrastructure, etc. Outdated equipment, waiting lists, balooning expenses, 500,000 in ON without a GP, hundreds hauled a year to Buffalo for ER, Buffalo alone nas more private MRIs thah entire Canada. You don't know what you're wishing for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 00:51am on 26 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    "Of course, you can fret about hyperinflation (hyperstagflation would be the real fear, but whats a few letters to chap who has trouble differentiating legislation from leadership)"

    Hilarious, I nearly missed it. The Venezuela Central Bank, aka Fed, started buying Venezuelan paper aka Treasuries TODAY. Let me translate this to you: the Fed is printing money/increasing M1/whatever. $750 bn for a start ($300 bn for treasuries and $450 for securitized mortgage crap under the famous CRA.

    Stagflation/deflation? Dream on (it's the worse dream though). And don't count on China, the ChiComs hold app. $1 TRILLION worth of paper. The projected deficit is app/ $11 TRILLION. Set up the presses, Venezuelans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 01:45am on 26 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #35

    Peter,

    Here is the anatomy of your average post stream:

    Post 1: nonsensical statement

    Post 2: non sequitur

    Post 3: State other posters words in your own form

    Post 4: Non sequitur

    Post 5: Non non sequitur

    post 6: historical mis statement

    Post 7: Insult

    Post 8: Claim of intellectual superiority

    Post 9: Non Sequitur

    Post 10: Anti american diatribe linked to Venezuela

    Post 11: Confused statements

    Post 12: Irregular use of capitalization

    Honestly. Are you Marcus back under another nom de guerre? Other than the deep irrational bitterness you are very close. Disjointed thought, anti americanism, same poor spelling. Patterns are easy to spot.

    By the way, the Treasury purchases started Monday, that was when the 1% shift in the dollar's value related to the purchase happened. It is nice to know you have memorized the definitions of money supply. However, if you understood them you'd know printing money expands M0 and the treasury purchase expands M1. Not the same, by a long mark, in terms of inflationary potential.

    Keep up Peter/Marcus. If you want to look smart you have to at least be on time. And think. Thinking is so much more important than searching on Wiki.

    Economist Sam




    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 01:46am on 26 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #34

    Was there a point in that post?

    Sad Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 02:33am on 26 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    Sam, let's simplify it: I'll keep your bets, and compare to future values of indicators. Since the long-term values you provided are a long shot, what are your short- to mid-term values?

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 12:10pm on 26 Mar 2009, dceilar wrote:

    #31 Peter

    Today's first failed bond auction for the last 24 yrs. in the UK shows not all is well in the realm of the ballooning sovereign debt.

    I think you'll find that it's the last one not to sell 100% of issued bonds for seven years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 2:37pm on 26 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    Peter you mention your dog
    well I just did the biz for my skip bob and it looked a lot like your comments.

    A pile of p p and a puddle of p s.

    Sam it is incredible and somewhat unbelievable that Peter is not mostly erroneous.

    the mathematical probability of there being two is so small.I would think. right down to the Irish being forced to be European issue he raises.

    I think if it is true that they are not the same they should get in touch and get married.

    Sam we all know MA did real bad on markets recently so be carefull mot to give him any advice that could be useful.

    No I got that wrong . tell him the truth and then we know he will go the other way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 4:40pm on 26 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #39

    Peter,

    All Q's based on calendar year

    GDP -ve growth Q2. -ve to 0% growth Q3. 0-0.5% growth Q4. Improving in the following quarters to 2-4% annually by Q4 2010.
    Inflation 0-1% Q2. 1-2% Q3. Possible 2-3% Q4.
    Fed rate 0% or near as dammit through Q4. It may rise a quarter point Q1 2010. Then gradual progressive increases over the following 4 months.
    Unemployment will continue to rise 0.2-0.5% per month, peaking out around 11% in Q1 2010. There may be some small improvement as the stimulus package is applied, but it will peak in the 10-11% range.

    Economist Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 5:27pm on 26 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    GDP: "improving to 2-4% annualy by Q4 2010". Unacceptably high deviation, get back after finessing. And try to go further: end of O presidency/term 1, as the common perception is the policy negatives will not kick in before two years, at least.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 7:04pm on 26 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    peter what do you think of the french?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 7:16pm on 26 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    I'd like to ask the president what he thinks of the push in america to have the foreskin made illegal.

    It grows naturally on almost half the population but is being accused of being the scourge of humanity and several programs are about to prove that this is the case and that we should help others in this fight.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

    This is culturally significant.
    and to many cavalier people in the UK a strange obsession where ones religion is not involved.

    The "medical" issue being sponsored in a manner like tobacco"health trials" of the 70's.

    "Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections."

    Why is america Obsessed with this.

    Why if they pushed it as far as they have other issues , we would be having a war on foreskins.

    Sorry Mods but the BBC brought this issue to my attention and I would like to ask the president about it.

    the all important locker room question (though maybe superfluous at that stage)
    "are you circumcised"

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 11:05pm on 26 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #42

    Ah Peter,

    But the difference between you and me is I am an Economist. But feel bad, you really should feel bad. About everythying.

    Economist Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 01:27am on 27 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    wow a universal cull today

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 02:37am on 27 Mar 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Justin:
    My hope for tonight's news conference - a hope seemingly shared by Tina Brown - is that Mr Obama leaves out the stuff about how Air Force One IS the best way to travel and the Secret Service are very bossy and the Presidential Waffles are wicked fattening. Let's hope he keeps it sober and grown-up, which, after all, he does rather well. I have to agreed with the sentiment of yours and Tina Brown....

    But, I watched the Presser with President OBAMA, and he very important answers to the questions that were being asked of him...

    ~Dennis Junior~

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 03:31am on 27 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    "45. At 11:05pm on 26 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:
    #42

    Ah Peter,

    But the difference between you and me is I am an Economist. But feel bad, you really should feel bad. About everythying.

    Economist Sam"


    !? If you are the Economist you claim to be, you should know better what -/+2% rate of GDP growth differential means for an economy of the scale of the US one. And a nice fig leaf of ad hominem to finish with. Good job, you're on record.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 12:36pm on 27 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    Peter,

    Unfortunately a year out during a recession that's the margin of error. If you want to couch it in words call it 'moderate growth'.

    On the other hand if you'd like to make a reasoned prediction other than hyperinflation (which was laughable). Or you could try to sound intelligent by being nasty and anti american, but come across as nasty and unamerican.

    Bored Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 3:52pm on 27 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    Boring/Economist Sam, you don't seem to realise there's a tiny problem with your 2010 GDP forecast.

    By US standards, a 2% growth rate is considered pretty dismal (although any EU economy, and that's the direction in which O is pushing US, would kill for such a rate). Even in 2008, US had a 1.1% growth, with a little stimulus help. On the other hand, a 4% growth rate means a roaring economy, nowhere near any "moderate growth".


    I understand that with O US has entered the era of (trillion) numbers irrelevance, but your "forecast" is too much to take, even as a joke. Needless to say, the rest of the 2010 indicator values you supplied, based on that "forecast", are worthless.

    No, I don't discard the (hyper)inflation. Until now, you've been exporting inflation potential to China: now, as you started buying your debt, it's on your doorstep.

    Ad hominem continuum. You sound like a well-trained Obama web commando, all the necessary Alinsky rules are there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:39pm on 27 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    lol peter . If I am right I think that on a scale of 1- 10 on economey you are at 0 when Sam is at 10.

    If he is who I think he is (mum).

    wow all my posts reappeared today. Class.

    Must be that mind reader's influence. Cheers minder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 5:40pm on 27 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    50 "well-trained Obama web commando"

    AHH you have found his secret Identity.
    He is "SPIDER MAN"

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:44pm on 27 Mar 2009, Hesiodos wrote:

    Sam,

    DNFTT

    Hesiodos

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 9:09pm on 27 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #50

    Peter Peter Peter,

    A roaring economy would be one growing in the same way that China, India and to a lesser extent ireland had in recent years. 10% or more.

    The US averages 2.5-4% in most good years (for example the Clinton years). We really have not roared for a while. However GDP per capita at PPP continues to rise ahead of other countries, even during the recent unpleasantness as the dollar has inevitably strengthened against currencies from countries with deep economic issues, like Britain or the rest of Europe.

    As for my numbers being worthless, they predict a steadily growing economy with some necessary continued recovery in lagging indicators such as unemployment.

    As we have seen this week, as the debt was purchased the international currency markets have reacted rapidly devaluing the dollar and importing inflation to shock us into an escalating inflationary cycle.

    Oh hang on, they didn't. There was minimal impact on the dollar which has already been reversed. We'll know about inflation in a few weeks but I think we'll find that Wholefoods didn't rush round the store putting prices up.

    Can't understand it, given the hyperinflationary environment we are in (not).

    Confused Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 10:54pm on 27 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    A looooong dithyramb, as worthless as the "forecast".

    Did you notice I started the paragraph with the phrase "By US standards"? Yep, by US standards 4% GDP groth rate is a roaring economy, unless you want to place US in the "emerging economies/markets" brackets. So where exactly do you stand on the scale mediocre - roaring US economy, Economist Sam? And how will you adjust your indicator "forecasts" accordingly?


    "As for my numbers being worthless, they predict a steadily growing economy with some necessary continued recovery in lagging indicators such as unemployment."

    That paragraph extinguished the dinos. Where's the "steady" growth coming from at 10% uneployment, balooning deficit/weaker $, etc. in 2009?

    You need to talk to the web commando leader and get fresh instructions here. I'd stick with a couple of reliable forecasts for 0.9-1.1% GDP growth rate for 2010, and app. 9.5-10% unemployment at the end of 2010.


    "Oh hang on, they didn't. There was minimal impact on the dollar which has already been reversed."

    And what was the Fed purchase volume this week, Economist Sam? The big shopping of the Venezuelan Central Bank/Fed hasn't started yet. O wants to sell $2.5 TRILLION paper in 2009 alone. For 2010 I'll stick to another reliable forecast, at 2.5% yr-on-yr. The real melee starts after 2011 with rapidly balooning dubget deficit.

    Hey Sammie boy, you've learned every trick of Alinsky in the book, but economy's a different beast. Talk to the web commando honcho, get enrolled in some courses. Or get a teleprompter. And don't start that looong paragraph, "I am well diversified and insulated from blablabla".

    There's no greater absurd in life that a sentence on www starting with "I am". Yep, I am Prince al Waleed, and have a couple of ocean-front properties in Nevada to sell you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 00:27am on 28 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #55

    Peter,

    You're monologueing. Come back when you have something useful to say.

    Bored Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 04:26am on 28 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    Sam, I'm afraid you exhausted your usefulness on the subject as early as your #41, but failed to notice it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 5:38pm on 28 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #57

    Peter Waleed,

    At least I had something to add to begin with. You haven't made any kind of sense yet. Just a series of non sequiturs and inconsistent nonsense. For example your 1% growth prediction and 10% unemployment with your hyperinflation prediction. They are mutually incompatible.

    I'll the skip the Nevada property opportunity, it seems as good as the rest of your posts.

    Or you could just try to post another insult in some childish belief that the last poster on a thread wins.

    Sam Fate

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:52pm on 28 Mar 2009, Worldcitizen1 wrote:

    Well Justin, as a matter of fact, I do have a question for Mr. Obama.

    You can ask him this: Mr. President, knowing that Whites have just as much right to be in Africa as the Blacks, as it is everyone's original homeland, what are you going to do to relieve Mr. Mugabe of his job after stealing hundreds of White-owned farms?

    Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 7:14pm on 28 Mar 2009, as is wrote:

    #58 Sammie, you're trying to put in my mouth predictions I didn't make. Check my #55, my 2010 inflation number is 2.5%. Inflation will be a serious problem after 2011-2012 when the budget deficit starts balooning.

    Yes, that's my last one unless you try to manipulate a previous one of mine. Luckily, scripta manent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 8:49pm on 28 Mar 2009, SamTyler1969 wrote:

    #60

    Peter,

    Here's the issue you have. You throw numbers out but don't understand what they mean. In #58 I pointed to your 1% growth forecast in #55, I didn't mention inflation. From your statement:

    'I'd stick with a couple of reliable forecasts for 0.9-1.1% GDP growth rate for 2010, and app. 9.5-10% unemployment at the end of 2010'.

    Like I said before, the problem with blathering on a blog is you can't change your previous posts.

    You then go on about inflation. You said:

    'And what was the Fed purchase volume this week, Economist Sam? The big shopping of the Venezuelan Central Bank/Fed hasn't started yet. O wants to sell $2.5 TRILLION paper in 2009 alone. For 2010 I'll stick to another reliable forecast, at 2.5% yr-on-yr. The real melee starts after 2011 with rapidly balooning dubget deficit.'

    A little paranoid and you didn't actually say what you meant by 2.5% but let's assume you meant inflation.

    The two are not the same. One is an increase in the total value of goods and services, the other the increase in price of a weighted basket of goods. You can go look up which is which.

    Then we come to:

    'Inflation will be a serious problem after 2011-2012 when the budget deficit starts balooning.'

    Which is a bigger problem. It's another statement based on an untruth. Take the CBO projections and budget deficits fall from $1.7/1.8t in 2009 to 1.2t in 2010 then falling to $600-$700b or so year on year until 2015, when the deficit starts to rise again.

    Which is why answering your questions or responding to your points is so easy. You don't seem to know what even the most basic economic terms are.

    A dead give away is your question about the volume of debt purchased this week is even more telling. The currency markets are the most free markets in the world. They react to policy and speculate on future moves. Unlike the oil market they don't react to the availability of a product or paper.

    As such the announcement of the policy of purchasing debt, and the volume to be purchased (about $600bn) is more important than the volume purchased this week ($24bn). Your question, a poor attempt to get the number and scream '$24bn is INSIGNIFICANT (your caps, not mine)' illustrates a misundretsanding of the currency market. Any loss of faith in the US Economy due to the policy would trigger a shift to other currencies and an immediate devaluation. The markets response this week was 'So what? Didn't see that coming'.

    On top of that you struggle with the numbers, which are freely available from the CBO. Then you draw conclusions based on a poor understanding and bad data.

    I could just throw the CBO's growth and inflation predictions at you, but personally I believe they are optimistic.

    Economics is complex. It's so important to understand the basics before holding a conversation. Let alone making wild predictions.

    Sad Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 5:28pm on 30 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    59. At 5:52pm on 28 Mar 2009, cadrolls1 wrote:
    Well Justin, as a matter of fact, I do have a question for Mr. Obama.

    You can ask him this: Mr. President, knowing that Whites have just as much right to be in Africa as the Blacks, as it is everyone's original homeland, what are you going to do to relieve Mr. Mugabe of his job after stealing hundreds of White-owned farms?

    Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
    ------------------------------------------
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7968087.stm

    maybe he thinks other black people may get it right.

    (I'm confused with you, you are liberal in so many ways and as such I am not accusing you of being robist about this.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:56pm on 30 Mar 2009, U13889349 wrote:

    Africans should be radical enough to be communal stewards of the land, grow the best foods for their needs, preserve water sources, independent of the artificial commodity called cash money

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 11:21pm on 30 Mar 2009, Worldcitizen1 wrote:

    #62, Happylaze:

    You wrote: "I'm confused with you, you are liberal in so many ways and as such I am not accusing you of being robist about this."

    Happylaze, I just feel that after apartheid was dismantled, which was a good thing, there should be fairness for the white farmers too. After all, regardless of what color you are or from where you came, all people were originally from Africa. I feel it is equivalent to this: If a black man moved to France and made a lot of money while there and then decided to come back to the U.S.A. and start a business, why should anyone take that business from him? So, I feel that the 10,000 white farmers should have their businesses returned to them too. It wasn't a case of the white man enslaving the black workers. Those farmers kept the economy going and it gave desparately needed income to all who were in the area. Because of the policies of Mugabe, the economy is in shambles.


    I give a lot of credit to Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai for trying to restore some sense of civility but I am concerned with his absense of any real power. Whites around the world have learned that racism has to come to an end for the betterment of all mankind. Therefore, that is why I wrote: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is just another way of saying: What is fair for one should be fair for the other.

    Mind-read: Regardless of that scenario, they are starving now and lack medicine to treat their people with sicknesses. Mugabe must go. Why the world stood by and did nothing is beyond me. If it was a matter of oil, you can bet we would have been there in a heartbeat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 11:58pm on 30 Mar 2009, U13889349 wrote:

    A Global Financial Crisis means a Global Food Crisis
    The Crisis of Capitalism and Monetization of Human Needs lead to Food Insecurity and Food Riots

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 4:55pm on 31 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:

    64 cad I'm with you there. Agreed it is worrying that Mugabe is still in power really. I have a friend who's father still owns a Ranch farm business in Zim who would be effected by Mugabe's thefts. I agree they are thefts.

    I am also Glad to see that controlled stallion trying to bring some sense to the country.

    As to why the UK said little. recently.
    Because they had said so much in the past and being the people kicked out, they were not seen as credible or more importantly they would have fuelled Mugabe's fire more.

    I only mention it because some posters here seem to think that whites need to save them black folk from themselves. And I think that wrong.

    Glad to not see them around too much anymore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 6:22pm on 31 Mar 2009, U13889349 wrote:

    Doris Lessing’s Shikasta:
    As the sociopolitical situation in Shikasta begins to spin out of control,
    old racial and ethnic resentments of the poorer, dark-skinned nations
    against the white rich who once colonized them come to the fore. George
    takes a trip with Benjamin around the world, setting in place the ties that
    will allow him to orchestrate a symbolic trial of the white race in the
    ancient theater in Athens, Greece.



    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 7:03pm on 31 Mar 2009, U13889349 wrote:

    In the above SF book, there is an international mock "trial" among the youth, in which all other races of Shikasta attack the history of white ascendancy and racism. Riots miraculously do not occur, and little is decided except that violence is wrong and the guilt of the current human races real.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 01:29am on 01 Apr 2009, Hesiodos wrote:

    Mind Read (63),

    "Africans should be radical enough to be communal stewards of the land, grow the best foods for their needs, preserve water sources, independent of the artificial commodity called cash money"


    Worth repeating!

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 4:04pm on 01 Apr 2009, as is wrote:

    Sad Sam, you must indeed be a very sad/bitter man to sit on a Sat and write a sadly ignorant post that begs for a reply.
    “The two (GDP-inflation) are not the same. One is an increase in the total value of goods and services, the other the increase in price of a weighted basket of goods. You can go look up which is which”.

    Where did you get that incredible mix up from, Sam? Firstly, you don’t expect me mull over macroecon software, and act God/economist: I use a number of respected forecasters. So yes, my preferred 2009 GDP growth rate forecast, as clearly stated in my #55, is 0.9-1.1%.

    I have to correct you on your GDP definition: GDP is about the value of FINISHED goods and services, not just the value of goods and services. Ignoring that wee detail, you would be adding quite a number of $ trillions to US’ GDP. This is a substantial dose of hyper-ignorance on your part.

    Yes, I didn’t mention the word inflation re my preferred forecast for 2010, 2.5%. However, the entire paragraph in my #55 refers to your mockery re my (hyper)inflation concerns; so yes, 2.5% would be my preferred inflation number. Does that require an IQ of 170+, or you just keep on distorting and manipulating?


    Regarding you continuous mockery of possible high inflation. Isn’t it strange that such a “well-diversified” virtual investor like you can ignore the plausibility of substantial rise of inflation? Here’s what WSJ has to say on March 29, 2009 to such well-diversified investors:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123827800749765963.html

    Talk to your virtual broker, virtual “well-diversified and insulated from the current turmoil” Sam.

    “A dead give away is your question about the volume of debt purchased this week is even more telling. The currency markets are the most free markets in the world. They react to policy and speculate on future moves. Unlike the oil market they don't react to the availability of a product or paper.”

    Sam, that’s gross ignorance. As any other market, the currency markets react to demand and supply. The value of a currency depends on the demand and supply for that currency: and demand is not 100% about policies, it could be macroecon data that hardly fits into any policy, (random) events, force majore, etc. More specifically, currency markets determine exchange rates and traded volumes based on two types of demand:

    1) Business transaction demand for a currency (based on macroecon indicators like GDP, employment, inflation, deficit, etc.)
    2) Speculative demand (based on interest rate and investors’ ROI expectations)

    That means we are yet to see how the exchange rate of US$ and inflation will be affected after the Fed increases money supply by $1 trillion for 2009, as planned.


    Re Obama’s budget deficit numbers, and my "bad" numbers:

    Care to check A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an
    Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook, 1-5, under “CBO's Estimate of the President's Budget”, and tell me, are the budget deficits after 2012 declining, or rising, both in terms of numeric values, and as % of GDP?

    http://tinyurl.com/ddjb9p

    And did I not write in my #55: “Inflation will be a serious problem after 2011-2012 when the budget deficit starts ballooning”, as you correctly quote in your #61? Where’s the contradiction? Only in the fact that from 2009 to 2012 there will (hypothetically) be a reduction of the deficits, which I do not discuss?

    Sad Sam, instead of another sad post, just move on. Life on a Sat could be much nicer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 07:02am on 02 Apr 2009, Worldcitizen1 wrote:

    #69, Hesiodos:

    I see your point. If that was the case though, they could have done that with or without the White farmers. The fact that they didn't shows that a "communal" way of life was not the objective. What Mugabe did was reprehensible because he knowingly caused poverty and pain to his fellow country men. Racism works both ways, you know. Would those farmers have had their land stolen from them had they been Black?

    Like I wrote: Every person on this earth has the right to call Africa their original homeland, regardless of what color they are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 00:25am on 03 Apr 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    71. At 07:02am on 02 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote:
    #69, Hesiodos:

    I see your point. If that was the case though, they could have done that with or without the White farmers. The fact that they didn't shows that a "communal" way of life was not the objective. What Mugabe did was reprehensible because he knowingly caused poverty and pain to his fellow country men. Racism works both ways, you know. Would those farmers have had their land stolen from them had they been Black?

    Like I wrote: Every person on this earth has the right to call Africa their original homeland, regardless of what color they are."

    But Africans are not entitled to call any areaa their home, is that how it works?

    And yes black farmers did lose their land in Zimbabwe.it was all stolen from them by Rhodes and his cronies with force of arms.

    To try and put the white experience of rascism with the black is pitiful. For one thing who has the power? When were the whites sold as slaves in their millions by the Guineans, the Nigerians, the Kenyans, the Congolese?

    Certainly Zimbabwe has become a basket case for various reasons including misgovernment. But the idea that a privileged minority can lord it over the mass of the population without stirring resentment is not sustainable.

    Look at what the Irish did when they captured english landlords who also claimed to be "improving" their Irish estates.




    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 00:29am on 03 Apr 2009, Simon21 wrote:

    66. At 4:55pm on 31 Mar 2009, happylaze wrote:
    64 cad I'm with you there. Agreed it is worrying that Mugabe is still in power really. I have a friend who's father still owns a Ranch farm business in Zim who would be effected by Mugabe's thefts. I agree they are thefts."

    And the taking of the land from the native peoples with maxim guns,what was that?

    The last white regime in Zimbabwe received powerful help fromthe west who only ceased when it became clear that it was no longer sustainable.

    There was a a phrase "our friends in the north"whihc was used by UK companies in SA when breaking sanctions against Ian Smith.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.