Anyone care to refute why Obama's economic policy isn't the best for corporate America's profits in history according to "statistics"?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/24/the-best-presidents-for-the-economy.aspx
This was lifting from an article about why Romney and Obama are the same candidate---for austerity and neoliberal policies.
http://socialistworker.org/2012/11/01/the-next-president-of-austerity
If a writer has no background in Austrian economics and just looks at history through statistics, they can be forgiven for that erroneous assumption. (The assumption that Obama created or influenced somehow this profit and therefore it was good for the country) That is what Keynesian politicians and reporters and economists want them to do.
The article says that under Obama the stock market went up, corporate profits went up GDP went up etc. and that presidents don't have much control over the economy.
Austrians know that presidents cannot improve the economy permanently but that they can give Keynesian stimulus to create a "boom" while they are in power. All the above measurements are not a true reflection of the "economy" but just the result of the biggest credit expansion in history. We also know every time after that there is going to be a bust, later.
Sure, credit has risen like nothing else, but it's locked up in excess reserves.
What do you mean by excess reserves exactly?
Nominal corporate profits can skyrocket all they want, but the fact that wealth is locked up in an increasingly elite setting, while the standards of living of everyone else stagnate or decline should be enough to condemn his whole policy.
You'd think at some point people who need to ask questions like this would just use the website or Google...
"Excess reserves" is a term banks use to say "available credit." I don't think Wheylous used it correctly.
Reserves = total deposits (kept on hand for withdrawal)
Excess Reserves = money available for lending
Whoa there Aristophanes.... seesh such temper
If everybody knew everything there would be no need for this forum,. we would just all agree.
Besides his question was not what are "excess reserves" but he was asking what Wheylous meant. On these forums, that these "corporate profits" have not been reinvested to grow the economy because investors are holding it in reserve for whatever reason- maybe regime uncertainty. I agree with that but that does not change the argument.
Obama HAS presided over a huge expansion of profit regardless of where the corporations wish to park their money. The question is, if Obama was allowed to continue along that track, will it continue towards additional corporate profits and therefore betterment of the country?
We all agree (I think) it won't - regardless of which part of that profit is "excess reserves"
Lol there's nothing more futile or self-deprecating than attempting to shame someone over the internet.
Thanks for the clarity though, although I'd still like to hear what Wheylous meant by it since there is dispute over the term.
Also, I fail to see how any of Obama's policies have allowed for more corporate profit, unless it's just a product of his presidency commencing at one of the slowest times in US history.
Sure, all of that loot has to go somewhere. The biggest banks get free money to speculate, the biggest unions get more protection from foreign competitors, the big companies get lots of intellectual property laws, the big pharma and insurance hit paydirt with Obamacare.
But guess where it came from, all those poor saps on unemployment.
But don't worry, Romney will be equally as bad or worse when/if he becomes president.