248,000 jobs created in US last month; 947,000 in last 3

[GePap]

Why get mad at such a disingenous debater like yourself, really?

Here is the point for you:

Growth has been the strongest in 20 years because we measure that from how things were. Growth from $2000 to $2500 is 25%, while growth from 10,000 to 11,000 is only 10%, though 1000>500.

The economy in 2002 was much weaker than in 2000. All that strong growth has not even brought us back to 2000 levels.

Is that two difficult for you to understand? Do we need puppets?

[DanS]

I think we need to keep this in the proper perspective. Almost a million Americans have jobs now who didn't three months ago.

[GePap]

Oh, so then why did you add the whole "press won;t cover it cause they hate Bush" hysteria?

[DanS]

It's all Bush's fault that a million more Americans have jobs now than 3 months ago.

[GePap]

It's all Bush's fault that a million fewer Americans have jobs now than 3 years ago.

[MrFun]

For the record, I'm not trying to boo-hoo our recovery. But we should make sure that we distinguish a recovery from positive growth, that's all.

[Drake Tungsten]

If this keeps up, as it appears it will, I don't see how Bush can lose in November.

[MrFun]

He has to lose -- I can't live another four years of Bush being president unless I move to Canada.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hey Dan, do you think the current boom is stronger than the 90's one, from a structural standpoint? These new job gains seem sustainable from what I've been reading, as opposed to the bubble-fueled job growth of the late 90's...

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by MrFun
He has to lose -- I can't live another four years of Bush being president unless I move to Canada.

You can live next door to Alec Baldwin.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


Why get mad at such a disingenous debater like yourself, really?

Here is the point for you:

Growth has been the strongest in 20 years because we measure that from how things were. Growth from $2000 to $2500 is 25%, while growth from 10,000 to 11,000 is only 10%, though 1000>500.

The economy in 2002 was much weaker than in 2000. All that strong growth has not even brought us back to 2000 levels.

Is that two difficult for you to understand? Do we need puppets?

methinks GePap doesn't quite understand the concept of "growth"

growth = percent increase since a certain time

Obviously, we can have high growth without reaching some previous high.

[DanS]

Drake: I don't know how we could really compare the "sustainability" of the two periods.

It is true that during the late 90s, profit as a percentage of the economy was at historic lows (leaving aside a couple of depression years). Profits have rebounded in the last couple of years to about the average of the post-war era. A good sign that bodes well for our economy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake: I don't know how we could compare the two with any degree of accuracy.

Thanks. I need the pros to help me sort through the BS sometimes...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


methinks GePap doesn't quite understand the concept of "growth"

growth = percent increase since a certain time

Obviously, we can have high growth without reaching some previous high.

Ahh, NO.

If that were true, then you would have to say there has been no growth in jobs during the last 3 months, since total payrolls are less today than at the end of 2000.

to repeat you:

growth = percent increase since a certain time

So, what matter is the time frame. In the last 3 months there has been job growth. Not in the last 3 years.

I do guess we need puppets

[DanS]

No pros here. You have to find them elsewhere.

Edit: We do have a couple of pros here, they just haven't posted in this thread.