Remember the 1980's?

[midcan5]

yes carter deserves a lot of credit...He gave Reagan an all but dead economy...double digit inflation...and Reagan gave us one of the fastest growing economies in American history

You need to read a bit of history and stop listening to fantasy. Those of us who were there know stuff you tools need to learn.


"Well, the textbooks basically invoke two factors. One was a series of “adverse supply shocks”, mainly the huge runup in the price of oil. The other was excessively expansionary monetary policy, especially in 1972-3, which allowed expectations of inflation to become entrenched. (Ken Rogoff — a Republican, by the way — attributes that expansion to the desire of Arthur Burns to see Richard Nixon reelected.)"

The stagflation myth - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Reagan was the worst president in modern times - and as a person who has lived in corporate America for a long time, what he did to the working people with his destruction of law and his firing of the air traffic controllers is worse than the idiocy that is W.

"Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side." The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else. Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits. Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."

However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong. Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon. After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."

Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

" [In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."

"Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."

American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan

(The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)

 

[Wicked Jester]

OK, I see the problem. I am dealing with an ignoramus. I should have guessed as much.
The economy is measured by GDP, that is the value of all goods and services produced by the economy. The stock market is not the economy.
In fact according the BEA, the economy contracted by -4.6% in the first quarter of this year and -.8% in the second quarter.

The stock market is represented by investors in the "goods and services" which account for GDP. Therefore it is indeed a measurement of how well the economy is faring. Leading up to the GDP decline, the decline in North American financial assets during 2008 was $8.1 trillion. A tidy sum that never got recirculated back into the economy.

And now I'm going to have to put you on ignore. I'll still be able to see what you posted if someone else copies it, but at least I won't be treated to your disgusting avatar anymore. People like you want to be taken seriously, but act out like pond scum.

Its not that Rabbi's avatar is disgusting. What says more about the Rabbi is that he somehow finds it funny

It is funny.
Al Gore talking shit, AS USUAL.
No substance, JUST SHIT!

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy has already grown under Obama. Under Bush, our economy lost $11 trillion in the stock market crash. Since Obama has been president, the economy has regained $4.6 trillion

OK, I see the problem. I am dealing with an ignoramus. I should have guessed as much.
The economy is measured by GDP, that is the value of all goods and services produced by the economy. The stock market is not the economy.
In fact according the BEA, the economy contracted by -4.6% in the first quarter of this year and -.8% in the second quarter.

The stock market is represented by investors in the "goods and services" which account for GDP. Therefore it is indeed a measurement of how well the economy is faring. Leading up to the GDP decline, the decline in North American financial assets during 2008 was $8.1 trillion. A tidy sum that never got recirculated back into the economy.

And now I'm going to have to put you on ignore. I'll still be able to see what you posted if someone else copies it, but at least I won't be treated to your disgusting avatar anymore. People like you want to be taken seriously, but act out like pond scum.

Good. Because you're obviously a fucking idiot without a clue what she's talking about. The stock market is not "represented" by investors. Investors buy and sell in the market, that's it. The market can be a leading indicator of the overall health of the economy. But that wasn't what was claimed. What was claimed involves confusing GDP, a measure of overall production in the U.S., with "the stock market" (the Dow? The Russell? The S&P?) which is the aggregate price for all listed companies.
Anyone who confuses these two couldn't tell the difference between the Electoral College and Harvard College.