Obama Gets Schooled By Reaganomics

[kalm]

Another interesting part of this story is the federal jobs rise under Reagan while the government has shed 600,000 under Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... and-temps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of rhetoric vs. reality.

I'm sure a large bulk of those +600,000 jobs under Reagan were DoD, while a good chunk of those -600,000 under 0bama are state and local government jobs, as well as the sequester. GIGO

They're called FEDERAL jobs. Local governments have cut another 400k.

Of course there are a number of factors but at first blush, whos the socialist?

[Chizzang]

Speaking of rhetoric vs. reality.

I'm sure a large bulk of those +600,000 jobs under Reagan were DoD, while a good chunk of those -600,000 under 0bama are state and local government jobs, as well as the sequester. GIGO

They're called FEDERAL jobs. Local governments have cut another 400k.

Of course there are a number of factors but at first blush, whos the socialist?

This is precisely why the whole thing deserves a much closer examination
the common party line rhetoric would have us believe one thing (very loudly)

and it seems the LOUDER the point is screamed the less it stands up to examination

[Baldy]

Speaking of rhetoric vs. reality.

I'm sure a large bulk of those +600,000 jobs under Reagan were DoD, while a good chunk of those -600,000 under 0bama are state and local government jobs, as well as the sequester. GIGO

They're called FEDERAL jobs. Local governments have cut another 400k.

Of course there are a number of factors but at first blush, whos the socialist?

Jeezus Christ.
Do you not read your own fucking links?

Private payrolls have added 7 million jobs over Obama’s presidency, while government payrolls (federal, state and local) have contracted by a combined 634,000 jobs.

You've been hanging out with weinerdawg too much. I can't babysit you too.

[kalm]

They're called FEDERAL jobs. Local governments have cut another 400k.

Of course there are a number of factors but at first blush, whos the socialist?

Jeezus Christ.
Do you not read your own fucking links?

Private payrolls have added 7 million jobs over Obama’s presidency, while government payrolls (federal, state and local) have contracted by a combined 634,000 jobs.

You've been hanging out with weinerdawg too much. I can't babysit you too.

Dab nab it!

[Chizzang]

EVERYBODY would incorrectly assume state job reduction be a Republican thing...?
That doesn't always seem to be the case

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines ... lysis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Example:
Why would North Carolina have more per-capita state employees than bat sh!t crazy liberal Washington..?

[Baldy]

Jeezus Christ.
Do you not read your own fucking links?




You've been hanging out with weinerdawg too much. I can't babysit you too.

Dab nab it!

[AZGrizFan]

EVERYBODY would incorrectly assume state job reduction be a Republican thing...?
That doesn't always seem to be the case

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines ... lysis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Example:
Why would North Carolina have more per-capita state employees than bat sh!t crazy liberal Washington..?

Is it a linear thing?

[Chizzang]

EVERYBODY would incorrectly assume state job reduction be a Republican thing...?
That doesn't always seem to be the case

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines ... lysis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Example:
Why would North Carolina have more per-capita state employees than bat sh!t crazy liberal Washington..?

Is it a linear thing?

Is that some of your fancy Banker New Math..?


Jill Says Hi..!!!

[AZGrizFan]

Is it a linear thing?

Is that some of your fancy Banker New Math..?


Jill Says Hi..!!!

No, it was an honest question. Is the # of employees/capita necessarily a linear thing?

[Chizzang]

Is that some of your fancy Banker New Math..?


Jill Says Hi..!!!

No, it was an honest question. Is the # of employees/capita necessarily a linear thing?

Sometimes I wonder if you're just f*cking with me...

[JohnStOnge]

Yes the graphs create different impressions. The one I posted was just the first one I found. One thing that's interesting is that the graph I found only shows one sharp negative bump over the entire period back to 1960 while the ones you posted show sharp negative bumps in several places so I'm guessing yours are correct. As an aside I think the ones you posted kind of call into question the idea that Obama inherited the worst situation since the great depression. And in comparing what he inherited to what Reagan inherited one needs to also consider what interest rates and inflation were doing when Reagan was in office. Circumstances in those areas were MUCH worse when Reagan took office than they were when Obama took office.

Only remaining quibble I have is that the graphs you found suggest there's been a downward trend in percent growth in GDP over at least the past 67 years back through at least 1940. Some of that, I think, could be that if you're looking at things in percent growth terms it's kind of hard to go through time without having percent growth in anything decline.

Not sure what your graph is showing, but everything from EVERY economist I've ever heard speak says just the opposite, John.
[/quote]

[JohnStOnge]

Just for grins I made some graphs to illustrate my opinion that it is hard to grow anything over an extended period without having the percent growth rate decline.

The first graph shows how a quantity would increase if it grew at a 4 percent annual growth rate for 67 years:



The next graph shows what a constant 4 percent per year growth rate looks like over 100 years:



The third graph shows what a constant 4 percent per year growth rate looks like over 200 years:



I think you can see why one would think that it would be virtually impossible to sustain a constant 4 percent per year growth rate indefinitely. And the same sort of thing will eventually happen at lower growth rates as well. Like this is a 2 percent per year growth rate over 200 years:



Kind of similar to in general magnitude of increase and proportional form to what happens at a 4 percent annual growth rate over half the time.

You could maintain a very good growth rate in absolute terms but it's highly likely that if you look at it in percent growth terms it's going to have to start declining at some point. At some point the line would have to go almost completely vertical in order for you to sustain it.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, the previous post also illustrates why I am very uncomfortable with the economic paradigm we operate by which holds that some level of inflation is a good and necessary thing. I have always thought that kind of model calls for a situation that cannot be indefinitely sustained. I don't think the house of cards will collapse before I die so I should be OK. But I just do not believe it's a good thing in the historical long term.

[kalm]

By the way, the previous post also illustrates why I am very uncomfortable with the economic paradigm we operate by which holds that some level of inflation is a good and necessary thing. I have always thought that kind of model calls for a situation that cannot be indefinitely sustained. I don't think the house of cards will collapse before I die so I should be OK. But I just do not believe it's a good thing in the historical long term.

I don't know what any of this means but I've heard that perpetual growth does not exist in the natural universe...despite what was claimed by some free market experts (Alan Greenspan for example) prior to the last recession.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know what any of this means but I've heard that perpetual growth does not exist in the natural universe...despite what was claimed by some free market experts (Alan Greenspan for example) prior to the last recession.

I agree with that even though I guess it's impossible to prove. I mean, the belief is that the universe has a life span and it'll end some day so if that's true it's not going to grow perpetually. But beyond that for sure perpetual growth cannot exist in what's basically a finite system. Like I guess one could say our system is not closed and finite because we get energy from the sun but effectively it is. There is indeed a limit to what our planet can support, I think.

When I was in college one of the moments that really struck me was when I was in a microbiology class and the teacher showed us a projection of a bacterial growth curve.



For some time everything is great and they grow "exponentially." But eventually they run out of resources and hit the wall.

When I saw that curve I thought of human beings and the Earth. Like I said it's not quite the same because that bacterial curve describes what happens in a test tube where there is a certain amount of nutrient and nothing's happening to replenish anything. The Earth has an outside input of energy from the sun. There are other differences in the two situations. But I still think our population will eventually hit the wall. Luckily I should be long gone by the time it happens.

I I think the idea that there can be infinite growth in the economy, the human population, or anything else like that is madness.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW in geological terms we are a very young species that has grown very quickly over a very short time in recent centuries. The "lag phase" is over and we are well into the "exponential growth" phase. In geological time I don't think we have a lot of time left before we meet the wall. But...luckily...it should be a relatively long time relative to our life spans.

[AZGrizFan]

Just for grins I made some graphs to illustrate my opinion that it is hard to grow anything over an extended period without having the percent growth rate decline.

The first graph shows how a quantity would increase if it grew at a 4 percent annual growth rate for 67 years:



The next graph shows what a constant 4 percent per year growth rate looks like over 100 years:



The third graph shows what a constant 4 percent per year growth rate looks like over 200 years:



I think you can see why one would think that it would be virtually impossible to sustain a constant 4 percent per year growth rate indefinitely. And the same sort of thing will eventually happen at lower growth rates as well. Like this is a 2 percent per year growth rate over 200 years:



Kind of similar to in general magnitude of increase and proportional form to what happens at a 4 percent annual growth rate over half the time.

You could maintain a very good growth rate in absolute terms but it's highly likely that if you look at it in percent growth terms it's going to have to start declining at some point. At some point the line would have to go almost completely vertical in order for you to sustain it.

So......you agree then. The average GDP (measured in percent growth) IS declining.

[JohnStOnge]

So......you agree then. The average GDP (measured in percent growth) IS declining.

Yes. The graph i posted doesn't show percent growth. It just shows what GDP was over time.

It looks to me like it's nothing new though. Like I found a good table at http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growt ... le/by-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I did a quick and dirty test and there is definitely a declining general trend in percent GDP growth since 1935 during the great depression. In fact even if you include the two large percent declines of -26.34% in 1933 and -10.81% in 1934 the overall trend for 1933 through 2015 is "significantly" negative. I mean, we had GDP percent growth rates as high as 43.21% DURING the late stages of the Great Depression. I guess that makes sense since if you're down you have a lot of room to grow. We had double-digit percent growth rates during 12 of the first 18 years of the period (1933 - 1950) and haven't had one since. WWII was part of it but doesn't appear to explain it all.

[Aho Old Guy]

Bureau of Economic Analysis - fancy charts and graphs
(and down-loadable spreadsheet materials for you nerdy-types)

The thing is ... the USA is now such a large economic mass that for the most part even dumb-ass politicians (of any persuasion) can't fuck it up for very long. It's big. Really big. So freakin' big that no one actually knows how big it is ....

Total assets of $250-$260 trillion with a total net worth in the $70-$80 trillion range. Those assets do not include infrastructure, public land & buildings, natural resources, military hardware & assets, 'goodwill' (not much of that ), etc.

A 'lowly' 2- to 3% GDP growth now expands the annual economy $500 billion a year, which in itself expands the asset value and net worth exponentially. (Maybe not exponentially, but you get the point ).

Fifty- to sixty years ago we fueled the economic engine with annual Federal taxes (individual and corporate) of roughly 13-14% of GDP. There are those among us today who feel 8% (or less) is too much. Good luck with that, America.

As far as the OP ...
Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People

[Chizzang]

As far as the OP ...
Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People

The OP is the beloved T-man
He hates himself so much that his sole focus is belittling others
Infected with gout and adult onset diabetes (tack on hi blood pressure for good measure)
And here we are...

We love him anyway - because that's what Jesus would do...

[89Hen]

[Ivytalk]

Liar!

No country songs whatsoever mention Shiraz or Cabernet!

[kalm]

[JohnStOnge]

Liar!

No country songs whatsoever mention Shiraz or Cabernet!

Also you've gotta believe moonshine would be in there somewhere. I mean, what's more "country" than moonshine?

[JohnStOnge]

Fifty- to sixty years ago we fueled the economic engine with annual Federal taxes (individual and corporate) of roughly 13-14% of GDP.

Do we not still do something like that or maybe a little more? I'm asking because I saw the chart below. It appears to show that annual Federal tax receipts as percentage of GDP have stayed in the range of a little above 14% to a little above 20% since at least as far back as 1945 (70 years ago) and they look to be at somewhere around 18 or 19% of GDP right now. In fact they look to be a little higher than they've been for the majority of the previous years in the period right now.