iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Jay Carney, Despite Evidence, Says Economists Didn't Know How Bad The Recession Would Get [WATCH]

First Posted: 12/08/11 03:53 PM ET Updated: 12/09/11 03:49 PM ET

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a surprising assertion on MSNBC Wednesday, saying that in early 2009, as Barack Obama was taking office, there weren't any major economists who understood just how bad the recession was.

The problem is that the evidence doesn't support his claim.

"There was not a single mainstream, Wall Street, academic economist who knew at the time, in January of 2009, just how deep the economic hole was that we were in," Carney told Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on Wednesday's program.

Scarborough had asked Carney how President Obama might respond to accusations that the stimulus act passed in February 2009 failed to prevent unemployment from climbing.

In response, Carney pointed out that at the time, economists believed the economy had shrunk only 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 -- but that experts now believe the contraction was much worse, approaching 9 percent for the quarter. This reflects the larger narrative of the Great Recession: Many initial assessments missed the scale of the problem, and it wasn't until later that the official statistics more closely described the damage done to the economy.

Carney's implication seemed to be that no one realized the severity of the situation in early 2009, and that the White House acted as best it could with the information it had.

"We were in an economic free-fall, and we know now that the hole that was dug by the recession was much deeper than we understood at the time," Carney told Scarborough and Brzezinski.

In reality, though, well-respected analysts and economists from all corners were sounding alarms about the state of the economy -- in early 2009, and even before.

Numerous experts warned that the stimulus bill wouldn't go far enough to address the nation's economic woes as it was making its way through Congress in the early days of Obama's presidency. They cautioned that the economy was pointed toward higher unemployment and weak or nonexistent growth -- conditions that have indeed come to characterize Obama's first term in office.

Paul Krugman, a left-leaning economist and Nobel laureate, wrote in a New York Times column in January 2009 that Obama's plan to jump-start the economy was "nowhere near big enough," arguing that it was "unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap" at a time when the country was experiencing "the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Nor was Krugman the only economist to draw a Great Depression comparison. Martin Feldstein, Harvard professor and former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, wrote in January 2009 that "this recession is likely to last longer and be more damaging than any since the depression of the 1930's."

And James Galbraith, a left-leaning economist and former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee said, "there are many good reasons to think" that America is in "a true financial crisis of the type in the 1930s." Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics warned at the time that "the economy appears headed toward its worst downturn since the Great Depression."

Dean Baker, a left-leaning economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, issued a warning similar to Krugman's in January 2009, writing in the Guardian that "[t]his downturn is so severe that [the stimulus bill] may not be sufficient to offset even half of its impact."

And a January 2009 survey of more than 100 economists, conducted by the National Association for Business Economics, found that that business conditions overall were the worst in the survey's 27-year history. At the time,78 percent of the economists said they expected GDP to keep falling.

Strongly-worded warnings about the economy were pouring in even before January 2009, in fact. Nine months earlier, in April 2008, left-leaning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia professor and Nobel laureate, told CNBC that the recession was "going to be one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression." And as early as 2006, the economist and New York University professor Nouriel Roubini -- famous for his perennially bearish outlook, but also regarded by many as a prescient forecaster -- was predicting a recession, triggered by a softening housing market, that would be "much nastier, deeper and more protracted than the 2001 recession."

"There were a lot of us who were saying that the stimulus was nowhere near large enough at the time," Baker told The Huffington Post when reached for comment on Wednesday. "The fact that it was going to be considerably more severe than the Obama administration was predicting at the time -- there were a number of us who were quite explicit about that."

CORRECTION: A previous version of this post cited Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, who told Congress on January 27, 2009 that unemployment would exceed 9 percent by early 2010 in the absence of government action. Jesse Lee, the White House Director of Progressive Media & Online Response, points out that Elmendorf's prediction in fact underestimated the severity of the recession, and was very similar to the White House's own forecast.
How the seven biggest presidential speeches on the economy failed:
1. Truman's Railroad Strike Message
1  of  8
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
Date: May 25, 1946

President: Harry S. Truman

Inflation: 8.3 percent

GDP 1 yr. growth: -10.9 percent (the second worst since The Great Depression)

Unemployment: 3.9 percent



On May 25, 1946, Truman said: "I come before the American people tonight at a time of great crisis. The crisis of Pearl Harbor was the result of action by a foreign enemy. The crisis tonight is caused by a group of men within our own country who place their private interests above the welfare of the nation." The "group of men" happened to be the hundreds of thousands of coal workers that were on strike and the railroad workers that were on the verge of doing the same. Believing the unions were going too far by threatening to strike, Truman demanded the workers settle or he would implement measures such as drafting strikers into the armed forces. Mid-speech, Truman received word that the potential railroad strike had been settled. Days later, the coal strike ended as well. The president would face several more labor disputes during his two terms in office.



Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a surprising assertion on MSNBC Wednesday, saying that in early 2009, as Barack Obama was taking office, there weren't any major economists who understood j...
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a surprising assertion on MSNBC Wednesday, saying that in early 2009, as Barack Obama was taking office, there weren't any major economists who understood j...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,280
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (150 total)
  1 of 15  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
cavegal 07:37 PM on 12/08/2011
Comments from Alan Grayson regarding the GAO's first audit of the FED in 99 years:


(1) In the case of TARP, at least The People’s representatives got a vote. In the case of the Fed’s bailouts, which were roughly 20 times as substantial, there was never any vote. Unelected functionaries, with all sorts of ties to Wall Street, handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street. That’s not how a  Read More...
11:44 PM on 12/10/2011
Comedians
04:21 PM on 12/10/2011
I think, the Bush Administration knew what was going on. The administration knew that the housing burble and bundling of subprime loans were necessary to give the percetion of economic growth, as it struggles with two very expensive wars. Only a Republican, with blind faith in the Bush economic miracle, will believe that fighting two wars while allowing huge tax-cuts to the wealthy, will lead to economic growth without revenue from the housing burble and bundling of subprime loan to help fund the wars. Without the housing burble, the U.S. economy would have cratered in 2005, a few years after the wars started. And Bush knew that with a bad U.S. economy, it would have been difficult to get much support for the wars.
05:52 PM on 12/10/2011
What that got to do with Obama not knowing, I read he was the smartes president ever.
photo
Mizzourah
Moderate Marine
01:36 AM on 12/11/2011
Imagine getting the keys to your new house and you drive over there to move yourself in only to find it burned to the ground. That's how I picture Obama's viewpoint.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:19 PM on 12/10/2011
Bush did know what was going on.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2lib4oh
01:42 PM on 12/11/2011
He just didn't care.If it didn't fit his agenda, then he ignored it. The warning about Osama bin Laden in August (Osama bin Laden determined to strike") in his PDBs were of the same kind.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
02:06 PM on 12/10/2011
In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan finally conceded error on regulation. The New York Times wrote, "a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending. ... Mr. Greenspan refused to accept blame for the crisis but acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken." Although many Republican lawmakers tried to blame the housing bubble on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Greenspan placed far more blame on Wall Street for bundling subprime mortgages into securities.[72]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:24 PM on 12/10/2011
It's Fannie and Freddie's job as the secondary mortgage market to buy mortgages from the banks, securitize and sell them as investments globally and provide the liquidity back into the primary market (banks) so they could make more loans.
The sub primes really got out of hand starting in 1999 when F&F were encouraged to lower their underwriting standards and sell sub primes repackaged as mortgage backed securities.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sarabono
Oldie but Goody
11:54 PM on 12/10/2011
Absolutely correct.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
02:29 PM on 12/11/2011
"True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression."
-- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris1962
NYC
01:19 PM on 12/10/2011
>>>as Barack Obama was taking office, there weren't any major economists who understood just how bad the recession was.>>> Try listening to economists from the Right instead of, exclusively, from the left.
photo
Mizzourah
Moderate Marine
01:38 AM on 12/11/2011
I don't think you had to be right or left to know that eventually the bubble will burst, as it always does.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris1962
NYC
09:28 PM on 12/11/2011
The timeframe is January, 2009, after the bubble burst.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:30 AM on 12/10/2011
"...analys¬ts and economists from all corners were sounding alarms about the state of the economy -- in early 2009, " That's how I remember it. Personally I prefer to blame who ever selected the Neoliberal Clinton retread advisers the Obama administra¬tion was saddled with. What did they expect with the anti-tarif¬f and deregulati¬on "Free Trade" Globalizat-ion that was draining our jobs, industries¬, and investment capital? Obama’s message of Hope was designed to convince us he had and would apply solutions. Now Carney says they didn't think they had a serious problem at the time? Did they buy into the crack Lindsey Graham made that Americans were "just a bunch of whiners"? What the heck did they think we were whining about?
10:23 AM on 12/10/2011
There are a lot of assumptions in this article. While the major paoint is correct, that there were plenty who knew it was going to get real bad, and using a bit of common sense I knew it too. You can't have people in debt to the hilt, have a commodity induced recessin (oil 147) causing high inflation nad have it turn out OK.
But the assumption that a bbigger stimulus would have made a major difference is something I can't say. It really depends on what you view as the cause of this recession, and you also have to know about financial crisis in particular.
10:28 AM on 12/10/2011
Now to fix a situation you have to have the proper diagnosis. So far we really haven't even done that yet, and we are using tools to fix the problem that help wall street at the expense of mainstreet. Now I think that's because the bankers control economic policy in this county and will take all they can before we are forced to fix the problem by helping mainstreet. Obama is to blame for keeping and putting into p[ower the idiots who caused this crisis. Bernanke, geithner, summers. Along with greenspan they are the reasons we are in such deep dodo. It's a completely wrong ideology among our economic thinkers in power. Obama kept that.
10:33 AM on 12/10/2011
Now I could write an entire book on the subject. Lets just say they are doing almost everything wrong because it benefits the bankers, what we have top do is get rid of the debt. But the bankers aren't going to be allowed to take hits on the bad loans they made. Instead they will continue to punish mainstreet to pay off the debts they should never have been given. Please see economist steve keen for much further elaboration on why. Has also to do with minsky, etc.
photo
dad4lifesl
Educated White Heterosexual Male & a Proud Vet!
10:20 AM on 12/10/2011
The administration knew how bad it was and that their economic policies would have the opposite effect than what they were touting. Obama is about fundamentally changing American society and he is coming real close to succeeding.
07:25 AM on 12/10/2011
the American people didnt know how bad obama would be as a leader
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
07:16 AM on 12/10/2011
This is a bit of revisionist history. Obama tried to get as large a stimulus package as possible through Congress, a Congress that has been obstructionist. Non-partisan economists universally acknowledge that the recession would have been worse without the stimulus.

So Obama's critics want it both ways. Obama is a failure because he did not implement a large enough stimulus. And Obama is a failure because he implemented a stimulus that was too large.

Karl Rove must be at work here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank1946
Tell the Truth
05:59 AM on 12/10/2011
Jay Carney does an excellent Job of showing off the Obama Administration as totally incompetent.

I have greatly underestimated the foolishness of the Democratic Party.

Obama and Jay..............a National Disaster, four years lost along with half of the USA National
Savings !

DEMS/GOP are the same Party. Vote Tea Party !
05:21 AM on 12/10/2011
Maybe of interest: the farewell letter from Andrew Lahde, fund manager, who
identified problems correctly before the last crash and then made nice profits with
short selling. He then closed the fund.
His farewell letter is intentionally provocative, he thanks the idiots on Wall Street
for the profits he thus could make. And he has other funny points in this letter.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/good-bye-from-a-hedge-fund-manager/

And then there is of course this very well known video with financial experts forecasting
and advising before the crisis. The viewer can now instantly tell how things worked
soon afterwards. The video has, no surprise, more than 2 million viewers. It is a
real classic for many reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Conlaw Bloganon
Ron Paul 2012!
09:46 PM on 12/09/2011
Dr. Paul has been talking about the deficit, excessive, government spending, the military-industrial complex, and invasion of civil liberties for oh, about 25 years now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
smarteeeee
Conservatism = Compassion
08:32 PM on 12/09/2011
If I could paraphrase Mr. Carney, "Please re-elect the President. His incompetence in addressing the dire economic situation was a result of his incompetence in analyzing and understanding the dire economic situation. Had he not been so incompetent in analyzing and understanding the dire economic situation, his actions in addressing the dire economic situation would not have been as incompetent as they were."
02:22 AM on 12/10/2011
I don't blame Obama. I blame those who came before him and created this problem in the first place. How many trillions should have been thrown into the gigantic black hole that existed in 2009? Take your pick. NONE of it would have worked. MOST of it would have been siphoned off by the 1 percent, anyway. It's taxpayer money, constantly being thrown at the rich with the idea that it'll create jobs. Those jobs are going overseas. The money is showing up as corporate profits and investment firm fees. It's not going to the middle class in the form of jobs. Not a trillion dollars or 100 trillion--it wouldn't make any real difference, other than to increase the gap between rich and poor.

What I don't like is that Jay Carney is in over his head and continues to flounder. And, when he tries to look tough, his face scrunches up like Opie Tayler after he's bitten into a really sour lemon. Not a good look any way you slice it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:13 PM on 12/09/2011
What will "THEY" do, if Occupy spreads Nationwide
Why this of course:
New KBR Document Confirms FEMA Camps Soon to be Activated Nationwide
http://wp.me/p13lMl-eoE
snip
The Intel Hub
December 7, 2011
A recently released KBR documented confirms that elements of the U.S. government have moved to activate FEMA Camps nationwide.
The document covers KBR’s call for subcontractors that could supply various functions of these camps including temporary fencing and barricades, catering services, medical and laundry services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for a temporary “emergency environment.” In some states the plan calls for upwards of 30 processing centers.
The subcontractors are expected to be able to activate their parts of the camps 72 hours after the order is made.
The new document correlates with KBR’s 2006 contract from the Department of Homeland Security which called for KBR to build detention camps in America in preparation for a massive influx of immigrants or to support development of “new” programs.
This huge news, broke exclusively by Infowars, comes just days after Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act which enables the U.S. military to detain American citizens “suspected” of being domestic terrorists.
krist6804
retired, tired and been retreaded 3x
03:53 PM on 12/09/2011
Congressman, always trying to put a round peg into a square whole using a combination of, Picante Sauce and lubricating jelly to facilitate a smooth fit.

I guess you are doing a great job, considering your limited knowledge and resources.
Keep up the good work. Not!