Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?
As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years and the data doesn't show Obama has been pathetic. What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly, where aside from the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited) it's been fairly stable and slowly trending downward in a linear fashion.
You're an actuary right? I can email you the data if you want.
|
"You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?"
Nebe, not I, used 2000 as the baseline to compare to.
"What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly,"
GDP growth is volatile. But the best opportunitiues for big GDP growth, are the years following a recession. That's what Obama inherited, a major recession. Normally, following such a recession, is when you see th elargest GDP growth. It didn't happen. It's been called the slowest recovery froma recession, ever.
Here is GDP growth by year. In Obama's 8 years, his best year saw 2.5% growth. His average was 1.29%. Compare that to the 8 years before him, and the 8 years before that, etc...I'm not sure "pathetic" is that far off.
During Obama's 8 years (2008 - 2015), average GDP growth was 1.29%.
Average from 2000-2007 = 2.7%
Average from 92-99 = 3.8%
Average from 81-88 (after the Carter years) = 3.5%
An 8-year average of 1.29%, seems pathetic to me.
There are some global things that the POTUS cannot control. For example, Obama is dealing with more outsourcing of manufacturing jobs than Reagan ever had to dela with. An allowance needs to be made for that.
But in the job Obama sought and received, he owns this.
"the Great Recession (the thing Bush started "
Please tell us what Bush did to "start" this? Bush didn't tell people to take out mortgages they couldn't afford. Bush didn't tell banks to get involved in fishy derivitives and credit default swaps. The repeal of Glass Seagell allowed banks to do these things. That law was written by a GOP congress, and signed by Bill Clinton.
"You're an actuary right?"
Yep. I presume you are not one.
"it's been fairly stable "
Oh sweet Jesus. Obama can't get annual GDP growth above 2.5%, but you give him credit for the fact that it's "stable". That it's pathetically low doesn't bother you, all you care is that it's stable.
So according to your "logic" here...if Obama has GDP growth of exactly 1.3% a year (no swings), that's somehow superior to Clinton, who had an 8 year average of 3.8% (almost 3x Obama's average), because Clinton's years had more volatility?
http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by...DP-History.htm