Increasing Unemployment = Recovery?

[uscitizen]

Well duh. Obamanomics is going to end up in Stagflation. The Fed grossly expanded the money supply with nearly free money to the banking system. That money is now seeking commodity assets as Treasuries are forming a bubble.

yes we will go into stagflation byut the causes predated Obama by quite a few years.


I still chuckle about all the "experts" back in about 2007 saying it would just be an adjustment and be over in 6 months or so.

 

[boedicca]

Some of the causes have been building since the Federal Reserve was formed, but others, such as ObamaCare, The Financial Reform Bill, and The Stimulus package which have to date increased the size of government by 25% as a ratio of GDP are Obama's Fault.

 

[uscitizen]

Obama and his cadre of experts have not a clue what to do. or if they do they do not have the balls to do it.

You expect Obama, a politician to be smarter about economics than the "experts" that contributed to the problem and were blind to it's results?

Just like the last admin. We are in a more of the same will fix the problem mode of misoperation.

 

[8537]

The average GDP growth for the Obama recover is 3% - that 's about how much we need to keep unemployment flat based on population growth.

Contrast that 3% with the average GDP growth of 7.7% during the Reagan Recovery.

Eh, you mean after the second recession under Reagan? Perhaps Reagan isn't a good comparison in light of the strong double-dip we experienced then.

What's the difference: Reagan' policies encouraged real private sector growth that creates jobs. Obama's just props up the bloated government that cause the problems in the first place.

You mean after more than two years in office? It's interesting you mention government jobs vs. private sector. I presume you realize government jobs have been shrinking in recent months while private sector has been growing....right?

Government jobs are shrinking after being temporarily inflated with 1.2M census related jobs.

The private sector should be generating 250K+ jobs per month by now. Obamanomics has killed job creation.

So did Bushomics kill job creation? The economy under Bush took didn't start creating jobs until late 2003.

Bushomics killed job creation!!!!?!

As to the Reagan Recovery, I'm talking about the one after the Volcker Money Supply Contraction which reduced inflation from the 13.6% Carteresque level to 3.2% in 1983. The recession ended high inflation, after which the tax cuts that went into effect in 1983 fueled an significant economic expansion.

Well, at least you admit it was Volcker who solved the economic problem. That second expansion began one year after the largest tax hike since WW2, and grew through the a near - doubling of the payroll tax.

The tax cuts went into effect in 1981. TEFRA - the largest hike after WW2 - went into effect in 1983.

 

[boedicca]

Oops typo. The tax cuts went into effect in 1982; the bill was passed in 1981.

16M real jobs were added to the economy during Reagan's 8 years in office. The number of people counted as employed increased by 16M - Real Jobs for Real People. It wasn't just Volcker's monetary policy that caused that, although taming inflation certainly helped.

Contrast that with the loss of over 3M real jobs formerly held by real people during Obama's term to date. The number of Employed People has decreased by 3M.

You can check the BLS data for confirmation.

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

 

[uscitizen]

Actually many got tax increases in 82. I had to start paying additional taxes for the first time in my life.
Individuals lost many tax deductions they previously had.

 

[Oddball]

Well duh. Obamanomics is going to end up in Stagflation. The Fed grossly expanded the money supply with nearly free money to the banking system. That money is now seeking commodity assets as Treasuries are forming a bubble.

yes we will go into stagflation byut the causes predated Obama by quite a few years.


I still chuckle about all the "experts" back in about 2007 saying it would just be an adjustment and be over in 6 months or so.

It may well have, if it weren't for all the Keynesian screwing around that came from Chimpola and Barry Obolshevek.

 

[Toro]

In 40 of the 96 months Bush was President, the nonfarm payrolls number was negative.

I'm not blaming that on Bush but I think people don't understand the deep structural problems of the economy that have been going on for a decade.

 

[boedicca]

Bush took office after the DotCom bubble burst and then we had 9/11. The fact that the economy recovered as quickly as it did was due to tax cuts. If he had pulled an Obama, unemployment would have sky-rocketed.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I am a simple retired Sergeant. I do not pretend to understand all these numbers. I am by far no expert on economics. But I do know that 9.6% unemployment is worse than 9.5% unemployment and if unemployment is getting higher the economy can't be getting better.

I also know when someone is pissing on my shoe......

 

[CMike]

It's all Bush's fault

 

[uscitizen]

In 40 of the 96 months Bush was President, the nonfarm payrolls number was negative.

I'm not blaming that on Bush but I think people don't understand the deep structural problems of the economy that have been going on for a decade.

Bingo!

I think people are in denial about the depth of the problem/s we face as a nation.

 

[Toro]

Bush took office after the DotCom bubble burst and then we had 9/11. The fact that the economy recovered as quickly as it did was due to tax cuts. If he had pulled an Obama, unemployment would have sky-rocketed.

The 2003-04 recovery was the weakest recovery since at least WWII. It produced relatively anemic economic growth and the lowest rate of job creation. Incomes for most people were stagnant or grew little. Not only that but it was estimated that as much as 40% of the growth and job creation was directly or indirectly tied to the housing bubble, not exactly a stable foundation.

Again, I don't blame Bush for that but the economy was poor.

 

[uscitizen]

Govt spending was the main thing that kept the economy looking better than it deserved under Bush.

Well that and high energy prices.

 

[boedicca]

Some people, i.e. the ones who think that adding to our debt levels will somehow result in prosperity, are. Many of us aren't - and oppose the Big Government policies that are destroying our economy.

 

[boedicca]

Govt spending was the main thing that kept the economy looking better than it deserved under Bush.

Well that and high energy prices.

If Government spending is what made the economy under Bush better, than we should be roaring along right now.

It was the tax cuts that spurred enough economic growth to undo much of the damage of the dotcom bubble and 9/11. But they were not enough to undo decades of building damage from entitlement programs and misguided government regulation, especially in relation to the mortgage industry.

 

[uscitizen]

Govt spending was the main thing that kept the economy looking better than it deserved under Bush.

Well that and high energy prices.

If Government spending is what made the economy under Bush better, than we should be roaring along right now.

It was the tax cuts that spurred enough economic growth to undo much of the damage of the dotcom bubble and 9/11. But they were not enough to undo decades of building damage from entitlement programs and misguided government regulation, especially in relation to the mortgage industry.

Umm other realities set in. Like jobs leaving America, converting to a consumer driven economy. The debt level both public and private....

 

[boedicca]

What do you think caused the private and public debt?

 

[loosecannon]

Unemployment increases during virtually ever recovery.

Of course! Two plus two equals five.

Of course facts are facts. And the fact is that employment lagged much more dramatically in previous recessions.

No it didn't. What you speak of is a relatively new trend that is increasingly pronounced with each successive recession.

The difference between 1942 when your assertion was absolutely NOT manifest and today is that today's recessions are like tectonic shift moments (earthquakes) in which the inertia of outsourcing jobs and industries happens in large, fast spurts.

And the successively increasing substance of the point you are making provides an explanation for why there will be no employment recovery for perhaps more than a decade. and even that will only result because the bulk of the baby boomers pass from the workforce in a large exodus, leaving vacancies to be filled by younger applicants.

Of course facts are facts. And the fact is that employment lagged much more dramatically in previous recessions.

Wait ten years and be proven absolutely wrong.

Meanwhile stop claiming as facts that which is not in evidence yet. The unemployment rate is rising.

 

[loosecannon]

Govt spending was the main thing that kept the economy looking better than it deserved under Bush.

Well that and high energy prices.

If Government spending is what made the economy under Bush better, than we should be roaring along right now....and a whole lot more debt.

It was the tax cuts that spurred enough economic growth to undo much of the damage of the dotcom bubble and 9/11. But they were not enough to undo decades of building damage from entitlement programs and misguided government regulation, especially in relation to the mortgage industry.

chorttle worthy nonsense.

There was nothing but a papering over of the dot com bubble during Bush's admin.

And even that veneer was not the result of the tax cuts but of the uber low, nearly zero interest rates that immediately followed.

Those interest rates, btw, answer your next question: What caused the high levels of private and public debt.

Under Bush we did nothing to correct the economy except to trade one massive bubble for three smaller ones that were more massive as a trio.