Talk politics.

How dare he improve the economy!

From:

Its like when we finally realize that we've done irrecoverable climate damage and the conservatives are going to claim its all from big government meddling. And the news is going to give equal time to this plausible alternative viewpoint. Those are going to be good times.

From:

I think both your sides can be right at once.

From:

Its hard to determine the actual impact of the president. We can be pretty sure Bush's wars had a very large impact though. In that case, we can surmise the president *can* have a very primary impact on the economy. On the other hand, Obama did push for the recovery motions, and we can surmise those did in fact have impact, though its harder to tell how much impact. In the case of Bush, i'd say his actions were at least as big as all the hundreds of millions of members of the economy.

From:

President Obama may not be able to take all of the credit, but he most certainly had a hand helping it. Because all the tax breaks and the ability for businesses to expand and buy new equipment or modernize their plants, and write that off at 100 percent. Of course how dare the President take credit for those policy proposals that the Congress passed, including policies for new hires (particularly Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans).

From:

As I said it's hard to determine the full impact primarily because we have no control case to measure against. We can't know what the economy might have looked like for instance if the government hadn't instituted the bank bailouts to retain liquidity, we don't know what the economy might have looked like if the government hadn't propped up the US auto industry. We don't know how far down we would be. We also don't know in the long-term how much it will help businesses and the economy to institute infrastructure projects that businesses use.

From:

I guess the counter question, why wouldn't you? He proposed the policy changes to Congress. And a lot of them were passed before the House went TEA. He also worked in conjunction with world leaders in efforts to stabilize the situation (in fact using those very specific proposals in all their boring detail were in his council of economic advisvors' report).

From:

I don't think it is really. You're saying they have no effect. I'm saying it is hard to determine the full effect.

From:

Yes. They are hard to determine the full extent on. I could be wrong. I don't think I am.

The main reason economics gets treated as such a religion is there is so much crap going on it can be very hard to account for the actual effects of an action which makes it a very fuzzy science when applied to things like global economies.

From:

Oh this is part and parcel of your really odd ideation pattern that we can't say anything about anything. Oh and funny thing about the Europeans rejecting his policies: Conservative French President Sarkozy said: "We need the leadership of Barack Obama," French President Nicolas Sarkozy gushed just hours after the U.S. president's arrival here. "He is much loved and much liked here in France." In fact, this USA Today article suggests you're patently wrong. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-06/obama-g20-summit-economic-policies-europe/51099438/1)

The stalled U.S. economy, his biggest political burden, is doing just fine by today's European standards. His actions in 2009 to stimulate the economy, administer bank bailouts and regulate financial institutions, attacked by Republican opponents, were the subjects of tutorials for European leaders who increasingly must follow his lead. These days for Obama, some of the glamour has worn off as the gray hair has grown in. Still, his rhetoric and record are well-received by G-20 leaders who control 85% of the global economy. Obama found it easier to get some of what he wanted from the G-20 summit than from Congress, which has bottled up his American Jobs Act for two months. In a matter of days, European leaders forced Greece to abandon plans for a referendum on their fledgling rescue plan and persuaded Italy to accept intrusive monitoring of its finances by the International Monetary Fund. China committed to pursue policies designed to boost domestic demand and exchange rate flexibility. European leaders also agreed to act fast on their rescue plan — a $1.4 trillion firewall against the sovereign debt crisis, bank recapitalization and the latest bailout for Greece — which is key to avoiding further contagion in Europe and the United States. And the G-20 endorsed an "Action Plan for Growth and Jobs," something Obama has pushed consistently since 2009, even while European leaders veered toward the sort of fiscal rectitude that has helped bring economic growth to a standstill.

There's little dispute here that the U.S. went further, both in terms of government spending and financial regulation, than most of its European counterparts. Partially as a result, fears of a double-dip recession in the U.S. are receding, while worries about a new European recession are rising. Growth in the 17-nation eurozone is forecast at 0.3% next year, according to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But G-20 rhetoric isn't always met with action, and last week's summit could turn out the same. All the action plans, communiqués and declarations cannot guarantee that Greece rebounds, Italy avoids default or China follows through on boosting domestic demand. "I think all the words in the communiqué are fine, but the disagreements are apparent in the lack of details," said Barry Bosworth of the Brookings Institution. "The goals for each set of countries are good, but there are no binding targets." Even a 90-minute session on new ways to finance development and innovation in poor countries led by Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates cannot force countries struggling with their own economies to boost government aid.

From:

Only about $7 billion of $22 billion pledged by G-20 nations in Rome in 2009 for agriculture development and food security has been approved or disbursed, putting them behind the goal as they head into next year's summit in Mexico. That commitment was made mostly by G-8 nations under Obama's leadership, but none of them have fulfilled their pledges yet. "The White House's resolve to play a strong role on the world stage is and can be questioned," said Kati Suominen of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. "Yes, we are faced with challenges at home and have to reform at home, to lead abroad. But we also need a thriving world economy to prosper at home."

Time will tell whether Obama's visit to the rainy Riviera helped the European debt crisis, the U.S. economy or his re-election chances a year from now. But for 36 hours, at least, he was able to feel better about his policies, if not politics. "I have sympathy for my European counterparts," he said at a news conference Friday. "We saw how difficult it was for us to save the financial system back in the United States. It did not do wonders for anybody's political standing."

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

Given the ongoing economic turbulence for the last 4 years, and the situation in Europe that threatens to wreak havoc again around the world, why is the economy being used a political football to get some guy into the White House? Is it worth hurting the economy?

While the 1.2m calculation appears to be untrue (this estimate makes sense to me (http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1697) that we still "lost" 450k out of the labor force, which does help the numbers), I don't see how trying to get a better grasp as to exactly what's going on with the economy hurts it - it has shades of the "X candidate is talking down the economy" from a few cycles ago. We arguably a) have more data than ever and b) more platforms in which to dissect and understand the data.

The reality is that the unemployment rate is dropping, but we're seeing a significant decline in labor participation which helps fuel that. The numbers yesterday were the first nearly-unequivocal good news we've seen on the job front, IMO, and gives me some pause on the double dip I've been anticipating. The reality, though, is that we need to get those labor participation numbers up if we want to see these job numbers translate into real economic growth.

The other thing that's interesting is how much the private sector job growth is matching up with the public sector job shrinking. It's correlation without causation at this stage for me, but that follows exactly the trend I would have expected, and it's not exactly surprising to me that the stimulus spending has been done for a while now, and we're finally seeing things kickstart in a significant way.

From:

That's kinda my point. And the bigger issue here is that, depending on who is running, one side will deliberately try to sabotage the economy then point to the failing economy as a reason to elect their team.

From:

You should really remember that news such as the "debunking" of the labor force thing takes *time* to disseminate. There's no reason to assume bad faith on the part of anyone for repeating what turns out to be false.

When you use phrases like "kept on repeating the lie", you are assuming perfect knowledge of the correction, which inherently makes a smaller splash than the original complaint.

Anyway, no, *if* those continuing to report the "decline in the labor force" as the reason for the good number were aware of the correction, then it would be bad faith reporting, and would damage their credibility. Of course, anyone going to limbaugh for either news or economic analysis has bigger problems, but that's a separate issue.

From:

And before you ask, I don't think I have any other sides than cynical and patronizing.

You and me both, brother.

From:

Politicalmath is *awesome*. You should re-click the link however, he's retracted his estimate. He's now in agreement that the 1.2 million was all in "we found new old people".

From:

...but we're seeing a significant decline in labor participation which helps fuel that.

I haven't dug into the figures yet, but it would be nice to know exactly how many of these people are baby boomers that are retiring. The baby boomers are roughly 79 million of the population, and they just started turning 65 last year.

Also, I'm glad you aren't hopping onto the doom and gloom bandwagon and seeing this as good news. :D

From:

Wouldn't hold your breath.

From:

You're right, that was bad wording on my part. However, my point about partisan narrative of doom and gloom still stands. I think legitimate news outlets are being drowned out by blogs (from both sides, mind you) with questionable journalistic integrity. And the population, for the most part, doesn't seem to care about that kind of integrity anymore.

Edited Date: 4/2/12 21:16 (UTC)

From:

Oh conservatives. Head in the sand until about 10 years after its already undeniable, and then it's all their idea in the first place. Every single time.

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

Yep, I opened it yesterday morning and never refreshed.

So is this good news or bad news or better news?

From:

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com

I haven't dug into the figures yet, but it would be nice to know exactly how many of these people are baby boomers that are retiring. The baby boomers are roughly 79 million of the population, and they just started turning 65 last year.

I think it was someone at BLS that tweeted that the adjustment was because many people who were assumed to have died for statistical purposes did not, so retirees might/probably does account for a good portion of it. With that said, and I haven't really dug deep either, are more people retiring than entering the workforce for real? Are we at that point yet? Would people who rely on 401ks and real estate investments who can retire now really do so, or would they ride it out a little more?

From:

oportet.livejournal.com

They're just thinking big picture. They may be throwing 2012, but every positive thing that happens under Obama could be carrying over into 2016.

You may ask, 'Wouldn't putting up a relatable, likable candidate - with more charisma than a cardboard box - be a better strategy?'

Well that's just nonsense, and today isn't the day for that.

From: