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.
What is the response to something that never happened over the last ten years ? Better to deal with reality and the current situation going forward, not backward !!! Leading from behind was backward and a failure.
A non-responsive reply was followed with yet another non-responsive reply. You are trying to restrict the time frame of discussion because situations outside of that time frame become problematic for you to ideologically deal with.
So let me repeat once again .... If the economy suffers under democrats, then how did we get such utterly booming years in these two years, when democrats had complete control of all branches of the federal government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Much is made on this forum and elsewhere of the two or three great boom times post-WWII: The mid-80's and the mid-late 90's (with the mid-late 60's also often cited).
However, I think if we were to pick two consecutive most-booming-years, 1977-78 would give 1983-84 and 1997-98 (or any two consecutive years from 1994-99) a run for their money, and maybe even come out ahead. Here are some numbers for those two years:
Those two years are #3 and #2 respectively for the years post-WWII with the highest payroll job additions in absolute numbers. #1 is 1946 -- which, being the year after WWII ended, is going to be under somewhat unusual circumstances. 1984 is #6, 1994 is #7, 1983 is #9 and 1997 is #10. In the 60's, 1965 and 66 are the two highest ones at #18 and #19. If you calculate those as a % of total payrolls they're going to come out higher, of course, but I didn't bother doing that. And that said, since payrolls in 1977-78 were smaller than both the 80's and 90's booms, their booming-ness is all the more greater than those other two boom periods.
GDP, similarly, was also spectacular, albeit less so than payrolls, though it was also highly variable. That said, it does feature one quarter which is nothing short of jaw-dropping (note: this was not realized until recently while the BEA was doing benchmark revisions of previous years).
On an annual basis, those two years grew 4.6% and 5.6% respectively. In this category, 1984 beats out both with a 7.3% annual growth rate for the whole year.
Of course, the downside to all this booming growth was that inflation was going through the roof - which, of course, is why most people don't usually remember them as boom years. In 1977 the annual inflation rate was 6.3% and 1978 it was 7.4% (source). Though they were certainly high, those two years did still not match the peak years of 1979-81 in which the inflation rate was 9.8%, 12.4% and 10.4%.
Maybe if I get ambitious I'll look at some other data sets for those years (housing starts, etc).
I'm going to do the same thing for 1965-66, which are arguable the two most liberal years ever since the end of WWII.
Payroll job growth - numbers in thousands: Year____Jan____Feb____Mar____Apr____May____Jun____ Jul____Aug____Sep____Oct____Nov____Dec____TOTAL___AVG 1965____162____217_____203_____256_____233_____198____ 273____265_____262____228_____279_____324_____2900_____242 1966____207____268_____396_____244_____275____399_____ 191____206_____137____210_____165_____181_____2879_____240 source
^
While those numbers don't look like anything all that unusual by today's standards, you have to remember that the population of the US and thus, overall payrolls, were much smaller back then. As a % of payrolls those were big numbers.
These two years were the 89th Congress in which democrats had 67 senators vs 33 for the republicans, and democrats had 289 members in the House vs 136 republicans. Completely lopsided, plus LBJ was president.
A non-responsive reply was followed with yet another non-responsive reply. You are trying to restrict the time frame of discussion because situations outside of that time frame become problematic for you to ideologically deal with.
So let me repeat once again .... If the economy suffers under democrats, then how did we get such utterly booming years in these two years, when democrats had complete control of all branches of the federal government?
I suppose we could go back to the time when it was said thousands of people were fed from a single basket of fish.
In fact that is what the left is saying. The only difference is its the taxpayer's pocket and money this time.
HUGEthanks to President Obama for doing all the hard work and pulling us out of a recession and create an economy that has seen 57 months of straight growth. Obama saved the American housing market and the American economy.
Also, huge thanks to President Trump for not really doing anything that impacts the economy at all so the growth can continue. Trump is taking a "if it ain't broke, don't mess with it" approach.
This has to be sarcasm???!!!
The election of Trump alone sent a signal to all with capital to go go go. Then his deregulation stimulated even more economic growth. He is not a genius, and I'm not a Trumper by any means, but confidence in all things economic, to consumer spending, to manufacturing, just took off, because everyone realizes that Obama was a hindrance to free enterprise and Trump encourages it.
HUGEthanks to President Obama for doing all the hard work and pulling us out of a recession and create an economy that has seen 57 months of straight growth. Obama saved the American housing market and the American economy.
Also, huge thanks to President Trump for not really doing anything that impacts the economy at all so the growth can continue. Trump is taking a "if it ain't broke, don't mess with it" approach.
I suppose we could go back to the time when it was said thousands of people were fed from a single basket of fish.
In fact that is what the left is saying. The only difference is its the taxpayer's pocket and money this time.
And now we have 3 non-responsive replies in a row. Still awaiting your explanation about how such booming numbers could have happened with democrats in complete control.
The DOW is still below Jan. highs, right? All the FANG stocks (alternative to the DOW) are down big time, right?
Unemployment came down 6+ points under Obama and 1 under Trump, right.
Is record debt and deficit "a good number"?
Are more people losing insurance - is that "a good number"?
Is a much higher trade deficit and especially with China a "good number"?
Are record interest rates and inflation - "good numbers"?
No one can predict what would happen "is and when and why" - but the point is we are in at least the 8th or 9th year of a "bull market" and expansion of the economy...back from the GWB Great Recession.
That is quite obvious when the DOW was as low as the mid-6000's and was nearly 20K when Obama left office - and the drop in unemployment and everything else.
We can pick and choose numbers but, all in all, it means little. Let's talk in a couple years about how the deficit and debt are being paid off, how more people have good health insurance, how lifespans are increasing and how certain diseases of "depression" (opiates, suicides, etc.) are down big time.
As an investor I'm accustomed to about 11% return each year. I have almost zero this year. If my "wages" (if I was taking a salary) went up from 60K to 62K over a year, I'd be FAR behind the either ball because my equity is far more than my "salary".
The same exact metrics apply to interest rates and health care and even to national debt and deficit.
But, all in all, I'd like to see years of wage increases - especially on the bottom end. I honestly could care less if someone making 400K makes 420K instead.
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.
