Thinking about a Kerry victory again, Elucidator?
One thing -
In the OP, you said of Afghanistan:
“Most of the country is once again controlled by the same Afghan warlords that gave the Taliban the popular support they needed to gain control.”
This isn’t really what happened. The warlords didn’t support the Taliban, as the Taliban was violently destroying the opium trade. The Taliban cut the arms off of opium farmers, which is part of the reason they (the Taliban, not the farmers) got several million dollars from the US as ‘advocates in the war on drugs’ during the years prior to 9-11. Popular support for the Taliban was just that, popular, and they were widely supported by the people. Of course, the Taliban went several steps too far (stopping drugs, good; beating and killing men for not long enough beards, bad; killing women for being inappropriately dressed, very bad) and lost much of the popular support they had, which coupled with tribal alliances and direct US support of the warlords with money and guns and training led to the destruction of the Taliban.
Of course, since we buggered off afterwards (for the most part), the warlords of the Northern Alliance are back in control, and one statistic I read shows that Afghanistan is once again the world’s largest grower of opium as the farmers have no other cash crop and no other jobs. So as well as complete chaos there (except where we have 17k troops, of course - then we only get car bombs, kidnappings and assasinations), we also have a resurgent drug problem and a bunch of warlords with a whole bunch of desperate farmers who they can force to grow opium again and no fear of anyone shutting them down.
On the original post, though -
As a Libertarian, living in the UK and ex-Air Force as well, I sometimes find it very difficult to show why I disagree so violently with much of what my government does on the international stage and why I hate Bush and Co so much for destroying our one golden chance to be the true good guys, doing something right not just for us but for the whole world. Instead our leaders are screwing it up so badly I am ashamed to tell people where I am from
The OP shows this so very well that I plan on sending it to all my friends and family (and not just cause it was so well written, either!). 
So thank you…
Ah… a bit of unclear writing on my part. When I said that the Afghan warlords gave the Taliban the popular support they needed to gain control, I meant that the corruption and violence of the warlords made the population of Afghanistan initially welcome the Taliban.
Please, it’s only July. Wait until October before you destroy his hopes that this election will actually be fair and honest for a change.
True, perhaps that wasn’t the best example. However, I still think recent stock market growth reflects economic progress. The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at nearly 10,500 about one month ago, and has increased approximately 16% over the last two years.
I maintain that, at least for the time being, the USA’s economy is very strong, and I think the sustained GDP growth is the best indicator of that. As for the unemployment rate, I got that statistic from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, which apparently “corrects for the normal increase in the number of people working for pay or seeking work due to population increases and increases in the paid labor force relative to the population – and thus the normal increase in the number of unemployed workers.” This is the typical fashion unemployment rates have been tabulated for previous presidents. Of course, there have been ups and downs in expected American job growth over the past year, but monthly growth has so far been sustained, and has accumulated impressively. However, as I said, it has been highly controversial exactly how many jobs were lost during Bush’s first three years as President. Whereas some surveys suggested up to 2.5 million jobs were lost, others, such as the household survey, actually reported small job gains (up to 450,000). Also, an increase in corporate profits is not a bad thing so long as the demand for American goods continues to be strong in national or international markets. The expansions that those profits will invariably fund will be highly beneficial to both entrepreneurs seeking investment and consumers seeking more-efficiently produced, lower-priced goods.
There was a day, perhaps. Now, in my late youth, it takes rather more than that to reach full pithecanthrobus erectus. I need to fantasize a scene of citizens marching on Castle Cheney, with torches and pitchforks, kind of like an updated “Storming the Winter Palace” scene in Battleship Potemkin.
When it comes to firing up the ol’ revolutionary ardor, Kerry is…well, Kerry.
He’ll do. That’s all. For now, its enough.
The stock market reflects investor sentiment and climate, not necessarily the economy.
Perhaps, but this is like those dodgy investment brochures that show you limited, select data and make them out to be the ne plus ultra of opportunities. Considering how badly the stock markets tanked three years ago, being up 16% over the last two years is not proof of a dandy economy; indeed, we have been discussing some of the problems in other areas that are more serious that stock market fluctuations.
By the way, the DOW may be struggling along, but the NASDAQ is at a 2004 low.
It’s a respectable performance but hold your horses. Consider the number of times the government finds itself “revising” figures – not just terrorist attacks (up instead of down as originally reported) and jobs forecasts (fewer than expected), but also GDP:
Yes, what happened in recent years is that a large number of people gave up looking for a job and left the workforce, which I am sure the department of labour is quite happy to strike from the participants’ lists. That’s why in real terms the unemployment rate is actually higher. I don’t believe there has been a job situation this severe or protracted in the last few presidencies.
Could you bring forward a cite for these assertions and make them clearer? Job growth has amounted to about 1 million from the low point – short of expectations and not managing to fix the problems the economy faces.
You appear to be referring to some sort of a trickle-down effect, that has so far not been in evidence. American goods and services could be in a lot better shape, as I described in my previous email. And even though wage pressure is low (and thus wages are not rising, which is a major problem and a historical anomaly) America remains overall not very competitive in international markets – that’s the reason countries like India and China are being targeted in the outsourcing wars, because they can provide a service for a far lesser fee. The weak dollar of the last few years is helping offset that lack of competitiveness right now, but I don’t think it is likely to last if we see a return of the strong buck (and, god forbid, a weak Euro!).
Here’s the view from the Merril Lynch chief North American economist that hits on some of this discussion:
We disagree politically, but you reacted as I hoped you would to my attempt at humor. It was very refreshing. Thank you.
I haven’t looked exhaustively, but I’ve looked, for some indication of how many “lesser of two evils” voters might be lurking out there…but alas I return to the fray citeless.
However, in general, I think such folks were a sizeable chunk of voters in 2000, and will probably be a sizable chunk this November.
How is voting for the lesser of two evils less of a wasted vote than a 3rd party vote? It perpetuates the status quo and is just as responsible, if not moreso, for the “stronger and more entrenched than ever” bipartisan bane.
The difference in this election from the last, to me, is that removing Bush is a higher priority than trying to reform bipartisanism.
If voting 3rd party is not (iyho) a viable way of attempting to bring about some of that reform, how is voting along bipartisan lines any more viable?
Although David Rosenberg may think that “the party’s over”, he does concede that “with just economic data, it’s not looking too bad for the President.” Therefore, he essentially agrees with my argument that the American economy has been strong at least up to this point. Other economic thought, such as the consensus at the US Federal Reserve, indicate that growth will continue. When the Federal Reserve raised interest rates at the beginning of July, Alan Greenspan had something different to say about the state and future of the economy. His reason for raising interest rates was that “Output is continuing to expand at a solid pace and labor market conditions have improved.” An article in the Dallas Morning News reporting on the event said that this was “the final indication that the American economy has finally shrugged off the recession that brought the roaring 1990s to an end.”
http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12168379&BRD=1170&PAG=740&dept_id=226959&rfi=6
Despite his seniority, keep in mind that this is just one economist’s educated guess, and he doesn’t try to disguise this either.
“Most of the leading indicators are telling us that we have turned the corner on the employment side. [But] I’m not necessarily convinced that we’re going to be seeing the very strong numbers continue.”
Of course, other evidence says the opposite.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5214916/
This recent article adds “to evidence that job growth will keep the U.S. economic recovery rolling.” (emphasis mine) Not only does the article contend that the US economy is currently “rolling”, it also says that “jobless recovery” talk has been “scotch(ed)”. If you click on “Employment Situation” in the box on the middle of the page, it shows that despite some months with net losses and others with gains, nearly 1.5 million jobs have been created in America since last September. Note that although Rosenberg does not predict continued job creation, he does say that recent employment numbers have been “very strong.”
As I said, I think even Rosenberg believes that the American economy has been strong until recently. Not being an economist, I can’t say whether this trend will continue. I will however, point out that although Rosenberg has made many correct economic predictions in the past, others have turned out to be largely inaccurate. For instance, in a February, 2003, MacLean’s article he said, “What I see for the U.S. is a repeat performance (in 2003) – choppy and sloppy growth, GDP coming in at around 2.5 per cent, which is about the same as 2002. And the bottom line is that I can’t remember a time when the economy accelerated the year after the stock market was down more than 20 per cent and oil prices were up more than 50 per cent. So, if anything, there’s probably more downside than upside risk to the forecast.” Of the four quarters in 2003, he greatly underestimated GDP growth all but the first.
Although things look less promising on “the income side”, Rosenberg does not mention some evidence which suggests the trend may be finished. So long as America’s unemployment rate continues to decrease (it was 6.2% last July) the increasing scarcity of workers will cause wages to increase as companies compete for the available labor. A Forbes article reported that consumer spending increased a “modest” .4% in May after adjustment for inflation, which was the “largest amount in more than two years.” The same article states that American incomes improved a “strong” .6% “for the second straight month.” Both of these figures were modesty higher than predicted targets. A CBS News article reported similar income trends.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2004/06/28/ap1435267.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/national/main620525.shtml
Also, you seem to imply that revised estimates for job creation and GDP growth indicate some sinister motive, but keep in mind that those figures are just as often revised upwards as they are revised downwards. For instance, a CNN/Money article reported that “April job growth was revised up (to 346,000) from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The department also revised the number of jobs created in March, to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000.” In April a CBS News article said, “Payroll growth in previous months was also revised higher, by a total of 86,000 jobs. January’s gain was revised from 97,000 to 159,000 while February’s was revised to 46,000 from 21,000.” April’s employment situation “far exceeded” the expectations of CBS’ economists. Similarly, if the Department Of Labor is seeking to superficially inflate Bush’s economic record, then for the time being they are probably not quite happy with the fashion they use to tabulate the unemployment rate. The same CNN/Money article reported that, “One reason the unemployment rate is little changed despite nearly a million new jobs in the last three months is that many unemployed people are coming back into the job market.” This statement may suggest that the unemployment rate would be lower if it was calculated in a different way.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/04/news/economy/jobless_may/
Who’d have though it would be so difficult just to figure out whether the economy is good or not. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.”
One also has to look very closely at the economy because it tends to go in cycles. It is sort of silly to re-elect a President because the economy is naturally cycling to better times if
(1) That President has paid an incredible amount in terms of current and future deficits in order to buy whatever small contribution his stimulus has made to a recovery that was going to happen anyway.
(2) There is various evidence, as noted in this thread, that the recovery is benefitting some people more than others and that the benefits are accruing in just the way one would expect when the policies are geared more toward the well-off than the average working person.
Blackclaw, I’m sure it means little coming from me, but…I salute you, sir. You give me hope that there are conservatives out there that I can respect, rather than fear or laugh at. (Or both)
If my country were in the hands of people with minds and hearts like yours, I wouldn’t always agree necessarily, but I wouldn’t be horrified, ashamed and angry as I am now.
I hope there’s a whole lot more like you.
Actually it means a lot.
Ah well, there goes my hope of being a feared comedian.
This is where we disagree. “Very strong” are not words I would use to describe the economy, and really are not the same as Rosenberg’s general “it’s not looking too bad for the president” comments, for the reasons described – many of them highly particular to this situation it would seem (i.e. low core inflation but interest hikes, delayed and stuttering job growth, lack of wage pressure, microscopic wage growth but very high earnings growth, etc.).
Greenspan has been taking trips to the Twilight Zone for quite some time now, I suspect owing to his original collusion with the Bush administration in approving the irresponsible tax cuts (he of all people!), with the result that he now needs to fix the problems in the system (which means interest hikes are likely).
More to read in that article but I can’t quote any more. Anyway, the view is not rosy, although there seems to be no shortage of “irrational exuberance” going on these days – just not on the market side this time around.
Of course, Rosenberg is just another expert and could well be wrong, though his arguments make sense and are not standalone, rather part of my general thrust that things are not nearly as fine as may seem (indeed, his argument about the 180 billion hurdle is sound, and his analysis of the problems of income deserves attention). Taking into account the results of the survey reported above in the MSNBC story, I should emphasize that this is a survey of intention at this stage, and though it bodes fairly well consider that the growth in expectations that they report as being near boom levels is in fact a measly 2% increase over the April-June estimates.
It now looks like jobs may be starting to finally grow after a serious lag, but compared to historical norm, this is still a “jobless” recovery, considering the recovery has been going on for almost a year. The figures provided in the box are hardly much better; the US economy needs to add approximately 150,000 jobs every month to keep up with the growth of the workforce, and June – the most recent data I have – added a measly 112,000, less than half of expectations and accompanied by problems like the slight wage drop. The question now is whether June is a one-off thing or an indication of a broader decelaration. Consider that it is only in the last 10 months that jobs have been added consistently, and only in March, April, and May that sufficient jobs were added to exceed the 150,000 workforce growth factor. The fluke may be March-May, or it may be the other 6-7 months in this period.
That’s the idea, but it does not seem to be happening, or if it is, it is happening far too gradually. Future data will tell us what sort of wage pressure there will be, but at the moment to my knowldge the lack of wage pressure is a serious issue.
Need more than just a month though. The figures I have from June indicate an annualized growth in wages of 0.8%, with a massive 50% increase in corporate profits – you couldn’t have a more skewed scenario. As has been said before, the rich get richer, the rest get to deal with the economic reality.
Very true, I just thought it was funny, and don’t forget the Fed – I don’t believe they are being realistic or terribly honest in their “forecasts” (or cheerleading, as they have more appropriately been called).
No, I don’t think this is possible, and I am guessing this is the lowest “version” of the unemployment rate it is possible to calculate. This is related to my point earlier, when I said that the unemployment rate has been artificially lowered because droves of job-seekers had quit looking for a job and were no longer being counted in surveys. The unemployment rate for June without this adjustment would have been well over 7%. However the calculation is based on participation rates in job-hunting, not just the unemployed. As people once again start looking for jobs they necessarily are counted once again in unemployment surveys, which increases the total and thus revises the unemployment rate upwards. It would be impossible with present data for the unemployment rate calculation to be lower than it is, unless those people resuming their search for a job were to be excluded from the calculation. This is one of the reasons the unemployment rate is not moving even though in 3 months good job growth was observed.
In the end only time will tell, but I see a lot of hope and reliance on “magic money” rather than planned and balanced growth. I could be wrong but when the data up to or exclusively of June show drops in durable goods orders, drops in vehicle sales, corporate retail profit warnings, a drop in retail sales, a slow-down in GDP growth over the previous quarters, etc., I am not going to conclude that the economy is doing very well, particularly with the titanic deficits, the disastrous increase in healthcare costs for the average person, and so forth. I’m not ruling out that things are getting better, in fact I believe they are gradually improving, but, again, time will have to tell us whether a period of three long years of abnormal weakness in the job market are finally in the process of ending. This index may help with the economic scrying & divination: