John Kerry Distorts the Economy's Performance for Political Gain

mc mark: Nice facts, but that's all they are.

Meanwhile, John Kerry's middle name is Forbes. FORBES! I mean, seriously. How could any true American vote for someone with that middle name?

On election day, true patriots will vote the only issue that matters -- the candidates' middle names. Mark it.

 

what's nader's middle name?

 

Don't get cute, basso. You and Jorge have been on the cutting edge of this red meat issue from the start. Even the Hanoi Kerry swipes can't distract us from what's really important. His middle name is FORBES!!! How could the Democrats nominate someone with such an unelectable middle name???

 

well, gregg easterbrook finds kerry's numbers pretty funny:

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1554

--
TORTURE STATISTICS LONG ENOUGH, AND THEY WILL CONFESS TO ANYTHING: A standard economic indicator is the "misery index," the combination of unemployment rate and inflation rate. This index has the virtue of simplicity: unemployment and inflation are both leading indicators with widely agreed-upon meaning. Also, this index has the virtue of clear importance--unemployment is a disaster for those it strikes, while inflation harms almost everyone. (Sometimes borrowers come out ahead.) So as statistical indicators go the standard misery index is viewed as pretty solid, and in a moment we'll discuss what the standard misery index says.

First the new "middle class misery index" unveiled Monday by John Kerry's campaign. It's a campaign tool, so naturally, it finds that things have never been worse than at this very moment. On the Kerry middle-class misery index, George W. Bush has "the worst record of any president ever"--though "ever" goes back only to 1976.

The Kerry index tracks seven indicators: median family income, personal bankruptcies, job growth in the private sector, home ownership rates, and the costs of gasoline, health care, and college. Median family income trends are indeed troubling, though Kerry's index uses the 2002 trend to project a 2003 figure (the Bureau of the Census has not yet spoken on 2003), and there's a decent chance 2003 will prove to have been better than 2002 on this measure. Nevertheless, real-dollar median family income has been down under Bush, and that's indeed troubling.

But otherwise, the indicators in Kerry's middle-class misery index have been chosen because they are negative. Homeownership rates are positive; this category seems to have been added to allow for one favorable trend. But many other major positive categories have been ignored, and when what purports to be a weighing of evidence only takes into account negative evidence, the result is foam. Suppose I announced an Easterblogg Happiness Index with these indicators: mortgage interest rates, crime rates, rates of heart disease, life expectancy at birth, rates of car ownership, median home size, air quality, water quality, highest educational degree earned, rates of accidental death, percentage of workforce employed in white-collar professions. Needless to say, I've chosen these because all trends in these categories are favorable. My happiness index would not be a fair assessment of society, because I've excluded the negatives. (Maybe I should throw in "accuracy of NBA jump shots" just to have one negative.) My all-positive index wouldn't tell you the larger trend just as Kerry's all-negative index does not.

Even for what it measures the Kerry middle-class misery index is open to question, as much of the index measures only costs, not benefits. Democrats, of all people, should not ignore benefits --if we only counted costs, there would never be pollution control. Health care costs are rising, but so are benefits. Rates of almost all major diseases are in decline while people are living ever-longer; this means society keeps getting more for its health-care investment. Also, with an aging population, health care spending would be expected to increase. It would be easy to reduce health care costs--just stop paying for heart surgery over the age of 70, stop paying for most dialysis, stop paying for nonessential procedures that only relieve pain, stop trying to save very premature infants, and so on. (I cite these because they are the real-world ways that some European health care systems restrain costs.)

And college costs are rising but so are benefits, with university enrollment setting records and an ever-higher percentage of high-school graduates having at least some college experience. College costs seem to be up right now mainly for standard supply-and-demand reasons--demand (number of students wishing to enter) is rising faster than supply (freshman slots). You could certainly restrain college costs by reducing demand (number of students wishing to enter). But it's good that ever-higher numbers of students wish to enter college! This tells us many favorable things about trends in American middle-class life, as sending the children to college, once a rarity, has become the national norm.

Kerry's index can make you giggle because, in order to be manipulated such that George W. Bush has "the worst record of any president ever," indicators must be chosen that give a great economic rating to Jimmy Carter. Check the Kerry campaign's graph, halfway down the page. When were times best by this index? At the end of the Clinton administration, and in 1978. Can you find one single person in the United States who would want a time-machine ride to the economic conditions of 1978? That was the time of "stagflation," combined inflation and lack of growth. Unemployment was worse in 1978 than today, too.

But then the Kerry middle-class misery index has been doctored to remove inflation and unemployment as leading concerns, and there's a reason--both trends here are in a positive cycle. This brings us back to the standard, established misery index of inflation and unemployment. Inflation has been low for a little more than a decade, while unemployment has been low for a decade. (Construct the unemployment graph of your choice here.) The standard misery index for the postwar era averages about 9.5; in Clinton's first term, the number was 8.8; right now it's 7.6. This makes George W. Bush's misery index admirable, among recent presidents trailing only the end of the Clinton administration, at 6.7.

You may not like W.-onomics--I don't like his tax policy for the top bracket--but you've got to have a pretty badly jiggered index to hide the favorable current status of the unemployment/inflation comparison, always one of the best measures of the economy. If inflation were as out of whack as it was under Carter, or unemployment as out of whack as it was in the first Reagan term, current misery would be far more pronounced. Give me the "misery" of the George W. Bush numbers any day.

 

How in the hell can I trust this gregg easterbrook person untill you tell me what his middle name is?

 

posted by mc mark...


From January 2004

Average monthly new jobs projected by Bush admin - 200,000

Average monthly new jobs economy would generate without tax cuts as estimated by Bush admin. - 228,333

Average monthly new jobs promised from tax breaks - 306,000

Number of new jobs Bush promised, June through October - 1,224,000

Number of new jobs Bush actually produced, June through October - 229,000

Shortfall below projection - 995,000

Number of jobs lost to date since Bush took office - 2.44 million

Bush admin. projection of new jobs created by end of 2004 - 2.0 million

Bush admin. projection of net new jobs created by end of 2004 - 430,000 jobs lost

Last president to lose jobs during entire first term - Herbert Hoover

US Manufacturing jobs lost since Bush took office, 2 years, 10 months - 2.59 million

Budget surplus 2001, when Bush took office + $127 Billion

Bush estimate of Budget deficit FY 2003 - $401 billion

Average annual tax cut Bush promised to Americans - $1000

Average tax cut actually received by 65 million Americans - $19

Average tax cut actually received by top 1% - $28,414

Dollars short of Bush promise in his Leave No Child Behind act - $9.4 billion short

Amount federal spending on public schools, two years - $59 billion

Amount federal spending for Iraq, Afghanistan two years - $166 billion

Decrease, medium household income, last two years - $1,439

Annual minimum wage earnings for full time worker - $10,712

Vice President Dick Cheney annual salary from government - $192,600

2001 Halliburton payments to Vice President Cheney (yearly) - $205,298

Value of no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq - $948 million

Sources: http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=76070


A real "misery index", Trader_J.
Read it and weep.




(FORBES! What were his parents thinking??? Oh, the humanity! )

 

I agree Basso, the overall index number isn't worth looking at, but the individual parts that make up the index are worthy of attention and dissussion.

I don't completely buy into Easterbrooks assertion that the increase in heath costs are inline with our increased benefit, I would argue that costs are rising faster than the benefits, especially in the last 5 years.

 

Kerry is a freakin' idiot...Does he not know that people that don't understand this will scream "The Sky is Falling"...

Two Words: Consumer Confidence...

 

Incredible. Seems like I remember Bush talking up the recession when he was running for president. We all know none of this matters though. Given a choice between Walker and Forbes, real Americans will vote Walker every time.

 

I'm fairly new to the clutch bbs so maybe someone out there can assure me that trader jorge is not former Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaaf. It just seems like they went to the same p.r. school for the factually challenged.

 

When you look at actual numbers and facts, it is apparent that you are unable to look at reality.

See my sig, shill.

 

Sorry, t_j, but all you have is my unconditional derision. You have chosen not to respond to my FACTUAL post with data, instead choosing to sling mud.

You are a shill and nothing you say has any bearing on reality.

 

That's mostly true, moon. But Jorge brings up a valid point by constantly reminding us of Kerry's middle name. Did you hear? It's Forbes. So that's probably the end of that. Unless the Demoncrats (seriously - only demons have middle names like Forbes) finally figure it out and manage to nominate someone else. Kucinich is still running, right? You guys got any middle name dirt on him?

 

he used to write the TMQ column for ESPN.

 

That's my hope...

Republicans, make a difference and don't let Kerry ruin our lives...

BUSH-CHENEY '04

 

Oh, I wouldn't even try to go there Jorge. I don't even think people who work in theater should be allowed to vote. We're just not smart enough. Why, just the other day a thespian told me Americans didn't even exist. But I'm with you, Jorge. I believe in Americans. And not only that, but also Superman and Robin Hood are still alive in Hollywood. And I believe in you.

I gotta take your word on all this confusing money stuff. I just can't compete with someone who can find the bright side of unprecedented deficits and the worst jobs record since Hoover. That kind of thinking takes some serious smarts! And I'm just a lowly thespian. Maybe God isn't finished with me yet. I hope not! Plus, it gets worse! Guess what, Jorge? My middle name's Stuart! Yuck, right? But at least it's not Forbes. You can always find a bright side if you look hard enough. I learned that from you, Jorge. I learn all kinds of things from you. Just last night I paid a stripper twenty bucks to squirm around on my special place and you were right! I DID feel like a ladies man! You're the best.