Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

2008 Recession Recovery

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 9:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
As Obama was touting himself as our economic savior during the Democratic Nation Convention, explaining:

"After the worst recession in 80 years, we fought our way back. We've seen deficits come down, 401(k)s recover, an auto industry set new records, unemployment reach eight-year lows, and our businesses create 15 million new jobs,"

You would think we would have unprecedented growth, not the tepid, wet blanket economy that exists in reality. A wise man once proclaimed that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and the fact remains that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II. The "deficit cuts" claim"routinely used to create confusion with debt" were due to astronomically high record deficits created by President himself and Congress in FY 2009. He did not inherit these deficits from the Bush administration; they belong solely to him and his Party.

President Obama will most likely go down as the only President in the post World War II era to never preside over a 3% GDP growth rate through his entire term. That's even more bleak considering most recessions are usually followed by a robust recovery, but for reasons I will get into here, this never happened under his watch.

Sure, unemployment has fallen, that is true, but it isn't because of "15 million jobs created." The number POTUS uses is measured against a point in time when the economy hit rock bottom in February 2010. Compared to the jobs peak in January 2008 (what it should be compared to), we've added only 5.6 million jobs as of April 2016. Throw in all the 15.8 million people during that time that reached the age of employment growing the labor supply, and the number is actually a negative. In other words, in context, the economy hasn't been strong enough to even keep pace with population growth. This is in part why labor force participation is hovering around 38-year lows, and under-employment is also on the rise. People are unable to find full time high quality paying jobs. Those high paying pre-recession jobs are perhaps the greatest causality post-2008 financial crisis.

Also seldom mentioned is the precipitous fall in labor productivity over the last 5 years. Data released from the US Census Bureau in May shows that productivity growth has averaged a measly 0.4% per year over the past half decade, an astonishing 82% below the average for the prior 60 years! That"s as far back as the data goes.

Productivity level, or output, in an economy is pivotal in determining the standard of living in any economy. For example, if labor produces less, than there are less goods in the economy, and a lower supply of goods and services means rising real prices. This makes goods and services harder to obtain at the margins, disproportionately harming the poor. Any time the real prices of goods rise and wages remain stagnant, the poor are the ones that get slammed.

Coincidentally, under Obama, the amount of people in poverty has risen by 3.1 million people and 8.7 million more people are collecting food stamps. Hardly the success story his cherry picked numbers make this economic recovery out to be.

In more productive countries, the purchasing power is much higher than in less productive countries; lower production costs and higher outputs increase overall supply, lowering the real prices for goods and making them more accessible to all people, thus raising the standard of living. The idea is simple, the more products you produce in an hour"s time, the more you are paid and the more goods and services you can demand. It is production, not consumption that feeds the economic engine. One must first produce a good or service in order to subsequently demand goods and services from someone else. For example, the US has a 500% premium in purchasing power over Latin American Countries that have historically been less productive.

So what are the reasons for declining productivity?

One reason is economic regulations creating barriers to entry/exit raising costs and diverting resources away from where they are most productive. A recent study by the Mercatus Center calculated the costs of regulations (holding regulations constant at 1980 levels) to be at $4 trillion dollars over the last nearly 4 decades. That's a lot of money pulled out of the economy for what could be less efficient uses. Prices, not political maneuvering, are the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources with alternative uses.

Another reason seldom mentioned, let alone explained, is the consequences from high levels of government debt. Federal borrowing reduces private savings, lowering the aggregate amount of capital in the economy dragging down the rate of new investments and wealth creation. This has a downward effect on wages for labor as it lowers overall demand.

Moreover, labor costs in the US are on the rise. This could be the corollary of steady market demand and a corresponding fall in labor productivity, forcing firms to hire more labor to make up for the loss of production.

The influx of low-skilled labor, primarily from South America, has exploded over the last half century. The Congressional Research Service reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee that between 1970 and 2013 there was a percentage increase of foreign-born population of 324.5% from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, respectively.

A study by the U.K. House of Commons Education and Skill Committee concluded that "there is a positive correlation between skills and productivity." Some of the reasons for their conclusions were as follows:

A lower proportion of workers qualified specifically to carry out their current role
More machine down time
Slower implementation of new technologies and implementation techniques
Too much managerial focus on routine tasks
Citizens in "high-immigrant occupations" have a much higher unemployment rate than citizens who work in jobs with a smaller percentage of immigrants. This displacement of more skilled labor with less-skilled labor can have a negative impact on productivity in the long and short run.

This President's success and legacy depends on lies and half-truths, so we will most likely never get our fill of either from his administration or his praetorian guard media. But this doesn't change the facts or the truth, and with a little work it is not difficult to navigate the dense smoke and mirrors they supply and erect; they just count on you not doing any of the work.

http://www.cnsnews.com...

http://www.investors.com...

http://www.investors.com...

http://www.latimes.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.nber.org...

http://www.justfacts.com...

http://www.cnbc.com...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.salon.com...
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 9:23:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I'd speculate the decrease in productivity has a psychological and cultural component.
- remove job security, employees are less likely to work hard
- remove hope for the future, employees are less likely to work hard
- increase distractions (entertainment)
- increase culture collisions and bad cultures ( it is the culture of some to see how little you can do and how much you can get away with)

Separately, it is not enough to simply address the talking points. Here, you are addressing the talking point of the POTUS that the recovery was good, and that he has some responsibility for that. This might be analogous to only blocking in a boxing match. You should, perhaps, bring up any of the wealth of negative realities about Obama (at the end).
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 11:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 9:01:16 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
As Obama was touting himself as our economic savior during the Democratic Nation Convention, explaining:

"After the worst recession in 80 years, we fought our way back. We've seen deficits come down, 401(k)s recover, an auto industry set new records, unemployment reach eight-year lows, and our businesses create 15 million new jobs,"

You would think we would have unprecedented growth, not the tepid, wet blanket economy that exists in reality. A wise man once proclaimed that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and the fact remains that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II. The "deficit cuts" claim"routinely used to create confusion with debt" were due to astronomically high record deficits created by President himself and Congress in FY 2009. He did not inherit these deficits from the Bush administration; they belong solely to him and his Party.

President Obama will most likely go down as the only President in the post World War II era to never preside over a 3% GDP growth rate through his entire term. That's even more bleak considering most recessions are usually followed by a robust recovery, but for reasons I will get into here, this never happened under his watch.

Sure, unemployment has fallen, that is true, but it isn't because of "15 million jobs created." The number POTUS uses is measured against a point in time when the economy hit rock bottom in February 2010. Compared to the jobs peak in January 2008 (what it should be compared to), we've added only 5.6 million jobs as of April 2016. Throw in all the 15.8 million people during that time that reached the age of employment growing the labor supply, and the number is actually a negative. In other words, in context, the economy hasn't been strong enough to even keep pace with population growth. This is in part why labor force participation is hovering around 38-year lows, and under-employment is also on the rise. People are unable to find full time high quality paying jobs. Those high paying pre-recession jobs are perhaps the greatest causality post-2008 financial crisis.

Also seldom mentioned is the precipitous fall in labor productivity over the last 5 years. Data released from the US Census Bureau in May shows that productivity growth has averaged a measly 0.4% per year over the past half decade, an astonishing 82% below the average for the prior 60 years! That"s as far back as the data goes.

Productivity level, or output, in an economy is pivotal in determining the standard of living in any economy. For example, if labor produces less, than there are less goods in the economy, and a lower supply of goods and services means rising real prices. This makes goods and services harder to obtain at the margins, disproportionately harming the poor. Any time the real prices of goods rise and wages remain stagnant, the poor are the ones that get slammed.

Coincidentally, under Obama, the amount of people in poverty has risen by 3.1 million people and 8.7 million more people are collecting food stamps. Hardly the success story his cherry picked numbers make this economic recovery out to be.

In more productive countries, the purchasing power is much higher than in less productive countries; lower production costs and higher outputs increase overall supply, lowering the real prices for goods and making them more accessible to all people, thus raising the standard of living. The idea is simple, the more products you produce in an hour"s time, the more you are paid and the more goods and services you can demand. It is production, not consumption that feeds the economic engine. One must first produce a good or service in order to subsequently demand goods and services from someone else. For example, the US has a 500% premium in purchasing power over Latin American Countries that have historically been less productive.

So what are the reasons for declining productivity?

One reason is economic regulations creating barriers to entry/exit raising costs and diverting resources away from where they are most productive. A recent study by the Mercatus Center calculated the costs of regulations (holding regulations constant at 1980 levels) to be at $4 trillion dollars over the last nearly 4 decades. That's a lot of money pulled out of the economy for what could be less efficient uses. Prices, not political maneuvering, are the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources with alternative uses.

Another reason seldom mentioned, let alone explained, is the consequences from high levels of government debt. Federal borrowing reduces private savings, lowering the aggregate amount of capital in the economy dragging down the rate of new investments and wealth creation. This has a downward effect on wages for labor as it lowers overall demand.

Moreover, labor costs in the US are on the rise. This could be the corollary of steady market demand and a corresponding fall in labor productivity, forcing firms to hire more labor to make up for the loss of production.

The influx of low-skilled labor, primarily from South America, has exploded over the last half century. The Congressional Research Service reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee that between 1970 and 2013 there was a percentage increase of foreign-born population of 324.5% from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, respectively.

A study by the U.K. House of Commons Education and Skill Committee concluded that "there is a positive correlation between skills and productivity." Some of the reasons for their conclusions were as follows:

A lower proportion of workers qualified specifically to carry out their current role
More machine down time
Slower implementation of new technologies and implementation techniques
Too much managerial focus on routine tasks
Citizens in "high-immigrant occupations" have a much higher unemployment rate than citizens who work in jobs with a smaller percentage of immigrants. This displacement of more skilled labor with less-skilled labor can have a negative impact on productivity in the long and short run.

This President's success and legacy depends on lies and half-truths, so we will most likely never get our fill of either from his administration or his praetorian guard media. But this doesn't change the facts or the truth, and with a little work it is not difficult to navigate the dense smoke and mirrors they supply and erect; they just count on you not doing any of the work.

http://www.cnsnews.com...

http://www.investors.com...

http://www.investors.com...

http://www.latimes.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.nber.org...

http://www.justfacts.com...

http://www.cnbc.com...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.salon.com...

lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Obama's policies.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 11:36:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 11:32:01 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 8/6/2016 9:01:16 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
As Obama was touting himself as our economic savior during the Democratic Nation Convention, explaining:

"After the worst recession in 80 years, we fought our way back. We've seen deficits come down, 401(k)s recover, an auto industry set new records, unemployment reach eight-year lows, and our businesses create 15 million new jobs,"

You would think we would have unprecedented growth, not the tepid, wet blanket economy that exists in reality. A wise man once proclaimed that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and the fact remains that this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II. The "deficit cuts" claim"routinely used to create confusion with debt" were due to astronomically high record deficits created by President himself and Congress in FY 2009. He did not inherit these deficits from the Bush administration; they belong solely to him and his Party.

President Obama will most likely go down as the only President in the post World War II era to never preside over a 3% GDP growth rate through his entire term. That's even more bleak considering most recessions are usually followed by a robust recovery, but for reasons I will get into here, this never happened under his watch.

Sure, unemployment has fallen, that is true, but it isn't because of "15 million jobs created." The number POTUS uses is measured against a point in time when the economy hit rock bottom in February 2010. Compared to the jobs peak in January 2008 (what it should be compared to), we've added only 5.6 million jobs as of April 2016. Throw in all the 15.8 million people during that time that reached the age of employment growing the labor supply, and the number is actually a negative. In other words, in context, the economy hasn't been strong enough to even keep pace with population growth. This is in part why labor force participation is hovering around 38-year lows, and under-employment is also on the rise. People are unable to find full time high quality paying jobs. Those high paying pre-recession jobs are perhaps the greatest causality post-2008 financial crisis.

Also seldom mentioned is the precipitous fall in labor productivity over the last 5 years. Data released from the US Census Bureau in May shows that productivity growth has averaged a measly 0.4% per year over the past half decade, an astonishing 82% below the average for the prior 60 years! That"s as far back as the data goes.

Productivity level, or output, in an economy is pivotal in determining the standard of living in any economy. For example, if labor produces less, than there are less goods in the economy, and a lower supply of goods and services means rising real prices. This makes goods and services harder to obtain at the margins, disproportionately harming the poor. Any time the real prices of goods rise and wages remain stagnant, the poor are the ones that get slammed.

Coincidentally, under Obama, the amount of people in poverty has risen by 3.1 million people and 8.7 million more people are collecting food stamps. Hardly the success story his cherry picked numbers make this economic recovery out to be.

In more productive countries, the purchasing power is much higher than in less productive countries; lower production costs and higher outputs increase overall supply, lowering the real prices for goods and making them more accessible to all people, thus raising the standard of living. The idea is simple, the more products you produce in an hour"s time, the more you are paid and the more goods and services you can demand. It is production, not consumption that feeds the economic engine. One must first produce a good or service in order to subsequently demand goods and services from someone else. For example, the US has a 500% premium in purchasing power over Latin American Countries that have historically been less productive.

So what are the reasons for declining productivity?

One reason is economic regulations creating barriers to entry/exit raising costs and diverting resources away from where they are most productive. A recent study by the Mercatus Center calculated the costs of regulations (holding regulations constant at 1980 levels) to be at $4 trillion dollars over the last nearly 4 decades. That's a lot of money pulled out of the economy for what could be less efficient uses. Prices, not political maneuvering, are the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources with alternative uses.

Another reason seldom mentioned, let alone explained, is the consequences from high levels of government debt. Federal borrowing reduces private savings, lowering the aggregate amount of capital in the economy dragging down the rate of new investments and wealth creation. This has a downward effect on wages for labor as it lowers overall demand.

Moreover, labor costs in the US are on the rise. This could be the corollary of steady market demand and a corresponding fall in labor productivity, forcing firms to hire more labor to make up for the loss of production.

The influx of low-skilled labor, primarily from South America, has exploded over the last half century. The Congressional Research Service reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee that between 1970 and 2013 there was a percentage increase of foreign-born population of 324.5% from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, respectively.

A study by the U.K. House of Commons Education and Skill Committee concluded that "there is a positive correlation between skills and productivity." Some of the reasons for their conclusions were as follows:

A lower proportion of workers qualified specifically to carry out their current role
More machine down time
Slower implementation of new technologies and implementation techniques
Too much managerial focus on routine tasks
Citizens in "high-immigrant occupations" have a much higher unemployment rate than citizens who work in jobs with a smaller percentage of immigrants. This displacement of more skilled labor with less-skilled labor can have a negative impact on productivity in the long and short run.

This President's success and legacy depends on lies and half-truths, so we will most likely never get our fill of either from his administration or his praetorian guard media. But this doesn't change the facts or the truth, and with a little work it is not difficult to navigate the dense smoke and mirrors they supply and erect; they just count on you not doing any of the work.

http://www.cnsnews.com...



lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 11:40:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 9:23:29 PM, capob wrote:
I'd speculate the decrease in productivity has a psychological and cultural component.
- remove job security, employees are less likely to work hard
- remove hope for the future, employees are less likely to work hard
- increase distractions (entertainment)
- increase culture collisions and bad cultures ( it is the culture of some to see how little you can do and how much you can get away with)

Not the case. Our entertainment industry has been growing exponentially while at the same time our productivity has doubled in the past 40 years.


Separately, it is not enough to simply address the talking points. Here, you are addressing the talking point of the POTUS that the recovery was good, and that he has some responsibility for that. This might be analogous to only blocking in a boxing match. You should, perhaps, bring up any of the wealth of negative realities about Obama (at the end).

That's precisely what I have been doing. Obama has stated that his policies have helped us out of the recession, while my argument was that they didn't.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 1:40:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/6/2016 11:40:16 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 9:23:29 PM, capob wrote:
I'd speculate the decrease in productivity has a psychological and cultural component.
- remove job security, employees are less likely to work hard
- remove hope for the future, employees are less likely to work hard
- increase distractions (entertainment)
- increase culture collisions and bad cultures ( it is the culture of some to see how little you can do and how much you can get away with)

Not the case. Our entertainment industry has been growing exponentially while at the same time our productivity has doubled in the past 40 years.

An overall increase in productivity does not discount any of the reasons above for a decrease in productivity. Productivity is a combination of factors, largely influenced by progress in technology, and the net change is a matter of the weights and numbers of those factors.



Separately, it is not enough to simply address the talking points. Here, you are addressing the talking point of the POTUS that the recovery was good, and that he has some responsibility for that. This might be analogous to only blocking in a boxing match. You should, perhaps, bring up any of the wealth of negative realities about Obama (at the end).

That's precisely what I have been doing. Obama has stated that his policies have helped us out of the recession, while my argument was that they didn't.

I think you've entirely missed the point. Oh well.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 9:54:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
You mean that Obama has taken a long time to get out of the recession that Dubya led the country into?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 1:15:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?

Saying that Obama is the only President that did not experience 3% growth is stupid. The whole world is in a recession. Obama's stimulus program, and welfare for the unemployed affected by the recession helped get the economy back on track. Obama's financial regulation helped fix the problem that caused the recession.

The argument that the economy is not perfect now doe snot hold water. Though not perfect, the economy improved from the recession that Bush led the USA into. Obama's biggest problem is that Bush fuucked the economy. The fact is that the USA economy has improved a lot better than Europe.

Obama's deficit spending helped the economy. A recession is when you are supposed to deficit spend, so demand increases and the economy gets back on track. The USA productivity is still solid. In my opinion the reason productivity is not the best in the USA is because Americans work more hours than many other western democracies. There is diminishing marginal returns to hours worked. If Americans relaxed more, though total goods produced would decreases, productivity would go up.

What do you suggest Obama should do? End regulation? Would ending regulation make it so everyone has jobs? It is a lack of regulation, that caused the recession in the first place.
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 1:31:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
lol, the government had really nothing to do with the recovery. TARP didn't really help as much as it was suppose to. The Federal Reserve is what really got the nation out of the recession, even the world if the Fed hadn't stepped in.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 2:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/7/2016 1:15:04 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?

Saying that Obama is the only President that did not experience 3% growth is stupid. The whole world is in a recession. Obama's stimulus program, and welfare for the unemployed affected by the recession helped get the economy back on track. Obama's financial regulation helped fix the problem that caused the recession.


You hit it on the head. GWB had the most consecutive string of 3% growth or higher in the history of the nation and that stat ends up was padded due to a housing bubble which would have resulted in a great depression had there been no gov intervention.

I find these types of articles very disingenuous because they over calculate how much power the President has over the economy. They are also filled with contradictions as this one is complaining about low labor participation rates on one hand but complaining about wage inflation as jobs are added.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 2:27:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/7/2016 1:31:09 PM, lannan13 wrote:
lol, the government had really nothing to do with the recovery. TARP didn't really help as much as it was suppose to. The Federal Reserve is what really got the nation out of the recession, even the world if the Fed hadn't stepped in.

+10000
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/7/2016 2:27:21 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/7/2016 1:31:09 PM, lannan13 wrote:
lol, the government had really nothing to do with the recovery. TARP didn't really help as much as it was suppose to. The Federal Reserve is what really got the nation out of the recession, even the world if the Fed hadn't stepped in.

+10000

Tarp was the only reason why the LIBOR stabilized and helped provide liquidity to the markets. Without it banks with cash would have continued hording it versus loaning to other institutions on the brink of bankruptcy who needed to get through their liquidity crunch.

It is hard to find credible analysis that shows we would have been better off with laissez-faire approach.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:26:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/7/2016 1:15:04 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?

Saying that Obama is the only President that did not experience 3% growth is stupid. The whole world is in a recession. Obama's stimulus program, and welfare for the unemployed affected by the recession helped get the economy back on track. Obama's financial regulation helped fix the problem that caused the recession.

The only President of the United States in the post war era to ever face a growth rate that is less than 3% has been President Barack Obama, and his policies did not get us out of the recession. Actually, economists conclude that he prolonged the recession by a substantial amount of time by enacting an 825 billion dollar stimulus and having various debt spending policies. Of course, the willfully ignorant don't care and still love to contest this.


The argument that the economy is not perfect now doe snot hold water. Though not perfect, the economy improved from the recession that Bush led the USA into. Obama's biggest problem is that Bush fuucked the economy. The fact is that the USA economy has improved a lot better than Europe.

Comparing American recovery rate to the European recovery rate is asinine at best. Europe is made up of various nations, all with different economies and private sectors, as well as different governmental structure. The United States measures its recovery rate from past recovery rates. The 2008 recession, by the way, was not the fault of George Bush. Although Bush was a terrible president, it was Jimmy Carter signing a equal mortgage act into law in 1973 that led to the mortgage crises.

The economy improving from Bush to Obama doesn't hold water as an argument either. It's almost impossible for our economy to not only stop improving, but to actually recede, unless we enact stupid fiscal and monetary policies. It's no great feat to have our economy improve, as it always does when we get out of a recession. With that said, Obama's policies were some of the most detrimental policies one could have undertaken at a crisis such as this one.


Obama's deficit spending helped the economy. A recession is when you are supposed to deficit spend, so demand increases and the economy gets back on track. The USA productivity is still solid. In my opinion the reason productivity is not the best in the USA is because Americans work more hours than many other western democracies. There is diminishing marginal returns to hours worked. If Americans relaxed more, though total goods produced would decreases, productivity would go up.

Are you willfully ignorant, or did you purposely not read the original post, as it details and proves with statistics that Obama's deficit spending did nothing to get us out of the recession. In fact, it prolonged it. Please go back and read the post, as it will clear up your confusion on this matter.


What do you suggest Obama should do? End regulation? Would ending regulation make it so everyone has jobs? It is a lack of regulation, that caused the recession in the first place.

Actually, the banking industry is heavily regulated, and so is the real estate industry. Granted, it's not the most regulated, but when you have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the top associations, it becomes an issue (since they are government sponsored enterprises).

And no, ending regulation won't get us out of a recession. Ending it altogether isn't a smart choice either, as it has to be done in increments.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/7/2016 2:13:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2016 1:15:04 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?

Saying that Obama is the only President that did not experience 3% growth is stupid. The whole world is in a recession. Obama's stimulus program, and welfare for the unemployed affected by the recession helped get the economy back on track. Obama's financial regulation helped fix the problem that caused the recession.


You hit it on the head. GWB had the most consecutive string of 3% growth or higher in the history of the nation and that stat ends up was padded due to a housing bubble which would have resulted in a great depression had there been no gov intervention.

The housing bubble was exacerbated by Jimmy Carter and his idiotic mortgage law in 1973. He created the housing bubble, and it exploded during Bush's term.


I find these types of articles very disingenuous because they over calculate how much power the President has over the economy. They are also filled with contradictions as this one is complaining about low labor participation rates on one hand but complaining about wage inflation as jobs are added.

Correct. Obama has had a very low labor participation rate, because as it's been documented in the original post, the job growth has not kept up with population growth. He has not allowed for private sector jobs to grow at such a rate that population can catch up (and population growth isn't that high).

Also, the President has quite a lot of control over the economy. It's contradictory to state that Obama is a good president because he got us out of the recession, and then turning around to say that he doesn't have much economic power when it's proven that he did very little to help us out, rather doing too much to keep us in. He signed an 825 billion dollar stimulus package on top of Bush's 200 billion dollar stimulus package, meaning that 1 trillion dollars+ was thrown into businesses as a way of stimulating the economy. This, unfortunately, did not work.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 4:37:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/7/2016 9:54:31 AM, desmac wrote:
You mean that Obama has taken a long time to get out of the recession that Dubya led the country into?

Tu quoque. Him leading us into a recession has nothing to do with Obama's terrible way of getting us out.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2016 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/7/2016 4:37:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/7/2016 2:13:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2016 1:15:04 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
lol the USA recovered from the recession much better than Europe. The reason the economy is not better is because republicans blocked some of Ob

The European recovery was worse than our own because of Europe's far more regulated economic system. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of doing better than Europe. We did far worse by our own standards.

Which policies were blocked by the Republicans, and how exactly would they have made our recovery faster?

Saying that Obama is the only President that did not experience 3% growth is stupid. The whole world is in a recession. Obama's stimulus program, and welfare for the unemployed affected by the recession helped get the economy back on track. Obama's financial regulation helped fix the problem that caused the recession.


You hit it on the head. GWB had the most consecutive string of 3% growth or higher in the history of the nation and that stat ends up was padded due to a housing bubble which would have resulted in a great depression had there been no gov intervention.

The housing bubble was exacerbated by Jimmy Carter and his idiotic mortgage law in 1973. He created the housing bubble, and it exploded during Bush's term.

Republicans had plenty of time and support to reverse any poor laws since the Jimmy Carter era. When you include the fact that Bush bragged about having the highest home ownership rates his administration including Fed appointee were clueless.

I find these types of articles very disingenuous because they over calculate how much power the President has over the economy. They are also filled with contradictions as this one is complaining about low labor participation rates on one hand but complaining about wage inflation as jobs are added.

Correct. Obama has had a very low labor participation rate, because as it's been documented in the original post, the job growth has not kept up with population growth. He has not allowed for private sector jobs to grow at such a rate that population can catch up (and population growth isn't that high).

Also, the President has quite a lot of control over the economy. It's contradictory to state that Obama is a good president because he got us out of the recession, and then turning around to say that he doesn't have much economic power when it's proven that he did very little to help us out, rather doing too much to keep us in. He signed an 825 billion dollar stimulus package on top of Bush's 200 billion dollar stimulus package, meaning that 1 trillion dollars+ was thrown into businesses as a way of stimulating the economy. This, unfortunately, did not work.

I never said Obama was a good president. It was Bush who signed TARP and Obama just continued the gov intervention plan.

It has been estimated the deficit which was over $trillian the worse years would have been double without intervention. Unemployment would have been 16 percent rather than 10. All considering the US has faired well from what could have been extremely worse. Could we have done better? Sure but we by any measurement did not do bad with this recovery.