Obama; .best economic president in U.S history, says Forbes.

K: this is from Forbes magazine, the home of liberalism.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.

One month variation does not change a trend

Even though the plus-200,000 monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.

And that is great news.

Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the number one issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.

To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.

This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history

(here was a graph showing the respective growths and Obama is better than regun).

Unemployment Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick: ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

“We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

What about the Labor Participation Rate?

(another graph)

Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown.

U3 v U6 1994-2014Deitrick: “The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a “hidden” unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called ‘U6.’ today by the BLS.

“As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics – Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject

“Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.

“Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.

(another graph)

“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”

Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs

When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation.

This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion.

New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with 15 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, 2004 – five years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the “grass roots” economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2013 – demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been.

As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting

The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 – reaching new all time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth.

Investment Returns Reagan v ObamaDeitrick: ”While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are. Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance.

(graph)

“As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

“However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

“In 2009, with pension funds underfunded and most private retirement accounts savaged by the financial meltdown and Wall Street losses, Boomers and Seniors were resigned to never retiring. The nest egg appeared gone, leaving the ‘chickens’ to keep working. But now that the coffers have been reloaded increasingly people age 55 – 70 are happily discovering they can quit their old jobs and spend time with family, relax, enjoy hobbies or start new at-home businesses from their laptops or tablets. It is due to a skyrocketing stock market that people can now pursue these dreams and reduce the labor participation rates for ‘better pastures.”

Where myth meets reality

There is another election in just eight weeks. Statistics will be bandied about. Monthly data points will be hotly contested. There will be a lot of rhetoric by candidates on all sides. But, understanding the prevailing trends is critical. Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important – even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments.

There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best. And shows a very clear trend one can expect to continue into 2015.

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

K: I think all those Obama haters can begin their hate all over again because it is not about reality but
racism. “Dam uppity black man in the White house” thinks the haters.

Kropotkin

Leftist minded “Best President” =the left wing president that happen to be in office when the rest of the country managed to get better despite their government.

and let the hating begin despite the facts.

Kropotkin

Don’t get your panties in a twist, I have my serious issues with the “Right-wing” as well.

All of the above is negated by the extraordinary, and unprecedented increase in the national debt. We are trying to play an old game of who wins,the turtle of the hare, the turtle wins, of course, by all statistically derived analysis. Of course only the hare knows better. He can afford the breaks, it’s not his doing.

The facts? The fact is that you didn’t link the Forbes article, because you probably didn’t read the Forbes article. What you read is a Daily Kos article that paraphases the Forbes article, and I know that because the Daily Kos article has virtually the same title as your thread. Then you probably follwed their link to Forbes, skimmed it, and copy pasted some stuff.

The fact is that Forbes ran TWO articles, one critical of the President’s performance on the economy, here

forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf … e-economy/

and one supporting it, here:

forbes.com/sites/adamhartung … investing/

From two different opinion writers with two different political perspectives. The liberal blogs, which are the only thing you read, ignored one of them and ran with the other one, which is why you ought to read more than just things that confirm your prejudices, and ESPECIALLY why you shouldn’t go around telling people what Forbes says about Obama when you are getting it second hand.

K: actually, I copied the Forbes articles,
And didn’t look at the huffton post article.
On the Forbes page, I didn’t see a second article
Against Obama. Where was it?

Kropotkin

I linked it. They posted one article on the 4th, one on the 5th. The 4th drew no attention, every lefty blog on earth commented on the 5th.

:laughing:

President Ogolfer the most fascist president of the United States.

K: clearly, that settles the matter. No facts or evidence needed. Just simple opinion posing as
clear and obvious evidence. I don’t suppose you want to, you know, maybe have a fact of some kind,
evidence of some kind, proof of some kind that would justify your statement, something, anything.

Kropotkin

Peter, pointing to numbers and saying that they make the “economy better” is a fools game that both sides play. You can see as Ucc pointed out that the same magazine apparently ran conflicting articles on the subject.

But I will say that the student loan repayment options that were bundled in like fresh pork with the affordable healthcare act make it the case that in my own personal economy, I have less to worry about on the healthcare, and paying back my debt to the department of education.

In the end, no one knows what’s good for society. But you gotta know what’s good for your wallet. I see all kinds of poor people voting for republicans here in Alabama and it blows my mind. Then I see rich people voting for democrats because they don’t like war or they want gay people to be able to get married or something and I’m like…it’s gonna cost em if they get what they want.

All of them are morons.

They didn’t do much in the Forbes magazine either.

Just speaking my mind.

K: I read the article on the 4th and it could have been written by the Republican committee.
It had “facts” there were wrong. for example the so called increase in “debt” of Obama was actually in his
first year and that year is the last year of the bush administration budget. The depression in question
was actually the worst financial crisis in America since the Depression and not just merely another
little dip in economics as the article claims. As for claiming credit, every single person I know claims credit
for things going right even if they have nothing to do with it or not. It is human nature and I don’t begrudge
Obama human nature. It is just an article meaning nothing for the simple reason it wasn’t fair, right, correct
or honest.

Kropotkin

I don't give a shit what you think about the article- you will find a way to dismiss anything and everything that expresses a political point you don't like, that is demonstrable.  

 The fact that we can agree on is that Obama being the best economic president is [i]not[/i] the opinion of Forbes magazine- they have put forward articles both for and against that position.

Do the people who visit your store consider themselves to be better or worse off? Is the cost of living rising or falling?

Dear friend, I am assuming you are referring to me and we have internal issues
that is reducing the numbers. Management of our little company has decided to
cut the numbers which means we have much fewer people working at our store than before
and what that means is we have far fewer checkers, day stockers, courtesy clerks and so on.
In fact at our store alone, we have had 28 people quit in the last two months and very few
spots were filled and yet we are still OVER in hours as decided on by corporate. Which is insane
given sometimes at night at 7:00 at night we often have just two, yep, 2 checkers working
and after 9:00 quite often we will have one checker. The lines in the store will go often
be 20 or 25 people long and there is nothing but nothing I can do about it. So corporate cheapness
and stupidity are creating a situation where we have falling sales and very unhappy customers and
employees. So we are circling the toilet because of management fuck ups and they clearly don’t give
a shit. So here it is not about the economy but corporate being complete and udder jackasses and
brain dead morons.

Kropotkin

Peter, you’re making the mistake of assuming that management’s role is to provide a good product that does something for people. It’s not. Management’s only role is to suck up as much cash from your community and use it to fund things like the citizen’s united campaign, and “think tanks” like americans for prosperity and the like who’s goal is…you guessed it…to help them further the consolidation of wealth. It’s systematic, and it’s the way what we consider a “good business” does business.

I think you’re thinking that a grocery store’s role is to provide food for the community in exchange for money. It’s not. The goal is to get as much as they can from the consumer until it’s no longer cost effective, and then run away with all the money. You should stop working there and start buying shares.

You can’t afford shares on minimum wage.

If you’re willing to live in a cardboard box and eat out of trash cans you can. People just think they’re entitled to money without having to sacrifice one shred of their dignity. It’s shameful. This is America dude. Homeless guy can get a few bucks a day, and rite aid was trading around 2 bucks a share a year or so ago, and it was 8 a month ago or so. You can get that shit online with a green dot card through a site you can get at the library and you coulda made 300%. But people who bum that money or work minimum wage go and spend it on cigarettes or alcohol, or truck stop showers or whatever they’re buying, and the result is that they not only struggle, as they would otherwise, but they remain broke and struggling forever.

You wanna talk about evolution? I think a proper understanding of the importance of financial management is one of the most selected for traits in history. It’s a good one to cultivate.