“Unemployment“, writes Andrew Malcolm at Investor’s Business Daily, “has never been this high for this long post-recession” (via Instapundit). And it doesn’t look likely to improve any time soon; “New Gallup unemployment data suggest an increase in the government’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August when it is reported on Friday, Sept. 7.”
“The recession that ended three years ago this summer“, reports Paul Wiseman of the Asssociated Press
. . . has been followed by the feeblest recovery since the Great Depression, according an extensive review of the country’s economic ups and down over the past eight decades.
Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest.
“As weak as this recovery is,” offers Wiseman in a piece asking why this particular recovery is the worst since World War II
. . .it’s nothing like what the U.S. went through in the 1930s. The period known as the Great Depression actually included two severe recessions separated by a recovery that lasted from March 1933 until May 1937.
It’s tough to compare the current recovery with the 1933-37 version. Economic figures comparable to today’s go back only to the late 1940s.
Following both downturns, that in the late 1920s/early 1930s and that in 2007/08, the federal government responded by hiking spending and intervening in the marketplace. Did those interventions, instead of increasing the pace of recovery instead have slowed it?
ADDENDUM: Bear in mind that, after most downturns, the economy does bounce back. Take a gander at this chart the office of then-President-elect Obama released, “projecting the unemployment levels with and without the stimulus“:
Chart this time via Instapundit. The red dots, the actual unemployment rate, have of course been added since Obama’s economic team laid out their plan.
As the lighter blue curve shows, these Democratic economists realized the economy would bounce back and new jobs would be created without a “recovery plan.”
Perhaps, we would be better off had the government done nothing in 2009.
Do recall that despite the Senate Republican’s successful filibuster of then-President Clinton’s “stimulus” in 1993, the economy still continued to bounce back from the minor recession of the early 1990s and boomed throughout that decade.
FROM THE COMMENTS: It wasn’t just the Great Depression. Obama had more recent evidence that stimuli don’t work as Kurt reminds us:
. . . even the New York Times recognized the potential for something like this happening. In February 2009, the Times published this article about Japan’s “lost decade” which resulted partly from too much wasteful “stimulus” spending. The Times was, of course, trying to argue for the Obama stimulus which was supposed to be more “broadly-focused” than the Japanese effort in the 1990s, but some of us saw the article and took note of what could happen with too much wasteful deficit spending during a recession.