Obama's destruction of the economy continues!

[maxparrish]

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?

You wouldn't, if that has been your only substantive point. No one is arguing the we are better now than when we were well into the Great Recession (which began in Dec of 2007). Nor is anyone disagreeing that, as the OP states, US employment was still 5.3 in April of 2008, same as today.

But it quite foolish to argue that "A rate hike would be a healthy sign that the economy is almost fully recovered from the Great Recession." because CLEARLY we have not almost fully recovered. The US economy is still showing anemic growth, and has yet to attain the pre-recession metrics.

Why we did not recover quickly or robustly is a matter of debate among economists, but it had nothing to do with the depth of the Great Recession. The 1982 recession was nearly as deep (or as deep) as the Great Recession, but had a very robust recovery. "The historical pattern is that the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. This is precisely what happened after the deep 1982 recession, as the nearby table shows. Growth was 4.5% in 1983, 7.2% in 1984, and it averaged nearly 4% for the five years after that through 1989. That is what a healthy recovery is supposed to look like..."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904888304576476174101683168

In short, the OP is a pile of crap.

 

[Ford]

The 1982 recession was nearly as deep (or as deep) as the Great Recession.

Based upon what criteria?

 

[Ford]

No one is arguing the we are better now than when we were well into the Great Recession (which began in Dec of 2007).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we're WORSE off now than we were in the Great Recession. That despite all the metrics quoted, the economy today is in far worse shape than it was in September of 2008.

That there has been NO recovery in the last 6 years, and we're deeper into the hole as a result of Obama's policies.

 

[maxparrish]

The 1982 recession was nearly as deep (or as deep) as the Great Recession.

Based upon what criteria?

Unemployment, for example, or the length of the recession. The Double Dip 1980/81 recession reached a high of 10.8 percent. The length of the recession (combined) was 22 or 23 months. On that basis it was a little worse. However, on other measures it was not as bad. In any case, the general rule is that the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.

This recession's slow recovery (as the chart's show) has been abnormal.

 

[RVonse]

The 1982 recession was nearly as deep (or as deep) as the Great Recession, but had a very robust recovery.

You already know this can not be true or they would have called the 1982 recession a "Great Recession" but they didn't. Even what is called the Great Recession does not describe it far enough IMO. Simply because there was massive government stimulus to prevent a bank run. That's not ever happened before in my lifetime and I am 58.

So no, the 1982 recession did not equal what G. Bush did to the country.

Not to say Obama has done that great either. But you can not say Reagan's recession was equal to Bush's.

 

[maxparrish]

No one is arguing the we are better now than when we were well into the Great Recession (which began in Dec of 2007).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we're WORSE off now than we were in the Great Recession. That despite all the metrics quoted, the economy today is in far worse shape than it was in September of 2008.

That there has been NO recovery in the last 6 years, and we're deeper into the hole as a result of Obama's policies.

No. The reason I asked about seven years ago, a general number, was because that was the approximate time the recession was just starting - the point being we have not fully recovered. Nor have I said anything, in this thread, about Obama's policies.

Of course, the bottom, or trough, was reached in the second quarter of 2009. Things are much improved but not yet back to historical norms - it may not happen.

 

[untermensche]

Ignore all those people losing their homes, and all those people losing their jobs.

Look at this chart instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignore all those people losing their homes, and all those people losing their jobs.

Look at this chart instead.

The lost homes in 2008 were due to the bubble bursting, not the economy. People were getting loans doomed to failure with the intent of flipping the properties before then and when the elevator reached the top that didn't work anymore.

The crashed economy added to the problem but the real problem was the poor underwriting.

 

[Axulus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we're WORSE off now than we were in the Great Recession. That despite all the metrics quoted, the economy today is in far worse shape than it was in September of 2008.

That there has been NO recovery in the last 6 years, and we're deeper into the hole as a result of Obama's policies.

No. The reason I asked about seven years ago, a general number, was because that was the approximate time the recession was just starting - the point being we have not fully recovered. Nor have I said anything, in this thread, about Obama's policies.

Of course, the bottom, or trough, was reached in the second quarter of 2009. Things are much improved but not yet back to historical norms - it may not happen.

Some areas have recovered, other areas haven't. This chart shows real GDP levels well above the pre-recession peak:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96

 

[Ford]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're arguing that we're WORSE off now than we were in the Great Recession. That despite all the metrics quoted, the economy today is in far worse shape than it was in September of 2008.

That there has been NO recovery in the last 6 years, and we're deeper into the hole as a result of Obama's policies.

No. The reason I asked about seven years ago, a general number, was because that was the approximate time the recession was just starting - the point being we have not fully recovered.

Claiming the recession began approximately in the middle of 2008 is not accurate. In fact it is off by half a year. The recession began at the end of 2007, and lasted (officially) until June of 2009. 18 months, which is longer than the "double dip" recession under Reagan. Of course if you want to make that one seem longer, you fudge the numbers and throw out a "general" one generated out of thin air.

Ignoring that, the fact is that peak to trough, the 81/82 recession led to a 2.7 percent drop in GDP. The one we just went through? A drop of 4.3 percent.

Sorry, I don't have a chart handy for that.

 

[untermensche]

Ignore all those people losing their homes, and all those people losing their jobs.

Look at this chart instead.

The lost homes in 2008 were due to the bubble bursting, not the economy...

That is hysterical.

Your definition of "economy" is amusing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The lost homes in 2008 were due to the bubble bursting, not the economy...

That is hysterical.

Your definition of "economy" is amusing.

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

 

[arkirk]

That is hysterical.

Your definition of "economy" is amusing.

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

That was what George Dubbiya said. Have you ever heard of sub prime loans. Many of these home losers found themselves wrapped in the octopussoid arms of ARM's. Yes, it was inadvisable to buy these homes from the rats who were pushing them on the market. Many of these sub prime home buyers couldn't afford enough of an education to protect themselves from this swindle. You think there is some always right Economy that manages to go forth in purity in the face of housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, student loan bubbles, soap bubbles? The bottom line is that there was a lot of crookedness going on in the higher echelons of the financial industry with cheats even cheating each other. This system lets the little guy, the victim work his heart out for something and then snatch his home out from under him and say something catchy like "bubble." Better to call it what it is...sheer crookedness, albeit a crookedness that Loren admires with all his heart.

 

[maxparrish]

No. The reason I asked about seven years ago, a general number, was because that was the approximate time the recession was just starting - the point being we have not fully recovered.

Claiming the recession began approximately in the middle of 2008 is not accurate. In fact it is off by half a year. The recession began at the end of 2007, and lasted (officially) until June of 2009. 18 months, which is longer than the "double dip" recession under Reagan. Of course if you want to make that one seem longer, you fudge the numbers and throw out a "general" one generated out of thin air.

Ignoring that, the fact is that peak to trough, the 81/82 recession led to a 2.7 percent drop in GDP. The one we just went through? A drop of 4.3 percent.

Sorry, I don't have a chart handy for that.

Disputing the inherently vague characterization of the phrase "just starting" is unnecessary befogging of the point. You see, it does not matter if it I said seven years ago as a general rounded number, or should have said 7.4 or 8 years ago. It does not matter if it is the spring or summer of 2008, rather than Dec of 2007. It does not matter if we make if there is or is not a distinction between the concept of 'start date' and the looser concept of 'just starting'.

And most importantly, it does not matter if we use the official start of Dec 2007 or the definition of two consecutive quarters of negative growth (which did not occur until the last two quarters of 2008). These are all distinctions without a relevancy or substantive argument.

Why? Because if we move it back to a comparison of the economy in Dec of 2007 as the start date, which is peachy with me, my point should be the hammer that is final. That is, we have to yet to fully recover from the official start date of the recession, from the better level of Dec of 2007, let alone September of 2008 when the recession was underway.

So thanks for the help making my point more powerful than it was.

LOL...

 

[Ford]

Claiming the recession began approximately in the middle of 2008 is not accurate. In fact it is off by half a year. The recession began at the end of 2007, and lasted (officially) until June of 2009. 18 months, which is longer than the "double dip" recession under Reagan. Of course if you want to make that one seem longer, you fudge the numbers and throw out a "general" one generated out of thin air.

Ignoring that, the fact is that peak to trough, the 81/82 recession led to a 2.7 percent drop in GDP. The one we just went through? A drop of 4.3 percent.

Sorry, I don't have a chart handy for that.

Disputing the inherently vague characterization of the phrase "just starting" is unnecessary befogging of the point. You see, it does not matter if it I said seven years ago as a general rounded number, or should have said 7.4 or 8 years ago. It does not matter if it is the spring or summer of 2008, rather than Dec of 2007. It does not matter if we make if there is or is not a distinction between the concept of 'start date' and the looser concept of 'just starting'.

Again, you're the one "befogging" the point.

You are attempting to compare two recessions and two recoveries to make the point that the current recovery is abnormally weak. In order to make the 81/82 recession seem worse, you deliberately misrepresented the start of the Great Recession, shaving just enough months off the latter to make your comparison. Then you ignore the disparity in GDP loss and throw out some opinion (from the Wall Street Journal) about how recoveries are supposed to go, act as if it is fact rather than opinion, and throw in some charts for good measure.

You're shifting the goalposts in order to make this recovery seem like an aberration, but it isn't when you consider that the recession itself was an aberration. An economic downturn that was not just deeper and wider than any in the US since the Great Depression, but was global in it's impact.

Speaking globally, it is worth noting that we're now (and were in 2007/2008) involved in a global economy that is far, far more interconnected than it was in 1981. No Euro Zone, China was still isolated, and the Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain were still up. As such, making an apples to apples comparison of the two recession/recovery cycles is absurd. Saying that the recovery must proceed at (x) pace based upon one previous downturn is wrong because there hasn't been an economic downturn like this. We're in uncharted waters here, and you're relying on a very outdated map to make your claims.

 

[ZiprHead]

You have cause and effect backwards. The economy crashed because the housing bubble collapsed. People were losing their homes because they had bought too much house.

That was what George Dubbiya said. Have you ever heard of sub prime loans. Many of these home losers found themselves wrapped in the octopussoid arms of ARM's. Yes, it was inadvisable to buy these homes from the rats who were pushing them on the market. Many of these sub prime home buyers couldn't afford enough of an education to protect themselves from this swindle. You think there is some always right Economy that manages to go forth in purity in the face of housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, student loan bubbles, soap bubbles? The bottom line is that there was a lot of crookedness going on in the higher echelons of the financial industry with cheats even cheating each other. This system lets the little guy, the victim work his heart out for something and then snatch his home out from under him and say something catchy like "bubble." Better to call it what it is...sheer crookedness, albeit a crookedness that Loren admires with all his heart.

I specifically remember economic advisors advising home buyers to take ARMs because, they said, the interest rates are generally lower more than they are higher. I also remember them advising people to buy homes three times the value of their annual household income. I rejected both those stupid ideas. Be that as it may, that's what "experts" were advising people at the time so you cannot place all the blame on the buyers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That was what George Dubbiya said. Have you ever heard of sub prime loans. Many of these home losers found themselves wrapped in the octopussoid arms of ARM's. Yes, it was inadvisable to buy these homes from the rats who were pushing them on the market. Many of these sub prime home buyers couldn't afford enough of an education to protect themselves from this swindle. You think there is some always right Economy that manages to go forth in purity in the face of housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, student loan bubbles, soap bubbles? The bottom line is that there was a lot of crookedness going on in the higher echelons of the financial industry with cheats even cheating each other. This system lets the little guy, the victim work his heart out for something and then snatch his home out from under him and say something catchy like "bubble." Better to call it what it is...sheer crookedness, albeit a crookedness that Loren admires with all his heart.

I specifically remember economic advisors advising home buyers to take ARMs because, they said, the interest rates are generally lower more than they are higher. I also remember them advising people to buy homes three times the value of their annual household income. I rejected both those stupid ideas. Be that as it may, that's what "experts" were advising people at the time so you cannot place all the blame on the buyers.

For certain people, ARMs are a great deal. If you have low leverage, can afford an increase in D/S if it happens, and are a short term borrower, they are a great deal. I had an ARM at 2.30% that I just rolled over at 1.97%.

 

[maxparrish]

Disputing the inherently vague characterization of the phrase "just starting" is unnecessary befogging of the point. You see, it does not matter if it I said seven years ago as a general rounded number, or should have said 7.4 or 8 years ago. It does not matter if it is the spring or summer of 2008, rather than Dec of 2007. It does not matter if we make if there is or is not a distinction between the concept of 'start date' and the looser concept of 'just starting'.

Again, you're the one "befogging" the point.

You are attempting to compare two recessions and two recoveries to make the point that the current recovery is abnormally weak. In order to make the 81/82 recession seem worse, you deliberately misrepresented the start of the Great Recession, shaving just enough months off the latter to make your comparison. Then you ignore the disparity in GDP loss and throw out some opinion (from the Wall Street Journal) about how recoveries are supposed to go, act as if it is fact rather than opinion, and throw in some charts for good measure.

Your chasing linguistic phantasms of your own lurid imagination. I initially asked, in response to your objection to Boneyards alleged claims of economic well being at 5 1/2 years, if we are "better off than 7 (or 7.2 years, or 7.66 years or whatever number your obsessed with) ago? Did you forget we were not even discussing the length of recessions at that time?

More importantly have you already forgotten (assuming we had a misunderstanding) that I repeatedly told you that my answer is we are not better off - be it compared to DEC of 2007, or the spring or the summer of 2008, or the "the starting of" of the recession?

And have you already forgotten that your accusation of shaving start dates makes no sense given that the earlier the start of the comparison, the stronger my argument becomes?

What's the real source of your beef, other than your lip smacking appetite for red herrings?

You're shifting the goalposts in order to make this recovery seem like an aberration,...

Rubbish. This recovery IS AN aberration. I asked if this is "a weak recovery compared to prior recessions?". I produced employment ratio and GDP growth figures, in both tabular and chart forms, that proved it.

And I later stated the double dip recession (I erroneously called it the '1982 recession') was either nearly as bad (or as bad) as the recent one. You asked how so, and I stated that the "Double Dip" recession reached an unemployment high of 10.8 percent and that "the length of the recession (combined) was 22 or 23 months." (By the way, the Great Recession was barely longer than the second downturn of the Double Dipper - 18 months rather than 16 months).

I have no idea what you think that these "goal posts" for 'nearly as bad' are, but given: that the Double Dip recession (1980, and 1981 to 1982) "combined" was much longer than the 'Great Recession', that the second part of the double dipper was nearly as bad, that unemployment was higher, that inflation was much higher in both parts (nearly reaching 15 percent in one point), and that on a yearly basis the growth plunge was nearly as bad then MY characterization as at least "nearly as bad" is more than warranted.

So again what's your real beef?

Finally, I don't have any reason to promote the idea that the double dip recession was as bad because I have always accepted the conventional wisdom that the worse the recession the more robust the recovery - in other words, once again you made my point stronger. IF the double dip was no where near as bad as the 'Great Recession" then the failure to have a robust recovery is even more damning.

Thanks again for insisting that I make my argument even stronger.

But it isn't when you consider that the recession itself was an aberration. An economic downturn that was not just deeper and wider than any in the US since the Great Depression, but was global in it's impact.

Speaking globally, it is worth noting that we're now (and were in 2007/2008) involved in a global economy that is far, far more interconnected than it was in 1981. No Euro Zone, China was still isolated, and the Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain were still up. As such, making an apples to apples comparison of the two recession/recovery cycles is absurd. Saying that the recovery must proceed at (x) pace based upon one previous downturn is wrong because there hasn't been an economic downturn like this. We're in uncharted waters here, and you're relying on a very outdated map to make your claims.

So you finally agree. Yes, we have not yet fully recovered. Yes, the recession was bad and it was an aberration in its pathetic recovery.

The only question is, why? Was it unavoidable because it was rooted in a financial crisis, or was it's muted recovery also due to weak and/or bad policy?

My own view is that ill considered policy, under Obama and Congress, as well as weak policy by the feds made a pathetic outcome inevitable.

 

[Ford]

So you finally agree. Yes, we have not yet fully recovered. Yes, the recession was bad and it was an aberration in its pathetic recovery.

I've already said that the recovery is not as strong as it could have been. Do I agree that it is "pathetic?" No. It is what it is. You're the guy making the case that it hasn't really been a recovery...with charts that disprove your own claims.

The only question is, why? Was it unavoidable because it was rooted in a financial crisis, or was it's muted recovery also due to weak and/or bad policy?

Well you said earlier you weren't discussing policy.

My own view is that ill considered policy, under Obama and Congress, as well as weak policy by the feds made a pathetic outcome inevitable.

Oh, looks like now we're discussing policy! I was wondering when the "this is all Obama's fault" shit was going to come out.

 

[laughing dog]

US real GDP per capita is higher than it was in 2008 and the US unemployment rate is lower. So, the claim the US economy has not recovered from 2008 is factually suspect.