Quote from Maverick74:
It's called expanding the money supply. LOL. You guys are not really this stupid offline are you?
I'm afraid some of them are...
First, presidents get way too much credit/blame for the economy than they deserve. Even our own version of Pravda understands this:
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/141762700/can-a-president-really-fix-a-bad-economy
If anything, everyone should wait a few years after Obama leaves office to evaluate his policies.
Second, Obama took over just a month or so before a long-term cyclical low in stocks. And the real impetus for the rally was a mark-to-market accounting change, not some new handout program or gov't spending spree. In fact, Obama's "spendulous" was an abject failure by his own metrics. He warned that the unemployment rate could reach 8.5% if he didn't get his way. Well, he got his way, and unemployment moved over that level for almost 3 years anyway.
Third, I saw lots of bumper stickers about how "gas prices were $X.XX when George Bush came into office." Why aren't there ones now bemoaning the fact that gas was $1.80-something when B. Hussein took charge?
Finally, no one should predict when hyperinflation (or stagflation, high inflation, a deflationary depression, etc.) will occur. In the Weimar Republic, they did all kinds of things to cause inflation, but it took a number of years for it to take off. And when it did, it happened almost overnight and was unstoppable and exponential.
The bottom line is that we're not living in a healthy economy by any means. We hit new highs in the unsustainable 2000 tech bubble and in 2007...does anyone want to take credit for that now? Likewise, stocks ran up in Weimar and Zimbabwe. It means nothing for the long-term.
