Who best addresses unemployment.
 

A look at this chart makes me wonder why people would want to put the GOP in charge to cure high unemployment. Despite their assertions that republican administrations are good for the economy, that doesn't seem to include working people.

The thing about the chart that is striking is not the absolute numbers, but the general trend during GOP administrations. Remember that Clinton's administration started in 1993 and Dub in 2001.

Regards,

D-Ray

3.6% in October of 2000? And left office with a budget surplus too? Yeah, Clinton was a horrible President. Gotta make sure THAT never happens again......................

Dave

the gop is the party of the investor class

the dems is the party of the working class

The party of the working class did not do the unemployed any favors during the 1930's. Of course this assumes that the government can have a positive impact on capital utilization and job creation, which is pretty debatable IMHO.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

One might think that the decline in investment was as much related to the fortunes that were lost in the crash during the Hoover years, and the resultant doubt in the stability of the markets as a place for investing capital. The good prof. seems to be making a result-oriented assumption about the causes of investor reluctance, blaming it on the Government programs that were designed to relieve the effects of the crumbled economy, rather than the creation of the economic circumstances that lead to the crash.

Regards,

D-Ray

When did Roosevelt take office? What happened to the employment rate subsequently? Same for GDP.

Then as now, Conservatives blame Democratic policies for creating hesitancy in the investor class. It's more likely in my view that investors were simply hesitant to "get back on the horse" that had bucked them off so rudely in 1929. Also, it's important to remember that, then as now, the policies of successive Republican administrations had sown the seeds of disaster for the economy but, then as now, Republicans did their damnedest to obstruct the Roosevelt Administrations efforts for reform and recovery through the new deal. Had it not been for that, Roosevelt's policies would have been implemented sooner and the recovery would have proceeded more rapidly.

But I like the big letters. They're swell!

John

We really need the dead horse smiley.

Rather, I think the question being asked is: Was the medicine worse than the disease? Frankly, I think we're seeing much the same thing today. Business owners that I speak to are as much worried about what the government might do as they are planning and executing their business plan.

Just one case in point - the lack of certainly that is being created by the lack of clarity about whether or not the "Bush tax cuts" will be allowed to expire. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with continuing the status quo, the president's advisers are begging him to let them expire. At the same time, the President and key Democrats are sending mixed signals about whether or not they will expire, or possibly be modified in some manner. This is creating a level of paralysis in the marketplace.

Uncertainty stalls investment, which stalls forward progress in the economy. I see this nearly every day. Few of my clients are actually looking at adding to staff, and if an employee leaves, they think long and hard about replacing them. Thus, employment levels / company payrolls continue to stagnate.

1933. It was reduced, but stayed on the in the 15% range until 1940, well above the historical average of approximately 6%.

Here's the key paragraph relative to GDP:

"The rise in GDP after 1933 was not sufficient to drop the unemployment rate from depression levels because while the GDP was growing the labor force also was growing. Furthermore increases in productivity meant that for the same level of GDP there were fewer jobs. In order to bring down the unemployment rate the rate of growth of GDP has to be greater than the sum of the growth rates of productivity and the labor force. Thus if there is a period in which the rate of growth of GDP is less than the sum of the rates of growth of the labor force and labor productivity then there is a near-permanent rise in the unemployment rate. Only if there is some extraordinary increase in aggregate demand will the accumulated pool of unemployment be absorbed."

We're seeing much the same today. Business owners, due to uncertainty, are increasing their productivity. The upward summer blip in the stock market can likely be explained due to the fact that the balance sheets and productivity stats from many publicly traded companies improved versus last year. Improving productivity while lowering expenses - with payroll as the number one controllable expense item for any company - will provide a rosy financial picture to Wall Street, but its not indicative of growth.
Frankly, I can't really tell the difference between Rupublicans and Democrats anymore. The moniker that some use - "Republicrats" to me seems pretty appropriate.

As far as blaming the Republicans for stalling Roosevelt, this is specious, IMHO. Then as now, particularly for "New Deal II", the President had opposition to key legislation from within his own party. The Democratic party held the majority in Congress at that time, as well as holding the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933-69. Republicans were certainly a source of opposition during that time, but Roosevelt was also not shy about campaigning against anti-New Deal Democrats.