Recession Unlikely Before Election
I’ve got more bad news for Republicans banking on a sour economy to help them evict President Obama this November.
Light vehicle sales are up in February.
The four week moving average for weekly initial unemployment claims continues to edge downward.
Small businesses hired 45,000 last month.
The DOW reached 13,000 last week.
The consensus for February unemployment is 204,000 new jobs which would be the 3rd straight month of 200,000+ job growth.
That's good news for America but conservatives are not convinced. They always hold out hope that the worst times are still right around the corner. Unfortunately the guys at Advisor Perspectives seek to ruin that as well.
Analysis of indicators for a recession shows the earliest we could see a recession based on current data is October 2012. That's possible but unlikely. The more likely earliest date is April 2013. But currently there are few if any indicators showing we are headed toward recession and we'd need things to turn around quickly just to have such an event impact Obama's election.
Obama has been president through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and America has come out on the other side growing stronger and stronger every day. The Republican party is just going to have to face the fact that President Obama is starting to look a whole lot like President Reagan on the economic front and not President Carter as they so often try to declare him.
Posted by Adam Ducker at March 4, 2012 6:13 PM
With gas prices on the rise causeing everything else to rise the economy will stagnate.
In the current economy we should be able to sustain higher gas prices without doing as much damage as high gas did last year. It really depends on where gas tops off at. It could be bad or it could do nothing at all.
At almost $4.00 a gallon in my town now and this isn’t even the beginning of the travel season I don’t think it will be very good for Obama.
I don’t wish for a recession. I think we would be recovering much better if President Obama had not messed up the implementation of policy, but it is about time things improved.
Obama’s promises clearly did not work. He is like the guy who claims that he can make the weather improve tomorrow. When the sun finally comes out a week later, he claims credit.
We still have a monumental debt and unemployment higher than it was for more than 25 years before the Obama election.
In fact, even with the improvements, we have the worst unemployment for more than a quarter century (BO - before Obama) and we have never had as much debt as we do today.
What has happened is that Obama has lowered expectations. Back in five years ago we thought unemployment of 4.5% was too high; today we are told that 8+% is just great.
C&J: “Back in five years ago we thought unemployment of 4.5% was too high; today we are told that 8+% is just great.”
I have never met a person that thought 4.5% was too high or 8% is just great, so I’m not sure who tells you those things.
There is a sense though that the natural unemployment has grown with demographic changes. If that is true we’ll probably never get to 4.5% again but anywhere below 6% is going to be good if it can be reached from time to time for the next few decades.
C&J - How about saving the auto industry? Record corporate profits?
Is there any empirical evidence that Obama’s policies have slowed the recovery? I’ve heard that the consensus amongst economists is just the opposite. I know this is a loaded question as there’s very few things that anyone can say for certain when talking economics. There are way too many variables to be certain of cause effect relationships. I laugh when I hear politicians saying that Obama’s policies have certainly hurt the economy. They may believe that but there is no reliable proof of that … or the contrary for that matter. I’m pretty sure that these independent variables that cannot be controlled for rule out any possibility of proving causation. The proper term is “we think Obama’s policies have slowed the economic recovery.” But that is weak language and they lie a little to sound more forceful. But it is a lie, because they have no proof.
“In the current economy we should be able to sustain higher gas prices without doing as much damage as high gas did last year. It really depends on where gas tops off at. It could be bad or it could do nothing at all. “
Posted by: Adam Ducker at March 4, 2012 7:38 PM
Real intelligent AD; the left is trying to tell us the unemployment is getting better, the economy is rising, and jobs are being created. If…that is true, then last year there were a lot more people out of work and less money for necessities, which also meant less gas being bought because of less need. But you say more people are now working, which means more need for gas to get them to work. But now we have higher (and getting higher) gas prices, which means people can’t get to work or, don’t have money to spend on necessities. And you say, higher gas prices won’t hurt anything…pipe dream.
Adam Ducker is batting a thousand:
“I have never met a person that thought 4.5% was too high or 8% is just great, so I’m not sure who tells you those things.”
Possibly AD could go back through the MSM reports of gas prices under the Bush administration; then your memory will be jogged on how high 4.5% really was. Or was it just high under Bush?
tcsned, Obama’s “help the economy policies” have certainly hurt the American debt. Had he kept out of the auto takeover, the auto industry would certainly have survived; but it may have changed the company names or ownership and would certainly have brought the unions to reality. How much taxpayer money has been thrown at green energy and been lost? How much taxpayer money was invested in Chevy Volts, only to see them go belly up? Obama was bragging last week that he would buy a Volt in 5 years, and then after the late night document dump on Friday, we find Volt won’t even be here in 5 years. Like everything else, Obama is full of CACA.
Part of the cause of the cause of the rising price of oil is increased demand from the domestic economy, as well as increased worldwide demand. Another part is caused by Peak Oil; it costs more to drill oil in deep water, and in deposits in places in ND. These are underlying factors that should only be gradually reflected in oil prices.
The immediate cause of the oil spike is simple: tension over Iran. So. MOst of the current rise is pure speculation. Neither the US nor Iran want armed conflict. For the US, that would affect the election by harming the economy with truly high oil prices. For Iran, a conflict would result in the fall of their government. The problem is Israel, which might launch a surprise attack against Iran because they perceive a possible nuclear weapon as an existential threat.
The left is not “trying” to tell everyone the economy is getting better.
The economy IS getting better.
The left is not “trying” to tell everyone jobs are being created.
Jobs are being created.
It is not a question of “if” that is true.
It is true.
You suggest there might have been a better way for the auto industry to recover? Really? The taxpayer has recovered almost all of the bailout money, high paying union jobs have been preserved, and GM is hugely profitable. Same for the others.
Face it. You got it about as wrong as it is possible to get it wrong.
TomT: “And you say, higher gas prices won’t hurt anything…pipe dream.”
I don’t think I said higher prices won’t hurt anything, but let me expand on what I did say. Because there are around 2 million fewer unemployed persons today than this time last year then higher gas prices don’t hurt quite as bad. Some certainly will hurt but the overall impact on the economy is less than it was last year when gas was high.
“Possibly AD could go back through the MSM reports of gas prices under the Bush administration; then your memory will be jogged on how high 4.5% really was. Or was it just high under Bush?”
Can you find somebody suggesting 4.5% unemployment was bad under Bush?
Check the archives of this blog. We had lots of people “explaining” why it was not so good.
It is too hard to do an exhaustive search, but I did a search in the archives for “4.5”.
Here is the first comment to come up.
“The Good News is the 4.5% unemployment figure means only about 6.75 million Americans seeking work can’t find it and is not rising, if that’s good news to you. The good news job numbers are increasing ONLY in the service and government employment sectors, if you call that good news since service jobs tend to be lower pay and government job growth means bigger government payrolls at taxpayer expense. “
If I’m not mistaken David suggests 4.5% is “modest good news.” That’s not exactly a suggestion 4.5% was too high but maybe that’s just me?
Adam & Stephen,
I’m unable to post articles due to an issue with Movable Type. The problem is not with my browser. Apparently it has happened to others in the past. Anyway, I’m unable to place my cursor in the body or extended fields, so that prevents me from posting. I notice the problem also occurs with comments… the cursor cannot be inserted for editing, but highlighting works fine. Anyway, please feel free post articles. I don’t know how long it will be before I can contribute.
I tried to email you but it returned to sender. Will you email me at my first name @ my first and lastname dot com, all lowercase and no spaces? I’d like to help you troubleshoot your problems. I’m not a site admin but I might be able to help.
How much better can it really get than 4.5%? But if 4.5% is only “modest” good news, what does that make 8.3%? It must be horrible bad news.
Weird. My e-mail to you was returned too. Phx8@aol.com
Wonder what’s going on?
It was 3.8% in Apr 2000 and was lower than 4.5% for 19 months. Of course we’ll probably never see again that in our lifetimes.
Sure, 8.3% is horrible compared to 4.5% but it’s better compared to 10.1%. I doubt as well that you can find someone saying 8.3% is great as in it could stop now and we’d be just fine. We’re digging out of a deep hole. Progress has been made but we’re not out yet.
You don’t dig out of a deep hole. The first step is to stop digging at all.
This recovery should have been more robust. The bigger the drop, the steeper the recovery, since it has farther to go.
C&J: “This recovery should have been more robust. The bigger the drop, the steeper the recovery, since it has farther to go.”
You keep saying that now and again but it simply isn’t true when there’s a financial crisis driving much of the decline. Obama would love to have had Reagan’s recession.