Obama Just Became the First Sitting President to Publish an Academic Paper
mic.com
mic.com
Americans do not realize how lucky they got with Obama.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/simply-worst-obama-f...
Have a look here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-ann...
choose "trend line". You'll see that 2015/2016 GDP growth is precisely on the trend line. The main difference in the last 8 years is more stable GDP growth, rather than the extreme peaks and troughs of the previous 60 years.
I live in Canada and don't have a dog in this race, but I find it interesting that Americans are so obvlivious of the facts and willing to believe at face value all the BS that comes out of the likes of Trump.
"Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended": He's continued to murder literally hundreds of people with his drone strikes. He is the opposite of a peaceful president.
"In the process of being closed": haha. He signed the NDAA. It is now harder to close than ever.
"Torture ended": Not really[1].
[1]:http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/has-obama-bann...
I disagree. Both the primary and alternative official measures of labor force underutilization are logical; each of them may sometimes be referenced in situations where the particular measure referenced is not the most appropriate measure, but those are illogical uses of the measures, not signs that the measures themselves are illogical. If you think that there is a more appropriate measure relevant to this context that shows the opposite of what was contended, then you should present it at be prepared to defend your position that it is a more appropriate measure.
According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it was at the time of their study (fixed) [1].
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...
And the number of American's who are in the labor force also hit an all time high this year, and 158.9 million.
You offer no reason to believe that the absolute size of the population outside of the labor force is a more relevant measure than any of the official labor force underutilization measures for the claim about unemployment.
> According to CLSA economists, if the participation rate stayed at the levels before the financial crisis, the unemployment rate would be 9.6%, more than double what it is today
Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
If I understand that sentence correctly, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a more relevant by itself, I said it needs to be factored in. It should be factored in because if people give up looking for work, that isn't a sign of a strong economy.
> Well, first, its 4.9% today (well, June 2016, the most recent month for which numbers are available), and 9.6% is not more than double 4.9%.
You are correct, I misspoke. I meant compared to the final unemployment report for which the CLSA studied, not today since today had not happened yet when their study was conducted. Fixed.
> Second, even if it were more appropriate to compare employment on a constant-participation-rate basis (for which you have presented no argument), 9.6% on 66% labor force participation rate (what is used as the pre-crisis rate in your source) would still be an improvement over Obama's term, since unemployment was at 9.8% the month Obama took office (considerably post-crisis), with a 65.7% LFPP (which would about 10.1% on a 66% participation rate.)
With the suggested metric factored in, you can clearly see there has not been an improvement between 2009 and the end of the study. Here is the graph again: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5169...
On issues of civil liberties, national security + surveillance, and a growing police state, Obama has been similar if not worse than the previous regime.
On your second point; that is extremely subjective. But even still, that should make me feel lucky?!
How much of the uninsured rate decline is due to employment gains as the economy recovered from the recession?