Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:44 AM Oct 2012

Not what a real Recovery looks like!?!

It was one mean mother fracking recession that the last Republican administration left us with, not at all like the 11 more or less garden variety previous recessions that the United States experienced since the end of World War II. If you are old enough to vote you are old enough to remember at least one or two prior to the Great one that we are now slowly recovering from. Do you recall hearing the term “Global Panic” applied to any of those? Nope, use of that phase was previously reserved for descriptions of the Great Depression. When something that bad happens it takes a LONG time to dig out from under it. The Great Depression officially lasted over 3 ½ years, from August 1929 to March 1933 and the economy was so fragile coming out of it that we reentered a deep Recession in 1937 which required another year for us get out from under. It took U.S. involvement in World War II before Americans got to see anything that looked “like a real recovery.”

No one likes remembering their fear. Maybe that’s why Mitt Romney can’t seem to hold onto a picture of what the world plunged into in September of 2008. Perhaps excerpts from this piece, first published by Fortune in December 2008, might serve to remind him:

“(Fortune) -- The world changed forever on Sept. 15, 2008, the Monday Meltdown, a day that will live in the annals of finance alongside Black Tuesday, Oct. 29, 1929. We are still odds-on to avoid a depression like the one that followed Oct. 29, but the Monday Meltdown made one more likely, and has claimed trillions of dollars of wealth worldwide and triggered a global recession. Understanding the financial shock that occurred that day is vital to finding a way out of our current mess…” http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/news/economy/monday.meltdown.fortune/index.htm

Three months after that epic crash and sentences like “We are still odds-on to avoid a depression like the one that followed Oct. 29, but the Monday Meltdown made one more likely…” were still being made. One month before Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, the possibility that the world might yet slide into another Great Depression was still being discussed as entirely plausible. Unemployment rates hit 26.7% in the U.S. during the 1930’s Great Depression (when women weren’t really considered as part of the permanent work force).

The author of that Fortune piece, Jeffrey D. Sachs, also wrote: “The Monday Meltdown turned a boom-and-bust cycle centered mainly in the U.S. and U.K. into a global financial panic.” Those are precisely the type of fear inducing words, “meltdown” and “global financial panic”, that Mitt Romney seems to have purged from his political memory banks. That is what Barack Obama was facing when he took the oath of office to become President of the United States in January of 2009.

Sachs concluded with this:

“Only the work of historians will tell us whether the Fed, White House, and Treasury might have saved the day through a softer landing for Lehman Brothers. The answer would seem to be yes--if the authorities had used the preceding months to put an emergency-response plan in place."

"Starting next month, President Obama must work to assuage panic, give a sense of direction, cooperate effectively with the rest of the world, and ensure the liquidity and fiscal stimulus to get the global economy out of the Critical Care Unit and onto a path of recovery.”

Obama did all that, though you wouldn’t know it from the credit he hasn’t gotten. Instead Mitt Romney has the gall to say “This is not what a real recovery looks like.” Under the Obama Administration the U.S. economy has now netted a small overall job gain, despite the fact that job losses were hemorrhaging at 800,000 per month when he first stepped into over the Oval Office, and despite substantial job cuts in the public sector. Under 8 years of President George W. Bush our economy barely added a million jobs, total. Since the U.S. economy bottomed out in February 2910 over 4 million new jobs have been created to date under President Obama.

You could argue that President Bush’s job creation numbers looked a lot better too before the Recession hit, and that’s true, but the Great Recession happened on Bush’s watch, not Obama’s. During President Obama’s first term in office private sector jobs have cumulatively grown on average .10% annually despite his having inherited the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s. Now compare that to George W. Bush’s second term when they grew at just .06%, or better yet compare that to Bush’s first term when private sector jobs actually shrank at a minus .21% rate (those job losses fortunately were offset by job gains in the public sector): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/low-jobs-numbers-for-obama-but-lower-for-his-predecessor.html?_r=1

President Obama turned the American economy around and, unlike under Bush, the private sector has grown, not retracted, during his first term in office. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States avoided falling back into a double dip recession, even though the eurozone contracted again during the second quarter of 2012. Now look at these additional markers:

In July U.S. home prices rebounded to levels they were last at nine years ago: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/real_estate/home-prices/index.html

In September the U.S. unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since Barack Obama took office: http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14240541-unemployment-rate-falls-to-78-as-economy-creates-114000-jobs?lite
In October the Dow Jones Index hit its 5 year high: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-markets/1613559/

In October U.S. indebtedness shrunk to a six-year low relative to the size of the economy: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/u-s-downgrade-seen-as-upgrade-as-u-s-debt-dissolved.html

Some might note that Barack Obama isn’t running for re-election against George W.Bush, he’s running against Mitt Romney. True, but Mitt Romney is running on the exact same standard Republican playbook; more tax cuts and deregulation. You remember deregulation, don’t you? If not let’s return to 2008 again, when top economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs were explaining how we got ourselves into such a mess in the first place:

“Deregulation abetted the massive over-extension of credit by enabling Wall Street to expand trillions of dollars of lending and tens of trillions of dollars of derivatives trading on a base of households with shaky creditworthiness. The seeds of trouble were sown.”

All of the above may be true, but why should any of that excuse President Obama’s failed promises? After all Barack Obama promised back in 2009 that the unemployment rate would drop below 6% by 2012. Yes he did say that then, and yes our recovery is slower than the President initially forecast. But it turns out that the recession itself was far worse than experts were characterizing it as when Obama actually made his recovery projections. That fact was revealed in revised figures documenting the actual GDP loss during the recession that were retroactively released by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis:

“The overall pattern of quarterly changes during the downturn was similar in both the revised and previously published estimates, though the revised estimates show larger decreases for 2008:Q4 (-8.9 percent compared with -6.8 percent) and for 2009:Q1 (-6.7 percent compared with -4.9 percent).”
http://www.bea.gov/faq/index.cfm?faq_id=1004

In other words, bad as we all knew the economy was back when Obama made that original forecast, none of us actually knew how bad it really was. That was one mean mother fracking recession that the last Republican administration left us with. I would like to see how Mitt Romney would manage a global crisis like that any better. Then again, maybe not.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not what a real Recovery looks like!?! (Original Post) Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 OP
When the Republicans keep saying that . . . . TroyD Oct 2012 #1
Absolutely, yes that too. Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #2
Here is a good, related Daily Kos Diary Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #3
Well, Here are the Jobs Trends for the Current Recovery On the Road Oct 2012 #4
Both observations are right on the money Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #5
Yeah, It's Much Easier to See It on a Line Graph than Look at a Table of Numbers On the Road Oct 2012 #6
I've leaned toward a bleaker explanation for slower recoveries in recent decades Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #7

TroyD

(4,551 posts)
1. When the Republicans keep saying that . . . .
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:48 AM
Oct 2012

Obama has to HIT BACK with the following:

'Well, if you wanted a 'real recovery' why have you been voting against the Jobs Bill and deliberately obstructing the economy for the past 4 years? When FDR was trying to help America out of the Great Depression he had a Congress that worked with him in trying to do something to help the American people. All the Republicans have done is obstruct the recovery for political purposes. The Republicans said they wanted me to FAIL, and when you want the President to fail, you want AMERICA to fail. Despite the refusal of the Republicans to pass the Jobs Bill and do the work that Americans elected us to do, I have been able to keep my promise and bring unemployment below 8%, and it is our expectation that it will continue dropping even further next month".

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
3. Here is a good, related Daily Kos Diary
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:51 AM
Oct 2012

I was just looking around and came across it:

"A historical note about jobs numbers and recovery"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1142224/-A-historical-note-about-jobs-numbers-and-recovery

It quotes heavily from this article published in Bloomberg news:
Five Years After Crisis, No Normal Recovery
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/five-years-after-crisis-no-normal-recovery.html

"...We have suggested that the concepts of recession and recovery need to take on new meaning. After a normal recession (which for the average post-World War II experience in the U.S. lasted less than a year), the economy quickly snaps back; within a year or two, it not only recovers lost ground but also returns to trend.

After systemic financial crises, however, economies of the postwar era have needed an average of four and half years just to reach the same per capita gross domestic product they had when the crisis started. We find that, on average, unemployment rates take a similar time frame to hit bottom and housing prices take even longer. With the Great Depression of the 1930s, economies on average needed more than a full decade to regain the initial per capita GDP. "

On the Road

(20,783 posts)
4. Well, Here are the Jobs Trends for the Current Recovery
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Oct 2012

compared to other recessions since 1948.

Sure looks like a recovery to me:



Over time, recoveries have become slower. What stands out about this one is the depth of the initial downturn.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
5. Both observations are right on the money
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:29 PM
Oct 2012

Thanks for this graph. If I'm reading my colors right, the last three recessions have led to much slower recoveries than earlier ones, even ones that weren't relatively deep. Structural changes in the economy have occurred beyond the ability of any President to turn around during a few years in office. And yeah, this graph sure as hell shows how severe this last recession was compared to others.

On the Road

(20,783 posts)
6. Yeah, It's Much Easier to See It on a Line Graph than Look at a Table of Numbers
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:02 PM
Oct 2012

Too bad that using graphs in politcal ads, speeches and debates is not more widely accepted. If Obama brought a chart like to the debate, he would be called a dork just like Perot was. Maybe there is a way a surrogate could do it given the right forum, a large enough audience, and the right presentation. Those animated bubble charts have a certain cache now.

On the more gradual trends of recent recessions, I wonder whether the reason is a greater percentage of the economy is in government and retirement annuities, which are much less volatile than ordinary businesses. That cushions the blow on the way down, but makes getting out of the rut a harder and longer process. The recovery actually seems to be going about like you would expect, but it's difficult to get most folks to accept that.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
7. I've leaned toward a bleaker explanation for slower recoveries in recent decades
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:10 AM
Oct 2012

It's just a quasi hunch though; the U.S. economy has a weakening job base on whole. Employers keep squeezing workers for greater productivity rather than add new hires, and they continue to automate, and they continue to outsource. Hiring new domestic . workers has become the last resort so to speak I think more people are doing more small scale below the radar self employed gigs to get by rather than traditional standard employment. It takes strong economic growth before the work force grows significantly.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Not what a real Recovery ...