If President Obama is reelected...?

I don't buy the pass/fail criterion for gauging the economy because an economy such as the American economy is a complex thing. Economics is admittedly "the dismal science": it's a grossly inexact science that can't quite ever put a finger on supply and demand and all the pertinent factors. It is a social science masquerading as a mathematical science. It deals with behavioural issues whilst often claiming to be objective and absolute.

GDP is one measure of an economy. It's not the best measure, and it shouldn't be anywhere near the only measure. It's not necessarily indicative of the economic well-being of the nation so much as being indicative of production of any sort. A spike in heart disease morbidity, a spike in crime, etc., all contribute to the GDP. Furthermore, environmental degradation such as strip-mining, clear-cutting, and wanton pollution aren't measured against the positive aspects of economic activity. They're essentially taken as "gimmies" (and ironically are often contributing to a positive GDP as well).

So this means GDP is a benchmark but not a be-all and end-all. However, if we use it as a one measure of economic well-being it makes sense to actually benchmark it beyond historical domestic figures. Again, I will suggest taking a look around. Most nations aren't doing so hot. If we look at GDP growth alone, you'd have trouble finding many (if any) developed economies that didn't have a recession between 2008 and 2009. You'd also have trouble finding a developed economy that has been able to break above 3.5% growth in a quarter. Most of them are damned lucky to have broken 3%. More still are dying to break 2%.

This is a global economy. The nature of global capitalism is that a global recession makes it difficult for any single nation to break out of it. The U.S. is vastly import/export economy. What did you think was going to happen? Did you think BRIC alone was going to come to the rescue? Even those economies have cooled off a bit and are at risk of further slowing.

That said, I give Obama a passing grade on the economy mostly due to his handling of the crisis and ensuing recession. Could the U.S. be doing better with the GDP growth and unemployment? Possibly. However, I can't see how. The U.S. is doing better than other developed nations if you look at it—not as well as, say, Germany and Canada, but the U.S. is certainly doing better than Greece, Italy, Ireland, maybe France, and maybe a few others. (Even the relatively stable Scandinavian economies have been weathering many of the same issues as less mixed economies.) And it's not like Germany and Canada are breaking 4% growth. (They're not.) Also: Is 3.5% GDP growth anywhere near the U.S. historical average? What do you honestly expect in this environment?

I will reiterate what I posted above: Obama has added stability. Hey, GDP growth is slow, but it's a lot better than negative growth. Unemployment is high, but it's slowly improving, which is better than getting worse. If you consider what Obama has done in terms of public sector jobs, that's actually quite impressive. Yes, there is the issue of the deficit, but the Obama administration has been focusing on plans to reduce this. Let's not forget: If recent history is any indication, it takes a Democratic government to reduce the deficit.

But Bush? It's a different can of worms—different business cycle, different political matters. I don't think I would give Bush a failing grade, but I would give him a lower grade than Obama. Bush had the opportunity to keep deficits low after Clinton, but he decided to piss it away with unnecessary wars and reckless tax cuts (a typical "tax-cut and -spend" Republican). He also made decisions that possibly contributed to the reckless situation leading up to the recession.

I do consider, however, Bush's presidency a failure overall. What a mess it was. I can't believe he was reelected.

 

I wouldn't say that argument is weak. It depends on the context. It works when you consider Obama's first two years. It starts to get old when you look at the second two. However, as far as stalling growth is concerned, I will always say that a nation's leader only has so much influence, especially as far as America is concerned: the aversion to "big government socialism" is potentially more detrimental than it is protective. Again, it depends on the context, and, in this case, the application. Obama has been widely hamstringed by Congress on economic matters.

Woah, there, champ. Don't get carried away. I demand a qualifier for "primarily." Let's keep perspective. The European Union as a whole is a larger economy than the U.S. economy. China's economy is about half the size of the U.S. economy. Brazil's economy is about a sixth the size of the U.S. economy. India's economy is about a tenth the size of the U.S. economy.

Hmm... Did I leave anyone out? Actually, yes, I've left out quite a few economies. You get the point. While the U.S. economy remains the most significant economy in the world (for the most part), the U.S. is hardly The Reason why the world economy remains unstable. Again, this is global capitalism. It's about inputs and outputs and wealth transfers, etc. America isn't doing poorly because of America. America is doing poorly mostly because of the world economy. How much credit or blame should be placed domestically will likely trigger its own debate.

This isn't really the case. That's not how the global economy works. It's more about (ugh, someone stop me from using this word) synergy between players than it is about the wealthy benefiting the poor by virtue of being wealthy or whatever it is you envision "trickling down" to be. It comes down to comparative advantage, etc., rather than simply the size of each economy. China vs. the U.S. is a good example of how to compare in this regard.

The benchmarks as a whole will vary nation to nation, but they don't vary enough to suggest the benchmarking is unique to each. Targets for GDP growth among developed nations are basically the same. The 3 to 5% "sweet spot" isn't unique to the U.S. That range is also meant to take into account business cycles, meaning that 3 to 5% growth should not be expected into perpetuity.

There's no avoiding recessions, only weathering them. Recovery is not the same phase as growth. The phases will vary in length depending on factors. The problem this time around is the global nature of economies (compared to past cycles) and the structural problems that came to bear in terms of how capital is managed. This is where discussions on reform and reasonable regulations comes in. I'll remind you about our past discussions on banking failures and Canada's rather interesting lack thereof even through turbulent economic times.

This is where we continue with our demand vs. supply grudge match. Demand is weak (i.e., among the middle class). What should Obama do about it?

I recall Bernie Sanders is calling on Obama to issue an emergency loan program to small businesses. On the surface this looks like a good idea considering the issues. I have not looked into it at length. What do you think about it?

As for homes, too many people got burned and got burned badly. I'm not sure if it's due to a lack of income or savings, or if it's just people being cautious about jumping into real estate (again, in many cases).

Is the housing market stable in the U.S.? Have values recovered?

What do you make of this? Any comments? SBA chief defends Obama’s small business record at convention - The Washington Post

And let's not forget that weaker demand for goods and services also leads to weaker demand for small-business loans, which is a part of the problem. Another issue is a lack of collateral due to recent losses of real estate and declines in credit ratings after the crisis.

What about this? Why Obama and Romney Aren’t Talking About Housing on the Campaign Trail - Developments - WSJ

 

These are the same people who see liberalism as a threat (if not, erroneously, as socialism) instead of the stabilizing force it is.

They don't see liberalism as the stable middle ground between irrational, faith-based principles on the economy and social order, and an authoritarianism that undermines the rule of law, civil liberties, and a governance detached from an alienated electorate.

One simply needs to look at the summarized economic and social policies of the Romney/Ryan ticket and see it for what it is: Casting a vote for them is casting a vote in support of some hybrid theocratic plutocracy.

The U.S. is a secular state under siege by Christian fundamentalists, and there are existing problems with damaging wealth inequality. Romney and Ryan's policies seek to entrench these problems further. They will likely continue with the strategy of dismantling social services, building more prisons, and starting new military adventures to keep the hoi polloi in check.

Obama isn't a terribly good liberal, but he's certainly closer to that than the decidedly non-Republican Romney. When you're saddled with a two-party system, what are you going to do? I'm not particularly fond of the concept of "the lesser of two evils." Rather, I would consider Obama the obvious-albeit-mediocre choice.

I tend to agree with much of the view here of Jeffrey Sachs:

Jeffrey Sachs: Economic Policy Beyond Gimmicks

Skewed how?

You don't see a problem with the banking practices in the U.S.? How do you account for the shit hitting the fan where risk had come unhinged?

There is no need for legislation changes? Well, I suppose not if you don't mind maintaining the same structural risk problems. However, if you buy into the "Canada's banking system as a model for the world" idea, then changes to regulation are indeed required.

Obama isn't simply about restricting banking activity. (What kind of goal is that? "My fellow Americans: I promise to restrict banking activity.") No, it's not that simple. Obama is concerned about damaging and reckless practices in the banking industry. It's the same as damaging and reckless practices in any other industry: Do you just let it go and hope for the best, or do you do something about it? It's not about restricting activity like it's open season. It's about restricting the demonstrably problematic practices. Letting the market "figure it out" doesn't seem to work here.

Regardless, the issue is global, not merely American.