An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Let me state this up front, I'm no big fan of Obama, but this incessant claim by Conservatives that he is anti business is laughable.
NO PRESIDENT IN POST WWII HISTORY HAS PRESIDED OVER A FASTER INCREASE IN CORPORATE PROFITS THAN OBAMA. NONE!!
12 comments:
Major_Freedom
said...
Corporate profits are due in large part to Federal Reserve money printing.
The fact that corporate profits have risen under Obama doesn't mean that Obama is responsible for those profits. What, did he make a law saying consumers have to pay more revenues to producers (OK, he did, but that was only recently!).
Did Obama force the Fed to print more money, which added to aggregate demand, which increased corporate profits?
This ridiculous cult of personality ideology of attributing all economic phenomena to a single man who is President, is very, very unhealthy.
Obama can be vehemently anti-business DESPITE the fact that corporate profits have risen dramatically.
"Did Obama force the Fed to print more money, which added to aggregate demand, which increased corporate profits?"
If you are talking about QE..... NO!
There was a moderate fiscal stimulus. Which added to aggregate demand, which kept some people employed and helped increase corporate profits. The deficit adds to aggregate demand....It is large enough to keep most people in work and the profits humming along, but not large enough to reduce unemployment further.
I remember seeing a chart, or some data, showing that Obama hasn't been a big spender when compared to previous presidents… most of the explosion in the deficit being automatic stabilizers. (leaving aside the role of Congress in government spending).
Shouldn't Conservatives, and you to Major Freedom, be happy with how many public sector jobs have been destroyed in the past few years?
Shows a disconnect. If he's so anti-business, why did corporate profits rise so briskly? What reasons were given for him being so "anti-business"? Why did that line of reasoning fail to predict the outcome? Why continue to rely on it, if our aim is to be able to come up with an accurate prediction?
A few months back I did a post regarding the Kalecki profit equation and how govt deficits were primarily behind the strong rise in corporate profits (http://bubblesandbusts.blogspot.com/2012/03/forthcoming-profit-recession.html). (Note: My post picks up from James Montier and Ramanan).
Apart from the disconnect of Obama and anti-business, is the disconnect that free markets are pro-business (not to say McCain or Romney, especially, is less anti-business...if you catch my drift).
I'm still a little confused though. My understanding is that households are not spending and businesses are not investing because expectations are low and uncertainty is high. This has knock-on effects for other businesses, and thus the economy is in a rut.
Certainly, this seems to be the case with all the negative news coming from America.
The number one factor discouraging investment, from an individual business' perspective would be, as Dan seemed to argue, 'not enough customers' ("What's the Plan").
Is the latter consistent with high corporate profits? Are there other statistics that are relevant? I would think that if you're looking at profits as a % of GDP, you're really looking at profit margins. You're not looking at ACTUAL GDP GROWTH, and the fact that business have either shrunk or just shut down.
12 comments:
Corporate profits are due in large part to Federal Reserve money printing.
The fact that corporate profits have risen under Obama doesn't mean that Obama is responsible for those profits. What, did he make a law saying consumers have to pay more revenues to producers (OK, he did, but that was only recently!).
Did Obama force the Fed to print more money, which added to aggregate demand, which increased corporate profits?
This ridiculous cult of personality ideology of attributing all economic phenomena to a single man who is President, is very, very unhealthy.
Obama can be vehemently anti-business DESPITE the fact that corporate profits have risen dramatically.
What Major_Freedom said. Come on, Mike, you can do better than this.
major and jlp, did you feel a breeze as the point went across your heads?
dave:
major and jlp, did you feel a breeze as the point went across your heads?
Oh here we go. Esoteric super secret interpretations of what always correct Hickey "really" meant.
The "point" apparently went over your head.
@Major_Freedom
Tom didn't post this. Mike did.
Further, this is obviously a rebuttal of a common Republican talking point with tongue-in-cheek.
You won't find a lot of Obama-love at this site but we do know the diffrence between bad and worse.
"Did Obama force the Fed to print more money, which added to aggregate demand, which increased corporate profits?"
If you are talking about QE..... NO!
There was a moderate fiscal stimulus. Which added to aggregate demand, which kept some people employed and helped increase corporate profits. The deficit adds to aggregate demand....It is large enough to keep most people in work and the profits humming along, but not large enough to reduce unemployment further.
"Obama can be vehemently anti-business DESPITE the fact that corporate profits have risen dramatically."
The primary objective of a capitalist business is make a profit for the shareholders.
You will have to give some clear examples. Any anti-business rhetoric from Obama would be empty words.
I remember seeing a chart, or some data, showing that Obama hasn't been a big spender when compared to previous presidents… most of the explosion in the deficit being automatic stabilizers. (leaving aside the role of Congress in government spending).
Shouldn't Conservatives, and you to Major Freedom, be happy with how many public sector jobs have been destroyed in the past few years?
Mike != Tom
My bad.
-------
If it's not based on believing the President to be responsible for said profits, I don't see how this post can make sense.
Shows a disconnect. If he's so anti-business, why did corporate profits rise so briskly? What reasons were given for him being so "anti-business"? Why did that line of reasoning fail to predict the outcome? Why continue to rely on it, if our aim is to be able to come up with an accurate prediction?
A few months back I did a post regarding the Kalecki profit equation and how govt deficits were primarily behind the strong rise in corporate profits (http://bubblesandbusts.blogspot.com/2012/03/forthcoming-profit-recession.html). (Note: My post picks up from James Montier and Ramanan).
Apart from the disconnect of Obama and anti-business, is the disconnect that free markets are pro-business (not to say McCain or Romney, especially, is less anti-business...if you catch my drift).
Thanks once again Mike.
I'm still a little confused though. My understanding is that households are not spending and businesses are not investing because expectations are low and uncertainty is high. This has knock-on effects for other businesses, and thus the economy is in a rut.
Certainly, this seems to be the case with all the negative news coming from America.
The number one factor discouraging investment, from an individual business' perspective would be, as Dan seemed to argue, 'not enough customers' ("What's the Plan").
Is the latter consistent with high corporate profits? Are there other statistics that are relevant? I would think that if you're looking at profits as a % of GDP, you're really looking at profit margins. You're not looking at ACTUAL GDP GROWTH, and the fact that business have either shrunk or just shut down.
Post a Comment