I didn't manipulate the meaning of significant. I chose the word advisedly, to make it clear I wasn't claiming that spending and revenues "always" rise (which would have been snappy rhetoric, but not technically correct), but that rather they rise over long enough periods. Before I posted, I was thinking more in terms of the modern era, from the Kennedy years to the present, so I was thinking about five or six years being the longest we go without setting a new record for both. But, once I dug into the data, I realized there were longer periods than that associated with the world wars. Yet, even there, if we go with a span of just a quarter century, we find no periods without growth of both.
How much has Obamacare saved the American people?
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
I didn't manipulate the meaning of significant. I chose the word advisedly, to make it clear I wasn't claiming that spending and revenues "always" rise (which would have been snappy rhetoric, but not technically correct), but that rather they rise over long enough periods. Before I posted, I was thinking more in terms of the modern era, from the Kennedy years to the present, so I was thinking about five or six years being the longest we go without setting a new record for both. But, once I dug into the data, I realized there were longer periods than that associated with the world wars. Yet, even there, if we go with a span of just a quarter century, we find no periods without growth of both.
Obamacare was one factor.
Backpedaling?
Obviously, the fact the recession started before 9/11 doesn't mean the recession might not have been avoided if not for 9/11. I suspect what we have here is a misunderstanding, on your part, about how recessions work. Recessions aren't just periods of economic contraction. If that were the case, the economy would go into recession pretty much every night, as production largely shut down in the wee hours. Rather, for it to be a "recession," the economic contraction must be sufficiently lengthy. The National Bureau of Economic Research doesn't "call" a recession until many months after what they later name as the start date, because until that point it's still possible for the contraction to be too short (or mild) to get the label "recession." But, once they decide it has crossed that threshold, they back-date it to the first sign of economic shrinkage, rather than to the date when the shrinkage was significant enough to constitute a recession (by which time, the recession may actually be just about over).
You can see what I mean if you read the actual announcement for that recession, here:
https://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/
As you can see, they didn't call the start of the recession until November 2001 (which was actually the LAST month of the recession). When they made the call, they back-dated it to March. However, they expressly said that it might have been avoidable if not for the 9/11 attacks:
Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?
A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.
Now you know. You're welcome.
As for Y2K, the spending associated with preparing for Y2K had started 30 years before 2000 (when software calculating 30-year mortgages needed to be able to handle those digits). By the end of 1999, most of the Y2K work was done (though some continued right up through 2017, oddly enough). So, the idea that somehow that accounts for the growth cycle that continued into 2001 doesn't make much sense.
Besides, if it was that easy to create prosperity, why not just pass a law requiring all programs to be Y10K compliant? That would put all sorts of coders to work, right? But the point is you're taking them away from other, more potentially productive work, which is why nobody would argue in favor of such a law. Well, in the same way, all those computer programmers doing Y2K work were talent not available to do more productive work. What would the Clinton boom have looked like if he hadn't inherited that neglected issue from Reagan and Bush?
montgomery
Verified User
For a good discussion on Obamacare where the hateful deniers get it stuffed right up their snouts, come on over to the APP section. I'm the Canadian over there who is happy to talk about the facts of universal health care in a safe environment where the rabid rightists aren't allowed to shit on everything that embarrasses them!
So you aren't pretending that Obamacare caused a decrease in prices. OK, then.
Yes. It's as if you can't tell the difference between claiming something reduced the rate of increase and arguing something caused a decrease.
Here, I'll help. Imagine you're in a car, speeding down the road away from your house. What will happen to the rate at which you're moving away from your house if you step on the brake? Obviously, it'll fall (to zero, if you step on it long enough and hard enough). Does that mean you're now closer to your house? Of course not. You will be farther from your house than you were when you started stepping on the brake. But you'll also be closer to your house than you would have been if you hadn't stepped on the brake. Got it?
For which stat, specifically?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I have yet to see any proof of this.
I believe so. I wouldn't claim to be able to prove it definitively, but the data very strongly implies it, as you're well aware.
Yes.
As with the vast majority of conclusions about policies, it can't be proven, with all the complicating factors. But, it's the best educated guess.
No. What would make you think that? Just laying out my thinking and elaborating on the history.
So you say, impelled by what I perceive as an unscientific prejudice.
Not proven. You are dismissed.
cawacko
Well-known member
The Y2K work was a false prosperity, that's the point. You are claiming it was on solid economic footing, no it wasn't. The dot com bubble and Y2K created a bubble. That is an economic fact. It's why we don't recreate it in 2010 or any other time. Again, you're trying to spin a political story which doesn't align with economic reality.
And you're claiming Greenspan purposefully created a recession. Again, political spin for a narrative you want to tell.
So you say. From my perspective it appears that the answer to your thread title must be "maybe, maybe not."
I have no idea what the APP section is.
Yes, the best evidence strongly suggests it did.
You made several claims.
To wit: "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."
Can you substantiate them factually, or not?
Answer.
It does? Doesn't that interpretation of the data require an unscientific bias?