This is why Obama is bullish on the economy by Rick Newman - Yahoo Finance
President Obama didn’t change anybody’s mind on the state of the economy during his 2016 State of the Union speech. But he did clarify who the winners and losers are. And whether you’re an economic winner or loser determines whether you’re upbeat or gloomy about the nation’s future.
Obama flatly rejected doomsayers such as Donald Trump when he declared that “America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world…. Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”
Is Obama right? Yes and no. On a statistical basis, yes, the U.S. economy is growing faster than in most other nations right now. That supports Obama’s claims. But in some ways—such as median household income, adjusted for inflation—it’s still behind where it was when Obama took office. So from that perspective, Obama’s the one peddling fiction.
What the data say, however, is less important than what ordinary Americans experience in real life. And this gets to something else Obama said that’s important: “The economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit, changes that have not let up.” On this, he is 100% correct, and on this rests the biggest fault line in modern politics and in the 2016 presidential campaign.
The economy today is more bifurcated than at any time in recent history. You’re either in or out. If you’re connected with the digital economy, you’re in. If you’re chained to the old industrial economy, you’re out. A rising tide no longer lifts all boats; it only lifts the boats floating in the digital economy. The other boats are floating on the Aral Sea, where the water is drying up and lifelines are fraying.
There have always been haves and have-nots, of course, but the wall between them is growing taller, for a variety of reasons: the blistering pace of change, which is hard even for talented people to keep up with; the stark difference in old-economy and new-economy skill sets; a decline in geographic mobility. It’s harder to climb from the lower class into the middle class now than it was for six decades following World War II, which were mostly glory years for the American middle class.
Obama knows this, which is why he supports computer coding for grade-schoolers, free community college for any student who wants it, and job retraining for those whose careers are disrupted by new technology. Good ideas. But easier said than done. Even if Congress were to pay for them, it’s still a challenge getting the people who would benefit from such programs to take advantage of them. Many who recognize the need to develop digital-era skills have already done so. Those who haven’t may not be easily convinced.
One reason why is there are too many politicians of both parties giving people excuses for falling behind and blaming somebody else. Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and most other Republicans say more people would have good-paying jobs if Obama were out of the way and another president cut taxes, slashed regulations and deported illegal immigrants who are supposedly taking all the jobs. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says Wall Street has wrecked the economy. Hillary Clinton, closest to Obama policywise, still blames “quarterly capitalism” and financial marauders for a splintering middle class.
But what if it’s nobody’s fault? What if there’s simply not much more any president, of any party, can do to shield the most vulnerable from the collateral damage of an economic transformation that’s more abrupt than the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s? That’s closer to the truth of what is going on, especially in an era of split government that can barely accomplish basic functions and seems incapable of imagining anything big or transformative.
Government certainly won’t do anything this year to help more have-nots become haves. That means the 2016 elections will turn on the portion of Americans prospering from the digital economy—the portion who generally agree with Obama that the U.S. economy is doing pretty well.
How many is that? Well, when Obama took office in 2009, 134 million Americans had jobs and the number was going down, not up. There are now 143 million Americans with a job, and the number is going up, not down. Back in 2009, there were 16.2 million Americans who wanted a job but didn’t have one. Now, there are 13.8 million. So there are clearly more people prospering now than when Obama got elected.
Those who aren’t prospering have Trump and other doomsayers to speak for them, but the risk for the gloomy candidates is that their supporters will end up being the have-nots left out of the digital economy; the candidates complaining about decay are likely to attract the Americans experiencing that decay. There may be a lot of such people—but probably not enough to put a candidate over the top. Obama chose a good time to become an optimist.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
President Obama didn’t change anybody’s mind on the state of the economy during his 2016 State of the Union speech. But he did clarify who the winners and losers are. And whether you’re an economic winner or loser determines whether you’re upbeat or gloomy about the nation’s future.
Obama flatly rejected doomsayers such as Donald Trump when he declared that “America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world…. Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”
Is Obama right? Yes and no. On a statistical basis, yes, the U.S. economy is growing faster than in most other nations right now. That supports Obama’s claims. But in some ways—such as median household income, adjusted for inflation—it’s still behind where it was when Obama took office. So from that perspective, Obama’s the one peddling fiction.
What the data say, however, is less important than what ordinary Americans experience in real life. And this gets to something else Obama said that’s important: “The economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit, changes that have not let up.” On this, he is 100% correct, and on this rests the biggest fault line in modern politics and in the 2016 presidential campaign.
The economy today is more bifurcated than at any time in recent history. You’re either in or out. If you’re connected with the digital economy, you’re in. If you’re chained to the old industrial economy, you’re out. A rising tide no longer lifts all boats; it only lifts the boats floating in the digital economy. The other boats are floating on the Aral Sea, where the water is drying up and lifelines are fraying.
There have always been haves and have-nots, of course, but the wall between them is growing taller, for a variety of reasons: the blistering pace of change, which is hard even for talented people to keep up with; the stark difference in old-economy and new-economy skill sets; a decline in geographic mobility. It’s harder to climb from the lower class into the middle class now than it was for six decades following World War II, which were mostly glory years for the American middle class.
Obama knows this, which is why he supports computer coding for grade-schoolers, free community college for any student who wants it, and job retraining for those whose careers are disrupted by new technology. Good ideas. But easier said than done. Even if Congress were to pay for them, it’s still a challenge getting the people who would benefit from such programs to take advantage of them. Many who recognize the need to develop digital-era skills have already done so. Those who haven’t may not be easily convinced.
One reason why is there are too many politicians of both parties giving people excuses for falling behind and blaming somebody else. Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and most other Republicans say more people would have good-paying jobs if Obama were out of the way and another president cut taxes, slashed regulations and deported illegal immigrants who are supposedly taking all the jobs. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says Wall Street has wrecked the economy. Hillary Clinton, closest to Obama policywise, still blames “quarterly capitalism” and financial marauders for a splintering middle class.
But what if it’s nobody’s fault? What if there’s simply not much more any president, of any party, can do to shield the most vulnerable from the collateral damage of an economic transformation that’s more abrupt than the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s? That’s closer to the truth of what is going on, especially in an era of split government that can barely accomplish basic functions and seems incapable of imagining anything big or transformative.
Government certainly won’t do anything this year to help more have-nots become haves. That means the 2016 elections will turn on the portion of Americans prospering from the digital economy—the portion who generally agree with Obama that the U.S. economy is doing pretty well.
How many is that? Well, when Obama took office in 2009, 134 million Americans had jobs and the number was going down, not up. There are now 143 million Americans with a job, and the number is going up, not down. Back in 2009, there were 16.2 million Americans who wanted a job but didn’t have one. Now, there are 13.8 million. So there are clearly more people prospering now than when Obama got elected.
Those who aren’t prospering have Trump and other doomsayers to speak for them, but the risk for the gloomy candidates is that their supporters will end up being the have-nots left out of the digital economy; the candidates complaining about decay are likely to attract the Americans experiencing that decay. There may be a lot of such people—but probably not enough to put a candidate over the top. Obama chose a good time to become an optimist.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
k:I look at CNBC nowadays when I wake up in the morning like I look at the NBA scoreboard at night. First I cover both eyes. Then I slowly move one hand away from one eye. Then the other eye.
An analyst said today, The oil market tanking should not effect biotechs that are trading at low multiples that are researching Alzheimer's cures. But it is.
An analyst said today, The oil market tanking should not effect biotechs that are trading at low multiples that are researching Alzheimer's cures. But it is.
Actually, it was a reference to this thread.
But please keep being wrong. It will be just like yesterday.
[SIZE=+7]RETAIL COLLAPSE
WALMART TO SHUT 100S OF STORES
[/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
Congratulations America!
Thank you Mister President! [/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE]
WALMART TO SHUT 100S OF STORES
[/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
Congratulations America!
Thank you Mister President! [/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+7][/SIZE]
There is nothing in the thread title which is entitled "Thank You Mr. President" about the President.
Are you really this dumb or do you just fool around acting that way?
[SIZE=+7]RETAIL COLLAPSE
WALMART TO SHUT 100S OF STORES
[/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
Congratulations America!
Thank you Mister President! [/SIZE][SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[h=1]40 Macy’s stores are closing[/h]
4,400 employees losing their jobs.
Thank you Mr. President!!!
Since you obviously need spoon fed:
Thread Title: "Thank You Mr. President" {This means Obama}
Link Provided in thread which commends the President:
5 Obama Accomplishments & Successes Republicans Have To Pretend Never Happened
Further information: Proved we can regulate Wall Street without killing the stock market.
Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the President!!!!
Look, you're an idiot just for the sake of being an idiot. I get it.
