GDP Would Have Been 15% Lower Had McCain Been Elected

[Toro]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

 

[Neubarth]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

As a registered Democrat, I suppose this should make me smile.

Being a realist, I know this is political tripe. Bush started an effort to add to employment and that was continued by Obma with the stimulus bill enforcement. The only problem is that outside of the ineffective stimulus package, Bernanke and Geitner are just solving the GDP problem. They have managed to manipulate GDP up in corruption with the Banks who are indebted to this corrupt administration, and are now claiming a victory.

Yep, they have beaten GDP. Now they just have to solve the Depression Problem.

 

[eagleseven]

At first glance, I was quite surprised that a MIT professor would make such hyper-partisan speculation.

Surprised until I noticed this was the New York Times...

 

[FactFinder]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

As a registered Democrat, I suppose this should make me smile.

Being a realist, I know this is political tripe. Bush started an effort to add to employment and that was continued by Obma with the stimulus bill enforcement. The only problem is that outside of the ineffective stimulus package, Bernanke and Geitner are just solving the GDP problem. They have managed to manipulate GDP up in corruption with the Banks who are indebted to this corrupt administration, and are now claiming a victory.

Yep, they have beaten GDP. Now they just have to solve the Depression Problem.

For this Independent it is a fresh breeze to hear a realistic, pragmatic statement from a Dem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know how they could calculate it realistically, so I wouldn't take it to heart. But my question is why would it matter if one artificial GDP number is less than another artificial GDP number?

 

[eagleseven]

Actually, upon second thought, I agree with the OP.

Why?

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Obama has increased government spending by more than 15%...dramatically increasing the "government spending" portion of the GDP. If McCain chose an anti-debt fiscal plan, government spending would decrease, and so would GDP. It's simple mathematics.

Of course, Obama's government-spending spike in GDP has produced little in the way of real economic growth, but it pads the numbers. Padding the numbers seems to be the only thing this Administration has achieved...

 

[Paulie]

I didn't even read the article, I automatically assumed it had something to do with how much less McCain would have apparently spent...according to his campaign rhetoric.

I like Kevin's response though.

 

[The Rabbi]

Eagleseven is exactly right.
I don't know what McCain would have done. I doubt anybody actually does.
The right course of course was to backstop the banks and let the other institutions go under in an orderly bankruptcy. The recession would have been more severe initially but we would have been done with it much faster. The resulting growth from resources freed up for more efficient use would have powered an unprecedented surge in GDP (the healthy kind) down the road.
As it is, we are faced with anemic growth and stagnant industries for the foreseeable future. That future also includes stagflation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

Of all your posts, this may be the most fun of all those that you "saved or created."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

As a registered Democrat, I suppose this should make me smile.

Being a realist, I know this is political tripe. Bush started an effort to add to employment and that was continued by Obma with the stimulus bill enforcement. The only problem is that outside of the ineffective stimulus package, Bernanke and Geitner are just solving the GDP problem. They have managed to manipulate GDP up in corruption with the Banks who are indebted to this corrupt administration, and are now claiming a victory.

Yep, they have beaten GDP. Now they just have to solve the Depression Problem.

You are so right.

Sometimes the NYTimes should be corrected, as in

“make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich”


Comparing the income changes of various groups from a) 1996-2005 and b)1987- 1996
Poor +109% +81%
Middle Class +26% +9%
Rich +9% -2%
SuperRich -23% -24%
UltraSuperRich -65% n/a
(http://treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

 

[garyd]

Given that Mccain had already embraced TARP spending much of the assumption for such numbers is inherently flawed.

Further, borrowing of this magnitude amounts to little more than deferring the time the crash hits -hopefully (their point of view not mine) until the Republicans are in power which sems increasingly likely as in catering to the 20% leftist kooks in this country the Dems are committing political suicide.

 

[Oddball]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

Glad you doubt it, because it's entirely unprovable.

 

[Toro]

You are so right.

Sometimes the NYTimes should be corrected, as in

“make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich”


Comparing the income changes of various groups from a) 1996-2005 and b)1987- 1996
Poor +109% +81%
Middle Class +26% +9%
Rich +9% -2%
SuperRich -23% -24%
UltraSuperRich -65% n/a
(http://treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I scanned the pdf file and didn't see these numbers.

I do know that the poor did not see income double from 95-06 nor did the ultra super rich see a decline of 65%.

EDIT - Okay, I see what they did.

This is a paper based on income mobility. What they are saying is that individuals in the lowest quintile saw their incomes double over ten years while individuals in the highest quintile saw their incomes drop by two-thirds.

This is easy to understand. If you were a student in 1996 making $10k a year, and you were a professional making $45k a year in 2005, your income rose 450%. If you were a professional athlete in 1996 making $2 million a year then you were coaching high school football in 2005 making 35k, your income dropped by 98%.

It doesn't tell us anything about each quintile in general, however. It doesn't tell us what the average person who was in the lowest and highest quintiles made during that time.

 

[The Rabbi]

But that's exactly the point.
The people in the highest levels of income are not the same people year to year. Same with the lowest.
I am a good example. In 2006 I sold a building I had owned for about 6 years. It was the real estate boom and I made a pretty good profit. It put my income in the top 10% of filers.
The next year I didnt sell anything and my wife took time off from work to care for our baby. Our income was in the lowest 20%.
This happens a lot more often than you would think.

 

[Paulie]

Like McCain wouldn't have come in with some kind of Keynesian spending bill if he'd been president.

Anyone who thinks that is an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral landslide victory averted a global financial meltdown. Had John McCain won that election, the present G.D.P. in the United States would have been even lower than it is now by more than 15 percent. Similar losses in global productivity would also have taken place.

Hail then the flexibility of Chairman Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve and of the European Central Bank for embracing activist fiscal policy for the first time since the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the governors of the European central banks avoided the preventive policies that could have averted most of the present meltdown. They had falsely believed that unregulated capitalism could dodge the bullet of depression. That’s proved to be a wrong belief everywhere.

The 2008 election brought an end to Bush administration blunders, and to other post-Reagan “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich” enactments. These are bad morals and not justified by higher growth efficiency. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1

Glad you doubt it, because it's entirely unprovable.

I think Toro agrees, as he comments in the OP along that line.

But, unprovability is the #1 strategy of the administration and its fellow travelers.

Isn't that how they got away with the so-called 'stimulus' bill?

The ‘experts’ told us that huge trillion dollar stimulus packages were necessary to prevent the entire economy from imploding. And the best part of the advice is that there is no way to disprove that it might have happened!
So, the federal government committed over $80 billion to bail out GM, Chrysler, and GMAC to save about 320,000 jobs. We could have given each one of the workers $250,000 and it would have been cheaper.
The $787 billion ‘stimulus’ plan is supposed to create three and a half million jobs (Economy | The White House) or $225,000 per job.