It's the economy, stupid: Obama vs. Romney has already begun

There are a hell of a lot of degrees in between. I recommend we aim for one that a) makes sense, and b) is applicable.

Taking your point a face value is impossible when one considers the implications of how an economy works, even in a rudimentary understanding for we laypeople.

Okay, so maybe to appease people of your opinions we should start saying 4 million jobs have been recovered. Will that help? That's more or less what's implied. Everyone knows a shitload of jobs were lost beginning in 2008. It isn't exactly news or classified information.

You seem to want to complicate matters by ignoring the net impact with the suggestion that the gross number has no value as compared to the net number. Why? You want to focus on net jobs gain instead of reversed trends based on gross jobs gain. Why? You want to condemn the president for adding no net jobs to the economy during a severe recession (or depression depending on the measurement) rather than commend him for being on track to practically breaking even during his first term. Why?

I think we both know the answer, and it's political.

Did you know that G. W. Bush added virtually no net jobs in his first term? Why was he reelected?

Did you know that his father barely added a half percent?

Do you think the Presidents Bush faced the same jobs challenges Obama has been facing?

Also, did you know that Herbert Hoover had a net loss of over 5% during his term? An interesting comparison.

I'd like to see what Obama ends up with. He doesn't seem to be doing too terribly if you ask me (and many others, I'm sure).

 

I'm interested in the answer too.

 

You may want to reread my response to it. I understood it perfectly, and I even commented on its source via Aesop.

The "you" problem is that you didn't understand that I rejected it and for good reason. I then offered up a reason and then humoured you by providing a modified version that worked better to reflect reality.

In the end, we should still aim for sense and applicability. You have yet to do so. I tried to help you. There is a middle ground. It's where I'm coming from. I simply wished for you to join me. Only then can we discuss the issue like adults.

I suggest maybe talking about the actual role of small business in the recovery instead of geese that lay eggs made of gold. This isn't my being argumentative; this is my being practical.

 

My response was basically that there is no single "core strength" in the U.S. economy that so outweighs its other strengths so as to warrant examining it and focusing on it and benefiting it at the expense of others. It's not just that it isn't sensible; it's that it is potentially dangerous, as it could easily lead to volatility.

We're not talking about individuals here; we're talking about the American economy. I think we are on the same page if I say that the American economy is one of the largest in the world. That said, talking about "single most important factors" may be fine and great when tackling a specific problem, but when addressing the wider economy its use only goes so far. The idea of focusing on "the biggest strength" should not be to the detriment of most other crucial aspects of the wider economy. It doesn't make sense because everything is interconnected.

I'm not entirely against the idea of discussing things in those terms; I'm merely wary about it. I'm still wary of your use because you have yet to outline the extent to which you wish to view it in those terms.

The message was misleading because it seems to assume that small business operates on a scale of mythic proportions. Just feed it and keep it safe and it will spit out value beyond your imagination.

If only it were that simple.

Look, I understand that small business makes up the lion's share of commerce in the American economy. It's the same here in Canada. At the same time, small business is just one aspect of the wider economy. I mentioned others. As an example, what good is it to benefit small business if demand remains soft? What if demand remains soft because consumer confidence remains low? What if consumer confidence remains low because unemployment remains low? I recently saw a graph outlining how much lower U.S. unemployment would be if it weren't for austerity measures that cut government jobs. It was something like a full percentage point lower.

That kind of reporting (that the unemployment level is a full percentage lower than it is now) would boost consumer confidence. That would boost demand. That would benefit small business.

This is my point.

What is it that small business needs? I know you're concerned about their access to credit, but I've read elsewhere that many companies aren't that interested in credit, that banks actually had to move their money to other methods of investment to keep profits up.

I posted a link suggesting that consumers are accessing more credit. However, it appears it is not the same among businesses.

Small Business Lending Drops In April - Forbes

Perhaps the trend will reverse if consumer spending continues to increase. If jobs keep getting added to the economy, this should only be a matter of time.

What else about small businesses would you say is a challenge? Let't talk about particulars instead of metaphors for a change. You mentioned "Obamacare" before, but that seems like a non-starter. I think it's a challenge the economy will have to face one way or another.

 

Now even our very brave CEO's are ready to say they feel warm & fuzzier...
How will this affect things?

 

It comes as no surprise to me. The indicators have been there for a while. As for the impact, the immediate impact will be minimal. The implications are more gradual and long-term. I think by the end of the year, we'll have a better idea of where the economy is headed.

The wildcard remains to be Europe. We shan't forget about that.

 

Shan't
God bless the old world.
God darnit, Mr. Baraka_Guru, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore. (with my best Slim Pickens twang. )

 

There is too much good stuff in this post to put here, but I strongly recommend reading this.

Why The Obama Recovery Has Been Much More Impressive Than Reagan's - Business Insider

 

As far as I've seen
It could be Jesus and they'd claim him the Devil.
Or another scene, could part the Red Sea, and they'd say it was a trickle.

Now for without the hyperbole. (at least I didn't mention Hitler )

I have seen Romney complain that Obama hasn't done enough to gas & oil market when it was going up.
Then recently claimed that Obama was claiming too much credit when it was going down.

As I said before, instead of constantly throwing negatives...just spit out your own ideas.

 

Here's another worth looking at.

An excerpt:

The Pinocchio Test​

American Crossroads burned itself by suggesting that health care costs have risen too fast under Obama. The rate of growth is slower than during any administration since at least Carter. In this regard, the ad’s premise is factually incorrect, because the president has moved the nation forward, not backward.​

​

As for gas prices, they have indeed doubled since Obama took office, and the economy sat in a deep recession. But they still haven’t reached the high that the nation experienced under the younger Bush.​

​

In terms of inflation, the president’s numbers are unexceptional no matter which way you look at them. The situation has improved in terms of the seasonally adjusted consumer price index less food and energy. And it’s roughly on target for normal inflation when it comes to the American Crossroads measurement.​

​

Overall, American Crossroads earns Three Pinocchios for its misleading claims about price increases under Obama.​

The "Backwards" anti-Obama ad from American Crossroads - The Washington Post