1
   

The US Economy

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 01:23 pm
Of course, there will be those who insist that the recovery is illusive ... "Yeah, but ... " is going to become a silly response as the recovery shows itself to be the harbinger of sustained, across-the-board, multi-year expansion. Anything other than astonishingly good figures will be waved about as signs of failure as they inevitably crop up from time to time. Folks just ain't gonna buy that ... they'll be far too busy making, buying, and exporting real stuff.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 03:10 pm
There's a good sign the economy is in a good recovery; the manufacturing sector is up. As for Wal-Mart's Friday's sales figures, it's not all good news, because we don't know what same store sales figures are. For example, Wal-Mar sales for same period last year was up 11 percent. Having said that, it seems other retail sales has some good news; the deep discounts offered last year wasn't offered this year, but sales figures were pretty healthy - considering. We still have 24 days of shopping left for this holiday season. Let's hope it provides us with enough momentum to carry us through a strong economy in 2004. Wink
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 04:23 pm
I'm curious: does anyone have poll data indicating whether voters think the recovery is a Bush accomplishment? If an economic expansion was a sure election-winner all by itself, the current president would be Al Gore.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 05:44 pm
Thomas wrote:
I'm curious: does anyone have poll data indicating whether voters think the recovery is a Bush accomplishment? If an economic expansion was a sure election-winner all by itself, the current president would be Al Gore.

Except for the fact that we were well into an economic downturn during the last year (+?) of Clinton/Gore. So, in actuality (based on FACTS) if the economy were the only thing that mattered, Gore would be right where he is today.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 05:48 pm
I agree Scrat, and Gore did a pretty good job of distancing himself from Bill once the scandals got on a roll. I don't remember the economy being a big issue then, I guess the fickle peeps were just looking for a change.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 05:57 pm
As I've said many times before, the president doesn't have all that much influence on our economy, although they get the credit or blame for it. The president does not work in isolation, and congress must approve most things the president wishes to do. Monetary policy has more to do with our economy than most other things, but the private sector is what creates jobs - not the government.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 08:01 pm
When things are going well, everyone's on a roll and they don't bother to give anyone credit. When things are going badly, someone's gotta get the blame. 'uman nature.

What with all the other stuff (Enron, mutual funds, regular revelations of corporate banditry), the economy is going to have to be positively stellar for anyone to express solid confidence, and when they do, they aren't going to look for who did it, just how to bank it.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2003 10:53 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
As I've said many times before, the president doesn't have all that much influence on our economy, although they get the credit or blame for it...

Sometimes they get credit or blame for the economy they inherited from their predecessors (Clinton inherited a healthy economy from Reagan/Bush I admins, Bush II inherited a crippled economy from Clinton). Cool
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 12:54 am
Scrat wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I'm curious: does anyone have poll data indicating whether voters think the recovery is a Bush accomplishment? If an economic expansion was a sure election-winner all by itself, the current president would be Al Gore.

Except for the fact that we were well into an economic downturn during the last year (+?) of Clinton/Gore.

According to the IMF's World economic outlook, America's real GDP grew by 3.8 percent in 2000. The figures for 1997, 1998 an 1999 are 4.4, 4.3, and 4.1 percent respectively. So America's economy grew at a slightly lower rate in 2000, but 3.8 percent growth isn't a downturn by a long shot.

Scrat wrote:
So, in actuality (based on FACTS) if the economy were the only thing that mattered, Gore would be right where he is today.

I'm trying to heed Timber's advice about the sticks here, so let me phrase this as neutrally as I can: What do you think of the general idea that before voicing strong opinions about "actuality (based on FACTS)" (capitalization yours), it makes sense to find out what the actual facts are?

On the issue, I think Brand X is right when he points out that Gore made a big deal out of distancing himself from the Clinton legacy. Anyway, my question wasn't about Gore, it was about Bush and his standing in the polls. Can anyone point me to data which tells us how much credit Bush is getting credit for the current upturn he's getting -- or how much blame for the 2001 recession of the jobless recovery of 2002/03?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 09:38 am
Thomas wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I'm curious: does anyone have poll data indicating whether voters think the recovery is a Bush accomplishment? If an economic expansion was a sure election-winner all by itself, the current president would be Al Gore.

Except for the fact that we were well into an economic downturn during the last year (+?) of Clinton/Gore.

According to the IMF's World economic outlook, America's real GDP grew by 3.8 percent in 2000. The figures for 1997, 1998 an 1999 are 4.4, 4.3, and 4.1 percent respectively. So America's economy grew at a slightly lower rate in 2000, but 3.8 percent growth isn't a downturn by a long shot.

Silly rabbit... We both know that the downward slide to the bad economy we experienced recently BEGAN under Clinton. That was my point. (Which I suspect you knew.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 10:32 am
Our economy is still struggling with layoffs.
Layoffs drop below 100,000
Challenger sees slow rebound in hiring

By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 11:05 AM ET Dec. 2, 2003


WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- U.S. corporations announced 42 percent fewer job cuts in November than in October, but layoffs remained at a high level, according to a survey released Tuesday by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Layoff announcements fell 42 percent to 99,452 in November from a 12-month high of 171,874 in October. The survey results are not seasonally adjusted to account for the large number of job cuts typically announced at the beginning of the fourth quarter.

The figures were mildly disappointing to those hoping for stronger job growth, as signaled by the weekly jobless claims report and the Institute for Supply Management survey.

"If the weekly jobless claims data are revealing a much improved labor market, the Challenger report should register announced layoffs well below 100,000," said Bob Brusca, chief economist for Ecobest Consulting. "That result would strike a blow for a truly improved labor market."

The Challenger survey tracks layoff announcements from corporations, not actual reductions, which may occur immediately or not for several months. Some of the reductions are accomplished by voluntary terminations, such as retirements or quitting.

The Challenger survey only captures a tiny fraction of all layoffs. According to government data, about 1.5 million workers lost their jobs in first four weeks of November and filed for state unemployment benefits.

"Job-cut announcements have been on a roller coaster ride this year," said John Challenger, CEO of the employment firm. "The lack of any discernable trend in corporate downsizing is indicative of the uncertainty associated with the current economy." Listen to an interview with Challenger.

"Any job market rebound that takes place in the near future will be relatively small and occur in the lower paying industries and occupations," Challenger said.

About a fifth of November's total came in the battered telecommunications sector, which lost 19,183 jobs in October and 103,000 so far in 2003, on top of the 256,000 lost last year.

The government and nonprofit sector has announced the most cuts this year: 170,000.

November's total was the fifth highest of the year and just below the average of 104,000 job cuts announced per month this year. For the year so far, 1.1 million job cuts have been announced, down 17 percent from the year-to-date total of 1.4 million a year ago.

Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of CBS.MarketWatch.com.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:03 am
Scrat wrote:
We both know that the downward slide to the bad economy we experienced recently BEGAN under Clinton. That was my point. (Which I suspect you knew.)

I take this as your own special way of saying "I was too lazy to make sure my point was consistent with the evidence, so I just made up the evidence. I wish I hadn't done that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake to me. Next time I'll make sure I know what I'm talking about"

No problem Scrat, I'm always happy to help! Smile
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:06 am
Thomas wrote:
Scrat wrote:
We both know that the downward slide to the bad economy we experienced recently BEGAN under Clinton. That was my point. (Which I suspect you knew.)

I take this as your own special way of saying "I was too lazy to make sure my point was consistent with the evidence, so I just made up the evidence. I wish I hadn't done that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake to me. Next time I'll make sure I know what I'm talking about"

No problem Scrat, you're welcome! Smile

No, my pompous friend, it's a way of saying that we both know what my point was, and that it was based in fact, whereas your attempt to suggest that Gore deserved credit for an economic expansion was not.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:19 am
The recent recession began in March of 2001, according to the official arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and ended in November of 2001. Actual economic downturn had begun, as would be customary, well prior to the March '01 "Start Date"; there was considerable momentum behind the 10-year boom which followed the recession that began in July 1990 and ended in March 1991. Manufacturing actually began its decline in late '96 or early '97, according to Factory Output figures for the period, and unemployment began its climb from historic lows more or less contemporaneously. Arguably the mildest, and among the shortest, of recessions ever suffered by the US economy, it has probably received far more media attention and political posturing than warranted. It was not an "Out-of-the blue", unexpected event, as this article, from the Nov. 4, 1998 New York Newsday indicates:

Quote:
Time to Take Recession Risks Seriously

By Jeff Faux

The risks of recession are rising. Consumer confidence is fading, the trade deficit is relentlessly expanding, and the stock market prices remain higher than profit margins justify. The recent surprise interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve suggests worry in high places, although the cut itself is too small to stop an unraveling economy. And the 4,000-page budget agreement Clinton just signed won't help either.

Business cycles are the price we pay for capitalism. But this is particularly dangerous time for the U.S. economy to turn down. As the President has said, we are facing the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s. The world's governments and central banks are struggling against a rising tide of financial instability that has already engulfed Asia and Russia, and is threatening to flood Latin America.

A healthy American economy is the world's last defense against a global depression. For one thing, we are the largest market in the world for countries who must export in order to gain the foreign currency necessary to climb out of their financial hole. For another, restoring business confidence in the world depends upon credible American leadership, which would be destroyed by a recession in the United States.

As a consequence of the politics of balancing the budget, the Administration and the Congress have left the management of growth up to the Federal Reserve, whose principle lever is manipulating interest rates. However, under the current extraordinary circumstances, lower interest rates are likely to be a necessary, but insufficient remedy. Once the contagion of deflated expectations takes hold, businesses and consumers typically do not revive their spirits just because the price of money becomes cheaper. At that point, economists often note, its like "pushing on a string." After all, interest rates close to zero have not helped to bring back the Japanese economy, any more than rock-bottom interest rates could get us out of the Great Depression.

What we need now is an infusion of net economic activity that will assure consumers that they can afford to spend and business that it makes sense to keep investing.

To do this, both Democrats and Republicans will have to shift to a policy of unbalancing the federal budget. It made sense to move to budget surplus, which withdraws money from the economy, when the private sector is expanding. But now that private spending is slowing down, the economy needs the public sector to reverse course and provide net new spending to compensate for the downturn in the private sector. Under present circumstances a modest deficit injection of $75 billion - one percent of our Gross Domestic Product - would be a reasonable insurance policy against an economic stall out.

There are two ways for Washington to move. One way is to reduce taxes the other is to increase spending. For the last few months, Republicans and Democrats have been sparring over the budget. Republicans have proposed a tax cut of $80 billion over five years - too small for a stimulus and too oriented to upper income taxpayers. The Democrats want to "save" the surplus in case it is needed to solve the gap in Social Security funding a couple of decades from now. This would involve paying down the national debt, which would depress the weakening economy and reduce tax revenues - and ultimately be self-defeating.

But the case for increasing government spending - if that spending is used to invest in making our people more productive - is greater. For the last decade, spending on education, training and programs to help workers adjust to lay-offs have been sacrificed to the effort to balance the budget. Once the fiscal deficit is eliminated, we were told, we could once again start investing in the future competitiveness of our people. In the meantime, these needs have been shortchanged. For example, the General Accounting Office has estimated that the nation needs over $100 billion more for physical upgrading of our schools - to fix leaking roofs, get the rats out of the basement, and rewire classrooms for computerized learning. But again, the Congress just turned down the president's modest request to make a down payment on that need.

A revival of public investment would also enable the federal government to target the funds at areas most vulnerable to an economic downturn - communities where manufacturing employment is already being cut and inner city areas with populations the last hired and the first fired.

Moreover, although tax cuts can be mobilized faster, government investment spending is more efficient in boosting the economy because virtually all of the money will be initially spent in the USA. In contrast, a large share of the additional dollars consumers now spend is going to imports.

Finally, unlike spending on consumption - private or public - investments in education and training would be well spent even if a recession does not occur. Like private investments for a house or business, it makes perfect sense to finance public investments which improve future economic growth and tax revenues.

Unfortunately, the increase of about $20 billion spending in the federal budget was too small to stimulate the economy and scattered over too many trivial projects to add up to much investment in the future. For example, almost half went to expand the Pentagon and CIA budgets.

In the early days of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover had a chance to inject spending into the economy, and, thus, to halt the downward spiraling of confidence. Obsessed with a balanced federal budget, he refused to act. It was the largest single economic policy blunder of the 20th century, and the world paid an enormous price for it. History will not look kindly on those who repeat that mistake.


Mr. Faux, co-founder and president of the independent Economic Policy Institute, has worked as an economist with the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Labor. His latest book is The Party's Not Over; A New Vision For The Democrats (ISBN 0465004032: Basic Books, New York, NY,1996)

Copyright © 1998 Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic Publishing.
All rights reserved.


A lot of factors brought on this latest recession, again, as is always the case; no one thing ever is "The Cause". Exacerbating the effect of a slump in manufacturing (due, some think, to the effect of ill-advised governmental regulations enacted during the Clinton Era and a general global malaise affecting both European and Pacific Rim economies), and an attendent rise in unemployment, was the bursting of The Tech Bubble, which in a matter of months wiped out nearly $8 Trillion Market Valuation, which not only shell-shocked the iraationally exuberant Venture Capitalists, but stifled broad-based Business Investment. In the scramble to retain or preserve profits in the face of a declining economy, Business resorted to ever-more vigorous pursuit of productivity, or efficiency, increases, characterized, of course, by the trimming of the most readily controlable expense; payroll. As the recession took hold and deepened, productivity climbed. Business was getting more bang for its buck. The trough, or low point, of the recession, in November of '01, has been followed by a steady increase of production, coupled with a dramatic increase in productivity. Complicating things, and slowing the rate of recovery, was the abberational event of 9/11/01 ... an unforeseen speedbump with negative impact across essentially the entire economy, impacting investor confidence most significantly, but hurting just about everything else, too. What is happening now, with growth well established, is most heartening. Along with an increase in output, with profits bouyed by unprecedentedly low cost-of-production, due to efficiency measures taken in response to the recession, there appears to be developing sufficient increase in demand as to require additional employment in order to continue the expansion beyond the capacity gained by efficiency gains. The US economic engine is now a much leaner, meaner machine than ever it has been, or ever the world has seen, and is poised to fuel its own growth, dragging the global economy upward as it surges. Among other considerations, a global spread of prosperity may be expected to foster a spread of geopolitical stability, as developing economic conditions bring real opportunity to the undeveloped world, lessening the appeal of violence as a means of redressing socio-economic disadvantage as such disadvantage declines in the face of expanding prosperity. It all works together. Of course, it all comes apart together, too, but I see the policies of The Current Administration directed toward, and efficacious in, the effort to bring about a new era of global peace and prosperity. That's a long-term view, and not at all popular among those who have grown used to instant gratification. Real progress takes real effort, real resolve, and real time. History doesn't happen in convenient 60-minute blocks interspersed with commercials before coming to tidy conclusions. It takes years, and each chapter leaves open matters to be addressed in coming chapters. This chapter has barely begun. Hang on, kids; its gonna be a good one.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:24 am
Scrat wrote:
No, my pompous friend, it's a way of saying that we both know what my point was, and that it was based in fact, whereas your attempt to suggest that Gore deserved credit for an economic expansion was not.

That's not what I attempted to suggest, and I'm surprised how you can read that from what I actually said, which was:

Quote:
If an economic expansion was a sure election-winner all by itself, the current president would be Al Gore.

But given that what I attempted to suggest didn't come across clearly, let me try again. As a rule, economic expansion is necessary for winning a presidental election. But it isn't sufficient. To win a presidental election, the voters must also give you credit for the expansion -- rightly or wrongly. Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to know whether American voters give the current administration credit (or blame) for the current economic situation. Whether I think such credit is appropriate or not isn't relevant to the question I was asking, though I do have an opinion on that too.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:36 am
Timber, I agree with everything you said in your last post, except the two sentences about the Bush administration's contribution to the current up-swing. Then again, we probably agree that the bulk of the economic outlook is independent of which party rules in Washington, so this disagreement is a minor one.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 12:01 pm
Thomas - Well, if I was not clear enough, let me clarify that I do not think Gore could have won on the basis of a strong economy when what he had to run on was an economy beginning to come apart at the seams.

Of course, the CBO and media efforts to hide that fact might have helped him to do as well as he did. (Remember the downward "correction" of the CBO numbers after the election? What a convenient mistake to have made prior to the election; indicating the economy was chugging along fine when it was clearly beginning to turn south.)

So, perhaps your point is that he could have run on the perception held at that time, whether it was factually accurate or not. I can readily give you that point, and apologize if my knee-jerk reaction caused me to fail to recognize it sooner. (Assuming that's what you meant.) Cool
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 12:26 pm
Thomas, most of our disagreements seem to be minor. Matters of interpretation of specific points, really, with overall consensus. BTW, I don't posit that The Current Administration's policies are the sole, or even chief, drivers of the economic recovery. I feel they are contributory, which may be argued one way or the other, or perhaps accorded varying degree, but I also feel they are not getting in the way, something I feel is clearly evident.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 12:32 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Thomas, most of our disagreements seem to be minor. Matters of interpretation of specific points, really, with overall consensus. BTW, I don't posit that The Current Administration's policies are the sole, or even chief, drivers of the economic recovery. I feel they are contributory, which may be argued one way or the other, or perhaps accorded varying degree, but I also feel they are not getting in the way, something I feel is clearly evident.

Ditto. I'm not sure how much the tax cuts have helped, but they certainly have not hurt. (And as the deficit projections continue to be revised downward in coming months, I anticipate being able to write more surely that they are in fact helping, not only in the short- but in the long-term.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 06:06 am
Scrat wrote:
So, perhaps your point is that he could have run on the perception held at that time, whether it was factually accurate or not.

That was exactly my point. And because it's perceptions, not reality, that will determine whether the economic upturn will help Bush get reelected, I used Gore as an example of why I'm interested in public perceptions of Bush's economic policies.

About the tax cuts: if your and timber's point is that they have helped the current recovery better than nothing at all, I agree with it. I just don't think this point is very important, because "nothing at all" is not the alternative the serious opponents of the tax cuts had proposed. As timber said, it's a matter of interpretation of a specific point, with overall consensus.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US Economy
  3. » Page 40
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 02:27:03