Fri 27 Jan, 2012 11:48 pm
If you look at the Obama Recovery and the Reagan Recovery, the numbers don't even come close. Reagan had already, by the start of his third year, and after a worse recession, had helpt to alleviate unemployment. Twenty-seven months after the official end of that recession, unemployment had fallen to 7.5 percent from a peak of 10.8 percent. At the same point after the recent recession, unemployment had fallen not 3.3 percentage points, but only 1.4 percentage points. The reason is not hard to find. In the seven quarters following the ’81–’82 recession, GDP growth averaged 7.1 percent (on an annual basis). In the current post-recession span it has averaged only 2.8 percent. We need 2.5 percent growth just to absorb increases in the work force. The first quarter of 2011 had only a 1.8 percent increase in GDP. Is this true?
You can compare your numbers to those in this article from 2010.
I'd do it for you, but I'm tired and am heading off to sleep.
Also, the Reagan years have strapped us with the largest component of defecit in all history(including the Bushes and Obama)
There is no way to compare the recovery from one president to the next. The world's economy is always in flux, and nothing remains the same from one year to the next. Too many variables are at play to analyze "recoveries."
Pretty much true. Even the biggest and best computers are only as good as the data we feed them, and there's a lot of data.
When any variable us used, it changes as soon as it's entered into the computer. That's the reason why economics is an art, and not science; it's a guessing game until after the fact.