David Stockman's article in NY Times today...SUNDOWN IN AMERICA

[salmp01]

I read this article today http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html

and would like comments and advice....thanks...

[giwo]

When I read opinions like that, I'm reminded of MMMs post on the benefits of optimism.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/

[frugal_engineer]

1.) the gold standard is stupid, and nutjobs are the only people concerned about bringing it back.

2.) never a thread of financial great depression 2.0?  thats quite the intuitive leap considering you could call the past 5 years exactly that.

3.) Keynesian economics vs Hayek is a very old argument with no clear winner, this guy is pretending that he knows for sure that keynes was wrong.  Economists disagree over nearly every point he makes, with half lining up on either side.  The only certain thing in the study of economics is that no one knows for sure the consequence of anything.

4.)  Basically this is a scare piece by a conservative former Reagan administration official.  It'll certainly get a lot of readers the same way Fox News gets a lot of viewers.  I wouldn't put much weight on it. 

The majority of the stats are real, and they are definitely worrisome.  But look around to other corners of NYT and you'll find economists talking about the same issues with opposite views and equally convincing arguments.  The longer answer is no one knows what to do about our fiscal problems it will take an actual debate with a willingness to listen to either side's arguments to come to the correct decision.  Preaching disaster if a certain course isn't taken isn't constructive.

[NYD3030]

The second I see someone toss out the term "fiat currency" in a pejorative sense I immediately dismiss their opinion as not worth consideration.  I could write a novel about how stupid this thought is, but in the interest of everyone's time I'll just point out that I don't understand how these numbskulls point to USDs and say "But don't you see, it's not worth anything - it's only valuable because we believe it's valuable!!!!" and never make the brave leap to recognizing that gold is only valuable because we believe it's valuable.

As for any assertion that Keynes was wrong, it seems to me that his line of economic thought keeps getting validated over and over - real interest rates are negative despite rampant inflationary dollar printing by the fed because we're in a liquidity trap.  These clowns need to recognize reality's stubbornness in conforming to their need to view the economy as a morality play in which the undeserving get justly punished, and stop desperately hoping for a horrific crisis in capitalism just so they can feel superior.

[BYUvol]

This guy is drinking something pretty stiff. It's funny that he simultaneously credits war for bringing us out of one depression and creating the next.

No economist I know of credits the war for lifting us from the depression. Sure, the government spending from the war had a stimulating effect, but the New Deal was stimulating for the same reasoning. Losing hundreds of thousands of people of working age (418k US citizens died in WW2), who would have potentially made and bought stuff, can't be considered good for GDP.

I agree with him that trying to alter naturally occurring business cycles has a long-term, negative effect on growth, but his reasoning is poorly thought out.

[NICE!]

1.) the gold standard is stupid, and nutjobs are the only people concerned about bringing it back.

2.) never a thread of financial great depression 2.0?  thats quite the intuitive leap considering you could call the past 5 years exactly that.

3.) Keynesian economics vs Hayek is a very old argument with no clear winner, this guy is pretending that he knows for sure that keynes was wrong.  Economists disagree over nearly every point he makes, with half lining up on either side.  The only certain thing in the study of economics is that no one knows for sure the consequence of anything.

4.)  Basically this is a scare piece by a conservative former Reagan administration official.  It'll certainly get a lot of readers the same way Fox News gets a lot of viewers.  I wouldn't put much weight on it. 

The majority of the stats are real, and they are definitely worrisome.  But look around to other corners of NYT and you'll find economists talking about the same issues with opposite views and equally convincing arguments.  The longer answer is no one knows what to do about our fiscal problems it will take an actual debate with a willingness to listen to either side's arguments to come to the correct decision.  Preaching disaster if a certain course isn't taken isn't constructive.

I'm going to caveat this by saying I'm not a gold standard guy. There, caveat complete. Are you an economist though? It is called an ad hominem attack or guilt by association when you say that a view is something that is only the province of crazies.

And I'm going to skip to your last point. The guy is no friend of the GOP - he is more libertarian if anything. He was a pro-choice congressman and has advocated for actual smaller government, something the GOP only says but never does.

Finally, you cannot ignore the moral hazard that bailouts create nor can you ignore the pernicious nature of the numerous subsidies, tax breaks and trade protectionism we provide large companies in this country. Crony capitalism combined with a massive federal government is not a recipe for long-term success.

[tooqk4u22]

When I read opinions like that, I'm reminded of MMMs post on the benefits of optimism.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/

Optimism is great and can lead to great things, but realism keeps it all together - an optimmist may jump off a cliff thinking they can fly, an optimist with dose of realism understands that they can fly but will need some help such as a parachute, hanglider, etc.

1.) the gold standard is stupid, and nutjobs are the only people concerned about bringing it back.

2.) never a thread of financial great depression 2.0?  thats quite the intuitive leap considering you could call the past 5 years exactly that.

3.) Keynesian economics vs Hayek is a very old argument with no clear winner, this guy is pretending that he knows for sure that keynes was wrong.  Economists disagree over nearly every point he makes, with half lining up on either side.  The only certain thing in the study of economics is that no one knows for sure the consequence of anything.

4.)  Basically this is a scare piece by a conservative former Reagan administration official.  It'll certainly get a lot of readers the same way Fox News gets a lot of viewers.  I wouldn't put much weight on it. 

The majority of the stats are real, and they are definitely worrisome.  But look around to other corners of NYT and you'll find economists talking about the same issues with opposite views and equally convincing arguments.  The longer answer is no one knows what to do about our fiscal problems it will take an actual debate with a willingness to listen to either side's arguments to come to the correct decision.  Preaching disaster if a certain course isn't taken isn't constructive.

I'm going to caveat this by saying I'm not a gold standard guy. There, caveat complete. Are you an economist though? It is called an ad hominem attack or guilt by association when you say that a view is something that is only the province of crazies.

And I'm going to skip to your last point. The guy is no friend of the GOP - he is more libertarian if anything. He was a pro-choice congressman and has advocated for actual smaller government, something the GOP only says but never does.

Finally, you cannot ignore the moral hazard that bailouts create nor can you ignore the pernicious nature of the numerous subsidies, tax breaks and trade protectionism we provide large companies in this country. Crony capitalism combined with a massive federal government is not a recipe for long-term success.

Dropping off the gold standard is not the issue but the political mismanagement of our debt and currency as result of dropping it is the issue - if politicians were prudent and disciplined then we would have an issue.

Everything he wrote was fairly accurate and the apparent risks are real and concern me greatly and some of his recommendations make a lot of sense, but it doesn't make him right and wouldn't abandon investing altogether as he suggests. 

Also, while he may have been a republican at some point it seemed to me he blamed/bashed both sides of the aisle and moreso the republicans - it had slight liberal bias IMO so I agree with NICE - libertarian at best. 

The moral hazard/bailouts/entitlements are big issues and promotes concentration of wealth at the top - it hurts the average Joe.

[Rich M]

That was a nasty rant to read.  The negativity meter was pegged as well as the BS meter.

I wonder if he is short selling the whole market hoping to influence a market correction.

But mostly, I think he is trying to draw attention to his new book!