Post #394,265
9/8/14 3:07:11 PM
|
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Bob Deitrick: ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
“We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain, 'Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar' 1897
|
Post #394,272
9/8/14 4:54:41 PM
|
Unpossible!
|
Post #394,275
9/8/14 5:04:01 PM
|
Not to mention besmirching a Saint! :)
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #394,280
9/8/14 7:13:49 PM
|
As much as I dislike Uncle Ronnie, don't think it is comparable
"discouraged workers", ie: those that have given up looking aren't part of the number, and it seems to me there are a LOT more this time around. Automation and job exporting has killed huge numbers of jobs for US citizens, and they ain't coming back.
Not that I blame this on Obama, it is simply the situation that he fell into.
|
Post #394,286
9/8/14 9:01:40 PM
|
I'm starting to question that
Automation doesn't eliminate jobs. *If* the productivity gains are shared with labor, the whole economy improves. Everyone makes more.
Automation doesn't kill jobs, it just provides cover for owners to reduce headcount.
|
Post #394,284
9/8/14 7:41:22 PM
|
counted unemployment different back then
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
|
Post #394,304
9/9/14 10:47:55 AM
|
Yep! The economy's really taking off. Especially for the "right" people.
The super rich got super richer as the gap between them and the rest of Americans continued to widen over the last few years, according to a new Federal Reserve report.
In its Study of Consumer Finances, released every three years, the Fed found that the wealthiest 3% of American households controlled 54.4% of the nation's wealth in 2013, a slight increase from its last survey in 2010. It's also substantially higher from the 44.8% they held in 1989, showing how quickly the income divide has been growing over the past decade or so.
At the same time, the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% fell to 24.7% in 2013. That's compared to 33.2% in 1989.
...
All of the income gains came from the wealthy, with the top 3% accounting for 30.5% of all income. The bottom of the scale continued to see their incomes shrink. http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/08/luxury/super-rich-federal-reserve/index.htmlThank $DEITY we've got a "man of the People" in the White House!
|
Post #394,477
9/12/14 4:18:47 AM
|
Pretty much.. the planet is ruled by oligarchies and by LIes, n'est ce pas?
While we argue about which player-du-jour is slightly less-corrupt? than yesterday's media star.
Can't find much corroboration though, for the assertion that "87' was it? Individuals in the dis-US own more than 50%/or was it 80% of total US ''net worth"
(screw anything about "annual income", always obscured.) 'Benevolence' is rarely found in the richest of all perps. Brain-wiring?
Collectively then, the common denominator for the inhabitants is corruption so vast that even Econ hasn't a neat formula for bloviations on that degree of wealth-gap.
Faced with such a situation, wherein the only option is seen to be violent revolution, none of us here has a clue about extrapolating beyond a few months at a time.
A Pox on all the past models too, then (V.I.'s, Karl's et al.) Malthus on Population though--holds up. Now we have to pity all the young'uns everywhere, especially those
who ever imagined a 'meritocracy' could exist. To me the matter(s) have become so surreal, it isn't much worth paying attention to the daily mouth noises.
So then, which dies first: Nationalism or simply, the whole planet-ful?
(Not enough are scared-sufficiently about the common nest's precarious state--even to imagine massive-cooperation as a goal.)
I punt.
|
