The economy is doing great

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

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.

Actually, it gets even worse than this…I went and found the column 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:

: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:

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.

Yeah, that’s why Microsoft is so big.

I will post a blistering riposte, Dave, if my Internet Explorer doesn’t cra

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Sam: at the risk of repeating myself, see here.
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.

I stopped reading the OP at this point, realizing that the source is officially full of crap.

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.

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.

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.

I guess we could say—the Economy is doing great…for other people.

Now…if we could only find these other people…

How about a statement like Luciannes little baby boy?