Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 13    Average: 3.4/5]
49 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 13968
Rating: 3.4
Category:
Date: 08/23/12 04:28 PM

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

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:30 pm
    Link: 60 Years of US Economic History, In 1 Graph - Prepare to get really depressed, Americans.
  2. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    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.
  3. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    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.

  4. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    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.
  5. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:48 pm
    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!
  6. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    I can`t believe people defend Bush.
  7. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    Mike - Though totally correct, you`re going eat those words when the 2010-2020 graph comes out.
  8. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 5:15 pm
    jamie76, Haven`t you got the memo? You`re not allowed to blame Bush anymore.
  9. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2067 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 5:23 pm
    I can`t believe people support Obama.
  10. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    RAWR KILL TEH RICH
  11. Profile photo of danagamer
    danagamer Male 30-39
    701 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm
    oh, and you suppose Mitt Romney will fix this...
  12. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 7:02 pm
    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.
  13. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    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.
  14. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 7:54 pm
    I`d like to see this graph broke down year by year. Combining decades does little to show the effects of individual presidencies.
  15. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    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.
  16. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    You can thank a couple of major a-holes for that: Osama and Obama.
  17. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 8:17 pm
    Just as I thought. I made this to show my point.

  18. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    You can clearly see Obama`s failed stimulus in there as well.. Hang on guys, the economy is going back down hill.
  19. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 8:25 pm
    @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.
  20. Profile photo of mcssls
    mcssls Female 70 & Over
    695 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 9:15 pm
    buck ofama
  21. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 18-29
    2587 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 9:23 pm
    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.
  22. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    August 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm
    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.
  23. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:06 am
    @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).
  24. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:09 am
    @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.
  25. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:19 am
    @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.
  26. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:22 am
    "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)
  27. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:30 am
    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.
  28. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:58 am
    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?
  29. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 7:10 am
    "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.
  30. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 7:11 am
    @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.
  31. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:46 am
    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.
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 10:35 am
    @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.
  33. Profile photo of Demynted
    Demynted Male 30-39
    78 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:23 am
    @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.
  34. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:42 am
    @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.
  35. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:51 am
    @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.
  36. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    >>>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.
  37. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    @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.
  38. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    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.
  39. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Is that about right? Thought so.

    You don`t care if you`re wrong? Thought so.
  40. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    @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.
  41. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    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.
  42. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    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?!
  43. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    @SmagBoy1: HumanAction, it`s interesting that you assume that I`m a liberal.
    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.

    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
    True; Roosevelt, for example, was terrible.

    For future reference, I consider myself a libertarian - though I take an interest in fighting with liberals.
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    You were right good, Sir. I was wrong in my initial psychic prediction, damnit.

    It`s cool, everyone has their shortfalls when it comes to conversation. Even me.
  45. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:31 pm
    I can do a neater graph... I just assumed my overlays would impart the information that seems relatively obvious.

    Here you go.

  46. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    @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.
  47. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    How do people forget recent US history so easily?
  48. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm
    How do people forget recent US history so easily?
  49. Profile photo of emmettyville
    emmettyville Female 40-49
    4345 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    it`s not that they forget, it`s that they are paying absolutely no attention.

Leave a Reply