Of course, that should be “One reason why tax receipts are up…”
This is a funny thread. I’d say that the economy is doing a little better despite Bush. In fact, it would probably doing quite a bit better if it weren’t for him. Plus, Bush is hurting the future economy, which future presidents will get the blame for. Oh yes, and Bush can thank China for funding our current economy (acting in its own self interest, of course). If it weren’t for China buying up dollars, Bush would not be president right now.
I actually (mostly) agree with this. Bush’s spending policies (and the Iraqi war) are certainly both long range drags on the economy. In particular his social spending I think will be harmful in the long run. We’ll see.
Conversely if China wasn’t artificially keeping the price of the dollar high and that of their own currency (who’s name escapes me at the moment…the yuan?) its quite possible that the US economy would be doing better as it would be easier for us to sell our goods overseas due to increased jobs in certain sectors.
-XT
I can’t link directly to it but if you go to The Bureau of Labor Statistics and click on the green dinosaur next to sesonally adjusted unemployment rate and then set the graph to 1948 - 2005, you can see the following trends:
In the current recession, we went from a low of 4.0% to a high of 5.8%, a rise in 1.8% which has now gone down to 5.2%.
Looking at some of the previous recessions, we had:
year range change
1989-1992 5.4%-7.3% 1.9%
1979-1983 5.9%-10.4% 4.6%
1973-1975 4.9%-8.1% 3.2%
1969-1971 3.4%-5.9% 2.5%
1956-1961 4.0%-6.6% 2.6%
1953-1955 2.9%-4.9% 2.0%
1948-1950 3.4%-6.5% 3.1%
As you can see from just looking at raw rates alone, this recession is the softest that the US has ever had since 1948 (Well, I don’t really know what to call the bit between 58 and 62, it doesn’t fit the cyclic model very well).
Furthermore, it has come of a remarkably long period of steady and sustained decrease in unemployment which probably pushed the unemployment rate below what was sustainable. In historical terms, this recession has been remarkably mild by historical standards just looking at unemployment rates. In short, your data simply does not support your claims.
I’m fully prepared to discuss vagaries with unemployment formulas and how many of the people either took on more part time work or simply stopped looking which makes the figures look artificially good. And I’m fully prepared to discuss issues to do with what has become a quite unaninmous consensus of respectable economists that Bush’s economic policy has been abysmal. But when someone uses a metric that measures the exact opposite of what it purports to measure and then uses it to criticise someone, no matter how odious, I’ll rush to defend him because thats simply not done.
In case anyone cares, I didn’t read the data carefully enough and only used the january figures to do my calculations. The principle still remains the same.
Really? I seem to recall a few references to “net job loss” during the recent elections.
Depends on your definition of “funny”. Also on your definition of “if it weren’t for him”.
If Kerry had won the election, Dopers would be falling all over themselves declaring him the greatest President since Lincoln, and that the end of all our economic woes was in sight. But he lost, so the economic news is only so-so.
'Twas ever thus. Republican Presidents are nearly unique in the world, in that their economic policies only have bad consequences. All the good things would have happened anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
Bullshit. If you don’t want to retract that, let’s see a cite. Many of us were lukewarm regarding Kerry, at best.
No, the economic news is only so-so because it is in fact, so-so. Hell, so-so is a pretty positive spin to put on it, but I’ll be nice.
In recent history, that’s actually proven to be true many times (but not without exception), which is sad as I’m actually fairly fiscally conservative. How did “Reaganomics” pan out for us? Isn’t it nice when your sarcastic statement is the only part of your post which is actually valid?
Which good things are those, exactly, so that I can respond to them individually? As I noted above, I do think some of them have put forward some positive economic policies, but I’m more than willing to address each of them that you think are positive.
It is a green dinosaur! 
…
This recession had the lowest peak, but it also had the broadest peak, with no sharp recovery. That plays directly into your comments about “people either took on more part time work or simply stopped looking.” It was a particular nastiness of this recession. Is a short recession with 10% unemployment objectively worse than a long recession with moderate unemployment? I’m not prepared to make that call, but if you are, you need to justify it.
Of course, the real story of what this recession means will have to wait ten years or so, until we know whether the unemployment rate ever retreats, or tails off around 5.1% forever.
Although using the percentages is probably not a good indicator, since as we both know, unemployment rates are measured in a manner that’s not very conducive to determining what is actually going on, due to the very tight definition under which one is considered unemployed, among other things. Raw unemployment numbers are a better indicator, but even they have flaws, but the raw numbers don’t look very good for the last few years.
What’s most telling to me is the number of displaced workers that are neither employed nor unemployed. Basically, a lot of people have just given up for a while. I don’t blame a lot of the problems on Bush, as 9/11 is responsible for many of the displaced. I do blame the administration for how they’ve responded, which I don’t think has been shown to be nearly as effective as claimed in the OP. I think we’re recovering, but I think it’s one of the slowest recoveries ever.
Not true. If Kerry increased government spending at the same time as cutting taxes, while sitting back and watching the deficits grow, I’d be all over him too. No economist in his/her right mind believes in supply side economics. There’s no such thing. I’ve always agreed that cutting taxes can boost consumption today. But it crowds out investment and restricts growth.
You can’t judge these guys by results or by party. Fiscal and monetary responsibility is what’s needed from government. This is why I always supported Bloomberg in NY, even though he’s a Republican.
A low, broad peak is exactly what you want. Not only is too much unemployment bad and too little unemployment bad, a rapid change in unemployment is also bad. Economic theory has always been to try and soften and broaden the landing so as to keep the disruption as small as possible.
That might be true if you were looking at an ideal measure of economic activity, but we’re not. You chose to use unemployment numbers which for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned, some I mentioned, and some DMC mentioned become increasingly irrelevant as a recession drags on.
I’m not claiming that Bush caused the worst recession in America’s history here, merely pointing out that claims that it was preternaturally mild, or was indeed the ‘soft landing’ Clinton steered us towards, are not so much a slam-dunk as you’ve implied. Here it is 5 years after the recession started (depending on whose timeline you believe), and we’re still only creating 146,000 jobs a month. Without a goodly bump to that figure, we’ll never get the underemployment problem under control.
Shalmanese: Using unemployment figures is misleading; for reasons I’m not even going to begin to detail here it’s not even comparable over the time periods you posted, which is why I used the number of people employed instead. It’s the only consistent measure of employment over time, which is why Wall Street follows it. If you have to make a bet with your own money, you’re going to use the best information available. And the series that I used is the best information available. Period.
As to your ridiculous assertions above, look at your own data. The 1989-1992 period was comparable by your own inaccurate and politically massaged measure, yet the recovery in employment from that was quite a bit better, as I showed. Perhaps you’d like to explain that?
Sure, but people were generally not blaming Bush for the initial economic problems such as the stock market bubble pop, as I said.
What they were blaming the hell out of Bush for was the abysmal failure of his vaunted tax policies to meet his own predicted targets for economic recovery.
In other words, you can’t criticize the Leader for inheriting a problem, but you can certainly criticize him for assuring you that his solution will fix the problem and then failing to do so.
Soylent Gene: I’ve usually seen numbers of 140-150k as the level to handle people entering the job market, which, to answer flickster’s question, does take into account the exiting as well as the entering. So 3.5 million over two years is breaking even.
According to a Krugman column from early last month, a significant portion of the revenue increase was due to robust corporate taxes from higher than expected corporate profits and sunset of temporary tax breaks. Obviously high corporate profits are a good thing and one hopes they will continue.
The low unemployment numbers are countered by both low employment to population ratios and the fact that real wages are stagnant or declining somewhat, which indicates a weak labor market.
I am not sure I would call the deficit rapidly shrinking, especially given that the administration likes to put major expenses off-budget (and to attach unrelated expenditures to those off-budget bills). (Who can say if we will spend any money in Iraq or Afghanistan?)
Use unemployment rates, use unemployment figures, use whatever. It still doesn’t change the fact that measuring recovery from peak unemployment after a given time is a shitty metric by which to measure how good a government is doing economically. Even flipping a coin would be better.
Government economists aim for a stable system, one which doesn’t deviate significantly from the average and changes slowly. Your metric favours exactly the opposite. A quick, sharp peak followed by a quick, sharp trough.
So? Yes, the 1989-92 had a roughly similar rise in unemployment but I don’t see how you can say it’s better until we reach the end of this current cycle. It could be a longer and slower decrease which in many ways would be preferable or it could end tomorrow which would make it pretty bad but theres no way of telling until it happens.
Nice try at ignoring the evidence, but the evidence very clearly points to stagnation, which means, for the purposes of this thread, that the Bush tax-cut on top of tax-cut on top of tax-cut policy has accomplished less than nothing, which was my point. Unless you’re going to argue that a prosperity that starts two, three or four years after such cuts (assuming that this slow grind morphs, finally, into a spell of prosperity) is directly attributable to their effect. Good luck with that.
“The economy” is too vast for me to grasp, butthings like this surely can’t be a good sign. Nor the fact that most average families are working two jobs just to break even. Nor the fact that employment is more and more going into low paying jobs and the middle class share of the total income is stagnant or dropping. Nor is a large and growing balance of trade deficit. Nor the fact that our national deficit is heavily refinanced by selling US bond abroad.
Linky-link no work.
OG cry many tears.
Worked for me. Here’s a sample of the story: