Good Riddance, Christina Romer. Now How Will You Get Your Soul Back?


We'll beat this recession with a smile and a handshake!

Christina D. Romer is quitting as chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

The ordinary function of government is to destroy talented people, but Romer's epic failure has an additional element of tragedy. As an economist, Romer did an excellent job [pdf] of establishing that New Deal stimulus failed to end or seriously mitigate the Great Depression. As an Obama team player (and poignantly, a sunny supporter of the then-senator's campaign), she made a 180-degree turn toward pro-stimulus hocus pocus. Romer will be remembered as the main advocate of the mythical "multiplier" phenomenon, in which every federal dollar spent produces more than 100 pennies worth of economic activity. This is the kind of economics you'd expect to hear from a fine arts major.

Maybe it won't matter on the lobbyist/lecture circuit, but at some point a person must say, "I told all those lies and this is all I get for it?"

UPDATE: As several commenters have noted, the "excellent job" link is to Romer's 2009 effort to walk back her 1992 work, not from the original, which I was unable to locate. Thanks to reader Dennis Nichols for rustling up the 1992 original [pdf].

NEXT: Because What Could Go Wrong With Government-Backed, Low-Interest, No-Money-Down Housing Loans?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just not pretty enough to be in Barry O’s sphere…nothing to do with talent or lack thereof.

    1. Not at all. Look at who he’s placed in other positions of power: Sonya Sotomayor, Janet Napolitano, Elena Kagan. All of them are neckless hippos.

      1. Well,she may be fat,but she sure is ugly

        1. this is the sort of comment that gives conservatives and libertarians a bad name. Christina Romer is a perfectly attractive, professional woman, as are Kagan, Sotomayor, and Napolitano.

          1. And Michelle is the sexiest woman in the world. What gives progressives a bad name is belief in the notion that repeating something sufficiently will make it true.

          2. You are right. No reason to comment on people’s looks or lack there of.

          3. Attractive? Whom do they attract?

            They’re all ugly and fat. No need to lie to make anyone feel better.

        2. Perhaps she’s just un-photogenic.

  2. I hope she kept the clothes with the evidence…

  3. I saw here a few times on TV and I was embarrased for her. It was obvious she was having difficulty defending positions she did not believe it. Too much smiling, nervous giggling, and refusing to give a straight answer to questions.

    1. This is the really morally debasing thing about working for Obama: If you know the truth but your paycheck is tied to convenient falsehoods, what does one do?

      1. Jolliness goes only so far in Washington.

      2. If that is even a question you never get to that position. Seriously, I work with these people. They got to where they are by compromising their integrity for their careers. By the time they get to a position like Romer’s it is just how they are.

        1. I believe it was her first position in the government. At Berkeley she didn’t have to defend outright lies. So, it’s possible that it was rather new to her to defend the indefensible.

          1. If she doesn’t like doing that, she doesn’t belong in government.

            1. Its possible she was a political idealist and had no idea what she was in for.

              1. Probably. I know the type: think that they will, finally, be listened to by Politician X (he understands and cares!). I’m just surprised it lasted so long.

      3. Its not just Obama. Why do you think Ashcroft quit as AG?

        1. Ditto Paul O’Neill as Treas Sec.

          1. o’niell and romer?

            so when ‘she’ writes her book panning the admin’s economic actions, and calls it:

            “The Price of Loyalty, pt 2”, will there be as many libs offerring her up as proof of a failed economic policy?

            replace her with some who actually had a role in this stimulus disaster:
            paul krugman.

            romer didn’t write the stimulus, the dem house did. we just have to wait another 3 months, to take the cars keys away from them. Despite all this ditch talk, we are moving, but only because we are still riding in the ditch.

        2. Getting gallstone pancreatitis doesn’t allow you to do your job so well either.

          1. Not to mentions Commerce Secretary Ron Brown…wait…I don’t think he went out on “his terms.”

  4. Sometimes it should be OK for a woman to try to grow a neckbeard.

    1. She needs one of these.

    2. Sage FTW! +1000! I was lucky I was not taking a drink at the time. I’d be siphoning out my sinuses.

  5. Good Riddance, Christina Romer. Now How Will You Get Your Soul Back?

    I thought we settled this on the other thread. Zomibe president Wyclef Jean will bring it back for her, so long as she stops US imports to Haiti.

  6. Only your tired old phalocentric economic reasoning could deny that there are at least a hundred pennies to the dollar. Don’t even need math to know the truth. You can *feel* the difference in weight alone.

    1. I am large, I contain multitudes.

      1. You mean the 1912 dollar?
        The 1956 dollar was a pretty good crowd. Heck, the ’72 dollar was a decent sized orgy.
        Now, I am afraid the 2010 dollar is just a solo lonely whack off of one.

  7. I am in a bad mood today so I am going to do something I normally don’t do; comment on someone’s looks.

    What the fuck is up with Obama and fat burn victim ugly women? I means Jesus Christ. Can’t he find one that is even average looking? Between this woman, Napolitano, the magic Latina, and Keagan, it is making news even more unwatchable than it already was.

    1. The prettier women have abandoned him.…..-promises/

      1. Ms. Emily Miller, the columnist is quite fetching to.

        1. Well sure. If you’ve got a gums fetish.

          1. Oh zip it, you would pound that like the fist of an angry … and horny God.

      2. Michelle knows the drill. She has to stay married to him to participate in the vast windfalls that await him, post presidency in 2012. She is taking no chances with what might go on under that great big cabinet room table. Seriously, being President is a real drag compared to the lifestyle that awaits the Obamas the minute they can dump this job.

    2. Blacks like the fat chicks.

      1. Fat I can forgive. A little exercise and diet can make that go away. And who doesn’t like a little junk in the trunk. But the ugly is not going anywhere.

        1. Look. The fat chicks on my bus that pair up with black guys tend to be overwhelmingly ugly. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pair up. I’m just saying that seeing a black guy with a hawt white chick is extremely rare.

          1. Especially one that looks like Steve Urkel.

            1. What women do you know who look like Steve Urkel?

              1. I mean black guys who look like Urkel.

    3. Here you go, John, a pretty Republican prosecutor.

      The AG race in Florida is a total clusterfuck. I actually voted for this woman (in the primary – I haven’t changed my registration back from Republican when I voted for Paul), despite her being a prosecutor, and despite her bragging about going for the death penalty.

      She was the only one who focused on actual criminals. The Democrats bragged how they were going to “shut down ‘Pill Mills'”, because they know better than doctors how much medication someone needs.

      The other Republicans had similar crap. (I don’t doubt this woman will act in a similar manner, but at least she is focused on violent and property criminals).

      1. I don’t blame her for going after the death penalty as long as it was in a case that deserved it. She is fucking hot. I won’t get my hopes up too much. I am sure she has something wrong with her. She is in politics.

        Actually Republicans seem to attract better looking women. In the recent “most beautiful people in Congress” thing the Hill did, almost all of the women who were legitimately hot were Republicans. And all of the ones that made you think “oh politics is hollywood for ugly people” were Democrat.

        1. Nikki Haley gives some more cred to general GOP hotness.

      2. Christine O’Donnanell is running for Congress in Deleware. She is pretty cute. She is 41, single and claims to be a conservative catholic against pre-martial sex. That means she is either a hypocrite or a 41 year old virgin. Either possibility makes her even more attractive.…..hristine+O‘Donnell&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=yllcTOyAJcG78gbvjbnkAQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QsAQwAw&biw=1680&bih=834

        1. She’s a moralizing wet blanket. Definitely cute, but would cause your dick to shrivel up and hide when she opened her mouth.

          1. I have been with a few moralizing wet blankets. You would be surprised what they are like when you get their clothes off. Sometimes people over compensate in their public image for their private vices.

            1. i’s show her my ‘secular ways’.

      3. I’d like y’all to meet Pamela Gorman, candidate for the GOP nomination in Arizona’s 3rd. She’s got it goin’ on ? including some great guns for all you Second Amendment fans out there, plus the ability to make Creep Uberdouche’s head explode (starting @1:00).

    4. Don’t kid yourself. Part of the “Hope and Change” mantra that Mr. Obama has embraced is “larger women.”

      One look at the Malaga pics of Michelle and the girls prancing in the surf will prove that Barry has evolved into a chubby chaser.

      1. Funny, the only two places you can find anything about Queen Michelle’s vacation is on Drudge and the English papers. I guess Journolist didn’t authorize coverage of that.

    5. Christina Romer looks just fine.

      It’s her defense of economic policies that run contrary to her own published research we should be criticizing.

      1. Got that right …

    1. That link does not work. I am disappoint.

      1. Strip off the crap at the beginning of the busted URL and you get this: http://images.encyclopediadram…..mproud.jpg

        Guh. Very disorienting.

  8. As an economist, Romer did an excellent job [pdf] of establishing that New Deal stimulus failed to end or seriously mitigate the Great Depression. As an Obama team player (and poignantly, a sunny supporter of the then-senator’s campaign), she made a 180-degree turn toward pro-stimulus hocus pocus.

    This is your principles on drugs.

    Just say no . . . to Keynesianism

  9. why does Keynes look so much like Axelrod? Was he trying to be a douche?

  10. She has more chins than a Chinese phone book.

  11. The economy is fine, deniers!
    She wanted to spend more time with us.

  12. “As an economist, Romer did an excellent job [pdf] of establishing that New Deal stimulus failed to end or seriously mitigate the Great Depression.”

    A little confused here. Just read the PDF and the gist seems to be that the 1930’s stimulus was too SMALL to have a direct effect. It was the indirect effects and monetary policy that pulled us out. Her argument being that we needed MORE stimulus then and now.
    Wouldn’t Romer’s work from the 1990s be more appropriate as a criticism of the policy?

    1. Yeah, unfortunately the work in question is not freely available on the intertubes. The paper linked is from 2009, but does lay out the gist of her argument that monetary expansion, rather than what the money was spent on, made the difference in the 1930s (a point on which she is clearly in accord with Bernanke).

  13. She is allegedly leaving to become president of the San Fran Federal Reserve bank.

    1. How hacktastic….

  14. From the paper Romer wrote:

    “One crucial lesson from the 1930s is that a small fiscal expansion has only small effects. I wrote a paper in 1992 that said that fiscal policy was not the key engine of recovery in the Depression. From this, some have concluded that I do not believe fiscal policy can work today or could have worked in the 1930s. Nothing could be farther than the truth.”

    Looks like she never said fiscal policy doesn’t work.

    1. No. She was just part of an administration that is proving it doesn’t work.

    2. It looks like she says now she never said it. When your findings lead “some” to “conclude,” there’s usually a reason for that.

  15. From the linked PDF:
    My argument paralleled E. Cary Brown’s famous conclusion that in the Great Depression, fiscal policy failed to generate recovery “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried… The key fact is that while Roosevelt’s fiscal actions were a bold break from the past, they were nevertheless small relative to the size of the problem. “

    She goes on to compliment Obama’s stimulus as appropriately sized, and concludes that will have a more positive effect on the economy than Roosevelt’s.

    She concludes: The implications for today are obvious. The more that countries throughout the
    world can move toward monetary and fiscal expansion, the better off we all will be.

    Not exactly a 180, Cavanaugh.

    1. as Will C and PicassoIII already pointed out…

      1. See previous responses.

        1. Given the title of this piece you imply that working for the Obama administration betrayed her principles. In fact, though, you seem to have misunderstood what she wrote, so the title reflects something that is not true. The truth is that Obama was the man to bring her principles and theories to life in all their failing ineffective glory.

  16. She wrote this propaganda piece in our local paper two weeks ago. I thought she actually believed in this horseshit. I guess you can only live a lie for so long.…..l#comments

  17. Stole this from someone else but…

    Larry Summers knew she couldn’t handle the job because there’s lots of math and science involved in it.

  18. You guys at Reason really need to learn a little nuance. Yes, on principle and libertarian viewpoints, I’m not a huge fan of random stimulus spedning; however, the empirical evidence I have seen in the past couple of weeks seems to show that fiscal policy can and has worked. In fact, as Romer pointed out in that article you cited, Tim, the fiscal stimulus of the New Deal wasn’t enough, as many have pointed out. As a share of GDP, the stimulus of the Lost Decade and Great Depression were rather small.

    Oddly, some have actually claimed that the New Deal and Japanese stimulus packages MADE THINGS WORSE, which is nonsense. If the stimulus packages were rather small to affect POSITIVE change, how the hell could they possibly have caused the economy to contract?

    There’s a big difference between rhetoric and evidence, folks. I’m not a huge fan of rhetoric, insofar as it comes to stuff that should be based on reality (like economic policy), so I look at the facts. The data show a mixed verdict on stimulus spending. It seems economists generally agree that tax increases can hurt the economy, but a good deal of stimulus CAN help speed up recovery when the economy is in the dumps.

    Dan Mitchell is well-known for claiming that ALL gov’t fiscal policy is somehow a bad thing, but the guy is either cherry-picking the studies he claims are on his side or has no sense of nuance. The fact is, Keynesianism CAN work in fairly small doses. On the other hand, gov’t overspending in the long-term CAN and does seem to also have a drag on the economy. But short-term fiscal stimulus when the economy is at very high unemployment WILL NOT, if anything, make things worse. It may not work as well, for a variety of reasons,

    Of course, this doesn’t excuse Romer for her terrible predictions of what the unemployment rate would be after the stimulus; nevermind what she claimed it would be even WITHOUT stimulus (still lower than today’s). But Romer does seem to know her stuff, in general. Hell, even Robert Barro isn’t going to go as far as, say, Peter Schiff or Ron Paul in claiming that stimulus doesn’t ever work or would make the economy much worse. It depends on the situation and the stimulus!

    The point is, fiscal policy and its effects are MUCH more complex than many right-wingers and libertarians make it sound. They do a disservice to their fellow Americans by cherry-picking or lying to make it sound as though fiscal policy never works.

    1. Keynesianism CAN work in fairly small doses.

      Not according to the administration.

      fiscal policy and its effects are MUCH more complex than many right-wingers and libertarians make it sound.

      Like most of your argument, you have that backwards. Complexity is the basis of the economic argument that’s made by libertarians. (Don’t care about right-wingers)

      Said complexity necessitates a free market, as central planning cannot be managed by any single or group of individuals.

      Keynesian ‘dumps’ of money are the simplistic take, not the free hand.

    2. Sure, economics are more complicated than what a three-paragraph article can convey, and economics is a very complex subject with sometimes contradictory data and that involves a good deal of complexity. That said, both groups at least integrate some basic economic concepts, like scarcity, efficient markets, convergence, and comparative advantage. Most progressives don’t bother with even those basics.

    3. “the fiscal stimulus of the New Deal wasn’t enough, as many have pointed out. As a share of GDP, the stimulus of the Lost Decade and Great Depression were rather small.”

      “Keynesianism CAN work in fairly small doses.”

      So, which is it, Brandon? You’re tripping over your own prose. Give up while you’re behind.

    4. “however, the empirical evidence I have seen in the past couple of weeks seems to show that fiscal policy can and has worked.”

      yes, this must be “recovery summer”.

      don’t be shy, I’m not seeing any dems wanting to discuss the success of the stimulus.

      Thus far, the best I’ve heard:

      the stimulus saved us from another depression, and unemployment could be 12, 13, 15%.

      Fortunate limbo bar placment:
      every president since fdr slides under those parameters.

  19. My favorite Obama spokeschick is Valerie Jarrett, one of the true believers from Chicagoland.

    She was on CNBC the other day and said about 6 lies in the first 30 seconds about how the economy was Bush’s fault, Obama saved the day, Obama is not anti-business, the healthcare bill really saves money, etc. etc., etc.

    And the crack CNBC journalists never challenged her on anything.

    At least Romer and Orzag had the decency to realize that they were failures. Here is the question – will ANYONE leave this regime with their reputation NOT trashed from hanging around this two-bit hustler.

    I really, really wonder when Hillary is planning to pull the ripcord.

    1. step one after the dems lose the house:

      rahm gone, jarrett to chief of staff.

  20. Robert Barro, an economist who seems pretty conservative in his viewpoints, has authored many studies which DO NOT SAY at all that government spending NEVER helps out the economy or that stimulus can never work. On the contrary, even he agrees that a minimum of gov’t spending can help, esp. when it comes to expanding access to education. This isn’t to say public education is the best, esp. in the U.S., but it could’ve been good if done right.

    Besides, the multiplier is NOT a total myth. I have seen at least 3 or 4 very good studies which generally agree on a multiplier, but it’s hard to determine the multiplier. There are generally 2 main ways to do it, one of which is called variable autoregression (VAR) or something like that. One study showed that, depending on how you measure, the multiplier is either large or small. Multiplier effect and evidence did NOT START with Romer, and anyone who disputes the multiplier effect is a total moron who hasn’t read the research in several economics journals.

    You also claim, Tim, that Romer made a “180-degree turn” in claiming stimulus works. HOWEVER, if you had bothered to read the brookings article you cited, you would realize that she never said stimulus doesn’t work. What she DID say is that the New Deal was too small, and therefore monetary policy had more of an effect on growth. Get real, Tim. Who am I gonna trust for economics knowledge, a well-known published professor or some idiot from a magazine?

    1. I’m far from being an economist, but do those studies on the multiplier effect take into account the opportunity cost of more money being removed from the productive sector via taxation?

      The simple version of multiplier theory (in its ideal form) is:

      taxpayer money –> public works program –> infrastructure improvement –> increased productivity

      But this doesn’t take into account the negative effect on productivity in other sectors not affected by the infrastructure improvement, but whose access to capital/customers etc. is hurt by the channeling of otherwise private funds towards the government.

      In any event, the multiplier effect of last year’s stimulus program has obviously been nil, since private employment has made negligible gains.

      Moreover, the muliplier theory is naive, at best. Stimulus money ends up being distributed for political, not economic, gain. See virtually ad nauseum number of recent stories around here for examples.

    2. “Robert Barro, an economist who seems pretty conservative in his viewpoints, has authored many studies which DO NOT SAY at all that government spending NEVER helps out the economy or that stimulus can never work.”

      I imagine that most economists share this belief. Seen a lot of gdp growth projections, based on military spending.

      the difference of course is between what works, and what is acheived. The stimulus worked, a little, in the short run.

  21. Of course, this is not to say that I think gov’t is the end-all be-all of growth or that we should vastly increase gov’t spending. On the contrary, I’d love to cut spending in a variety of areas. However, I’m also not so dumb and blind that I ignore the empirical evidence in front of me for political gain or to score ignorant cheap shots at the Obama Admin. Only in your fantasy world is Keynesianism 100% wrong. It may be somewhat wrong, but there’s still at least a kernel of truth to it. Numbers don’t lie.

    1. First, your making an unprovable statement; that it would have been worse had we not done the stimulus. We will never know. But what we do know is that the stimulus has completely and totally underperformed all of the predictions made by its proponents. It was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% remember? That alone makes any claims by its proponents suspect.

      Further, thee is a lot of empirical evidence that Keynesian stimulus doesn’t work. Namely the experience of Japan in the 1990s.

      Make you a deal, we will stop living in a fantasy world that Keynes had nothing right to say. And in return you stop living in the fantasy world that Japan had a prosperous 1990s.

  22. its magic …

    take a dollar from your left pocket and by the time you put it in your right pocket you have $1.40 …
    amazing …

  23. Over a long enough time-frame, I think you the argument that stimulus spending fails is pretty bullet-proof. As we have seen several times over the last couple of years, pumping money into a sector of the economy will indeed goose that sector, while the money lasts. Supporters of the stimulus focus on this very short-term, unsustainable result.

    However, the money can’t last forever, and when it runs out, the economy snaps back to where it was, so over the medium term, you get no gain. And over the longer term, you have to pay off the debt you incurred for the stimulus, so you will, yes will, wind up worse off.

  24. Show me a single empirical study from a renowned economist that says “Gov’t fiscal stimulus never works and can actually drag down the econ, even in the short-term”. In the studies that I have seen, it’s a lot more complex than that.

    The answer regarding stimulus working is yes and no, as strange as that may sound.

    1. Never is a pretty strong word. And there is some very good work on it not working in 1990s Japan or 1930s America. And further “yes and no” is a hell of a long ways away from justifying the kind of long term debt crisis we are creating. It is not worth going bankrupt to maybe help the economy a little bit.

    2. And as strange as it may sound, it seems that most of the ‘stimulus’ was directed towards politically connected cronies.

      It’s a shell game justified by an un-verifiable alternate doomsday scenario.

    3. Keep it up, young man. I see a powerful government position in your future. Do you enjoy young, white, male and topless beer pong? Hmmmm?

    4. ‘Show me a single empirical study from a renowned economist that says “Gov’t fiscal stimulus never works’

      I’m afraid that nothing will ever satisfy you, as it is impossible to demonstrate “never” or “always” empirically.

  25. Well,she may be fat,but she sure is ugly.

  26. Romer all but admitted she was sexually excited by her first discovery of the good looking, well spoken young lefty Senator / Presidential prospect.

    This was a case of female romantic attraction to young leftist male power — and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t face one of the central dynamic of leftist politics.

  27. Romer admitted when she first discovered Obama a thrill ran up her leg.

    This from a “scientist”.

  28. Only if I could worship at the alter of the unquantifiable!!

    When the crux of a policy argument is based solely on the unknowable (ie, “things would have been worse” or “we didn’t spend enough”) then it is pretty easy to determine that the theory behind the policy has failed. This doesn’t even get into the basic argument that the entire theory is driven by a “multiplier” that nobody has been able to consistently quantify ever (if only I could make ROIC decisions without an initial hurdle!). Keynesian economics, no matter what you think of it, has been hijacked by partisan economic illiterates. Even if you could argue that government deficit spending did have a benefit previously (ie, infrastructure, roadways, etc) it will NEVER be undertaken as initially formulated by the current brand of kleptocrats. The corruption within the allocation decision is far too entrenched (no real opportunity for graft with tax cuts).

    I can only imagine a management team giving Street guidance to an incremental $1.50 in eps after some form of capital investment, then, when delivering a $0.50 eps number specifying that with unlimited capital investment this number could have been so much higher. I wonder how long they would be employed?

    The FACT of the matter is the only BENCH assigned by this administration was their unemployment guidance with or without stimulus. By that measure, the only “real” measure we have, they and their Keynesian policy, failed spectacularly.

  29. Weren’t there a lot of “libertarians” who were similarly enthralled? Somehow, a group of folks supposedly dedicated to the proposition of limited government embraced a guy whose every word and past action was to the contrary.

    1. It was shameful. It was quite clear who this man and his potential administration was long before November 2008.

      Elections have consequences.

    2. A single word answer to your simplistic, assumptive question: NO!

  30. Even Fine Arts majors are smarter than that.

  31. If they would just pluck out their eyes like Oedipus, half of WDC would be blind.

  32. I didn’t know Ned Beatty had a sister.

  33. Romer will be remembered as the main advocate of the mythical “multiplier” phenomenon, in which every federal dollar spent producers more than 100 pennies worth of economic activity.

    There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine…

    1. You miss the point entirely here, like a lot of the other commenters. Efficient allocation of capital does lead to something much like perpetual motion, on the scale people are interested in (see the difference between paleolithic societies and modern America.) The problem is that government is very likely to allocate capital badly.

  34. You’d have to be a pretty stupid fine arts major to believe in the multiplier effect. Once your soul is sold….

  35. She’s pathetic. Larry Summers is just as bad. These “economists” KNOW what Obama is doing is killing our economy. These are the same errors that FDR made.

    We’re dealing with sycophantic a** kissers here. There is no hope for people, including professional economists, who will NOT tell the truth about the King.

    Obama has no clothes.

  36. She’s going to Berkeley, having a soul would just get in the way…

  37. Does Obama associate with any pretty women or does Michelle make him hang only with the fuglies?

  38. Jesus, she looks like Justin Bieber 35 years later, four failed marriages and years of cocaine addiction.

    1. In an amazing coincidence, she also support identical economic policies as well.

  39. She always came off as a giggling idiot. I felt the school that gave her a degree in economics should be embarrassed. Maybe they should even have a recall.

  40. I hope she can play a mean fiddle.

  41. Dr. Romer was simply ill suited to the job of CEA chair. Her bubbly personality and expressive presentation served her well teaching principles of economics to undergrads at Berkley made her come off as a light weight in the White House. She did adopt a neo Keynesian policy that proved flawed. it is my opinion that she was loosing arguments regarding a second stimulus with Summers and Geithner. I won’t miss her and I doubt the White House will either.

  42. A smaller stimulus that cut withholidng taxes for middle class workers might have accelerated the recovery. Instead Obama and his irresponsible left wing congress mis-spent nearly a Trillion to support democratic causes to incldue unions and well fed public sectors employess. This broadened, deepened and prologonged the current recession. First step is the 2010 congressional elections and the Republicans better be ready for bold leadership. Just follow Governors Christie’s actions in New Jeersey that define “backbone”. In the 2012 presidential election (and on the assumption that Obama is nominated by his own party), the Republicans better be ready to govern with a bold and decisive executive, both a leader and problem-solver who considers the economcy and jobs first and foremost. We can then fit in all of the other domestic considerations around this one central goal: repeal and re-enact health care, start the process of putting Fannie and Freddie out of business (the two core institutions behind the financial melt-down, left out of the so-called Financial Reform bill-that is the equivalnet of taking your kids o the circus without elephants), sensible energy policy leading to a Manhattan type project to make the country energy independent by mid century, citizenship and boarder security. In foreign affairs Obama’s “policy” of confusing our friends and promoting our enemies is already considered a joke. As one European said to me “if you think Europeans disliked a strong US President (Reagan or Bush), wait until you see how they react to a weak one”. I feel some sympathy for Christina Romer. She seems like a nice person who go caught up in the Obama rhetoric but is smart enought to bail out early. There is a possibility that Obama could become the first President to lose all 50 states, in 2012. He does not remotely understand what drives Americans’ aspirations that continuously re-defines our unique brand of exeptionalism.

  43. As someone who built her entire academic career on the effects of tax cuts stimulating the economy and tax hikes being contractionary she has lost her credibility as an economist. I believe the recent article co-authored with her husband was the shot across the bow, however she knowingly assisted in creating policies that have systematically caused further destruction to the US economy and has not addressed the underlying problems. As usual the American people lose…….

  44. All signs except one point to economic policy failure. I would be interested in what you all think is the ECONOMIC reason (leave the personal vitriol out, please) that the stock market seems immune to pessimism. Is it as simple as the falling dollar makes more money for American multi-nationals?

    1. The market can remain irrational far longer than you can remain solvent.

  45. great article.

  46. “I would be interested in what you all think is the ECONOMIC reason (leave the personal vitriol out, please) that the stock market seems immune to pessimism.”

    the only significant change in washington that is about to occur is the gop retakes the house, killing off keynes.

    There are two pending matters, independent or related…

    octobers and the dow. not a happy couple.

    expiration of the tax cuts: everyone and their brother anticipates getting out to pay a lower tax rate on their profits, before year’s end.

    smells like a massive selloff, with people then witholding their investments, til they see the outcome of the election.

    a 1500 drop in the dow, in mid october, and the gop could take 70 seats.

    1. the ultimate irony:

      the last quarter of capital gains of bush, features a massive payout.

      the first quarter of the obama cap gains rate will be based on a system which has largely been reset to zero capital gains, and be singularily tied to the gorwth he can create.

      if he takes credit for the surge in revenue, cap gains, then he must also accept responsiblity when the revenue declines relative to the temporary high.

      as a question of timing, the benefit of revenue comes after the election, but 24 months from his own election. This was an ill-conceived notion, but if the dems think they can leverage the projected 75 billion in additional revenue to pay for a 500 billion dollar increase in the federal budget and 60k more troops in afghanistan, they are in for quite a shock.

  47. She’s a turd, another college professor with no real world experience developing policies.

  48. Let’s say you work for 0bama. Do you:

    a) tell the truth

    b) sell your soul

  49. Christina Romer looks like a fatter, uglier version of Justin Bieber, and she’s about as good at protecting the economy as Justin Bieber is at singing. She and the Obama administration are no better than Bush was. They’re even paraphrasing his infamous quote, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, despite the fact that unemployment is up, bills and taxes are increasing, prices are up, and the paycheck is the same, and jobs are still being lost.

    …I don’t trust ANY politician anymore. They’re all dirty, filthy liars that are out for self IMO.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.