How's the Private Sector Doing Under Obama?

[From Abroad]

Here's another chart. This time we have real gross domestic product minus real government consumption expenditures and gross investment. In other words, the part of GDP that NIPA attributes to the private sector.

What you see here is a pretty fair representation of the truth. To say it's "doing fine" is overly optimistic. The private sector took a huge blow and it hasn't recovered from that blow. But the private sector has pretty steadily grown in the Obama years, while government purchases and public investment have stagnated or fallen.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/12/how_s_the_private_sector_doing_under_obama_.html

 

[drebo]

In spite of, not because of.

 

[dmcowen674]

How's the Private Sector Doing Under Obama?

Umm, he said "fine".

He is the President so we must believe him just like we had to believe Bush.

 

[woolfe9999]

In spite of, not because of.

Yeah sure, and if it was doing poorly, of course then it's because of, not in spite of.

 

[MovingTarget]

If by the private sector you mean the financial sector, then things are damn peachy! Thats the only one that matters, right?

 

[PokerGuy]

In spite of, not because of.

We have a winnnar!

 

[drebo]

Yeah sure, and if it was doing poorly, of course then it's because of, not in spite of.

Nah, I'm not naive enough to believe he's the sole cause of any troubles.

I blame them all equally. They're all (with extremely few exceptions) corporatist pricks more interested with protecting themselves than with serving the public that elected them.

They all need to go.

 

[Jhhnn]

Democrats in power are always good for business.

http://wuerthwhilewilywakenings.blogspot.com/

Austerity loving conservatives are just the opposite, which shows very strongly in the states where they gained control in 2010.

 

[JD50]

Stop spamming, you need commentary in your OP. Or you could skip the commentary and just reply to your own post, but only assholes do that.

 

[Doppel]

Home values keep going down, unemployment has remained very high for years now, and food and fuel costs a lot. I'd say it's doing just fine!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What's missing here is a comparison to the bush1 recession and the Clinton-bush recession.

The one thing that I"m sure of is that if Obama gets re-elected he'll over-see a major recession toward the second half of his second term.

 

[khon]

Home values keep going down, unemployment has remained very high for years now, and food and fuel costs a lot. I'd say it's doing just fine!

I think you're confusing the private sector with private citizens.

Lets take high unemployment as an example. If you're an individual looking for work, that's obviously a problem. If however you're a company, high unemployment is actually a benefit, since it means you have more applicants for any job opening you might have, and you can probably even get it filled at a lower cost.

The private sector (meaning companies) is indeed doing fine, it's private citizens that are suffering.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think you're confusing the private sector with private citizens.

Lets take high unemployment as an example. If you're an individual looking for work, that's obviously a problem. If however you're a company, high unemployment is actually a benefit, since it means you have more applicants for any job opening you might have, and you can probably even get it filled at a lower cost.

The private sector (meaning companies) is indeed doing fine, it's private citizens that are suffering.

To what extent are the two interrelated?

Also, unemployment is rather low among people with a university degree.

 

[Jhhnn]

To what extent are the two interrelated?

Also, unemployment is rather low among people with a university degree.

The two certainly aren't as interrelated as right wing economic theory claims. If trickledown were real, the fortunes of ordinary citizens & business would move in lockstep, but they obviously don't.

Unemployment among college grads isn't rather low, but just relatively low. It's about the same today as it was for high school grads 15 years ago, with fresh grads' prospects particularly dim-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/unemployment-and-education-2/

 

[her209]

Yeah sure, and if it was doing poorly, of course then it's because of, not in spite of.

We have a winner.

 

[werepossum]

What's missing here is a comparison to the bush1 recession and the Clinton-bush recession.

The one thing that I"m sure of is that if Obama gets re-elected he'll over-see a major recession toward the second half of his second term.

But to what extent would such comparisons be valid? We've systematically increased our borrowing to compensate for our systematically exporting wealth-producing jobs, gradually converting from a society that makes (and exports) things to a society that simply consumes things purchased on credit. Granted, this is our most anemic "recovery" ever and I'm certainly no Obamite, but I think that due to our underlying systemic structure the roaring recoveries of the past are probably relegated to the past, under any President. At most we'll probably have bubbles from stimulus programs or fleeting market opportunities like the Dot Com bubble or the housing/derivatives bubble.

And this underlying systemic structure has been framed by our choices in shopping much more so than our choices in voting. Even the single most destructive thing, Clinton's removal of almost all barriers against technology transfer to Red China, would have hardly mattered (except militarily) had we not been willing to buy cheap Chinese-made goods when they had to compete against American-made goods, or at the least against goods made by free allies with roughly comparable labor costs and regulatory burdens.

 

[soccerballtux]

The two certainly aren't as interrelated as right wing economic theory claims. If trickledown were real, the fortunes of ordinary citizens & business would move in lockstep, but they obviously don't.

Unemployment among college grads isn't rather low, but just relatively low. It's about the same today as it was for high school grads 15 years ago, with fresh grads' prospects particularly dim-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/unemployment-and-education-2/

That number doesn't count
-college grads under 25
-college grads who didn't find a job and can't find a job

You must have been employed to be on the "unemployed" list.
It's politically convenient to not give them a voice.

 

[Jhhnn]

That number doesn't count
-college grads under 25
-college grads who didn't find a job and can't find a job

You must have been employed to be on the "unemployed" list.
It's politically convenient to not give them a voice.

So the situation for college grads is actually worse than the graph shows, correct?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So the situation for college grads is actually worse than the graph shows, correct?

That is what he's saying.

But the graph also shows that the bush recovery was not nearly as hard on unemployment as the economy as the Obama recovery.

Still; a university degree is the best move a person can make when it comes to wealth.

I would be interested to know if we've increased production of university graduates in exchange for reduced quality and thus reduced employability (some of those green-line people seeping into the blue-line, skewing the blue-line upward)

And this underlying systemic structure has been framed by our choices in shopping much more so than our choices in voting. Even the single most destructive thing, Clinton's removal of almost all barriers against technology transfer to Red China, would have hardly mattered (except militarily) had we not been willing to buy cheap Chinese-made goods when they had to compete against American-made goods, or at the least against goods made by free allies with roughly comparable labor costs and regulatory burdens.

I agree. I don't think we can blame Obama; the only thing we can blame is a broken economic theory of labor that assumes that lower cost is automatically more efficient; a false premise in light of currency manipulation and trade with command economies.

 

[Ventanni]

I think the US economy would be doing a lot better if Europe's economy was stronger. Even China is beginning to slow down, but given that the US economy has made small recoveries shows at least some promise for Obama.

And no, I'm not a raving Obama lover, but it's a world economy now. It could be A LOT better, but it could also be a lot worse too.

 

[Zebo]

Obama is doing best he can. He is loosed money supply max at federal lvl. Basically we borrow half what we take in and give it out....like banking did in the 2000's.... When times were 'good'

Major issue is a long term issue and that's companies rather hire $30 a day workers (offshore) rather than $300 a day (with benefits). Only way in this global economy to do better is tariffs like practiced since before income tax, in fact it was the only Federal tax, or just get used to it. Your wages and standard of living will merge with third world.

Don't feel bad. Haiti has 75% UE. Even relatively first world Spain has 40%. We doing good.

 

[sportage]

Lets pretend we could have had, or would have had 4 more years of Bush policies instead of electing Obama in 2008.
Bin Laden still alive. An active war in Iraq. Praise of the oil companies. $7 gallon gas. And no healthcare reform or wall street/banking reform of any kind what so ever.
Oh.. Toss in further tax cuts for the top 1%.
And Social issues tanked.
Just imagine for a second....

We can still relive what would have happened in that pretend scenario.
Well, most of it anyway.
How?
Elect Mitt Romney.

But if you do, I don't want to her any whining, crying, tantrums, suicidial talk, or going postal after four years of your decision.
But maybe first, try doing something very out of the ordinary for many voters.
Try remembering for a second what you thought of GW Bush at the end of his last term.
Maybe remember that day when he came out to the cameras, red faced, warning the country that the entire US economy was about to tank if taxpayers did not give wall street billions of tax dollars.
Try remembering the national debt before GW Bush. And after GW Bush.
Try remembering that loss of several million US jobs under GW Bush.
Try...try to remember. Give it a shot. Crank up that old brain matter.
And good luck....

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Bin Laden still alive.

There is no evidence that a change in policy lead to ben laden being captured.

An active war in Iraq.

?

Praise of the oil companies.

nasty MEAN words!

$7 gallon gas.

nothing about obama's policies have influenced the price of gass except the adjustment of price to match international inflation of our currency. (insane debt = higher prices)

And no healthcare reform

Bush installed prescription drug care for senior citizens... And all I can see from the medical reform thus far is that low cost, catastrophic coverage, got the ban-stick.

wall street/banking reform

obama has not delivered this.

Toss in further tax cuts for the top 1%.

which are the same ones that bush stared and Obama hasn't stopped...

And Social issues tanked.

WTF does this even mean? The president didn't change the existence of gay weddings...

I'm as liberal as anyone rationally can be; but irrational arguments piss me off. Try arguing from reason instead of emotional mindlessness.

Since I'm on the side you are attempting to defend I'll reformulate your arguments:

Lets pretend we could have had, or would have had 4 more years of Repug policies instead of electing Obama in 2008:

The war on terror would be eroding our freedoms faster.
We would still be making massive pay-outs to Halliburton.
The oil-spill in the gulf would have had less impact on share-holders.
Environmental issues would continue to take a back seat to redistributing wealth from the people to the rich.
Health care reform would entail massive un-bargained pay-outs to drug companies and insurance companies.
Walstreet would be exactly the same because they own both parties.

When you think of Mitt Romney ask:
"have we redistributed the wealth from the top enough that we can now allow the natural progression of the rich-getting-richer to occur?"

It seems obvious that economic justice hasn't got a shot under Romney. The natural progression of our world is that there will be those that create knowledge or use esoteric knowledge (accountants, researchers, layers, medical practitioners, and engineers) that make enough to not have to worry about paying their rent; and then there will be the surfs that serve the intellectual elite.

If that's the world you want, vote as fiscally libertarian as possible. If you believe in an egalitarian society where everyone has a hand-up in their starting position and lands along a continuous (not bi-modal) spectrum based on how hard they work and how smart they are: then vote as fiscally liberal as can get elected.

 

[From Abroad]

Stop spamming, you need commentary in your OP. Or you could skip the commentary and just reply to your own post, but only assholes do that.

Do you really know the concept of "spamming"?

Anyway, if you don't have nothing to comment, just skip to another thread.

I believe there are some people wanting to discuss that matter, even though there is a thread with this topic already.

 

[Jhhnn]

But the graph also shows that the bush recovery was not nearly as hard on unemployment as the economy as the Obama recovery.

As if the situation in 2001 was vaguely comparable to that of 2008, or that the causes of the two recessions weren't entirely different.

We didn't have to bail out the financial sector in 2001. Had that not been done in 2008-2009, today would look a lot like 1932. We're living in the aftermath of the greatest financial looting spree in history, brought to us by free market self regulated banking under the approving watch of GWB regulators.