BHO's Legacy

[Franco]

The Stock Market is not an indication of our health/economy.

That's because the stock market is manipulated by the big investment banking firms and insiders on Wall St.

They get investors feeling good about the market, then create a big sell. They make thier money and the average Joes pay for it. Then, when the market is real low, they buy. Market starts looking like a decent investment and more averegae Joes buy in. Then the big boys sell everything, take thier profits while the Joes take thier lumps.

Then, the cycle starts over.

[K G]

What a difference a year makes. Since 3/9/2009, the DOW is up 61% and NASDAQ is up 84%. Is that recovery and much a part of Obama's legacy as KG and company appeared to think the drop was after less than two months in office?

If that's what you measure success by, Jeff, then you might be inclined to think this Presidency has been successful. Don't forget that BHO was nominated for and won the Nobel Peace prize based on only 10 days in office....I mean, since we're talking time frames and all....

I don't understand why you aren't trumpeting the REALLY good news, Jeff....: there were ONLY an additional 32,000 unemployed last month! I wonder if those 32,000 are happy that the DJIA is up 61% and the NASDAQ up 84%? I'm guessing NOT. Do you want to compare TOTAL unemployment numbers NOW with what they were on 3/9/09? C'mon....you're a big boy....go for an apples-to-apples comparison if you don't mind a good stomach-churning revelation....but then reality's never been of much interest to those that sit near the top....or think they do....

k g

[YardleyLabs]

If that's what you measure success by, Jeff, then you might be inclined to think this Presidency has been successful. Don't forget that BHO was nominated for and won the Nobel Peace prize based on only 10 days in office....I mean, since we're talking time frames and all....

I don't understand why you aren't trumpeting the REALLY good news, Jeff....: there were ONLY an additional 32,000 unemployed last month! I wonder if those 32,000 are happy that the DJIA is up 61% and the NASDAQ up 84%? I'm guessing NOT. Do you want to compare TOTAL unemployment numbers NOW with what they were on 3/9/09? C'mon....you're a big boy....go for an apples-to-apples comparison if you don't mind a good stomach-churning revelation....but then reality's never been of much interest to those that sit near the top....or think they do....

k g

The focus on the DJIA began with the OP (ooops, that was you!)a year ago as a measure of "Obama's Legacy". I actually agree that the DOW is only one very limited (but not irrelevant) measure of the economy, and it tends to be a leading indicator since it reflects a discounted version of anticipated future developments.

GDP growth was projected to reach 4% during 2010 in Obama's 2009/10 budget projections. That estimate was widely ridiculed for its optimism. The forecast growth rates have been far exceeded with growth at a 6% as of the end of 2009, and the 4% growth rate appears more and more reasonable. However, that is also only one indicator of economic health, albeit an important one. The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up. But of course we know that can't be true because we know the stimulus plan did nothing to help the economy.

On the employment front, we were losing jobs at 700,000 per month a year ago and well before that. In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.

No action on the economy by this or any other administration will replace the jobs lost over the last 2-3 years in less than several years. Historically, job growth has seldom been higher than 200-250,000 jobs per month under the best of economic conditions. At that rate it could take 4-6 years of great growth before we return to levels of employment seen prior to the recession. It that sense, this economic collapse shares some of the worst characteristics of the depression.

In my personal view, the best measure of economic growth is the rate of real dollar growth in median (not average) income. That growth rate has lagged increasingly behind the growth rate for average income for more than a decade, reflecting the growing concentration of income and wealth. So far, Obama has done nothing to address that particular problem.

[road kill]

The focus on the DJIA began with the OP (ooops, that was you!)a year ago as a measure of "Obama's Legacy". I actually agree that the DOW is only one very limited (but not irrelevant) measure of the economy, and it tends to be a leading indicator since it reflects a discounted version of anticipated future developments.

GDP growth was projected to reach 4% during 2010 in Obama's 2009/10 budget projections. That estimate was widely ridiculed for its optimism. The forecast growth rates have been far exceeded with growth at a 6% as of the end of 2009, and the 4% growth rate appears more and more reasonable. However, that is also only one indicator of economic health, albeit an important one. The fact is, that 6% growth probably would only have been 4% without the stimulus plan and there will be some natural slowdown as stimulus funds dry up. But of course we know that can't be true because we know the stimulus plan did nothing to help the economy.

On the employment front, we were losing jobs at 700,000 per month a year ago and well before that. In fact, under GWB, the US had the most anemic job growth it has experienced in any period since WWII with average annual growth of 0.28% vs nine times that rate under Clinton and seven times that rate under Reagan. Unfortunately, I suspect that we may have turned a corner in which economic growth is more effective at generating returns on capital in the US while generating jobs in other countries. I hope not. However, in prior recoveries, there has generally been a significant lag of 3-6 months between the beginnings of GDP growth and the beginnings of employment growth. If that holds true this time, we would expect to begin seeing significant job growth in the second and third quarters with or without a new job stimulus program.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the single most important action we can take to stimulate job growth is to have a national health insurance program that does not rely on employer financed benefits. In other countries, businesses do not generally contribute to either pension programs or health insurance. As a consequence these do not act as a barrier to employment. It would be much better to shift business funding for these programs from labor costs to general tax costs than to preserve the current system of financing which disadvantages American companies in global competition and disadvantages American labor as well.

No action on the economy by this or any other administration will replace the jobs lost over the last 2-3 years in less than several years. Historically, job growth has seldom been higher than 200-250,000 jobs per month under the best of economic conditions. At that rate it could take 4-6 years of great growth before we return to levels of employment seen prior to the recession. It that sense, this economic collapse shares some of the worst characteristics of the depression.

In my personal view, the best measure of economic growth is the rate of real dollar growth in median (not average) income. That growth rate has lagged increasingly behind the growth rate for average income for more than a decade, reflecting the growing concentration of income and wealth. So far, Obama has done nothing to address that particular problem.

Can you dig up a number over the last year on that??



rk

[YardleyLabs]

Can you dig up a number over the last year on that??



rk

By Quarter, Non-Farm Jobs Gained/(Lost) Per Month

2008-Q1:...(27,700)
2008-Q2:..(141,300)
2008-Q3:..(264,000)
2008-Q4:..(467,000)
2009-Q1:..(493,000)
2009-Q2:..(300,700)
2009-Q3:..(145,700)
2009-Q4:...(15,000)

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Derived from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

To me, that suggests that as soon as Obama began passing his economic program, with the first pieces taking effect in April, 2009, the employment pictures began improving dramatically. The fact is that, at the time of the inauguration, data from the fourth quarter of 2008 was not yet available. The actual average job loss during that period, once it became known, was much higher than preliminary estimates had suggested. BTW, in these numbers, the 2009-Q4 data is still an estimate and corrected data will not be available for another 1-2 months.

Total jobs lost over two years: 8.4 million.

[K G]

To me, that suggests that as soon as Obama began passing his economic program, with the first pieces taking effect in April, 2009, the employment pictures began improving dramatically....

Of course it does.... Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g

[JDogger]

Of course it does.... Throwing taxpayer's money at problems can solve most all problems on paper...

What will your story be when a TON of these "jobs" go away when the "stimulus package" runs out? The clock is ticking....

k g

What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

[ducknwork]

What is kg's prognostication? A return to republican control of the congress?
That will change things,.... how?
The clock is ticking...indeed, but what plan do you and yours put forward?

Nothing.

JD

So you like the idea of doing something, even if it is wrong?

[paul young]

the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul

[road kill]

the original post that started this thread addressed the DJIA in March of 2009.

Jeff's post addressed the change over a period of 1 year in the DJIA. yet a bunch of you decided to take him to task over other aspects of the economy such as unemployment.

i have to ask why?

he did, indeed, make an "apples to apples" comparison.

this is a really good example of why real discussion of ANY topic on this board is so difficult.-Paul

Don't blame your inability to converse and debate all on Jeff!!



rk