Are Obamanomics to Blame for Worst Recovery Since the Great Depression?

Question

The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

I used data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. It’s taken 64 months for the present recovery to regain the ground lost since the beginning of the Great Recession, whereas 64 months into the Reagan recovery, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when that recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. (Not that I promote Reaganomics, but the point is there) By contrast, taking population growth into account, the present recession has cost 10 million jobs. The unemployment rate, according to the Minneapolis Fed, has stayed higher longer than at any time since the 1930s, and that’s using government figures and not the real unemployment rate that has been replaced by new “updated” calculations.

The average American family is worse off, in inflation-adjusted terms, than they were before the great recession began in 2007. Poverty levels have increased, along with government regulations. I came across this after the Federal Reserve of St. Louis released its report that any economic “recovery” as measured by gains in the stock market have failed to help those on the lower end of the economic scale. In its May 30 report, the Fed concluded that the average American family has recovered less than half of what it lost since the Great Recession bottomed out in the summer of 2009 mostly because the average family has little invested in the stock market and instead have most of their real wealth invested in real property, mostly their personal homes. Despite some recovery in home prices, that has done precious little to help the average family to recover lost ground significantly.

I think we need to look back a little farther though to the 1920-21 depression. This just shows how a nearly free market economy really responds when it's left to it's own devices. There was a sharp decline in productivity that began in January 1920 of almost 30 percent (far deeper than that of the present Great Recession), the economy rebounded by more than 60 percent so that by July 1921, unemployment had fallen to normal low-single-digit levels. This set the stage for the Roaring Twenties, when the economy doubled in output in just over seven years. 

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15983/u6-unemployment-rate-remains-above-14-percent-as-more-job-seekers-sadly-give-up-looking-for-work

http://www.stlouisfed.org/newsroom/displayNews.cfm?article=1801

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_recession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg

Texas Mike · Accepted Answer

Yes. A long question deserves a long answer. But my last sentence sums it up:

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, total federal government revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. The average annual growth rate of America's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8 percent per year, By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it had been when they began."

"From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year."

We call this period, 1982-2007 [including Bill Clinton], the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics

? · Answer

Worst financial turmoil because of fact the excellent melancholy.... My grandparents would disagree with you. There are childrens driving around in $30,000 autos speaking on cellular telephones and ingesting McDonalds accepted. we are no the place close to a melancholy. Bush did no longer inherit a surplus, he inherited a finances surplus. there's a distinction. a finances is what's written on paper.... no longer what replaced into truly spent. No, Bush did no longer fireplace a regulator (regardless of it truly is) who warned him approximately subprime lending. in case you paid any interest to history, subprime lending replaced into started by democrats and fanned uncontrolled by 1998. Please call those regulators and terrorist professionals that have been fired by the Bush administration. the fee of the US greenback has dropped 11% against the Euro considering the fact that 2000. 4 share factors considering the fact that January twentieth 2009. study to study a graph. Obama suggested that he's waiting on day one to take accountability. he's minting money at a fee which will extremely devalue the greenback to 50% in basic terms like his mentor Jimmy Carter did. He has spent extra in 5 months than Bush spent in six years. attempt doing some study and end listening to the liberal elitists.

? · Answer

If you want to debate the facts show us the raw data and what steps you did to come up with your conclusion. That is what I do. I remember I used to grab historical inflation adjusted GPS, compute the percent change per administration, and then rank each one. I showed all the data, the steps taken, and so on. You are just showing me links.

This has been a weak recovery but the strongest rate of growth has happened under liberals FDR, JFK/LBJ, and Clinton, in that order.

Biff · Answer

Seriously sad state of affairs right now in this country.

A major cleansing is needed and will happen soon.

Anonymous · Answer

Yes.

Are Obamanomics to Blame for Worst Recovery Since the Great Depression?

Related Questions

Trending Questions