Menzie Chinn charts non-defense GDP growth during the first full 13 quarters of the Obama Administration (red line) and compares that to non-defense GDP growth under Bush 2 Term 1 (blue line):
4.2% improvement for Obama, versus 4.0% for Bush 2. For those of you who like GDP as a metric of Presidential performance, President Obama is bouncing us out of the worst recession since the 1930s with better GDP figures than Bush posted following the rather mild 2001 dip.
Chinn notes that if you include defense spending, Obama's GDP improvement drops to 3.9%, while Bush's rises to 4.7%. Invading two countries has its economic perks. But if you Romney boosters appeal to President Obama's defense-dampened figures, then you have to answer Chinn's parting question:
Why do Republicans believe government spending cannot create jobs, except when the government spending is defense related? Economic theory does not justify this world view [Menzie Chinn, "Slow Recovery or Failed Agenda?" EconBrowser, 2012.07.31].
Q: Who is Menzie Chinn?
A: Professor of Public Affairs and Economics, Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Q: Why did Cory pick this particular fellow as his authority?
A: I don't know. Ask Cory.
Q: Do those graphs really look all that different?
A: One curve is red and the other one is blue.
Q: What does endless growth remind you of most?
A: Cancer.
Q: Do you think that the World System is doomed?
A: Ask those folks who tried to sell me Bible-related literature yesterday as I put out the food for the mountain lions.
Q: Is Menzie Chinn more of an authority than God?
A: I don't know. Who is God?
Q: Are you sick of statistics being used to promote political agendas?
A: What statistics?
On God, to paraphrase Bono, "The God I believe in isn't short on cash, mister... and He also doesn't calculate GDP."
Stan just whupped your doopa in a debate, Mr. H. Whupped it red.
Aw, shucks. I just had a bellyache.
--Invading two countries has its economic perks
Huh? Spending on war is a DRAG on the economy. Ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
--Why do Republicans believe government spending cannot create jobs, except when the government spending is defense related?
Name one prominent Rep. who had argued that gov't spending on defense is an economic boost?
--But if you Romney boosters appeal to President Obama’s defense-dampened figures, then you have to answer Chinn’s parting question:
And if Obama believers appeal to his gov't spending (especially deficit spending) promotes economic recovery, we are we not spending 2-3-4-5 trillion every year on "shovel ready" jobs?
-“The God I believe in isn’t short on cash, mister… and He also doesn’t calculate GDP.â€
The Bono I believe in isn't god, isn't short on cash, missus.. and he doesn't know politics."
Bono must have been short on cash--why else did he move to France for the tax shelter?
I didn't know Stan was setting out to give me a whooping. He was just raising a string of thought-provoking points.
Deep down, I agree with Stan's statement that endless growth = cancer. An economy based on the presumption of endless growth is not sustainable (well, maybe not until we get fusion power, terraforming, and warp drive?). I agree that constant worship of increasing GDP leads to a species that eats the entire planet and leaves nothing for some all-too-near future generation.
However, just as in debates about Christianity, I am willing to move within others' worldviews and test their hypotheses. For those who hold economic growth sacred, the data above indicate that the economy is doing about as well under President Obama as it did under President Bush. A majority felt Bush 2's economic performance was sufficiently tolerable to justify re-electing him; similar thinkers should take the same position about President Obama versus his flip-flopping Massachusetts oppponent.
As I note above, a GDP-believer could argue that President Obama deserves even more credit: he faced a much more grave economic crisis than Bush did in 2001, and he's posting comparable GDP numbers.
Now Stan, if we want to vote against the President because he encourages unsustainable GDP growth, we can have that discussion. However, can we find a candidate who would charge forth with the view that we need to let the economy shrink or relapse into recession?
Now Stan, if we want to vote against the President because he encourages unsustainable GDP growth, we can have that discussion. However, can we find a candidate who would charge forth with the view that we need to let the economy shrink or relapse into recession?
Well, I certainly would not vote against Obama because he encourages unsustainable GDP growth. (I would like to think that if asked, he would say that he does not want to encourage anything unsustainable.) I might, however, vote against him if I believed that he encourages unsustainable growth in government spending over and above incoming revenues. I might also vote against him if I believed he would propose radical, crushing new middle-class taxes or middle-class tax increases and make the argument that these actions would reduce the deficit without throwing the country into a depression.
But then I have to ask myself, who would I actually want to vote for? In this election, I can't think of a single one except maybe Gary Johnson.
As for a candidate who would run on the platform of static or shrinking GDP in the name of saving the planet and therefore saving ourselves in the long run ... I doubt that humanity will see such a supernova of sanity before the Second Coming of the Lord our God. And yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe there will someday be a Second Coming of the Lord our God.
As for "whupping" you in a debate, Cory, the thought has never crossed my mind. ;-)
If we'd get Cory to come up to Lead we could tag team him or, maybe just get him up to Lewies and pry him with a little alcohol Stan?
Pry me not, dear Les... but I would love a good Lead tag-team. I need to try one of Lewie's burgers! School starts in Spearfish end of August, mes amies....