- No, and here's why. Job growth right after the peak of unemployment in late 1982 was swift and it was quick. Carter left Paul Volcker, who by the way is my favorite liberal, and Reagan in a predicament as to whether to control unemployment or inflation. By 1984, unemployment was actually lower than what it had been when Reagan took office and inflation had practically disappeared. Brown25 17:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- So in hindsight we can say Reaganomics was not a failure because we know what happened after unemployment peaked. Since unemployment this time may or may not have peaked yet, and we do not know what will happen after, isn't it a bit premature to call "Obamanomics" a "failed system" (at least solely on this basis)? ChrisFV 17:23, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- I don't see this as a matter of ideology but of economic facts. ChrisFV 17:32, 6 November 2009 (EST)
Unfortunately for you, then, I see it differently. Perhaps you should stick to your stated goal of copy editing, rather than mixing into political points of view? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- I am not expressing a political point of view but a point of logic. To say something is a "failed system" is to say it has run its course and not achieved its goals. The ultimate results of "Obamanomics"--which, by the way, should be defined in the article before it's evaluated--are still to be seen. To say this is not "liberal" or pro-Obama; it's a simple fact. ChrisFV 17:51, 6 November 2009 (EST)
The claim that "inflation also [has been] rising since the beginning of Obama's term" is, to my knowledge, inaccurate. In any case, it should be supported or withdrawn. ChrisFV 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- The WSJ blog citation is an April 2009 measure of consumer expectations of inflation for the coming year. What are the actual figures for April to now? ChrisFV 17:46, 6 November 2009 (EST)
For the record, the annualized increase in the CPI-U since Obama became president is 2.6%, slightly below the average for the past 10 years (2.8%).
Is "Obamanomics" really anything new?
Isn't "Obamanomics," as described in this article, just old-fashioned keynesian demand-side economics taken to an unprecedented level? Wouldn't it be better to just have a section on what economic philosophies Obama agrees with on the Obama page? --Ben Talk 16:24, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
- Actually it seems like it may actually be a term that people use. (I tend to to think that a purported encyclopedia should refrain from inventing terms.) Perhaps it's worth having a page about this one after all. --Ben Talk 16:28, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Keynes embraced tax cuts. Obama embraces tax increases to account for for his increases in spending under PAYGO. However, the Obama administration fails to account for decreases in the activity being taxed, which would decrease revenues.
Obama is no Keynesian.
(An argument could be made that Reagan actually was a Keynesian, but that's a discussion for another day).
Soho 15:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)