http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... strations/
Employment in Two Administrations
Moderator: Metal Sludge
-
DEATH ROW JOE
- Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
- Posts: 20480
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm
Employment in Two Administrations
Fascinating blog post today by a Nobel prize winning Economist. This is not the weakest recovery. The "Bush Boom" was the weakest.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... strations/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... strations/
Re: Employment in Two Administrations
Paul Krugman is nothing more than a political hack.
But of course you would be the idiot to find his bullshit "fascinating".
The following charts provide a series of answers, plotting current indicators (in red) against the average of all prior post–World War II recoveries (in blue). The x-axis shows the number of months since the end of the recession. The dotted lines are composites of prior recoveries representing the weakest and strongest experiences of the past.
The current recovery remains an outlier among postwar recoveries along several dimensions, particularly those that relate to housing. The Federal Housing Finance Agency's house price index declined in the first quarter of the year, after rising for two consecutive quarters. Consumers remain reluctant to take on new debt and the stock of debt is lower than it was when the recovery officially began. The global economic slowdown is beginning to manifest itself in world trade. After staging the strongest recovery of the post–World War II era, growth in world trade has begun to decelerate.
Real GDP is growing, but less rapidly than in any other postwar recovery.
Thirty-six months after the start of the economic recovery, GDP is only 6.7 percent higher than it was when the recovery officially began.
As of the second quarter of this year, real GDP is 1.7 percent above its pre-crisis peak, having first surpassed this peak in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Although housing starts have recently recovered, nominal home prices have yet to follow.
Soft home prices have been central to the weakness of the recovery. Prices have continued to fall even after the recession officially ended.
The continued weakness of nominal home prices is a postwar anomaly.
In every previous postwar recovery, the stock of household debt has risen as the recovery has begun.
In the current recovery, the collapse in home prices has severely damaged household balance sheets. As a result, consumers have avoided taking on new debt.
The result is weak consumer demand and a slow recovery.
The relative weakness of this recovery is obvious in the labor market.
Job losses continued throughout the first eight months of the recovery.
Payrolls have increased for the past twenty-two consecutive months, but there are still five million fewer Americans on nonfarm payrolls than there were at the start of 2008.
Because of the depth of the recent recession, one might expect stronger-than-average improvement in industrial production.
Despite the predicted snapback, the increase in industrial production during this recovery has been fairly typical of postwar recoveries.
Capacity in manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities usually grows steadily from the start of a recovery; however, during the current recovery, investment was initially so slow that capacity declined.
Since the start of last year, this trend has reversed itself and industrial capacity has been steadily rising.
The pace of growth in world trade has slowed in recent months as global economic growth has decelerated.
World trade volume initially recovered more quickly than in any other post–World War II recovery; however, this reflected the depth of the fall during the recession.
The federal deficit was much larger at the start of this recovery than it was in any other postwar recovery.
Although the deficit as a percent of GDP has shrunk slightly, its level creates significant challenges for policymakers and the economy.
But of course you would be the idiot to find his bullshit "fascinating".
The following charts provide a series of answers, plotting current indicators (in red) against the average of all prior post–World War II recoveries (in blue). The x-axis shows the number of months since the end of the recession. The dotted lines are composites of prior recoveries representing the weakest and strongest experiences of the past.
The current recovery remains an outlier among postwar recoveries along several dimensions, particularly those that relate to housing. The Federal Housing Finance Agency's house price index declined in the first quarter of the year, after rising for two consecutive quarters. Consumers remain reluctant to take on new debt and the stock of debt is lower than it was when the recovery officially began. The global economic slowdown is beginning to manifest itself in world trade. After staging the strongest recovery of the post–World War II era, growth in world trade has begun to decelerate.
Real GDP is growing, but less rapidly than in any other postwar recovery.
Thirty-six months after the start of the economic recovery, GDP is only 6.7 percent higher than it was when the recovery officially began.
As of the second quarter of this year, real GDP is 1.7 percent above its pre-crisis peak, having first surpassed this peak in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Although housing starts have recently recovered, nominal home prices have yet to follow.
Soft home prices have been central to the weakness of the recovery. Prices have continued to fall even after the recession officially ended.
The continued weakness of nominal home prices is a postwar anomaly.
In every previous postwar recovery, the stock of household debt has risen as the recovery has begun.
In the current recovery, the collapse in home prices has severely damaged household balance sheets. As a result, consumers have avoided taking on new debt.
The result is weak consumer demand and a slow recovery.
The relative weakness of this recovery is obvious in the labor market.
Job losses continued throughout the first eight months of the recovery.
Payrolls have increased for the past twenty-two consecutive months, but there are still five million fewer Americans on nonfarm payrolls than there were at the start of 2008.
Because of the depth of the recent recession, one might expect stronger-than-average improvement in industrial production.
Despite the predicted snapback, the increase in industrial production during this recovery has been fairly typical of postwar recoveries.
Capacity in manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities usually grows steadily from the start of a recovery; however, during the current recovery, investment was initially so slow that capacity declined.
Since the start of last year, this trend has reversed itself and industrial capacity has been steadily rising.
The pace of growth in world trade has slowed in recent months as global economic growth has decelerated.
World trade volume initially recovered more quickly than in any other post–World War II recovery; however, this reflected the depth of the fall during the recession.
The federal deficit was much larger at the start of this recovery than it was in any other postwar recovery.
Although the deficit as a percent of GDP has shrunk slightly, its level creates significant challenges for policymakers and the economy.
-
DEATH ROW JOE
- Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
- Posts: 20480
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: Employment in Two Administrations
No, he's a wealthy economist who makes millions each year explaining international economics to world leaders, an author and a professor at Princeton University.roxxxtar wrote:Paul Krugman is nothing more than a political hack.
For fuck sake roxxtard, he merely posted some numbers from the labor department. Why not address the numbers he posted rather than engage in a personal attack? It's understandable that you are upset but you only make yourself look foolish by jumping straight into a personal attack rather than even attempting to address substance.
All you had to do was post a link to the page. You didn't have to go through all that trouble. You probably expected us to believe you read any of what you posted or even gave it 2 seconds of thought. Here's where you got that report. Good job trying to pass off another person's work as your own. You have no integrity and no balls.roxxxtar wrote: The following charts provide a series of answers, plotting current indicators (in red) against the average of all prior post–World War II recoveries (in blue).
Quarterly Update: The Economic Recovery in Historical Context
http://www.cfr.org/geoeconomics/quarter ... ext/p25774
They ask a simple question:
How does the current recovery, which according to the National Bureau of Economic Research officially started in June 2009, compare to those of the past?
The problem with their analysis is that recessions have different causes. You have fed induced recessions to fight inflation like 1980 and 1981 and you have balance sheet recessions like 2001 and 2007. You can see by the real fed funds rate (fed funds rate - the CPI ) that the recession in 1981 was induced by the Fed to fight inflation. You can see that household net worth did not crash. Then you can see from the negative real fed funds rate and crashing of household net worth in 2007 that the recent recession was a balance sheet recession. You can also see that 2001 was a balance sheet recession.
The rebound from a fed induced recession is very rapid. The fed hiked interest rates in Oct 1979. A recession started in Jan 1980 and ended in Q3 July 1980. Real GDP grew 7.6% in Q4 1980 and 8.6% in Q1 1981. Obviously a very sharp bounce back after Carter's recession ended in July 1980. The recovery was so strong that the Fed acted again and put the economy back into recession in mid 1981.
So the problem with the page you plagiarized is it compares apples to oranges. You need to compare a balance sheet recession to a balance sheet recession to evaluate the relative strength of this recovery.
Since the recent balance sheet recessions were 2001 and 2007, we compare real private GDP and real private job growth during the Obama recovery and the Bush recovery. After all, the only thing that matters is the private sector so you have to factor out the public sector.
Both private sector job growth and private real GDP growth are stronger during this recovery than during the recovery from the 2001 recession. That's true even though the 2001 recovery was assisted by Bush's housing bubble and the current recovery is hindered by recovery from Bush's housing bubble.
Private real GDP grew 2.9% year during Bush recovery. Private employment grew grew .8%/year
Private real GDP has grown 3.12%/year during Obama recovery. Private employment has grown 1%/year
calculations below:
Total private Employment
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
Recession ended Nov 2001: 109572
Recession starts Dec 2007: 115606 = private sector jobs grew .8%/year
Recession ended June 2009: 107933
Aug 2012: 111400 = private sector jobs growing 1%/year
6 million private sector jobs created in 6.08 years
3.5 million private sector jobs in 3.16
Private real GDP = real gdp - govt
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid ... BA9119D840
Q4 2001: 11.3700 - 2.2164 = 9.1536
Q4 2007: 13.3260 - 2.4553 = 10.8707
18.76% growth over 6 years = 2.9%/year
Q2 2009: 12.7010 - 2.5904 = 10.1106
Q2 2012: 13.5645 - 2.4782 = 11.0863
9.65% growth over 3 years = 3.12%/year