Economy surges.

[Moooooo]

Fox News/Reuters:

U.S. economic growth was much stronger in the third quarter than first thought as consumers and businesses spent more than estimated, but corporate profits shrank as insurers were sideswiped by Gulf Coast hurricanes, a government report showed on Wednesday.

U.S. gross domestic product, a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, grew at a revised 4.3 percent annual rate in the July-to-September period, the fastest pace since the first three months of 2004, the Commerce Department said.

In its first snapshot a month ago, the department had put third-quarter growth at 3.8 and Wall Street economists had expected the rate to be revised up more modestly, to 4.0 percent. The sharp upward bump took growth a full point above the second-quarter’s 3.3 percent rate.

[Blue Rectangle]

Change your avatar to Republican "apoligist" immediately

[AuH2O]

If Iraq is so bad for them, is this not good for Republicans?

[Moooooo]

Change your avatar to Republican "apoligist" immediately

LOL.  I knew someone would post it eventually.  So I figured Id beat them to it. 

Im horrible at understanding economics so I was hoping this thread would turn into a debate.  You know, why is the economy chugging along?  Is it really as good as the indicators state?  Etc...

[Blue Rectangle]

If Iraq is so bad for them, is this not good for Republicans?

In 2004, there were three big issues: Terror, Iraq and the Economy.  The key factors to watch were who did the public trust more to handle these issues, and how did the issues fall in order of importance.  Bush led by a huge amount on the Terror issue.  Bush led the Iraq issue early in the campaign, but Kerry mostly closed the gap to within the margin of error.  Kerry consistently led on Economic issues by large margins.

Kerry's campaign chose to improve his weaknesses rather than exploit his strengths.  The DNC was about 95% focused on making Kerry look like a leader Americans could trust on Terror and Iraq.  This improved Kerry's numbers slightly, but mostly it put these issues into the spotlight--exactly where Bush wanted them.  Edwards made a weak attempt to talk about the Economy, but failed to make any progress.  In addition, the economy was making steady (if only modest) progress, which undercut Edwards' message.

As for 2006, Republicans still have a large lead on the Terror issue, but it has dropped in significance.  Iraq has turned against Republicans, but there is hope that we could be back to an even split by election time.  With the Economy strong, what do Democrats have left to run on?

[opebo]

Change your avatar to Republican "apoligist" immediately

LOL.  I knew someone would post it eventually.  So I figured Id beat them to it. 

Im horrible at understanding economics so I was hoping this thread would turn into a debate.  You know, why is the economy chugging along?  Is it really as good as the indicators state?  Etc...

No.  As always, GDP growth has little effect on the quality of life of the commoner.  The unemployment rate and wage growth are what matters to those trapped in the working class.

[afleitch]

The economy is not 'strong' at all, but it is showing signs of life. Whether these are long or short term is a different matter.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, so far, most Americans - according to the polls - don't seem to have noticed and aren't really feeling any benefit yet. Is the growth uniform across the board or are some states still struggling?

For example, a growth rate of 6% in Florida is no comfort to Ohio, if it's economy is receeding by 2% (these figures are hypothetical)

It may improve Bush's numbers in some states but not necessarily others

Still, I'd like to think that economic growth benefit the 'little guy' as well as the 'big guy'. On a positive note, economic growth, providing it is sustainable, might facilitate a bit of fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress and the President, which can only be a good thing

Dave

[A18]

The economy is not 'strong' at all

[afleitch]

The economy is not 'strong' at all

Nice use of a selective quote there

[TheresNoMoney]

Im horrible at understanding economics so I was hoping this thread would turn into a debate.  You know, why is the economy chugging along?  Is it really as good as the indicators state?  Etc...

No, the economy is not good for the bottom 98% of Americans. GDP growth means next to nothing to the average American.

What we are seeing is that the GDP growth is only benefitting those at the very top. A record percentage growth of new millionaires were crowned in 2004, while the poverty level continued to rise and real wages remained stagnant and even decreased during certain times.

Let's face it, the financial situation of the average American continues to get worse. Gas/energy prices, health insurance costs, college tuition costs, and record debt being carried are crippling many people's chances at the American dream.

[A18]

Wages + benefits have been rising faster than costs, and that's not even taking into account passive income. Anyone who just looks at wages is either clueless or a liar. Since this has been pointed out on numerous occasions, I'll assume most people here are in the latter category.

[The Duke]

The economy is not as good as it is made to appear in part because they chain weight the inflation rate.

[A18]

Which is supposed to make it more, not less, accurate. Moreover, it's well known that no price index can properly take into account product innovation.

[The Duke]

Which is supposed to make it more, not less, accurate. Moreover, it's well known that no price index can properly take into account product innovation.

Assuming you believe in chain weighting inflation.

If you chain weight, you're bsically adjusting for inflation that comes from innovation.  But when most inflation that people feel is from things like energy, commodities whose technology doesn't change much, then chain weighting skews the numbers to make things look better than they are.  Chain weighting cuts both ways, sometimes it makes it more accurate, sometimes it make it less ccurate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The S&P 500 is still down under the Bush adminstration.

[A18]

And?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where are the jobs? This decade (2001-current) there have only been a net increase of 1.577 million jobs. That's 27,000 per month. 150,000 a month are needed to keep up with growth in the labor pool. We're short 13 million jobs. Clinton created 225,000 per month.

As you can see here, the Bush administration's job predictions have been a bit off.



His father had a similar problem promising several million jobs and delivering not much.

Clinton promised 8 million jobs, and created over 11 million per term.

[Sam Spade]

Jfern, your graph ends about 1 year and 8 months ago.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Let's face it, the financial situation of the average American continues to get worse. Gas/energy prices, health insurance costs, college tuition costs, and record debt being carried are crippling many people's chances at the American dream.

Crippling many people's chances at the American dream?  Really?  Is that why homeownership hit record levels in 2004 (latest year I have data for) to 69.2%?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr404/q404tab5.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's face it, the financial situation of the average American continues to get worse. Gas/energy prices, health insurance costs, college tuition costs, and record debt being carried are crippling many people's chances at the American dream.

Crippling many people's chances at the American dream?  Really?  Is that why homeownership hit record levels in 2004 (latest year I have data for) to 69.2%?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr404/q404tab5.html

Borrowing is at record highs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Borrowing is at record highs.

And since 1994, when has borrowing decreased?

[MODU]

As you can see here, the Bush administration's job predictions have been a bit off.

And as you can see, your graphic is out of date.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Now, as far as the 2% vs 98%, you statement is actually wrong as well.  GDP growth really only effects the nation, followed by the companies.  The benefit to the 100% of the population comes as the companies continue to improve, they can reinvest within themselves which then turns around and benefits the employees through pay raises and job creation.  Now while some portions of the population benefit more than others (since this is a Capitalistic, not Socialistic, system), most employees benefit in a growing economy.  Those that don't benefit are normally those stuck in businesses that are in a market that cannot grow, or in companies that will be absorbed/put out of business by sucessful companies.  Is it wrong that "the top 2%" (to use you number) benefit more than everyone else?  Not at all.  They have to take risks on their investments just like everyone else.  The difference is that they have either been more successful in their lives to get to this point, or they have benefitted from relatives who were successful.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As you can see here, the Bush administration's job predictions have been a bit off.

And as you can see, your graphic is out of date.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Now, as far as the 2% vs 98%, you statement is actually wrong as well.  GDP growth really only effects the nation, followed by the companies.  The benefit to the 100% of the population comes as the companies continue to improve, they can reinvest within themselves which then turns around and benefits the employees through pay raises and job creation.  Now while some portions of the population benefit more than others (since this is a Capitalistic, not Socialistic, system), most employees benefit in a growing economy.  Those that don't benefit are normally those stuck in businesses that are in a market that cannot grow, or in companies that will be absorbed/put out of business by sucessful companies.  Is it wrong that "the top 2%" (to use you number) benefit more than everyone else?  Not at all.  They have to take risks on their investments just like everyone else.  The difference is that they have either been more successful in their lives to get to this point, or they have benefitted from relatives who were successful.  

Explain to me how this is out of date. There are still only 134.061 million jobs, which is far less than the 138 million we were originally supposed to have 16 months ago.

If things were so great for the poorest 98%, we'd have more jobs. End of story.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Borrowing is at record highs.

And since 1994, when has borrowing decreased?

Not sure if it has in general, but the federal government ran surpluses in the last 2 years of the Clinton adminstration. We're now running $600 billion a year deficits. As for personal borrowing, they got this bankruptcy law passed just for the upcoming mortgage foreclosures.