Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era (1 Viewer)

[Grim17]

I guess this will be part of Obama's legacy... and just think, he only spent $800 billion of the tax payers money to achieve this.

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era
Despite longevity, total growth during this economic expansion is lower than for much shorter business cycles
By ERIC MORATH
Jul 29, 2016 10:39 am ET


Even seven years after the recession ended, the current stretch of economic gains has yielded less growth than much shorter business cycles.


In terms of average annual growth, the pace of this expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949. (And for which we have quarterly data.) The economy has grown at a 2.1% annual rate since the U.S. recovery began in mid-2009, according to gross-domestic-product data the Commerce Department released Friday.


The prior expansion, from 2001 through 2007, was the only other business cycle of the past 11 when the economy didn’t grow at least 3% a year, on average.

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[dimensionallava]

you dont know what expansion means do you?

 

[OpportunityCost]

you dont know what expansion means do you?

At no point was it said that the economy didn't expand but, that it was doing so slowly.

 

[dimensionallava]

At no point was it said that the economy didn't expand but, that it was doing so slowly.

thats not what anyone is saying

 

[PeteEU]

I guess this will be part of Obama's legacy... and just think, he only spent $800 billion of the tax payers money to achieve this.




Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Yea sucks that he saved the US economy from failed GOP policies... what does the GOP do.. start a faux outrage campaign saying that it is not good enough and comparing growth rates in a mature economy with growth during a time of a changing economy..... yea it is easy to compare apples and cats.

 

[dimensionallava]

Yea sucks that he saved the US economy from failed GOP policies... what does the GOP do.. start a faux outrage campaign saying that it is not good enough and comparing growth rates in a mature economy with growth during a time of a changing economy..... yea it is easy to compare apples and cats.

its that click bait title, I bet that was added after the article was written

the title should be "Despite longevity, total growth during this economic expansion is lower than for much shorter business cycles" but that doesn't sell ads now does it?

 

[PeteEU]

its that click bait title, I bet that was added after the article was written

the title should be "Despite longevity, total growth during this economic expansion is lower than for much shorter business cycles" but that doesn't sell ads now does it?

It is like saying.. low birth rates in the US, is Obamas fault because historically they were higher after WW2.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It is like saying.. low birth rates in the US, is Obamas fault because historically they were higher after WW2.

No its like saying Obama is held responsible for the economy, just like every other President before him. Whether he is or is not, in fact, responsible for that economy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

thats not what anyone is saying

No, that is pretty much what is being said.

 

[dimensionallava]

No, that is pretty much what is being said.

no its not

 

[OpportunityCost]

no its not

Even seven years after the recession ended, the current stretch of economic gains has yielded less growth than much shorter business cycles.


In terms of average annual growth, the pace of this expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949. (And for which we have quarterly data.) The economy has grown at a 2.1% annual rate since the U.S. recovery began in mid-2009, according to gross-domestic-product data the Commerce Department released Friday.

That seems to be saying slow growth. As far as this thread goes, that's what is being said.

Be contrary on someone else's dime.

 

[dimensionallava]

That seems to be saying slow growth. As far as this thread goes, that's what is being said.

Be contrary on someone else's dime.

whatever, you obviously have no idea what this article is about, and have no interest in this info if it cant be used to bash the dark one :lamo

by all means proceed.....

 

[OpportunityCost]

whatever, you obviously have no idea what this article is about, and have no interest in this info if it cant be used to bash the dark one :lamo

by all means proceed.....

Don't get a paper cut on that race card you are fumbling about with.

 

[dimensionallava]

Don't get a paper cut on that race card you are fumbling about with.

the race card implies im trying to win an argument of some kind, I'm not

 

[PeteEU]

No its like saying Obama is held responsible for the economy, just like every other President before him. Whether he is or is not, in fact, responsible for that economy.

Wait.... if Obama is responsbile for the economy then Bush was responsible for the economic crash right?

 

[year2late]

Wait.... if Obama is responsbile for the economy then Bush was responsible for the economic crash right?

Not just the crash, but getting us into a needless war that will have economic repercussions for decades to come.

 

[Fletch]

Yea sucks that he saved the US economy from failed GOP policies... what does the GOP do.. start a faux outrage campaign saying that it is not good enough and comparing growth rates in a mature economy with growth during a time of a changing economy..... yea it is easy to compare apples and cats.

Which policies were those?

 

[Fletch]

Not just the crash, but getting us into a needless war that will have economic repercussions for decades to come.

What repercussions are those? Yes, Bush was responsible for the Iraq war, but the crash was the confluence of many bad decisions from government to banks to regulators to individuals to the FED. Bush had virtually nothing to do with it.

 

[dimensionallava]

Wait.... if Obama is responsbile for the economy then Bush was responsible for the economic crash right?

no of course not, that goes against their programming, you see fox news teaches them that democrats are too blame for that as well, because they are democrats, and everything that goes bad is their fault, and everything good is because of the republicans, if a republican were president now they would be throwing a parade to celebrate how great the economy is right now, and would probably be bragging about "their recovery" for the next 40 years.

 

[year2late]

What repercussions are those? Yes, Bush was responsible for the Iraq war, but the crash was the confluence of many bad decisions from government to banks to regulators to individuals to the FED. Bush had virtually nothing to do with it.

Good Lord Sweet Jesus. Virtually nothing? Seriously?

 

[Fletch]

Good Lord Sweet Jesus. Virtually nothing? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. If you think it was his fault, lay out why.

 

[poweRob]

I guess this will be part of Obama's legacy... and just think, he only spent $800 billion of the tax payers money to achieve this.




Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Thanks To President Obama The US Leads The World in Economic Growth

The U.S. economy surged forward with 3.7 percent growth in the 2nd quarter of 2015, well outpacing other developed nations. The 3.7 growth rate reported by the U.S. Commerce Department was much better than the original estimate of 2.3 percent growth, and a significant improvement over the 1st quarter rate of 0.6 percent.

The good news out of the United States coincides with more sluggish growth in the rest of the developed world. Japan posted a more modest 1.6 percent growth rate in the 2nd quarter of 2015. The largest economies in Europe expanded at considerably weaker rates. United Kingdom’s economy grew by 0.7 percent, Germany’s grew by 0.4 percent and France’s economy stagnated at 0 percent growth over the same time frame.​

So I guess all the other leaders of the world should be blamed for growing much slower.

 

[year2late]

Yes, seriously. If you think it was his fault, lay out why.

Of course the first obvious is Iraq. Massive outflow of money, loss of life - clear and present dangers we face now because of thrusting that country into essentially a civil war and allowing it to become a terrorist training ground.

Returning to deficits. Cutting taxes to the rich and not controlling spending. Pushing of his ownership society while sitting back while the whole thing was blowing up in his face. My personal favorite is having a domestic crisis....going to war.....then giving citizens money and telling them to go shopping. Who does this? At the very time we hemorrhage money, he throws out money to us and tells us to go shopping. Totally ignoring the financial collapse until it was breathing down are necks.

Total lack of stewardship.

 

[Fletch]

Of course the first obvious is Iraq. Massive outflow of money, loss of life - clear and present dangers we face now because of thrusting that country into essentially a civil war and allowing it to become a terrorist training ground.

I acknowledged already that Iraq--despite congressional approval--was his baby.

Returning to deficits. Cutting taxes to the rich and not controlling spending. Pushing of his ownership society while sitting back while the whole thing was blowing up in his face. My personal favorite is having a domestic crisis....going to war.....then giving citizens money and telling them to go shopping. Who does this? At the very time we hemorrhage money, he throws out money to us and tells us to go shopping. Totally ignoring the financial collapse until it was breathing down are necks.

That's nice. But none of those caused the economic collapse. As for deficit spending, do you have the same criticism for the $10 trillion in debt Obama has rung up? Or is it ok because he did it and bad when Bush did it?

Total lack of stewardship.

The president isn't the steward of the American economy. This isn't the Soviet Union or communist China. We have a largely free market which means it is stewarded by no one.

 

[chuckiechan]

Obama made a choice: concentrate on getting the economy rolling, or concentrate on social and demographic change. He chose the latter.

It's as simple as that.