Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama

Picture: Flickr user borman818 (CC)

Pat Garafalo at Think Progress makes an interesting point. While those poor, downtrodden elites like to brand the Obama administration as the “most anti-business” in history, the data tells a far different story.

According to a Bloomberg News analysis, corporate profits have grown by 171% during the Obama era:

U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.

This profit growth is the highest since 1900, while wages have stagnated and the same powerful people have fought to keep the minimum wage down in some states.

, , ,

  • Chaos_Dynamics

    Automation, Robotics, A.I. Oh my!

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    …and since these corporations have stopped paying people a living wage, most people are still broke.

  • Antediluviancurrent

    b-but muh free market? the slippery slope to totalitarianism?

    • moremisinformation

      Your comment is funny with regard to the idea that, the posting’s-headline alludes to the fact that, under the/or in collusion with, the government (read: controlled market), corporate profits have risen 171%. To reiterate, that’s fascism. Not free-market capitalism. Because, well, it’s not a free market.

      • Antediluviancurrent

        Everything is fascism for the apologists of the free market. Mussolini is fascism, Sweden’s social-democracy is also fascism, etc etc. That way it becomes a container term with a moral connotation for everything that doesn’t let the robber barons, I mean Providence, do its thing. Though ironically, the same proponents of the free market were pretty much okay with installing REAL fascism in Chili.

        • moremisinformation

          So, through all of your strawmen/red herrings, do I perceive that you define a “free market” as that which allows a government to restrict access to it?

          • Antediluviancurrent

            The free market that is being advocated by the proponents I was referring to ( Friedman f.e. ) is a case in which you have a small/weak government that doesn’t or hardly ever intervenes in the ‘natural processes’ of the market economy. I think those who now shout “corporatism/fascism” have no clue that by initially demanding a small government in the Reagan/Tatcher era, they ( the whole ideology by that ) themselves have given it away to the corporations.

          • moremisinformation

            I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Ittabena

    And yet another parallel between today and pre-Great Depression days. The Bush/Obama administration scores again!

  • Ittabena

    And yet another parallel between today and pre-Great Depression days. The Bush/Obama administration scores again!

  • rus Archer
  • sgtdoom

    Exactly — so the writer of that fully understands (one sanely hopes) that the Bush-Obama administration has been great for the Wall Street masters, but understandable horribly for the rest of us who still managed to survive, but just barely?

    Obviously, when McCain, Obama and (Hillary) Clinton were running for the prez, back in 2008, and they obviously had campaign managers and staff from the same exact frigging global PR firms, etc. (and Obama had scumbag Rubin, while McCain had scumbag Phil Gramm, as their econ advisors — the two biggest promoters of the death of Glass-Steagall and the killing of any oversight of electronic exchanges, etc.), it was obvious there was no real election taking place, just more political theater of the absurd, courtesy of the plutocracy.

  • rtb61

    A saturation misinformation marketing campaign by corporations to make their man Uncle Tom Obama look like he is on the side of the little people.

  • yawa

    Perhaps because there was a recession just before he took office? kind of expected

  • alizardx

    A good explanation as to how this happened can be found in “The Age of Neo-feudalism: A Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Corporations” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-age-of-neofeudalism_b_2566546.html

  • “Big” Richard Johnson

    Butt Obammer iz a kurmernist!