Stocks up, consumer spending down; Is Bush plan working?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even assuming that it does (which I don't think it will), it won't matter, as long as growth rates are positive and seem to be climbing, that's all that matters.

I agree. The public's perception of "what is good" will play a part. The Dem's need to convince the sheep that they can do better in order to win.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
Aggressive? I'm not getting personal here. The economy sucks. The presence of exclamation points is to illustrate the level of suckage. For example.
1929: THE ECONOMY SUCKS!!@!@!!!
1980's: The economy sucks.
early 90's: The economy sucks!
now: The economy sucks!
It's nothing directed at you, I simply used the !! to indicate the level of suckage.

Wrongo. This recession as I pointed out previously is much more mild than the one in the early 90s. And there was a recession in the mid 80s? Perhaps the early 80s.

When I say dispute, I mean with fact.

May I correct you? You don't argue with fact. You never have.

A simple, "you are wrong" doesn't count.
If you want to debate with me further, you need to provide information and facts to support your argument. Otherwise, we have nothing to talk about. And I like talking to you Fez.

Striking the relevance of the 1980s, which you brought up.. let me post something as a rebuttal.. from the CATO organization:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

whether or not Bush's policies will damage the economy more than it will recover.

Even assuming that it does (which I don't think it will), it won't matter, as long as growth rates are positive and seem to be climbing, that's all that matters.

Bush will have to bring down his job lose statistics. How many jobs have been lost since Bush became president Sava?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Bush will have to bring down his job lose statistics. How many jobs have been lost since Bush became president Sava?

You are not looking at the bigger picture. Unemployment has remained around 6%... and this is low compared to other slow growth periods. So it seems to me Bush actually averted any major recession.

[Kidlicious]

Damn Fez,

Why would we want to read a long quote like that from a right wing think tank? Shorten it up so we can get your point without wading thru crap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush will have to bring down his job lose statistics.

They just have to be falling somewhat. It doesn't matter if they get to 1999 levels or not... as long as there is a falling trend or the growth rates are rising people won't think the economy is doing bad.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Damn Fez,

Why would we want to read a long quote like that from a right wing think tank? Shorten it up so we can get your point without wading thru crap.

So I have to wade through a post with your left wing think tank quotations? I don't think so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Fez


You are not looking at the bigger picture. Unemployment has remained around 6%... and this is low compared to other slow growth periods. So it seems to me Bush actually averted any major recession.

The 6% doesn't count the people who have dropped out of the job market. There is quite a few. Thats why you look at the number of jobs created or lost.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The 6% doesn't count the people who have dropped out of the job market. There is quite a few. Thats why you look at the number of jobs created or lost.

Yes it does count it. And by the way, the economy isn't doing that bad right now. Modest growth has been sustained. Negative GDP growth just isn't happening in the US.. Germany is another story.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Bush will have to bring down his job lose statistics.

They just have to be falling somewhat. It doesn't matter if they get to 1999 levels or not... as long as there is a falling trend or the growth rates are rising people won't think the economy is doing bad.

Number of jobs lost makes a good sound bite for comercials. Whats Bush going to brag about, the growth in GDP? Yeah, 1.9% looks real good .

[Sava]

Fez: I've read the same Cato Institute reports. But what those statistic don't tell you is the desparity in the growth. Sure, overall the economy saw great growth. But only because the top 1% of outliers grew above and beyond everyone else. Cut off the top 1%, and the economy did not grow all that much. That's the basis of Reaganomics, they average everything out and misrepresent the facts. Take this example.

in year 1
person 1 is making 200 dollars a year
person 2 is making 100 dollars a year
person 3 is making 50 dollars a year
the economy represents the total income, goods and services

in year 2
person 1 is making 1,000,000 dollars
person 2 is making 98 dollars
person 3 is making 2 dollars

By analyzing the total numbers, the economy grew at an amazing rate! But only 1 person benefitteed, and the other two got worse. This was basically what happened in the 80's and what Reaganomics is. Only, instead of 1 person making out better, and 2 people losing out. 99% of the people lose out.

Do you understand the basic flaw in this?

May I correct you? You don't argue with fact. You never have.

C'mon on now Fez, don't start with personal crap. I provided much information from people smarter than myself in my earlier posts.

[Sava]

Negative GDP growth just isn't happening in the US

Negative GDP growth isn't required for a bad economy.

[Giancarlo]

Sorry I shouldn't of said that last comment.

Well anyways think what you wish I must be going to bed soon.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
Sorry I shouldn't of said that last comment.

Well anyways think what you wish I must be going to bed soon.

You know Fez, we should make a pact to be nice to everyone. That would shake Apolyton to it's knees.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
You know Fez, we should make a pact to be nice to everyone. That would shake Apolyton to it's knees.

Okay.. I want to be nice with you.. because quite frankly, I think I like you... more than a friend.. But you are straight.. so lets get on this anyways..

I want to be friendly with you. Lets avoid politics, economics and a lot of that other nasty stuff for a while. My sister is a socialist and I get along with her. Why can't I with you?