Hope, Change and slow economic growth

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

So Presidents control the growth of the economy and under 3% growth is mediocre. NY Fed says Daddy’s economic growth is under 2% this quarter. Cheers!

Why so mad that Obama lags the others?

"yes, there are all sorts of upticks and downturns, but every recession triggers a recovery, and growth tends to average out to a pretty stable result"

MikeDamone said:

"As an economist, I tend to look at Obama through a purely economic lens.

Most modern presidents since WWII achieved fairly similar economic performance…some years better than others, some years worse - but overall performance doesn’t vary as much as many might think, especially when you look at US presidents serving eight year terms…yes, there are all sorts of upticks and downturns, but every recession triggers a recovery, and growth tends to average out to a pretty stable result. Still, as we’ll see, if a president consistently underperforms the average, the compounding effect can be quite dramatic.

Since WWII, the US economy increased by an average of about 3% per year as measured by real GDP growth rate. To me, this is a convenient scorecard to judge a president’s economic performance: Clinton, Reagan and JFK all exceeded this number, while Obama, Bush and Truman were below.

Sadly for Obama, his GDP growth performance is arguably the worst of any US peacetime president since WWII. The data reveal an average growth of about 1.9% over his eight years, although I find this number a bit unfair - his initial year reflected the policies of his predecessor, and his final year reflected the hopes of a people awaiting the next administration. If you average the remaining six years of the Obama presidency, his average real GDP growth was about 1.5%, and that indeed is the lowest performance for any US president since the Great Depression.

Overall GDP growth rate doesn’t reveal the whole story. In a growing nation, GDP will expand a certain amount just because of population growth…add people to the country, and you tend to get more economic activity. Economists therefore sometimes further qualify performance by looking at GDP growth rate per capita - and by this measure, Obama’s performance is truly dismal. In fact, Obama’s first term, at -0.5%, stands as the worst four-year result for any year period since the Great Depression. This means that the Obama economy under his first term didn’t even grow at the rate suggested by population growth. Per-capita GDP growth over Obama’s full eight year term was under 0.5%, and this also stands out as the worst result for any president in the last seventy years.

Of course, Obama’s results aren’t hard to understand - he ran an anti-business administration where high taxes, regulatory overreach and new mandates like Obamacare had a crippling impact on economic growth. As a result, Obama got anemic job growth, and many American companies saw great incentive to move jobs offshore. As has been pointed out, the labor force participation rate dropped to post-depression lows under Obama, and federal handouts such as food stamps skyrocketed.

To give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s as though he ran his administration on the premise that his form of social justice was more important than prosperity, and this is exactly the result he achieved.

Now, to bring it back to the real impact on the average American…

Over an eight-year term, a president hitting the average 3% growth would see the American economy grow by about 27%. Yet, Obama’s average of 1.9% means that the US economy only grew by 16% over eight years - about 11% less than the average US president achieved. When you do some math on this, this means that the true “cost” to America of the Obama presidency was about $2 trillion. That’s about $25,000 for every American family.

So that’s how I look at “what Obama did to the country”. Yes, you can critique his policies and talk about the class warfare, erosion of the rule of law, the economic dislocation, his many scandals and so on. But in concrete, practical terms, his administration cost the average US family about $25,000 compared to what we might have expected from a merely average President, and that’s enough for me to be unhappy with his performance."

Written by Valerie Rhea on Quora

Bendintheriver said:

MikeDamone said:

"As an economist, I tend to look at Obama through a purely economic lens.

Most modern presidents since WWII achieved fairly similar economic performance…some years better than others, some years worse - but overall performance doesn’t vary as much as many might think, especially when you look at US presidents serving eight year terms…yes, there are all sorts of upticks and downturns, but every recession triggers a recovery, and growth tends to average out to a pretty stable result. Still, as we’ll see, if a president consistently underperforms the average, the compounding effect can be quite dramatic.

Since WWII, the US economy increased by an average of about 3% per year as measured by real GDP growth rate. To me, this is a convenient scorecard to judge a president’s economic performance: Clinton, Reagan and JFK all exceeded this number, while Obama, Bush and Truman were below.

Sadly for Obama, his GDP growth performance is arguably the worst of any US peacetime president since WWII. The data reveal an average growth of about 1.9% over his eight years, although I find this number a bit unfair - his initial year reflected the policies of his predecessor, and his final year reflected the hopes of a people awaiting the next administration. If you average the remaining six years of the Obama presidency, his average real GDP growth was about 1.5%, and that indeed is the lowest performance for any US president since the Great Depression.

Overall GDP growth rate doesn’t reveal the whole story. In a growing nation, GDP will expand a certain amount just because of population growth…add people to the country, and you tend to get more economic activity. Economists therefore sometimes further qualify performance by looking at GDP growth rate per capita - and by this measure, Obama’s performance is truly dismal. In fact, Obama’s first term, at -0.5%, stands as the worst four-year result for any year period since the Great Depression. This means that the Obama economy under his first term didn’t even grow at the rate suggested by population growth. Per-capita GDP growth over Obama’s full eight year term was under 0.5%, and this also stands out as the worst result for any president in the last seventy years.

Of course, Obama’s results aren’t hard to understand - he ran an anti-business administration where high taxes, regulatory overreach and new mandates like Obamacare had a crippling impact on economic growth. As a result, Obama got anemic job growth, and many American companies saw great incentive to move jobs offshore. As has been pointed out, the labor force participation rate dropped to post-depression lows under Obama, and federal handouts such as food stamps skyrocketed.

To give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s as though he ran his administration on the premise that his form of social justice was more important than prosperity, and this is exactly the result he achieved.

Now, to bring it back to the real impact on the average American…

Over an eight-year term, a president hitting the average 3% growth would see the American economy grow by about 27%. Yet, Obama’s average of 1.9% means that the US economy only grew by 16% over eight years - about 11% less than the average US president achieved. When you do some math on this, this means that the true “cost” to America of the Obama presidency was about $2 trillion. That’s about $25,000 for every American family.

So that’s how I look at “what Obama did to the country”. Yes, you can critique his policies and talk about the class warfare, erosion of the rule of law, the economic dislocation, his many scandals and so on. But in concrete, practical terms, his administration cost the average US family about $25,000 compared to what we might have expected from a merely average President, and that’s enough for me to be unhappy with his performance."

Written by Valerie Rhea on Quora

When you add the fact that 95% of all new jobs during the BO era were part time or contract, it provides clarity as to how shitty the dumb shit was at helping to make the country grow. He did just the opposite.

https://www.investing.com/news/economy/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

GDS said:

Average real GDP growth over the last 4 years under Obama 2.36%
Average real GDP growth over the first 3 years under Trump 2.45%

Average deficit last 4 years under Obama 545 Bill
Average deficit first 3 years under Trump 845 Bill

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

Average real GDP growth over the last 4 years under Obama 2.36%
Average real GDP growth over the first 3 years under Trump 2.45%

Average deficit last 4 years under Obama 545 Bill
Average deficit first 3 years under Trump 845 Bill

Now do average unemployment for Obama's 8 years in office. And why are you only listing Obama's deficit numbers for his last 4 years in office.

Btw, Trump just submitted his budget. Would you like to talk about the response of the Rats to minor reductions in the growth in spending?

Why are you not supporting Trump's budget if you're so concerned about deficit spending?

GDS said:

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

Average real GDP growth over the last 4 years under Obama 2.36%
Average real GDP growth over the first 3 years under Trump 2.45%

Average deficit last 4 years under Obama 545 Bill
Average deficit first 3 years under Trump 845 Bill

Now do average unemployment for Obama's 8 years in office. And why are you only listing Obama's deficit numbers for his last 4 years in office.

Btw, Trump just submitted his budget. Would you like to talk about the response of the Rats to minor reductions in the growth in spending?

Why are you not supporting Trump's budget if you're so concerned about deficit spending?

The OP used real GDP growth rates to illustrate economic progress. If you want to use a different statistic than be my guest.