Forbes: Obama Outdoes Reagan On Jobs, Growth, Investing

Found it strange that no one was discussing this FORBES ARTICLE that pretty much states that Obama is the Best economic President in modern times, and that all the leading economic indicators support that conclusion.

Why would anybody bother with that here? Half of Wordforge is convinced for no particular reason that Obama is the worst President since Harding. And the rest of us are weary of engaging those lunatics. You and I will be labeled koolaide drinkers, partisan hacks, apologists, and black Jesus worshippers for even having read the article.

:tumbleweeds:

If true, then good for him. I will give credit where credit is due. I'm not much of an economic expert, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
So far I have no complaints in how he handles the "bad guys" and just because he isn't destroying ISIS yet doesn't mean he won't.

The market fundies assure me that this will all be wiped out by the hyperinflation that's going to hit at the end of summer ('09).



How many times must their ideology be shown to be bullshit designed solely to transfer wealth upward before they get it?

A nitpick -- Forbes has any number of bloggers whose posts are published on Forbes.com, and to call one of those posts a "Forbes article" is misleading. That said, that doesn't invalidate Bob Deitrick's numbers.

Why would President Obama get credit anyway?

Precisely! We should only credit him for bad news. Thanks for illustrating the point made in post #2.

You can't compare the two because the way unemployed are counted in this country is different than it was when Reagan was president. If you factor in the people that have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks but are still looking for work (like they did in Reagans time)the real unemployment rate is much higher. No dice.

^^^^
Somebody didn't read the article, or failed to review all of the charts. The fiction that we've changed how we count the unemployed is just that, fiction.

Actually I did and you are either misinformed or willfully ignorent on how the way we count the unemployed in this country has changed. In 1994 they stopped counting people who were still unemployed after 52 weeks but still looking for work. Real unemployment is still hovering around 12%.So you lefties can co tinue to beat your chests about the lower unemployment rate but it doesn't change the fact that more people than ever are on welfare and food stamps, wages have been stagnant and this Presidents approvals are in the tank. Those are not results of a growing and thriving economy.

Proof of this assertion? I mean, beyond the baseless speculation of Right Wing Pundits?

Yes, there is a huge disparity between reported unemployment and real unemployment, and I think you'll find that the vast bulk of this disparity is easily explained by the fact that people really are legitimately leaving the job market, because the single largest part of the population (Baby Boomers) is reaching retirement age. Period.

If you can present evidence to the contrary, by all means, feel free to do so.

Also from Forbes:

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...s-a-record-100-million-americans-not-working/

Thanks for proving me wrong. The rate is actually 13.1 %. Didn't realize it had grown since the last time I checked. Very good article.

Well, that article clearly gets some of its stats wrong.

For example, unemployment under the old reckoning (IIRC equivalent to the u6 now) stood at 4.2% before the great depression:

EDIT: sorry, got caught up with work and didn't get a chance to finish this until now.

1928
4.2
1930
8.7
1932
23.6
1934
21.7
1936
16.9
1938
19.0
1940
14.6
1942
4.7

The 'every President recovered all the jobs lost within 2 years' mantra doesn't consider the fact that the event itself is still ongoing.

Clearly the Great Depression was worse than this.

Just as clearly recently there has been declining job participation due to external factors beyond Congress and the President's control.

But the same guys cutting the jobs and shipping them overseas are clamoring 'give us more profits and we'll make more jobs.'

That con has been easily seen through - corporate profits are at all time high levels.

I think the original articles point is well taken though - the Boomers are retiring now, and they are the single largest age demographic by a large margin.

Of course labor participation is going to go down when that happens.

What I'd like to see is a metric that gives labor particiation from 25-65.

Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#ixzz3CpOi5dX8

Volpone already beat me to it.

Word to the un-wise: not everyone who disagrees with you listens to fox news pundits. In fact a majority of this country who elected this President disagrees with your sides rosy view of his job performance. Are they all right wingers now too?

100 million Americans not working? Bullshit! The whole US population is only a bit over 300 million, and the population of employment aged people is only about 200 million (The workforce is even fewer if you exclude the disabled, the incarcerated, and intentional stay-at-home parents). If that 100 million jobless figure were at all true, we'd have unemployment somewhere in the 33 to +50 percent range, depending on whether you were including to entire populous, or just those of working age and ability.

Anyone here ready to seriously make that particular claim?

'Cause if you are, I'm afraid I'll have to once more post that tremendously overused, but often oh-so-appropriate (particularly in this forum), animated gif of Bender laughing even harder.

Good thing I never mentioned Fox then, eh?

Reagan is still magic, because I say so, because feelings.

That would be more useful, as would one that correlates growth against that measurement. Lower participation certainly leads to lower GDP growth, but what is the change in output per worker? If lower participation is the new norm and for reasons that do not imply a poor functioning economy, we should expect lower growth rates.

In response to Gul, I think the saying that no president deserves credit (or blame) for economic changes that take place within the first year of his admin. is valid.

Because policies take time to pass. Policies then take considerable time to impact the economy.

The long running economic growth under Reagan did not begin until near the end of 1982. When he had been in office some 18 months.

On the other hand, economic growth began again well before Obama had been in office a year.

Job hirings are at a 7 year high and job openings are at a 13 year high. Looks like companies are having a hard time finding people.

You do realize your last sentence contradicts the first two.

Not at all.

Growth begin again BEFORE any of Obama's policies had a chance to take effect.

http://www.economist.com/node/15911334

So Obama took office in January '09 and the economy started its recovery in the summer of the same year.

Based on what, IYO? Dubya's Magic Fairy Dust?

I just passed up 10 help wanted signs today. AK steel is even hiring. Kohl's, DHL, UPS, Fed Ex, are among the companies hiring. Jobs are abundant here.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that the right has in the past tried to lay at Obama's feet. What do you want to bet they're going to start taking credit for it now.

Oh, no doubt. Surprised it's taking them so long.

Why do you give credit to Obama for that?