J. Edward Carter notes something very interesting in National Review Online – that the "weak" Bush economy is better than the economy during Clinton’s first term:
The economy has been battered by the crash of the post-inflationary bubble, the September 11 attacks, the corporate scandals, extended periods of uncertainty, and Democrats willing to talk down the economy at any costs – yet the reality is that the Bush economy is hardly as bad as some would have it be.
The only sour spot is unemployment, which is causing a negative attitude among American workers (including this one). Yet the level of unemployment is relatively low in historical terms, and with even the most conservative estimate of economic growth the economy is likely to pick up at least two million jobs this year – and that could be higher. Those figures also don’t consider the many people who work in home offices or as contract employees who are missed on regular employment surveys.
During the Depression, FDR stated in eloquent and lasting words that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Over six decades later, the platform of the Democratic Party is little more than fear itself – a largely unfounded fear at that.
If Americans don’t have jobs, or the spending money that a job means, how long do you think this “jobless recovery” can continue? What’s going to drive growth if not consumer spending? Consumers can’t spend what they’re not making.
It’s only a “jobless recovery” because the media keeps repeating the theme with Goebbels-like determination.
People are getting jobs.
Funny, Mitch, news I’m reading seems to think that January had record mass layoffs, with over 239,000 workers losing jobs in layoffs of 50 or more persons. That figure doesn’t even include people who lost jobs on a smaller scale.
And to think, the 112,000 new jobs in January only mean a smaller net loss! Wow, thank God this isn’t a jobless recovery!
And just so we’re clear, that news I read came from the BLS website. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics is just another left-wing wacko group, you know.
Off topic, but I found this rather cute:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers20.html
If we’re seeing so many people lose their jobs, it sure as hell doesn’t explain why consumer spending beat estimates in January as well as the better-than-expected growth in GDP.
Last time I checked, unemployed people don’t tend to spend very much…
Thanks for the ad hominems and the wonderful demostrations of your own ignorance.
If you don’t have a job, you sure as hell don’t increase your spending. It’s elementary logic 101. You cut back, and you don’t spend nearly as much. Overall spending goes down, and you see it mainly in durable goods. If you don’t have a job, you sure as bloody hell aren’t going to buy a new washer and dryer.
So if consumer spending is going up, it’s a pretty damn sure sign that people aren’t tightening their belts because they have no jobs.
Yet manufacturing is up, consumer spending is up, and economic growth is solid. The Democrats have nothing more than class envy, fear, uncertainty, doubt. By November, their prognostications of doom will seem as idiotic as those who thought that the Y2K bug would kill us all.
“If you don’t have a job, you sure as hell don’t increase your spending.”
Hey, Jay, what exactly happened in Russia after the fall of Communism? Well, PRICES rose, so SPENDING had to keep pace while unemployment went up and wages went down. When you don’t have a job, and you ALREADY don’t spend much because you’ve budgeted yourself most of your life, there’s really not anything you can do when prices rise for the necessities. But economics isn’t your strong suit. Because when you say “So if consumer spending is going up, it’s a pretty damn sure sign that people aren’t tightening their belts because they have no jobs,” you make an assumption about condidtions that isn’t bourne by facts.
Speaking of facts, you still haven’t been able to explain why we lost twice as many jobs in just 50+ person layoffs than we created in January. You still haven’t explained where those mythic 2 million jobs are going to come from.
But wait, there’s more you missed! “If you don’t have a job, you sure as bloody hell aren’t going to buy a new washer and dryer,” is true, but what you forgot to say is “if you have an annual income of over a million dollars, you just got an average tax break of $100,000, and you can buy pretty much whatever the hell you want without really boosting the economy in any lasting fashion.” It’s elementary Economics 101.
A:) Prices aren’t going up,
B:) The increases in consumer spending were being made on non-luxury items.
C:) Every competent economist has predicted a job growth rate of at least 2.4% – and that’s being conservative. With such a rate of growth, 2 million jobs is entirely doable.
D:) Without the Bush tax cuts, we’d have been in a double-dip recession long ago.
Again, it’s another case of partisanship first, facts later.
I’ll make you a bet, Jay. You said “Prices aren’t going up.” How about prices on EVERY SINGLE OIL COMMODITY?!! Think gasoline and heating oil prices. Are you honestly so blind as to think those prices are consistent with inflation?
Oh, and that chart was HILARIOUS! Especially when you look at the 4 year BEFORE each of those periods. How was the economy in 1989-1993? How about 1997-2001? Notice anything different? Now, when you’re doing economic calculations, and you want to measure change over time, what’s the ONE THING you have to have that this chart doesn’t? Could it be a base year? I think so! Thiings like “real GDP” don’t actually matter unless you use the value of a dollar from one year to measure the next. For example, right now our dollar is losing value (meaning even HIGHER gas prices–funny how that works in oil-dependent societies that are reliant on importation). Accordingly, a dollar today doesn’t mean as much as a dollar last year, so having more of them doesn’t necessarily mean having more money, if you follow. But keep trying–it was a good effort!
And this doesn’t seem ironic to you?:
“D:) Without the Bush tax cuts, we’d have been in a double-dip recession long ago.
Again, it’s another case of partisanship first, facts later.”
Bonus question: define the word “counterfactual.”
Hey jr i find it interesting when you are criticizing president bush and yet you complain about “funny how that works in oil-dependent societies that are reliant on importation”, when he is the biggest advocate of oil drilling at home so we arent dependent on foreign imports. I just found it interesting.