If at first you don’t succeed, lower your expectations.
[quote=“Winston Smith”]Of course the economy is better now under Ben Bernanke than it was in 2008. The only way it could have gotten worse is for the Great Recession to have turned into the Great Depression and that’s clearly not the case. 85 billion magic dollars a month have to go somewhere and they’ve clearly gone into the pockets of those who need it the most.
[/quote]
I’m trying not to think about all the unemployed people I keep running into when I’m in the US, all the friends who are struggling to make ends meet and all the money that’s gone to administration cronies and their boondoggles. Your reality sounds so much nicer.
I wish I could believe in the new American god, but he’s just too ludicrous.
If at first you don’t succeed, lower your expectations.[/quote]
I agree with BrentGolf, but “lowering your expectations” is not what it’s about. We should instead accept that not everybody wants or needs to be in full-time employment. There is no obvious philosophical, structural or economic reason why they should be. The question is, then: how does someone who does not have a standard job provide for himself? Employment law in the West is so constrictive - mostly, it seems, so that governments can extract the maximum possible amount of income tax - that people who do not have formal employment have few alternative choices. Depending on exactly where you live, it can be illegal to take small cash-in-hand jobs, to start a microbusiness and sell things - say, growing tomatoes in your garden - or even to actually grow tomatoes (I mean the red fruit, btw, not … the other sort). It may be illegal to homeschool your kids. It is almost invariably illegal to build your own home, even on land that you own; although that particular restriction has a sensible basis, the workaround (paying large fees to consultants and government inspectors) unfairly discriminates against people who are not part of the cash-based economy.
Personally, I think “unemployed” people could productively contribute to an economy specifically geared up to integrate them. At the moment, the interfaces with the mainstream economy are too few and too restrictive.
[quote=“finley”][quote=“rowland”]
I agree with BrentGolf, but “lowering your expectations” is not what it’s about. We should instead accept that not everybody wants or needs to be in full-time employment. [/quote][/quote]
What was it we were promised again?
When exactly did McJobs go from being a bad thing to a good thing?
While we’re at it, how about we accept that not everybody wants or needs health insurance? Or competent, trustworthy government?
I think it was something like this:
Promise made, promise delivered. A simple “thank you Obama” would suffice 
[quote=“BrentGolf”]
Promise made, promise delivered. A simple “thank you Obama” would suffice 
[/quote]
You’ll have to settle for “those guys have been caught lying before about the unemployment stats.”
Well there’s certainly no shortage of charts and statistics floating around that will paint a different picture, but if you can’t see the obvious biases and clear conflicts of interest from these sites then there’s really nothing anybody could say that would change your opinion. It’s nothing but confirmation bias. Every positive stat you see about the economy is a lying bullshit stat, and every negative thing you see is the truth and a clear confirmation of your doomsday theory. If that’s how you’re going to navigate this economy then I suggest you just buy a bunch of gold coins and join your doomsday brethren preparing for the end of days 
The only way to profit from this economy is to see things as they actually are, in reality, and make decisions accordingly. Confirmation bias never earns you a penny. I don’t care how much you liked Bush, it wouldn’t have made any sense to be bullish on the economy in 2007/08. Similarly I don’t care how much you hate Obama, it doesn’t make any sense to be bearish on the economy in 2013. Politicians lie ALL the time, and Obama is not exempt. But don’t confuse Obama’s lies about where he “predicted” the economy would be during campaigning, and how robust the economy actually is. The President being a liar, and a good economy are NOT mutually exclusive. This is a clear case where we have both at the same time
And you just stayed earlier they are two different things when they are not.
The meaning of the economy is very important as if at least 40% of people are getting poorer then you have a problem that is significant.
You can also say unemployment is structural which is true to some extent but there is the point of the economic rebound for people who don’t/can’t participate in it?
Unemployment is structural so it doesn’t count as part of the ‘economy’?
When did talking about the ‘success of the economy’ mean you can simply ignore huge segments of the population?
That’s new.
Proper analysis should strive to eliminate external variables and focus on the real issue. If you’d like to blame Obama for the structural unemployment that exists that is of course you’re choice. Doesn’t seem very constructive to me, but hey to each his own. I suppose you’ll try to blame Obama for the emergence of the internet right? For advancements in robotics and the tech industry? Personally I’d rather just judge the administration on things they actually have control over. Unemployment can only go so low in this day in age. Getting us back to where we are now, and doing it in very short order considering where we were just 5 years ago is a job well done in my opinion. It’s not going much lower though so don’t get your hopes up. This isn’t partisan either. Even if your favorite Republican candidate wins in 2016, don’t expect unemployment to be much lower than it is today.
Brent, you need to distinguish between Repub partisans and people who just disagree with you. HHII is a fairminded Irishman, and brings up a good point that many economists have also: an economic recovery with this level of unemployment is not good enough. Ben Bernake agrees, as does Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, etc.
Many people don’t believe the unemployment problem is structural. If you don’t then the recovery looks far weaker. The O admin absolutely deserves credit for bringing us back from the brink in 2008. But their focus on job recovery has been uneven, aided in part by assuming at several points in the past 6 years the economy was about the “recover.”
One doesn’t have to be a cheerleader or a partisan hack on this issue to disagree with you.
The Obama Administration dropped the ball in two major ways
-
While between Nelson, Lieberman and the other Blue Dogs Dems on the one hand and the solid Rep opposition on the other they couldn’t have gotten the stimulus through that they needed, it’s true that they, along with everybody else, severely underestimated the severity of the collapse. They might have been able to add a “second bout of stimulus if we need it, but of course we won’t” provision.
-
They underestimated the strength of the recovery, and, in response to the Very Serious People inside the Beltway media bubble, “pivoted” to deficit reduction. The deficit has dropped by half, but that’s a bad thing in the current unemployment situation.
Obama is at heart a centrist who would love to have been credited for “saving the economy” through a Grand Bargain i.e. cutting the deficit and the debt on the backs of the middle class by slashing Social Security and Medicare, which is why he appointed who he did to the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Luckily for the great American public, the Republicans went crazy and refused to make any kind of agreement.
He’s been better than the Europeans,and far better than the right-wing loonies who would have totally trashed the economy, but it hasn’t been the recovery it should have been under any kind of sensible Keynesianism, say the way government spending increased during the Reagan and Dubbya recessions.
And that’s why I simply responded rather then giving a few extra digs for being partisan because you’re right there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people. And I’ve never claimed that unemployment is awesome and I’m thrilled with it. I’m just illustrating that it is miles better then where it was 5 years ago. But we do have to analyse the problem realistically also. How much better could the job market be right now?
Employment unfortunately won’t get much better because the hiring of more employees is being made by businesses that make decisions based on maximizing profit. Companies simply do not need the large payrolls they once did. They can easily make due with 90% or 80% of their old payrolls and still run just as efficiently as demonstrated by the profit margins we are seeing right now. In days past sales departments in some cases could have been hundreds of employees. Today, 5 people with an internet connection can do that. Marketing may have been a whole division of a company, but these days some online ads and a website can take care of much of that. Factories and manufacturing plants would have thousands of employees, but have you seen how cheap robotics are these days? When engineers would design buildings, bridges, airplanes, etc it would take entire teams. Now 2 guys with an Autocad program can do most of the work. The list goes on and on and on…
This is not a new problem under Obama, it only appears that way. This has been going on for the better part of 20 years now. The difference is, in the past companies had no reason to make any major changes. The problem was still there, growing year after year, but it didn’t surface until the crisis hit. When the financial crisis hit, companies had NO CHOICE but to streamline their workforce. They could have done it in the 90’s or at any time during Bush’s Presidency, but they didn’t because they weren’t forced to by a real threat to their very survival.
It’s no different than household debt. It’s been a growing problem for well over a decade, but it was the financial crisis that forced the massive deleveraging that we’ve seen in the last few years. It doesn’t mean it started in 08, it just means it was brought under the spotlight in 08.
Believe me I don’t want unemployment this high. Unfortunately, short of a new industry I don’t see a scenario where it gets any better.
Even if they’re saying the same thing? 
I joined this thread to point out these very facts, that Obama and his influence or not on the economy is over estimated and the meaning of the ‘economy’ and ‘growth in the economy’ is important.
I mean if growth in the economy is concentrated in too few people or with people who already have money it loses meaning. If growth in the economy was mainly debt based its the same thing.
I agree Obama was constrained because America is quite conservative and right leaning in many parts and very factional so it’s hard to push through bold measures without everything getting watered down and delayed.
Unless a plane crashes into a skyscraper etc.
Out of all the people who think the recovery could have been better then it has been, how many of you would have supported MORE stimulus and deficit spending 4 years ago? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for all those people who opposed doing what is necessary to stimulate the economy, and then turning around and saying see the economy isn’t as strong as it could be. You can’t have it both ways. Republicans try to have it both ways. They like to step on your throat and then laugh at you when you can’t breath. They like to be unbelievable obstructionist in Washington and then turn around and say see, you didn’t get anything done. 
[quote=“headhonchoII”]that Obama and his influence or not on the economy is over estimated
[/quote]
So what good is he then?
[quote]
I agree Obama was constrained because America is quite conservative and right leaning in many parts and very factional so it’s hard to push through bold measures without everything getting watered down and delayed.
Unless a plane crashes into a skyscraper etc.[/quote]
That’s a nice way of phrasing what his most extreme critics are saying: that he’s a dangerous Marxist radical who would do even worse damage if he could get away with it.
His party controlled the White House and both branches of Congress, all at the same time. Can you seriously say that Trainwreckcare was watered down and delayed? By whom? Trotskyites?
I get the feeling rowland and fred smith would get along like a house on fire. They might even be running on the same server.
Doubtful.
What obstruction? The Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency and rammed Obamacare through with no Republican support and won the day despite massive Republican opposition so no… no… you cannot blame the Republicans and that also goes for how the stimulus was spent on programs and tax breaks and not massive infrastructure projects. Obama apparently did not realize that there were no shovel-ready projects ready at hand. AND REALLY… after the insane opposition to and demonization of George W. Bush… the Democrats and many of those here on this forum do not suddenly get to find Jesus and demand forgiveness and mercy while failing to entertain even a modicum of understanding when Bush was president. So blow it out your A**.
Just a little reminder:
[quote]The classic definition of chutzpah is the child who kills his parents and then asks for leniency because he’s an orphan. But in recent weeks, we’ve begun to see the Washington definition: A party that does everything possible to sabotage a law and then professes fury when the law’s launch is rocky.
On Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan became the latest Republicans to call for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to step down because of the Affordable Care Act’s troubled launch. “I do believe people should be held accountable,” he said.
Okay then.
How about House Republicans who refused to appropriate the money the Department of Health and Human Services said it needed to properly implement Obamacare?
How about Senate Republicans who tried to intimidate Sebelius out of using existing HHS funds to implement Obamacare? “Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers?” Sen. Orrin Hatch demanded at one hearing. It’s difficult to imagine the size of the disaster if Sebelius hadn’t moved those funds.
How about congressional Republicans who refuse to permit the packages of technical fixes and tweaks that laws of this size routinely require?
How about Republican governors who told the Obama administration they absolutely had to be left to build their own health-care exchanges – you’ll remember that the House Democrats’ health-care plan included a single, national exchange – and then refused to build, leaving the construction of 34 insurance marketplaces up to HHS?
How about the coordinated Republican effort to get the law declared unconstitutional – an effort that ultimately failed, but that stalled implementation as government and industry waited for the uncertainty to resolve?
How about the dozens of Republican governors who refused to take federal dollars to expand Medicaid, leaving about 5.5 million low-income people who’d be eligible for free, federally-funded government insurance to slip through the cracks?
The GOP’s strategy hasn’t just tried to win elections and repeal Obamacare. They’ve actively sought to sabotage the implementation of the law. They intimidated the people who were implementing the law. They made clear that problems would be exploited rather than fixed. A few weeks ago, they literally shut down the government because they refused to pass a funding bill that contiained money for Obamacare.
The Obama administration deserves all the criticism it’s getting for the poor start of health law and more. Their job was to implement the law effectively – even if Republicans were standing in their way. So far, it’s clear that they weren’t able to smoothly surmount both the complexities of the law and the political roadblocks thrown in their path. Who President Obama will ultimately hold accountable – if anyone – for the failed launch is an interesting question.
But the GOP’s complaints that their plan to undermine the law worked too well and someone has to pay border on the comic. If Republicans believe Sebelius is truly to blame for the law’s poor launch, they should be pinning a medal on her.
[/quote]