Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember back 4 years ago when all those investing geniuses out there were predicting the stock market would tank under Obama?
Funny, that didn't happen - and indeed the markets have rallied under Obama in a HUGE way. The S&P has now regained 91% of what it lost in the onset of the Great Recession and is now less than 100 points away from it's all time high. How soon it will break that old record no one can say, but clearly we've come a longgggggg way in just 5 years.
Uh, Ken, it did tank. Nobody said it would never recover.
Because you're predisposed to favoring Obama, you seem to be suffering from the common liberal delusion that Obama caused or helped the recovery. But the fact is the economy was always going to recover. That's what economies do. They've done this throughout history.
So what you need to do if you want to be actually making any point at all, is show what Obama actually did to cause the recovery to happen. Correlation does not imply causation. Merely the fact that Obama exists does not imply that he was the cause of the recovery.
My contention is that we haven't recovered in "just" 5 years due to Obama's inspired leadership. On the contrary, we've taken 5 long years to recover because of Obama's bungling. I point to his attempts to pass cap & trade, his support of overreaching by labor unions, his tax increases, his demonization of business, his increases in regulation, his misallocation of billions to failed green energy, his extremely poorly timed introduction of Obamacare (whether it is good or bad itself is irrelevant - introducing such a massive overhaul in the middle of a recession was just boneheaded stupid), his efforts to reduce drilling, and his incurring massive debt to stimulate shovel ready jobs that he admitted later didn't exist.
Look at the great depression. Europe, even devastated by WWI, recovered in less time than America did without FDR's Keynesian policies. Now Obama uses the same economic theories with the same results - a recovery with agonizingly slow proportions. But also like FDR, simply the fact that it is recovering causes people to want to hail Obama, just like they did FDR, as a hero.
It's just like doctors who used to use leeches to heal people. The fact that people occasionally recovered caused doctors to think that leeching worked. Eventually they realized that people were recovering despite the leeches, and all the leeches were doing was making the patient take longer to recover due to weakness from loss of blood.
Uh, Ken, it did tank. Nobody said it would never recover.
Because you're predisposed to favoring Obama, you seem to be suffering from the common liberal delusion that Obama caused or helped the recovery. But the fact is the economy was always going to recover. That's what economies do. They've done this throughout history.
So what you need to do if you want to be actually making any point at all, is show what Obama actually did to cause the recovery to happen. Correlation does not imply causation. Merely the fact that Obama exists does not imply that he was the cause of the recovery.
My contention is that we haven't recovered in "just" 5 years due to Obama's inspired leadership. On the contrary, we've taken 5 long years to recover because of Obama's bungling. I point to his attempts to pass cap & trade, his support of overreaching by labor unions, his tax increases, his demonization of business, his increases in regulation, his misallocation of billions to failed green energy, his extremely poorly timed introduction of Obamacare (whether it is good or bad itself is irrelevant - introducing such a massive overhaul in the middle of a recession was just boneheaded stupid), his efforts to reduce drilling, and his incurring massive debt to stimulate shovel ready jobs that he admitted later didn't exist.
Look at the great depression. Europe, even devastated by WWI, recovered in less time than America did without FDR's Keynesian policies. Now Obama uses the same economic theories with the same results - a recovery with agonizingly slow proportions. But also like FDR, simply the fact that it is recovering causes people to want to hail Obama, just like they did FDR, as a hero.
It's just like doctors who used to use leeches to heal people. The fact that people occasionally recovered caused doctors to think that leeching worked. Eventually they realized that people were recovering despite the leeches, and all the leeches were doing was making the patient take longer to recover due to weakness from loss of blood.
You weren't HERE back in 2009 so you don't KNOW what people did or didn't say.
And yes - people DID say it wouldn't recover - or more to the point they said the stock market wouldn't recover under Obama. When the stock market bottomed out at around the 650 mark for the S&P, there were those "investing geniuses" here claiming the stock market collapse was "just beginning". Those folks were WRONG - as were those who claimed it would never recover under Obama.
And no, Europe in general did NOT recover faster than the US did from the the Great Depression. Some European countries were not hit as hard as the US was - and Germany and (to a lesser degree) Italy DID recover quickly due to massive re-armament etc, but in general Europe lanquished for a long time.
And yes, FDRs policies worked pretty darned well -with the EU falling VERY rapidly. It DID remain high for a long time but that's because it rose so high to begin with. From 1933 to 1937 (4 years) the U.S. UE rate fell 10 points!!!! That's NEVER happened before or since - EVER. Because the number started so dang high to begin with (nearly 25%) it WAS still high in 1937 (14.3%) but that doesn't change the fact that the DROP in the UE rate between those years was DRAMATIC (Ronald Reagan's famed recovery in the mid-1980's produced a UE rate that fell just HALF that amount in the same period of time). It IS true that after FDR's programs were scaled back in 1938 the rate went back up to 19% (giving up half the gains before starting to fall again) - but that's because the PROGRAMS WERE CURTAILED under pressure from Congressional budget hawks in that year - which simply proves that the progams WERE working - and that trying to balance the budget while in the midst of a Depression was counterproductive. Not only did FDR's policies result in rapid decline of the UE rate, they also resulted in some very critical infrastructure improvements - especially in regards to increased electicity generation capability - that would prove to be extremely important in WWII.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 01-06-2013 at 07:13 AM..
Yep, under Obama the rich are doing nicely. Especially those in the now-richest region of the country, the area around Washington DC. The poor and middle class, those who earn a living by the sweat of their brow, aren't doing so nicely.
Everyone with a 401K is doing great, not just nicely. It's not just the rich. I have doubled by 401K in a matter of a few years, and I am very happy about that.
In other words, you IGNORE the data because it doesn't tell you what you WANT to hear.
Ken
Its not relevant data. You may as well throw rainfall statistics into the mix. They'd tell me about as much as the real health of the american economy as this rubbish youre posting...
Everyone with a 401K is doing great, not just nicely. It's not just the rich. I have doubled by 401K in a matter of a few years, and I am very happy about that.
Yup.
I am NOT happy about what happened to my 401K in 2007/2008 - but I'm EXTREMELY happy about what happened to it from 2009 onward.
Its not relevant data. You may as well throw rainfall statistics into the mix. They'd tell me about as much as the real health of the american economy as this rubbish youre posting...
The UE rate is not relevant data?
The Factory Orders number is not relevant data?
US export numbers are not relevant data?
US housing prices are not relevant data?
US consumer confidence numbers are not relevant data?
US business confidence numbers are not relevant data?
...
All that - and more - seems pretty relevant to me - and economists in general (that's WHY they track it). When you can show me that YOUR economic credentials are superior to all those folks, THEN your opinion on the subject may carry some weight.
The UE rate is not relevant data?
The Factory Orders number is not relevant data?
US export numbers are not relevant data?
US housing prices are not relevant data?
US consumer confidence numbers are not relevant data?
US business confidence numbers are not relevant data?
...
All that - and more - seems pretty relevant to me - and economists in general (that's WHY they track it). When you can show me that YOUR economic credentials are superior to all those folks, THEN your opinion on the subject may carry some weight.
Ken
You're learning.
Finally, you are learning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
