Trump loses to Obama...in monthly job gains

[Raoul_Luke]

The great depression got worse....until FDR was elected. How many banks failed up until his bank holiday? How many after? Your bank failed? Sucks to be you. No FDIC.
My grandparents lost their farm. Your opinion is that it would have been ok for unemployment to continue to get worse...probably not if it was your family that was starving. By 1936 the unemployment rate was under 10%. In your addled mind that was not an improvement.

Snap back? What happened from 1981 to 1983? 10% unemployment...didn't come back to 7% until 1986. That was a pretty slow recovery, based on your view of the recovery under Obama.

As far as your comment about what I am willing to admit....you must be hearing voices again. I believe the stimulus did help. I think bailing out GM was the right thing to do. I think extending unemployment was correct and kept millions of people involved in the consumer economy.

Seriously, how are your preferred interventions in the face of economic "hardships" any different from this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-supermarkets-besieged-government-forces-price-cuts-164822021.html

There's your ideological soul mate. I know you will whine about being tied to a tin pot dictator socialist, but the fact is that this is precisely a logical extension of progressive economic crisis "interventions." Do you think that policy will be as "effective" at solving the Venezuelan economic "problems" as Obama's (or FDR's) was at "solving" ours?

 

[reason10]

FoxNews forced to admit it. LOL

Fox News Research

✔ @FoxNewsResearch

Average Monthly #Job Gains
-by year

•2017: 171,000
•2016: 187,000
•2015: 226,000
•2014: 250,000
•2013: 192,000
•2012: 179,000
•2011: 174,000
•2010: 88,000#JobsReport

8:54 AM - Jan 5, 2018

This is a Twitter account. It's not FoxNews. And those numbers are wrong. In Trump's first year he created more high paying jobs than all eight of Obama's years combined. The economy is expanding and the Dow is at record highs, NONE OF WHICH OBAMA HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH.

Obama was the worst president in history, with the worst unemployment in history. That nightmare is OVER.

 

[middleview]

Because that is how it's always presented by you lefties - as if it would have continued at that rate if Obama hadn't been elected. So now are you willing to admit that the fact that job losses didn't continue at that pace had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's policies? In fact, in my opinion, his policies hobbled the economy kept the typical snapback recovery at bay:

But in general recessions associated with financial crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18194

The Great Depression and the recent recession stand out, though, both having increases in real GNP of about the same magnitude as the decreases. All the other recessions have increases noticeably greater than the decreases, indicating that the economy expanded more in the first two years after the end of the recession than it decreased during the recession.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/1110.aspx

Recent scholarly work has finally begun to draw a connection between Dodd-Frank and the weak economy of the last six years, and it appears that Dodd-Frank is indeed the culprit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-slow-economic-recovery-explained/

I know, this is heresy to the lefties who worship at the feet of big government, and the academic economic "experts" who are its sycophants. Like Krugman:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/17/dow-crosses-23000-trump-record-krugman-predicted-recession-election-night

But it is what it is. LOL!

You constantly have to misquote or misinterpret anything I write. Why is that?

as if it would have continued at that rate if Obama hadn't been elected

It did continue at that rate until we reached 10% unemployment in December 2009. That is about when the stimulus kicked in.

Your American Enterprise article is next to useless. The guy doesn't cite one single paragraph or regulation that is part of Dodd Frank. He just says "this is shit"....
I've gotten a large loan since Dodd Frank...guess what, no f*cking financial statement required.....but your author says a bank examiner would criticize the loan.

Look...the big banks cratered the economy. An unregulated derivatives market was at the heart of it. The author says big firms grew faster because they could go to capital markets and small firms went to banks....DUH!....The recession was all about bad lending practices. Credit dried up because so many businesses went under and took their loans with them.

It really is too bad that your author doesn't include any footnotes or references to back up his opinions.

 

[middleview]

Seriously, how are your preferred interventions in the face of economic "hardships" any different from this?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-supermarkets-besieged-government-forces-price-cuts-164822021.html

There's your ideological soul mate. I know you will whine about being tied to a tin pot dictator socialist, but the fact is that this is precisely a logical extension of progressive economic crisis "interventions." Do you think that policy will be as "effective" at solving the Venezuelan economic "problems" as Obama's (or FDR's) was at "solving" ours?

Wow...so now you want to talk about Venezuela? Economic policy in Venezuela is not similar to anything either Obama or FDR did.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

No it's not .... Your knowledge of statistical cumulative growth rate is completely absent.....as usual.

It was actually easy .... in fact effortless for Obama to pile up part-time poverty paychecks coming out the Wall Street's sabotage of the global economy
In 2008. It is a completely different ballgame to add living wage jobs to an already active job market.

It is a totally different kind of growth
And is qualitatively superior to the barn droppings of the book cookers and information hackers from 08-16.

Proving once again how pointless it is to discuss issues with wingers based upon the actual facts and stats.

The stats show that Trump inherited a geometrically improving economy, at nearly full employment, and that Trump’s job numbers are inferior to Obama’s job numbers, so Trump sycophants argue that we should ignore the numbers. Trump’s fewer jobs are better, say the sycophants. No credit to Obama, all credit to Trump, for the conditions that Trump inherited.

Yup, Trump was born on 3rd base and his sycophants chant “Nice triple, President Trump!”

;-)

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yet public sector employment was cut sharply under Obama ... all the jobs gains came from the private sector.

Again with the facts. Wingers hate facts. Facts never square with right wing ideology.

 

[middleview]

This is a Twitter account. It's not FoxNews. And those numbers are wrong. In Trump's first year he created more high paying jobs than all eight of Obama's years combined. The economy is expanding and the Dow is at record highs, NONE OF WHICH OBAMA HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH.

Obama was the worst president in history, with the worst unemployment in history. That nightmare is OVER.

The numbers come from the same place that Trump now says show how good job creation is. How in hell can you argue that job creation sucked when it hit 5% in 2016...when Obama was president, and now say that number was wrong but the same people who produced that number now say that unemployment has gone down and you claim their numbers are correct?

The dow was at record highs in 2016 as well...and at record lows thanks to George W. Bush.

 

[middleview]

Why would you expect the US economy to continue losing 820k jobs a month forever?

Why would you expect it to suddenly stop shedding jobs with no intervention?
What market force would have saved GM without people actually buying cars? What would the societal impact be of a continued foreclosure rate as it was in 2006/2007? Why would anyone build homes with so many vacant?

Nobody said the layoffs would continue at that rate forever. They could certainly have continued until unemployment hit 25% or worse. That is what happened when Hoover was president...he did nothing and the result was obvious.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Wow...so now you want to talk about Venezuela? Economic policy in Venezuela is not similar to anything either Obama or FDR did.

I want to talk about the failure of market interventions. How is this markedly different from taxing the businesses and giving the money to the unemployed to subsidize the purchase price (which you most certainly do support)? That's what socialists do first (like taxing businesses to fund "enhanced" unemployment compensation benefits). And then, when they start running out of "other people's money," they do stuff like price controls. And when that fails they start nationalizing businesses so they have complete control over prices. This IS the agenda you support, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

[middleview]

The economy was in a death spiral when he took over. It could have stayed there longer than it did. It could have gotten worse. As the dominoes tumbled job losses were creating their own vicious cycle of more job losses. Back then we didn't know how bad it would get.

The right wing tactic of attempting to either discredit the poster or to come up with an interpretation of what we have written that is outlandish is an example of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on....it's desperation mode. You'll notice that he isn't the only one to use that tactic.

 

[Tor-Pete-O]

Because that is how it's always presented by you lefties - as if it would have continued at that rate if Obama hadn't been elected. So now are you willing to admit that the fact that job losses didn't continue at that pace had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's policies? In fact, in my opinion, his policies hobbled the economy kept the typical snapback recovery at bay:
But in general recessions associated with financial crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18194

The Great Depression and the recent recession stand out, though, both having increases in real GNP of about the same magnitude as the decreases. All the other recessions have increases noticeably greater than the decreases, indicating that the economy expanded more in the first two years after the end of the recession than it decreased during the recession.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/publications/notesfromthevault/1110.aspx

Recent scholarly work has finally begun to draw a connection between Dodd-Frank and the weak economy of the last six years, and it appears that Dodd-Frank is indeed the culprit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-slow-economic-recovery-explained/

I know, this is heresy to the lefties who worship at the feet of big government, and the academic economic "experts" who are its sycophants. Like Krugman:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/17/dow-crosses-23000-trump-record-krugman-predicted-recession-election-night

But it is what it is. LOL!

Krugman..........what a tool.

Has he ever been right about ANYTHING?

 

[justoffal]

The economy was in a death spiral when he took over. It could have stayed there longer than it did. It could have gotten worse. As the dominoes tumbled job losses were creating their own vicious cycle of more job losses. Back then we didn't know how bad it would get.

That is totally incorrect....the Global Money Supply was in a death spiral....there was nothing wrong with the economy until the money bomb went off and thousands of companies had to close and lay off workers including Wall Street...the London financial houses and the European central banks.....none of this had anything in a practical way to do with either Bush or Obama btw.....that is nothing more than a political fairy tale. If anything Bush saved the US by taking emergency measures to restore working cash to the thieves who nearly bankrupted the world.

You're characterization here is like amputating a leg from an elephant to reattach it to a kangaroo.....


JO

 

[middleview]

I want to talk about the failure of market interventions. How is this markedly different from taxing the businesses and giving the money to the unemployed to subsidize the purchase price (which you most certainly do support)? That's what socialists do first (like taxing businesses to fund "enhanced" unemployment compensation benefits). And then, when they start running out of "other people's money," they do stuff like price controls. And when that fails they start nationalizing businesses so they have complete control over prices. This IS the agenda you support, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

And the agenda you support is the source of Hoovervilles around the country...no unemployment insurance, no safety net, no health care for the poor, no food stamps...if the people gather to demand government help we can just call out the national guard...like Hoover did.

Pray you don't lose your job. If you do you'll just have to wait for things to get better...worked out very well for Germany in 1933.

No, I do not support price controls... I do not support nationalizing businesses...If you cannot stand on the merits of your argument you seem to invent views I don't hold and have never expressed. That is simply dishonest of you.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Why would you expect it to suddenly stop shedding jobs with no intervention?
What market force would have saved GM without people actually buying cars? What would the societal impact be of a continued foreclosure rate as it was in 2006/2007? Why would anyone build homes with so many vacant?

Nobody said the layoffs would continue at that rate forever. They could certainly have continued until unemployment hit 25% or worse. That is what happened when Hoover was president...he did nothing and the result was obvious.

Um, the law of supply and demand? Sheesh! You really don't have a clue about how an economy works, do you? Companies would stop laying off workers; people would start buying cars again; houses would start selling (and being built again)…when the markets cleared.

What was the "societal impact" of the lost decade of economic growth? What was the "societal impact" of 10 million workers becoming discouraged and dropping out of the labor market? What was the "societal impact" of the trillions of $ funneled to the bankers and financiers by the Fed in its effort to keep the markets from clearing?

Hoover did not "do nothing." Stop being disingenuous! Hoover was NOT a "free market" guy, an anti-interventionist. Don't take my word for it, lets go to the tape:

We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.

Herbert Hoover on the campaign trail in 1932

Geez, that reads like one of your posts on this subject...

 

[middleview]

That is totally incorrect....the Global Money Supply was in a death spiral....there was nothing wrong with the economy until the money bomb went off and thousands of companies had to close and lay off workers including Wall Street...the London financial houses and the European central banks.....none of this had anything in a practical way to do with either Bush or Obama btw.....that is nothing more than a political fairy tale. If anything Bush saved the US by taking emergency measures to restore working cash to the thieves who nearly bankrupted the world.

You're characterization here is like amputating a leg from an elephant to reattach it to a kangaroo.....


JO

In 2003 the Bush administration changed the liquidity rules and allowed banks to borrow up to $40 for every $1 in deposits. The previous limit was $15::$1.

What could go wrong? The banks were using the money to buy up derivatives...if the value of those investments dropped just 3% the bank was insolvent. At the same time Bush's appointee to the SEC laid off about 150 people from enforcements and investigations. There was one person left in the Office of National Risk Assessment....

Bush signed Tarp. Other than that his efforts were all meant to kick the can down the road and get out of town before they got worse.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

And the agenda you support is the source of Hoovervilles around the country...no unemployment insurance, no safety net, no health care for the poor, no food stamps...if the people gather to demand government help we can just call out the national guard...like Hoover did.

Pray you don't lose your job. If you do you'll just have to wait for things to get better...worked out very well for Germany in 1933.

No, I do not support price controls... I do not support nationalizing businesses...If you cannot stand on the merits of your argument you seem to invent views I don't hold and have never expressed. That is simply dishonest of you.

The only problem with that is that you DO! When the government props up failing businesses to maintain supply, above the level of current demand, that is a form of "price control." When the government "enhances" unemployment benefits, in effect keeping wages from declining to the equilibrium market level, that is a form of "price control." So you in fact DO support "price controls" - the ones that keep prices ABOVE the level implied by current supply and demand, in order to placate the masses. Why on earth would you choose to NOT support turning around and forcing prices BELOW the level implied by current supply and demand, in order to placate the masses?

These sorts of interventions are defacto (temporary) nationalizations. So you support "nationalization" of the markets, because it gives you the same outcome, while providing "plausible deniability" regarding what, exactly, it is that you support.

 

[EatTheRich]

That is totally incorrect....the Global Money Supply was in a death spiral....there was nothing wrong with the economy until the money bomb went off and thousands of companies had to close and lay off workers including Wall Street...the London financial houses and the European central banks.....none of this had anything in a practical way to do with either Bush or Obama btw.....that is nothing more than a political fairy tale. If anything Bush saved the US by taking emergency measures to restore working cash to the thieves who nearly bankrupted the world.

You're characterization here is like amputating a leg from an elephant to reattach it to a kangaroo.....


JO

There was a glut of commodities relative to consumer ability to drive demand. The basic problem with the economy, the "free-market" solution to which was to let mass unemployment persist for years or decades until enough wealth had been destroyed by waste or fraud to get the economy moving again.

 

[Dawg]

Again with the facts. Wingers hate facts. Facts never square with right wing ideology.

Dodge noted
you couldn't refute ETR's numbers

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Dodge noted
you couldn't refute ETR's numbers

Refute them? I agree with them.

Eat more fish.

;-)

 

[JuliefromOhio]

This is a Twitter account. It's not FoxNews. And those numbers are wrong. In Trump's first year he created more high paying jobs than all eight of Obama's years combined. The economy is expanding and the Dow is at record highs, NONE OF WHICH OBAMA HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH.

Obama was the worst president in history, with the worst unemployment in history. That nightmare is OVER.

Well, show us your numbers.