Thank you, President Obama.




I didn't even get my turn on the swings.CitadelGrad wrote:recession is over


The Citadel SucksCitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/
Thank you, President Obama.




CitadelGrad wrote:What the **** is your problem? Trying to get fired up for Saturday?
I thought maybe this, like everything else in the last 19 months, was Bush's fault.CitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/
Thank you, President Obama.

The stock market certainly had a spring its step today.ASUG8 wrote:Yay.
It was evident at lunch how everyone seemed to have a lot of extra spring in their steps because of this news.


well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?CitadelGrad wrote:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/ ... june-2009/
Thank you, President Obama.


No.AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?
Z?Skjellyfetti wrote:No.AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?
Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.

Do your homework, Jellydonut!!Skjellyfetti wrote:No.AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?
Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.


I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?Skjellyfetti wrote:No.AZGrizFan wrote:
well, thank God. Therefore, I should have no trouble going out and finding a job when my current one disappears in 3 weeks, no?
Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.


Fed policy didn't cause the recession of the 80's... it played a huge part in fixing it, though. Yeah, I have heard of Paul Volcker... and I've given him quite a bit of credit on here and on AGS for a long time. It's a shame Reagan fired him... and, I'm very glad he's been the head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board for the full of Obama's first term.CitadelGrad wrote:I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?
Yeah. No doubt there's a correlation... But, it lags behind GDP. Unemployment didn't return to acceptable levels in the 1980's recession until almost 2 years AFTER the recession was over. Unemployment actually peaked after the recession officially ended in the 80's recession. Unemployment has peaked in this recession AFTER it was officially over (the peak was October '09).CitadelGrad wrote:GDP contraction and high unemployment have a pretty strong correlation, yes?

What a canard! Bush led us through a terrorist attack and two wars. Only one of those three economically destructive events was a choice on Bush's part.mainejeff wrote:Things were going down the tubes long before Obama came along thanks to 8 years of absolute mismanagement of our country's economic policies by REPUBLICANS (remember, they had 6 YEARS OF POWER!). Obama has at least saved the financial markets.......I'm doing quite well since he became President.


You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Fed policy did cause the 81-82 recession. This is accepted by every economist in the country, including Volcker. His primary concern was ending high inflation rates by raising interest rates. He knew it would drive the economy into a recession. It was the reason why Carter resisted appointing him to the Fed. Jimmy didn't want to campaign in the '80 election while the country was in a recession. I used to work at the Fed and have seen written comments and video interviews with Volcker who confirmed all of this.Skjellyfetti wrote:Fed policy didn't cause the recession of the 80's... it played a huge part in fixing it, though. Yeah, I have heard of Paul Volcker... and I've given him quite a bit of credit on here and on AGS for a long time. It's a shame Reagan fired him... and, I'm very glad he's been the head of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board for the full of Obama's first term.CitadelGrad wrote:I don't suppose Fed policy had anything to do with the recession of the early 80s. Nah, couldn't have. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Paul Volcker?![]()
Yeah. No doubt there's a correlation... But, it lags behind GDP. Unemployment didn't return to acceptable levels in the 1980's recession until almost 2 years AFTER the recession was over. Unemployment actually peaked after the recession officially ended in the 80's recession. Unemployment has peaked in this recession AFTER it was officially over (the peak was October '09).CitadelGrad wrote:GDP contraction and high unemployment have a pretty strong correlation, yes?
Saying unemployment is still high doesn't mean we aren't in recovery.





D?D1B wrote:Z?Skjellyfetti wrote:
No.
Unfortunately, high unemployment numbers don't necessarily play into the definition of a recession. We are in a recovery...and a very average one at that. People need to remember that during, say, Reagan's first term, in December of 1982, almost 2 full years after taking office, unemployment was hovering around 10.8%. It is now about 9.6%. We are in better shape after two years of Obama and a far deeper recession than we were after two years of Reagan and a milder recession.![]()
crickets......


