Lame November jobs growth number - 155K

[Raoul_Luke]

You actually deny that Trump inherited a growing economy?

Say it - I dare you.

;-)

I simply demonstrated that key economic indicators sharply reversed their downward course as soon as Obama left office. Q.E.D.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I simply demonstrated that key economic indicators sharply reversed their downward course as soon as Obama left office. Q.E.D.

Your dodge is noted.

As always.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Your dodge is noted.

As always.

I dodged nothing and you know know it. You are simply using your (patented) jujitsu dodge by accusing the other of dodging technique.

GDP is a flawed measure, and even still, it was (at best) limping along when Obama was in office. Why? Because private businesses were hunkered down and simply waiting out the Obamunism policy agenda. As my previous post clearly demonstrated, the economic measures of capitalist activity STARKLY reversed course as soon as Obama left the Oval Office. The only reason it didn't happen sooner, as with the economic decline that accelerated as Obama was running for President (markets being forward looking) was because everyone expected Hillary was going to win (and continue the Obama anti-capitalist economic agenda). This really isn't rocket science...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I dodged nothing and you know know it. You are simply using your (patented) jujitsu dodge by accusing the other of dodging technique.

GDP is a flawed measure, and even still, it was (at best) limping along when Obama was in office. Why? Because private businesses were hunkered down and simply waiting out the Obamunism policy agenda. As my previous post clearly demonstrated, the economic measures of capitalist activity STARKLY reversed course as soon as Obama left the Oval Office. The only reason it didn't happen sooner, as with the economic decline that accelerated as Obama was running for President (markets being forward looking) was because everyone expected Hillary was going to win (and continue the Obama anti-capitalist economic agenda). This really isn't rocket science...

You point to GDP numbers to try to make your asinine point, and then you call GDP numbers a “flawed measure.”

Your hackery is quite amusing.

;-)

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You point to GDP numbers to try to make your asinine point, and then you call GDP numbers a “flawed measure.”

Your hackery is quite amusing.

;-)

What is inconsistent in that? You want to use (only) GDP and "unemployment" precisely because they are flawed measures. "Flawed" doesn't, of course, mean "useless" and you know it. It means it isn't the best (or only) measure you should be following to discern the overall health of an economy.

The more you call ME a "hack" the more your "hackery" is exposed...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

What is inconsistent in that? You want to use (only) GDP and "unemployment" precisely because they are flawed measures. "Flawed" doesn't, of course, mean "useless" and you know it. It means it isn't the best (or only) measure you should be following to discern the overall health of an economy.

The more you call ME a "hack" the more your "hackery" is exposed...

As you know, GDP and jobs growth numbers are key economic indicators.

But you seem to be souring on them as the thread progresses. So let’s look at some others...

The markets? Plunging.

Budget deficits? Soaring.

Trade deficits? Also soaring.

All good, eh?

;-)

 

[Dawg]

when majority are working job growth is always going to be Low

 

[Nostra]

7 Facts That Show Obama's Economic Recovery Has Been AWFUL

ByAARON BANDLER
August 1, 2016


President Barack Obama and recently coronated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton touted the Obama economic recovery at the Democratic National Convention last week, despite the fact that the statistics show that the Obama recovery has been horrid. Here are seven facts proving this.

1. The Obama recovery has had a record number of quarters where economic growth has been two percent or lower.

This economic recovery is setting all the wrong records. Obama is the King of slow growth. Clinton will be the Queen pic.twitter.com/BNQ0RWuI70

— Scott Ruesterholz (@Read_N_Learn) August 1, 2016
The above graph is compounded by the fact that the Department of Commerce reported on Friday that economic growth was a meager 1.2 percent in the second quarter.

Overall, the real GDP growth rate for the Obama economy has been right at two percent–the worst economic recovery since World War II, according to the Congressional Research Service. There has not been a single year under Obama in which the annual growth rate has been at three percent, which is unprecedented for an American president.

2. The average real GDP growth of recoveries rate prior to the Obama recovery was 4.3 percent. If the Obama recovery had been right in line with that 4.3 percent, the country would be $2.2 trillion richer today, according to Investor's Business Daily. The editors at IBD explain further: (emphasis bolded)

That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

3. The most recent labor participation rate was 62.7 percent, with slightly more than 94.5 million Americans out of the work force. Back in September, the participation rate was 62.3 percent–the lowest in nearly 40 years.

Obama's defenders argue that this is due to a record number of people retiring. This ignores the following key fact:

4. The number of jobs created under the Obama economy has not kept up with the working age population. Obama and Clinton have claimed that there have been nearly 15 million jobs in the private sector created under Obama, and if that number is taken at face value, it doesn't quite come close to the growth of the working age population of 15.8 million at around the same time frame. But the job gap is likely worse than that.

According to Investor's Business Daily's John Merline, Obama and Clinton's 15 million jobs number is based on the number of jobs created since February 2010, when the economy was at "rock bottom." However, Merline writes that the metric for job growth is normally determined from the previous "jobs peak," which was in January 2008. From that point, there has been an estimated 5.6 million increase in private-sector jobs while the working age population increased by over 20 million–creating a job gap of more than 14 million.

5. There has been a decline in business startups and investment. According to Time, there has been a decline of "entrepreneurial activity" from 14 percent in 2014 to 12 percent in 2015, when the four preceding years featured positive growth. In May 2015, The Wall Street Journal's Thomas J. Duesterberg and Donald A. Normandescribed capital investment as "historically weak," citing the burdensome corporate tax rates and regulations as the reason for the weak amount of investment. This is an important metric since investment is one of the key forces behind economic growth.

6. There has also been a decline of real household family income. According to Conservative Review, the decline went from $57,000 in 2007 to $53,700 in 2014. Naturally, it follows that the home ownership rate has declined to a near 48-year low.

7. There has also been a spike of Americans on food stamps. Conservative Reviewalso used data from the Congressional Budget Office to show that the number of Americans food stamps has increased from 26.5 million in 2007 to 44.5 million in 2016. That is a decline from 47.7 million in 2013, but still much higher than pre-recession levels.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7970/7-facts-show-obamas-economic-recovery-has-been-aaron-bandler

 

[Raoul_Luke]

As you know, GDP and jobs growth numbers are key economic indicators.

But you seem to be souring on them as the thread progresses. So let’s look at some others...

The markets? Plunging.

Budget deficits? Soaring.

Trade deficits? Also soaring.

All good, eh?

;-)

Only when put in context. If terrorists succeeded in setting off a nuke in Manhattan, producing a 2 trillion $ boost to gdp as it is being rebuilt, is that good thing to you?

And likewise, if "unemployment" goes down in, say, Venezeuala, because people are becoming discouraged by the lack of economic activity and are leaving the workforce, is that a good thing to you?

This really isn't rocket science. GDP and unemployment aren't useless, unless they are being used, as you do, to suggest that an economy is doing better than it actually is.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

7 Facts That Show Obama's Economic Recovery Has Been AWFUL

ByAARON BANDLER
August 1, 2016


President Barack Obama and recently coronated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton touted the Obama economic recovery at the Democratic National Convention last week, despite the fact that the statistics show that the Obama recovery has been horrid. Here are seven facts proving this.

1. The Obama recovery has had a record number of quarters where economic growth has been two percent or lower.

This economic recovery is setting all the wrong records. Obama is the King of slow growth. Clinton will be the Queen pic.twitter.com/BNQ0RWuI70

— Scott Ruesterholz (@Read_N_Learn) August 1, 2016
The above graph is compounded by the fact that the Department of Commerce reported on Friday that economic growth was a meager 1.2 percent in the second quarter.

Overall, the real GDP growth rate for the Obama economy has been right at two percent–the worst economic recovery since World War II, according to the Congressional Research Service. There has not been a single year under Obama in which the annual growth rate has been at three percent, which is unprecedented for an American president.

2. The average real GDP growth of recoveries rate prior to the Obama recovery was 4.3 percent. If the Obama recovery had been right in line with that 4.3 percent, the country would be $2.2 trillion richer today, according to Investor's Business Daily. The editors at IBD explain further: (emphasis bolded)

That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)

In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.

3. The most recent labor participation rate was 62.7 percent, with slightly more than 94.5 million Americans out of the work force. Back in September, the participation rate was 62.3 percent–the lowest in nearly 40 years.

Obama's defenders argue that this is due to a record number of people retiring. This ignores the following key fact:

4. The number of jobs created under the Obama economy has not kept up with the working age population. Obama and Clinton have claimed that there have been nearly 15 million jobs in the private sector created under Obama, and if that number is taken at face value, it doesn't quite come close to the growth of the working age population of 15.8 million at around the same time frame. But the job gap is likely worse than that.

According to Investor's Business Daily's John Merline, Obama and Clinton's 15 million jobs number is based on the number of jobs created since February 2010, when the economy was at "rock bottom." However, Merline writes that the metric for job growth is normally determined from the previous "jobs peak," which was in January 2008. From that point, there has been an estimated 5.6 million increase in private-sector jobs while the working age population increased by over 20 million–creating a job gap of more than 14 million.

5. There has been a decline in business startups and investment. According to Time, there has been a decline of "entrepreneurial activity" from 14 percent in 2014 to 12 percent in 2015, when the four preceding years featured positive growth. In May 2015, The Wall Street Journal's Thomas J. Duesterberg and Donald A. Normandescribed capital investment as "historically weak," citing the burdensome corporate tax rates and regulations as the reason for the weak amount of investment. This is an important metric since investment is one of the key forces behind economic growth.

6. There has also been a decline of real household family income. According to Conservative Review, the decline went from $57,000 in 2007 to $53,700 in 2014. Naturally, it follows that the home ownership rate has declined to a near 48-year low.

7. There has also been a spike of Americans on food stamps. Conservative Reviewalso used data from the Congressional Budget Office to show that the number of Americans food stamps has increased from 26.5 million in 2007 to 44.5 million in 2016. That is a decline from 47.7 million in 2013, but still much higher than pre-recession levels.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7970/7-facts-show-obamas-economic-recovery-has-been-aaron-bandler

The economy, obviously, is racist.

 

[middleview]

As someone else already pointed out, it's pretty hard to maintain sizzling job growth in a full employment situation.

Even after a miserable few weeks, the market remains well above where Obama got it:

View attachment 41089

The last thing anyone here expects from you is the truth.

The market dropped to about 6,000 thanks to the Bush recession....what was it again in January of 2017?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Only when put in context. If terrorists succeeded in setting off a nuke in Manhattan, producing a 2 trillion $ boost to gdp as it is being rebuilt, is that good thing to you?

And likewise, if "unemployment" goes down in, say, Venezeuala, because people are becoming discouraged by the lack of economic activity and are leaving the workforce, is that a good thing to you?

This really isn't rocket science. GDP and unemployment aren't useless, unless they are being used, as you do, to suggest that an economy is doing better than it actually is.

Your very lame dodge of what I just said is noted.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

The market dropped to about 6,000 thanks to the Bush recession....what was it again in January of 2017?

In Trumplandia, the near-tripling of the markets under Obama is considered “quite anemic.” And the far more modest market growth under Trump (now in the process of imploding) is remarkable growth.

;-)

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Your very lame dodge of what I just said is noted.

I love the smell of your (lame) claim of a "dodge" - it smells like…victory!

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I love the smell of your (lame) claim of a "dodge" - it smells like…victory!

Of course. You dwell within Trumplandia, where up is down.

 

[middleview]

The growth rate was tanking from the dismal numbers Obama produced. Worst growth rate record ever.

Face it, Obama sucked.

Unemployment went up to 10%...due to the Bush recession.
DJIA dropped to 6,000...due to the Bush recession.
Deficit was at a Trillion bucks in 2009....due to the Bush recession.
GM & Chrysler nearly went bankrupt...a million jobs...due to the Bush recession.
Foreclosures had tripled..thanks to bush policies.

Obama took over with the worst economy since 1929. How bad was the economy in January 2017? Well....there was 4.5% unemployment...which is now 3.7%. The DJIA was above 18,000 and is now 23,000.

Bush sucked. Obama stabilized the economy and kept things from getting much worse.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The market dropped to about 6,000 thanks to the Bush recession....what was it again in January of 2017?

Artificially bloated by the Fed's balance sheet activities?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Unemployment went up to 10%...due to the Bush recession.
DJIA dropped to 6,000...due to the Bush recession.
Deficit was at a Trillion bucks in 2009....due to the Bush recession.
GM & Chrysler nearly went bankrupt...a million jobs...due to the Bush recession.
Foreclosures had tripled..thanks to bush policies.

Obama took over with the worst economy since 1929. How bad was the economy in January 2017? Well....there was 4.5% unemployment...which is now 3.7%. The DJIA was above 18,000 and is now 23,000.

Bush sucked. Obama stabilized the economy and kept things from getting much worse.

Who did?

 

[middleview]

Only when put in context. If terrorists succeeded in setting off a nuke in Manhattan, producing a 2 trillion $ boost to gdp as it is being rebuilt, is that good thing to you?

And likewise, if "unemployment" goes down in, say, Venezeuala, because people are becoming discouraged by the lack of economic activity and are leaving the workforce, is that a good thing to you?

This really isn't rocket science. GDP and unemployment aren't useless, unless they are being used, as you do, to suggest that an economy is doing better than it actually is.

And if the president puts hundreds of thousands to work as active duty armed forces or building tanks and planes...the GDP goes up and he gets credit...even if his policies do quadruple the national debt. Right?

 

[middleview]

Artificially bloated by the Fed's balance sheet activities?

View attachment 41101

So you think it was a bad thing for the government to act to stabilize the economy, reduce unemployment, prevent bankruptcies and boost the stock market. You hate it when the government steps in to provide a safety net (like food stamps) and instead of blaming the increase in food stamps on the recession, you blame it on the recovery.

Your motives are obvious. Your facts are twisted to get the most anti-Obama bang for your buck.