I, for one, have loved the slow and steady erosion of my civil liberties. Not to mention the endless wars, abysmal GDP growth, and continued centralization and bolstering of federal power. He's the best!
choose "trend line". You'll see that 2015/2016 GDP growth is precisely on the trend line. The main difference in the last 8 years is more stable GDP growth, rather than the extreme peaks and troughs of the previous 60 years.
I live in Canada and don't have a dog in this race, but I find it interesting that Americans are so obvlivious of the facts and willing to believe at face value all the BS that comes out of the likes of Trump.
"The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind."
Unemployment sharply reduced, iraq and afghanistan wars ended, guantanamo in the process of being closed, torture ended. Some people are just never happy. Americans dont deserve him.
"Unemployment sharply reduced": you and I both know that is nonsense. The way unemployment is measured is completely illogical.
"Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended": He's continued to murder literally hundreds of people with his drone strikes. He is the opposite of a peaceful president.
"In the process of being closed": haha. He signed the NDAA. It is now harder to close than ever.
> "Unemployment sharply reduced": you and I both know that is nonsense. The way unemployment is measured is completely illogical.
I disagree. Both the primary and alternative official measures of labor force underutilization are logical; each of them may sometimes be referenced in situations where the particular measure referenced is not the most appropriate measure, but those are illogical uses of the measures, not signs that the measures themselves are illogical. If you think that there is a more appropriate measure relevant to this context that shows the opposite of what was contended, then you should present it at be prepared to defend your position that it is a more appropriate measure.
the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million. If one were to factor in the low labor force participation rate, the actual unemployment rate would be significantly higher than the headlines.
According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it was at the time of their study (fixed) [1].
> the number of Americans who are no longer in the labor force has hit an all time high of 94.7 million.
And the number of American's who are in the labor force also hit an all time high this year, and 158.9 million.
You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment.
> According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it is today
Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
> You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment.
If I understand that sentence correctly, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a more relevant by itself, I said it needs to be factored in. It should be factored in because if people give up looking for work, that isn't a sign of a strong economy.
> Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
You are correct, I misspoke. I meant compared to the final unemployment report for which the CLSA studied, not today since today had not happened yet when their study was conducted. Fixed.
> Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
Presidents have about as much influence on the economy as they do the weather. That's especially true in this modern globalized age. Nobody is in control. The global economy is not controllable, even if a concerted will to do so existed.
On issues of civil liberties, national security + surveillance, and a growing police state, Obama has been similar if not worse than the previous regime.
Then the federal government should stop attempting to control it... That is literally my gripe. The Fed and things like QE (ignoring regulation all together) have been extremely harmful. He has done nothing but perpetuate the nonsense.
On your second point; that is extremely subjective. But even still, that should make me feel lucky?!
22 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadAmericans do not realize how lucky they got with Obama.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/simply-worst-obama-f...
Have a look here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-ann...
choose "trend line". You'll see that 2015/2016 GDP growth is precisely on the trend line. The main difference in the last 8 years is more stable GDP growth, rather than the extreme peaks and troughs of the previous 60 years.
I live in Canada and don't have a dog in this race, but I find it interesting that Americans are so obvlivious of the facts and willing to believe at face value all the BS that comes out of the likes of Trump.
"Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended": He's continued to murder literally hundreds of people with his drone strikes. He is the opposite of a peaceful president.
"In the process of being closed": haha. He signed the NDAA. It is now harder to close than ever.
"Torture ended": Not really[1].
[1]:http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/has-obama-bann...
I disagree. Both the primary and alternative official measures of labor force underutilization are logical; each of them may sometimes be referenced in situations where the particular measure referenced is not the most appropriate measure, but those are illogical uses of the measures, not signs that the measures themselves are illogical. If you think that there is a more appropriate measure relevant to this context that shows the opposite of what was contended, then you should present it at be prepared to defend your position that it is a more appropriate measure.
According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it was at the time of their study (fixed) [1].
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...
And the number of American's who are in the labor force also hit an all time high this year, and 158.9 million.
You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment.
> According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it is today
Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
If I understand that sentence correctly, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a more relevant by itself, I said it needs to be factored in. It should be factored in because if people give up looking for work, that isn't a sign of a strong economy.
> Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
You are correct, I misspoke. I meant compared to the final unemployment report for which the CLSA studied, not today since today had not happened yet when their study was conducted. Fixed.
> Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
With the suggested metric factored in, you can clearly see there has not been an improvement between 2009 and the end of the study. Here is the graph again: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...
On issues of civil liberties, national security + surveillance, and a growing police state, Obama has been similar if not worse than the previous regime.
On your second point; that is extremely subjective. But even still, that should make me feel lucky?!
How much of the uninsured rate decline is due to employment gains as the economy recovered from the recession?