Goods producing? Yes, this was the inheritance...-15% thanks to the
Bush recession. Notice the shitty numbers under Reagan and Bush.
Lame November jobs growth number - 155K
- Thread starter Bugsy McGurk
- Start date
Bush recession. Notice the shitty numbers under Reagan and Bush.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I don't know how many times I have to show you this - it wasn't Boosh who caused thatr deep dive in jobs:Goods producing? Yes, this was the inheritance...-15% thanks to the
Bush recession. Notice the shitty numbers under Reagan and Bush.
It wasn't until Obama's electoral chances surged that the big job losses kicked in. Clearly, the more Obama talked about his desire to "fix" the free market system to favor workers over companies, the less interested CEOs were in having large work forces.
Here is what I posted:
Yup...so when Obama turned over 4.5% to Trump...remember those numbers were fake (per DT). He claimed the real unemployment rate was over 30%....He gave Trump a great starting point, eh? A growing economy, a shrinking deficit....too bad about that whole trade war thing.
The $787 billion stimulus was not spent in 2009. That actually added about $200 billion that year...and 1/3rd of the $787b was tax cuts....not spending.
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Unlike when Obama was President losing 800,000 a month 2 years after the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats.
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Wow and we are supposed to believe you? Look what happened the last time Democrats controlled the house...2007.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The facts are, well, the facts. Obama's economy was the worst since the Great Depression (both of which were not economic decline so much as a protracted lack of recovery). That's what you get when the government "acts to stabilize the economy, reduce unemployment, prevent bankruptcies and boost the stock market." I mean seriously, by your logic the Soviet Union was an economic powerhouse. Venezuela is a paragon of prosperity. Your "facts" are the "twisted" ones, in an effort to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing. For the record, it isn't:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
Gee, these guys predicted the Obama "mini depression." Imagine that...
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Again...find one single CEO who will tell you that they laid people off because they thought Obama was going to win the election. The recession was global. Lehman didn't go under because Obama was about to win the primary. Millions of people didn't go into foreclosure from 2005 to 2008 because Obama was about to win. The price of gas in June/July 2008 didn't jump to $4.50 per gallon because Obama was in the race.
Why hasn't the LFPR improved in Trump's two years? Why has the unemployment rate only improved by .7%?
Trump arrived at a convenient time and is claiming credit for an economy that has been on the same trajectory for years. His tax cut is adding to the national debt. His tariffs are killing jobs. Why is the market tanking? Is it because investors are losing confidence in him or is it because they think Obama is coming back?
So let me get this straight...according to your economists at UCLA...FDR said "Ok, you can enter into agreements with your competitors and you won't be prosecuted"...the result was higher prices and lower demand...which the CEOs of those companies didn't see coming or didn't care...so they actually raised prices to the point of killing their companies. That seems accurate to you?
Bugsy McGurk
President
Listen to this one, trying to blame Obama for the near-depression he inherited from GWB.
Just deplorable.
wonder Obama had worse recovery since 1932
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
CEOs are a pretty risk averse group, wrt politics. None are going to come out and say a President is causing them to lay people off. Can you imagine the shit storm that would cause in the leftist media? Well, almost none:
https://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
The fact is that the more Obama's electoral chances surged, and the more "I think it works better when you spread the wealth around" comments he made, the faster companies shed workers.
I've already told you why Lehman "went under." Government interventions in the banking system where the Bush Administration bailed out Bear Stearns and then refused to do the same for Lehmn - ensuring that no capitalist in their right mind would make a bid for the company. But Bush was on the way out, so you would expect the market to see that as a positive, except it was Obama, and even worse POTUS, on his way in. It was a perfect storm - just like 1933.
I'm not here to defend Trump. He is odious and his policies are a hot mess. But he is, at least, pro-market. And his relaxing of the Obama era anti-capitalist agenda has led to unmistakable improvements in key private sector economic indicators:
Which has led to improvements in key overall indicators:
Yes, and including the 25 - 54 LFPR; which is the one that best measures the economy's health.
Saved jobs....What did Reagan's stimulus do?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
If you are trying to say that keeping wages artificially high leads to lower employment and less economic activity, why yes, yes it does.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Ended the cold war, for one thing.
You continue to evade the reality...as unemployment went down...from 10% in 2009 to 4.5% at the end of 2016...wages would rise as it got harder to hire...The LFPR hasn't changed much.
You say he is pro-market....exactly what executive orders has he rolled back? The only ones I see are related to allowing companies, mostly coal companies, to pollute. I'm not sure how that helps anyone.
What Obama rules hurt the economy? Are they still in place?
And then George HW Bush, faced with a steeply rising debt, started cutting defense spending, closed bases and cut active duty troop levels. Reagan's stimulus was not investment...it was simply spending to encourage economic activity. You argue that the FED buying up MBSs was artificial...so was Reagan's defense spending. Once Bush started cutting it we had a recession....remember?
The USSR fell apart for a lot of reasons, the war in Afghanistan, the arms race, the shoddy products the centralized economy produced...which could only be sold to captive economies in the East Block. Gorbachev gets as much credit as Reagan does. Meanwhile, as Cheney said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
I'm asking you to think...tough task, I know. Did the CEOs of a lot of companies set prices so high they killed demand?
Your last graph is of "Activity Rate"....and claims 97% at the peak....
What the hell is Activity Rate?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Latest posts
-
When Trump found guilty in the Stormy Daniels case.- Latest: protectionist
