The Obama Economy: Still Not Recovered
On Friday, the government reported that the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of only 2.0 percent.
The establishment press thinks we’re supposed to be happy that it wasn’t the 1.8 percent analysts expected. Please. Over one-third of the reported growth came from increasesd federal defense expenditures, which may only have occurred because of the “need” to spend as much as possible before the September end of Uncle Sam’s fiscal year and the onset of sequestration. Additionally, nonresidential investment in the private sector, which is most definitely not “doing fine” as President Obama claimed in June, actually dropped.
Annual growth remains on a downward trajectory. So far in 2012, the economy has grown at an annual rate of 1.7 percent. Last year, it grew by 1.8 percent, and in 2010 by 2.4 percent.
Here’s a bone for the clowns in the Obama campaign like Stephanie Cutter who go on TV and blatantly lie about how the current economy is generating Reagan-like numbers. The economy under Ronald Reagan also saw declining annual growth, except for one “little” thing: GDP expansion went from an astonishing 7.2 percent in 1984 to a perfectly fine 4.1 percent in 1985 to a still pretty darned good 3.5 percent in 1986.
Several commentators, including the American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis, while accurately noting that the Reagan-era recovery saw growth which almost tripled what we’ve seen under Obama during the 13 quarters since the recession officially ended, understate this economy’s real-world underperformance and its negative impact on everyday people.
No less than insufferable Obama cheerleader Warren Buffett told CNBC in September 2010 that he didn’t consider the recession to be over more than a year after its official end. He then laid down his own benchmark for defining its conclusion:
I think we’re in a recession until real per capita GDP gets back up to where it was before (the recession began) … on any common sense definition, the average American is below where he was before, or his family, in terms of real income, GDP. We’re still in a recession. And, and we’re not gonna be out of it for awhile, but we will get out of it.
Guess what, pal? We’re not “out of it” yet:
Perhaps the Obamalover of Omaha thought that the economy would achieve this benchmark by now, and as such that his statement two years ago carried no political risk. Well sir, we’re still 1.5 percent below the the pre-recession per capita GDP peak. At the rate of growth seen in the past three quarters, we won’t get above it until the second quarter of 2014, five years after the recession officially ended. No post-World War II economy has performed this poorly after a recession.
Weird chart to put up, Tom, as it clearly demonstrates the success of the past four years. The free-fall of the end of the Bush admin was halted in the first quarter of the Obama presidency (1Q 2009). And ever since, a steady recovery in real terms. If you are wondering why Obama is winning Ohio and elsewhere, stop and look at this chart again.
I know people hate to hear “Blame Bush”, but it’s obviously more accurate to blame Bush for the collapse during 2007-2008 than it is to blame Obama before he was even elected!
You are stark raving nuts. Its people like you that that make it certain that this country will have another Civil War. It is more apparent every day that those who drank the Marxocrat Kool-Aid in the commie enclaves live in some kind of alternate universe where reason has no bearing on any matter. The rest of us have to cast you lunatics off to save ourselves from oblivion. The fact that we have experienced the second Great Depression for the past four years doesn’t even come up on your radar screen. The economic misery and societal degeneracy that we have seen unfold unabated during the last four years is beyond your ability to recognize or comprehend. It is stunningly obvious that the era of the United States is so over. Lets just make it official and let you and yours have your commie sh**holes and let the rest of us who choose to live in a land in adherence to the Constitution and the Rule of Law finally be rid of you and your ilk.
You’ve drawn the wrong conclusion, probably because you don’t know any economic history.
If Obama had done nothing, the recession would not have been as bad or as long, it would have been over in 18 months like most of our recessions have always been. The Depression would have been over in like fashion if the government had gotten out of the way.
You probably think Keynes deserved his Nobel.
General Tso-what: What about the vast difference between the Reagan-era and Obama-era charts and “No post-World War II economy has performed this poorly after a recession” didn’t you understand?
This was an excellent chart and article, Mr. Blumer, but roughly half of our polity doesn’t trust “facts” at all. I tried to explain why here: http://clarespark.com/2012/10/14/reality-and-the-left/. Democrats advertise themselves as the only friends to labor and to the working class (now bundled into the “middle class”, which is crazy). Such are the fruits of populism and the allergy to experts such as yourself.
In fact, the jobs trajectory of this recovery almost exactly matches that of the Bush-era recovery. The difference, other than the hole left by Bush being so much deeper than the dot-com bust left by Clinton, is that the economy has had to heal across multiple dimensions at the same time without the benefit of a bubble.
The debt load of our economy has been decreasing from it’s all-time high in 2008. The financial crisis has been slowly but steadily been working its way out, and as any student of economic history knows financial crises always lead to longer recoveries. Government employment has been decreasing during this recovery, unlike during the Bush-era, so the gains in the private sector have been muted in their total impact. The housing market – the number one source of wealth in this country – had to find it’s bottom (which it has now found) from the absurd bubble of the Bush years. And even the federal deficit, which was $1T in fiscal 2008, and $1.6T in fiscal 2009 _before_ the stimulus [!], has steadily come down to just a shade over $1T this year.
Add in the renaissance in energy production since 2009, the revitalization of the manufacturing sector, and the sharp rise in our exports and the picture conveyed by your chart becomes even clearer: we have been recovering steadily, and sustainably, since 2009, after the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
But hey, that’s just what the numbers say…
I strongly suggest you go back to that Alternate Reality Dimension from which you originated.
Or should I say Dimensia?
You know, the Bush recovery was called jobless, even though unemployment was far below now.
Where now are those gibes?
You’re very silly.
My political history goes back to 1979, I’ll forget none of it for your convenience.
Funny isn’t it how the “blame Bush” crowd conveniently ignores that the Democrats controlled both the house and senate from 2006 onwards. It’s all Bush’s fault when the economy crashes with the entire legislative branch controlled by Democrats, yet when it fails to recover it’s somehow all the fault of the Republicans in the house. At least that’s how the MSM sells it, and you’ve clearly bought it. The housing bubble precipitated the crash and was a result of decades of bipartisan (but mainly Democrat) policies like the CRA. Bush even tried to reign this in, but was blocked by congressional Dems:
http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/
In contrast Obama got everything he wanted (stimulus, Obamacare) in his first two years and the economy is still worse than when he took office. On economic matters he’s like a drunk guy with a blow torch, would’ve been a lot better to just let it recover on its own without lead weights like Obamacare thrown in.
The problem is that liberals and their allies in the media can never admit when their economic policies have failed, because to do so would undermine their entire redistributionist philosophy.
Yes, at four-plus years since the Recession began, those numbers are “unprecedented” alright. They are pathetic.
The boy king’s “plan” (actually the plan of his advisors, since the boy king is economically illiterate) was to ignore the economy (since they knew that the economy had bounced back from every recession since 1948 within a few years) and sieze the “crisis” to jam though a trillion dollar payback to his bundlers and take over the 21% of the economy represented by health care.
In fact, since they believed the bogus idea that the recession had begun in Oct 2007, they were dead certain there would be a massive recovery beginning just after the inaugeration, since that was the timing of 9 of 10 of the prior recoveries. Those 10 recoveries represent the sum total of “planning” that went into the now famous chart that predicted unemployment would begin dropping like a rock as soon as the boy king waved his magic wand.
The truth is that 3 things derailed “the plan”. 1) the country recoiled at the shocking cynicism of the stimulus. 2) obamacare sent businesses diving for the bunkers, and 3) the war on business that has been conducted by obama from the first minute caused anybody with a dollar to snap his wallet shut immediately.
Now go read my post at #15. More than 100% of the snap-back of gdp in Mr. Bruners chart results from government borrowing. Real gdp (i.e., private sector gdp less abovew-average private sector debt) has been negative during this entire administration. It somebody would do the math, the curve of gdp probably tracks closely to the Great Depression (or worse), just like unemployment tracks to the Great Depression when it is stripped of the gimics that criminal politicians have forced on the data in the last few decades to protect their rears from the pitchforks.
The total debt across the economy (public+private) has come down sharply over the past four years, after reaching an all-time high at the start of 2009.
The bad news: Bush left us a country sick in many, many ways. The good news: Across almost every metric, the American economy is now better off now than it was then.
What metrics would those be?
Fewer people are working.
The national debt is up $4 trillion.
Ameria’s credit rating has been lowered for the first time in history.
Average incomes are down about 4,000+ a year.
Inflation is up, particularly for necessities like food, gas and medical care.
Senior’s income is dramatically down because interest rates are artificially low.
Half of new college graduates can’t find work in their fields.
Black unemployment is particulary bad.
Millions of homes have been foreclosed. Half the remaining are underwater.
Small businesses no longer hire.
Of the people who are working, the percentage with part-time jobs has been at all-time highs for years.
The fail safe dates for SS and Mediare are drastically closer than in 2008.
Maybe you are talking about the 9 million people drawing disability, the 20 million more people on food stamps. Or perhaps the obama bundlers that have made fortunes.
If you argued that things might have been worse, you would at least have something that couldn’t be proven wrong, but to say that all the metrics are better is stupid.
General Tso has no doubt taken to heart the mantra of Oceania:
“Ignorance is Strength”
We are certain that he also loves Big Brother unconditionally.
I would say quit while you’re ahead, General Tso-what, but you were never ahead. The national debt is up by over $5 trillion on paper, plus untold trillions printed by Ben Bernanke’s funny-money machine. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and public retirement and health systems continue to grow. All of this vastly outweighs any private retrenchment which may (emphasis may) have occurred. You are deeply in delusion.
“All of this vastly outweighs any private retrenchment which may (emphasis may) have occurred.”
Tom, here’s a chart for you that may (emphasis may) help you understand the extent of the fiscal retrenchment that has gone on in our country over the past four years. However, given how completely you misinterpreted the chart you built this article around, it may not.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cjL
You must be trolling…
The problem with your analysis is recoveries should not be “steady”, especially from large recessions. Typically a steep recession is followed by an equally steep recovery, which would then level off once pre recession GDP had been reached. That is what happened with Reagan, 7% growth until pre recovery levels had been reached, then 4% growth afterwards. If that pattern had occured here this economy would have been up to pre recession levels by quarter 1-2 of last year, and by this year unemployment would have been falling steeply to around 5%. Instead we got nothing but anemic growth of 1.5-2.5%, and have still not recovered pre recession levels. Yes Obama inherited a recession, but his policies killed the usual recovery, and all we got was very anemic growth from high unemployment recession levels.
Of course Buffet continues to support Obama, Berkshire Hathaway got BAILED OUT (along with Goldman Sacks, BofA, Citigroup…).
1. General Tso
You are either living in your mommas basement,
or drawing SS, or a government disability check.
Which is it?
People are suffering without jobs/decent jobs,
can’t buy food without FS,
can’t pay rent or mortgage,
can’t put 4 dollar gas in their cars,
soon to be 8 dollars per gallon if Blammer is reelected.
I voted early for Romney.
But it must be nice to have gov welfare
pay your bills?
Eh General Tso .
You might want to be a bit more selective as to who you apply the Tar. Any canceling of the Obummer-Circus tour will require the support of the elderly, you know, those on SS.
I understand and agree with your desire to Klunk the Glunk. Refrain from hitting friends.
When I read it, I thought he was talking about SS-disability which isn’t the elderly but a growing number of young people who are somehow able to get themselves declared disabled and collect SS, thereby draining funds from the SS system from those who it was meant for – the retired.
At the end of 2011 there were 8,576,067 people enrolled in the Social Security Disability Program who the SS administration calls “disabled worker beneficiaries”.
There was one month, this summer, I believe, that more people were added to the SS disability roles than were added to the payrolls. I think it was 85,000.
Obama plans to spread the wealth during his next four years.
“Put America Forward in a new direction, share the wealth of the future.”
My question is-
Where the hell is he going to spread it?
After we ever pay back 16 trillion dollars,
we are still broke.
16 trillion – minus 16 trillion is still nothing-0,
*this calculation provided for those no nothing democrats.
Beyond being bailed out BH has taken large positions in the last year in some of the very tech stocks that are actively advocating for and serving on panels to obtain an official US Industrial Policy where the government picks winners and losers. And especially protects favorites from the realities of Creative Destruction. There was yet another plea to now reject the ideology of free markets contained in a NRC report released yesterday called “The New Global Ecosystem in Advanced Computing: Implications for US Competitiveness and National Security.”
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/and-governments-must-facilitate-everything/ is the philosophy of that report. There is no mass prosperity in that vision and our current economic numbers reflect the dominance of this dirigiste outlook in this Administration and its Green Energy, education, and regulatory policies. Next Tuesday needs to be about rejecting this central planning by the elite using computers and all the personal data now being accumulated by tech companies.
You can expect a column from Paul “Invading Space Aliens Will Save the Economy” Krugman explaining why rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy is pivotal to our economic recovery. All you’ll hear Joe Biden exclaim that “the hurricane was the key component of our economic plan”. Krugman will win another Nobel Prize for his revolutionary “Broken Glass Economy” Theory.
Sadly, those of us in the real world understand that rebuilding is a net destroyer of wealth. We also understand that rebuilding in the impacted areas won’t start until 2188 when litigation over the Master Rebuilding Plan is finally litigated. The storm is a godsend for “activists” as the cities will be rebuilt the way they should have been built in the first place. Well, what little is actually rebuilt around the contemplation pools, nature preserves, bike trails, green belts and security checkpoints to keep undesirables away from the new gated community for esteemed members of the community. Kelo II? Yeah, we’ve got your Kelo right here.
Anyone that believes Obama CAN bring the economy into a more efficient performing model is terminally ignorant and gullible. He has NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
Obama re-election slogan should be:
forward, (BACKWARD), forward, (BACKWARD), forward, (BACKWARD).
You get the idea.
Our modern day Caesar: doing the Watusi from the golf course, while the nation burns…
An excellent post. Unfortunately, those capable of understanding are already among the converted. Further, the facts presented are of little value when conversing with liberals. Casting facts before liberals is like casting pearls before swine. In both cases they gobble them up, without comprehension, and what is returned is pork, pig$hit, and oink. Most often, all at the same time.
Where are these charts from?
I was curious about the full curve from 1970 to 2010, but the number I find are obviously using a different scale.
The thing is, they are obviously misleading. The economy is FAR weaker today than a 1.5% per-capita number indicates.
I think General Tso may be onto something, but without getting into the “blame Bush for everything” tangent.
I’ve read that it took over 10 years after the crash in 1929 for the job numbers to get back to the pre-crash figures. The Great Recession of 2008 was the worst economic collapse since the Depression. Stands to reason that things won’t get back to normal as quickly as some might want.
Maybe jobs could have been created quicker if industry was interested in doing so. One of Romney’s biggest supporters is casino magnate Sheldon Abelson. Nevada has around a 12% unemployment rate. But, instead of creating jobs in Vegas, Abelson creates them in Macau.
Perhaps Businesses would be interested in creating jobs if there were someting in it for them to do so.
Obama has created conditions wherein people do not want to be punished for making money, so expanding business is out of the question.
Little lesson for you:
Econ 101 – A business is not a Social Program. A business exists First to make a profit. Without Profit, the entire reason for business ceases to exist.
In order to make a profit, entrepreneurs create a system to deliver that which they beleive the public wants. If they are right (like say Bill Gates) they make a Profit, and expand what they are doing, by hiring more people, and make MORE Profit.
If they are wrong, the don’t last long, they don’t make money, and they have nothing with witch to hire anyone to assist in what they endeavour to do.
Final note: as we saw with Solyndra, if they produce something that Nobody wants, they go out of business after all the Government Cash runs out, so the Jobs are Temporary at best.
“I’ve read that it took over 10 years after the crash in 1929 for the job numbers to get back to the pre-crash figures. The Great Recession of 2008 was the worst economic collapse since the Depression. Stands to reason that things won’t get back to normal as quickly as some might want.”
No it doesn’t. The 1920-21 depression was almost as bad as 1929-1930 was initially, but the government didn’t think it was smarter than everyone else, and the economy recovered. Then Coolidge cut taxes, and the Roaring 20s ensued.
Hoover made the Great Depression worse by going with tax increases and public spending. FDR doubled, tripled and quadrupled down while adding heavy elements of command and control. That’s why the recovery from the Great Depression took so long. It might never have arrived if World War II hadn’t occurred.
The reason the recovery from this downturn is so pathetically weak has nothing to do with the severity of the downturn which preceded it, and everything to do with the Obama administration’s poor stewardship and hostility towards capitalism and capitalists in general (“you didn’t build that”).
AMEN!!!
Even FDR didn’t make a campaign promise to bankrupt major industries. This is completely without precedent. He’s monkeywrenching large and basic sectors of the economy on purpose.
“No it doesn’t. The 1920-21 depression was almost as bad as 1929-1930 was initially, but the government didn’t think it was smarter than everyone else, and the economy recovered. Then Coolidge cut taxes, and the Roaring 20s ensued. ”
Hahaha!
Oh Tom… The 1920-21 recession was ~3-6% drop in GDP, with unemployment spiking to about 10%. The Great Depression was ~25-35% drop in GDP, with unemployment spiking to well over 20%.
Almost the same, eh? Woof.
So if it was twice as bad, what’s your excuse for it taking far more than twice as long to recover?
I know why, it’s because the sort of Keynesian macroeconomic nonsense that FDR and Obamam both have adhered to are hindering the recovery, extending the crisis.
General Tso – “Oh Tom… The 1920-21 recession was ~3-6% drop in GDP, with unemployment spiking to about 10%. The Great Depression was ~25-35% drop in GDP, with unemployment spiking to well over 20%.” – General Tso
Tom Perkins – “So if it was twice as bad, what’s your excuse for it taking far more than twice as long to recover?”
Twice as bad. “Twice”. One more time – twice.
Because 25%-35% / 3-6% = Twice… Twice!
Tom, if your math skill are at least twice* as bad as your economic history (back to 1979!) then there’s hope for you yet. Bonus question: If the normal unemployment rate is around 5%, was the spike in unemployment anywhere near twice* as bad during the Great Depression?
* read: 2-100x
This is rich.
This doofus uses the 8 year tragic failure of the dart-board FDR admistration to defend an administration that has retraced the same failed policies 70 years later.
The country was no better off in 1940 than in 1932. Only war-time production solved the economic problem that would have self corrected by 1934 if FDR hadn’t decided that he had the right to experiment with the econonmy like an Edison on LSD.
This kind of ideologue is incapable of learning from the past.
Businesses exist to make a profit. This is why my huband has a job here in America for a German company. Germany made it unprofitable for that company to continue to business in Germany, so they outsourced to America. The scary thing that the Obama admin’s regulatory regime has so added to the cost of business that my husband’s employer is openly talking about facilities in Mexico, China and Australia. My husband has also been subtly asked a time or two if he would consider working abroad. This is all within the past four years. Prior to that, this same company was on an aggressive expansion path within the US with no plans to expand anywhere else. If Obama is re-elected, we’ve already decided that working abroad may be what we have to do to survive because the jobs certainly won’t be here.
Tom Blumer reply: “you didn’t build that….” Suggest you read what Obama actually said, not El Rushbo’s interpretation.
I know damned well what Obama and his “inspiration” Lizzie Warren said, and what they meant by what they said. They want the government to hog in on the credit for businesses built on entrepreneurs’ and investors’ hard work because (to oversimplify) the owners and investors drove government highways to and from work and supposedly benefited from other forms of government services (like schools, I suppose; but how much faster could they build their businesses and grow the economy if schools actually educated people?).
Their argument is pure class envy horse manure directed at people who already have underwritten a disproportionate share of those precious government services with their taxes at all levels.
He said they didn’t build that, when in fact, they paid for it.
And yes, their businesses, they built them. No one else did.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society*, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”" R. A. Heinlein
*Or they are taxed and regulated to vitiation by some who thinks they didn’t build that.
Report: Government Spent Enough On Welfare Programs In 2011 To Write Every Poor Household A $59,523 Check…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/30/report-government-spent-enough-on-welfare-programs-in-2011-to-write-every-poor-household-a-59523-check/
gee, I’d like that CHECK FOR 59k right about now!!! small business will take their ball and go home if Obama wins, that includes doctors too!! where do you think gov gets the green from?? same with big business/corp, US, *we the people* do people really need to learn the hard way??? we shall see……
Supreme Court Weighing ‘First Sale’ Copyright Doctrine BY DAVID KRAVETS 10.25.12
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/scotus-first-sale-2/
The failed economic policies of the last four years.
The failed economic policies of the last four years.
The failed economic policies of the last four years.
Gosh, that feels good to say after Obama’s last campaign of blaming Bush for “the failed economic policies of the last eight years.”
The liberal wish list of porkulus has to be a major cause of why the non-recovery lasted so long.
Why is gdp even measured? gdp is up over 2008 but incomes are down, and the negative incomes don’t even count the impact of inflation. GDP isn’t adjustef for inflation either, nor is it adjusted to reflect population growth. And then there is unmployment and under-employment to consider. Drive around. I live in a state that has done much better than most since 2008. But there is no new commercial contruction, and every every street corner has multiple closed businesses. For sale signs for homes are 1/10th what they were in any year prior to 2008. There are fewer restaurants. Many grocery stores have closed. New home construction is very low, even though there is a lot of land available. There is simply no way that this economy is even fractionally better than 2008.
So modestly improving gdp has to be an illusion, at least under the economic conditions since 2008. The only reason gdp is up by tiny percentages is because government spending has increased on average $1T annually, starting in 2009 and holding steady. But it’s a shell game, because more than 100% of the increase is money that was printed with no backing. It’s pretend money…just another way to borrow from the future. A steady $1T increase in government spending is about 6-7% of of a $15T economy. So if GDP is supposed to represent real economic activity, it isn’t increasing by 1-2%, it’s decreasing by 5-9% annually. I’m not totally opposed to borrowing either, since borrowing can be a legitimate way to get through hard economic times. But it can’t go on indefinitely, and the country shouldn’t pretend that things are ok by falsely proclaiming that gdp is increasing when it isn’t.
Moreover, the relatively good times from 2002 through 2008 may also have been an illusion, since at least some of the spending in those years was fueled by the real estate bubble. Whatever portion of GDP that was created by that bubble, like the fake GDP increase since 2008, has to eventually be paid back. It’s kind of like you went crazy and bought a lot of clothes and electronic junk because your stock portfolio was soaring, and then it crashed. You didn’t really have the money in the first place because you never cashed out, and now that your portfolio has crashed you have the junk but no way to pay it back. So the 2000′s probably were worse than people thought as well. Another way to look at it would be to say that if Bush increased the national debt by $4T over 8 years, that probably gave a fake boost of GDP of 3-4%, every year. And then whatever the increase in personal debt was during those years would have to be subracted from that.
Anybody who pays attention knows the unemployment statistics are massive lies. But nobody says the same for gdp, even though those statistics are just as massively false as unemployment.
We live in a age that can’t or won’t face reality. When the economy really crashes it might make 2008 and 2009 look like a walk in the park. I suppose Romney knows this if for no other reason than because Ryan understands stuff, and he is probably going to disappoint a lot of people when he implements austerity measures that nobody is really contemplating right now. And if the Fraud wins, we will sail along for a few more months or years, followed by an economic nuclear blast.
And if that isn’t bad enough, this discussion includes some of the impact of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but not all.
“Why is gdp even measured? gdp is up over 2008 but incomes are down, and the negative incomes don’t even count the impact of inflation. GDP isn’t adjustef for inflation either, nor is it adjusted to reflect population growth. ”
Well, the chart in question is “Real Per-capita GDP”. “Real” indicates it _is_ adjusted for inflation, as noted by the (in 2005 Chained Dollars) text. And “Per-capita” means that it is adjusted for population.
Look, when your foundational understanding of what we are talking about is so wrong, you need to take a step back and reevaluate the things you think you know. Those trees aren’t red no matter how hard you say they are…
Everything I said is factually correct. I wasn’t addressing Tom’s chart. His chart is GDP per capita, which is an unusual view. The common view of gdp is to show it on a quarterly basis for the country, and in that view, gdp is up, as in up 2% annualized in the latest report, and up a modest amount since obama took office. The common view, as I said, is not adjusted for inflation or for population. Tom’s chart is adjusted for population because it is a per capita view.
When you call somebody stupid, you should make sure that you aren’t being stupid yourself. I haven’t seen a thing you wrote that isn’t pitifully stupid.
Stupid and or pig ignorant.
I wonder if he is one the ones for whom history begins in 2000, and thinks Gore really won the election?
The 2% GDP growth numbers _is_ adjusted for inflation.
You’re heart is clearly in the right place, but these sorts of misunderstandings riddle your posts, and have led you down the proverbial rabbit hole.
You can’t read either. I did not say the recent (or any) 2% GDP rate is adjusted for inflation.
The government does not adjust any of its metrics for inflation, properly so, since the measurements of inflation are highly controversial. Inflation is always understated, because it is used to adjust SS payments. So, it is clear that the raw 2% number, even if one ignores the massive part of it that is created by government borrowing, does not in any way indicate that the economy is growing. Whatever inflation really is (probably around 5% at the moment, judging from food prices and medical costs), it certainly reduces that 2%, almost certainly making it negative. And population growth is slightly less than 1%. So, if the 2% could accurately be adjusted for inflation and population growth, it would be negative…BEFORE removing the annual $1 trillion that is “paid for” by increasing the national debt.
And btw, the recent 2% growth rate of gdp will be adjusted down in the next data publication, as 95% of initial gdp data points are by this disgustingly corrupt administration.
And furthermore, there are other considerations that diminish the value of gdp. Adjustment in inventory are one of the categories and there are probably many other factors that aren’t widely known. The proper parallel is to the employment statistics which obviously have been “tuned” by politicians for decades to make themselves look good. GDP is the same…a beloved propaganda tool of political criminals.
If you want to really know how the economy is doing, just drive to the strip mall on the corner. The closed shops there will tell you 50% of what you need to know. Another way to know is your personal budget. The other 50% is that without the massive government borrowing, conditions would be very similar to the Great Depression.
You can suck your thumb in your fantasy land if you want, fool, but ignoring the accumulating economic catastrophe won’t make it go away.
Weo – “The government does not adjust any of its metrics for inflation…”
Yes, it does. Anytime you see “real GDP” mentioned, which when talking about GDP growth numbers is almost always the case, the GDP _is_ adjusted for inflation. Nominal GDP growth last quarter was around 5%.
How can I help you get past this fundamental misunderstanding?
I got it – here is one of the BEA’s GDP releases. Scroll down to the “Current-dollar GDP” section, and note the difference between that – which isn’t adjusted for inflation – and the headline number. I think this will do the trick.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
How long are you Republicans going to carry on with your short-termism? There isn’t going to be any real recovery for at least a decade. The choice is between doing the things that will CAUSE an eventual recovery and the things that will cause the illusion of growth but also cause an even bigger collapse further down the line. Dubya opted for the former approach and look where it landed America! Mitt Romney would happily go the same route.
Remember it took Dubya eight years to CAUSE the collapse of the economy and the resultant depression. There was no way Obama could be expected to produce a feelgood factor in only four years (except at the price a subsequent collapse by emulating Dubya’s short-termism). Don’t expect to feel good during Obama’s next four years, but know this: what Obama is doing now will cause you to be in a better position later – even if you’re too proud to thank him. The Romney approach will produce a big feelgood FIRST and monumental COLLAPSE of the economy thereafter!
Lunatic nonsense.
This guy seems to think that adding 6 Trillion to the national debt (about 40% of national income) in less than four years is solving the problem. Lunatic is an understatement. And that doesn’t count the green energy scam, the cynical temporary prop-up of the UAW industry, the various la-la-land cash for clunkers programs, and the profoundly corrupt payback “stimulus” to obama’s unions backers. There has never been a more corrupt, cynical, and dangerous economic program, this side of the USSR’s five-year plans.
And Bush didn’t cause the problem, although his over spending certainly didn’t help. Loans to Deadbeats, the liberals’ wet dream unequivically caused the crash. It falsely inflated real estate valuations and crazily inflated personal debt to such a degree that even if the deadbeats could have paid the money back, a crash was inevitable. Loans to Deadbeats was a multi-trillion dollar libwit government redistribution program that failed catastrophically.
Actually it took Nancy Pelosi less than 24 months to CAUSE the collapse of the economy.
George W. Bush was taken to the cleaners by the MSM when he tried to do something to prevent the occurance that blew the Economy into its tailspin. Barney Frank spoke repeatedly that Bush was Nuts and there was NO Foundational Problem with FNMA and FMAC – and when they did collaps everyon blamed the guy that tried to stop it instead of the guy who said it wouldn’t happen.
This approach isn’t and won’t fix anything. The only approach that has any prayer of working is for the government to learn that is not immune to the same basic laws of economics that rest of us are subject to and start to balance its checkbook again. Until it does that, does it reliably and spends what it has wisely, all other revenue discussions should be off the table.
Your approach is basically keep giving me credit cards and eventually it’ll all work out. It’s the classic leftist approach of throwing money at a problem and thinking it will eventually all go away.
How central banks collude with corporations to control the government.
Corporatism Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUKsKL6DLwk
Does anyone know what kind of a boost the GDP got from the government’s purchase of 1.4 billion rounds of hollow-point bullets? Is that cheating?
Sure, multiply he cost of the bullet by 1.4 billion. Retail, hollow-points go for $1 to $2. Double that, at least for, the government.
Here’s the financial ledger:
+
a. obama gets the benefit of a gdp showing a few billion higher than it otherwise would be
b. the manufacturers of the bullets gets the same in new revenue
-
a. your children have to pay the few billion back, plus interest
b. the country is a few billion closer to an economic Niagra Falls
But in this case, the freedom ledger looks even worse…dangerously worse.
As the saying goes: “There are only three kinds of people in the world, those who can do math, and those who can’t.” Some “Progressive” idiot threw out the notion some time back that conservatives were less intelligent than their more enlightened brethren. I think the reverse is true. No one who can do math can be a progressive. It just won’t add up.
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of victims to steal from.
And if Obama (God forbid) is re-elected, the economy will certainly collapse in January. It has to. Plain economics mandates that it will. If Obama wins, on January 1, 2013, not only will the dreaded “Sequestration” kick in (those massive budget cuts to the Federal budget), but all of the Bush-era tax cuts will go away as well, which will hit both the upper AND the middle class as well.
Also, another dirty little secret that Obama is NOT telling you is that if Obamacare fully kicks in next year, over 20 new taxes will kick in as well. Two of those massive tax increases will affect capital gains and dividend income. If that takes place, you could see a massive selloff in the stock market in December of this year because investors will obviously want to cash in their stocks BEFORE January 1 so as to avoid paying the increases in dividend income and capital gains taxes. If Obama wins and Wall Street thinks these massive taxes are about to kick in, you could actually see a massive stock market crash take place before the end of the year. Some way to head into the New Year.
This economy has nowhere to go but down next year if Obama wins. The American people are beginning to realize that, which is why I think Romney will win.
OUTSTANDING NEWS: WARNING: THANKYOU “WOMEN ALONE” WHO VOTED FOR THE PREDICTED “FORIBBEN FOREIGNER” OF DEUTERONOMY 17:15(i.e., OBAMA IS ONLY NON-ANGLO-SAXON IN ALL OF HISTORY EVER TO LEAD AN ISRAELITE(ANGLO-SAXON) COUNTRY OF THEIR OWN ACCORD) BECAUSE NOW: “NO MORE CANAANITE IN HOUSE OF YAHWEH OF HOST”(ZECH. 14:21)! THAT’S FOREVER LADIES!!! AND, IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!! Just saying what’s already been written and NEEDS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION!
Gov. Gary Johnson at Colorado University, October. 29, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP-3krsbE2s
Boyfriends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asJMw_T61Q&feature=player_embedded
Both graphs cover an equivalent period of time. The Reagan graph illustrates a recovery. The Obama graph demonstrates no such thing. All one need do for corroboration of this is take a look around. This General Tso is chicken-headed. Probably a reincarnation of Thibeaud from Mead’s blog in The American Interest, they guy who prompted Mead to stop having comments. I would block the dude if he gets too wordy.