Why are traditional economic indicators used to support the Administration?

[malthaussen]

Something I find increasingly puzzling is the use of traditional economic indicators to support the notion that the President has done a good job economically. Of course, there is no arguing that those numbers are impressive on an absolute scale, particularly figures for the Dow averages and overall unemployment. Yet many analyses have shown that wealth continues to be distributed to a disproportionate degree to the already-wealthy (for example, this article by the WSJ, which one would hardly suspect of Administration bias: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/ ). And figures for employment suggest that the greatest gains in jobs are to low-level (and low-paying) service jobs, not to work where one can actually, you know, make a living (let alone contribute to the Consumer Utopia). (For example, this article from the National Employment Law Project: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Low-Wage-Recovery-Industry-Employment-Wages-2014-Report.pdf )

So I'm puzzled. Doubtless, the rich have gotten richer, but is this a thing a Democratic administration is most concerned with? (I note that the Dow climbed briskly in the Clinton administration, as well. There are even posts at DU about it, for example http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x18030 )

It seems to me that traditional economic indicators give only a very incomplete story about what is really going on economically, and that the more complicated picture is, well, darker. And while "because it gives them bragging rights" may support the usage of the traditional indicators to tout the good job the Administration has done (and to contrast it with the lousy job done by the GOP), I can't help thinking it is somewhat intellectually incomplete, if not dishonest.

-- Mal

[guillaumeb]

1. Is this all part of the same mindset that leads the President to attack

critics of the TPP as misinformed or just plain wrong when he well knows that ordinary US citizens have no idea what is in the TPP. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

The details of the TPP are kept secret, except for the 600 or so corporate lobbyists who helped write the TPP, and the Congresspersons who can read the details, but cannot take notes and cannot speak about the details of what they have read.

Given that a majority of the Presidents donations came from the finance, real estate, and insurance industries, is this a simple case of quid pro quo?

[malthaussen]

2. "You show me your quid, I'll show you my quo."

Works better if you happen to be British, though. An American might think you're talking about chewing tobacco.

-- Mal

[Hoyt]

3. Economics is complex, and it's like the Bible, you can find something to support any position.

As the WSJ article shows, income for the 1% went up substantially compared to the 99%ers in recent years. But, "The housing and stock markets give and they also take away. The one-percenters saw their incomes slide 36.3% during the 2007-2009 recession; incomes of the 99-percenters fell 11.6% during the downturn."

As to the Stock Market, sometimes we think only the upper 10% or so own stocks. But, as the second article displays, prior to the great recession 65% of us owned stock. Now, it's more like 52%, but it's still a lot of people. When the stock market is not doing well, neither are jobs.

The two Tables at the end of article 2 seem to show a lot of good jobs have been created in the past few years.

No question, there are people who haven't benefited from the recovery. Worse, Congress hasn't provided the help they need to ride out the economic cycle. Hopefully, some day we'll figure out how to control the highs and lows.

[GeorgeGist]

5. 90% of Obama's economic recovery has gone to the rich ...

yet some believe TPP et al will different.

[Hoyt]

7. Not really. A lot of that is on paper, and there are millions more working today, who

are being paid wages, or a salary.

[hobbit709]

6. Take 36% of that level and it still leaves more than enough to be comfortable.

Lose 11% if you're close to edge and you're hurting.

[Hoyt]

8. I don't disagree with that at all. I also support substantial tax increases for the rich, and

truthfully for the not so rich too to support education, health care, guaranteed income, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. So we can use the same standards by which we judge President Obama that we use...

So we can use the same standards by which we judge President Obama that we use to judge his predecessors.

[Populist_Prole]

9. Financialization of the economy?

It's been increasingly obvious over the past two decades. Speculation was and is but a sector of the economy, but with the working class being marginalized by the MSM, with the MSM corporate media setting the narrative, the notion has taken hold that Wall St is "the economy". If the working class is mentioned at all, it is as "consumers" and not citizens, let alone producers.. This is to prevent any notion of demand-side economics from threatening the supply-side orthodoxy so needed to maintain the status quo.

[malthaussen]

10. Explains why the measures would be used by fools and liars...

... but not why they would be used by people of more-or-less good will.

-- Mal