On April 26 of this year, Blogcritics was kind enough to publish Where is the Economic Recovery Obama Promised? Comment #20, by Frivolous D, cited this Gross Domestic Product (GDP) source. The only problem is that Frivolous D's source ended with 2011. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has released GDP figures for the first two quarters of 2012, so I thought a GDP update might prove interesting, especially in light of the current campaign season.
First, let's examine the GDP growth figures (annualized) for the first two quarters of 2012. The GDP grew at a rate of two percent in the first quarter, and a whopping one point five percent in the second quarter (subsequently downgraded to one point three percent). For perspective, a three percent GDP growth rate (or higher) is needed to create jobs. To say that the GDP growth rate for 2012 is anemic is a gross understatement. Soooooo, we just may have found the reason for Obama's jobs problem.
Economic forecasters are not forecasting GDP growth rate above two percent in the foreseeable future.
Now let's focus upon the April-May-June, 2012, quarter, with its one point three percent GDP growth rate. Did y'all Democrats/liberals/progressives know that the GDP growth rate is lower than that in economic powerhouses Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, Jamaica, Albania, and Cuba. Hyscience says:
"As incredibly hard to do as it sounds, Barack Obama has actually done to America in less than four years what it took Castro over 50 years to do to Cuba ... and unlike Castro, Obama has done it without complete dictatorial powers (only partial dictatorial powers from his having usurped the power of Congress):"
Refer to this chart about worldwide GDP (as of February 2012). The USA is number 149 of 185, or about 80 percent of the world is ahead of us.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Such a terrible article. Comparing growth rates of countries is not the same as comparing conditions of countries. In fact, you know what else? The US is lagging way behind African countries in reducing our malaria rate. Other countries have seen their infection rate plummet, but the US rate has stayed the same for years. Boo Obama!
2 - Deano
...and the jobless rate just fell to 7.8% in September down from 8.1%.
and the stock market is up!
Must be the apocalypse.
3 - El Bicho
and make sure you ignore the improvements in the housing market
4 - Jet Researcher Gardner
Just think Warren, all your friends can refer/link to this nonsensical article to back up their own "factual" articles.
After all-if it's published on BC it HAS to be true! (regardless of what your garbage is doing to everyone else here's credibility by being associated to a website that publishes your propaganda.)
Soon you'll be the proud dean of all right-wing media!
5 - Jet Hussein's Research Dept.
CNBC-WASHINGTON-The U.S. unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent for the first time since the month President Barack Obama took office, a surprising lift for both the economy and his re-election hopes in the final weeks of the campaign.
The rate, the most-watched measure of the country's economic health, tumbled to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August. It fell because a government survey of households found that 873,000 more people had jobs, the biggest jump since January 2003.
The government's other monthly survey, of employers, showed they added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, but it also showed job growth in July and August was stronger than first thought.
Obama, eager to shift attention from a disappointing performance at the first presidential debate, said Friday that the report showed the country "has come too far to turn back now."
The drop brought the jobless rate back to where it was when Obama was sworn in, in January 2009, and snapped a 43-month streak in which unemployment was 8 percent or higher - a run Romney had been emphasizing.
The October jobs report comes out Nov. 2, four days before the election, so Friday's report provided one of the final snapshots of the economy as undecided voters make up their minds.
The government calculates the unemployment rate by calling 60,000 households and asking whether the adults have jobs, and whether those who don't are looking for work.
The Labor Department raised its job-creation figures by a total of 86,000 jobs for July and August. The July figure was revised from 141,000 to 181,000, and the August figure from 96,000 to 142,000.
Taken together, the two surveys suggest the job situation in the United States is better than was thought.
6 - Jet Gardner
Lets paraphrase the economy like this. The economy is a big lumbering Boeing 747 flying at 30,000 feet. Terrorist George Bush shoots the flight crew and the jet nosedives towards the ground, in the process burning out one of the engines (housing starts). The passengers (stock Market) panic and give up hope at 8,500. Obama rushes into the cockpit and levels the plane (stock market) and then as the jet gains altitude up to around 15,000 and people calm down and gain hope of a safe landing,
Bush's representative Romney starts bitching loudly that the jet isn't back flying at 30,000 feet where it was before-ignoring the fact the Obama prevented the jet from crashing and the banking and stock markets are still alive and thriving instead of being dead!!!
7 - Baronius
The thing is, Warren's right that the economy is sickly. Republicans predicted that Obama's policies would have no effect but to raise the debt and delay the recovery, and sure enough we've had unprecedented debt and an anemic recovery. Obama's economy has been at close to twice the unemployment rate as his recent predecessors. The doctor's been smothering the patient with a pillow for four years, and we're supposed to thank him if the patient survives?
About half the time that there are two sub-2.0% quarters in a row, there's a recession. That's not going to happen this time. The reason, sadly, is because the construction industry and housing market haven't rebounded enough from the last recession to create a shock when they contract. But I could be wrong; the drop in durable goods could trigger the classic business-cycle spasm.
My problem with the article is that Warren fails to depict what's actually happening, at least in a fair way. I'm getting sick of people scoring cheap points on either side. The truth is enough to induce the kind of pained, apologetic look that the President showed in the recent debate. There's no reason to pile on with distortions.
8 - Clav
I'm amused that everyone, from the BLS to the most ignorant man in the street, quotes the U3 rate as THE unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate, the U6; the one that counts "discouraged" workers (who have, after months and months of fruitless search, given up looking altogether), and the workers who are part time, not by choice but because of inability to find full time work. That rate, which did not budge, remains at 14.7 percent.
And some economists are publicly questioning the sudden drop of the U3 rate in the face of an increase in jobs of only 114,000; the U3 rate should have gone up (or at least remained static) with such an anemic jobs report, but no, even before Obama is finished wiping Wednesday's egg off his face, the "unemployment rate" miraculously drops.
Go figure.
9 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment #7, Baronius, you say, "My problem with the article is that Warren fails to depict what's actually happening, at least in a fair way." Does that mean that we can expect an article from you in the near future explaining what has actually happened in a fair way?
10 - Dr Dreadful
Warren, why should Baronius have to do your job for you?
11 - Dr Dreadful
The real unemployment rate, the U6; the one that counts "discouraged" workers (who have, after months and months of fruitless search, given up looking altogether)
As I believe I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the U6 figure because it seems unreliable as an indicator of mood among the long-term unemployed.
My major objection is this: How is the U6 measured? How do you separate out those who have genuinely given up looking for work from those who are still looking but whose unemployment benefits have run out and have stopped reporting their job search efforts because what's the point if there's nothing in it for them?
12 - Clav
You raise an interesting issue, Doc, I don't know how it's determined or even whether there is a method, or whether, as in so many government endeavors, some nameless minor league bureaucrat deep in the bowels of a federal building in some backwater like Fargo or Helena simply tosses darts at a dart board to get the numbers.
But, methodical or haphazard, I personally don't doubt for a moment that the "real" number of unemployed in this country far exceeds that U3 number.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, there undoubtedly is a method, Clav - the feds are very big on formulas. The dartboard, here, is probably the realization that their political masters are going to want the unemployment stats served up every which way, so that they can quote whichever version shows them in the best light.
Every measure of the unemployment rate is bound to have shortcomings because the differentiation between the unwillingly and voluntarily unemployed has to be, at some point, arbitrary. There's no special reason why the U6 number should be perceived as having any more (or less) integrity than Us 1 through 5.
In this case, the stats are most likely compiled from reports by the 50 states, all of whom run their unemployment insurance programs slightly differently.
14 - Jet Gardner
I guess no one read the bold part of comment five...
15 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 1, Baronius, truth hurts, doesn't it? And all you can do is try to hide behind a disease that was never a major problem in this country. You remind me of Obama trying to debate, but he had nowhere to hide.
Re: comment # 2, Deano, first, you must believe that the BLS is on the up-and-up. Then you need to be aware of what fellow Democrat Bill Clinton had to say about unemployment - Obama should have it so good.
Re: comment # 3, EB, you must be referring to this article.
Re: comment # 4, Jet, please cite sources to show me how I got my facts incorrect.
Re: comment # 5, Jet, refer to my response to comment # 2 above. (BTW, Jet, glad to see (seriously) that you are doing better)
Re: comment # 8, Clav, you are correct - the U-6 rate is much more indicative of what's truly going on with this economy - if the BLS is to be believed.
Re: comment # 10, Doc, I obviously can't do it. Only Baronius can since only he knows what actually happened. (said sarcastically)
16 - Dr Dreadful
Warren's need to flag his own sarcasm is quite charming, especially since he failed completely to detect Baronius's in comment #1...
17 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 16, Doc, WOW! You really put me in my place with your remark. (said sarcastically) Whether Baronius' comment # 1 was sarcastic or not, it fell flat. If comment # 1 WAS sarcastic, then please help me withn the point Baronius was makiing.
18 - Dr Dreadful
I don't particularly care whether I put you in your place, Warren, assuming you have one.
Baronius's comment fell flat for you because you missed the sarcasm. It didn't for me.
His point (which, incidentally, is a conservative one) was that it is unfair and misleading to compare the USA's GDP growth unfavourably with places like Pakistan and Albania, because those countries have so much more scope for growth. It's like criticizing a 60-year-old man because he didn't learn as many new things in the past year as his 7-year-old grandson who's in first grade.
There. I do hope the spoon I just fed that to you on wasn't too large...
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Republicans predicted that Obama's policies would have no effect but to raise the debt and delay the recovery, and sure enough we've had unprecedented debt and an anemic recovery.
And the Republicans did their damnedest to make sure of it, too...or didn't you notice their lockstep opposition to almost everything that Obama tried to make happen?
After Obama took the oath of office, the Democrats only had a 'supermajority' for 72 congressional in-session days before the Republicans could shut things down at will, so you can't say that the Democrats had two full years to make things happen.
And you can't say that Obama wasn't being bipartisan. Just last year, John Boehner bragged that he was getting 98% of what he wanted in the debt-ceiling debate...but even then the Tea Party caucus wouldn't support him because he was giving Obama an inch for the mile that Obama was giving the GOP!
In other words, Mitch McConnell was absolutely serious when he said that their top priority was making Obama a one-term president, because that mission certainly took priority over little things like working towards bringing our economy back. Why? Because they knew that after the Great Recession, if they HAD worked with the Dems to bring the economy back, they'd have zero hopes of winning the White House at all.
It was Party-uber-alles...and anything that helped the Party was much more important than anything that would help the economy.
20 - Baronius
Glenn, wny don't you ever quote the rest of that McConnell interview, where he said that he would work with the President if he brought forward something that they could work with?
But I guess your memory isn't 100%. See, I remember back when you used to say that, as a military man, you believed in holding the man at the top responsible. Whatever happens on his watch is his to answer for. Gosh, you seem to have forgotten about that. How long has it been since you said that? More than three years, easily. Not quite four though.
21 - Dr Dreadful
But that gives McConnell a permanent out, Baronius, doesn't it? Anything the President brings forward he can say it isn't something they can work with.
22 - Baronius
Dread - Well, obviously he could say that anyway. My point was about the use of that interview. It's not fair to use an interview to imply that McConnell wouldn't work with the President when the interview contains a statement to the contrary. If you want to make the case that McConnell didn't work with the President, feel free, but don't quote him from an interview in which he said that he'd work with the President.
Ditto, don't say that the Republicans wouldn't work with the President while quoting the Republican Speaker of the House talking about a deal he and the President made. You can argue that the President gave more than he should have, but that's not the same thing.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Glenn, wny don't you ever quote the rest of that McConnell interview, where he said that he would work with the President if he brought forward something that they could work with?
Actions speak louder than words. I included Boehner's "98% declaration" to show just how accurate McConnell's claim was, and whatever McConnell may have said later in the same speech pales before the actions of the Republicans in Congress since Obama took office.
I've noted many times that Obama's faced the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War. No president since then ever had to deal with a Congress so divided, as the record number of filibusters by Republicans - even of bills concerning items that were never controversial before. They filibustered bills that they themselves co-sponsored - like the Cybersecurity Act. Why did they filibuster it? Because they could not include on the bill a rider to defund Obamacare.
THEN there was the "Bring Jobs Home Act" that gave tax credits to companies that would insource jobs to America from overseas. Why was it filibustered? Because the Dems wouldn't include a Republican amendment to defund Obamacare. Sound familiar?
Baronius, the Republicans really, truly did put party above country. The Republicans of Reagan's day would not have done this - Reagan himself famously worked with the Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done. But now?
This is something to think about, Baronius. The day he took office, Obama faced a situation that was worse than anything seen by the other presidents except for FDR, Lincoln, and the Founding Fathers - an economy in free fall, two ongoing wars, and a Congress that did NOT give him the traditional 'honeymoon', but instead an opposition party that used what was far and away a record number of filibusters...and the examples I provided above should be more than enough to show that yes, the Republicans DID put party above country.
24 - Deano
What I think and know about the BLS doesn't matter squat. If you believe in the capitalist ethos, then look to your own stock market reaction - it went up on the unemployment news - the market believes in the numbers. If they thought the numbers were subject to scams or manipulation, they would be discounting those stats and responding accordingly.
If you don't believe in the veracity of a long-standing and solid statistical analysis structure (that pre-dates Obama), then believe in your own much vaunted "wisdom of the marketplace"...
It's interesting that the stupidity level seems to blossom so thoroughly during US election season.
25 - Baronius
No, Glenn, actions speak louder than words in McConnell's case where the words contradict your argument. Words speak louder than actions in Boehner's case where the actions contradict your argument. Anything that supports your argument speaks louder than anything that contradicts your argument.
And your party vs. country dichotomy is false. Republicans and Democrats genuinely believe that their principles are the best for our country's health, but they do believe different things. It's not putting party before country when a party does what they think is best for the country. So basically, your argument is "they didn't do what I would have done, so it was sabotage". That's not likely to persuade anyone who disagrees with you.