60 Years of US Economic History, In 1 Graph [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

Prepare to get really depressed, Americans.
There are 49 comments:
Female 4,359
it`s not that they forget, it`s that they are paying absolutely no attention.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
How do people forget recent US history so easily?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
How do people forget recent US history so easily?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@FoolsPrussia: The economy wasn`t actually "sinking" until 2007, despite two wars. It completely fell out in 2007 when home loans started going into default (You can thank Bill Clinton for that!). However, and despite this, it was beginning to rebound in 2008, then there was panic over an election year (rightfully so!). People stopped investing out of fear that Obama would follow through on his campaign promises (again, rightly so!). It is all in the graph I provided.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I can do a neater graph... I just assumed my overlays would impart the information that seems relatively obvious.

Here you go.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You were right good, Sir. I was wrong in my initial psychic prediction, damnit.[/quote]

It`s cool, everyone has their shortfalls when it comes to conversation. Even me.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy1: [quote]HumanAction, it`s interesting that you assume that I`m a liberal.[/quote]
Fair enough - perhaps I was being a bit too eager to jump on that one. I`ve been arguing with the likes of @piperfawn thus far today and find myself in a confrontational state. I apologize about that.

[quote]Too, though, I don`t think that Obama`s policies are any more a "threat to the union" (as I hear so many people say) as any belonging to past presidents[/quote]
True; Roosevelt, for example, was terrible.

For future reference, I consider myself a libertarian - though I take an interest in fighting with liberals.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
And, fact is, I think that we need a lot MORE intelligent conversation.

And, finally, I have to apologize to Cajun247. You were right good, Sir. I was wrong in my initial psychic prediction, damnit. And now that I`ve read all of the posts, find that only a few fall into my prediction. Why, oh why, did we have to start having civil and reasonable discussion on the very thread that I broke out my Great Carnak impression?!
0
Reply
Male 4,431
HumanAction, it`s interesting that you assume that I`m a liberal. Well, okay, I am when it comes to social issues, but I`m relatively centrist or even a little conservative on fiscal issues. I just disagree with how we spend our money.

But, a) I wasn`t talking about you, just so you know. :-) And, b) I agree with you! I don`t think any administration has been all bad or all good, and I think they could all do better! Too, though, I don`t think that Obama`s policies are any more a "threat to the union" (as I hear so many people say) as any belonging to past presidents, and I imagine he`s done better than some, given what he started with.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy1: Perhaps you`re speaking about me? If that is indeed the case, it is a shame you didn`t bother to stay and have an intelligent conversation; you would have found that I blame most administrations for the current situation - Democrat and Republican. I would be happy to discuss the economics of Clinton, Bush, and Obama with you and why they were all wrong.

However, as is the typical liberal response, you close your mind to sensible discussion in favor of nothing more that the delusions propagated by your favorite news station.

Enjoy your life in the dark.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Is that about right? Thought so.[/quote]

You don`t care if you`re wrong? Thought so.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Okay, so, I`m not even going to read the comments before I say that the reliable conservatives on here are posting like crazy blaming every single bad thing that`s ever happened economically on the Democrats (and really hammering Obama and all of his "failures"), and every good thing that`s ever, ever, ever happened, they`re crediting the Republicans for having caused. Is that about right? Thought so.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: My issue with Obama`s economics is that they are Keynesian in nature. His efforts to pass Jobs Bills and Bailouts are well intentioned, but foolish. Consider if we fund 10,000 jobs for 2 years with that money. What then happens after the 2 years? Then, we are in the same boat except we also have a debt to account for.

In addition, the money used to provide these jobs has been taken from those who have proven successful in creating profit. Now, government cannot increase total wealth; they can increase the wealth of an individual person, but they cannot increase the wealth of the country. Only production is able to do this (the private market). To me, this suggests that the money should stay in the private market.

That being said, the current conservative mantra of tax cuts does nothing without incredibly drastic spending cuts.
0
Reply
Male 645
>>>He was the only POTUS to ever completely balance the US budget.<<<

I am not sure that is exactly true. Can you sight the specific year were revenue = expenses or revenue > expenses. I believe what he did was have a budget that over the 10 projection became balanced because of some never materialized decrease in growth of expenses and or never materialized sudden increase in revenue. But would be happily surprised if that is not the case. Recall that the feds do not budget the way you or I would, they use some screwy rolling 10 year projection that is based on what might happen.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@Demynted: I think you missed my point. I`m actually blaming Bush for the most part. Clinton does share responsibility for the housing bubble, however, even though he had a budget surplus.

Regarding HA`s comments, I`m glad we can agree somewhat. However, my problems with Obama`s administration is that it has been too tepid in it`s response. In a word, too conservative. It`s hard for me to take conservatives seriously when they say that liberal policies haven`t fixed the economy, when much of the last four years of economic policy have been tax cuts and austerity meaures. Those are conservative economic policies, and they`re not working.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Demynted: You should read into the CPA policies of Clinton.

His policies allowed subprime lending to propagate much more vigorously than his predecessors. I`d be happy to explain them, and their economic impacts, moreso if you would like.
0
Reply
Male 78
@FoolsPrussia: I understand if you want to get across the point that it is not entirely Bush`s fault (either of them), however, you gravely misspeak when you shift blame to Clinton. He was the only POTUS to ever completely balance the US budget. Had his policies remained in place, the USA would not be trillions of dollars in debt, but would be out of debt and breaking even (cause lets face it, any government would immediately spend a surplus of cash). After Clinton, we went to war and spent and borrowed ourselves to death. And that WAS the Bushes.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: I agree entirely. I`ve never supported the Bush administrations policies. I merely tired of hearing how Bush caused all of the current problems. There were other players, including our current president.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Clinton does deserve some share of the criticism for the housing market crash, but Bush fiddled while Rome burned, cutting taxes while he waged two wars. Complain all you want about Keynesian economic policies waged in attempt to rescue a sinking ecomony, but the expense of a stimulus wouldn`t have been as difficult to swallow had we not bankrupt ourselves the previous 8 years of unnecessary war while taking in less revenue.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Elkingo: Musuko was correct, your graph is a mess.
1) What do the dark vertical bars represent?
2) Is the bright blue line at the top supposed to be some sort of trend line or something?
3) What is the horizontal pink line right below the black income line?

I even went to the website full of these messy graphs, and the most I can find really is that the pink seems to be a trend line, but it almost looks like a trend line of the base or something. Get a better graph next time or explain yours better.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"the housing market collapse was Clinton`s fault?"

It was Clinton, and CARTER! *gasp!*

Carter originally gets credit for the CRA, and Clinton expanded it.

This will never be admitted.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
So wait. I know the liberals among us suggest that the current economic situation is wholly the fault of Bush policies.

Does that then imply that, using the same logic of delayed economics, the housing market collapse was Clinton`s fault?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
It seems rather obvious that the very large dip in income is from the housing market crash, and not Bush policies. The steep climb back up is Obama`s Stimulus. It is a failed stimulus because:

a. It cost somewhere around $831 billion.

b. Unemployment rate is still around 8.1% (It was 7.8% at the end of Bush`s presidency at the beginning of the housing market crash, and around 4.5% before the crash.) Source

c. personal income is going back down less than two years after that stimulus

Rather straight forward information if you ask me, and rather silly that people blame all of that on Bush.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"If, going by the black line, you mean the massive trough just after the housing market crash: I`d assume THAT is the credit crunch/recession (which, afaik, came on the heels of the housing crash, not at the exact same time)."

You get a cookie for that keen observation! =D

So, lets extrapolate what that information means:

Clinton screwed over the housing market = Clinton`s fault; and not Bush`s.

It really isn`t rocket surgery. (heh heh)
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Musuko42 Are you retarded? You see the Text at the beginning of the lines I made? It is the same color of what the line indicates.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@elkingo

"You can clearly see Obama`s failed stimulus in there as well.."

If, going by the black line, you mean the massive trough just after the housing market crash: I`d assume THAT is the credit crunch/recession (which, afaik, came on the heels of the housing crash, not at the exact same time).

If anything, surely the steep climb back up to almost the previous level signifies that whatever was done worked, at least for that short term.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@elkingo

Your graph is a mess. You haven`t provided a key for ANY of the lines on it.

Blue line, black line, pink line. Care to label them?

You get an F.

(Psst...THIS is why they taught you these seemingly useless skills in school: not so you could pass their tests, but so don`t look like an ape fumbling with a stick when you`re trying to communicate an opinion years later).
0
Reply
Male 8,132
DrProfessor

"that last portion of the graph includes both Bush terms, and only the first two years of the Obama presidency"

No. Only the first year of Obama. That section runs from the beginning of 2000 to the beginning of 2010. SInce Obama wasn`t president until Jan 20, 2009 he didn`t even have a full year on this chart.
0
Reply
Male 2,592
What I don`t understand, is why people keep relating/blaming the state of our economy to whomever is president at that time. Dumbas.ses.
0
Reply
Female 695
buck ofama
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@HolyGod "I assume you speak retard. Because only a retard would look at a chart about 2000-2010 being bad and make a comment about the guy who was president for only 1 year of that."

Kindly look at the graph I made, it shows how much things can get screwed up in 1 year.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
You can clearly see Obama`s failed stimulus in there as well.. Hang on guys, the economy is going back down hill.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Just as I thought. I made this to show my point.

0
Reply
Male 1,059
You can thank a couple of major a-holes for that: Osama and Obama.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I think SCfan was making fun of the guy who said "I can`t believe people support Bush". The fact is that Obama`s numbers aren`t here, but when they are they probably won`t be very good - especially if they are 8.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I`d like to see this graph broke down year by year. Combining decades does little to show the effects of individual presidencies.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Conveniently excludes the depression.

@SCfan, that last portion of the graph includes both Bush terms, and only the first two years of the Obama presidency. Please look harder next time.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
SCfan

Der, derppderp der derp derp.

I assume you speak retard. Because only a retard would look at a chart about 2000-2010 being bad and make a comment about the guy who was president for only 1 year of that.
0
Reply
Male 701
oh, and you suppose Mitt Romney will fix this...
0
Reply
Male 2,841
RAWR KILL TEH RICH
0
Reply
Male 2,085
I can`t believe people support Obama.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
jamie76, Haven`t you got the memo? You`re not allowed to blame Bush anymore.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Mike - Though totally correct, you`re going eat those words when the 2010-2020 graph comes out.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
I can`t believe people defend Bush.
0
Reply
Male 37,813
Looks like a depression to me!
Except there`s no reduction in prices (de-flation) that`s a depression hallmark, yes?

Incomes go down, prices continue to go up, something`s going to SNAP!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
The 2000`s were especially bad because the whole decade was straddled by two recessions and giant bubbles. The year 2000 is the height of the dot.com bubble, 2010 is near the low of the current crisis.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
wow...from 2000 to 2010 things went to crap...I wonder who was president during that time for say, 8 years and whose policies have had a long lasting effect...oh that`s right it was George W. Derp.

0
Reply
Male 2,578
So it looks like the problems begin in the 1970`s. Probably coinciding with America`s industrial base leaving to go to 3rd World countries, as well as immigration from those same 3rd World countries that increased the labor supply so dramatically to the point where wages had no need to grow (someone will always be able to do that same job cheaper).

Interesting that the wealthiest did best under Clinton. I`d say the 60`s are slightly misleading, as they helped cause the stagflation of the 1970`s - but the 1950`s truly were an awesome period. I wish we had a president like Eisenhower.
0
Reply
Male 20,188
Link: 60 Years of US Economic History, In 1 Graph [Pic] [Rate Link] - Prepare to get really depressed, Americans.
0
Reply