What a Year. What an Amazing 8 Years. Thank you Obama

>thank you obama for using telekinesis to improve dow jones!
I think it has more to do with Obama's creation of a historically strong labor market with the lowest unemployment rate in decades, together with his stimulus and industry support packages, and his reform of abusive banking regulations. And the FED helped too.

But if you want to be a jackass and claim it was telekinesis, then go ahead and be an ignorant clown.

This is how you know Veeky Forums is fucking underage and retarded. Over the past 300 years, Three hundred fucking years, there hasn't been a period longer than 20 or so years without some sort of socioeconomic catastrophe. It's going to be funny when this hyperinflated bull market capsizes and idiots like this are left slitting their wrists because they thougt that the fucking rules of nature stoped applying themselves just because they started investing. Don't be so fucking stupid. What goes up...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets

So you're actually so stupid that you read those posts and concluded that someone claimed that bear markets don't happen? Do you not speak English well? Were you dropped on your pointed head as a child? Because I don't see any such claims made anywhere.

Of course bear markets happen. They've happened in the past and they'll happen in the future. They tend to be short in duration and smaller in magnitude than bull markets, but that's another issue altogether,

You cannot predict when bull markets will occur. Let me repeat that for your dim brain to soak up. You. Cannot. Predict. Short-term. Market. Movements. While we can say with tremendous confidence that a bear market will happen at some point in the future, you cannot tell us that it will happen next month, next year or in the next five years. You've tried, and you've failed, 90% of the time. You have a terrible track record, and we're too smart to listen to you.

And by "you" I mean all the idiots who think there are "signs" and "signals" and "shapes" and "patterns" that predict the future. Just stop. We've been listening to you faggot calling for the end of the world since 2010 and we're tired of you crying wolf. We made a lot of money while you sat on the sidelines with your thumb up your ass. We don't care that you'll eventually be right, eventually, some day, because we'll ride through it like we always do. That's why we're rich and you're not.

Time to wake up kid. You don't get these years back.

>What goes up...
Can't let this pass unnoticed.

Are you under the impression that financial markets are subject to the physical laws of gravity? Care to explain exactly how that scientific notion works?

Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave.

well you can't really compare 2008 to 2016 because 2008 was the worst year ever so anything in comparison is amazing.

besides, obama has aid's that advise him on things he can do. its not like he is a financial genius, just made the right moves.

so when the banks give credit to everyone and the rating agencies work like a grey market then it has nothing to do with the market.
what happened to housing prices after 2008? literally nothing. the government didn't regulate dick.

>2008 was the worst year ever
Actually it wasn't.
>anything in comparison is amazing
I'm not comparing anything to 2008. I'm looking at 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 in comparison to 80-year historical norms.

>its not like he is a financial genius, just made the right moves
Why the fuck does this matter? Every president surrounds themselves with people they think are smart, and make what they think are the correct moves. You're going to hold it against Obama that he got it right? That's literally retarded.

I got you so heated you replied twice. I'm not even going to read your great wall of text.

>Black monday
1987
>Tech bubble
1999
>Housing crash
2008
>Now entering 2017
.......?
GUIES U CANT PURRRRDICT MARKET CRASHES. Only a fucking retard like you can't see the obvious PATTERN. No one knows the exact day or minute. That's impossible, but if the past THREE HUNDRED YEARS are any kind of indicator. Another catastrophe will strike sometime before the next decade. George Soros: the legendary super Jew didn't short the S&P 500 for no reason. He has insider insider knowledge. I forgot though, market crashes can't be predicted.

obama said there was 5% unemployment in 2016 which is ridicules. he gives himself lots of compliments about healthcare and economics. he should really shut up and stop being cocky. because some of his decisions were questionable.
lots of the debt under his term could be saved, but obama wanted to put america under european model of health and economy which didn't fit the country at all

Which didn't fit CORPORATE America

>I'm not even going to read your great wall of text.
Not going to? Or can't?

I'm going with the later. Thanks for playing, Sally.

>obama said there was 5% unemployment in 2016 which is ridicules
Actually its not "ridicules" and it's not Obama that reports labor statistics. Its done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor.

>lots of the debt under his term could be saved, but obama wanted to put america under european model of health and economy which didn't fit the country at all
Someone apparently forgot that budgets are passed by Congress, not the president. And that the Congress has been Republican since the last election.

But before you start blaming Obama for the national debt, let's remember which party is responsible for increasing that debt and which party has made efforts to reduce it.

user, stop living your life based on #fakenews. Your brain is literally a barren wasteland of lies right now. You're a puppet of conservatives, and its time you woke the fuck up.

oh right you wanna tell me that middle east policies have nothing to do with president executive order? ok
as for obamacare. the reason the prices gone up so much is because the healthcare companies had 100% supply of customers and also 100% demand for insurance. that can fuck with the prices by alot.

>Not going to? Or can't?

>I'm going with the later. Thanks for playing, Sally.

10/10 counter argument.
>#Fake news
>wake up

It all makes sense now. You're from /pol/. I'm sorry. I didn't know you were actually challenged.

>oh right you wanna tell me that middle east policies have nothing to do with president executive order?
You wanna connect the dots a this one, crazypants? Or is this a pizzagate thing, in which case don't bother.

>as for obamacare
The ACA has its flaws, primarily because its foundations in private insurance were the only thing that could be passed by a Republican Congress. Progressives prefer single-payer, which you would know if you had a rudimentary political education. But Republicans wouldn't go for that because they wanted to funnel money to their friends in the insurance industry.

So you think Republicans are going to fix it? Why would they? They're happy with the status quo, which is why they've already said they won't repeal the ACA on day one -- if ever.

The ACA has its problems, but you don't even know what they are let alone who created them. No wonder you're so confused.

I agree.
Republitards, when will they learn?

I admit it isn't 5%, it's more like 20%, but if you compare the US recovery to the rest of the world's recovery, we are doing excellent.

Prepare your anus for the Republicans though, they will fuck this up big time, they always do.

>they will fuck this up big time, they always do.

I wish more niggers listened to their AIDS smdh

Nice #fakenews faggot. The best GDP growth happens when the government (Congress & White House) is all Democratic. The worst is when the Republicans are all in charge.

Prepare your anus. Republicans will fuck this up big time, they always do.

Unemployment rates are low because people stopped looking for work, you fucking self righteous retard. This isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory, the data is right on the BLS site.

>Unemployment rates are low because people stopped looking for work
Stop spreading #fakenews. Unemployment is down because the economy is strong and companies are hiring. Just because the president is a black man, you don't have to warp reality, you redneck cuck.

he's right.

his thing about congress being in charge when democrats are making the economy better is just cherry picking, but he's right about unemployment.

Whoa hang on a second. I've cited BLS, bls.gov, do you know what that is? What does a government-run labor statistics bureau have to do with fake news?

>he's right.
"He" is two different posters, unless he's samefagging. And no, the post about unemployment is wrong. While the labor participation rate is declining, there are many reasons for that (aging population, higher college enrollment, etc.). This has been happening since the 1920's, and long predates any living president.

It's not the government's role to find jobs for people NOT looking for jobs. Holding that against Obama -- or any president, for that matter -- is the definition of insanity.

Alt-right fags have seized this narrative because most people (including you, apparently) are too stupid to understand the real factors influencing modern labor markets. Stop getting your news from Facebook or /pol/, you worthless cuck.

That's called inflation

>"He" is two different posters,
very well.

you should probably look at the graph though.

unless you think 10% of the labor force decided to age into retirement or suddenly enroll in college in the fall of 2008.

and then just stayed there.

K, first of all.. I have pointed out this statistic here before alt-right was even a thing. Years ago.

You are correct in that he may have been replying to a different poster. I'm not sure who he is referring to.

I never blamed Obama. I do not use Facebook. I barely watch the news.

I'm looking at the data. I have not looked at it very recently, but since I visited it last year(takes a little math to decipher), this was not a steady trend from the 1920s. It was a harsh drop off after our last recession. Again, not saying Obama had anything to do with it, I'm just stating a fact.

Where I object is where we're trying to correlate the lack of participation to this concept of "creating jobs". It's simply not true.

I gave you my source. Go look it up and see for yourself rather than wasting your time calling people names. I only care about facts, not your opinion.

This based user speaks the truth. Bubbles traced to their root are due to fundamental human psychology:

> Fear
> Reservation
> Reservation fades
> Attempt risk
> Success
> More risk
> More success
> Repeat risk cycle until bubble of failure forms
> Failure bubble pops
> Failure everywhere
> Fear permeates
> Money draws inward

The only factor worth discussing is how bad the collapse will be. Some are obviously small and other obviously big.

With Trump as president I predict a bullish market for a year or two followed by a series of events that brings things down. Not as bad as 08 though.

Can you post the version of this image that is not for ants?

>unless you think 10% of the labor force decided to age into retirement or suddenly enroll in college
Jesus, you're gullible as fuck. The labor participation rate has decreased about 2.5% between 2009 and 2016. It's a trend worth noting, but it hardly negates 50 consecutive months of jobs gains produced by the sitting president.

shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Unemployment is still very high, but it's at least 10-15% better under Obama.

>but it hardly negates 50 consecutive months of jobs gains produced by the sitting president.
I didn't say it did.

I said the other user is correct, you are wrong, and you should look at the chart.

and you made fun of me and tried to insult me and impute to me motives and politics I don't possess, and all along I just sort of ignored you because I knew you were wrong and don't really care what wrong people think of me when they're being wrong.

>you should look at the chart.
What chart, retard? No one in this thread has posted a chart showing labor participation rates. You're so gullible you're arguing based on data you THINK you saw.

>doesn't know how to google a government statistics website
>calls others retarded

You posted a screenshot of my post? And still no chart in sight. You may be the dumbest cuck on the whole site, and I'm including ALL the boards in that statement.

it's ok, I'm pretty sure anyone else that looks at that will see it.

Typical liberal too lazy to do any work. Here, let me help you. I just grabbed the data from BLS and made a chart for you. Here is a combination of the participation rate with the underlying unemployment rate from BLS, to show the ACTUAL unemployment rate. Tell me this is a trend since 1920: imgur.com/a/pfaf9

We're not even caught up to Bush era yet. So what the fuck are you even talking about?

In case you're too stupid to see what is happening here(I suspect you are), the drops in "unemployment" can't even keep up with the workplace participation dropouts, else it would be a downward trend or at least flat. This isn't fake news. This is a fact reported by the government.

>unsourced
>unlabelled
>imgur
#fakenews

Fuck off kid. Some of us are too smart to fall for neocon bullshit.

>Some of us are too smart to fall for neocon bullshit.
I'm a liberal and you're literally retarded.

Its latter, you dimwit.

BLS.GOV

How many fucking times do I need to say it? Do you even know what that department is?

I just made that chart myself based on data from BLS.GOV, A GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. Are you really that retarded?

Fucking kids man. Can throw literal facts at them from a department that "black man" Obama supports and I'm still somehow a racist. Unreal

>republican congress

ACA passed with democrats controlling both houses, you blithering idiot.

I'm actually more pissed that I wasted the past 20 minutes of my time aggregating this REAL data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, THE government website for labor facts, to help you out, and that's the kind of lazy response I get. You're a real piece of shit.

>I'm a liberal and you're literally retarded.
I don't care what political party you claim allegiance too. I judge you retarded based on your posts and lack of logic, not the label you choose to apply to yourself.

I think this is called concern trolling or something like that. I don't really know and I don;t care. You're stupid, and until you show otherwise, that's what you remain.

Stop being triggered and start acting like a human with a functioning brain.

Don't post an unattributed photoshopped image on imgur and claim it comes from a government website, you stupid cuck.

#fakenews

>ACA passed with democrats controlling both houses
Republicans filibustered approval until compromises were made to serve their insurance industry masters. The ACA also had survive repeal attempts when the Republicans were in control.

You have a brain. Use it.

I think our first clue should've been when he googled the site and then denied it.

he admits that participation is down 2.5% since '09 in his reading of the charts.

which means he knows exactly what you're talking about and is just fucking with us. Probably because his delicate feelings got hurt when someone noticed his factual error.

it doesn't matter, next week he'll be on here telling everyone how unemployment numbers aren't real and you have to look at participation. Probably citing charts on Bureau of Labor Statistics websites.

Are you fucking retarded? I MADE the image. Here, I'll post the rest of the spreadsheet with the actual numbers just to make you happy:

imgur.com/a/speia

Here's my data source for labor force: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Here's my data source for labor participation:
data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

The spreadsheet and chart were created from both of these sources. This isn't a copy and paste. I have a feeling that it won't matter to your tiny brain anyway.

you must be a nigger to be this deluded.

No, not next week. He won't cite them until Trump is in office. THEN it will matter. Or whenever his hivemind cronies have him say. I'm a moderate myself but holy shit is this guy a deterrent. I got off of Facebook because I couldn't deal with fucktards like this, but it seems they're spreading.

10/10 post if troll

>I MADE the image
And into the garbage it goes.

Next time put a pepe in it and head straight to /r9k/. No one here has time for your bullshit.

>he admits that participation is down 2.5%
Admit? What's to admit. Facts are facts. The real issue is why, and how it affects the real unemployment rate.

All you faggots want to do is argue. I'm tired of dealing with you Trumptards. kys with meth, please.

Maybe you should pull Obama's dick out of your mouth and actually listen to what the other posters are saying.

Constantly being butthurt about those who disagree with you isn't impressing anyone, you just sound like an angry child.

>isn't impressing anyone
I don;t care about impressing anyone. What's annoying is that you're too stupid to even understand the arguments, and you're apparently willing to accept manufactured statistics as long as it supports your #fakenews worldview.

You faggots are what's wrong with the country. I will NEVER stop calling you cucks and making you feel small.

LOL
I also posted the actual data behind the image. You can easily browse to BLS, which I directly linked to and confirm that my entry is true to what the government is reporting. FIND ONE ERROR, just one! Anyway, facts are inconvenient to you, so let's shelve them. You're the type of lefty that let Trump win the office. I hope you're proud of being a retard. What I can't understand is how you even figured out how to get on the Internet?

>What's to admit. Facts are facts.
I read the chart as 3% down over the same period, but let's not quibble over half a percent.

you deny anyone has cited a chart and then quote numbers from it.

but let's ignore that retardation for a moment.

Labor participation counts all adults of age to work. Workforce counts a fraction of labor participation. Roughly 1/3. So if labor participation drops 2.5% you've actually lost 7%-ish of the labor force. If it drops 3% you've lost closer to 10% of American workers.

I voted for Clinton. You're still retarded.

>I don;t care about impressing anyone
Lol.
>18 posts by this ID

I'm glad you're here. I did not vote for Clinton myself, mostly because of my experience with the types of crazies we're running into here. Clearly, your brain works. You're a breath of fresh air. Thank you

likewise.

a pleasure reading what you have to write.

>you deny anyone has cited a chart and then quote numbers from it.
Still looking for that chart. You'd think it'd be easier to find on an IMAGE BOARD, but oddly enough four of your faggots still can post a picture that supports whatever the hell you think is true.

>If it drops 3% you've lost closer to 10% of American workers
Nu math. Funny how you magically found a stat (uncited, unsourced, undocumented) that exactly fits the post you made an hour ago.

>18 posts by this ID
You dummies keep giving me more material. The quality of your posts is getting worse, but its still fun to mock you.

>Funny how you magically found a stat (uncited, unsourced, undocumented) that exactly fits the post you made an hour ago.

what's 2.5% of 33%?

it's no accident my first post matches one an hour later. We have this argument once a week. Probably with the same damn fool each time.

Do you even know what you're arguing for? Can you concisely state your thesis and support your argument? At this point you're just trolling for attention and I'm not going to bother anymore.

Take a position, make an argument, cite a source. Then we can talk. Until then, fuck off cuck.

Interest rates have been low long enough.

I am arguing that your statement:
>Unemployment is down because the economy is strong and companies are hiring.
is factually incorrect.

the citation has been given repeatedly and you know it because you've quoted the cited material.

What part of "I created that image" and uploaded it don't you understand? Do you want me to post it here? Will that make you happy?

Here, I scrolled down a little bit to make a unique image, and I'm posting it here.

Look at the numbers on the left. Compare them to the government website. Find an error. You won't. Your silly arguments are weak. This isn't fake news. This is original research happening right now. You just don't like it.

>cuck
>cuck
>cuck
You use this word an awful lot.
Are you trying to sell others on you and your wife's lifestyle?

You have to remember BLS changed how they calculate unemployment.

The shadowstat link is more accurate than BLS data, which is more accurate than republitard poster.

Cite and I will be happy to adjust my numbers.

Yeah thanks for causing the Syrian war and the European migrant crisis

>I am arguing that your statement:
>>Unemployment is down because the economy is strong and companies are hiring.
>is factually incorrect.
You only support is that the labor participation rate has fallen, and by a much smaller percentage than any of you knew. And I had to go look that up because none of you was capable of posting an image or making an argument.

Meanwhile, let's look at the data support my position that economy is strong and companies are hiring:

* GDP is up
* earnings are up
* stock market values are up
* total payrolls are up
* total non-farm payrolls are up
* wage growth is up

So even conceding the trend in the participation rate, there remains overwhelming evidence that (a) payrolls have increased, and (b) its because of the strength of the economy.

Therefore my statement -- "Unemployment is down because the economy is strong and companies are hiring." is undeniably true based on objective evidence and fact.

>Thanks for an interesting an engaging debate, cuck.

I think they need to admit that BLS is bogus to move any further. That'd be quite a bind since the Obama administration continually cites only one of their metrics.

>there remains overwhelming evidence that (a) payrolls have increased
that doesn't indicate more people are working.

if payrolls have increased and participation is way down, what does that mean?

either fewer people are getting paid more or population growth has outstripped hiring. Or both.

Let's see that chart(which you obviously copied and pasted instead from doing original research) before 2009. I'm really curious.

I cited data sources for my chart. Government reported tables with links to the actual data. You just posted an image. And you have the audacity to call me out on bullshit? You are truly unreal.

CITE

liberals have their pet lies and talking points too.

an unfortunate blindness. Probably a big reason they don't have any power at all after January. The pendulum swings.

>that doesn't indicate more people are working.
Actually it does exactly that. Total payrolls is literally the number of people that are working. An increase in the total payrolls number LITERALLY means more people are working.

>if payrolls have increased and participation is way down, what does that mean?
It means that a larger percentage of a certain segment of population is not seeking full-time employment. There are many reasons for this. Some are economic, some are societal, some are political.

Now you apparently think this is some harbinger of doom and gloom. Which not only flies in face of history (the participation rate is currently materially higher than in past decades) but also flies in the face of all the evidence proving that the economy is strong and that more jobs are being created every day.

Now if your going to move the goalposts and pretend the participation rate is some holy grail, you can go fuck yourself. What matters is (a) Are more people working? and (b) Are people looking for jobs finding them? The answer to both is yes, uncontrovertibly.

Let's see where you move the goal posts now.

This guy...
Posts an unoriginal image he found somewhere... calls it fact.

I post an originally created image based on BLS tables. fakenews!

Help me come to the left. Tell me this guy is an outlier, cause I'm having trouble seeing it. Maybe the left doesn't understand how much these people are deterrents. I know there is a difference between liberal causes and these clowns, but lately it's becoming harder to draw the line.May be just the media.

You've spent the last twelve posts arguing that the participation rate is down, a fact that I stated two hours ago. If you're the face of the right, you can see why we hate you so much. Stupid is stupid, even if we share the same citizenship.

Move on, child. You've proven your intellect and it doesn't pass muster. There is nothing you can say now to redeem that.

My only advice: finish school, get a job and move out, come back in 10 years when reality sinks in. You'll realize your opinions are actually as petty as they've been treated here. Have a good life.

>Some are economic, some are societal, some are political.
kek

so you're saying we had a perfect storm of economic, societal, and political motives for a huge fraction of people stopping looking for work in 2008 and not even trying since then?
mkay.
>you apparently think this is some harbinger of doom and gloom
Nice of you to say "apparently" since I don't think that at all.
>if your going to move the goalposts and pretend the participation rate is some holy grail, you can go fuck yourself
that's not moving the goalposts.
that is the fact you ignored to begin with and continue to pretend doesn't matter. It's not some holy grail, it's actually a pretty unfortunate thing for people that need work and will never find it.

but you pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter is what I started arguing and what I will continue to argue.

>not a single substantive statement, fact or argument
Nice shitpost, cuck.

>more jobs are being created every day.
more people too.

K. Clearly nobody here cares about what you have to say, even people from the left and ardent Clinton supporters are attacking you. You're done, and officially classified as retarded. You can call me all you want, but that won't change anything. I know you won't give it up, so we'll just leave it at that. Good luck

Haha yes. In 2008, during the great repression, so many Americans, coincidentally, realized that they were doing just fine and did not need to work any longer. The biggest coincidence in the history of Earth, apparently! You can't make this stuff up.

>a huge fraction
Stop with the histrionics and drama. A 2.5% change in the participation rate over 8 years is neither unusual nor notable. If you're incapable of having a rationale discussion of the facts, we're done here, cuck.

>people that need work and will never find it
Great point. One problem: the participation rate bears zero relationship to the concern you've raised. If you don't even understand the import of the stats, how are you going to make it in the adult world?

By the way, the actual statistic that measures the percentage of people looking for jobs and whether they can find them is called the "unemployment rate" and its at historical lows.

/mic drop

>A 2.5% change in the participation rate over 8 years is neither unusual nor notable.
It wouldn't be if it went away.
>If you're incapable of having a rationale discussion of the facts, we're done here, cuck.
your insults would have more impact if you spelled them correctly.
>the actual statistic that measures the percentage of people looking for jobs and whether they can find them is called the "unemployment rate"
yes, ~10% of American workers flat out giving up on ever finding work and leaving the workforce isn't important at all.

NANANANANANANANANA I'M NOT LISTENING!

>It wouldn't be if it went away.
"Went away"? Wtf are you taking about? The labor participation rate will never "go away." There will always be some member of society not seeking full time employment. Expecting it to go to 100% is not just unreasonable, it's fucking retarded and naive. I've just realize I'm talking to a 14 year old.

>~10% of American workers
2.5%. Facts are important. And yes, when times are tough, many adults either (a) stay in college for longer, (b) turn to full-time education for retraining and improvement, and (c) retire due to systemic changes at their employment. None of those are inherently problematic, and some of them are highly desirable.

No matter how often you try to pretend a decline in the participation rate is the decline of western civilization, I'm going to make you look foolish because its not. But don't let that stop you. You apparently have no shame nor a functional education.

Interesting post, except that I've actually been responding to every attempt at an argument. Unlike you cucks.

/mic drop

I wish I had numbers on how many of those 10% "fell out" because their benefits wore off. Unfortunately, not that I know, BLS doesn't report such a thing. I would suspect it's a big chunk of it. The guy stated rightfully that there is a trend in downward participation since the 1920s, but the recent data is sharp and stark. This isn't an old trend. Also, KEK! haha

>I wish I had numbers on how many of those 10% "fell out" because their benefits wore off.
Don't let this stop you. You faggot make up facts every hour of every day. Why should this be different?

>No matter how often you try to pretend a decline in the participation rate is the decline of western civilization, I'm going to make you look foolish because its not.
I don't think it has anything to do with the decline of western civilization. The decline of one nation perhaps.

the real irony here is we liberals used the decline in labor participation originally to point out how badly President Boosh wrecked the economy.

you don't remember this because you were sucking tit at the time. Conservatives used a simple frame-shift to pass the blame on to Obama. Just like they will when Obama's efforts pay off during Trump's presidency and Trump gets the credit for Obama's work. Naïve? You're the child here.