RocketMan Tex, today we shall return to school. As usual, I am the professor, you are the pupil. The market looks *forward*, not backwards. Today's announcement of economic growth describes the past, not the future. Stock values represent the net present value of future expected earnings. If you look at the past 6 months of the market's performance, you can clearly see that the market has seen this economic performance coming for quite some time. Your argument is destroyed. This is a beautiful graph, and it beautifully corrects your flawed logic. CLASS DISMISSED
I can just see you and the other Bush-haters just seething at this great economic news. Oh by the way -- if you read Cohen's article, there was net job creation in September for the first time in 8 months. More bad news for Bush-Haters, but great news for AMERICA.
Your excuse machine is working overtime today, isn't it! But that's OK...everyone needs a few juicy rationalizations to get through the day. We shall see in 12 months whether your boy can thump his chest or not. Until then, it's all moot. RIDICULOUS PARROTTING DISMISSED
T_J, your hero had better hope that job creation begins before November of next year. If he has a jobless recovery, like Poppy, he will be a one termer, just like Poppy. IIRC the economy started to recover in the spring of 1992 and GHWB still lost in that November. GWB is not out of the woods yet. There is the net 2.6 million lost jobs to overcome in the next 12 months. Weak job growth and $250 million may be enough for GWB to win though, especially if the Democrats don't have a strong candidate and campaign.
You might be well served to want what's best for AMERICA. That would be strong economic growth. Perhaps you Bush Haters should find a democratic candidate who can win on his own merits, not just on disparaging the incumbant. I'm thrilled for this great country that our economy is growing so strong.
Actually, the market is forward looking. Do you have an argument? Your only leg to stand on (and your response to TJ and myself) should have been WRT the fact that the rate of growth was more than expected, and thus reasonably should have caused some jump in the market, if it was material. The response to that argument would have been that the market is sometimes a better forecaster than the expert consensus, and therefore the growth rate may not have been that unexpected for the market itself. But all that has degraded the discussion. The salient issue is the economy, and none of that belies the fact that the economy and market appear to be well on their way to recovery, w/ the market leading by a few months.
You won't find a bigger Bush critic than me, but I'm ecstatic about this news. I couldn't care less what this does for Democratic candidates -- all I care about is if Americans have jobs and are doing well. Bush absolutely deserves some of the credit for this three-month uptick. Since it's the first good news for Americans in almost three years, I hope it continues. I also hope it leads to an increase in the only economic indicator I care about -- employment rates.
You ever think about throwing your hat into the Democratic primaries? You may have a shot. Seriously, I wish they would think like you do on this issue. Maybe they will, but somehow I doubt it...
Nice GV. Very reasonable, enlightened approach. Although I consider myself a Republican, I am not pleased with Bush's performance overall (I think the International bumblings are more far-reaching than people realize). Still, he deserves some credit for the economy. I have always held though, that most of an economic turnaround is due to factors outside of the government's control. Cyclicality will occur regardless; the gov (Exec branch and Fed) can impact the timing and height/depth of the cycles.
I really hope the economy is turning around and this growth will translate into job growth, because without job growth, expansion of GDP really doesn't mean much to me. Even if the most rosey of forecasts hold true and a lot of jobs are created before next November, I still would judge Bush an economic policy faliure. The reason? Those dirty tax cuts. I think Robert Freeman said it best here: "The long term effects of these policies are profoundly damaging. When Bush took office, the government's ten year surplus was forecast to total $5.6 trillion. This was critical to building fiscal soundness as the Baby Boomers begin to retire. Now, the ten year forecast projects a cumulative deficit of $1.1 trillion, a net loss of $6.7 trillion in only two years. With the exception of World Wars, this is the greatest, most rapid destruction of public wealth in the history of the world. This is $6.7 trillion that is not available to pay for an entire generation's retirement as we promised. It cannot rebuild the nation's schools or retrain the technologically unemployed. It cannot shore up a foundering Medicare system or provide insurance to the more than 40 million Americans without it. The interest costs of funding this debt will soon approach half a trillion dollars a year and will r****d investment and, therefore, economic growth for decades to come. " http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html
This Robert Freeman guy doesn't know what he's talking about. A reduction in tax revenues is in no way a "destruction of public wealth." It is merely a loss of revenue. Wealth is created in the private sector, and I personally believe these tax cuts are having huge wealth-creating effects. If we ever need money later, it would not be hard to raise taxes 10% across the board and get that money back to the government. Theoretically speaking of course.
Nice source metalhead. I'm glad that the tax cuts worked. This is kinda interesting since we are covering some of the same stuff in my econ class. And yes, the market looks forward. Actually the stock market is ludicrous. I can't believe so much money is tied up in what mostly irrational people think and believe will happen.
10% increase? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the difference between Clinton era taxes and Bush era taxes less than 5%?
Yeah you're right. I was just throwing a random number out there. If we do increase taxes by 10% in 10 years to cover the baby boomers, this supposedly "destroyed" public wealth will come back pretty quickly.
The tax cuts maybe should have been a little less nice to the uber-wealthy, but they were not as bad as many have characterized them. IIRC, the lower 60% are also paying loer taxes (or is it actually a lower % of the overall tax burden...cannot recall exactly). As for Freeman's comments, they are easy to argue. Did the surplus anticipate the recession? The bursting of the Internet bubble? Bush get's no credit (except from Freeman, apparently)for those major events. As for the tax cuts, how much of this recovery can be traced back to them? The question will never be resolved since it's a circular equation. So Bush isn't to blame for the downturn, so it's not really germane... but to claim that a PROJECTED SURPLUS that disappears is somehow a DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WEALTH is laughable. Since when are forecasts = wealth?
How can you, Mr.Clutch just ignore the long term effects of the tax cuts? Or do you just dont think there will be any effects of carrying large deficits and accuring large amouths of debt (and the interest payments) Didn't Bush promise not to pass on any problems to the next generation?
