Record Economic Growth? Huh?

[Bozola]

Normally, I hate this little twerp, and the paper he appears in (The Seattle Times) but I'm a bit confused with this one.

Record economic growth? Since it isn't explicitly stated they could be refering to record negative growth, I suppose.

Surely he can't be refering to the record deficit, the record spending, the record unemployment, the record job exports, or the record losses on the market?

Maybe the ecomedy has recovered and I missed it....

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. record negative growth?

There's no such thing. What the heck is negative growth?

[cosmicdot]

5. I think that was a tongue-in-cheek sarcastic remark

using the word "negative" as compared to what-in-the-hell-are-they- talking-about re: the term "record economic growth" ... nothing literal

[Bozola]

9. Humor, yes.

[BigMcLargehuge]

2. How could you misinterpret this??

it's a standard issue RW crap-toon touting the 7.2% GDP growth reported last year. Most of it, I might add, made up by defense spending on stuff for Iraq.

[zbdent]

10. Point out that the numbers are bogus with a little relevance:

Try this on for size.

The numbers right now are a lot like a person playing the instant lottery tickets.

Week 1 - Spend $10, win $1.

Week 2 - Spend $10, win $1.

Week 3 - Spend $10, win $1.

Week 4 - Spend $10, win $1.

Week 5 - Spend $10, win $15. In week five, you came out ahead of the game! Except that, to get there, you spent $50. So you have your "record" win, but you're still at least $30 behind.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. One Data Point Does Not A Recovery Make

The hyperventilating media, and the bought and paid for economists and analysts, should know better. But, the Q3 bump is explainable and can be shown to be unsustainable. It therefore is a statistical anomaly and is not indicative of any future growth of GDP beyond standard natural growth patterns.

The deficit spending makes up >60% of the change from 1Q03. The immediate spending of defense dollars in Iraq and backfilling of munitions inventory used there meant that dollars that might not have been spent until well into the Q4 were spent now.

And the poor economy caused many large firms with June 30 FY closes to shed inventory for the first half of the year (this enhances the cash position on their year end balance sheets) backfilled inventory in a large way in Q3. They obviously can't do this forever.

Just remember: Consumer spending did not rise. The percentage of GDP representing consumer spending went down in Q3 by a statistically significant degree. That means the growth was funded by other means. (Mostly the ones i mentioned above.) None of those can go on forever.

So, let them have their own little moment. They're wrong, but it's never stopped them before.
The Professor

[BigMcLargehuge]

4. professorGAC

you are absolutely right.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. I Should Hope So!

It would be embarassing to teach others how to model complex systems and then be wrong about the results of the models i've built myself. That would NOT be good. Kind of damaging to one's credibility, huh?

Thanks.
The Professor

[chefgirl]

6. This is Krugmans take ........

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/opinion/31KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman



...unless we start to see serious job growth — by which I mean increases in payroll employment of more than 200,000 a month — consumer spending will eventually slide, and bring growth down with it.

Still, it's possible that we really have reached a turning point. If so, does it validate the Bush economic program? Well, no.

Stimulating the economy in the short run is supposed to be easy, as long as you don't worry about how much debt you run up in the process. As William Gale of the Brookings Institution puts it, "Almost any tax cut or spending increase would succeed in boosting a sluggish economy if the Federal Reserve Board follows an accommodative monetary policy. . . . The key question is, therefore, not whether the proposals provide any short-term stimulus, but whether they are the most effective way to provide stimulus." Mr. Gale doesn't think the Bush tax cuts meet that criterion, and neither do I.

To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started. And despite yesterday's good news, that's a trick President Bush still seems likely to pull off.

-chef-

[cosmicdot]

8. what's Greenspan babbling about?

does he earn his salary (whatever that figure might be)?

Greenspan: Economy Set to Create Jobs

November 6, 2003 10:16 AM EST


WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan delivered an upbeat assessment of economic prospects, saying Thursday the odds "increasingly favor" a revival in job growth.

However, he also warned about long-term threats posed by the soaring federal budget deficit. If that red-ink problem is not brought under control by the time Baby Boomers start retiring, it could have "notable, destabilizing effects" on future growth prospects, he said.

In the debate over how to fix the deficit problem, Greenspan sided with President Bush and the Republicans, who argue that government spending should be cut to deal with the deficit rather than raising taxes.

On the economy, Greenspan cited a number of favorable recent developments pointing to stronger economic growth and said that even the job market, which has continued to shed jobs this year, seems to be finally turning around.



http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=1&aid=D7UL6BOO2_story

[northzax]

11. hold it now

So we're almost back to where we started four years ago? and Bush gets credit for this? Frankly, if in four years, I'm just getting back to the tenuous financial position I'm in today, I'm gonna be righteously frustrated, not celebrating. That's called LOSING FOUR YEARS.

This is the response: So <name of Republican brother-in-law>, what you're saying is that, except for the loss of 2 million jobs, all the economic indicators are ALMOST back to 2000 levels?