http://slate.msn.com/id/2082321/ Here's something interesting. Even as cynical and pessimistic and...Karl, can you help me out, I forget the other adjectives...as I am, I didn't know it was this bad. I like this fun like factoid, too. Just another little piece of evidence that given our contemporary "tax menu," cutting taxes on the investing class and thereby putting the budget into imbalance, is worse than raising taxes on the investing class and thereby putting the budget into balance. Currently, our tax system (including ALL levels of gvt.) is clearly and objectively skewed in such a way that the rich aren't paying their share to whatever extent the goal of tax policy is to fund the gvt. while also promoting economic growth. Yes, there are ethical fairness issues. But that's subjective. If you focus on what's objective, we need to tax investors more and consumers less.
I think it's worth pointing out that post hoover, pre GW presidents didn't preside over the worst attack on American soil ever.
Re: Re: Slate article on Bush's economic record Shhhhhhh.... There is really no distinction...... September 11 wasn't that big of a deal. It didn't affect the airlines, travel or anything at all. Two buildings just fell.
I think that very little of this economic downturn has to do with 9/11, unless you really think that the independently-owned retail businesses of downtown Manhattan are the epicenter of the national economy. We were going downhill before 9/11; it just sped the process up a bit. Also, this downturn has nothing to do with who the President is. If we had President Gore, we'd be looking at about the same numbers as we are now. There was almost no difference in economic policies between the Democratic and Republican Parties in the '00 election. With that said, what happens next is specific to this President, and his ideas on economic stimulation are so feeble that they won't generate much of anything. At least Reagan's big defense spending increases put money into the economy and spurred on '80s econ growth. Sure they resulted in deficits, but that's the classic Keynesian trade-off -- borrow now to get the economy moving, and you can pay off the debt when you're more flush with money. Problem is, we are no longer paying the debt down.
I agree that we were on the downswing, but you really think 9/11 didn't deal a knockout blow to a lot of industry?
I think you are the one who is wacked on opium. Obie may not buy into this to the extent i do, but he knows it played a role. You seem to deny 9/11 ever happened.
Didn't we have a discussion about a month and half ago where you said the "economy is fine"? And that there were plenty of jobs were you lived? Apparently 9/11 hasn't affected where you live. I will admit 9/11 changed the world, but it's not like we're in more danger or the economy is rolling any differently than before. Yes, the airline industry is down, but that's has more to do with their own mismanagement than anything else. The hub and spoke system has to go.
If you imagine the 9/11 attacks could "deal a knockout blow to a lot of industry", then maybe you are high. How was 9/11 supposed to "deal a knockout blow to a lot of industry"? Beyond New York City itself, the immediate and strictly economic impact was minimal. Several financial, investment and other firms based in the WTC buildings themselves were hard hit of course, the airlines were hurt some, TV stations lost advertising revenue by covering the attacks commerical-free and local NYC businesses suffered. The stock market closed for a day and then dropped briefly in the immediate aftermath but had already been tanking for over a year. Oh, and stocks of weapons-makers and "defense firms" soared while importers of Chinese-made US flags prospered. That's pretty much it from 9/11 itself. The decision to conquer Iraq will likely have far more of an economic impact, especially since Bush seems hell-bent on having to borrow money to pay for it rather than deal with it now via taxes.
Yea, my area is alright. And no, the economy is not a disaster. In fact, it isn't even that bad. Sure, it's not at Clintonista heights, but we still grew 1.6 % last quarter. Yes, a really good quarter is around 3.0%, but last quarter saw the economy grow. If we want to know what economic disaster is like, let's talk to our friends the French, whos' economy is shrinking, along with the population. The Dems are trying to make +1.6% look like -45.6%, because it is their only shot at the White House. I repeat, it is their only chance.
It was an accelerant, but (a) the effect was isolated to select industries like airlines that failed to convince the public that they were safe to fly, and (b) we would have gotten to this point eventually without 9/11. The stock market quickly recovered its immediate losses after 9/11 but hasn't come near the early '01 numbers still. Spending recovered to post-9/11 levels but didn't rise any further. +1.6% annualized growth for 1Q 2003 (that number you quote isn't quarterly) is very anemic, especially considering that we usually gallop out of recessions instead of limp out.
Fiscal policy between the two could not be more different. The massive tax cut enacted by Bush would not have been enacted by Gore, neither in size nor in direction.
You're talking semantics when it comes to economic policy. The size of the federal budget (which is ultimately one of the few things that matters) was almost equal under both. Giving all of the tax break money to rich people causes about the same economic impact as giving all of the tax break money to poor people.
Yes, this is absolutely correct. President's get too much credit when the economy is going well..and too much blame when it's going badly. But that's politics, where post hoc ergo propter hoc often rules the day. There are more significant structural issues that are at the root cause of our economic ... well, hard to know what word to use: "sluggishness?", "slowness?", "becalmed??" These structural issues include changing demographics, no great huge technological breakthroughs, general global deflationary pressures stemming from a general lack of liquidity in G7 economies, declines in asset values (except for residential real estate, though that may be next), among other things. By the way those who say deficits will raise interest rates fail to account for the fact that borrowing rates are a function of monetary policy/factors, not so much fiscal policy. On 9/11, I think that had some structural effect, but that's probably beginning to dissipate. However, it has hastened the slide (and perhaps inevitable demise) of a number of airline carriers, but that's because their business models were so incredibly flawed to begin with. 9/11 simply exposed the flaws of too high costs, overcapacity, and poorly formed capital structures.
> I think it's worth pointing out that post hoover, > pre GW presidents didn't preside over the worst > attack on American soil ever. Do you know what the effect of the Sept 11 attacks was on the economy? It HELPED it. That winter was great for the economy. The GDP growth from 2001Q4 to 2002Q1 was the bigest quarterly jump during the Bush the Younger era. I believe this came from the reduced aircraft flights - airlines are a net drain on the economy, and the rest of the economy found better uses for the oil those airplanes used to be using. > Giving all of the tax break money to rich people > causes about the same economic impact as > giving all of the tax break money to poor people. Actually, it is a basic idea in Econ 101 that the two are markedly different. Money in the hands of rich people is not spent, and has less impact on the economy than money in the hands of the poor, which is spent right away
It's interesting that the demise of the airline industry can be blamed on mismanagement and the hub and spoke system. Those are easy targets but the issues are much more complex. My opinion is that increased security costs, fuel prices (almost doubling), and government intervention have more to do with the downfall of the industry than any structural issue. Until things tightened up the management mistakes were covered with profits generated via the hub and spoke system. Southwest has been able to succeed where others fail by providing a product that is valued by those that need the services within the areas they serve. However if you want to get from LA to London you're screwed.
How can a small amount of people getting money be better than a large amount of people getting money? Gore's tax cut proposals were targeted at the middle-class. They could not have been more different than Bush's.
time remove your head out of your rear. have you actually looked at the economic data? 11 straight weeks of 400,000+ jobless claims. this economy is in the toilet and the only thing W seems to care about is non-existant WMD in iraq.
You're right, it's more complex. However, the slim, trim airlines are paying the same for fuel, security, etc. Giving your customers what they need is what any business is all about, that's why Southwest has been able to succeed.
Self-loathing, Terrorist loving pessimist, amatuer economist Some partisan crank just weighed in on tax cuts. What does this Greenspan retard know anyway? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/politics/01TAXE.html WASHINGTON, April 30 — Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told Congress today that the economy was poised to grow without further large tax cuts, and that budget deficits resulting from lower taxes without offsetting reductions in spending could be damaging to the economy. As a consequence of the revenue shortfall and increased spending enacted this month, government and private analysts said today, the budget deficit this fiscal year will be at least $80 billion higher than the Congressional Budget Office projected last month. With a large deficit, Mr. Greenspan said, "you will be significantly undercutting the benefits that would be achieved from the tax cuts."
Being a moderate lib and usually agreeing with the likes of pakovitis, obie and superdave, I will have to chime in and say that 9/11 did have a major negative affect on the economy. he economy was already on it's way down due to the dot com implosion, natural economic cycles, corporate scandal, and the idiotic tax cuts for the rich by the bushies. But 9/11 added salt to the wounds and made it worse, destroying consumer and investor confidence, and causing business to cut back. Then the Iraq thing continues to make it worse. And the Busies' continued insistence on giving more tax cuts to rich and thus ballooning the deficit more is making the economy worse still. Nevertheless, 9/11 was undoubtedly a major contributor. The question is, what will our Republican controlled federal government do to offer economic stimulus? The only thing so far is tax cuts for the rich. Is it working? No. Has it ever worked in the past? No, except when (as has been stated in this thread) Reagan spent tons on defense.
Business and consumer confidence were already in the toilet before 9/11. If 9/11 can be said to have materially affected the national economy, it is only by way of giving Bush the excuse to spend two years focusing on the war in Iraq to the exclusion of dealing with domestic economic issues where his sole idea is "tax cuts for the rich". According to almost any measure you care to use, the direct impact of 9/11 reagarding lasting economic conditions outside NYC and its immediate surroundings was minimal. Blaming the crappy economy on 9/11 is a useless cop-out.
> But 9/11 added salt to the wounds and made it > worse, destroying consumer and investor > confidence, The biggest drop in consumer confidence (acording to the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index)took place the month before the attack. Soon after the attack, almost each month showed an increase, some very large. (blue line) There really isn't a similar chart of investor confidence, outside the stock indices. The Dow Jones was already dropping before the attacks took place. Six months after, the Dow Jones index was back to where it was Sept 10. > and causing business to cut back I can't find any data to back this up on the US Census web page, which has lots of monthly business data.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stock market crash of March 2001 was the biggest since the Great Depression. The post-Sept. 11 slump has been marginal in comparison.