Reich Touts FDR's Mid-1930s Depression-Era Growth; He and the Press Ignore Reagan's Record
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a column appearing at Business Insider, says that we're heading in the direction of a "double-dip" -- and though he doesn't follow it with the word "recession," it's obvious he's not talking about an ice-cream cone. It's also obvious that he's less than pleased with the media spin that things are really okay.
Along the way, Reich had to go back to the mid-1930s, the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's ongoing economic depression (at least as far as employment was concerned) to exemplify what a supposedly good recovery from an economic trauma looks. He was clearly desperate to avoid saying anything nice about the more historically relevant and objectively more impressive recovery and subsequent prosperity that occurred under Ronald Reagan. This is also true of the establishment press.
The failure to compare the current recovery to the recovery from the last serious recession the U.S. encountered has become a nasty establishment press habit, for a drop-dead obvious reason: Despite the fact that his challenges were arguably greater -- 13% inflation, 20%-plus prime interest rates, and high unemployment -- Reagan's tax-cut and regulatory relief-driven economy boomed. By contrast, Barack Obama's stimulus-laden, gimmick-dominated, fossil fule-hostile, uncertainty-driven economy isn't impressing anyone.
Here are several paragraphs from Reich's Thursday morning column ("The Truth About The Economy: We're Heading Back Toward A Double Dip"):
Why aren’t Americans being told the truth about the economy? We’re heading in the direction of a double dip – but you’d never know it if you listened to the upbeat messages coming out of Wall Street and Washington.
... The Reuters/University of Michigan survey shows a 10 point decline in March – the tenth largest drop on record. Part of that drop is attributable to rising fuel and food prices. A separate Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence, just released, shows consumer confidence at a five-month low — and a large part is due to expectations of fewer jobs and lower wages in the months ahead.
... But isn’t the economy growing again – by an estimated 2.5 to 2.9 percent this year? Yes, but that’s even less than peanuts. The deeper the economic hole, the faster the growth needed to get back on track. By this point we’d expect growth of 4 to 6 percent. In 1934, emerging from the deepest hole of the Great Depression, the economy grew 7.7 percent. The next year it grew over 8 percent. In 1936 it grew a whopping 14.1 percent.
Add to these data two other ominous signs: Real hourly wages continue to fall, and housing prices continue to drop. Hourly wages are falling because with unemployment so high, most people have no bargaining power and will take whatever they can get. Houses are the biggest asset most Americans own, so as home prices drop most Americans feel even poorer.
Reich inexplicably fails to cite accurate mid-1930s growth figures, but the actual numbers seen here for 1934-1936 (10.9%, 8.9%, and 13.0%, respectively) still look pretty good. But c'mon: If we're to believe the government's data from the 1930s, the economy at the end of 1940 was 63% bigger than the economy at the end of 1933. I question how could that be if unemployment never got below 12%. But even if it's accurate, it's obvious that whatever growth occurred failed to reach an awful lot of people who wanted to work.
By contrast, once his policy prescriptions were finally in place, the post-1980s recession Reagan economy recovered exceptionally well and quickly, both in terms of GDP growth and employment. Here's how the Reagan post-recession record compares to Obama's in both metrics (through six quarters for GDP growth and 20 months for employment; click on the second graphic to enlarge and open in a separate window):
The post-recession economy under Reagan grew 9.9% (with compounding) in its first six quarters. Obama's post-recession economy has grown 4.5%. Reagan's economy created over 4.9 million jobs during its first 20 post-recession months. Believe it or not Obama's economy went positive at a whopping 22,000 jobs just last month.
No wonder Reich didn't want to make a comparison. It would imply the need for policy prescriptions he doesn't like, virtually regardless of whether they will work. The same generally goes for the establishment press in their supposedly "objective" news reports.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments


















Comments
Don't leave out the surplus from Clinton.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:26pm.
Gosh, when talking about prosperity- GDubya was able to spend like a drunken sailor and put us into a wonderful downward spiral. Oh, How I wish for fiscal conservatism than the social conservatism of today.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
You of course are referring to ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:38pm.
... the artificially inflated, overhyped Internet bubble economy Bush inherited from the Clinton Era and its asleep at the switch SEC, which was then further pummeled by 9/11, which resulted from Clinton-Era failures relating to Jamie Gorelick's law-enforcement wall.
Of course you are.
I guess it's about how you present it.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:56pm.
The SEC at this present time is being defunded by the current Congress. Asleep at the switch? Watch what happens now with Wall Street & the lack of oversight. Remember it's Obama at the helm and the GOP controlled Congress with the funds. I wonder who will get the blame. My poker chips are on Obama to get the blame & my stock porfolio to get better
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
The SEC at this present time
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:09pm.
The SEC at this present time is being defunded by the current Congress.
Uh, no. "Defunded" means no more spending on the SEC.
At best, the reduction proposed will get rid of the employees who watch porn all day and keep the ones who actually work hard. We can hope.
Your "defunding" assertion about the SEC is what's known as a lie. It's either ignorant or shameless. My bet is on shameless.
Yeah, we know all about those "evil" repubs who are
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:25pm.
...running things on Wall Street.
Oh, wait....
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
and don't forget the
Submitted by Free Thinker on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:57pm.
and don't forget the accounting gimmickry that used social security surpluses to essentially make it appear there was a budget surplus.
Free, this clown has 'plant' written all over him
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:38pm.
His account was activated nearly two years ago, and he has a total of four posts here.
LOL- E.S.Blofeld?
More like B.S.Blowhard.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
ADK
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:49pm.
Again.
bk,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:24pm.
Too bad he doesn't stay dead.
LOL - Sheesh, does nobody check IP's around here anymore? The place is going to the dogs.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Actually Tom.. Bush didn't inherit a bubble - he inherited
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:04pm.
.. a recession and disappearing tax revenues caused by the collapse of the Clinton era bubble in March of 2000 - many months prior to Bush receiving the nomination to run for POTUS.
The rest of your description is fine.
For our dear little uninformed troll there, let me copy a note (2002) from the "loved by the left.." the progressive/socialist economist of CEPR, Dean Baker:
Needless to say, personal income tax revenue took a massive hit as well.
A rough estimate is that if one looks at the end of 2003, when the budget deficit stood at $378 billion, and the difference ($1.361 Trillion) between the silly projected budget surplus to actual deficits experienced during that 3-year period, one will find that the Iraq war costs - thru 2003 - was $54 billion and the sum of all legislative tax cuts (without consideration of economic stimulus and tax revenue growth effect) was $325 billion. The spending was really yet to come, and we were already deep in deficit spending.
It's safe to say that, by far, the cause of the return to deficits was because of what Bush inherited.
(;~/ gary
The "recession" part is interesting ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:05am.
In 2006 I found a link to an item indicating that NBER originally pegged the beginning of the recession to mid-2000, and then changed their minds:
HERE (see paragraph which begins with "At one point")
At one point, there was some degree of economic consensus that the recession began in July of 2000 and ended in March of 2001 (2007 note: info at link was changed after publication of this post, and references to what was just noted are no longer there). By the time the “non-partisan” (uh-huh) NBER declared its end (third paragraph at link), the time frame had changed from March 2001 to November 2001.
Don't tell me that NBER is "non-partisan." They were mostly right (by their definitions) the first time.
Hey Tom.. Indeed, they did.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:52pm.
By the way - thank you so much for the comparative data (Reagan's vs O's). It's been saved and back-ed up, as we'll have many opportunities to correct the MSM on this in the future.
So yes - defining the beginning of a recession (as well as the end) while there are the usual standards, is a bit of a game. And, as GDP numbers get revised (up or down - usually down) the game continues.
I come away from it like this. Whether of not the official recession began in 2000 or early 2001, really does not matter. The cycle changed in March, 2000, when the dot.com bubble crashed.
A look back at that period of time reveals a lot of "change." GDP growth crashed from the 2nd Q of 2000 thru the 3rd Q of 2001; the top of the broad market was late 1997 (was telling us something; no meat - just frosting in the bubble); CPI rose significantly from 1998 to 2001 (just over 3 pts.); new jobless claims started soaring in early 2000; Industrial production crashed from March, 2000 to the end of the year (the bottom); New home sales fell from the beginning of 1999 to the middle of 2000 (the beginning of HUD's housing bubble); New orders for durable goods crashed from it's peak in the 1st Q of 2000, thru mid-Jan, 2001 - then recovered; profits fell from it's peak in mid-97 to late 2002; Household debt soared from 1994 thru late 2001; Manufacturing (PMI) crashed in early 2000 - beginning a recovery in early 2001; and on and on.. There is no question when the economy crashed - before Bush got the nomination from his party.
(;~> gary
Thanks Gary; I just lifted that graphic
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:17pm.
Interesting that this didn't have the effect (at least on stock values) that I expected:
May 18, 1998 -- JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILES ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT
But then the subsequent timeline of the back and forth may be in there.
ROFL. Just what Clinton budget surplus would that be?
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:24pm.
Cause they weren't none.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Is there a smarmier, more worthless little toad anywhere?
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:51pm.
Oh, OK. Forgot about Krugman and Klein.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
9/11? Katrina?
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:52pm.
Certainly those aren't anywhere near as important as less fat for everyone and golf, are they?
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Any claims of economic growth
Submitted by robert108 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:04pm.
Any claims of economic growth during FDR and Obama have to take into account that GDP figures include govt spending, and so are not an indicator of growth in the private sector, where all the real wealth is generated.
Gas is again pressing 4 bucks...
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:09pm.
...and the half pint is talking about FDR.
And Big Media?
Crickets.
I've pointed out the mid
Submitted by forest on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:21pm.
I've pointed out the mid 1930's gdp growth before as part of my argument that we're not in a "recession" or a "recovery". We're in a depression. We're having moribund "growth" and are just waiting for the other shoe to drop like in '37. People will look back on this period as a depression, and the miniscule jobless growth of the GDP in 2009-11 will be all but forgotten.
lefty lies
Submitted by right of way on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:53pm.
i am so sick and tired of the left crediting fdr with getting us out of the great depression. he actually kept us in the great depression by raising tarriffs and spending like a drunken sailor. fdr didn't get us out of the great depression, it was emperor herohito of japan, mussilini of italy, and everyone's favorite adolph hitler of germany. without them, and german rocket scientists, who knows where we would be.
Well that's interesting
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:37am.
If we're to believe the government's data from the 1930s, the economy at the end of 1940 was 63% bigger than the economy at the end of 1933. I question how could that be if unemployment never got below 12%. But even if it's accurate, it's obvious that whatever growth occurred failed to reach an awful lot of people who wanted to work.
Are you saying that FDR's administration was manipulating data? As you take the year 1933, probably the worst in American history, as baseline what you observed should be less than surprising. With unemployment somewhere near 25% in 1933 I'd say the growth between that year and 1940 probably reached more people than you want to make us think.
Yawwwwwwn ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:47am.
zzzz .... "it's obvious that whatever growth occurred failed to reach an awful lot of people who wanted to work" remains a true statement, and as usual, you have no point .... zzzz ....
As usual
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:25am.
you convey the impression that you have no clue about macroeconomics. You probably slept through these classes as well. Good night.
zzzzz .... zzzzz ....
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:52am.
zzzz .... proving, as usual, that you have no point .... zzzz ....
Proving as usual
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:33am.
that you can't deal with criticism constructively. That would be surprising!
zzzzz .... zzzzz ....
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:40am.
zzzz ... Continually proving that you have nothing constructive to say. .... zzzz
Says the one
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:44am.
who is sleep-typing! Priceless.
iz funnee germanzziz joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:34pm.
Diz timez murrycan. you just watch. you hold you tushie. no fall off and kick like foozball. iz merkel, ferry fery power, she go to hardwar store sez to clerk iz need some 4 by 2's. sells clerk iz say hey power merkel you men 2 by 4's? merkel sez you wait heah go outside come back ok? i power. you stay. merkel she go outside then come back. say yes, that i need 2 by 4's. sells clerk he say how long you need 2 by 4's? merkel, she sigh, she look mad, she power you know, she say ok, i go come back you stay. merkel go outside com back. merkel she say we need long long time. we buildz house. Oh haw haw haw murrycane! rolling floorz. watch out nail in floor it pop off you tushie. power! soros! merkel! poop on floor!