A chart of unemployment and recession for 50 years

[joewp]

Actually, the facts kind of negate that any party has much control over when recessions happen. It seems that steep oil price increases are the key contributor to most of the recessions we've had over the last 40 years or so.

Unemployment went up really high in Reagan's first years, then the oil price started to come down because of the North Sea and the North Slope of Alaska coming on line, and Reagan also jaw-boned the Saudis into opening the spigots, which starved the USSR of oil trade revenue and helped their collapse.

Part of Clinton's great economy was sub-$10/barrel oil in the mid 90s. Heck, gas was 79 cents in 1999 at my local station in NJ.

Since exothermic energy is the lifeblood of our industrial economy, cheap oil allows great development and growth. Expensive oil sucks the life out of growth. Presidents and Congresses have very little to do with it for the most part.

 

[itfitzme]

Actually, the facts kind of negate that any party has much control over when recessions happen. It seems that steep oil price increases are the key contributor to most of the recessions we've had over the last 40 years or so.

Unemployment went up really high in Reagan's first years, then the oil price started to come down because of the North Sea and the North Slope of Alaska coming on line, and Reagan also jaw-boned the Saudis into opening the spigots, which starved the USSR of oil trade revenue and helped their collapse.

Part of Clinton's great economy was sub-$10/barrel oil in the mid 90s. Heck, gas was 79 cents in 1999 at my local station in NJ.

Since exothermic energy is the lifeblood of our industrial economy, cheap oil allows great development and growth. Expensive oil sucks the life out of growth. Presidents and Congresses have very little to do with it for the most part.

I truely believe you are starting in the right place. *

I did a regression on oil volume and GPD, some time ago. *Volume and GDP level didn't produce much but rate of change of each showed some positive correlation with oil consumption change leading change in GDP. *The % of correlation wasn't all that much though, some 90% of the GDP variability being due to other things. *

 

[itfitzme]

Actually, the facts kind of negate that any party has much control over when recessions happen. It seems that steep oil price increases are the key contributor to most of the recessions we've had over the last 40 years or so.

Unemployment went up really high in Reagan's first years, then the oil price started to come down because of the North Sea and the North Slope of Alaska coming on line, and Reagan also jaw-boned the Saudis into opening the spigots, which starved the USSR of oil trade revenue and helped their collapse.

Part of Clinton's great economy was sub-$10/barrel oil in the mid 90s. Heck, gas was 79 cents in 1999 at my local station in NJ.

Since exothermic energy is the lifeblood of our industrial economy, cheap oil allows great development and growth. Expensive oil sucks the life out of growth. Presidents and Congresses have very little to do with it for the most part.

I truely believe you are starting in the right place. *

I did a regression on oil volume and GPD, some time ago. *Volume and GDP level didn't produce much but rate of change of each showed some positive correlation with oil consumption change leading change in GDP. *The % of correlation wasn't all that much though, some 90% of the GDP variability being due to other things. *

 

[Ernie S.]

http://www.ucfunding.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/unemployment.gif



You can learn alot from facts


this simple chart is very instructive

Great chart, actually. In January of 2007, unemployment was 4.5% and rose over the next 4 years to 10% when the GOP retook control of the House.
At this point, we are down to 7.6%. One could logically infer that if the Senate also was under GOP control, the unemployment rate would be in the neighborhood of 3.8%, where it was the last time the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and we had a Democrat President.

 

[itfitzme]

One could logically infer that if the Senate also was under GOP control, the unemployment rate would be in the neighborhood of 3.8%, where it was the last time the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and we had a Democrat President.

So true, if you consider a sample size of one to be statistically significant.

 

[Ernie S.]

Plot TDM's chart against the party controlling Congress. The sample size is now adequate to make well reasoned assumptions.

 

[itfitzme]

http://www.ucfunding.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/unemployment.gif



You can learn alot from facts


this simple chart is very instructive

Great chart, actually. In January of 2007, unemployment was 4.5% and rose over the next 4 years to 10% when the GOP retook control of the House.
At this point, we are down to 7.6%. One could logically infer that if the Senate also was under GOP control, the unemployment rate would be in the neighborhood of 3.8%, where it was the last time the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and we had a Democrat President.

Plot TDM's chart against the party controlling Congress. The sample size is now adequate to make well reasoned assumptions.

And the minimal sample size for a single independent variable is?

The sample size for a munlivariate analysis should be what?

It would be more instructive to examine actual federal policies.

 

[Truthmatters]

here is a list of the peopel who were president the year before each recession.

Recessions dont just materialize out of no where.


In the year before they are charted you see signs of a slipping economy and a good president takes wise steps to they and avert it or to make it shallow.


the year before is a little but of insight.


heres the list.


1960: Ike


1969: Nixon


1974: Ford


1979: Carter


1981: Reagan


1990: Bush 41


2000: Clinton


2007: Bush 43



Now there is no way to make the economy recessionless completely but do you see a pattern?

Yes
Democrats controlled congress from 1954 to 1994.

Excellent point...

presidents have a veto pen

 

[Rshermr]

So, by inferrence, you are saying that repubs did nothing from 54 to 95. All of those good years were dem results. Best growth period, from 50's through the 70's were a result of dems. repubs had nothing to do with any of that. And the reagan years after he tried to crash the economy, but then raised revenues and increased the size of the gov with great results, a dem accomplishment. Then, from 2000 on, when the shit hit the fan, it was the repubs who did it.

Is that your meaning???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now there is no way to make the economy recessionless completely but do you see a pattern?

dear, if Democrats are anti-business how can the help business or the economy?? Please state the major way they help the economy or admit you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks

 

[Truthmatters]

because that is an untrue right wing meme

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

because that is an untrue right wing meme

notice how you say its untrue but cant say why as a brainwashed liberal?????

dear, if Democrats are anti-business how can they help business or the economy?? Please state the major way they help business or the economy or admit you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks