Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The U.S. Govenment is Conducting a Ponzi Scheme
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Riley" data-source="post: 2671046" data-attributes="member: 29196"><p>How about the ol' labor force participation rate?</p><p></p><p><a href="http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000" target="_blank">http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000</a></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]44051[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Kind of clarifies the unemployment lie, less on the book because they keep falling off, some improvement there Ace...</p><p></p><p>Here's a few paragraphs from a Forbes article which I think, clarify flaws in the talking points Ace tossed out. Those talking points appear to be from a comparison of Regan to O in some source which I have not seen. O fails by the way....</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/</a></p><p></p><p>"This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.</p><p></p><p>The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency.</p><p></p><p>1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009.</p><p></p><p>However, in Reagan’s case, 1973-82 also saw a whopping 120% increase in consumer prices (8.3% per year), a doubling of the unemployment rate (in the context of increased labor-force participation) to near 11%, stocks down a quarter in nominal and two-thirds in real terms, a soaring of the prime rate past 20%, and oil up 14-fold in price."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Riley, post: 2671046, member: 29196"] How about the ol' labor force participation rate? [url]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000[/url] [ATTACH=CONFIG]44051[/ATTACH] Kind of clarifies the unemployment lie, less on the book because they keep falling off, some improvement there Ace... Here's a few paragraphs from a Forbes article which I think, clarify flaws in the talking points Ace tossed out. Those talking points appear to be from a comparison of Regan to O in some source which I have not seen. O fails by the way.... [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/[/url] "This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case. The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency. 1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009. However, in Reagan’s case, 1973-82 also saw a whopping 120% increase in consumer prices (8.3% per year), a doubling of the unemployment rate (in the context of increased labor-force participation) to near 11%, stocks down a quarter in nominal and two-thirds in real terms, a soaring of the prime rate past 20%, and oil up 14-fold in price." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The U.S. Govenment is Conducting a Ponzi Scheme
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom