Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Comparing Job Creation of Obama vs. Bush

Criticize them both as much as you will from both sides of the aisle, Presidents Bush and Obama do have some similarities. Notably they both inherited recessions. And though the recession President Bush inherited was weaker than the recession President Obama inherited (though it was constantly claimed to be the worst economy in 50's years) a juxtaposition between the two presidents in terms of job growth is very interesting.

Upon inauguration in January, both suffered job losses, Obama more than Bush, but again in intellectual honesty due to the severity of the recession. And though volatile, changes in non-farm payroll jobs was less volatile under Bush than it was Obama. Despite the volatility both presidents are more or less neck and neck in terms of job creation (or rather "destruction") for their 29th month in office. Bush had at this point in his presidency resided over the loss of 2.6 million jobs, Obama 2.5 million. But note what happens after the 29th month under Bush. Job growth BOOMS.


This should be disconcerting for Obama and Obama cheerleaders because it is now put up or shut up time. And sadly, there are no more bullets left in his exhausted Keynesian elephant gun. Worse still, the extra 100,000 jobs came at a price of indebting the country to the point of insolvency. And worse than that is GW's economic boom was preceded by an expansionary fiscal policy that focused on tax cuts as opposed to spending.

In other words the ultimate show down between the two competing economic theories is about to occur. Keynesian vs. Austrian. Socialism vs. Capitalism.

Of course, it ultimately does not matter whether or not jobs are created because economics has largely become something of a religion. People want to believe in socialism. People want to believe in Barack Obama. People want to believe their "English" degree is going to land them a job. People want to believe in the Magic Job-Creating Unicorns. And so regardless of what happens, lessons will not be learned, intellectual honesty will not be adhered to and we will simply be condemned to repeat history.

Of course, the smart ones will enjoy the decline.

6 comments:

Charles G said...

May I suggest that you modify the graph to show the response of the economy from low point forward. In other words, for Bush, the worst of it was after 9/11. That was the low point for the economy and for Bush policies and overlay from that point forward to illustrate the robustness of capitalism.

Would also be interesting to overlay the Reagan era as well as the pre-WWII FDR years.

Anonymous said...

Bush was a huge socialist. He increased government spending on a massive scale. He also started the entire bailout mess.
Americans have to get over the label. Bush was a Republican in name only. His actions were socialist.
This is why I believe, the Tea Party has emerged. People do not want another socialist GOP President.
Of course Obama is an even worse government spender, then Bush. But except for government medicare, his methods are the same as Bush.

Anonymous said...

For shame. You use a rather poor method of accountability.

You should use % of available workforce employed or something. Afterall, absolute numbers aren't relative enough, considering the population has increased since then.

Jay said...

Please don't contrast Bush to Obama. They are both the same. Bush was a small socialist, Obama is a Big Socialist.

Bush may have cut taxes, however he presided over the largest increases in government spending.

No Chump Left Behind,
Medicare Part D
TARP

I rephrase that after the last Bush policy I mentioned. Bush WAS a socialist. How can you be a capitalist when you spend insanely as Bush has and then bail out the Banks in 2008 and allowing Ben Bernanke to reduce Interest rates to 0%, after Japan did that in the 90s with absolute FAILURE.

If you are going to do a contrast between Presidents, do one with Reagan and Obama. With Reagan, there were tax cuts along with Paul Volcker at the helm of the Federal Reserve keeping Interest Rates high to cut inflation.

Under Bush, Alan Greenspan spurred inflation (which as an Austrian will state) spurred a credit bubble in the housing market, which Bush encouraged Greenspan to do so more people could take out ARMs (for their ultra low rates) so in the view of the Bush administration, would reduce homelessness and boost overall income and wealth of average Americans because they believed Americans could borrow on their equity and invest in the market.

Bush was nothing more than a foretaste of our current President Obama.

Bob Devine said...

You are right saying there are similarities between Bush & Obama.

Bush was driving the USA to financial ruin in a Model A. Obama is using an Indy Race Car.

They were also very dissimilar. President Bush loves his country. Obama not so much it appears to me.

Anonymous said...

Is it time to revisit these numbers yet?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html

Seems if that person is right, the US economy should be strapped to a rocket right about now!