It actually started earlier this year (you know, when we weren't in a recession), but the economic maelstrom of the past couple of weeks has caused consumers to rethink spending in some very basic ways. Cars sales are dropping like a stone, causing numbers of dealerships to close up shop. Airline traffic is also slowing, as is discretionary spending on items like electronics and even out of home meals.
It wasn't just the financial markets that got spooked in recent days. Trouble is, if consumers keep holding on to their money, it will take that much longer for the economy to rebound. Experts are saying consumer spending for the quarter just ended will shrink, the first time that's happened in nearly two decades. The negative news about the financial markets is being taken to heart across America, and it doesn't bode well for the upcoming holiday season.
Lagging sales has a domino effect. Retailers will start laying people off. Empty tables in restaurants means fewer waiters, busboys, dishwashers, and the like. The economy lost 159,000 jobs last month before all the chaos happened. The current month could be worse. And the $700 billion dollar bailout package just signed into law? It won't help spending in the short term. After all, $1 trillion dollars of household net worth has disappeared in the past four weeks.
Americans are resourceful people. Unlike the banks that got us into this mess, we'll cut our spending, make do with less, and move forward, in the main without the help from Uncle Sam the big boys are getting. Yet if we don't buy, some of us don't work, and businesses that are the life blood of our communities suffer.
Talk about being being between a rock and a hard place.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin's Performance a Victory? You're Kidding, Right?
Only in America could a candidate for high office like Sarah Palin win by not losing like she did last night. Her debate performance evoked comments like "folksy", and "connecting with average people". The fact she made no major errors other than not knowing the name of the US commander on the ground in Afghanistan is seen by some as a victory. Really? Was there anything in her arsenal other than stock answers? Was she that much better than she was in that series of awful interviews with Katie Couric?
Well, it depends on who you talk to. Scan the breadth of American media Friday morning, and you might easily conclude Palin won, Biden won, and they both lost. Spin is an amazing thing to behold, whether it comes from spiders or pundits. Was I the only one that thought not nearly enough time was spent on the economy? Would it have been totally out of line to ask about equal pay for equal work for women? Did I miss the part where Palin was asked about her views on abortion in the case of rape or incest?
The very concept of winning a debate by not looking like a complete idiot should shame us all. It's the ultimate expression of style over substance. As soon as the debate ended, I turned the television to something other than analysis. I would recommend this for all Americans. The punditocracy should not control how you analyze what you see and hear for yourselves. I waited until this morning to look at any debate analysis at all. This way, my own opinion was formed without input from people whose agendas I don't know (and don't care about).
My conclusion about last night was much the same as it was after the first presidential debate. Joe Biden, like Barack Obama, did a serviceable job. He could have done better, much better. That doesn't mean browbeating Sarah Palin. It means articulating a vision for the future that Americans believe can be accomplished. In these tough economic times, we deserve at least that.
What we got last night was genial sparring around the edges.
Well, it depends on who you talk to. Scan the breadth of American media Friday morning, and you might easily conclude Palin won, Biden won, and they both lost. Spin is an amazing thing to behold, whether it comes from spiders or pundits. Was I the only one that thought not nearly enough time was spent on the economy? Would it have been totally out of line to ask about equal pay for equal work for women? Did I miss the part where Palin was asked about her views on abortion in the case of rape or incest?
The very concept of winning a debate by not looking like a complete idiot should shame us all. It's the ultimate expression of style over substance. As soon as the debate ended, I turned the television to something other than analysis. I would recommend this for all Americans. The punditocracy should not control how you analyze what you see and hear for yourselves. I waited until this morning to look at any debate analysis at all. This way, my own opinion was formed without input from people whose agendas I don't know (and don't care about).
My conclusion about last night was much the same as it was after the first presidential debate. Joe Biden, like Barack Obama, did a serviceable job. He could have done better, much better. That doesn't mean browbeating Sarah Palin. It means articulating a vision for the future that Americans believe can be accomplished. In these tough economic times, we deserve at least that.
What we got last night was genial sparring around the edges.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin vs. Biden- As the House Turns
Two things on the agenda make this a very special Thursday for political junkies like me. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden meet in their one and only debate in St. Louis. This one has all the trappings and metaphor of a boxing match. Palin comes in with low expectations. If she holds her own, she wins. If Biden is seen as bullying her, she wins. If she can pronounce the name of one world leader (you see where I'm going with this?) she wins.
Joe Biden comes into the debate with most people believing he's better suited to be president than Palin, but at the same time less likable. Never underestimate likable. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's fluent on issues that Palin appears to be just learning about.
Biden's best strategy is to take advantage of Palin's attempts to soft peddle her most extreme positions. When Katie Couric asked her about her position against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, she responded with some nonsense about counseling for life. Joe Biden needs to take advantage of that, and Palin's attempts to focus on Obama rather than him.
The other agenda item probably won't get finished until Friday, but is no less important. The House is taking up the bailout bill later today. After Monday's drama, an awful lot of people are hedging their bets on whether the Senate version passed last night will make it through the House. There are sweeteners for those Republicans who scuttled the bill Monday, but there are questions about whether all the Democrats who voted yes will do so Friday.
And then, of course, there are the American people. Many folks still aren't happy with this bill, in part because it hasn't been properly explained any better than the one voted down Monday. There is a profound lack of trust in this country. It extends from politicians, to bankers, to the media, and nobody wants to adjust their thinking to take it into account. That's too bad.
It will be here long after the current economic crisis is history.
Joe Biden comes into the debate with most people believing he's better suited to be president than Palin, but at the same time less likable. Never underestimate likable. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's fluent on issues that Palin appears to be just learning about.
Biden's best strategy is to take advantage of Palin's attempts to soft peddle her most extreme positions. When Katie Couric asked her about her position against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, she responded with some nonsense about counseling for life. Joe Biden needs to take advantage of that, and Palin's attempts to focus on Obama rather than him.
The other agenda item probably won't get finished until Friday, but is no less important. The House is taking up the bailout bill later today. After Monday's drama, an awful lot of people are hedging their bets on whether the Senate version passed last night will make it through the House. There are sweeteners for those Republicans who scuttled the bill Monday, but there are questions about whether all the Democrats who voted yes will do so Friday.
And then, of course, there are the American people. Many folks still aren't happy with this bill, in part because it hasn't been properly explained any better than the one voted down Monday. There is a profound lack of trust in this country. It extends from politicians, to bankers, to the media, and nobody wants to adjust their thinking to take it into account. That's too bad.
It will be here long after the current economic crisis is history.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Now the Senate Goes First- Meaning What?
I was in on a conference call with Senator Hillary Clinton Tuesday morning when she let drop that the Senate, rather than the House, might vote first on a revised bailout (Did I say bailout? They're calling it rescue) plan. Sure enough, by day's end, that was the plan. That, and a lifting of the insurance on bank deposits by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. In that same conference call, Senator Clinton talked about the possibility of "commerce grinding to a halt". The full court press by lawmakers supporting a bailout seems to have worked, just a little. Voters who gave an unequivocal thumbs down the other day are reporetdly starting to change their minds.
Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.
Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?
I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.
Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.
Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.
Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?
I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.
Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
