Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Ludahai, Nov 7, 2003.
Read it and weep libs!!!
all types of stimilus is thrown into the economy--large tax cuts and low interest rates-- and you're talking about a .1% drop in unemployement? our economy would have had to be completely dead not to get a bump from the massive amount of stimilus out there. but what did we get for the structural deficits? one quarter of great growth and very minimal increase in jobs (the number of jobs by the way falls short of what is needed to keep up with natural growth.).
wow, what a great policy!
Like it or not, the economy is in recovery mode. Unemployment is down. Whether it is because it is because of the Bush Administration economic policies is debatable. I personally think it isnt. I think the economy is growing in spite of their policies.
As someone once said "It's the economy, stupid". If the economy continues to grow and unemployment continues to fall, expect Bush to be reelected. This is what matters most to the average Joe.
Why do you care? Go watch some Jackie Chan movies or something.
superdave, stop patronizing others.
Ludahai, the recent good news of economic upturn is just a thing of deadcat bouncing. America's economy is in deep doodoo under Bush. The size of the decifit will kill any hope of recovery.
i don't disagree. i think the economy is in a slow state of recovery, but i think the administration's policy cost much more than it was worth and not really the underlying cause of the recovery. long term structural deficits are bad for interest rates as well as the US's standing as the focal point of international investment. the tax cuts gave a nice boost this quarter, but we haven't seen that translate into jobs.
further, even if it does start to translate into jobs in terms of what the administration expects, each knew job would have costs in the range of $30,000-$50,000 per job. i can't remember the exact number and i don't want to look it up.
as it is, its good the economy is starting to recover. hopefully jobs will follow, i know too many friends that haven't been able to get jobs following college/grad school.
edit: also wanted to point out that my initial post was to show that this drop in unemployment was about as small a drop as could occur. a hopeful sign perhaps of future action, but nothing in and of itself to cheer about. we're still at 6%
More jobs is good. This report shows more jobs, which is good. It's not great.
1. We're still 2.4 million jobs under where we were in March 2001.
2. We need to create about 150,000 jobs every month in order to just keep up with the growth of working-age people that enter the job market for the first time. We created 126,000 in October. 17,000 of them were temp jobs, which usually means that companies are trying to avoid paying benefits.
3. The stock market remains flat today, despite this and surprisingly good news about inventories.
Thank you conservative genius... Now I realize that companies hire before the holidays... hmmmm... those must be some great jobs... fantastic jobs even, just like Arnold promised...
Post some real news, something with substance...
The economy is behaving the way it is supposed to behave, based on where we are in the cycle. Certainly the tax cuts are helping, against the liberals predictions. But we should not get carried away. If we accused the liberals of ignoring economic theory when they blamed Bush for the recession, we cannot now do the same and give him all the credit for the recovery. It is a normal recovery, and at this stage of the recovery jobs are supposed to come back. That is why the jobs are coming back.
The good thing about this is that the recovery came in time, so that the liberals cannot cynically use the issue when they know better. But I am not going to critizice them and then do the same. Let us just be thankful that the recovery is under way.
This is always my favorite argument when it comes to this subject. I have already surprised people with the statistics, so i won't post them again but simply say this: What were the effects on jobs of an event that occured in September of that same year?
We didn't blame him for the recession. We blamed him for the lack of recovery. And if his tax cuts are the key, how come it took 3 rounds to do it?
Don't worry, Ludahai, these "growth" numbers will be revised downward next week, just like all the preliminary numbers have been during this "recovery"
Superdave, it is important to understand when discussing economic stimulous that they are not like a button which you push and something happens right away. The economy is very complex and it takes time for stimulous to become a factor. Also, the best a stimulous can do is minimize the effects of the cycle, but it will not change it.
In this case, it can be argued that the tax cut was helpful in minimizing the effects of the recession and in speeding up the recovery. Theoretically this recession should have been worse than average because it followed an above average expansion. So the stimulous probably worked in minimizing the damage.
If you are interested in the economic basis for the tax cuts, you can look at this:
Here is a simplified explanation for those who don't want to work through all the equations:
Of course, economics is very theoretical. There are other theories which liberals can bring up as alternative models. Nevertheless the tax cuts worked as predicted by this model for Kennedy, for Reagan, and now they seem to be working for Bush.
The jobless figures are a great big "yawn." Seasonal uptick in the face of structural deficits. Hence the lack of positive response by the markets.
But Ludahai, thanks for politicizing yet another news item!
Roel, these numbers far exceeded the projections made by leading economists. Are you saying that the projections of the economists failed to take into account something as basic as seasonal changes? I don't think so.
...and they won't trumpet about it
Is this the same cycle that requires us to enter into a "wartime" economy to avoid the inevitable depression that capital economies must endure?
Something tells me the revised numbers will be closer to the economists' projections.
Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth
Uh, the payroll numbers won't be revised until next month.
Revised upward (Late Oct-Early Nov Econ Calendar):
Nonfarm Payrolls (August and September)
The only things revised downard were housing sales and the weekly jobless benefits numbers.
Not exactly all of them is it?
9/11/01 sped up a series of processes (unemployment, lower GDP, lower stock market) that had been in motion for at least six months, but there is no evidence that outside of lower Manhattan the economy lost jobs permanently because of the terrorist attacks.
ASF, how are you using the word “liberal?” I’m interested in how people use that word. The word used to mean essentially what we mean by “free-marketeer.” I think it still does mean that to most in Latin America and Britain. I think in the U.S. the word started meaning something different to a lot of people during and after the New Deal. It is also interesting that some people seem to attach a negative connotation to the word. Language is interesting.
ASF wrote, “Certainly the tax cuts are helping…” Certainly? Have you read Descartes' Meditations? I’m not sure I’m certain of it. I’m not certain of much. I guess I’m certain that I exist. What evidence is there that the tax cuts are causally connected to goods and services being produced at a higher rate than they were before the cuts?
In world history, there have been instances in which tax cuts in a society were immediately followed by a higher rate of economic growth in that society than the rate that immediately preceded the cuts. But there also have been cases in which tax cuts were immediately followed by a lower rate of economic growth than the rate that immediately preceded the cuts. Furthermore, there have been a number of cases in which tax increases were followed by a rate of growth that was higher than the rate that immediately preceded the increase.
Incidentally, I agreed with some of the Bush tax cuts. For instance, the cuts dropped the lowest marginal rate from 15% to 10%. That is for an individual's first $6,000. In fact, I would have dropped it even lower. I probably would drop it to 0%. That extra money can help people engage in important activities.
However, I also think we should raise taxes for some people, for example, those who earn over $250,000 per year. And we should use that revenue on education, health care, Social Security and public works. We also should help rebuild Iraq, a nation we have helped devastate and that badly needs our help. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that funding these initiatives will significantly increase the number of options that poorer people have available to them. We also should be mindful of the National Debt. It is getting relatively close to $ 7 trillion dollars. Here are today’s Treasury Department figures: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
We eventually should pay the people back who have bought treasury bonds. Although I am not a deficit hawk (I'm a poverty hawk), it is one more variable that we should be aware of.
I'm concerned that there is going to be a lot of discussion in the U.S. on whether Bush's tax cuts contributed to the higher rate of economic growth. True, we should be mindful of the historical correlations, as understanding them may help us do better in the future. However, we should be more focused on the issue of what we should do now. We can't change the past; we can only change the future. And clearly we should raise taxes for some people. We also should cut taxes for some people. In a nutshell, we should make our tax code more progressive and easier to understand. Given what I know, we should also try to eliminate some of the loopholes in the code.
Re: Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth
First of all, the frist link you provided also shows that auto sales were revised downward. Secondly, none of these figures are reflective of employment, except productivity, which has increased to keep pace with growth, thus mitigating the need to add new workers to the work force. That is what is called a, wait for it, jobless recovery.
The Laffer Curve! Oh, my god, asf, you are a comedian!
We are not in the "going up" part of a business cycle and we are not in a recovery. This is an artificial boom created by the master of artificial booms, Greenspan. Since Bush came to power, Greenspan has opened up the printing presses and has been adding money to the economy like crazy. But the main effect is not re-igniting the economy, instead it is asset inflation in the speculative markets (stocks, housing). I don't think it will last. I just hope it lasts until the election.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth
Ouch, I hate little mistakes like that.
From your originial post I took it that you meant all preliminary figures were being revised to the negative side, but as I said in my post the payroll numbers for September and August were also revised upwards, although I think September isn't final yet. Of course you could be right and those numbers will be revised down, then I'll look like Jeff Agoos after a World Cup autogolazo.
Yeah, productivity like that makes it easier for firms to not higher workers, but it also keeps a good check on inflation.
Well, I spent fifteen minutes on Yahoo and the BEA site, so I'm not wasting these links, four out of the last six quarters were revised upwards as well:
q2(2003) (revised upward)
q1 (revised downward)
q4 (2002) (revised upward)
q3 (2002) (revised upward)
q2 (2002) (revised upward)
q1 (2002) (revised downward)
EDIT: Fixed a link
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Jobless Recovery" a myth
I'm actually kind of busy so I don't have time to look at all your links, but I have a question - are these quarterly figures or the weekly figures, because it's the weekly figures I was referring to that have been generally revised downward with little fanfare.
Yes, I realize I originally said always and now I'm saying generally. Sue me.