Will this month's economic #'s have any relevance one year from now?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
It’s not productivity, its GDP growth. The former is good, but can actually lead to more unemployement if the economy isn’t growing. The latter is better because it almost certainly leads to more jobs and a better stock market. Both of which are things that voters do pay attention to.

Only if the jobs are where they are, and they own stock. If greater GDP growth turns into more incentives for employers to export more jobs to India or Bangkok, it won’t make John Q. Public any happier.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**Only if the jobs are where they are, and they own stock. If greater GDP growth turns into more incentives for employers to export more jobs to India or Bangkok, it won’t make John Q. Public any happier. **

Why would stronger GDP growth add more incetive to “export jobs” than weaker growth would? The trend to “export jobs” is something that has been going on for decades, and will continue into the future. You just read about it more of late because it’s now affecting white collar workers in addition to blue collar workers.

And the jobs data is already improving:

Prospects for U.S. growth brightened on Wednesday as new unemployment benefit claims decreased to a nearly three-year low and durable goods orders posted a surprisingly strong jump, government reports showed.

[pantom]

What hawthorne said has some relevance here. The question I’m asking myself when I’m figuring out what to do with my money has very little to do with the latest GDP number and everything to do with when the sh*tstorm hits from the huge deficits - both fiscal and current account - being piled up to get that stimulus.
The question basically boils down to, when do we pay for this? Will it be in six months, one year, two years, four years? Importantly, will we have a choice? My view is that we are facing a massive brick wall in the form of a very possible currency crisis, one that may be baked in the cake anyway because of the demise of the bubble but that will be worse than it should have been because of the massive fiscal deficit, which is far larger than it should have been, and the recent protectionist turn this Administration has taken, doubtlessly for electoral reasons.
So it boils down to whether or not payback starts before the election. If it doesn’t, Bush is competitive, depending on events in Iraq and how that goes. If payback starts before that, well, the results are truly undefined.
Either way, the most bullish scenario I can come up with in my investing life is an up market through next April, which would discount a recovery up through about October or November, or just in time to get past the election. So my best case scenario is that payback starts about a year from now. If I’m wrong and this turns out to be a normal business cycle, which according to the NBER lasts a little more than four years, I’ll lose money, but I’ll get to keep my job. If I’m right, I’ll make money but I quite possibly will lose my job. And I’ll lose it just in time to quite possibly realize I’ve got another four years of Bush to put up with. Aargh!