...From the beginning of the recession to April 2011, real personal income has grown just .9% compared to 9.4% for the same period in previous post 1960 recessions.
The standard response from Obama apologists is that recession of 2008 and 2009 was different because, as former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro puts it, "this was a financial crisis, and these take longer to recover from." In fact, in most cases, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery to make up for lost ground.
That was what Ronald Reagan's critics said when the U.S. economy soared during 1983 and 1984 with quarterly growth numbers exceeding 7%. At the time, liberal Keynesians yawned and declared the good times nothing more than a normal snapback from the deep recession.
Which was also a "financial" recession: the S&L crisis, remember?
Total employment (employed/total population) is five points LESS than at the beginning of the recession.
HT: AOSHQ
4 comments:
The deep recession of the early 80's was Fed. induced in order to curb inflation expectations. The Fed. funds rate stood at 11% back then. The Keynesian response to the downturn would have been (and was) simply to cut interest rates. The early 80's recession WAS nothing more than a normal snapback from the deep recession as inflation expectations cooled and rates normalized.
"In fact, in most cases, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery to make up for lost ground."
This hasn't been true for the last 3 recessions.
This post shows a complete ignorance of the current crisis - either its cause or its implications.
Gee, Struppster.
Maybe the last 3 recessions' lousy snapbacks is due to TOO MUCH GUMMINT?
/snark
The lousy snaps have been due to the premise that "consumption" is good. It's not necessarily so. What we have is too much reliance on 'consumption' and no marginal income available for that stuff.
Which IS at least partially due to too much Gummint burden(s); regs and taxes.
"The lousy snaps have been due to the premise that "consumption" is good. It's not necessarily so."
Agreed.
"Which IS at least partially due to too much Gummint burden(s); regs and taxes."
Income taxes are substantially less today then they were 30 years ago. Total tax burden isn't much different today than it was back then either. If you're rich, it's substantially less than 3 decades ago.
How much do you think our insistance of a strong dollar had to do with the last 3 recoveries being lackluster? I'd say that there's your problem.
Post a Comment