A record of recovery

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Come on, it's very simple :The economy under Bush=sh!t
The economy under Clinton=fvcking fantastic.
Anything else is spin. And you work really hard at it. I'm proud of you.

So you say that 5.6 unemployment under clinton is fscking fantastic
And 5.6 unemployment under bush is shi!t?

I am glad we have that cleared up. But it looks likes you are the one doing the spinning.

Clinton was fortunate to be President during the Dot.Com boom and was smart enough to be hands off. He also was forced to be more fiscally conservative due to Congress being taken over by the Republicans, Bush on the other hand became President at the time of the Dot.Com bust and 9/11. In addition he has his own party in Congress which hasn't kept him fiscally responsible.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I'm not going to say that Clinton had nothing at all to do with our economic growth in the '90s but come on people. The '90s were a boom that doesn't come around very often and neither Clinton, Perot, Bush, Dole, etc. would have been able to stop the tech explosion. Hell, I could have been President and looked good during the mid to late 90's.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Unemployment rates ignore 'frustrated workers' who would normally be considered thse who have given up their job search due to a prolonged lack of success. Canada recently had the unusual, but entirely possible situation of an increase in both the employment rate of the general population, and the unemployment rate of those who identified themselves as 'in the work force'. Effectively, enough frustrated workers resumed their job search to make the unemployment rate increase, even though job creation far out-stripped population growth in the period.

Under-employment should be a concern at almost any level. It means the economy is not producing efficiently because it is wasting resources that could be employed to greater effect elsewhere. It may be a matter of semantics if someone is working a relatively good job, but is qualified for another that pays a little more or is a little more porductive. University grads managing gas bars would be a legitimate concern though, and that seems to be the sort of thing that's a little more prvalent todya than five or six years ago (not an exclusively American problem; lots of countries including Canada have the same phenomenon causing problems).

Frictional unemployment is unavoidable, at some relatively low rate. I would go far enough to say 5.6% actual unemployment would be pretty reasonable, since it means roughly 6-8 months of job search for every 20 years of employment. That is hardly unusual, even for highly qualified, capable employees. The reported unemployment rate is however always biased lower than the actual rate by discounting frustrated workers, unemployed students and the underemployed. The real rate is much harder to calculate.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Unemployment rates ignore 'frustrated workers' who would normally be considered thse who have given up their job search due to a prolonged lack of success. Canada recently had the unusual, but entirely possible situation of an increase in both the employment rate of the general population, and the unemployment rate of those who identified themselves as 'in the work force'. Effectively, enough frustrated workers resumed their job search to make the unemployment rate increase, even though job creation far out-stripped population growth in the period.

Under-employment should be a concern at almost any level. It means the economy is not producing efficiently because it is wasting resources that could be employed to greater effect elsewhere. It may be a matter of semantics if someone is working a relatively good job, but is qualified for another that pays a little more or is a little more porductive. University grads managing gas bars would be a legitimate concern though, and that seems to be the sort of thing that's a little more prvalent todya than five or six years ago (not an exclusively American problem; lots of countries including Canada have the same phenomenon causing problems).

Frictional unemployment is unavoidable, at some relatively low rate. I would go far enough to say 5.6% actual unemployment would be pretty reasonable, since it means roughly 6-8 months of job search for every 20 years of employment. That is hardly unusual, even for highly qualified, capable employees. The reported unemployment rate is however always biased lower than the actual rate by discounting frustrated workers, unemployed students and the underemployed. The real rate is much harder to calculate.

Aye, this further illustrates my point earlier that the original poster's graph is incomplete.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.

Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.

not correct. The economy started to contract under his term.

It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.

Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.

So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?

No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.

Your grasping. After 4 years in office the two presidents are presiding over very similar economies. That is what the economic data states. There us a major difference however, the trough of the recession occured before clinton took office and it occured during Bushs term(started the last year clinton was in office). I blame neither president for the recession, as they have a lot of do with business cycles.

 

[Gravity]

The facts of our economic growth seem to be confusing to those that don't want to believe it.

Guess that takes the "it's the economy, stupid" arrow out of the democrats quiver.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.

Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.

not correct. The economy started to contract under his term.

It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.

Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.

So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?

No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.

Your grasping. After 4 years in office the two presidents are presiding over very similar economies. That is what the economic data states. There us a major difference however, the trough of the recession occured before clinton took office and it occured during Bushs term(started the last year clinton was in office). I blame neither president for the recession, as they have a lot of do with business cycles.

Dude, read my post completely, then come back. In no remote possible, earthly way am I grasping anything, in either direction. Just because your evidence was incomplete doesn't make my analysis of said incomplete evidence invalid, especially since I didn't give any President a direct endorsement either way.

To sum up again for you: Can't tell ANYTHING with that little graph, good for Bush, bad for Bush, good for Clinton, bad for Clinton, nothing! Got it?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.

Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.

not correct. The economy started to contract under his term.

It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.

Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.

So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?

No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.

Your grasping. After 4 years in office the two presidents are presiding over very similar economies. That is what the economic data states. There us a major difference however, the trough of the recession occured before clinton took office and it occured during Bushs term(started the last year clinton was in office). I blame neither president for the recession, as they have a lot of do with business cycles.

You guys act like economics is so simple. I question whether either of you have even taken an econ course much less mastered it. Neither president exerts any where near the control you're giving them credit for. The cycles of recession and growth are largely independent of presedential policy. Sure they can slightly improve or hurt the economy but they don't have the affect you guys are implying they do. The bubble would have burst no matter who had been in office. Just like the tech boom would have occured even if the republicans had been in office.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.

Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.

not correct. The economy started to contract under his term.

It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.

Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.

So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?

No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.

Your grasping. After 4 years in office the two presidents are presiding over very similar economies. That is what the economic data states. There us a major difference however, the trough of the recession occured before clinton took office and it occured during Bushs term(started the last year clinton was in office). I blame neither president for the recession, as they have a lot of do with business cycles.

You guys act like economics is so simple. I question whether either of you have even taken an econ course much less mastered it. Neither president exerts any where near the control you're giving them credit for. The cycles of recession and growth are largely independent of presedential policy. Sure they can slightly improve or hurt the economy but they don't have the affect you guys are implying they do. The bubble would have burst no matter who had been in office. Just like the tech boom would have occured even if the republicans had been in office.

Who said I was trying to give either President anything? It's HIS post, it's HIS evidence, it's HIS assumption to start the thread.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: tss4
You guys act like economics is so simple. I question whether either of you have even taken an econ course much less mastered it. Neither president exerts any where near the control you're giving them credit for. The cycles of recession and growth are largely independent of presedential policy. Sure they can slightly improve or hurt the economy but they don't have the affect you guys are implying they do. The bubble would have burst no matter who had been in office. Just like the tech boom would have occured even if the republicans had been in office.

The trouble is every second poster here has taken first year economics and learned how to cross lines on a backwards graph. You can tell the people who understand more economics because they never offer a one-sentence solution to a nation-wide (or world-wide!) problem based on an 'economic analysis'.

Edit - "every other" changed to "every second" for clarity.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: tss4
You guys act like economics is so simple. I question whether either of you have even taken an econ course much less mastered it. Neither president exerts any where near the control you're giving them credit for. The cycles of recession and growth are largely independent of presedential policy. Sure they can slightly improve or hurt the economy but they don't have the affect you guys are implying they do. The bubble would have burst no matter who had been in office. Just like the tech boom would have occured even if the republicans had been in office.

The trouble is every second poster here has taken first year economics and learned how to cross lines on a backwards graph. You can tell the people who understand more economics because they never offer a one-sentence solution to a nation-wide (or world-wide!) problem based on an 'economic analysis'.

Edit - "every other" changed to "every second" for clarity.

Thank you. I think.


But just in case, the original post stated that Bush's economy is doing great! Look at the numbers! Well, if that was the evidence he's using, then it actually says kind of the opposite (just from looking at that evidence solely). Like I said, that evidence is incomplete in any direction, but I offered up my analysis on that graph as an individual entity, like the original post invited me to and then further clarified my overall non-position.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.

Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.

not correct. The economy started to contract under his term.

It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.

Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.

So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?

No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.

Your grasping. After 4 years in office the two presidents are presiding over very similar economies. That is what the economic data states. There us a major difference however, the trough of the recession occured before clinton took office and it occured during Bushs term(started the last year clinton was in office). I blame neither president for the recession, as they have a lot of do with business cycles.

To sum up again for you: Can't tell ANYTHING with that little graph, good for Bush, bad for Bush, good for Clinton, bad for Clinton, nothing! Got it?

Maybe you should read your own post, because you did just that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Thank you. I think.


But just in case, the original post stated that Bush's economy is doing great! Look at the numbers! Well, if that was the evidence he's using, then it actually says kind of the opposite (just from looking at that evidence solely). Like I said, that evidence is incomplete in any direction, but I offered up my analysis on that graph as an individual entity, like the original post invited me to and then further clarified my overall non-position.

I'm rarely upset when someone takes a good look at data and realizes it cna't be used to make sweeping genealizations about 'the state of the world'.

This time is not an exception; while I agree with the counter-argument (and/or red herring) that the president doesn't control the economy, I also think the data as presented do not justify strong statements about the state of the economy.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Thank you. I think.


But just in case, the original post stated that Bush's economy is doing great! Look at the numbers! Well, if that was the evidence he's using, then it actually says kind of the opposite (just from looking at that evidence solely). Like I said, that evidence is incomplete in any direction, but I offered up my analysis on that graph as an individual entity, like the original post invited me to and then further clarified my overall non-position.

I'm rarely upset when someone takes a good look at data and realizes it cna't be used to make sweeping genealizations about 'the state of the world'.

This time is not an exception; while I agree with the counter-argument (and/or red herring) that the president doesn't control the economy, I also think the data as presented do not justify strong statements about the state of the economy.

Ok, we agree then.
:beer:

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Come on, it's very simple :The economy under Bush=sh!t
The economy under Clinton=fvcking fantastic.
Anything else is spin. And you work really hard at it. I'm proud of you.

So you say that 5.6 unemployment under clinton is fscking fantastic
And 5.6 unemployment under bush is shi!t?

I am glad we have that cleared up. But it looks likes you are the one doing the spinning.

Clinton was fortunate to be President during the Dot.Com boom and was smart enough to be hands off. He also was forced to be more fiscally conservative due to Congress being taken over by the Republicans, Bush on the other hand became President at the time of the Dot.Com bust and 9/11. In addition he has his own party in Congress which hasn't kept him fiscally responsible.

I think that's the simplest explanation to the economic boom/recession I've heard. It's probably the most accurate too. People just don't realize that gridlock in the government is really a good thing for the economy. It doesn't matter who controls congress or the presidency as long as one is bitching at the other to remain fiscally responsible.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Come on, it's very simple :The economy under Bush=sh!t
The economy under Clinton=fvcking fantastic.
Anything else is spin. And you work really hard at it. I'm proud of you.

So you say that 5.6 unemployment under clinton is fscking fantastic
And 5.6 unemployment under bush is shi!t?

I am glad we have that cleared up. But it looks likes you are the one doing the spinning.

Clinton was fortunate to be President during the Dot.Com boom and was smart enough to be hands off. He also was forced to be more fiscally conservative due to Congress being taken over by the Republicans, Bush on the other hand became President at the time of the Dot.Com bust and 9/11. In addition he has his own party in Congress which hasn't kept him fiscally responsible.

I think that's the simplest explanation to the economic boom/recession I've heard. It's probably the most accurate too. People just don't realize that gridlock in the government is really a good thing for the economy. It doesn't matter who controls congress or the presidency as long as one is bitching at the other to remain fiscally responsible.

They're both equally corrupt so there is no longer any balance.

Cute Avatar name by the way, is it technically translated Little Brother or Little Man???

 

[Genx87]

I think you're over-estimating a president's impact on the economy. as far as I can tell, the mid/late-90's boom had nothing to do with the actions of the president, nor did the following recession

Bingo

People overestimate the presidents handle of the economy. Greenspan has more power than the president does on this.

You could have had a rabbit as president during the 90s and probably had the same economy.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

They're both equally corrupt so there is no longer any balance.

Cute Avatar name by the way, is it technically translated Little Brother or Little Man???

Yeah, it's sad that both parties are basically just trying to restrict your freedoms and you have to choose between which freedoms you value most.

My avatar name is translated into little man. I'm 5' 3" so I thought it was fitting.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm, so did Clinton inherit exactly 7.5 years of prosperity or did he intentionally begin sabotaging the US economy b/c his evil witch wife foretold a Bush victory? Maybe the Harpie Hilary didn't care who got elected. She wanted the economy to tank regardless of the outcome in 2000. If Gore was elected she would challenge him in the primary, while a Bush victory meant she would just stomp him in Nov?

Food for thought for the tinfoil crowd and GOPie hacks . . . damn I'm being redundant . . . aren't I?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

They're both equally corrupt so there is no longer any balance.

Cute Avatar name by the way, is it technically translated Little Brother or Little Man???

Yeah, it's sad that both parties are basically just trying to restrict your freedoms and you have to choose between which freedoms you value most.

My avatar name is translated into little man. I'm 5' 3" so I thought it was fitting.

It's not even that, both are heading down the same Dictatorship path, just a matter of which freedoms you lose first with each party.

Online everyone is of the same stature :thumbsup:

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

They're both equally corrupt so there is no longer any balance.

Cute Avatar name by the way, is it technically translated Little Brother or Little Man???

Yeah, it's sad that both parties are basically just trying to restrict your freedoms and you have to choose between which freedoms you value most.

My avatar name is translated into little man. I'm 5' 3" so I thought it was fitting.

It's not even that, both are heading down the same Dictatorship path, just a matter of which freedoms you lose first with each party.

Online everyone is of the same stature :thumbsup:

You guys are getting a little depressing. I'll by the corruption, that's obvious. But how are they going down a dictatorship path?

 

[rickn]

politicians and spin doctors are not mathematicians. I just roll my eyes back when I listen to them talk how they ADDED jobs. You can't ADD anything when you're already in the hole. Yet so many people eat it up, hook line and sinker. Jobs-on-loan program should be part of the Bush re-election

 

[DealMonkey]

Even if Presidents have little to no control over the economy, they certainly get blamed (or credited depending) by voters for the state of the economy during their terms.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if Presidents have little to no control over the economy, they certainly get blamed (or credited depending) by voters for the state of the economy during their terms.

DealMonkey, all this logic and bi-partisanship you've been displaying lately has me nervous. What are you up to?