This historian still picks James Buchanan who was wholly ineffective. You can blame Bush for much but in terms of effectiveness, he accomplished much of what he set out to do. The outcome was predicable but to those who augured for free market principles, Bush was a raging success.
This is an interesting post. Obama was very lucky in so many ways. What if Edwards hadn't been in the race? What if Florida and Michigan hadn't moved up their primaries? I don't think he could have won the nomination if Florida and Michigan had counted.
Iraq was an issue when he needed it to be an issue and then it disappeared off the radar as the economy took hold. The Jeremiah Wright debacle came in the middle of a six week hiatus in the primary calendar. Had it come earlier in the cycle or even on the eve of PA primary, he might not have had the opportunity to recover.
Still when all is said and done Obama I think won Iowa due to his stand on ethanol. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that his support for ethanol, misguided as it is, was one the deciding factors.
Israeli officials have said that troops would withdraw completely before
Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday as the new U.S. president. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not
been publicly announced.
Government spokesman Mark Regev would not confirm the timetable. He said only that if Gaza remains quiet Israel's departure would be almost immediate.
David Schulman of UCLA has an article out in the UCLA Anderson Forecast released last month. A link to the Forecast is in the post from December. Dr. Richard Koo wrote the definitive book on the topic. It's titled "Balance Sheet Recession: Japan's Struggle with Uncharted Economics and Its Global Implications".
The other point that might be made is that 'balance sheet recessions' being rare are not easily understood. We are in uncharted waters so to speak.
The other model that might be relevant is the Swedish banking crisis of 1990-1994. But even there, this crisis is deeper and wider. Off the top of my head, I'd say Swedish GDP fell by 10% to 13% somewhere in that range. The cause was an asset bubble in the housing market that then affected the banking sector. Norway also had a banking crisis in that period, albeit much smaller, somewhere around 3% of GDP. This crisis just feels different. Though it's clear that the crisis began in the US residential market, it has spread far beyond affecting asset prices worldwide. Look at energy prices, look at raw materials. Off the top of my head, the only commodity that I can think of that is rising in prices is cocoa and that's largely due to supply problems in the Cote d'Ivoire.