Reagan vs Obama: Raw Numbers of the 1st two years

[Truthmatters]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

 

[boedicca]

Um..that was the Paul Volcker "recession".

Reagan had nothing to do with it.

And Obama began his term with a huge recession bordering on outright depression. And a 0% interest rate. It was the beginning of an economic collapse heralded by George W. Bush.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The heartbreak of economic and political history on parade ^^^

No..I just pointed out one of the many fallacies of your many erroneous economic "analysis".

Reagan was President. The recession occurred during his term and was a major factor in his policies to get fix the economy.

 

[Jeremy]

 

[Twin Fist]

Obama helped CREATE the mess.

Fanny and Freddie.

end of story.

try again

 

[boedicca]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

No he wasn't.

The misery index was 20.76 when Reagan took office. It was 9.61 when Obama took office.

The difference between the two is that Reagan's policies improved the index while Obama's are making it worse.

 

[Truthmatters]

Please prove Obamas numbers are worse as claimed?

 

[Truthmatters]

Obama helped CREATE the mess.

Fanny and Freddie.

end of story.

try again

Please now realize that the ONLY people who believe this was caused by the FMs are right wing republicans.

The economists dont agree with you.

 

[boedicca]

I already linked to the Misery Index by year in this thread in post #11. If you can't bother to click on the link, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Jeremy]

Comparing two completely different economic conditions seperated by 3 decades is fucking stupid.
This thread is the laziest attempt at scoring political points I've seen in quite some time.

 

[Trajan]

There were two entirely different recessions.

The first recession, known as the "Second Oil Shock Recession" was over in July of 1980, before Reagan took office.

The second recession in the early 80's, known as the "Volcker Recession" began in August of 1981 and lasted officially for 16 months.

http://www.econ.tcu.edu/harvey/50453/recessions.pdf

hummmm, so according to that link the recession, the sub prime recession is a 'recession' and we have not ended the 'recession'....



The National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter of the start and end dates of a recession, determined that the recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009.

The business-cycle dating committee met by phone on Sunday and came to the determination. “In determining that a trough occurred in June 2009, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month,” the committee said in a statement. The 2007-2009 recession is the longest in the post-WWII period.

NBER: The Recession Ended in June 2009 - CBS MoneyWatch.com


As many economists had expected, this official end date makes the most recent downturn the longest since World War II. This recent recession, having begun in December 2007, lasted 18 months. Until now the longest postwar recessions were those of 1973-5 and 1981-2, which each lasted 16 months.

The newly-declared end-date to the recession also confirms what many had suspected: The 2007-9 recession was the deepest on record since the Great Depression, at least in terms of job losses.

Recession and expansion dates are based on various economic indicators, including gross domestic product, income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales. The Business Cycle Dating Committee typically waits to declare that the economy has turned until well after the fact, when it has a longer track record of economic data to confirm a new trend.

The Recession Has (Officially) Ended - NYTimes.com



so Reagans 1981-82 recession (winter 82)
Last Four Recessions and their Durations
12/07 - 6/09 18 months
3/01 - 11/01 8 months
7/90 - 3/91 8 months
7/81 - 11/82 16 months
http://www.nber.org/


so, how long after the end of the recession did it take to experience sustained GDP growth, start lowering unemployment AND raising the labor participation rate ( while it was strengthening the dollar, lowering high interest rates and reducing inflation etc.?)

 

[Vast LWC]

Comparing two completely different economic conditions seperated by 3 decades is fucking stupid.
This thread is the laziest attempt at scoring political points I've seen in quite some time.

Yes, of course. Numbers don't matter, facts don't matter.

Only spin matters.

Right?

 

[Twin Fist]

Obama helped CREATE the mess.

Fanny and Freddie.

end of story.

try again

Please now realize that the ONLY people who believe this was caused by the FMs are right wing republicans.

The economists dont agree with you.

sez YOU.

 

[Trajan]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

uh huh, according to krugman the reagan expansion was a given because the economy had farther back to come from....so? its been 18months since the end of the recession, when do we start since, you know , since bush put us in the worse shape of the history of the world?



see, thats what you get when you try to thread the needle and blab talking points because you hate someone.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

No he wasn't.

The misery index was 20.76 when Reagan took office. It was 9.61 when Obama took office.

The difference between the two is that Reagan's policies improved the index while Obama's are making it worse.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that chart represents.

The numbers on that site mark Reagan's unemployment numbers as becoming significantly higher in the first two years of his term, and inflation still growing, while Obama's numbers are much lower.

But the "misery index", which according to the chart measures unemployment + inflation, is higher for Obama. What does that even mean? Spin perhaps?

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

uh huh, according to krugman the reagan expansion was a given because the economy had farther back to come from....so? its been 18months since the end of the recession, when do we start since, you know , since bush put us in the worse shape of the history of the world?



see, thats what you get when you try to thread the needle and blab talking points because you hate someone.

Personally, I'm not going to debate who's situation was worse. I think Obama may have been handed a slightly harsher situation, because of the two wars and all, but that is debatable. And, admittedly, Carter was a really crappy president, I won't argue that point.

That's why I just up the raw numbers in the OP, and left interpretation up to the reader.

 

[Truthmatters]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

 

[Trajan]

Are you missing the fact that Obama was handed a bigger mess than Ronnie and had better number even in that light?

No he wasn't.

The misery index was 20.76 when Reagan took office. It was 9.61 when Obama took office.

The difference between the two is that Reagan's policies improved the index while Obama's are making it worse.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what that chart represents.

The numbers on that site mark Reagan's unemployment numbers as becoming significantly higher in the first two years of his term, and inflation still growing, while Obama's numbers are much lower.

thats why I asked you when the recession ended ala reagan and obama....( my answer is a page back btw).....

the yardstick must start at that point. I won't even go into why it was important Reagan had to back Volcker, Reagan owns it........just saying 2 years really means little , time is not linear vis a vis economic movement/effect etc. its a sliding scale.

But the "misery index", which according to the chart measures unemployment + inflation, is higher for Obama. What does that even mean? Spin perhaps?

no, its not spin, it means 18 months after the end of the recession ( 6-09) we are not yet, making up any ground, anywhere.

 

[Trajan]

lets all remember the numbers say that this economic situation is far worse than what Reagan was handed.

That is not debateable folks

 

[SFC Ollie]

Fudge a bunch of numbers. What the hell do they mean?

The fact is that Barack Obama is not Ronnie Reagan.

 

[Sallow]

You are confusing Reagan with Clinton.

The bubble dotcom/telecom/Y2K economy was a faux era of growth.

Reagan tames inflation and enabled the real economy to create jobs.

Bullshit.

The fallacy of the "dot.com bust" is that is was largely cleaned up prior to George W. Bush assuming office. And basically it represented a good number of businesses trying to figure out what to do with the new business model the Clinton whitehouse rolled out.

It's wildly successful now. ECNs are just one example of that.

I'll just chalk this up to your extreme lack of business experience.

The Y2K bubble pulled forward a great deal of tech spending.

The dotcom and resulting telecom bubbles resulted in a huge amount of tech spending which, after the bubble burst, created a huge inventory of used equipment. This overhang of used inventory took a few years to liquidate.

Add 9/11 to the mix, and the period of 2001-2004 was Very Grim for tech companies

I'll chalk this up to your lack of experience in macro economics.

The huge inventory of surplus gear was absorbed very quickly by foreign markets..or I guess you missed to whole off shoring and near shoring thingies..

And it also forced companies like Cisco and Nortell to come out with better technologies to compete. I guess you missed the advent of switches..and such. But being such an economic "expert" maybe you were writing a paper while that was happening.

Bush took office with a strong market, low unemployment and a deficit surplus. Given the opportunities he had..he chose to buttress the coffers of the very wealthy..by making them even wealthier by passing a very unpopular tax cut. This did next to nothing for the economy. Then he cut interest rates down. This did a little more..but not by much. I call the "Sloshing cash out of one pocket into another pocket" strategy used by Reagan to fake numbers. Cap that off with some very expensive social programs geared to benefit big pharma, starving regulators of cash, and starting 2 unpaid for wars that were kept off budget and you have the real makings of economic disaster.

But all that goes "whooooooosh" right over your head because you are nothing more then a cheerleader for failed Norquist/Friedman lunacy.