Comparing Reagan and Obama on unemployment

[khon]

If you want a better comparison use a data starting point that is better than 'time in office'

I used that starting point to illustrate that Reagans started his recession, while Obama did not.

Also worth noting that what Reagan did with his policies was essentially start the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and towards the upper class, which is one of the causes of the current recession.

It's no coincididence that the peaks were in 1928 and 2007, both followed immidiately by economic crisis.

 

[xj0hnx]

It did, but the census is over, so all those temporary workers have been let go.

Really? So the ten people canvasing my neighborhood knocking on doors asking Census questions about my neighbors is what?

 

[Red Dawn]

Really? So the ten people canvasing my neighborhood knocking on doors asking Census questions about my neighbors is what?

Crooks casing out homes?

 

[charrison]

Also worth noting that what Reagan did with his policies was essentially start the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and towards the upper class, which is one of the causes of the current recession.

The cause of the current recession is house bubble that encouraged by fed policies. Even krugam thought it was good idea at the time.

 

[hal2kilo]

Crooks casing out homes?

A lady I know worked for this last census and she was called again for something that's like a follow-up audit. So because xJhonx probably organized his neighbors to throw out their forms and not answer the door, they are back again. kidding about last part.

 

[SammyJr]

Not really a valid comparison. Reagan was President when the wholesale offshoring of American industry had just begun. Obama is President after 30 years of industry moving offshore. Its truly amazing that our unemployment isn't closer to 20% or 30%. This is somewhat to Obama's credit, but he lacks the balls to tackle the underlying problem.

 

[Fern]

Well, looks like a fair bit of work was put into the OP, but I think it too simplistic to have any meaning.

I could go on about any number of complexities that are ignored, but will just say that the way unemployment is calculated was changed. It was calculated diffferently back in Reagan's time so you're comparing apples to oranges.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I used that starting point to illustrate that Reagans started his recession, while Obama did not.

Also worth noting that what Reagan did with his policies was essentially start the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and towards the upper class, which is one of the causes of the current recession.

It's no coincididence that the peaks were in 1928 and 2007, both followed immidiately by economic crisis.

Thank you, khon. Funny how that works.

Resident Righties will still find a way to attempt to deny that a speculative peak is necessarily followed by a deep trough, or that income concentration plays a part at all...

Maintenance of the facade of denial is currently their top priority. Self deception is rampant on the Right... Confronted with what's unthinkable within their belief structure, they simply refuse to reconsider at all, withdraw further into the sanctuary of what they believe most fervently. It can't be wrong, because they've believed it to be right for a very long time.

 

[ShawnD1]

Also worth noting that what Reagan did with his policies was essentially start the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and towards the upper class, which is one of the causes of the current recession.

What I see is a graph showing that this is Clinton's fault (according to what you say is causing the current meltdown).
:hmm:


Ultimately it doesn't matter how wealthy the wealthiest people are. The cause of the meltdown is simply bad banking policies. For whatever reason, banks in the US are allowed to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back. The republicans blame freddy and fanny, and I blame the lack of laws. For example, US banks are allowed to lend money to deadbeats then sell the bond to some sucker as a junk bond. You're not allowed to do that in Canada and many other countries; if you lend money for mortgage then you better be damn sure it can be paid back because you can't sell the bond to someone else.
Rich people are not the problem. The problem is that there's no reason for banks to double check who they were lending money to.

 

[charrison]

Not really a valid comparison. Reagan was President when the wholesale offshoring of American industry had just begun. Obama is President after 30 years of industry moving offshore. Its truly amazing that our unemployment isn't closer to 20% or 30%. This is somewhat to Obama's credit, but he lacks the balls to tackle the underlying problem.

The reality is far more jobs have been lost to automation than offshoring of jobs. US industrial output grows in most years.

 

[khon]

Ultimately it doesn't matter how wealthy the wealthiest people are. The cause of the meltdown is simply bad banking policies. For whatever reason, banks in the US are allowed to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back. The republicans blame freddy and fanny, and I blame the lack of laws. For example, US banks are allowed to lend money to deadbeats then sell the bond to some sucker as a junk bond. You're not allowed to do that in Canada and many other countries; if you lend money for mortgage then you better be damn sure it can be paid back because you can't sell the bond to someone else.
Rich people are not the problem. The problem is that there's no reason for banks to double check who they were lending money to.

There is now. One of the changes in the financial regulation bill was to outlaw liar loans, i.e. loans where the applicant simply stated their income and no check was performed.

You're wrong though, it does matter how wealthy the wealthiest people are, since more wealth concentrated in a small group of people leads to less spending and more speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.

 

[SammyJr]

The reality is far more jobs have been lost to automation than offshoring of jobs. US industrial output grows in most years.

Really? So is that crap you bought at Wal-mart stamped "Made in USA" or "Made in China"?

An automated factory still needs workers - not necessarily for manual labor, but to maintain robots, inspect quality, etc. We'd be better off if this was done here.

 

[charrison]

Really? So is that crap you bought at Wal-mart stamped "Made in USA" or "Made in China"?

An automated factory still needs workers - not necessarily for manual labor, but to maintain robots, inspect quality, etc. We'd be better off if this was done here.

ANd like I said, in most years(non recession) industrial output grows in this country. Those job losses in manufacturing have more to do with automation than offshoring.

 

[SammyJr]

ANd like I said, in most years(non recession) industrial output grows in this country. Those job losses in manufacturing have more to do with automation than offshoring.

So its better to pay people in China to make our Wal-mart crap and better to pay Americans to sit on their couch?

There is a lot of manufacturing that is done. Its just not done here anymore, much to our detriment.

 

[Moonbeam]

I keep having this ridiculous urge to compare Reagan to an artichoke and I don't have any idea as to why.

 

[charrison]

So its better to pay people in China to make our Wal-mart crap and better to pay Americans to sit on their couch?

That depends on if you think a rising middle class is china is better for workers here or not. I generally think it is.

There is a lot of manufacturing that is done. Its just not done here anymore, much to our detriment.

That is just false. Manufacturing output continues to rise every year in the US, it just requires fewer and fewer people to do it.

 

[SammyJr]

That depends on if you think a rising middle class is china is better for workers here or not. I generally think it is.

How is a rising Chinese Middle Class better for American former-workers? The Chinese make everything, so there's no reason (jobs) for American former-workers to get off their couch. And unlike the American Government, I doubt the Chinese Government is going to undermine their Middle Class.

That is just false. Manufacturing output continues to rise every year in the US, it just requires fewer and fewer people to do it.

If American workers were making most of what you'd find at Wal-mart, manufacturing output would be even higher. As a bonus, our taxes wouldn't have to pay these people for doing nothing.

 

[charrison]

How is a rising Chinese Middle Class better for American former-workers? The Chinese make everything, so there's no reason (jobs) for American former-workers to get off their couch. And unlike the American Government, I doubt the Chinese Government is going to undermine their Middle Class.

Maybe because Buick is one of the most popular car brands over there? Trade is a two way street. The more their wages rise( and they are) the more products they can afford to import.

If American workers were making most of what you'd find at Wal-mart, manufacturing output would be even higher. As a bonus, our taxes wouldn't have to pay these people for doing nothing.

This is possible, but there is very little that can be done to stop automation. It will not be long before a few percent of the population will be able to make the products that the rest of us require. Not much different than what happened in agriculture over the last 100 years.

 

[ProfJohn]

I used that starting point to illustrate that Reagans started his recession, while Obama did not.

Also worth noting that what Reagan did with his policies was essentially start the redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and towards the upper class, which is one of the causes of the current recession.

It's no coincididence that the peaks were in 1928 and 2007, both followed immidiately by economic crisis.

If Reagan is to blame then why does the chart go through the roof the years Clinton was in office??

Look at the figures. During the Clinton years the rich got faster than during either the Reagan or Bush years.

 

[ProfJohn]

So its better to pay people in China to make our Wal-mart crap and better to pay Americans to sit on their couch?

There is a lot of manufacturing that is done. Its just not done here anymore, much to our detriment.

You are clueless when it comes to economics or manufacturing.

Manufacturing in this country continues to grow at a steady pace and has done so since the end of WW 2.
Check out this store from 538.com and learn a little.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/us-manufacturing-is-not-dead.html

Also, the availability of cheap Chinese made goods being sold at Walmart has contributed to a huge increase the standard of living for Americans over the last 3 decades.

And before you try to blame Walmart for anything read this piece from Slate.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2089532

 

[khon]

If Reagan is to blame then why does the chart go through the roof the years Clinton was in office??

Look at the figures. During the Clinton years the rich got faster than during either the Reagan or Bush years.

That's true, the dotcom bubble worked in their favor.

It's also true that the presidents following Reagan continued in his footsteps policy wise.

To this day the GOP doesn't seem to understand that different problems require different solutions, they just go with taxcuts + deregulation for everything.

 

[Acanthus]

You are clueless when it comes to economics or manufacturing.

Manufacturing in this country continues to grow at a steady pace and has done so since the end of WW 2.
Check out this store from 538.com and learn a little.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/us-manufacturing-is-not-dead.html

Also, the availability of cheap Chinese made goods being sold at Walmart has contributed to a huge increase the standard of living for Americans over the last 3 decades.

And before you try to blame Walmart for anything read this piece from Slate.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2089532

Why hasn't the CPI that excludes housing, healthcare, and education fallen then?

Answer: The shit was offshored and prices didn't fall.

 

[ShawnD1]

If American workers were making most of what you'd find at Wal-mart, manufacturing output would be even higher. As a bonus, our taxes wouldn't have to pay these people for doing nothing.

Instead of getting raped by taxes, you would get raped by the cost of goods. No more $3 Walmart t-shirts for doing yard work; try $10 minimum. $50 computer motherboards would be $100 easily. Back in the "good ol days" things were ridiculously expensive because they were manufactured in first world nations.

In the scenario of having expensive goods, it's the lower and middle classes that would suffer the most. This is because lower and middle classes spend the majority of their money on things, so driving up the cost of those things means you take away a lot of their things. On the other hand, most taxes are from rich people due to progressive taxation. Something like the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes and the top 10% pay about 90% of the taxes. If you're in the bottom 90% of incomes, taxes going to welfare are just a few dollars out of your pocket. Driving up the cost of your goods would be hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars out of your pocket.


edit
That doesn't mean it's best for welfare people to sit around and jack off 20 times per day. Maybe they could do something service related. My city is a bit of a shit hole, so how about pick up garbage to get that welfare cheque. It's still work, it helps all of us, and we still get to have cheap chinese goods.

 

[Craig234]

That's true, the dotcom bubble worked in their favor.

It's also true that the presidents following Reagan continued in his footsteps policy wise.

To this day the GOP doesn't seem to understand that different problems require different solutions, they just go with taxcuts + deregulation for everything.

What's funny is every time the Clinton deficit reduction is mentioned, he tried to exaggerate credit for the Republican Congress.

(It's to the point of dishonesty because he's been told facts he ignores many times).

But talk about Clinton's going along with the Republican agenda on an economic issue, and then he can only talk about it being 'Clinton's fault', no mention of the Republican Congress.

(Clinton did a number of things progressives are quite unhappy about).

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead of getting raped by taxes, you would get raped by the cost of goods. No more $3 Walmart t-shirts for doing yard work; try $10 minimum. $50 computer motherboards would be $100 easily. Back in the "good ol days" things were ridiculously expensive because they were manufactured in first world nations.

In the scenario of having expensive goods, it's the lower and middle classes that would suffer the most. This is because lower and middle classes spend the majority of their money on things, so driving up the cost of those things means you take away a lot of their things. On the other hand, most taxes are from rich people due to progressive taxation. Something like the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes and the top 10% pay about 90% of the taxes. If you're in the bottom 90% of incomes, taxes going to welfare are just a few dollars out of your pocket. Driving up the cost of your goods would be hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars out of your pocket.


edit
That doesn't mean it's best for welfare people to sit around and jack off 20 times per day. Maybe they could do something service related. My city is a bit of a shit hole, so how about pick up garbage to get that welfare cheque. It's still work, it helps all of us, and we still get to have cheap chinese goods.

That sounds peachy and all, but you need to have a *job* to create *income* so that the advantages of cheap foreign goods can be realized. There's a point of diminished returns, of balance, and we seem to have gone beyond it, judging from current unemployment levels and the number of people who've simply left the workforce.

Part and parcel of the trickledown deception has been the growth of public sector jobs and the acquisition of debt to finance them. Under Bush, Govt employment grew at the fastest pace since the Great Society. It serves to mask the effects of offshoring while permitting offshoring capitalists to maximize profits. Reaganomics w/o ever increasing debt would have gone over like a lead balloon...