This source gives some actual data regarding “discouraged workers.”
Now look at Table 1 on page 3. The black line is the official unemployment rate. The light orange line U-4 includes discouraged workers. Notice how adding in the discouraged workers makes only a small percentage change in the total. It makes no change in the direction. That is, when unemployment rises, unemployment including discouraged workers rises, and vice versa.
That was quick, disappointingly so. But we do still have this one, when the search is on “Clinton Reagan deficit”: Ronald Reagan is GOD. It’s a long one, full of Sam’s false and filtered information and other straw men being batted down as usual (generally with yeomanlike work by jshore and RTFirefly), but yes, he doesn’t claim that Reagan’s deficits were actually a good thing. Instead, he blames Volcker, the Democrats in Congress, the Evil Empire, the zeitgeist, etc., and excuses the Reagan deficits as temporary and just not all that bad and not really his fault anyway, and not due directly to his tax cuts and deficit spending but to his somehow not standing up to the real bad guys. That tune from Sam has changed a bit though, hasn’t it?
An example of Sam’s devotion (if incomplete) to the discredited and fraudulent supply-sidist argument, as I mentioned earlier, is this:
So I did inadvertently misstate his views that Reagan’s deficits were actually a good thing, but not that he hasn’t always been as strongly negative about them. He did, in that thread, strenuously excuse them (and blame others) as an inevitable result of the measures taken for the great boom we’d see from reduced taxation of the rich. Funny how that isn’t happening this time, isn’t it?
And, while we’re at it, there’s this about consistent partisanship, from the same thread (if any new example were needed):
So that’s all from one surviving thread, albeit a good one. Now can we get back to discussing the current situation, and actual facts instead of wishin’ and hopin’?
Fair enough. I’m all for getting back to the original topic.
Oh, so you found a thread where I said that Reagan shared some blame for the deficit. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. But I see you’ve changed the charge. Now I’m guilty of ‘partisanship’. Wow. And in the very message where you have to admit that you launched a false attack at me, you accuse ME of offering ‘false and filtered information’. You’ve got a lot of nerve.
And yes, the deficits were eradicated by economic growth. In both Reagan’s and Clinton’s cases. And that’s the only thing that will erase Bush’s deficits, too.
So in other words, your attack was completely uncalled for, and irrelevant to the discussion to boot. So thanks for that. And even in your admission that you got it wrong, you managed to smear me some more, and add another flat-out falsehood, which is that I blamed Volcker for anything. I have been consistent in my PRAISE for Paul Volcker, and for Jimmy Carter’s appointment of him. What I did say was that Reagan lost the revenue from ‘bracket creep’ due to Volcker breaking the back of inflation, and Reagan’s lowering of tax rates. That was simply a structural thing, and a common fact recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Nothing voodoo about it.
I have two questions for you: 1) When are you going to stop attacking me for unrelated issues in every bloody thread, and 2) When are you going to stop misrepresenting what I say?
If you’ve got a personal problem with me, Elvis, why don’t you do what everyone else does, and just go open a damned pit thread? These continual digs and sniping are getting tiresome.
Source: Wall Street Journal e-mail
So, confidence about the economic recovery solidified…except in the mind of Paul Krugman, where everything Bush does is a mistake.
I remember when the DJIA broke 10,000. There were parties and people were saying this signaled a new era in American prosperity and wealth. They were very confident about it. I think I read it in the WSJ.
Enjoy,
Steven
Just out of curiousity, how many folks reading this thread have also read this thread?
Yeah, it’s all anecdotal, but among the Dopers, it seems Bush’s Big Economic Recovery just isn’t happening…
Y’know, on a board devoted to fighting ignorance, it’s pretty sad that you guys are reduced to asking for anecdotes to make your point, because you don’t trust those tricky economists…
Cute, but there is an Index of Leading Indicators. It’s based on economic statistics that are believed to be good predictors of the economy. The movement f the stock market is one of the Leading Indicators.
Since my income is up over 60% since Jan. 2000, putting me safely into the 6-figure range, does that have any practical bearing on the economy and/or GW? Or would it be just another anecdotal blurb, of no consequence to the question, “Is the US economy getting better or getting worse”?
Actually if Bush is anything like his dad that should be normal. I think it was during the last two Bush Sr years that while the bottom 97% of wage earners lost money the top 3% actually grew.
Anywais I have a question. If the economy doesn’t pick up next year will it still be because of 9-11 and Clinton’s tech bubble or will it be because of the blackout in NY?
That is a very misleading statistic there, december. The Dow is only up 5% since November 27, 2002, when it was at 8,931. That’s right when the market took a nosedive on the increased saberrattling from the Bush administration. You can hardly call the increase from March a victory for Bush, when it was his war posturing that put it down there in the first place.
I lend a bit more weight to real people with real problems over what some flag-waving pundit is theorizing in an air-conditioned newsroom.
I can only conclude your lack of concern for the plight of everyday Dopers is more of that “compassionate conservatism” I keep hearing about.
Wow. You give good spin. Because I trust wide-ranging, dispassionate, scientific analysis over self-selected anecdotal comments from a skewed population, I’m a heartless bastard?
It’s ironic that your accusation of a misleading statistic is immediately followed by a misleading statistic. For some reason, the Yahoo Dow Jones chart isn’t working, but take a look as Nasdaq, which follows a similar pattern. You chose a base of late November, 2002, which was a relative high point. Nasdaq had already risen 20% from early October, 2002.
The normal way to measure the rise in the stock market is from a trough, not from a peak. If you had measured the rise from the early Oct., 2002 trough, you’d have seen a 25% rise, rather than a 5% rise.
I take it that you don’t think the cut in dividend taxes did have anything to do with the increase in the stock market. Please explain why not.
Don’t know where you got that impression. I think the Bush tax cuts did contribute to the rise in the stock market.
As the OP in the thread referenced, a couple of comments:
I agree that the anecdotal evidence on my site is hardly a scientific survey. However, I don’t think it’s any less accurate than the economic data that’s been spun (in all directions) on this thread. Unemployment numbers and the DJIA don’t really represent the reality on the ground for most folks. They’re just garbage. I agree with Sam that it is a sad thing when anecdotal evidence has to be used instead of objective survey data, but there isn’t a whole hell of a lot of really objective survey data around. I don’t believe a WORD of what the media has to say about the economy – the TV and radio networks have had their faces in Dubya’s lap since before he was elected.
So I go for anecdotal evidence.
My own take on the economy is that we ARE in a jobless recovery, but I think the term is misleading. It tends to imply that while business is picking up, jobs aren’t being created to match. That is true, but I think thigs are actually worse than that – the number of jobs is actually declining. Businesses are succeeding by moving more of the ops offshore and by improving productivity so that when people leave they don’t have to be replaced. Period layoffs, etc., get the people to leave so that the number of employees stadily declines.
The real level of economic distress is being masked by the fact that many people who have been laid off have found other work – at a fraction of the money they WERE making, and by the kind of spin we’re seeing here and on Fox News.
In any event, I am absolutely unashamed by my preference for anecdotal evidence over the infinitely massaged numbers you guys toss about as if they mean something.
So let me get this straight - the media, the financial institutions, and other academics who all concur that the economy is improving are all wrong, because… Because you don’t think it is? So instead you choose to trust non-scientific, non-objective data that just happens to concur with your personal beliefs.
That is a classic example of just WHY you need a scientific method. You would have made a good barber, ca 1400.
And your method is normal, because…??? Meanwhile, you are busy misdirecting the debate from the Dow to the NASDAQ, because the Dow doesn’t support your argument any more. Perhaps I should drag in some obscure reference to the Chicago Mercantile Exchage. Look, my point was the March trough was caused directly by the war build up, and it is disingenuous of you to point at that rise at crow about any supposed Bush economic turnaround. But then, that kind of spin is par for the december course now, isn’t it?