Friday, April 29, 2016

Obama: the only president never to see a single year of 3% growth. I wonder why?

Obama...the worst.

The only president never to see a single year of 3% growth.

Well, maybe that's because he raised taxes on the middle class, bragged about deficit reduction, supported austerity, stood by as Wall Street went on an unprecedented (even for Wall Street) rampage of fraud, backed democracy-busting trade deals, handed trillions to the health insurance industry so they could pay their CEO's hundreds of millions in compensation while shoring up their profits (for stock buybacks), watched as public unions were decimated.

Maybe it had something to do with that stuff?

Maybe that's why labor's share of national income fell to the lowest level ever in history? Even as their productivity rose to the highest level in history.

Pure theft.

Obama...simply the worst. And by the way, this blog predicted it, way back in 2008 right after he was elected when I posted a picture of his economic team, which were a bunch of neoclassical economists and neoliberal zealots.

What did you expect?

25 comments:

Matt Franko said...

Well he has unemployment down to 5% which implies 95% employment... which 95% is usually not too shabby for whatever we are talking about...

Yet many are not satisfied with this apparent 95% success rate... why?

neo-liberal policies get us to 95%... usually not too shabby...

What are we saying, that if we arrest all the "banksters!" and shut down the "neo-liberal conspiracy!" this is going to 100%?

I dont think so...

Michael Norman said...

Yes, unemployment down. True, but mostly part-time jobs and min-wage crap.

Ignacio said...

Why he has such rates of approval for a president that has been that long in charge? Is it marketing? Perception? Has he some sort of aura that he stopped the economy from collapsing or disengaged from several conflicts?

The guy has been a disaster but somehow he still has high rates of approval, probably selling that he "can't do anything because the congress and the senate are controlled by Republicans'" It seems his marketing is based on he being the "only adult in the room" (regardless of how true that is).

95% employment with U-3, participation rates still are abysmal. And the job market is pretty bad plagues with underemployment and poor quality jobs.

Benedict said...

How did Obama achieve this feat? What steps did he take to get there? What lessons does he leaves us with to steer the economy in proper fashion? Which are the (open?) secrets of his economic helmsmanship? Thanks for enlightening me.

Matt Franko said...

The neo-liberal policies can get us to 95% max that is it....

He is probably thinking "I took the advice from my experts and got us back to 95% so what is so bad about that?...."

I.G.T.U. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diego Marcio said...

At least in Brazil Obama is seen as one of the best US presidency ever however I know thats not true at all...but theres no way to argue against the masses

Tom Hickey said...

Well he has unemployment down to 5% which implies 95% employment... which 95% is usually not too shabby for whatever we are talking about...

Yet many are not satisfied with this apparent 95% success rate... why?


The telling issue is the participation rate and the demographics. U3 alone is pretty much meaningless other than as the lede in a puff piece.

Sure the economy is adding jobs, but they are crap jobs for the most part, and a whole lot of people are underemployed. A lot of other people are not looking because there are no job offers at their knowledge-skill level and they are not desperate enough yet to take a lower position. It is almost impossible to dig out of that hole once you climb down into it. Some people are just OD'ing. The suicide rate is up.

In addition, employee compensation has lagged productivity gains, so many people feel left out.

The number of people not only in the US but most developed countries that feel their children will not be as well off as they are is increasing. That is a very bad metric for politicians.

You can't fool people about how much munnie they have in the bank.

Matt Franko said...

Well even 85% success rate is not too shabby.... usually...

Tom Hickey said...

Whatever Obama accomplished, he did in the face of stonewall opposition the goal of which was to "break" him. On that measure, not too bad.

But he is making a big mistake politically trying to overhype his accomplishments when the majority of the country is feeling the pinch economically. That just generates an angry reaction and increases the conviction that the people at the top don't want to know and don't care. Bernie and Trump are making hay with this.

Simsalablunder said...

Get a college degree, flip burgers, drive taxi, clean toilets, become an elevator boy, live in a tent. The opportunities are excellent.

Matt Franko said...

Well $500B CAD divided by $50k jobs would be 10 million jobs...

Or $500B of tariffs would eliminate "the deficit!" and then these morons might actually feel they could increase leading flows towards other/new public purposes...

Joe said...

"Get a college degree, flip burgers, drive taxi, clean toilets, become an elevator boy, live in a tent. The opportunities are excellent." any and all left over income (if you're lucky) goes straight to student loans for most of your adult life. And then when you end up with no retirement savings, you get blamed for it. How nice!

Why work hard to educate yourself if the people at the top are gonna take all the profits of your labor?

It really pisses me off when right-wingers bitch about poor people living off of other people's labor. Looks to me like executive and share-holders are living off of other people's labor. How's it even disputable?

How did the concept of "earning" a dividend ever become legitimate? Looks like a huge racket to me.

Ignacio said...

Drive taxi? More like work for Uber, while not enjoying any of the benefits of being an employee, and "enjoy" all the problems of being self-employed.

All welcome our skillionarie overlords.

Simsalablunder said...

"More like work for Uber"
You get to drive for 18 hours instead of 8. It's a bargain.

Bob said...

Well even 85% success rate is not too shabby.... usually...

If I were Greek or Spanish, I'd agree...

Malmo's Ghost said...

It's more like a 45% success rate--for good compensating employment, that is.

Malmo's Ghost said...

...and on balance, government work is the most stable, secure, decently compensated work available.

MRW said...

The U6 rate is far more revealing, and recognizes reality: 9.8%.

For foreigners here, this is the U6 unemployment rate. http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

Again, for all foreigners on this board, scroll down the link I give to see a definition of U1 through U6 unemployment rates.

This website complies the US Bureau of Labor Statistics info in an easier to read and understand format.

MRW said...

45,000,000 households collect food stamps. A national disgrace.

Bob said...

Abolish food stamps - so America can be great again.

MRW said...

"Abolish food stamps - so America can be great again."

Riiight. Starve the people because we can’t afford to feed them anymore. And those 1 in 4 hungry kids? Just survival of the fittest.

MRW said...

Or are you being sarcastic? Couldn’t tell.

Bob said...

I was being sarcastic.

Simsalablunder said...

"45,000,000 households collect food stamps."
Is that true? That's massive.