When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@woiyo,

Son't talk to me about behaving like an adult, and don't tell me what to do. If you support Trump, you support a demonstrable liar with zero qualifications for the office4.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

.. The slowest economic recovery since 1949... 1.2% economic growth this last quarter... Compliments of Obama.

Well why not . Bush crashed the economy almost to lifting life support and the GOP hiouse (Which solely controls the purse strings), didnt want to help Obama succeed anywhere.

That was a "going in" trategy vocalized by the puppetmasters of the GOP, the KOCH's

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well, given the very large number of things that Trump has said that are not true but repeated them over and over again ... it was somewhat startling that he admitted, he was wrong about that certain video. (Correct: his campaign admitted that already on Wednesday, he only today, but nevertheless ...)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

People like giujohn never understands US economic history or international economics (macroeconomics) which is necessary to understand the impact on domestic economic growth.
It has been proven through history that democratic presidents had better economic performance than republican presidents. It's not difficult to find the facts on the internet.
In 2009, the budget was approved without any GOP vote.

0 Replies

Strong U.S. employment report brightens economic outlook

Quote:

U.S. employment rose more than expected for the second month in a row in July and wages picked up, bolstering expectations of faster economic growth and raising the probability of a Federal Reserve interest rate increase this year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 255,000 jobs after an upwardly revised 292,000 surge in June, with hiring broadly based across the sectors of the economy, the Labor Department said on Friday.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent as more people entered the labor market. Highlighting job market strength, average hourly earnings increased a healthy eight cents and workers put in more hours. In addition, 18,000 more jobs were created in May and June than previously reported.

0 Replies

@Brand X,

Quote Brand X:

Quote:

The reason for the post was to show giujohn there's a reason for slow economic growth. With boomers falling out there will automatically be less economic growth.

And you thought I posted it just so you could be condescending to me? Nope.

Your Labor force Participation Rate state doesn't really explain the US growth situation. In fact, you don't seem to be aware of the US growth situation at all. How about this-GDP per capita? That's a pretty good measure of economic growth, don't you think? Because after all, a country with a population growing at 4% a year really isn't getting very far if its economic growth is 3% percent a year, don't you agree?

So what the US GDP per capita for the last ten years? Remember, Obama only became president in Jan of 2009, keep that in mind when you view this chart:

http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-per-capita.png?s=usanygdppcapkd&v=201607182113n

Pretty robust growth there, don't you think?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Your chart is off by a little bit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

As a whole we were lucky to see 2% growth last year. So far this year we are well below the 1.5 mark. We have a weak economy.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

My chart is quite accurate. It's the GDP growth per capita. As I explained before, a GDP growth rate of 3% annually doesn't count for much if the population increase is 4% annually-in fact you would be losing ground. My chart takes population growth into account to give a fuller picture, your charts do not. Got it now? Here's the GDP per capita chart again, so you can look at it this time and understand what is going on here. Remember that Obama took office in January 2009, right during the crash:

Nice robust growth.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

You can see per capita growth by country from 1980 to 2014.
https://knoema.com/pjeqzh/gdp-per-capita-by-country-1980-2014

I think it's also misleading to look at any country like the United States where income disparities happen all over the country, because of the cost of living and the industries within it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Great link, cicerone. In fact it's so good I've decided to put up the chart from that link showing the IMF's picture of the GDP per capita to date and into the future.

http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah279/LeviStubbs/GDP%20per%20capita%20currentdollars%20IMF_zpsgopoaj2t.jpg

As you can see, all these Gloomy Guses are wrong, we're not all headed straight to the crapper, in fact the future looks pretty bright. But you'll never get them to admit it unless a Republican President gets elected. Then they'll admit it, not before.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Repeating a lie over and over again is the hallmark of the big lie technique. I'm sure you will recognize this quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Most of us learned, at least in my generation, that inflation and taxes are a part of life.

San Francisco has already made into law the increase in the minimum wage for the next several years.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

There's plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise America's ME adventurism.

Interesting term for describing blood-baths, and bombing nations back into the Stone Age. Millions dead, and you call it an adventure? I'd call that sick.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

I think it's okay to post these graphs on GDP per capita, but most of us understand the fact that most of the wealth have been gained to the top 10%. I'm not entirely sure why it turned out this way, but I've been aware since I was a young man that money earns money.
The graph you posted can be interpreted to mean that everybody gained. I think it would help to analyze how that graph was developed, because we've been hearing for many years that the middle class income has been somewhat stagnant.

Here's one article I found on the "shrinking middle class." http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Overall, the quality of life for those in the middle has gone up slightly, but not as quickly as the top 1% or as quickly as the middle class improved in earlier decades. The flow of money to the top 1% is a problem, no question. Still, the quality of life in the USA is rising for the middle somewhat and as such the chart is a useful gauge. The **** Hits The Fan crowd are waiting for Armegeddon and for people going back to living off the land because the whole system has exploded, and it's all crap.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I agree; I don't believe in the fear tactics that's so common in politics today. We're not in the top 10%, but we have investments that have done very well. Most people who live in our ZIP code are millionaires based on the value of the homes alone. The only problem here is that it makes it impossible for young people to buy here even if they work in the high tech industries. I read some blog recently about software engineers making over $125,000 as a starting salary. Any place else, that kind of salary wouldn't be a problem buying a home.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

At a mere 2% annual growth rate our economy and average wages would now be almost 22% higher than they were ten years ago,

You can't simply use GDP growth to calculate income since income is PER CAPITA .

It's funny how the population grows over the years. You seem to have completely ignored population growth in your calculation. If we ignore population growth then everyone should be making over $1 million based on GDP growth since 1800.

Quote:

It appears Blickers may be better at cutting and pasting charts than understanding the math behind them,

Perhaps you should understand the math yourself before you attack others. But then that is probably me being "pedantic" again by asking you to hold yourself to the standard you require of others.

1 Reply

@parados,

Well you are a pedantic and selective, self-serving nit picker.

I made no claim about anything beyond gdp growth, with the comment about escallation over time. However the fact is that throughout most of our economic history wages have indeed followed gdp growth fairly well - far better than over the past decade. It's odd that you didn't recognize the rather obvious problem there. The Obama economy actively discourages economic investment by businesses(particulary small ones) with its exploding regulatory regime, tax, welfare and labor law programs. Perhaps the explanation is that this is a nit you see no advantage in picking.

2 Replies

Wonder what evidence Assange will release about Hillary next?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

Inflation-adjusted Median Weekly Earnings at highest level in 1o years.

To which, georgeob1 replied:

Quote:

That, of course reminds us that ten years ago, during the Bush presidency and just two years before the hapless Obama took office, median earnings were actually higher than they are today.

How did you get the idea that 10 years ago median weekly pay was higher under George Bush from the fact I gave you that the inflation-adjusted median weekly pay is at the highest level in the last 10 years?

Clearly you consider Parados a pedantic nit-picker because he insists on getting his facts right, as opposed to you who bollixes them up and ends up getting them all backwards.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know