could Obama be America best economic president? Forbes asks

[djAdvocate]

www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/05/16/economically-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/

my favourite line:

The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.

We can largely thank a fairer tax code, improved regulation and consistent SEC enforcement. Also, major strides in health care reform – something no other President has accomplished – has given American’s more faith in their future, and an increased willingness to invest.

not agreeing or disagreeing.  just posting, since it was published in a RELIABLY conservative publication.

[Deleted]

 A credible conservative source that fails to propagate the requisite disinformation will have to be discarded by the True Believers. And their list of what they consider to be credible sources of information will have to be shortened... yet again.

 Eventually, the only "credible" sources of information remaining for them will be Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

The political lobotomy will be complete.

[mtman]

Smoke and mirrors

[djAdvocate]

Sept 2, 2013 14:25:51 GMT -5 mtman said:

Smoke and mirrors

enlighten me.

[Deleted]

enlighten me.

 I heartily recommend that you don't "hold your breath", LOL

[Deleted]

That article lists only two things Obama has actually done to better the economy: the auto bailout and raising taxes on the rich. It also mentions Obamacare, but there is no concrete story there to tell (yet).

Just like Inwould not give any other President "ownership" of the state of the economy, I don't see any real reason to give it to Obama, either. And this article doesn't give any real reasons, either.

[resolution]

Things are improving for the part of the population that reads Forbes, but a significant segment has lost ground rather than gained.

[rockon]

  1)  % of GDP may not be the best source of measurement when administrations change how GDP is calculated.
  2) Borrowing 10 trillion dollars and spending it on services that show up in the GDP coloum solves our economic crisis? Good Lord where have we gone wrong?

www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?50099-Fed-is-going-to-change-the-way-GDP-is-calculate-Discussion-Tues-and-Wed

[rockon]

seekingalpha.com/article/1368001-u-s-government-invents-new-way-of-calculating-gdp

Yep smoke and mirrors!

[rockon]

investmentwatchblog.com/when-gdp-wont-grow-change-the-way-you-calculate-it/

[Deleted]

there is growth in a couple of industries

there is contraction still in many

we are NOT replacing the 40-80k manufacturing jobs that we are losing

instead of the fed buying bonds for 85b per month, maybe we should be rebuilding our roads and bridges

maybe use some of that for a manufacturing credit for any goods PRODUCED here in the US

maybe we can finally build the pipeline, and become a little less dependent on foreign oil

maybe we convert all our buses and semis into natural gas users, not diesel

just a few ideas to actually put people to work....in jobs that pay more than 25k per year

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 3, 2013 10:14:08 GMT -5 rockon said:

seekingalpha.com/article/1368001-u-s-government-invents-new-way-of-calculating-gdp

Yep smoke and mirrors!

You enlightened him.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 6:06:15 GMT -5 resolution said:

Things are improving for the part of the population that reads Forbes, but a significant segment has lost ground rather than gained.

agreed.  so why don't Republicans love him?

[Phoenix84]

I agree with IB.  I didn't blame Obama for the economic crises of 2008.  It was clear the economic crises technically began before Obama even took office.  By extension, I don't think one can look at the recovery, and give Obama the "credit."  I think the economy improved in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Pointing to Obamacare as a fix to our economic woes is laughable.  Obamacare hasn't really even taken effect yet.  Most of the reaction I've seen has either been negative, or people just don't know what the hell is happening with Obamacare.  How can someone possibly declare Obamacare an economic boon at this point in time? 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 10:10:27 GMT -5 rockon said:

  1)  % of GDP may not be the best source of measurement when administrations change how GDP is calculated.

i think it is by far the best measure.  what measure do you like better?


  2) Borrowing 10 trillion dollars and spending it on services that show up in the GDP coloum solves our economic crisis? Good Lord where have we gone wrong?

nowhere.  it is classic Keynsianism.  it has been the predominating fiscal policy since WW2.


www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?50099-Fed-is-going-to-change-the-way-GDP-is-calculate-Discussion-Tues-and-Wed

i will check out that article, later.  does it have anything to do with the topic?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 5:42:15 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

That article lists only two things Obama has actually done to better the economy: the auto bailout and raising taxes on the rich.

the article didn't claim that taxes on the rich bettered the economy.  so that would be one.

It also mentions Obamacare, but there is no concrete story there to tell (yet).

the article claims that Obamacare increased consumer confidence, but offered no evidence to support that.

Just like Inwould not give any other President "ownership" of the state of the economy, I don't see any real reason to give it to Obama, either. And this article doesn't give any real reasons, either.

if there are no reasons to give him credit, would you also agree that there is no reason to blame him?

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 3, 2013 11:27:02 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I agree with IB.  I didn't blame Obama for the economic crises of 2008.  It was clear the economic crises technically began before Obama even took office.  By extension, I don't think one can look at the recovery, and give Obama the "credit."  I think the economy improved in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Pointing to Obamacare as a fix to our economic woes is laughable.  Obamacare hasn't really even taken effect yet.  Most of the reaction I've seen has either been negative, or people just don't know what the hell is happening with Obamacare.  How can someone possibly declare Obamacare an economic boon at this point in time? 

It's also important to realize that this article was written in May, and metrics have deteriorated somewhat since then.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 11:39:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 3, 2013 11:27:02 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I agree with IB.  I didn't blame Obama for the economic crises of 2008.  It was clear the economic crises technically began before Obama even took office.  By extension, I don't think one can look at the recovery, and give Obama the "credit."  I think the economy improved in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Pointing to Obamacare as a fix to our economic woes is laughable.  Obamacare hasn't really even taken effect yet.  Most of the reaction I've seen has either been negative, or people just don't know what the hell is happening with Obamacare.  How can someone possibly declare Obamacare an economic boon at this point in time? 

It's also important to realize that this article was written in May, and metrics have deteriorated somewhat since then.

it is actually more important to not make snap judgements about the last 3 months.  could just be an anomaly.

i disagree that presidents are irrelevant to economies, btw- and i think they are very important to deficits.  but i will save my arguments until everyone has had their turn.

[workpublic]

but shouldn't his impending syrian war help the economy?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 11:46:27 GMT -5 workpublic said:

but shouldn't his impending syrian war help the economy?

sure.  socialism at it's finest.

[rockon]

1) % of GDP may not be the best source of measurement when administrations change how GDP is calculated.

i think it is by far the best measure. what measure do you like better?


Please read this link from post#9. A measurement instrument is only valid for comparison purposes if it remains consistent.



seekingalpha.com/article/1368001-u-s-government-invents-new-way-of-calculating-gdp

Yep smoke and mirrors!
You enlightened him.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 12:19:38 GMT -5 rockon said:

1) % of GDP may not be the best source of measurement when administrations change how GDP is calculated.

i think it is by far the best measure. what measure do you like better?


Please read this link from post#9. A measurement instrument is only valid for comparison purposes if it remains consistent.



seekingalpha.com/article/1368001-u-s-government-invents-new-way-of-calculating-gdp

Yep smoke and mirrors!
You enlightened him.

the new way of calculating GDP does not impact the historical statistics, only the ones that we have not even seen, yet.  and if it changes GDP by 3%, then it only impacts the comparison by 3%.  3% of 4% = 0.1%.  so, are you saying that the comparison is INVALID because of a 0.1% change going forward?  forgive me for saying so, but that is crazy talk.

if you disagree, please show me where i have gone wrong.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

This is desperation.  It's the beginning of the last-ditch, total war, hand the old men and boys a shovel stage of the collapse of the Obama Presidency.  Some in the imbedded media now realize they're not going to get out unscathed, so they're going to fight to the last and go down with the ship, I guess.

[mmhmm]

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 12:41:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This is desperation. 

no, this is an article in a well known and conservative publication.

desperation would be praise coming from the most left wing circles imaginable, or paid propaganda.  this is neither.

[rockon]

if you disagree, please show me where i have gone wrong.

I do disagree with doing a comparison or drawing conclusions based on a number that continues to change how it is calculated. The most recent change in April of this year means that any comparisons based on GDP with the rest of the world are now invalid as well since no other country uses this formula to acheive their GDP number.

If a man makes 50k ADG income one year and then makes the same exact wage the next year but the government changes the way his ADG is calculated did he earn more money? Does it make him an economic genius? Did it change his economic status? No, it just means the way his ADG is now calculated is different then the previous year.... and we as a country are now 17 trillion dollars in debt and will spend a large portion of our revenue moving forward to pay the interest on this debt. Now thats the fact Jack!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 13:00:48 GMT -5 rockon said:

if you disagree, please show me where i have gone wrong.

I do disagree with doing a comparison or drawing conclusions based on a number that continues to change how it is calculated.

first of all, that change has no impact on the historical statistics.

second, even if it has impact on future statistics, why not just footnote and say "new GDP is 3% higher than old GDP, and depresses current stats by an average of 0.1% on the new basis", rather than just THROWING OUT the comparison.

i think it is really silly to declare stuff "invalid" if it produces a 3% error.  you account for that error and move on, in my field.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2013 13:00:48 GMT -5 rockon said:

The most recent change in April of this year means that any comparisons based on GDP with the rest of the world are now invalid as well since no other country uses this formula to acheive their GDP number.

i disagree that the change makes the statistics invalid, and you are straying way off topic here in comparing to other nations.

[rockon]

"GDP should measure real production (like building a factory) and what the U.S. government added here is not real production. It is a measure of spending in the economy and there are items in the GDP number that don't add real value to the economy (like writing books).

Second, while the GDP number gets inflated upwards, all macroeconomic indicators that are based on the GDP number will be adjusted with it. For example, the debt to GDP, which is at 105% now (Chart 1), will drop 3% just because of this adjustment to the GDP number. This fictitious drop in debt to GDP will highlight that the U.S. improved its debt load, while it did not."



In case you really didn"t read the whole thing.  

[rockon]

"Those who have been following the US debt to GDP ratio now that the US officially does not have a debt ceiling indefinitely, may have had the occasional panic attack seeing how this country’s leverage ratio is rapidly approaching that of a Troika case study of a PIIG in complete failure. And at 107% debt/GDP no explanations are necessary. Luckily, the official gatekeepers of America’s economic growth (with decimal point precision), the Bureau of Economic Analysis have a plan on how to make the US economy, which is now growing at an abysmal 1.5% annualized pace, or about 5 times slower than US debt growing at 7.5% annually, catch up: magically make up a number out of thin air, and add it to the total. And it literally is out of thin air: according to the FT the addition will constitute of a one-time addition of intangibles, amounting to 3% of total US GDP, or more than the size of Belgium at $500 billion, to the US economy."


Read more at investmentwatchblog.com/when-gdp-wont-grow-change-the-way-you-calculate-it/#Sf6B61c2LxRPKBWG.99


It's a big accounting gimmick for the sole purpose of confusing folks into believing that things have improved more then they actually have. If enough people believe it it may help consumer confidience which could ultimately help our economy improve. Maybe the end justifies the means!