Tag Archives: Forbes magazine

Obama better economically than Reagan? Wow!

Here’s a bit of a surprise: Barack Obama’s presidency has had a greater positive impact on the national economy than the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

You want more of a surprise? This assessment comes from Forbes Magazine, hardly known as a liberal-leaning publication prone to sing the praises of lefties.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

Nope. Forbes isn’t exactly Mother Jones or The Nation.

But in the essay attached to this post, it notes that the unemployment rate has dropped more quickly during the Obama administration than it did when Reagan was president. The deficit? It’s dropped significantly while during the Reagan years it grew way beyond what was considered prudent at the time.

Forbes cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics as its source for the glowing economic report. It notes that the August job-growth figure was a disappointment; the nation added “only” 142,000 jobs in August, breaking the string of 200,000-job string of monthly reports. There’s no need to wallow in despair, according to Forbes: “Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.”

This is worth noting — and I encourage you to read the Forbes article — because Obama’s critics continue to do an effective job of poor-mouthing the economy. There continues to be this perception among the public that the economy remains in the tank. For the life of me I cannot understand how the right wing is able to sell that notion. But it does.

I suppose one can pick apart all these economic indicators and find negative elements to highlight. It’s just interesting to me nevertheless that Forbes — founded by the late Malcolm Forbes’s father and continued by his one-time Republican presidential candidate son, Steve — would find so much good news to report about someone with whom the organization has so little in common.

A billion here, a billion there …

A Dallas Morning News blog notes that “A billion dollars isn’t what it used to be.”

Boy, howdy.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/a-billion-dollars-isnt-what-it-used-to-be.html/

It talks about a list of billionaires in which the starting point now stands at $1.3 billion. T. Boone Pickens, the one-time Panhandle oil-and-gas magnate, didn’t make the grade. He is worth a “mere” $950 million, according to Forbes magazine, which did the survey.

The blog takes note of Pickens’s reaction, which is that he is “doing fine.” Pickens also said his $1 billion in charitable giving is more than his net worth.

This item brings to mind just how much inflation has devalued money.

I remember when Aristotle Onassis died in 1975. The Greek shipping magnate was considered then to be the world’s richest, or second-richest man — depending on who did the figuring.

Onassis’s net worth at the time of his death 38 years ago? It was around $500 million.

In today’s terms, the value of Onassis’s wealth would be considered chump change when compared to the ledger sheets produced by the likes of, say, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

Or, as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois once said about the cost of prosecuting the Vietnam War, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking real money.”