Bernanke — Hank Kingsley lookalike

CANOE Money – News: Fed chair expects American economy will rebound — If this joker hadn’t jacked up the rates out-of-the-blue earlier he wouldn’t have sent the economy into a tailspin. Meanwhile Bush’s war and trade with China isn’t helping anything.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke predicted Tuesday the American economy will rebound from an anemic performance at the start of the year even if the housing slump continues.

Economic growth in the first three months of this year nearly stalled, logging just a 0.6 per cent annualized pace. It was the worst quarterly showing in more than four years.

However, Bernanke said some of the forces that figured in that poor performance – including a bloated trade deficit, cutbacks by businesses in inventory investment and weak federal defence spending – “seem likely to be at least partially reversed in the near term.”


The real Hank Kingsley.
Best quote: “When life gives you lemons, you make something with lemons.



  1. Rob says:

    “In a few months I expect to see the stock market much higher than today” — Irving Fisher, America’s distinguished and famous economist, Professor of Economics at Yale University, 14 days before Wall Street crashed on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929.

    I wonder how much gold or Euros has been shipped to vaults in Bush’s Paraguay compound?

  2. mxpwr03 says:

    Uncle Benny, Uncle Benny, Uncle Benny and the FOMC (Jets). Monetary debate I’ll be back for this one.

  3. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    This is a segment of news I simply ignore.

    When I hear analysts yapping about growth in X sector, gains in Y sector, increases in growth, decreases in unemployment (which is a lie) and all that… all I’m really hearing the the bullshit econo-babble of wealthy men who do not know the price of milk and do not have to worry about weathering a layoff or a catastrophic illness.

    All the so-called positive news in since January of 2001 has been like the good news of the “good” economy under Reagan. Things are peachy if you are rich and own. If you are lower middle class or the working poor, you are resoundingly ignored.

    These guys not only don’t understand the economy, they don’t care. They are already set, or so they believe.

  4. KVolk says:

    More of analysts analyzing. Notice how they aren’t expected to be right except randomly.

  5. RBG says:

    Hank Kingsley (The Larry Sanders Show) aka Jeffrey Tambor. (Among a thousand other roles, I remember him as a judge on Hill Street Blues.) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001787/

    RBG

  6. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #5 – I think economic analysis from Jeffrey Tambor would not only be just as accurate as from any economist, but would also prove more entertaining.

    In fact, a Ben Stein (who actually is an economist) and Jeffrey Tambor debate on the economy would be downright enjoyable to watch.

  7. Smith says:

    Everytime this guy speaks, the market tumbles. Inflation for the last 18 months has been driven by oil and gas prices, yet he thinks raising the interest rate will force the oil companies to drop their prices.

    Get a clue, Burnanke!

  8. Mike says:

    #7, umm, increasing the lending rate decreases borrowing, which decreases the grown of the money supply, which works to lessen inflation. I have no idea where oil prices are supposed to be factored into this…

  9. cheese says:

    The forecast for the economy will be partly cloudy, with a chance of turning partly sunny and warm. Highs to be in the low to mid 13,000. Lows predicted to be in the upper 9,000’s.

    Shouldn’t it sound like a weather forecast? It’s just about as worthless.

  10. hhopper says:

    OFTLO – Ben Stein’s really cool… a very intelligent guy. Did you ever see “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” where Stein had to answer the same questions they gave to contestants? They seldom won any of his money.

  11. Mr. Fusion says:

    #8, Mike

    The Milton Friedman School of Economics state “Just shut the eff up. Neo-cons know better then you”

    I hope that helps answer your oil question.

  12. bobbo says:

    weak federal defence spending – “seem likely to be at least partially reversed in the near term.”

    Lets see. We spend as much as the next 10 nations combined and we are closing in on a trillion dollars in deficit spending in Iraq. I guess Iran is on the horizon, at least according to the econ gurus?

  13. MikeN says:

    I thought the Bush economy was bad from day 1? How could Bernanke send it into a tailspin if it was already in recession?

  14. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    Beware Global Market Warming (TM)! We’ re all gonna die!

    #13 – Already in recession – That would imply that Clinton was a fault, no?

  15. Mike says:

    #14, that’s also assuming that a president has that much control over the economy in the first place.

  16. BubbaRay says:

    #10, Hop, “Win Ben Stein’s Money” was a pretty good show, some tough questions. Quite entertaining. Is it still on somwhere? I miss it.

  17. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    #15 – exactly one of the points I was hinting at.

  18. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #15 and #17 – Depending on who you ask and what their political stripe is and what President we are talking about, there are generally two points of view. 1) A President has no control over the economy. 2) A President has extensive control over an economy.

    The truth is in the middle.

    Presidents make appointments and nominations to a great number of posts that have an influence over economic decisions. Presidents sign or veto legislation that impacts the economy. Presidential speeches often have diverse influence the herd of cats known as traders.

    Presidents definitely have a great deal of influence over the economy. But obviously they can’t do everything. Natural disasters, shifts in technology, market changes, many other factors conspire to destabilize the economy as surely as the White House tries to control it.

  19. John Paradox says:

    Already in recession – That would imply that Clinton was a fault, no?

    According to the Neocons in the 90’s, the good economy under Clinton was because of Reagan in the 90’s.. so that would make it G.Bush #1.
    (assuming foolishly that Neocons are consistent)

    J/P=?

  20. Eric says:

    Maybe I am missing something, but the overall economy seems to be doing pretty well, with the May 2007 unemployment rate at 4.5% and the Dow recently hit an all time high. The 30 year mortgage rate is at about 6.4%, up from recent lows (having bought my first home when the 30 y ear mortgage rate was 11%, that sounds pretty good to me). I suspect we should blame Bush for this though.

    Housing prices are falling in some areas? Bad news? Not if you are a buyer!

    Slow economic growth during the beginning of the year could be correlated with northern hemisphere warming (aka spring). Blame SUVs.

    I think the forecast for “Highs to be in the low to mid 13,000. Lows predicted to be in the upper 9,000’s.” is pretty good!

  21. OvenMaster says:

    #20, the REAL unemployment rate presently stands at 8.2% as shown in the lower left corner of the page at the URL shown. The “official” unemployment rate is optimistic at best. It is not indicative of actual employment conditions in the United States.

  22. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #20 – Our economy is doing great just like the Reagan economy was… IF you are already rich.

    Reagan’s so called economic success was built on deregulation which resulted in huge corporations eating huge corporations, liquidations, layoffs, which meant short term windfalls for wealthy stockholders and a greasy pig fucking for the poor.

    Bush’s economy is great for the same reason. The wealthy are getting wealthier. The rest of us are still struggling to stay afloat.

  23. meetsy says:

    the unemployment rate does not count people who have timed OUT of unemployment. It does not count the guys you see picking up bottles and cans for recycling. It does not count the homeless (you can’t be employed or get unemployment without an address, and with the current patriot act laws you cannot get a p.o. box without three pieces of ID, one of which is an envelope mailed to your home address, fyi). It does not count those on welfare. It does not count those sleeping on couches of friends. It does not count those living under overpasses. It does not count those trying (in vain) to get on public assistance or social security disability. So, yeah, the unemployment number is just the people RECENTLY (within the last 6 months) who were eligible for unemployment.
    And, given that they aren’t counting fuel prices in inflation, means they also aren’t counting all the fees we are paying (delivery fees, fuel fees, etc) that are being passed along to the consumer…which sure do LOOK LIKE inflation in our wallets.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 11450 access attempts in the last 7 days.