Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (360667)	11/28/2007 6:28:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571715

Unemployment is low, and has not greatly increased recently. It was lower under Clinton. Not significantly, and only for part of his time in office. Also that point isn't relevant to any claim that unemployment is a big problem. "Worse than Clinton", doesn't equal bad, when your talking about stats that where very good under Clinton. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate went from 7.6% to 9.7% and then back down to 5.5% during his last couple of years. I hardly find that impressive. It was very impressive considering the mess he inherited. Or if you consider the total jobs created during that period. And yet its decreased much faster under Bush II, Bush I and Reagan, than under Clinton. Why? I've already answered that question to the extent that it can be answered, despite the fact that its not a very useful question. And note since growth in manufacturing productivity is a good thing, and is the main reason for a decrease in manufacturing employment, a faster decrease under some presidents than others, is hardly a clear negative mark against them. As for unemployment going over 10% under Reagan, that was near the beginning of his term and was probably a necessary part of unraveling the mess he inherited. No it wasn't. It was 7.6% when he entered the presidency. I say A, and you say "Not B". Your statement isn't even a real attempt to refute what I said. Near the beginning, isn't the same as at the beginning. Unemployment, was 7.6% and rising when he became president. It continued to rise as inflation was brought under control, than it started a massive drop, without the return of the major inflation problem we had back in the 70s. The distortions of the 70s where not something that could be wrung out of the economy quickly, but by the end of Reagan's first term unemployment was lower than it was at the beginning of the term, and it kept dropping from there. It probably would have dropped more but Reagan increased taxes after his initial cut. (Not as much as the cut, so there was a net tax rate decrease when he was president)