Maybe if we both PRESSED him, Maple?
Timberland - you're right if your wish list holds. However, investment activity seems to be based pretty much on profit taking, with no sustained investment, the GDP seems to be what ever the announcing economic advisor is making it out to be at the moment, and solid consumer confidence isn't. The National Conference Board said it was flat as of the end of June 2003, while most other studies seem to be showing a drop.
http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm
Inventories are not growing, there are still big lay-offs, and pretty soon the unemployment benefits stop. Added altogether with continuing losses of jobs, I would say the economy needs a fairly quick turn-around. People without jobs or other income tend to turn resentful.
Also, a jobless growth. Growth in what?
I'm liking Kucinich a lot. I saw him on TV tonight answering Qs in Iowa (I think) with an Iowan congressman. I liked the Iowan congressman as well.
littleK i really have to agree about Kucinich, i only wish he had a stronger following
Maybe it'll work up? I don't ptretend to fortell, but with public supporters like Willie Nelson and Annie DeFranco AND with support of the green party...... just maybe he could give Bush a run. Maybe? PLEASE!
I just offered to volunteer for him. Yikes!
Thanks for both of those, Maple.
dyslexia wrote:when it comes down to votes whatever the GDP is doing or for that matter the market is doing will be meaningless without the jobs that go with it. we have just seen the "jobless" rate drop and behind it the statement that there are fewer imployed, simple statistics dont mean anything to those out of work or those that fear to become out of work. friday Univ of Wisconson released their study of what people do with their tax rebates with 75% of those studied responding that they are paying down debt because they fear loss of jobs/income.
Are you suggesting that GDP can continue to rise without creating new jobs? I tend to assume that the reason liberals are all chanting "it's the JOBS, stupid" is because they know that employment is a lagging indicator. They are ignoring positive leading indicators that show improvement in the economy and focusing their attention and their rhetoric on a metric that they know will be one of the last things to respond to the upswing. If I'm right, it's just another tactic to try to present the worst possible picture of the economy--regardless of the actual negative impact doing so might have--for completely political reasons.
Scrat, employment statistics may very well be, as you say, a lagging indicator, but if the unemployment rate is still high come election time, your man Bush may be in big trouble. People won't be terribly interested in explanations of lagging indicators.
Should the Democrats refrain from referring to the employment stats for this reason? Get real, mon ami...
D'artagnan wrote:Scrat, employment statistics may very well be, as you say, a lagging indicator, but if the unemployment rate is still high come election time, your man Bush may be in big trouble. People won't be terribly interested in explanations of lagging indicators.
Should the Democrats refrain from referring to the employment stats for this reason? Get real, mon ami...
I think it is clear that I was not complaining of people citing employment statistics, but expressing my opinion as to why some seem to ONLY cite them. If your goal is to complain that the economy is not improving, citing the jobless rate will allow you to do so for the longest possible time, but we both know that citing only the jobless rate is not a rational or meaningful way to gauge the state of the economy and its near-term future prospects. Those who keep tossing aside positive reports of other indicators with this "yeah, but jobs are still down" simply don't want the economy to get better under Bush. It's no more complicated (or rational) than that.
While we're still on this topic, a question! We have learned recently the extent to which the government bureacracy can be pressured into releasing wrong information. To what extent can the economic figures issued by the executive be counted on as accurate? Are those issued by the legislative branch more or less reliable?
scrat wrote
Quote:Are you suggesting that GDP can continue to rise without creating new jobs?
well yes i am, by contuing the current trend to outsourcing manufactoring and service jobs to china/indian and elsewhere.
scrat wrote
Quote:Those who keep tossing aside positive reports of other indicators with this "yeah, but jobs are still down" simply don't want the economy to get better under Bush.
dyslexia wrote
Quote: when it comes down to votes whatever the GDP is doing or for that matter the market is doing will be meaningless without the jobs that go with it
as you can plainly read i did not reference "the economy" i referenced jobs as they relate to votes. the current situation of joblessness in spread largely among the middle class (the ones more likely to vote) white collar workers, the GDP may soar thru the roof but without the jobs, voters will respond to what they believe to be in their best intertests.
Tartarin
You ask a good question. If it seems in the best electoral interests of the White House to hide or fudge or fake economic figures, this crowd is not likely to be bothered by portraying a deeply false picture if threatened with loss of power. Economics is one discipline I've chosen not to further befuddle my limited mind with, and so I turn to commentators whom I do trust.
Just watched Dean on Larry King Live.
Is it possible we could actually have an intelligent, fair-minded, honest man elected president ?
Dare I hope ?
Probably not, Angie. We almost don't deserve it!
Blatham, Paul Krugman is chief among my personal economic advisers since my grasp of -- well, hell, you and I aren't so very bad when it comes to grasp of economic theory, probably... My problem and perhaps yours is whose data to choose to rely on among the economic spinmeisters: executive, legislative, Federal Reserve (which we tend to forget is private and independent), academic, seat-o'-the-pants Wall Streeter, labor unions... you name it. So Krugman, and Joseph what's-his-name, and the real estate section of our weekly newspaper are my prognosticators. This is an area which has become exceedingly desirable to live in and has had years of endless boom. So no one is hurting very badly. But the real estate section of the paper shows prices slashed, more prices slashed, prices slashed again, week in and week out. That means the middle, upper-middle, and the filthies are feeling the pinch, and if they are, then the guys in the lower tiers have got to be hurting badly. So like Krugman, I think the whole thing stinks and yes, it's Bush's fault no matter how he may wiggle and squirm, that lyin' cucaracha.
Y'all remember the old proverb "Statistics don't lie; statiisticians do.' Your comment, Blatham, re economics is a point well taken. Consider the concept of "employment."
(1) There are some "official" numbers that come out each month detailing the number of folks filing new claims for unemployment benefits. They, added to the people who went onto the roles in a few previous months, become the statistic know as the "US Unemployment Rate." It's widely followed by politiicians and the media, especially as elections roll around.
(2) It fails to take into account the spongier number of people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are no longer, at least officially, unemployed.
(3) Without going too deeply into this, there is also a result that many people who are working are over-qualified for the the jobs they end up having to take.
Which brings me to something Dyslexia alluded to:
(4) If we look not at the "unemployment" rate but at the "employment" rate (i.e the number of people in this country holding jobs), its a bit scary. Entire industustries are disappearing.
