Obama's destruction of the economy continues!

[boneyard bill]

Yeah. The US economy is exactly where it was five years ago. The entire recovery is bullshit, the unemployment rate is still 10 percent, the Dow isn't really just shy of 18 thousand, and nothing has worked. We're just sitting here like Greece, Spain, Italy, and all the other failing economies waiting for a libertarian to unleash the magic of the free market to save us from ourselves.

The unemployment rate hasn't improved nearly as much as it looks like. Most of the "improvement" is due to people dropping out of the labor market or getting part time work. When a full-time position disappears and is replaced with two half-time positions the unemployment rate goes down by one but did the situation actually improve??

I'm not going to be as harsh about it as the Obama-bashers but neither is it anything like as good as the numbers portray it as.

It's not Obama bashing. It's a matter of getting it right about the actual state of affairs in the country, and this article is out of la la land where that is concerned. So it's really about correcting the misleading propaganda of an Obama shill.

Nor is Obama the only one who has gotten us into this mess. He simply inherited a bad situation and made it worse.

 

[Ford]

Nor is Obama the only one who has gotten us into this mess. He simply inherited a bad situation and made it worse.

By what measure?


Again, there seems to be two sets of numbers out there. The usual economic indicators (unemployment, GDP growth, stock market indices, etc.) which point to an improving situation, and another set of numbers which indicate that the economy is actually worse off than it was in January of 2009. Far worse, if you believe the most shrill voices. In fact if you believe those most shrill voices, all those indicators which point to an improving economy are all lies.


You, Bill, seem to buy into those voices, so if you're going to claim we're in a much worse situation than we were 5 1/2 years ago, make your case.


By what measure(s) are we worse off?

 

[boneyard bill]

The unemployment rate hasn't improved nearly as much as it looks like. Most of the "improvement" is due to people dropping out of the labor market or getting part time work. When a full-time position disappears and is replaced with two half-time positions the unemployment rate goes down by one but did the situation actually improve??

I'm not going to be as harsh about it as the Obama-bashers but neither is it anything like as good as the numbers portray it as.

It never ceases to amaze me. When the unemployment rate is low under a Republican, it is taken as undeniable proof that "free market" principles work. When it is high under a Democrat, it is taken as proof that "free market" principles need to be applied.


When it drops steadily after years of said Democrat's policies, it is taken as undeniable proof that the entire methodology behind the number is faulty and things are in fact terrible. Solution? Let the free market loose!

You're complaining that other people are confusing you with the facts. I didn't claim that the Obama Administration was manipulating the statistics (although I would hardly be surprised to learn that they did. It's an ancient practice in Washington). What I did point out was that the numbers were basically a statistical aberration. But I didn't need to do the that. The article itself did that. But then the article went on as if the decline in the labor force was an inconsequential factor. Meanwhile, it failed to mention the first quarter decline in GDP and the very real possibility of a second quarter decline which would mean that we are officially in recession. Those are not reasons for optimism.

The stock market has been the primary beneficiary of the policy of quantitative easing. It has basically created a bubble in the bond and stock markets, but the rest of economy has suffered for it. When these bubbles burst, even the elites will begin to feel the pain, but then it will get worse for everybody.

 

[Ford]

You're complaining that other people are confusing you with the facts.

My checkbook disagrees with your "facts."

 

[boneyard bill]

Nor is Obama the only one who has gotten us into this mess. He simply inherited a bad situation and made it worse.

By what measure?


Again, there seems to be two sets of numbers out there. The usual economic indicators (unemployment, GDP growth, stock market indices, etc.) which point to an improving situation, and another set of numbers which indicate that the economy is actually worse off than it was in January of 2009. Far worse, if you believe the most shrill voices. In fact if you believe those most shrill voices, all those indicators which point to an improving economy are all lies.


You, Bill, seem to buy into those voices, so if you're going to claim we're in a much worse situation than we were 5 1/2 years ago, make your case.


By what measure(s) are we worse off?

Yes. You can always pick the statistics you want to show things as good or bad. The author of the article himself qualified the good news but then treated it as inconsequential. I pointed to some bad statistics, such as the Dow Transport Index and the Baltic Dry index.

But where we are really worse off is in the fundamentals. The government deficits have risen, and the debt both off the books and on have reached new highs while deficits are projected to get larger. Meanwhile, purchases of government debt are disappearing. Americans don't buy the debt because Americans don't save. China has quit buying new debt and is slowing unloading the old debt. Japan seems to be the biggest foreign buyer for the moment, but the biggest buyer of all recently has been the Federal Reserve. When the Fed buys US government debt itt creates money. This is banana republic economics. We're following in the footsteps of Argentina if not Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, the US foreign exchange deficit also continues to grow as we rack up more and trade deficits and spend more and more on overseas military operations. So the dollar's position as the reserve currency is threatened, and if the dollar loses its reserve currency status, we are headed for a big devaluation which means a drastic decline in the standard of living.

Obama has ignored these issues, and his policies have made the situation worse. That is the real bad news. The Baltic Dry Index may be pointing toward recession, but the fundamentals are pointing toward collapse.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/04/news/economy/august-jobs-report-2/index.html

The U.S. economy added 173,000 jobs in August, a decent gain that was below expectations and might have dimmed the chances of the Federal Reserve raising its key interest rate in two weeks. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney projected that the economy would add 207,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate was 5.1% in August, down to its lowest level since April 2008.

It's hard to imagine we are still a country. The real unemployment rate is at 89.99%! Thanks Obama.

 

[laughing dog]

By what measure?


Again, there seems to be two sets of numbers out there. The usual economic indicators (unemployment, GDP growth, stock market indices, etc.) which point to an improving situation, and another set of numbers which indicate that the economy is actually worse off than it was in January of 2009. Far worse, if you believe the most shrill voices. In fact if you believe those most shrill voices, all those indicators which point to an improving economy are all lies.


You, Bill, seem to buy into those voices, so if you're going to claim we're in a much worse situation than we were 5 1/2 years ago, make your case.


By what measure(s) are we worse off?

Yes. You can always pick the statistics you want to show things as good or bad. The author of the article himself qualified the good news but then treated it as inconsequential. I pointed to some bad statistics, such as the Dow Transport Index and the Baltic Dry index.

But where we are really worse off is in the fundamentals. The government deficits have risen, and the debt both off the books and on have reached new highs while deficits are projected to get larger. Meanwhile, purchases of government debt are disappearing. Americans don't buy the debt because Americans don't save. China has quit buying new debt and is slowing unloading the old debt. Japan seems to be the biggest foreign buyer for the moment, but the biggest buyer of all recently has been the Federal Reserve. When the Fed buys US government debt itt creates money. This is banana republic economics. We're following in the footsteps of Argentina if not Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, the US foreign exchange deficit also continues to grow as we rack up more and trade deficits and spend more and more on overseas military operations. So the dollar's position as the reserve currency is threatened, and if the dollar loses its reserve currency status, we are headed for a big devaluation which means a drastic decline in the standard of living.

Obama has ignored these issues, and his policies have made the situation worse. That is the real bad news. The Baltic Dry Index may be pointing toward recession, but the fundamentals are pointing toward collapse.

Two months later, the dollar is appreciating in value and the US economy is looking even stronger than China's or Russia's, despite Obama's attempts at destruction.


.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You're complaining that other people are confusing you with the facts.

My checkbook disagrees with your "facts."

Ditto! Conditions are far better today. Companies are much more optimistic. People are far more optimistic. To Bill: by what measure are we worse off today?

 

[maxparrish]

Worse off than seven years ago?
An very weak recovery compared to prior deep recessions?

Let the facts speak:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO

 

[maxparrish]

Let the facts speak:

http://economicsone.com/2015/02/15/4242/

 

[maxparrish]

Let the facts speak, once more:

http://economicsone.com/2015/02/15/4242/

 

[Ford]

Worse off than seven years ago?

An interesting question framed in an interesting way, considering the topic at hand.

Seven years ago (September of 2008) George W. Bush was still President. Barack "Destroyer of Economies" Obama was still just a candidate. Did Obama begin destroying the economy five months before he took office?

An very weak recovery compared to prior deep recessions?

Another interesting way to frame things! Kinda like saying that cherry tomatoes and heirloom tomatoes are the same size because they're both tomatoes.

Now I'll grant you that even Obama himself would admit the recovery has been slower and less broadly based than he would like. Unemployment is down considerably, but work force participation and wages have not bounced back. The housing market has for the most part recovered, but it is (obviously) not back to the level it was right before the bubble burst.

On the other hand, it seems you're unwilling to admit that the recession which began (officially) in 2007 was worse than any economic downturn since the Great Depression. It was longer, deeper, and unlike some past recessions it was global. Or perhaps you are of the opinion that no matter how deep and long the recession, recovery must occur at a set pace or else it is in fact economic destruction.

 

[maxparrish]

An interesting question framed in an interesting way, considering the topic at hand.

Seven years ago (September of 2008) George W. Bush was still President. Barack "Destroyer of Economies" Obama was still just a candidate. Did Obama begin destroying the economy five months before he took office?

An very weak recovery compared to prior deep recessions?

Another interesting way to frame things! Kinda like saying that cherry tomatoes and heirloom tomatoes are the same size because they're both tomatoes.

Now I'll grant you that even Obama himself would admit the recovery has been slower and less broadly based than he would like. Unemployment is down considerably, but work force participation and wages have not bounced back. The housing market has for the most part recovered, but it is (obviously) not back to the level it was right before the bubble burst.

On the other hand, it seems you're unwilling to admit that the recession which began (officially) in 2007 was worse than any economic downturn since the Great Depression. It was longer, deeper, and unlike some past recessions it was global. Or perhaps you are of the opinion that no matter how deep and long the recession, recovery must occur at a set pace or else it is in fact economic destruction.

NiceS. concluded his cheerleading op with the following claim :

...After years of waiting, the Federal Reserve could raise interest rates in September for the first time since 2006. A rate hike would be a healthy sign that the economy is almost fully recovered from the Great Recession.

"A healthy sign that the economy is almost fully recovered" ? Really?

The facts disagree.

 

[Ford]

The facts disagree.

So you're sticking with your claim that we're actually worse off than we were 7 years ago?

 

[maxparrish]

The facts disagree.

So you're sticking with your claim that we're actually worse off than we were 7 years ago?

Absolutely we have not fully recovered to the levels during and before the spring of 2008. Anyone who asks "what's worse off" must not read much (or at all). Seriously, what about the charts say otherwise?

Let more facts speak:

In the first quarter, the GDP growth rate fell to +0.2 percent annualized, from an average of +2.4 percent during 2014. Even worse, deflation experienced during the first quarter of 2015 was responsible for half of the growth in GDP―nominal growth was an even lower +0.1%. Trade data that emerged subsequently indicates that the first quarter growth rate will be revised downward into negative territory and that the second quarter will prove disappointing as well.

In fact, the entire post-recession economic recovery in the U.S. has been far less than stellar. Median household real incomes have not recovered and jobs created have been at lower wages than previously existing jobs. The pace of job growth has slowed significantly this year, with the percentage of the employable population actually working near a 35 year low; retail sales and industrial production are in a renewed decline; core inflation is well below historical averages and all targets set by policy makers; the strong dollar is now killing exports and ballooning the U.S. trade deficit; and polarization of incomes and wealth has been increasing apace.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-...-off-the-great-recession-2015-5#ixzz3kui0i5wW

 

[untermensche]

I think there is an assumption the economy ripped to shreds during the Bush presidency COULD be repaired by anyone.

Massive wealth just vanished. The machine broke down.

Face it, the machine sucks.

It really isn't worth fixing.

All anybody can do is patch it here as it explodes over here then path it there as it explodes somewhere else.

And Obama is the fool trying to fix it.

 

[Ford]

So you're sticking with your claim that we're actually worse off than we were 7 years ago?

Absolutely we were better off during and before the spring of 2008. What about the charts say otherwise?

Can you possibly be more intellectually dishonest?


Seven years ago was September, 2008. I'm fairly certain nobody refers to September as "Spring."


Edited to point out your editing.

 

[maxparrish]

Absolutely we were better off during and before the spring of 2008. What about the charts say otherwise?

Can you possibly be more intellectually dishonest?


Seven years ago was September, 2008. I'm fairly certain nobody refers to September as "Spring."


Edited to point out your editing.

So your reduced to a desperate hidey-hole micro-quibble as to exactly when it was better than now, be it 7 years vs 7.4 years ago?

Or do you want to argue I'm still inaccurate, that it was REALLY 7.416294637 years ago? LOL

Refute the charts and facts if you are serious, no more dodging.

 

[Ford]

Can you possibly be more intellectually dishonest?


Seven years ago was September, 2008. I'm fairly certain nobody refers to September as "Spring."


Edited to point out your editing.

So your reduced to a desperate hidey-hole micro-quibble as to exactly when it was better than now, be it 7 years vs 7.4 years ago?

Or do you want to argue I'm still inaccurate, that it was REALLY 7.416294637 years ago? LOL

Refute the charts and facts if you are serious, no more dodging.

Refute the charts that show we're clearly better off now than during the Great Recession?


Why would I do that?

 

[laughing dog]

"A healthy sign that the economy is almost fully recovered" ? Really?

The facts disagree.

No, facts are simply facts. Yes, this recovery is not as strong as previous ones. I am unaware anyone has claimed otherwise. That is irrelevant to the issue whether the economy is almost fully recovered.