Did Obama make economy worse?

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

These arguments make me puke. Read the title of the article. “Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics”… then they go on to recite nonsensical claims, some of which aren’t even “statistics”. But, even the “statistics” are nonsense.

(P.S. I don’t want to bash Obama here. I want to bash the article and it’s points).

1) They say the CBO says we would’ve lost more jobs without the stimulus. So, in other words, they start by using a “counterfactual” (look it up if you don’t know what that means) “STATISTIC” as their evidence. One could easily set up a model to say, and produce another counterfactual statistic that say we would’ve lost less jobs without the stimulus. It’s a counterfactual statistic, not produced as a unit of measurement.
The CBO also made a lot of forecasts, saying that GDP growth is going to be horrid in 2012 and 2013 (could this be partially due to us blowing our load on stimulus?)…. And the unemployment rate will increase this year and the next. Why don’t they mention that?

Maybe some "key points" from the CBO need to be highlighted again:

"For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it."

So you want to reference the CBO when it says the economy is going to get worse, and then want to bash the CBO when it says jobs were saved by the stimulus.

I don't think you understand at all.

First and foremost, the article claimed they had "statistics" that explained Obama did not make the economy worse. In my humble opinion, a number developed from a counterfactual hypothesis is not a "statistic" and should not be used in this sort of analysis. The word statistic is what made me puke regarding this article. These aren't statistics anymore than forecasts are, but ironically they didn't even think about using the CBO's forecast. Regardless, I don't think forecasts (which I cited the CBO for) should be used when citing "statistics" in this way either. Neither of these (forecasts or counterfactuals) are or show WHAT HAS HAPPENED. The context they used, acted as though the statistics they used were non-debatable. Counterfactuals are 100% debatable; I mean, that's really what they are developed to generate... a debate talking point statistic that has no reality behind it. They aren't "statistics", or atleast they aren't credible statistics. Therefore, the article was pretty pathetic.... considering half of it was devoted to these non-credible statistics.

Let me elaborate... I cited the CBO's forecast, because in my opinion, "statistics will eventually say" the economy will worsen at some point in the next 1 or two years. But, I realize it's a forecast and could be debated. This article, on the other hand used counterfactual hypotheses (and the statistics) associated and acted as though these are widely accepted "statistics". Ironically, I have more faith in the bias associated with forecasts than counterfactuals.... and don't think I'm alone there.

As for counterfactuals, they basically say.... ok, so if we assume this, that and the other thing (widely leaping assumptions, that someone could easily assume otherwise)... and pretend everything else was held constant (another big assumption), then we can go back in time and say "what life would have been like without stimulus". It's the equivalent of pretending to know what your life would have been like had you not heard Pearl Jam. You just don't know and can't even postulate because you did hear Pearl Jam.

So, they make these assumptions about what things would have been like without stimulus. Then they compare that with what did happen, to come up with a difference. Personally, I have a big problem with counterfactuals. Whether they are pro-Ron Paul, anti-Obama, or whatever. They are nonsensical. Even with fantastic computer models, you can't know what would have happened if you did something differently. It's impossible. And even if you do think counterfactuals are ok, they certainly don't "prove" success or certainly aren't reliable "statistics". Even the authors of these counterfactuals would agree with that. Forecasts, which have similar problems to counterfactuals, are (in my opinion) more reliable than counterfactuals because at least forecasts use historical trends to try to "estimate the future".Counterfactuals change "history" to "revise and estimate history".

Bottom line: Neither forecasts nor counterfactuals should be insinuated to be "reliable statistics", which is done in this article. I suppose one could argue they are statistics, but they aren't the equivalent of the BEA's GDP figure and whatnot, which even has it's own problems... but, is a statistic nonetheless.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

musicismylife78 wrote:

i dont think the stats are right. I dont know how you could look at the financial and economic situation on january 19, 2009, the day obama got into the white house, and look at it in 2012, and i dont think their is any question the economy has only worsened. more people losing their jobs. more foreclosures. more lost homes and apartments. more people out of work.

the occupy wall street movement sure as hell didnt start up because obama was listening to the pleas of those who are hit hardest by the economy.

obama will be viewed in the history books as just as much a failure of a president as bush was. both refused to listen to a populace, and both were clueless.

continuing the wars, threatening to start other wars, bailing out the banks and corporations, continuing the legacy of torture and war crimes of the bush years, all have massive impact on our economy.

Sheer nonsense.

I sure hope this attitude is the huge minority for your country. I'm pretty sure God would have a difficult time fixing the massive. deep-rooted problems your previous administration (that your country voted in twice I might add) caused.

Place the blame where it belongs: it's simply cause and effect.

Comparing Obama's failures to Bush's is ridiculous. Seriously.