Thread: Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Originally Posted by creation

No thats nonsense. In the UK we tried and continued with cuts across the board. No New Deal. We languished right up to WW2.

No, it's not nonsense.

The UK barely increased spending during the Great Depression - whereas America VASTLY increased spending.

What was the result?

America took about 10 years to get back to it's pre-crash GDP per capita.
The UK - only about 4 or 5 years.

America took about 14 years to get it's unemployment rate back to pre-crash levels.
The UK - only about 9 or 10 years.

So, despite the fact that the U.S.A. spent TONS of money and the UK almost nothing to combat the Great Depression - the UK seemed to recover from it FAR quicker.

Additionally, if the theory goes that the New Deal was responsible for the 'speed' (laugh laugh) of the recovery from the Great Depression? Then the UK - with it's virtually zero increase in spending - should not have recovered from their problems nearly as quickly - if virtually at all.
Yet they recovered FAR quicker.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...9/rp99-111.pdf

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03...ita-1871-2009/

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

New unemployment claims higher, 388,000. GDP 1st quarter 2.2%.

Bad news for Republicans? How laughable. The only reason the number you cite is at 8.1% is because so many are no longer looking for work. Add all the people how have dropped out and it's closer to 10% if not above.

Yeah keep trying to sugarcoat it, no one is buying it.

Compared to the 10% rate and double dip recessions many conservatives were predicting we'd have now -- and most the rest were praying for?

You bet.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

No, because over 4 million additional private sector jobs have been created since Jan 2010. Which is about 5 million more than Bush's term.

What about the full employment under Bush's term? You would rather have 9% unemployment than the 4.5-5% under Bush. You don't need to create a lot of jobs when everyone is already working, as you have been told repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Beat hell out of an economy heading straight down the toilet which is what the last guy you all put in office left us.

You mean the Democrat congress that failed to act and exacerbated the normal slowdown. It was already rebounding when Obama took office as you already know. So why do you like Obama's high unemployment rather than the low unemployment under Bush?

Originally Posted by DA60

No, it's not nonsense.

The UK barely increased spending during the Great Depression - whereas America VASTLY increased spending.

What was the result?

America took about 10 years to get back to it's pre-crash GDP per capita.
The UK - only about 4 or 5 years.

America took about 14 years to get it's unemployment rate back to pre-crash levels.
The UK - only about 9 or 10 years.

So, despite the fact that the U.S.A. spent TONS of money and the UK almost nothing to combat the Great Depression - the UK seemed to recover from it FAR quicker.

Additionally, if the theory goes that the New Deal was responsible for the 'speed' (laugh laugh) of the recovery from the Great Depression? Then the UK - with it's virtually zero increase in spending - should not have recovered from their problems nearly as quickly - if virtually at all.
Yet they recovered FAR quicker.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...9/rp99-111.pdf

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03...ita-1871-2009/

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

From your own source:

US Gross Domestic Product (current dollars)
The Great Crash, 1929-1933
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4

New Deal Recovery and Recession, 1934-39
in 1934: $66.0 billion
in 1935: $73.3
in 1936: $83.8
in 1937: $91.9
in 1938: $86.1
in 1939: $92.2

Government Expenditures and Investments (in current dollars)
Hoover Administration, 1929-1939
in 1929: $9.4 billion
in 1930: $10.0
in 1931: $9.9
in 1932: $8.7
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1929-32: 12.0%

Roosevelt's New Deal
in 1933: $8.7 billion
in 1934: $10.5
in 1935: $10.9
in 1936: $13.1
in 1937: $12.8
in 1938: $13.8
in 1939: $14.8
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1933-39: 15.4%

Looks like a strong endorsement of New Deal/Keynesian policies to me.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
New unemployment claims higher, 388,000. GDP 1st quarter 2.2%.

Bad news for Republicans? How laughable. The only reason the number you cite is at 8.1% is because so many are no longer looking for work. Add all the people how have dropped out and it's closer to 10% if not above.

Yeah keep trying to sugarcoat it, no one is buying it.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Compared to the 10% rate and double dip recessions many conservatives were predicting we'd have now -- and most the rest were praying for?

You bet.

Yes the 10% were are currently at if you add in the people who have given up looking and yes the climbing new unemployment claims, and GDP slowing to below expectations. So that is what you have been praying for?

Yeah keep trying to sugarcoat it, no one is buying it.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

You mean the Democrat congress that failed to act and exacerbated the normal slowdown. It was already rebounding when Obama took office as you already know. So why do you like Obama's high unemployment rather than the low unemployment under Bush?

No, I mean the Bush Administration and Republican Congress that presided over the most devasting bubble since the Great Depression:

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

What about the full employment under Bush's term? You would rather have 9% unemployment than the 4.5-5% under Bush. You don't need to create a lot of jobs when everyone is already working, as you have been told repeatedly.

You mean the 4% unemployment he inherited that was almost double that when he left and skyrocketing upwards as 700,000+ people were losing their jobs each month?

I'd rather have the steady improvement we've seen since Jan 2010 under the Obama adminstration. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous View Post
Already did. You provided zero proof that the economy would have entered into a death spiral had it not been for government intervention.

Read the thread.

It has been proven to you over and over that the economy and job losses bottom out just as Obama took office and were already rebounding before his stimulus and government intervention occured. Had he done nothing but got out of the way and announced that he would support making the Bush tax cuts permanent the economy would have entered a TRUE recovery not this tepid one that can't create enough jobs to keep up with population or enough revenue to keep up with his spending.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Feel free to prove it.

They don't pay any taxes to speak of what are you going to cut?

Good point. So don't cut taxes at all.

And Obama failed to do so. 388,000 new jobs claims last week, 4 weeks in a row over 350,000.

That is less then Lord Reagan averaged over the 8 years he was president. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Looks like a strong endorsement of New Deal/Keynesian policies to me.

The point of the post that Iriemon quoted from was that the UK recovered from their Great Depression far faster then America did and yet Great Britain spend barely any money on recovery while America spent TONS.

And somehow he COMPLETELY ignores that and instead decides to focus - with rose-colored, tunnel-like vision, no doubt - on JUST the New Deal without even mentioning the UK AT ALL.



Can someone spell 'I-N D-E-N-I-A-L'?




Mod edit: Insult