You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Election 2012
If Obean loses it will be because of this chart
2012-01-27
Obviously, the facts are racist, too!
In his State of the Union response the other night, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels neatly summed up Mitt Romney's (who has a roughly 90 percent chance of being the GOP nominee according to Intrade) economic case against President Barack Obama: "The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse."

In other words, the Obama Recovery stinks. Even if today's GDP report -- for the fourth quarter of 2011 -- shows 3 percent growth or better, it would be just the fourth time that has happened since the economy began turning up in June 2009: 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010, and 3.8 percent in the second quarter of 2010. But no 3 percent-plus quarters since then.

The first nine quarters of the Reagan Recovery, by contrast, looked like this: 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 7.1 percent, 3.9 percent, 3.3 percent, 3.8, percent, 3.4 percent. In fact, the Reagan Boom went from the first quarter of 1983 until the second quarter of 1986 without notching a sub-3 percent GDP quarter.

So while the Reagan Recovery quickly made up for lost years of growth, not so much for the Obama Recovery, as [a] chart in today's Wall Street Journal makes clear:

And few economists are expecting the Obama Recovery to take off anytime soon. The IMF predicts just 1.8 percent growth for 2012 (and that's assuming no EU sovereign debt meltdown). And the Federal Reserve sees growth in the 2.2 percent to 2.7 percent range with unemployment around 8.2 percent to 8.5 percent. Ugh!

The WSJ offers two explanations for the anemic rebound:

Economists say the nature of the recession helps explain the slow recovery. Aftershocks from the financial crisis have left banks reluctant to lend, making it hard for companies, and especially start-ups, to get access to capital. The housing market, which has historically helped lead the economy out of recession, remains deeply depressed.

Many business leaders say they are also being held back by policy-related uncertainty, everything from the threat of new regulations and higher taxes to the fear that political gridlock could hamper the government's ability to respond to a new crisis. Recent economic research has given some weight to those complaints. A study by a trio of academic economists found that policy uncertainty has risen in recent years, and that periods of uncertainty have in the past corresponded with rising unemployment and slowing growth.

Whichever explanation holds more weight with voters may go a long way toward deciding who'll be America's next president.
At this rate, the "recovery" will never be able to pay for the debt he has accumulated before we slide into the next depression. Even if it did, China would have a ton of their money back and we'd have another recession to push through.
Posted by:gorb

#8  Agreed, Glenmore. Pre-existing structural problems cannot be laid at BHO's feet. But the broader "policy of uncertainty" since 2009 has definitely stifled nearly every avenue to begin climbing out.

Steve White: IMHO, it gives BHO and Congressional Dems far too much credit to say their intent is to lock down business. Rather, I think it is just the "unintended, unexpected, unforeseen" natural consequence of their ignorant, misguided, magical thinking.
Posted by: RandomJD   2012-01-27 19:36  

#7  you can't blame him (Obama) for the state/pace of the recovery.
Yes, you can. As stated by Dr. White, it is the uncertainty that is preventing any economic recovery, and a great deal of the uncertainty IS Obama's responsibility.
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-01-27 18:08  

#6  Our economy had and has deep structural issues that could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the electorate in 4 years no matter who was at the helm.
True for the last 4 years & will be true for the next four. Mitch Daniels is still right: Obama has done nothing to improve the situation and has done many things to worsen the situation. In addition, it does matter who presides.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2012-01-27 14:32  

#5  I'm no fan of Obama, but you can't blame him for the state/pace of the recovery. Our economy had and has deep structural issues that could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the electorate in 4 years no matter who was at the helm.
Posted by: Slats Elmoluter8657   2012-01-27 14:18  

#4  Yup, uncertainty. Add in the uncertainty on environmental regulation, energy regulation, health care costs and labor regulation and you have a perfect storm that locks business down.

Which I think is precisely the intent.
Posted by: Steve White   2012-01-27 14:00  

#3  My friend, who majored in business/accounting, is found of stating that in a choice between good news, bad news, and uncertainty, uncertainty is by far the worse. Businesses can deal with bad news. They can shut down factories and shift money into raising stars.

But when faced with uncertainty, business leaders become paralyzed. I heard the CEO of Government Motors GM on CSPAN recently and in answering a question about a closed plant he said that if he knew how many units he could sell next year, he would know how many plants that he could bring back on line. But he is uncertain so he is looking at how to make a profit at the minimum number of units.

A change in the White House could lead to a president who sets a clear course for the nations economy. Reducing uncertainty will be job one.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey   2012-01-27 12:46  

#2  To be fair to Zero, the previous "recoveries" where mostly credit expansion driven.

Since the more income and sales taxes have been added the more debt is needed to patch-up money velocity.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2012-01-27 12:29  

#1  Drudge has 1.7%. And now the UR is targeting the lumber industry?
Posted by: Angeating Angerens8085   2012-01-27 10:56  

00:00