Surprise! - WSJ Says That Economists Give Obama A Failing Grade - Ignores Broad Disagreement

[Median Democrat]

The Wall Street (Rupert Murdoch) Journal and other media outlets have begun to publicize this survey of economists, which gives Obama an average grade of 59 and Bernanke an average grade of 71 in dealing with the economy. Of course, the report does not highlight the severe disagreements amoung economists as to why they think that Obama is doing badly:

February Survey

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123445757254678091.html

/snip

A boost to the economy from the government stimulus package has been a key feature of most forecasts for a rosy finish to 2009, but economists in the February survey largely expressed disappointment with how the package is shaping up. Comments on the package's influence this year say it is "too late," "provides little boost," "trivial," "too big," "too small" and a "colossal waste of money," and Nicholas Perna of Perna Associates said, "We're in danger of repeating Japan's mistakes," referring to that nation's policy errors during its "lost decade" in the 1990s.

/snip

March Survey

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html

/snip

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

* * *
The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. They estimate that U.S. gross domestic product will continue to contract in the first half of this year, with slow growth returning in the third quarter.

Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.

However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."

/snip

Yup, the Wall Street Journal in attacking Obama ignores the real story that there are no easy answers that even among professional economists surveyed, there is broad disagreement on what to do. The stimulus is too big and too small? We need another stimulus, but we don't need one? Huh? These people are paid economists, and they can't agree on basic economic policy? WTF?

I think the real problem is when there is a real consensus as to what to do, but Obama and Geithner ignore that consensus. Right now, the low grades appear to be a reflection of the confusion among economists.

[Cant trust em]

1. "when there is a real consensus as to what to do, but Obama and Geithner ignore that consensus"

What is that consensus?

[Median Democrat]

2. Exactly, These Professional Economists Can't Agree On Basic Economic Policy?

These people are paid economists, and they can't agree on basic economic policy? WTF?

For example, the stimulus. In February, the economists were freakin debating whether or not the stimulus was necessary. In March, the economists are NOW debating whether or not a second stimulus is necessary.

These are paid professionals mind you, and they are disagreeing on fundamental points of policy. Yup, Obama is doing a terrible job because he is ignoring a non-existent consensus regarding how to get this country back on track economically.

My take is that the economists, particularly the ones hired by investment companies, are biased. What they are looking for is a quick hit in the stock market for their clients. Their idea of a good economy is a massive bank bailout that lifts the market even if there is no oversight or return to the taxpayers.

Good economy = good for my banking client. Notice that many of the economists quoted are employed by banks.

[Uzybone]

17. Good economy = good for my banking client.

well said. I noticed too that a lot of them were affiliated with Wealth management firms and banks.

[YOY]

3. Fuck Rupert, the WSJ, Wall Street, and any "economist" who didn't see this coming.

That is all.

[OHdem10]

4. Obama is not following the RW Theology re Free Markets--so

naturally the WSJ will criticize.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Smells like "Global Warming is a Hoax" Redux to me.

[Jennicut]

6. The answer is...there is no answer. No clear consensus means

Obama has to try what he feels is right and hopes the economy recovers. Can't give him a failing grade until a year or so from now.

[Cant trust em]

9. There are economists who say spend more and economists who say spend less

Since spend more fits in generally with our vision of the country, I think we'll listen to those economists a little more carefully.

[PretzelWarrior]

11. that's what I posted on another site. They are going NUTS trying to slow him down

I am writing a letter to Obama on stationary to personally thank him for all he's doing and all the criticism he's weathering.

[Ilsa]

7. But, but, but the Dow is over 7000 again! Is't that their yardstick? nt

[nichomachus]

8. You do realize that the WSJ is run by certifiably insance people -- don't you?

[Tempest]

10. I'd listen to what Paul Krugman says since he was right the entire time

He predicted everything that's happening and he says Obama is on the right course, although he needs to do more.

[amandabeech]

14. I look for what NYU prof Nouriel Roubini says, as well.

He's been spot on with this.

Geithner needs more staff. I hope that a boatload of them are being vetted, and that at least some of them are not Friedmanites.

[Better Believe It]

12. Not hard to figure out which economists are right. I have the answer! :)

"Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all."

In general you can assume that those who favor more stimulus are progressive economists who want President Obama to succeed and those who are opposed to more stimulus and want a budget freeze are right-wingers who want to regain control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

:) :)

[Supersedeas]

13. doesn't this say as much about the so-called experts: trivial, too big; too small, collossal

But, I suppose the WSJ isn't looking for consensus -- just a reason to complain and flapp them fat piggy jawls.

[ncteechur]

15. The second Murdock bought the WSJ, it became an irrelevant fishwrapper.

[Uzybone]

16. The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn

This sentence renders their entire analysis moot. "Experts" who didn't see it coming, didn't know how bad it would be, don't know what to do to solve it, and don't know when it will end are busy grading the President. Why should we have any faith in the ecomists judgment?


"The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. "