Under Obama, Economic Stagnation Is the New Normal

Pointgold

Keeps It Simple
Friday's "Employment Situation" report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that 5.4 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force since Barack Obama took office. The labor force declined by 350,000 in November, despite an increase of 191,000 in our working age population.

So, is there any hope for the working class, and for jobless Americans that want to join the working class? As things stand right now, no, there isn't. Here's why.

Right now, America is about 14.7 million jobs short of full employment. To create one average job, someone has to invest about $200,000 in nonresidential assets. Therefore, to create the additional jobs we need, someone would have to invest an additional $3.0 trillion or so in the U.S. economy.

If an additional $3.0 trillion had been invested by the private sector during Obama's recovery, 3Q2012 GDP would have been $1.5 trillion, or 9.5%, higher than it actually was. Real GDP growth during those 13 calendar quarters would have averaged 5.11%, rather than the 2.21% actually achieved. By way of comparison, real GDP growth averaged 5.67% during the first 13 quarters of the Reagan recovery.

Coming out of a severe recession, a sustained period of fast economic growth has been normal for America,. However, under Obama, slow growth and high joblessness has become the new normal.

OK, so, who happens to have $3.0 trillion lying around, plus the knowledge and skills required to invest it wisely to create sustainable jobs? The poor? The middle class? The government?
No, the investment required to transform America's stagnant jobs picture can only come from the people that actually have the money, as well as the demonstrated ability to manage capital investment. In other words, it would have to come from the hated and reviled "one percent".

Obviously, "the rich" are already investing all that they are willing to invest under the current structure of incentives. Obama's plan is to do everything he can to make investment even less attractive for "the one percent" than it is now. This is why economic stagnation has become the new normal.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/12/10/jobs_under_obama_economic_stagnation_is_the_new_normal_100035.html
 
Yes we have been building to this "economic stagnation" since the 80's.

I have been posting about it for over 10 years. Amazing that "experts are just now beginning to see it. Perhaps in another 10 years they will see the real reasons causing it.
 
Bet the Bliissfully ignorant one voted for Mitt the Job Outsourcer though.

Nice pack of lies, there, Starglazer.
 
Many on the right apparently think Obama has vast superpowers to have caused all of this.
He hasn't caused it all but he has made it worse than it should ever have been.

What do you think will happen when we stop printing money and start taxin' Duh Rich? LOL
 
He hasn't caused it all but he has made it worse than it should ever have been.

What do you think will happen when we stop printing money and start taxin' Duh Rich? LOL

The same thing that has happen over and over again in our economic history when we raised taxes on the wealthy.

We got more revenues and the economy was great.


History matters and your lies about "what will happen" only fool the stupid
 
He hasn't caused it all but he has made it worse than it should ever have been.

What do you think will happen when we stop printing money and start taxin' Duh Rich? LOL

Your opinion. Mine is things would not really be any different had McCain /Palin won.
And possibly could be worse.

No way to say for sure though either way since it is only whatiffin.

You keep believing you opinions as fact and I will keep on believeing mine as probabilities.
 
Palin would make a mockery of this country.

Exactly what Mccain would have done depended on who pushed him arround politically.
 
stargazer said:
OK, so, who happens to have $3.0 trillion lying around, plus the knowledge and skills required to invest it wisely to create sustainable jobs? The poor? The middle class? The government?
No, the investment required to transform America's stagnant jobs picture can only come from the people that actually have the money, as well as the demonstrated ability to manage capital investment. In other words, it would have to come from the hated and reviled "one percent".
No demand, no jobs. Demand doesn't come from the 1%, as their moniker would suggest.
 
McCain in his old age and living in the state of Arizona (which has become tea party west central) is a push overl.

He just does whatever is poltically expediant.


he is a shell of his former self.
 
The same thing that has happen over and over again in our economic history when we raised taxes on the wealthy.

We got more revenues and the economy was great.


History matters and your lies about "what will happen" only fool the stupid

What happened in the '60's with the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts Desh?
 
What happened in the '60's with the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts Desh?
That's a pretty broad question. The largest revenue increase came after the 10% tax surcharge was enacted in '68. As well, the 4% corporate tax cut was coupled with an acceleration of corporate estmated tax.
 
That's a pretty broad question. The largest revenue increase came after the 10% tax surcharge was enacted in '68. As well, the 4% corporate tax cut was coupled with an acceleration of corporate estmated tax.

Do you believe the marginal rate tax cuts in the early '60's has nothing to do with the growing economy in the mid and late '60's?
 
It might also be worthwhile to calvcualte in a new factor or two. Offshoring jobs and China being a major trading partner.
And lets not forget the inevitable result of global trade.
The richer nations get poorer and the poorer ones get richer.
That silly cheap labor thing...
 
Do you believe the marginal rate tax cuts in the early '60's has nothing to do with the growing economy in the mid and late '60's?
Another broad generalization. I could return the favor by asking you if you think it wise to return to the 70% rate we saw under the Johnson tax cuts? How about the 48% corporate rate?

You ignore the fact that Johnson's cuts reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions.

It could be argued that it was a demand side cut, as opposed to a supply side cut. In essence, it's hard to make the case that it was the marginal rate cuts that boosted the economy.

It hasn't done so in the last 10 years, so why would you assume it worked in the 60's? Likewise, you have to study the corresponding spending increases in the same era.
 
Back
Top