[Timezone Detection]
X
Really Fast Registration - Join in seconds!

User Name: Email Address: Over 13 and agree
to Forum Rules?  
Human Verification


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56

Thread: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

  1. #1

    Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Bob Deitrick: ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

    “As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

    “President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

    “We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... investing/
    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhart ... -Obama.jpg

  2. #2

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Great, so there is a lot of employment. Let's talk about what kind of jobs those are.

    I'm not going to sit here and praise Reagan because he was little more than a puppet and probably didn't understand what he was doing half the time, but don't try to piss on my head and tell me it's raining.
    I am going to tear down your safe space
    Brick by brick I shall smash it with glee
    You cannot stop me from getting inside
    I am cold and I am hard and my name is 'Reality'

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Home of the Syrupmakers
    Posts
    10,817

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    8-)

  4. #4

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

  5. #5

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Apples/Oranges



  6. #6

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    This is like a UCLA lead thread on economics - painfull

    Deitrick is a 'contributor' from Chicago and Harvard. He's a hack..

    Last week, Adam Hartung qualified for the "Mark Twain Award" if there was such a thing. In his article, "Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth & Investing," Adam goes to some length to try and show that unemployment rate, the S&P 500 and economic growth are currently better under the current administration than they were during the Reagan administration.

    Adam's first mistake was in the use of the Bureau Of Labor Statistics measure of unemployment (U3) as a comparative benchmark of success as President.

    While this is "technically true," it falls within Twain's category of a "statistical lie."

    The BLS's measure of unemployment has become obfuscated by the rise in the number of individuals that are no longer counted as part of the labor force. As I discussed in "Why The Unemployment Rate Is Irrelevant," the measure of labor force participation is markedly different between Reagan and Obama.

    During Reagan's Presidency, workers that were unemployed longer than 52-weeks were still part of the labor force. This inclusion gave a more accurate measure of the relative size of the labor force overall. However, in 1994, Clinton removed individuals from the labor force that were currently unemployed for longer than 52-weeks. This adjustment immediately improved the overall measure of unemployment by shrinking the labor force by some 500,000 individuals. Since then, the number of individuals no longer counted as part of the labor force has swelled to more than 92 million individuals, or roughly 45% of the working age population (16-54) as of the end of 2013

    In other words, a large part of the drop in the U-3 unemployment rate is due to the increase in the number of individuals excluded from the workforce. In theory, if the dropout rate continued at the current pace, the unemployment could fall towards zero allowing the Federal Reserve to win the battle of unemployment, but losing the war of economic prosperity.

    The chart below shows the annual change in those not counted as part of the labor force by President from 1981-Present



    One of the arguments made by Adam is that the slack in the Labor Force Participation Rate is due to "Baby Boomers" retiring. This is hardly the case








    The surge in the stock market since 2009 has not been a representation of underlying economic strength but rather a direct correlation to the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The chart below shows the level of excess reserves of depository institutions and the S&P 500 index by President



    and



    I do agree with Adam on his concluding point:

    "There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best."

    Clearly, the right answer was Reagan. Reagan, faced with skyrocketing inflation and interest rates, laid the groundwork that paved the way for a 20-year expansion of economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately, as we move into the fifth longest economic recovery in history, there is little evidence such an economic "boom" is on the horizon

    Zerohedge

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Home of the Syrupmakers
    Posts
    10,817

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    lol School is open,... but the students refuse to retain any information


  8. #8

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Bob Deitrick: ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

    “As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

    “President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

    “We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... investing/
    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhart ... -Obama.jpg
    The O is the king of PT employment and pay on average that is 23% less than prerecession wages. If that's your idea of success, well you set the damn bar pretty low.

  9. #9

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Home of the Syrupmakers
    Posts
    10,817

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    All of it is propped up.

  11. #11

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.
    If only you knew how little that means and, more importantly, how bad it is for the economy...B.U.B.B.L.E.

  12. #12

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    If you don't use the same metrics in measuring employment, how can you do a valid comparison?

    Obama is a joke.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.


    Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Home of the Syrupmakers
    Posts
    10,817

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    More like "Word****"

  14. #14

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.
    Another gem of wisdom. :shock:

  15. #15

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Guckster
    More like "Word****"

    Very clever Suckster.

  16. #16

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.

    But the divide between rich and poor is worse than ever.

  17. #17

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan


  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Home of the Syrupmakers
    Posts
    10,817

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tradition


  19. #19

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.
    Did you not read the response, or not understand it?

    The surge in the stock market since 2009 has not been a representation of underlying economic strength but rather a direct correlation to the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The chart below shows the level of excess reserves of depository institutions and the S&P 500 index by President


    Do you grasp the information that chart conveys?

  20. #20

    Re: Forbes: Obama outperforms Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Seminole97
    Quote Originally Posted by wordjazz
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    So the measure is the unemployment rate? What a freaking joke. How does someone with that little analytic ability get published in Forbes?

    The stock market is even better and corporate profits are sky high.
    Did you not read the response, or not understand it?

    The surge in the stock market since 2009 has not been a representation of underlying economic strength but rather a direct correlation to the expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. The chart below shows the level of excess reserves of depository institutions and the S&P 500 index by President


    Do you grasp the information that chart conveys?
    "...Most importantly, it wasn't low interest rates that caused so much havoc; it was the proliferation of subprime mortgages.

    At the time, much of the financial industry was operating under two fallacies. First, lenders believed that new derivatives and asset-backed securities had eradicated the risk of default. And second, while it seems absurd in hindsight, many of the best and brightest minds on Wall Street had concluded that housing prices would never stop going up -- or, at the very least, that they wouldn't decline simultaneously across the country.

    The result was that these assumptions removed much of the incentive for lenders to monitor credit standards. If there's no fear of default, why not lend to anyone and everyone regardless of their income, assets, or credit score? And it was this behavior, and notably not the Fed's manipulation of interest rates, which fueled the housing bubble and laid the groundwork for the financial crisis.

    But what about the stock market's record highs?
    This isn't to say that the central bank can't distort asset values by way of monetary policy. Indeed, not only can it do so, but it can do so to a considerable degree.

    "Monetary policy has powerful effects on risk taking," Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen acknowledged in a speech earlier this month. "Indeed, the accommodative policy stance of recent years has supported the recovery, in part, by providing increased incentives for households and businesses to take on the risk of potentially productive investments."

    This is exactly what's happened. As Josh Brown recounted earlier this year, "flows into equity funds went megapositive in 2013 while money going into bond funds slowed to a trickle." More specifically, he noted that stock funds have had $298 billion in inflows since the beginning of last year, while bond funds have had only $75 billion.

    But that's as far as it goes. In other words, the fact that the Fed's monetary policies have caused stock prices to soar, doesn't mean there's a bubble.

    The reason for this is simple. In order for there to be a bubble, asset prices must be more than inflated; they must be irrationally inflated. And, like I've discussed, this isn't the case. If anything, in fact, the increase in asset prices is entirely rational.

    As Bloomberg's Noah Smith recently explained (emphasis added):

    The value of a financial asset is the discounted present value of its future payoffs, and when the discount rate -- of which the Fed interest rate is a component -- goes down, the true fundamental value of risky assets goes up mechanically and automatically. That's rational price appreciation, not a bubble.
    Does this mean stock prices won't at some point deflate? No. In fact, you should probably assume they will. Stock prices correct all the time. But what's important to remember is that a correction isn't a bubble..."

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... stock.aspx

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2013 www.BigDelivery.com - All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2014 www.TheDailyNole.com - All Rights Reserved
This website is an independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO