WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Ican- The post below is addressed specifically to you--Please note that it bears out much of your other post.


Economic gloom isn't right on the money

October 19, 2006
BY GEORGE WILL
Recently Bill Clinton, at the British Labor Party's annual conference, delivered what the Times of London described as a ''relaxed, almost rambling'' and ''easy anecdotal'' speech to an audience of leftists eager for evidence of U.S. disappointments. Never a connoisseur of understatement, Clinton said America is ''now outsourcing college-education jobs to India.''
But Clinton-as-Cassandra should not persuade college students to abandon their quest for diplomas. The unemployment rate among college graduates is 2 percent.

Clinton is always a leading indicator of ''progressive'' fashions in rhetoric. Every election year -- meaning every other year -- brings an epidemic of dubious economic analysis, as members of the party out of power discern lead linings in silver clouds.

Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will ''jump-start our economy.'' A ''jump-start '' is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0). Some stall.

Economic hypochondria, a derangement associated with affluence, is a byproduct of the welfare state. An entitlement mentality gives Americans a low pain threshold -- witness their recurring hysterias about nominal rather than real gasoline prices -- and a sense of being entitled to economic dynamism without the frictions and ''creative destruction'' that must accompany dynamism. Economic hypochondria is also bred by news media that consider the phrase ''good news'' an oxymoron.

The Jack No. 2 well, in deep water 170 miles southwest of New Orleans, recently discovered a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil -- a 50 percent increase in proven U.S. reserves. This news triggered a gusher of journalistic gloom: More oil means more woe -- a reprieve for that enemy of humanity, the internal combustion engine, and more global warming, more air pollution, more highway fatalities, more suburban sprawl.

The recent 20 percent decline of the cost of a barrel of oil, from a nominal record of $78.40 (which, adjusted for inflation, was well below the 1980 peak of $92 in 2006 dollars), has produced an 81-cent decline in the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline in 70 days. For consumers, that is akin to a tax cut of more than $81 billion.

President Bush's tax cuts were supposed to cause a cataract of red ink. In fiscal 2006, however, federal revenues as a share of GDP were 18.4 percent, slightly above the post-1962 average of 18.2. And the federal budget deficit was $247.7 billion, just 1.9 percent of the $13.1 trillion GDP. That is below the average for the 1970s (2.1), 1980s (3.0) and 1990s (2.2).

It is said that workers' compensation has been stagnant. But to tickle that bad news from the statistics you must treat ''compensation'' as a synonym for wages, and then ignore the effect of taxation on individuals' well-being. Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in National Review, say annual wage growth since 2000 has been 0.6 percent, but the annual increase in real hourly compensation, including benefits -- and if you do not include them, why are they called benefits? -- has been 1.3 percent. And taxes -- particularly those paid by middle-class families with children -- have declined substantially.

Furthermore, as Hassett and Mathur write, consumers, by modifying their behavior, protect or enhance their well-being in ways not captured in economic statistics. For example, an American who, prompted by higher energy prices, traded in a Hummer for a Prius has preserved his or her standard of living.

Finally, today's widening income disparities will be partly self-correcting. Granted, income statistics show the increasing disadvantages of persons with education deficits. But that is the market saying -- shouting, really -- ''Stay in school!'' Over time, the voice of the market is rational, credible and therefore a potent instrument for changing behavior.

Do you really think we would reveal our secret ceremonies on the internet?

That? Oh, that's just my cricket bat for our cricket games.

Interesting idea there ican. So Clinton didn't raise income taxes until 2000? That seems to be in direct contradiction to all the news reports concerning the 1993 tax package passed and signed by Clinton. It included an increase in the top tax rate. Yet 3 years later we don't see an increase in unemployment as you claim must exist. There was no tax increase package passed in 2000. I think your claim of a direct correlation 3 years later is suspect.

I recent poll in New Mexico (published today in the Albuquerque Journal) says that 85% of registered voters say, they aren't affected in their vote by the Foley affair. On the other hand, the Democrated candidate went in lead in the polls by now

Lovley fuzzy math there possum..


Too bad the author can't deal with the real numbers for the middle class.

Economic gloom isn't right on the money

October 19, 2006
BY GEORGE WILL
Recently Bill Clinton, at the British Labor Party's annual conference, delivered what the Times of London described as a ''relaxed, almost rambling'' and ''easy anecdotal'' speech to an audience of leftists eager for evidence of U.S. disappointments. Never a connoisseur of understatement, Clinton said America is ''now outsourcing college-education jobs to India.''
But Clinton-as-Cassandra should not persuade college students to abandon their quest for diplomas. The unemployment rate among college graduates is 2 percent.

Clinton is always a leading indicator of ''progressive'' fashions in rhetoric. Every election year -- meaning every other year -- brings an epidemic of dubious economic analysis, as members of the party out of power discern lead linings in silver clouds.

Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will ''jump-start our economy.'' A ''jump-start '' is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0). Some stall.

Economic hypochondria, a derangement associated with affluence, is a byproduct of the welfare state. An entitlement mentality gives Americans a low pain threshold -- witness their recurring hysterias about nominal rather than real gasoline prices -- and a sense of being entitled to economic dynamism without the frictions and ''creative destruction'' that must accompany dynamism. Economic hypochondria is also bred by news media that consider the phrase ''good news'' an oxymoron.

The Jack No. 2 well, in deep water 170 miles southwest of New Orleans, recently discovered a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil -- a 50 percent increase in proven U.S. reserves. This news triggered a gusher of journalistic gloom: More oil means more woe -- a reprieve for that enemy of humanity, the internal combustion engine, and more global warming, more air pollution, more highway fatalities, more suburban sprawl.

The recent 20 percent decline of the cost of a barrel of oil, from a nominal record of $78.40 (which, adjusted for inflation, was well below the 1980 peak of $92 in 2006 dollars), has produced an 81-cent decline in the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline in 70 days. For consumers, that is akin to a tax cut of more than $81 billion.

President Bush's tax cuts were supposed to cause a cataract of red ink. In fiscal 2006, however, federal revenues as a share of GDP were 18.4 percent, slightly above the post-1962 average of 18.2. And the federal budget deficit was $247.7 billion, just 1.9 percent of the $13.1 trillion GDP. That is below the average for the 1970s (2.1), 1980s (3.0) and 1990s (2.2).

It is said that workers' compensation has been stagnant. But to tickle that bad news from the statistics you must treat ''compensation'' as a synonym for wages, and then ignore the effect of taxation on individuals' well-being. Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in National Review, say annual wage growth since 2000 has been 0.6 percent, but the annual increase in real hourly compensation, including benefits -- and if you do not include them, why are they called benefits? -- has been 1.3 percent. And taxes -- particularly those paid by middle-class families with children -- have declined substantially.

Furthermore, as Hassett and Mathur write, consumers, by modifying their behavior, protect or enhance their well-being in ways not captured in economic statistics. For example, an American who, prompted by higher energy prices, traded in a Hummer for a Prius has preserved his or her standard of living.

Finally, today's widening income disparities will be partly self-correcting. Granted, income statistics show the increasing disadvantages of persons with education deficits. But that is the market saying -- shouting, really -- ''Stay in school!'' Over time, the voice of the market is rational, credible and therefore a potent instrument for changing behavior.

October 20, 2006
What Amazes Me Most...
Posted by JAY COST | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email RCP
What amazes me most this campaign season is, without question, the media.

I do not ever recall the national political press corps, and its attendant pundits, vacillating back and forth so violently.

"It's a wave election!" "No it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!"

"It's a national election!" "No it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!"

"It's a blow-out!" "No it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" "Oh no it isn't!"

It's been like a Monty Python sketch, hasn't it?

"The GOP is dead, I tell you! It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!"

"Oh no it isn't...it's just pining for the fjords!"

I can recall five discrete vacillations. You had GOP bullishness around April. That lasted until about mid-May. Then the CA 50 campaign induced Democratic bullishness. That lasted until the actual election, which then again induced Republican bullishness. That lasted until about mid-July, when there again began a period of Democratic bullishness. This shifted around 9/11, which initiated another round of GOP bullishness. Right now we are in a stage of Democratic bullishness, which began at the end of last month.

So -- that's five vacillations in six months!

Unbelievable.

What is most unbelievable is that it is nothing more than vacillation. It is not a real debate in which new evidence swings the pendulum one direction or another. It's the same darned evidence being paraded on both sides. Democratic strengths X, Y and Z are emphasized for a while. Then, they are totally abandoned to emphasize GOP strengths A, B and C. Nobody in the press ever actually gets around to debunking, reconciling, aggregating, or weighing X, Y, Z, A, B and C! They just change their emphases! The story line changes when somebody in an elite position in the media "remembers" the other side's advantages. "And...oh yeah! Well...it looks like things have swung again!"

If we take a step back and ponder this, I think we come up with two different hypotheses:
(1) The election has been as variable as the media has taken it to be. The most variable in modern history.
(2) The election has been relatively constant. The media is the variable factor. It varies because it incorrectly thinks congressional elections work like presidential elections and/or some strange soap opera called "As the Beltway Turns." It just generally has no idea what it is doing. So, it is always getting tricked into false positives, which it soon discovers to be false positives, and which it then justifies by claiming, "Well -- it's a-swingin' back the other way!" And, as it is the media, i.e. our window to the world, (1) appears to be true.

I prefer (1). Just kidding!

Here's an idea -- rather than take bets on how many seats the Democrats will pick up -- why don't we take bets on how many more times the media consensus will swing? The last swing was at the end of last month -- and as there is, on average, a swing in the consensus every 1 month and 1 week, the odds are that there will be at least one more, on or about November 5.

But my money is actually on 2 more swings. I think there will be a brief flirtation with "Maybe it won't be that bad for the GOP..." around the end of this month. And then a "Oh...YES IT WILL!"

And then, on Election Day, if the pundits are "right," they will trumpet their keen political sensibilities -- "We called this sucker, didn't we?" "Oh...yeah we did. We had it all along!" "Good for us!"

If they are "wrong," they will trumpet their keen political sensibitilies and procliam how the party ostensibly on the outs managed to perform an unheard-of come-from-behind-feat-of-great-political-cunning-at-the-last-minute-to-snatch- victory-from-the-jaws-of...

...blah, blah, blah. The truth is that, when it comes to campaigns and elections, it is never right nor wrong. It is just unfalsifiable. If Karl Popper were alive to witness this campaign season, his head would explode. I'm actually thinking about wearing a tight-fitting Steelers football helmet between now and Election Day to prevent exactly that from occurring.

On this day in 1942, perky child star Annette Funicello is born in Utica, New York. Funicello became a featured Mouseketeer on Disney's Mickey Mouse Club and later starred in several Disney features, including The Shaggy Dog (1959). Her popularity continued into her teenage years. She starred in a series of beach movies with singer Frankie Avalon, including Beach Party in 1963 and Muscle Beach Party in 1964. Decades later, the pair reunited in Back to the Beach (1987).

EVERYONE EXCEPT THOSE WHO WERE NOT TAXED GOT A BUSH TAX CUT

The Heritage Foundation- Tax Cuts



Have the Tax Cuts Saved America from Eurosclerosis?
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1702

November 7, 2003 | |



As the 2004 presidential campaign gets underway, some of President George W. Bush's challengers have attempted to link his policy of aggressive tax cuts with the nation's lackluster economy since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Most of the challengers have gone so far as to promise that, if elected, they will reverse some or all of the enacted and planned reductions in federal income taxes.

One candidate recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "As President my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts...."1 A few of the other challengers endorse tax hikes of the same multibillion-dollar magnitude, while those seeking to strike a more centrist pose promise to raise taxes only on the "rich" while leaving the scheduled "middle class" cuts in place.

High Taxes Hurt Europe's Economies
The implied notion that tax increases contribute to economic vitality would come as a surprise to many European governments that are now moving to adopt American-style economic policies, because these policies have yielded dramatically superior American economic performance compared to European economic performance. The most recent data indicate that America's gross domestic product (GDP) grew more than 12 times faster than the GDP of the combined European economies over the 12 months ending in June 2003.2 (See Table 1.)



As the editorial writers of The Economist observed in October 2003:

In fact the performance of the 12 country euro area over the past five years has been a bitter disappointment. And at the heart of the poor performance lie France and Germany, which account for roughly half of euro-area GDP. Un-less France and Ger-many recover their zip, the euro area will be condemned to remain an under-achiever.3
Not surprisingly, both France and Germany are in the process of cutting taxes in an effort to spur growth in their economies, which have weakened considerably over the past six months--the same period during which the U.S. economy began to show signs of a much stronger recovery.

As Table 1 reveals, the widening of the gap between U.S. and European performance is partially due to the economic recessions in several European countries. Although most grew at rates slower than the U.S. economy during 2002, by early 2003 France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and the Netherlands saw their economies shrink. They have also seen their unemployment rates soar, some to double-digit levels as in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. With an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent and a declining economy, France may soon join their ranks.

The Tax Cuts Worked
America's comparatively better-than-average performance over the past year (from July 2002 through June 2003) comes as no surprise to advocates of the President's tax relief initiatives. In late April 2001, The Heritage Foundation estimated that President Bush's tax cut plan would increase economic growth by an average of 0.2 percent per year and reduce the average unemployment rate over the period by 0.2 percent compared to what otherwise might have occurred in the absence of significant tax relief.4

Taxes were cut again in early 2003, and many economists attribute the brighter economic outlook for the next several years to the President's second round of cuts. Even The New York Times was forced to ask:

Is it time for the skeptics to admit they were wrong about President Bush's tax cuts? To the surprise of many naysayers, economic data from the past several months suggests that the $350 billion tax-cut package may indeed have jolted the economy.5
Long-Term Patterns Reveal the Same Benefits
Skeptics might counter that one year's record of comparative economic performance proves little and that such differences should be analyzed over longer periods of time before inferences are drawn about how different tax policies influence relative growth patterns. The skeptics are, of course, correct in their concern about drawing confident conclusions from a one-year snapshot.

But these skeptics are likely to be disappointed by the long-term patterns, because the differences in economic performance revealed in the preceding table for early 2003 can also be found in long-term trends going back nearly three decades, as demonstrated by data compiled by the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1975.6 With virtually no exception, the OECD data show that there is, in general, a negative correspondence between a country's economic performance and the relative growth of government spending and taxes. As the size of government increases relative to GDP, economic performance falls below trend rates of growth for those countries with more stable government shares.

Origins of Eurosclerosis
With the exception of an increase to the mid to high 30 percent range during the late 1980s, government's share of GDP in the U.S. has remained close to 32 percent since 1975, in contrast to most other industrialized countries in which the government's share has generally increased over the same period. As a consequence, per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), has grown faster in the U.S. than it has in many of the other industrialized countries.

In 1982, for example, both France and Germany reported per capita GDPs that were about 82 percent of GDP in the U.S. But as the size of their governments has grown, their per capita GDPs have shrunk to about 74 percent in recent years. Canada, Japan, and most other European countries have followed similar trends.

Big Winners and Big Losers
Canada and Ireland offer an interesting contrast as countries that have reaped widely different economic consequences from their different tax and spending policies. From the 1970s through the late 1980s, Canada's per capita GDP averaged about 90 percent of U.S. per capita GDP.

However, beginning in the 1970s, the Canadian government's share of its economy began to expand, rising from 36 percent in 1971 (when it was just under 32 percent in the U.S.) to the 45 percent range through the mid to late 1980s and then to almost 50 percent in the early 1990s. As a consequence, economic vitality waned and Canada's per capita GDP has since hovered near 82 percent of America's.

Ireland also saw its government's share of the economy rise to more than 50 percent by the mid 1980s, but then began the process of reducing taxes and shrinking government. By 1989, the Irish government's share was under 40 percent, and it continued to fall during the 1990s until it reached about 30 percent late in the decade.

As a consequence of this dramatic reversal, Ireland is now the second most prosperous country in Europe after oil-rich Norway. From a 1975 per capita GDP that was only 42 percent of America's, Ireland's economy has since experienced rapid growth, and its per capita GDP is now 94 percent of America's and 25 percent higher than that of France or Germany.

A Global Experiment
In effect, the OECD's data series since 1975 measures the results of a worldwide social science experiment in which a variety of national economic policies are "tested" and their consequences measured. Just as an earlier (and longer) experiment demonstrated the economic superiority of democratic capitalism over dictatorial socialism and thereby contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union and its empire, the more recent experiment concerning size of government and tax burden is yielding similar changes among the experiment's losers.

Finally recognizing that there is a strong connection between taxes and spending on the one hand and economic performance on the other, a number of European countries and Canada began in the early 1990s to implement policies of spending restraint to shrink that share. Canada has gone from a 50 percent share in 1992 to a 38 percent share today, while Sweden, which suffered the greatest relative decline against the U.S. economy, has gone from a staggering 68 percent government-spending share in 1993 to a 52 percent share today.

These numbers are still too high, and the governments will continue to impede their economies as they shift vast amounts of resources from the private sector to inefficient government programs. Nonetheless, progress is important, and further spending share reductions should lead to the kind of economic improvement experienced by Ireland as its once burdensome government share of the economy fell to a share slightly smaller than America's.

A World of Supply-Siders?
With spending under better control and budget deficits shrinking, many of these countries are now realizing that merely holding the line on tax increases is not enough and that tax cuts are an essential component of any policy to achieve high rates of economic growth. As a survey article in Business Week recently observed, "In what is looking increasingly like a significant break with the postwar tax-and-spend welfare state, some traditionally hesitant [European] politicians are starting to enact pro-growth policies."7

Over the past year, Germany, France, and Canada have initiated tax cuts in an effort to stimulate their economies and enhance their long-run growth prospects. Ignoring the European Union's mandate to keep his government's budget deficit to no more than 3 percent of GDP (the U.S. budget deficit is now around 3.5 percent compared to 4.2 percent for France), French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced plans for both personal and corporate tax cuts, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government has moved tax cuts worth billions of euros, originally scheduled for 2005, forward to next year.

Final Thoughts
At a time when even French President Jacques Chirac is prepared to risk his political career and cultural exceptionalism by endorsing American-style, supply-side, pro-growth tax cutting policies, American presidential candidates embracing the bankrupt policies of a very Old Europe will find themselves oddly out of step and isolated from the mainstream debate about the future of the American economy. It is to be hoped that their views will mature during the coming campaign and they will acknowledge that America did not become the richest country in the world by accident.

Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Howard Dean, "We Can Do Better," The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2003.

2. "Economic and Financial Indicators," The Economist, October 18, 2003, p. 98.

3. "A Franco-German Beauty Contest," The Economist, October 18, 2003, p. 12.

4. D. Mark Wilson and William W. Beach, "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 01-01, April 27, 2001.

5. Edmund L. Andrews, "Spotted: Evidence That the Tax Cut Worked," The New York Times, October 19, 2003.

6. World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002, Table, "GDP per Capita," at publications.worldbank.org/wdi (subscription required), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Economic Outlook No. 71, June 2002, Annex Table 26, "General Government Total Outlays."

7. John Rossant, "Is Europe Rolling?" Business Week, September 8, 2003, p. 51.

Can someone pull the plug on this...person?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed into law on July 26, 1990, passed the U.S. Senate with only six nay votes and the House of Representatives with only 28. The bill had the strong support of President Bush and of Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), then Senate Minority Leader, now Majority Leader. In the House, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.), the current Speaker, supported the legislation, while the current Majority Leader Richard Armey and Majority Whip Tom Delay, both Texas Republicans, opposed it.

The Bill of Rights

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances. This amendment has been the center of controversy in recent years in the areas of free speech and religion. The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech does not include the right to refuse to testify before a Congressional investigating committee and that most organized prayer in the public schools violates the First Amendment

Sign In | Register Now


Personal Tech Markets Your Money Technology Healthcare Columnists Latest news Message Boards

Home > Business


Economy's on rise, hiring soon will be too, CEOs say
By Kimberly Blanton, Globe Staff | May 18, 2004

Massachusetts chief executives have turned highly optimistic about the US economy and their hiring plans.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Business RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Business section |
Latest business news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Last year's inaugural Globe 100 CEO survey found companies in ''turtle mode," playing it safe by not hiring or spending.

By contrast, this year's survey of chief executives whose companies made the list of overall best performers found that the group has a decidedly bright outlook, with 82 percent saying they believe the economy is ''in better shape" than a year ago. They also expect their companies' profits and revenues to rise. And two-thirds said economic improvements will translate into increased hiring over the next year.

''I'm feeling quite optimistic about the direction the economy is heading," said Ronald Sargent, chief executive of Staples Inc. He said the office supply retailer's durable goods and small-business customer bases are stronger. Staples will hire people to work in 115 stores scheduled to open this year in North America and Europe. That is up from 84 new stores last year and just 17 in 2002.

''Coming out of recession, typically, small business leads the way and then medium-sized business," Sargent said. ''We're not seeing a big pickup among the Fortune 500 quite yet but I think that may be coming."

John Gorman, president of Opinion Dynamics Corp. in Cambridge, which conducted the CEO survey between April 23 and May 12 in partnership with Morrissey & Co., a Boston public relations firm, said, ''There are still a lot of people concerned about things out there. But the captains of industry say the ship is going in the right direction."

The undercurrent of worry ranges from rising health insurance premiums to high housing costs, war in Iraq, and the image of the United States abroad.

''The global nature of the economy is very beneficial to everybody, particularly to America, and we have to be careful, through our leadership and whatever actions we take, that we don't discourage that or inadvertently kill the goose that lays the golden egg," said Josef von Rickenbach, CEO of Parexel International Corp. in Waltham, which provides biotechnology services in 65 countries.

Of the 74 respondents, 82.4 percent said the US economy will be ''in better shape" next year, and 77 percent said the same about Massachusetts, where the bursting of the Internet bubble caused a steeper economic decline.

Nearly 95 percent also said they expect their individual companies' revenues and profits to rise over the next year. And 60.8 percent foresee a Dow Jones industrial average at about 11,000 next year.

''We're seeing much more life in the economy than we've seen over the last four years," said William Rainville, chief executive of Kadant Inc., an Acton equipment maker for the paper industry.

Brian Keane, CEO of Keane Inc., a Boston information technology services company, compared the economy with the Big Dig: ''The bottleneck has been removed," he said, ''and it feels good to be moving again."Continued...





Sign In | Register Now


Personal Tech Markets Your Money Technology Healthcare Columnists Latest news Message Boards

Home > Business


Economy's on rise, hiring soon will be too, CEOs say
By Kimberly Blanton, Globe Staff | May 18, 2004

Massachusetts chief executives have turned highly optimistic about the US economy and their hiring plans.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Business RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Business section |
Latest business news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Last year's inaugural Globe 100 CEO survey found companies in ''turtle mode," playing it safe by not hiring or spending.

By contrast, this year's survey of chief executives whose companies made the list of overall best performers found that the group has a decidedly bright outlook, with 82 percent saying they believe the economy is ''in better shape" than a year ago. They also expect their companies' profits and revenues to rise. And two-thirds said economic improvements will translate into increased hiring over the next year.

''I'm feeling quite optimistic about the direction the economy is heading," said Ronald Sargent, chief executive of Staples Inc. He said the office supply retailer's durable goods and small-business customer bases are stronger. Staples will hire people to work in 115 stores scheduled to open this year in North America and Europe. That is up from 84 new stores last year and just 17 in 2002.

''Coming out of recession, typically, small business leads the way and then medium-sized business," Sargent said. ''We're not seeing a big pickup among the Fortune 500 quite yet but I think that may be coming."

John Gorman, president of Opinion Dynamics Corp. in Cambridge, which conducted the CEO survey between April 23 and May 12 in partnership with Morrissey & Co., a Boston public relations firm, said, ''There are still a lot of people concerned about things out there. But the captains of industry say the ship is going in the right direction."

The undercurrent of worry ranges from rising health insurance premiums to high housing costs, war in Iraq, and the image of the United States abroad.

''The global nature of the economy is very beneficial to everybody, particularly to America, and we have to be careful, through our leadership and whatever actions we take, that we don't discourage that or inadvertently kill the goose that lays the golden egg," said Josef von Rickenbach, CEO of Parexel International Corp. in Waltham, which provides biotechnology services in 65 countries.

Of the 74 respondents, 82.4 percent said the US economy will be ''in better shape" next year, and 77 percent said the same about Massachusetts, where the bursting of the Internet bubble caused a steeper economic decline.

Nearly 95 percent also said they expect their individual companies' revenues and profits to rise over the next year. And 60.8 percent foresee a Dow Jones industrial average at about 11,000 next year.

''We're seeing much more life in the economy than we've seen over the last four years," said William Rainville, chief executive of Kadant Inc., an Acton equipment maker for the paper industry.

Brian Keane, CEO of Keane Inc., a Boston information technology services company, compared the economy with the Big Dig: ''The bottleneck has been removed," he said, ''and it feels good to be moving again."Continued...

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed into law on July 26, 1990, passed the U.S. Senate with only six nay votes and the House of Representatives with only 28. The bill had the strong support of President Bush and of Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), then Senate Minority Leader, now Majority Leader. In the House, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.), the current Speaker, supported the legislation, while the current Majority Leader Richard Armey and Majority Whip Tom Delay, both Texas Republicans, opposed it.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/unrate
% Monthly Unemployment Rates 1948 to September 2006
...
Computed average unemployment rates for selected presidential terms, with lowest Max Tax Rate for that term.

JFK-LBJ: 77%
1961 = 6.7
1965 = 5.2

Nixon: 70%
1969 = 3.2
1977 = 7.1

Reagan: 28%
1981 = 7.6
1989 = 5.3

Bush41: 31%
1989 = 5.3
1993 = 6.9

Clinton: 39.6%
1993 = 6.9
2001 = 4.7

Bush43: 35%
2001 = 4.7: 39.1%
2002 = 5.8: 38.6%
2003 = 6.0: 35%
2004 = 5.5: 35%
2005 = 5.1: 35%
2006 = 4.7 for 9 months: 35%


I guess that Max Tax Rates per presidential term do not correlate well with Unemployent Rates 3 years later?

I don't know how you figure 3 years but giving an 8 year high and low doesn't give any 3 year turn arounds.

You are just making stuff up then posting numbers that in no way relate to it.

If a raised tax rate causes higher unemployment EXACTLY 3 years later then the 3rd year of Clinton's term MUST have a higer unemployment rate. It doesn't. There is no 3 year correlation. It is a figment of your imagination.