Second quarter GDP rose 2.4%

I made this graph years ago. Numbers directly from BLS thru 2019, but I did the adjusting for recessions.

Make of it what you will.

Hope you're doing well, pa!

 

TY sir, I’m well..

 

Perhaps, but that isnt really the current discussion generally around here.

It is a worthy conversation though, no doubt.

 

Interesting no doubt... But how much credit do we give the POTUS? How much of that depended on the makeup of congress.

How many dem presidents had a pub congress and vice versa?

I just never really think the potus is that tied up in the day to day of job growth.

 

Correlation is not causation, it’s a simplistic way to “prove” Democrat Presidents are better for the economy/jobs than Pub Presidents.

Hell on could argue it’s the Dem Presidents that set the stage for a recession that lands on the head of the Pub presidents.
Unless you deep dive into economic conditions pre and post it’s really just for show. The smart people that post here know that…

 

Personally, I've been hesitant to give credit or blame to POTUS' wrt jobs, or even to congress. I'm sure there are effects, but capturing direct cause & effect is extremely complicated and that complication gives me much pause.

As for Congress, recall that for 40 years, Dems controlled the house and for all but 4 years over a 65 year period until 1994. Senate a little different at 26 years starting in 1955. We see much more flipflopping of control now, though Pubs have controlled the House for 20 of the last 28 years, including from 1994-2006.

Whatever the case, even adjusting for recessions, the numbers are pretty stark and divergent by POTUS political party (this was true before the massive losses in 2020 and gains in 2021).

At the very least, it makes it an absurdly tall order for Pubs to claim that Dems are terrible for job creation,

 

Just curious how did you “adjust for recessions”?

Since the economy is cyclical recessions (according to some) are unavoidable, they can be pushed out of lessened by fiscal policy often not under the control of Presidents.

Then you have black swan events like the dot com crash and 9/11 that hit Bush 2.0 right on the head, not sure how a President how was in office 3 months could prevent the dot com crash. Seems a bit simplistic to ignore extrinsic factors such as those…

 

I eliminated monthly jobs numbers during identified recession months & calculated the totals & avg w/o them. Also, in the *Net Jobs* table (first table), I eliminated all negative months to arrive at the totals & avg.

There are certainly cyclical aspects of the economy--that much we know--but it's uneven and quite *imperfect* and depends on various factors, which tbh are outside my wheelhouse to discuss cogently & succinctly.

My tables were just a side thing. I didn't even try to account for all black swan events or try to do any cause & effect analysis. Just wanted to get some grasp of the numbers. That said, GWB faiap inherited a recession even if it began after he became president. The dot com bust and 9/11 certainly hurt his numbers, but that early 2000s recession was quite shallow and short, comparatively (especially compared to the Great Recession at the end of his presidency, which absolutely crushed his numbers). That said, we could eliminate those 8 years and say the worst 8 for a D President (as I did some years ago, but can't find that file now) and the #s story would remain similar/same.

FWIW, I didn't post that table to make any claim about D superiority or vice versa. You had asked dangole about it and I knew that I had the numbers handy already because I've posted them in too hot before.

 

You don’t understand the economy on any level.
Please stop.
Nobody is buying it. Even the biggest dumbass knows money stays on the sidelines when dems are in charge…and I don’t just mean president, congress as well. Tax increases are scary as hell, and that’s the libbie way.
It’s complicated but don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining pal.
The job numbers jumped for Barack because they had a huge space to grow after a recession. That’s why the job numbers looked great for him…eventually they were always gonna make a big leap forward.
Keep your graphs and your pencil where they belong… in your pocket protector.

 

If money stayed on the sidelines as you claim everyone knows, then you should obviously be able to provide evidence to back this up. No?

 

As you previously stated, it’s complicated and you can’t say that democrats are good for job growth.
Recessions drop the numbers and then they come roaring back. The dems get back in office while numbers grow. I’m not sure your charts and graphs are showing the entire picture.

 

It is complicated, definitely. My tables weren't meant to show the entire picture. I provided them because I had the numbers gatorpa had sought, and made sure in a subsequent comment to explain that I'm not making any causal or political claim about them. I have a lot of data stored on my computer about all sorts of topics, fwiw

Anyway, if the money was really being kept on the sidelines under D presidents, I would think that we could find this evidence, though I have no clue where to look for it.

 

I didn’t say the money was sidelined during, I said it eventually came out and the dems were next in charge. There was overlap.
The timing was right at least for dems as pres, the economy is cyclical this way.

 

A short sighted response.

Carry on with the narrow minded discussion in the echo chamber.

 

TY

 

And this is why Biden’s job numbers are so great.
Covid shutdowns and the reopen with trillions of fiscal stimulus both by the FED (easy money and low interest rates). Federal stimulus (not just individual checks) but checks to every sector of the economy. Just look at Government spending since covid began, is not stopping hence our recently downgraded debit rating despite raising the debit ceiling.

The music will eventually stop, just better hope you have a chair.

 

Savings rates?
Cash in IRA’s?
People holding onto investments with capital gains?

Just some suggestions.