# The economy is doing great **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2007, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764 "2007-01-20T22:56:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/21 "2007-01-21T16:05:41Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] 1. Real estate values have soared, [/QUOTE] I’ll flesh out \*\*DMC \*\*a bit in this. I don’t think you need to be a radical wild-eyed Berkley indigenous person to say that the heights that U.S. Real Estate “soared” to was dangerous and unhealthy. Un-Trotskyite Names like Greenspan, Templeton, Buffett, and Volcker all warned that the Real Estate Market was overheated and (more or less) “bad”. Bush’s job to most the smart money was to bring the Real Estate prices in for a soft and stable landing (not to continue the “soaring”). _To their credit so far in early days I’d say “Mission Accomplished” - except for Condos in some areas- but it is early days and not specifically asked by the OP_ ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/22 "2007-01-21T17:19:07Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] But I’m imagining that there are a few libs who feel that this is wrong or misleading. Perhaps the crucial data is missing, for instance the moving average of the ratio between the highest and lowest deciles shows that the fat cats are outperforming the recent immigrants by 1% more than they did in 2000. I don’t have the resources to look it up. Or you might say there is no correlation between who the president is and how the economy does, despite numerous posts about the Clinton boom years and how Bush destroyed the economy in his first few days in office. So let’s debate: How’s the economy and who gets credit or blame? [/QUOTE] Hummmmmm, If there actually are “numerous posts about the Clinton boom years and how Bush destroyed the economy in his first few days in office”, linking to at least a few of them ought not to be so difficult. I’ve been a regular reader of the Straght Dope since the day the Chimp first took office and I can’t recall any. There may be a few loopies who say that Bush “destroyed” the economy but most liberals agree that the economy’s been decent in his administration, thought as we’ve seen it’s not nearly as heavenly as Jonah Glodberg would have us believe. When liberals mention the boom years under Clinton, they do so to dispell a myth from conservatives. Conservatives often assert with little or not proof that Democrats in power are bad for the economy. (See last week’s Weekly Standard for example.) The eight consecutive very good years under President Clinton prove this assertion wrong. Historically speaking, I’ve never seen any evidence that the economy prefers one party to the other. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/23 "2007-01-21T18:09:50Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Jonah Goldberg? Luciannes little baby boy, the same one who has been dead wrong about everything for the past several years? Seriously? [/QUOTE] Actually, it gets even worse than this…I went and found [the column](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGNlNGQyZjQ1YmM3ZGY4NTJkMjc5OWRiMGMxYmU0OTA=) that our OP’s post is based upon and it turns out that it was a post of an e-mail that Goldberg was sent that later even he sort of semi-disavowed after a reader wrote to point out that it was a bit at variance with reality: > [@](#): > > For the record, this was not “my case.” Not every email I post speaks for me. If they did, I’d post less hate mail. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/24 "2007-01-21T18:16:21Z")
:smack: Geez, and we wasted time on this? Grrr… Anyway, a funny along the lines of “We’re all doomed!” from last week’s _Barron’s_, posted purely for the giggle factor. To quote Jonah, this is not “my case”. I just find it entertaining: > [@](#): > > In 2006 - hurrah, hurrah - the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 16% and the S&P 500 14%. But in euro terms, the S&P was up less than 5%. In gold terms it was down. The U.S. also has a split economy. The typical household is not doing well. But one economy is doing exceedingly well: the asset shufflers in this room. [Nervous laughter] This economy is in the greatest bubble ever. There’s a bubble in the art market; art prices were up 27% last year. There’s a bubble in equities, especially in emerging markets, and in real-estate in Anglo-Saxon countries. The big threat is not that liquidity will vanish because of Federal Reserve action. The Fed will print money, I guarantee you. But when asset markets go up, they create liquidity by allowing people to borrow more money against appreciating assets. When asset values go down, liquidity contracts immediately because people repay loans. The moment the asset bubble begins to deflate, liquidity will contract. > > Barron’s: Housing assets are deflating, and there’s no liquidity crisis. > > Faber: Housing could fall in real terms over the next 10 years, but stay level or rise in nominal terms. It depends how much money you print. By the way, I have here a million-dollar bill. In my lifetime I will need a million dollars to buy a cup of coffee. > > Barron’s: How long do you plan to live? > > Faber: I am already on bonus time. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/25 "2007-01-21T19:04:49Z")
[QUOTE=Captain\_C] And buy our cars, dammit! [/QUOTE] Sure, but make some better cars first. Capitalism rewards quality and innovation. I think Detroit has always benefited at least in some part to patriotic buyers and has always enjoyed economic advantages over imports. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/26 "2007-01-21T19:44:56Z")
[QUOTE=The Controvert] Capitalism rewards quality and innovation. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that’s why Microsoft is so big. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/27 "2007-01-21T19:59:04Z")
I will post a blistering riposte, **Dave** , if my Internet Explorer doesn’t cra ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/28 "2007-01-21T20:01:11Z")
Perception of how good this economy is also depends on your age - If you’re in your 20’s or early 30’s, the only other economy you really have to compare against this one was Clinton’s, and that was a period of the biggest change and biggest asset bubble we’ve seen in the last century. It’s an impossible standard to maintain over time, and compared to it this economy might just look ho-hum. Those of us in our 40’s and older remember earlier times. I started working in the late 1970’s, and let me tell you, this economy is awesome compared to then. When I entered the work force, unemployement was around 10%. Today it’s less than 5%. Interest rates were pushing 20%. People had mortages that didn’t even pay all the interest - their equity was going _down_ each month. We bought our first house in 1991. It proceeded to lose 20% of its value over the next five years. We sold it five years after that, at which point its value had not quite recovered. So our house stayed flat in value for 10 years. But in any economy, you can find good and bad things. The good part about high interest is that the people who were saving their money were doing fine. When real estate crashed, it became more affordable for young people. Now the complaint is that people can no longer afford our city, because the price of real estate has rapidly outstripped increases in the price of labor. In my city, we have effectively 0% unemployment. Anyone who wants a job can take his pick. 7-11 is offering $1000 signing bonuses and paying $9/hr. Restaraunts are closing early because they lack staff. That creates its own problems. Everywhere you go these days there are lineups. Contractor work is shoddier because they’re all overbooked and training new workers all the time. The cost of real estate is forcing the construction of high-density condos, which is stressing an infrastructure that wasn’t build to handle high-density residential. So you can always find good and bad things to say. That’s why we try to standardize on a few aggregate measures when comparing economies, and it’s also why partisans on both sides always try to subvert, ignore, or critisize those measures when trying to score political points. Unemployment’s low? Well, it’s not ‘real’ unemployment. The ‘hidden’ unemployment figures are much worse. Real estate values are going up? That just makes people borrow against their houses and skew all the other measures - it’s all an illusion. But ask yourself - would the same people criticising housing prices today shut up if housing prices had stayed flat or gone down? Or would they then be arguing that the economy is terrible because real estate is flat? If unemployment hit 4% under a Democratic president, would they still be complaining that the number is bogus? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/29 "2007-01-21T21:12:02Z")
Uh, **Sam**? I believe we are discussing the US economy? Last I heard, aren’t you a resident of the People’s Republic of Canada? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/30 "2007-01-21T21:55:37Z")
Our economy tracks yours pretty closely. The tech bubble was just as big here. The real estate collapse in 1991 happened in both countries, the current real estate bubble is going on in both countries, our interest rates and inflation are close to yours, etc. Either the U.S. economy is so big that we’re tidally locked to it, or there are factors in the economy that have little to do with whatever administration is in power and more to do with the business cycle or other changes. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/31 "2007-01-21T22:36:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Either the U.S. economy is so big that we’re tidally locked to it I would argue, knowing little about the subject, that the situation is more like our economies are closely intertwined, and much that anyone says about either nation’s economy will apply to the other’s as well. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/32 "2007-01-21T23:48:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Perception of how good this economy is also depends on your age I disagree, **Sam** , although I think you’re close. I think it depends on your income level. If you’ve got solid earnings and lots of assets, it’s a great economy. If you’re unemployed, or middle or lower level income trying to struggle to keep up, it’s a lousy economy. (I grant you, financial stability is often related to age.) ---
**Author:** ![That\_creates\_more\_Q\_s\_than\_A\_s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/54ee81/32.png) [@That\_creates\_more\_Q\_s\_than\_A\_s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_creates_more_Q_s_than_A_s)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/33 "2007-01-22T01:15:19Z")
The economy always sucks when you don’t have a job, or have a job at Walmart. Why the unions aren’t more active I really can’t say, other than that they have followed the trends in industry, with a greater salary spread from top to bottom of the organization. We need more union leaders who spent many years poor, but some at the top are lawyers, etc. who were born privileged. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/34 "2007-01-22T03:37:39Z")
**Sam** : at the risk of repeating myself, see [here.](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE?&cid=10) That already happened under Clinton and under Johnson 40 years ago. When I was a kid growing up, unemployment below 4% was completely unremarkable. That would be the late sixties. Check it out on the chart. That said, I’d agree that this is a decent economy. However, to continue the _Barron’s_ theme, even the plutocrats are getting worried about the uneven distribution of the gains in this cycle: this week’s cover story is “Rich America, Poor America”. According to that article, the Gini coefficient of the US has gone from .39 in 1970 to .45 now, one point above China. Not good company to be in. I have argued that in dynamic economies, inequality = opportunity, and I truly believe that. But the excessive gains going to the upper classes in the current cycle aren’t sustainable at all, not without a lot of strife bubbling up. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/35 "2007-01-22T03:48:10Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] From a recent post at National Review Online, by Jonah Goldberg: [/QUOTE] I stopped reading the OP at this point, realizing that the source is officially full of crap. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/36 "2007-01-23T04:24:30Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Jonah Goldberg? Luciannes little baby boy, the same one who has been dead wrong about everything for the past several years? Seriously? [/QUOTE] So much to respond to, so little time. Actually it’s true that Jonah overstated his case a bit, but that’s what debates are for, and I appreciate the dopers who took the time and effort to point this out. I could never have the patience to do stuff like that myself. I’ll be careful about his stats in the future. Still the points he made are valid. The economy is great. The indicators I mentioned, unemployment and inflation, are doing great. And I think those are the two most important ones. And I kind of got a kick out of the ad hominem attack on Goldberg in the above post. Very persuasive stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/37 "2007-01-23T04:32:00Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > And I kind of got a kick out of the ad hominem attack on Goldberg in the above post. What do you think an _ad hominem_ is? I’ll give you a hint: saying the guy’s been wrong steadily for years doesn’t count. **luci** is saying that, given Goldberg’s crappy record, taking this seriously is pretty difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/38 "2007-01-23T04:37:03Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Hummmmmm, If there actually are “numerous posts about the Clinton boom years and how Bush destroyed the economy in his first few days in office”, linking to at least a few of them ought not to be so difficult. I’ve been a regular reader of the Straght Dope since the day the Chimp first took office and I can’t recall any. There may be a few loopies who say that Bush “destroyed” the economy but most liberals agree that the economy’s been decent in his administration, thought as we’ve seen it’s not nearly as heavenly as Jonah Glodberg would have us believe. When liberals mention the boom years under Clinton, they do so to dispell a myth from conservatives. Conservatives often assert with little or not proof that Democrats in power are bad for the economy. (See last week’s Weekly Standard for example.) The eight consecutive very good years under President Clinton prove this assertion wrong. Historically speaking, I’ve never seen any evidence that the economy prefers one party to the other. [/QUOTE] OK I’ll respond to one more post. You ask for a cite. How about this thread post #22. \*\*The eight consecutive very good years under President Clinton \*\* sounds like a reference to Clinton boom years to me. Also gonzomax’s wors, **The middle class has been slaughtered the last 6 years** fit the second part of the statement. BTW, Clinton did not have eight consecutive very good years. IIRC, he had two mediocre years, five boom/bubble years, and a stock market crash in his last year. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/39 "2007-01-23T13:19:21Z")
I guess we _could_ say—the Economy is doing _great_…for _other people_. Now…if we could only _find_ these other people… ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764/40 "2007-01-23T14:10:57Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] What do you think an _ad hominem_ is? [/QUOTE] How about a statement like **Luciannes little baby boy**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-economy-is-doing-great/388764.md?page=3)