Could Cramer Be Right?

These United States long ago cried Uncle but the President went right-on twisting our elbow behind our back yesterday, insisting that the not-even-great boondoggle plotted in our nation's capitol could be described with terms like "economic" and "stimulus." As is usually the case, this is a clear sign that there is nothing economic about the plan and little that is stimulating, unless triggering our gag reflex counted.

As our eyes threatened to glaze over we turned our eyes away from the idiot box and toward the mounting mountain of periodicals that demand our attention each week. For no particular reason we can determine, we received three copies of New York magazine last night. This had the surprising effect of convincing us to turn our attention to the magazine. Note to advertisers on dead trees: you may want to insist that magazines mail multiple copies to subscribers. At least it ensures the mass circulation magazine will be picked up and perhaps an eyeball or two will settle on the pricey ads you somehow still believe should be placed there instead of on, ahem, little websites.

Leafing through the magazine we found ourselves experience a bit of intellectual surprise. We were reading a column by a man named James J. Cramer—as he calls himself in print—and we were agreeing with it! We read on, mouths agape. Had this final act of the Bush administration accomplished reconciliation between Cramer and DealBreaker?

More on the potential reconciliation after the jump.


We long labored under the delusion that the political parties could best be described as the stupid party and the evil party. But in the past dozen years or so, the stupid party has become more evil and the evil party stupider, so that now we have two stupid and evil parties and elections ask us to choose between not just the lesser of two evils but the stupider of two evils. It's a choice we feel a civic duty to decline.

But back to Mr. James J. Here's how he describes the so-called stimulus package:

Everybody likes "free" money. So it's no wonder that President Bush's plan to give up to $1,200 per family to taxpayers to get the economy moving again will sail through Congress. The logic seems compelling: We face a looming recession because the consumer isn't spending. Give 'em some money to spend! The president's team is hailing the plan as a cheap $150 billion shot in the arm that will check the downturn and get the economy rolling again.

Do you mind if I'm blunt and say that this is the stupidest, most wasteful, and least effective idea possible to reverse the decline in the U.S. economy, a decline that is pulling the rest of the world down with it?

No James, we don't mind you saying that at all. We're grateful you said it so bluntly because we're always grateful for such wonderful adventures into reality when it comes to politics and economics. But we wish you had stopped saying anything there, rather than gone on to call for interest rates to be cut in half, to 1.75%.

On reading further into the article, it is easy to discover that Cramer's complaint is simply that the 'free money' on offer from Washington is not free enough—it involves more borrowing by Washington—and does not include enough money. We've experienced a great calamity caused by credit and Cramer's conclusion is that we need more of it, good and hard.

The rest of the article pursues a path of pure madness. "First, let's take a hard look at the real cause of the problem: We have too many defaulting mortgages and home-equity loans from people who bought homes-some on speculation, some because they actually wanted to live in them-and could not afford the purchase price," Cramer writes. It seems obvious that the conclusion to such a discover would be to get the government out of the business of the great homeownership experiment. The social engineering program entitled the "ownership society" has failed and ought to be abandoned.

But Cramer calls for an economic policy that would dig us even deeper into the mortgage mentality. We've had a real estate bubble that has almost broken the world, and Cramer wants to put us right back into the bubble bath.

We set aside the magazine, content with the view that the great folly of Washington had not yet re-ordered the way of the world such that we would find ourselves fighting beside James J. The lambs and not yet laying down with lions, nor the bears with the bulls, nor the sound money sentinels with the inflationists, nor DealBreaker with the breakers of interest rates.

The Phony Stimulus [New York]

Comments

Posted by ksql, Jan 29, 2008 8:49AM

First!

Posted by Bulging Bracket, Jan 29, 2008 9:06AM

Carney, real men know that the best way to deal with the consequences of a liquidity surplus that resulted in the elimination of anything resembling a credit standard is to go to negative real interest rates. It worked so well for Japan!

The government should of course get out of the business of distorting markets. The Ownership Society failed because it was social engineering for conservative ends, rather than because there is anything wrong with its goals. All social engineering will fail, just as all government programs will. This is why big government programs and movements of any ideological stripe must be opposed.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court ruling, the way to encourage individual responsibility is to encourage individual responsibility. , not by creating new government distortions to counteract the distortions of other programs, laws and regulations. But there aren't many people in Washington (or politics/policy at all) who accept this, and fewer who are sane...

Posted by Anal_yst, Jan 29, 2008 9:23AM

Just when Cramer starts to sound remotely intelligent, he ups and does a 180 and returns to his usual practice of spouting out ill-informed, poorly-thought-out nonsense. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Posted by mrpink, Jan 29, 2008 9:28AM

I concur with Anal_yst..

Sad, I was getting my hopes up about James, only to have them dashed on rocks after reading the rest of his article.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 9:39AM

I agree with the last two comments.

And I'll never understand how Jim goes from almost making sense, to being completely wrong.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 9:41AM

"Could Cramer Be Right?"

No. The answer is always no.

Posted by anon, Jan 29, 2008 9:41AM

Cramer's plane is asinine. Yeah, lets drop rates to zero for two months, refi everyone, and then raise them back to 5%. He doesn't even address the fact that for a lot of people, lower rates won't do anything to qualify them for a new mortgage if they are underwater. I like 1-2's plan from yesterday: massive infrastructure spending. Perhaps an actual energy policy.

Posted by Evaluator Speculator, Jan 29, 2008 9:41AM

I had started thinking that maybe I was wrong about James J....
I guess I was wrong about thinking I was wrong...

Posted by lurker, Jan 29, 2008 9:45AM

seriously, John, you gotta stop trying to think for yourself.

Posted by DeepThinker, Jan 29, 2008 9:46AM

Bubble created by gov't induced asset class buble, the groundwork laid years ago in the idea that you can deduct mortgage interest.

Thus, consumers had strong incentive to borrow, and, once borrowing, well what's a few more zeroes here and there.

Posted by DeepThinker, Jan 29, 2008 9:47AM

Bubble created by gov't induced asset class buble, the groundwork laid years ago in the idea that you can deduct mortgage interest.

Thus, consumers had strong incentive to borrow, and, once borrowing, well what's a few more zeroes here and there.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 9:50AM

"Could Cramer Be Right?"

"No. The answer is always no."

What??!! Haven't you seen Mad Money! and made tons of money off of his advice pumping and dumping whatever Wall Street tells him too?! No?

Geez Carney, liars don't change their stripes.

Posted by Lee D, Jan 29, 2008 9:50AM

""Could Cramer Be Right?""

Sure, but even the sun shines twice a day on a dead dog's ass.

Posted by John Carney, Jan 29, 2008 9:54AM

Lurker, I've tried but cannot manage it. You have no idea what this bad habit has cost me.

Posted by Anal_yst, Jan 29, 2008 10:21AM

@ 9:41, I think both myself and 1-2 had brought up infrastructure spending instead of this ridiculous "stimulus" package for the record, regardless, the fact remains that this stimulus nonsense needs to be stopped before the beaurocrats in DC spend us back to the stone age

Posted by 1-2, Jan 29, 2008 10:22AM

@Anon, while I thank you for the kind words I believe you have confused my policies with someone else's. I simply think people need to:
1) re-learn what risk is;
2) understand that we've tried Keynesian economics before and they simply dont work;
3) stop thinking poppa-bear government will be there to bail them out whenever things go wrong.

Massive infrastructure spending is necessary for its own reasons, but I am certainly not about to get New Deal here.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 10:22AM

I'm with the just start dumping money into infrastructure camp. World class rail system!

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 10:31AM

@10:22 Totally agree. Problem is though that you're probably an urban guy, and most of the US is not. The American model is to live out in the far burbs on a big lot, far from the black and brown people and drive long distances to work on cheep oil. David Brooks even classifies such folks as an electoral bloc; calls them office park workers. Slightly right leaning centrists. That, combined with the auto/oil lobbying means that no comfortable rail system anytime soon for america. You're hoping for something that happens everywhere else in the world, but not here.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 11:00AM

@ 10:31. I agree with that historically, but not necessarily now. The last generation fled the city to the suburbs, I think the natural flow of this generation reverses that trend and goes back to the way it has been.... forever....everywhere. Community-centric living. It all depends on whether or not those lobbies you mention are able to stop it.

Posted by , Jan 29, 2008 11:31AM

stop the Fed. vote for Ron Paul. he will reduce the financial system back to the mercantilist age of unabated capitalism.

fiscal policy is for suckers. Ron Paul is no sucker.

Posted by 1-2, Jan 29, 2008 11:41AM

@11:00: While i dont agree with your assertion that there will necessarily be a reverse-flight back to the cities (sure, some cities like Charlotte have seen this, but not the majority). The primary reason is demographics. The people who generally "want" to live in cities, even gentrifitopias are the young...but the young are declining. There is going to be far more old-flight as the geezers move away than youngins' moving on in.

About infrastructure (esp rail), all you have to do is simply think about the structure of geographic America. Take my home city of LA, which more and more cities look like with the in-urbs beginning to touch the suburbs and it just becomes one big blob-urb. They tried to put in a subway years ago, and besides the obvious fact no one wants to be underground during an earthquake, there was no way to make it geographically feasible. It served a single corridor (LAValley), because having a network throughout the city, or even the city center would just be irresponsibly expensive.

Now think about how many trains it takes to service a 6x14 mile island we call home and you begin to understand the problem. Without forced proximity (ie, island) massive public transport systems in the US CAN'T catch on. Correct me if i'm wrong but Amtrak hasnt turned a legitimate profit in years. If we can't make one commuter rail system work with such compelling routes as Washington=>NYC=>Boston there is no way it could work with the ever sexy Chicago=>St Louis=>KC route. And each of those cities has innumerable suburbs that would require a line each.

ok...enough drivel.

Posted by Anal_yst, Jan 29, 2008 11:44AM

@ 10:31

Do you know how many people just in the tri-state area take the train every morning on sub-par LIRR, MetroNorth, or, even worse, NJ Transit? Most of these people live 10, 20, 30+ miles out of the City in nice spacious suburbs. Unfortunately, if we can't even provide quality rail service to rival even base service in most other civilized countries in our cities how can we be expected to extend quality service to the rest of the country?

Posted by Anal_yst, Jan 29, 2008 12:12PM

And to go on with our NYC-centric example, currently the Porth Authority is already at capacity (or over, depending who you ask), our bridges and tunnels are gridlocked during the entire morning and evening commutes. Increasing our reliance on rail (at least in the NYC-centric example) is to 1. take traffic off the roads, 2. reduce dependence on oil, 3. reduce emissions, 4. tangentially, reduce stress, as for most people sitting on a decent train car reading the paper (sleeping, etc) is far more relaxing than sitting in the parking lot that is the lincoln tunnel/gwb/etc, etc. This is not to mention that with a well-designed, well-run rail system many people's commuting time would be severely reduced.

In general though, I was arguing for an expansion of our entire public infrastructure system to bring us up to 21st century standards in technology, safety, and security.

Posted by mrpink, Jan 29, 2008 12:21PM

1-2: The Metra services most of the suburban Chicago belt, and it's fairly reliable and ON-TIME. It even goes out to Harvard, IL, which ... is almost 90 miles west of Chicago. Yet, it's still reliable - and cheaper than the shitty services (LIRR, NJT) .. I can't speak for MNRR, because I've never rode on it.

That's one mass transit system I have no qualms about. The CTA in the City proper... well, that's a different story. They're worse than the MTA.

Posted by 1-2, Jan 29, 2008 12:42PM

Senior Pink,

Again, i am not arguing that mass transit isn't a good idea. In certain circumstances it is very desirable and beneficial for the reasons Anal_yst outlined above. All i am saying is that if we can't get it right in the few places extremely conducive to rail transport systems we shouldnt expect a national system to work anytime soon. There is just too much sprawl. Amtrak clearly demonstrates that intra-city rail is not a good business model in America, and municipalities have proven their track-record shotty at best; why expect anything else.

Wow, this argument has digressed into minutia. All i was saying was that i wasn't advocating a new deal type, keynesian, central gov't led spending increase. This country needs an infrastructure orgy to repair and modernize neglected systems, but not to "spur" economic activity. And yes, I like rail, but this nation's layout makes it extremely prohibative.

"There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government project."
-Milton Friedman

Posted by To The Hilt, Jan 29, 2008 1:13PM

Public works projects are ALWAYS a good idea. In SimCity.

Amtrak built the damn Acela coaches 4 inches too wide, so the trains cannot travel at full speed except on an 18 mile stretch somewhere (RI, I think) north of NYC.

Being from DC, I often take the train from Penn Station. The Acela is 2x as expensive, and 30 minutes faster. My time is valuable, but not THAT valuable.

Posted by Anal_yst, Jan 29, 2008 1:14PM

@ 1-2

Well said.

Posted by a.lord, Jan 29, 2008 1:41PM

cramer was right.

Post Your Comment