Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984

[durutti]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031030/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP (news - web sites), which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush (news - web sites)'s third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining, they say.

Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.

[BloodyWilliam]

1. 1984. That a coincidence or just bitter irony?

I don't give a crap what the mostly-conservative economists say. If people aren't working, it's not fucking growth.

In the end, who gives a shit about abstract numbers compared to the quality of human life?

[terrya]

2. The last sentence says it all.

3.5 million jobs lost (and if I'm wrong about that number, please correct me) since dumbshit took office.

Will we get those jobs back in this "recovery"?

[absolutezero]

4. nope

those 3.5 million jobs are all outsourced...thats how you get growth with a huge unemployment rate...the rich have more money to blow on useless garbage, while normal people (aka lucky duckies) are struggling to pay the bills...ah well, supply side jesus says it's their own fault anyway

[htuttle]

5. Goodness, gracious no! Forget about those jobs...they were old jobs anyway

Someday, there will be *new* jobs that will be much, much better than those stinky old jobs that went overseas.

You'll see.

</sarcasm>

[corarose]

87. They will have better pay then the old jobs also $6.00 hour +

If you work hard enough you might become a manager and be entitled to some benefits at your own expense.

[abelenkpe]

89. Uh...

if all the workers are overseas, who would you be managing? Even managers will lose their jobs and meager benefits when they have outlived their usefulness. Or am I missing something?

[liberalmuse]

3. Two words: Defense spending.

Look for more stories like this. Bush is in re-rejection mode, so the White House, via the media is going to report how well the economy is doing, how many jobs are being created, and how wonderful things are in Iraq.

[papau]

21. I agree - and I just do not believe the creative accountants and their

new and better method of seasonal adjustment and tie back to get final numbers which are then revised to final final numbers as was done for the first 2 qtrs of 2001 GNP growth.

Ken Lay's accounting department folks all seem to have found new jobs under Bush!

[Rose Siding]

24. An increase in gas prices

would figure in, wouldn't it?

Voo. Deja vu. Doo.

[radwriter0555]

52. When cos cut jobs, they spend less and have more $$ on their balance

sheets.

Hence, whenever a co lays off workers, their stock goes up, typically.

[Frodo]

59. Five words : "Not according to the report"

They said defense spending was unchanged in Q3.

[jmcgowanjm]

99. The "recovery" has been fueled by government spending

Now here is the whole point of the so-called recovery:  There hasn't been one for most people.  The "recovery" if you want to call it that, has been fueled by government spending. 

My edit skills suck: Delta =change from
YOY = Year over Year

  2002:Q3  2003:Q3 Delta YOY%

Federal......................... 697.7 784.4 86.7 12.43%
    National defense.............. 451.2 520.1 68.9 15.27%
    Consumption expenditures.... 388.9 450.3 61.4 15.79%
    Gross investment............ 62.4 69.7 7.3 11.70%

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

[EdGy]

71. better yet, two letters: B S. These numbers are lies

Bush is a liar

He and his regime have shown they are willing to lie about anything and everything if it helps them.

They lied about the 2000 election

They lied about the WMD imminent threat in Iraq

Compared to those things, lieing about GDP is nothing.

These are "official" statistics, put out by the Bush regime itself.

The Repugs are desperate, and when they get desperate they will resort to anything, especially lies, to keep their grip on power. Just like right-wing extremists the world over.

[Atman]

6. Horse Hockey

"along with President Bush (news - web sites)'s third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say."

Right. Multi-billionaires couldn't do a damn thing to help the economy until they got their $100,000 refund checks from Bush. Sure, I believe that.

Some reporter got a machine-signed photo of Bush in thanks for going along with this sham. No one has argued that given time, with enough waiting, the pendulum would eventually begin to swing back. It always does. Bush and Rove know this, that is why they waited. They were willing to wait it out and destroy people in the process of waiting it out, because they knew eventually, regardless of their actions, the market forces would eventually do SOMETHING. It could just as easily (and still possibly could be) a bubble bursting in the houseing market, or another market crash, something else davastating. Who knows. They didn't, but I guaran-effing-tee Rove a speech in the can for any contigency. Whatever bad thing happened, it would surely be the lingering effects of Clinton. Or things might be peachy. It was a crap shoot. But they knew they had two very important things on their side...

time, and a very, very gullible electorate.

(BTW, I don't know why anyone is so quick to believe ANY document that comes out of any department or agency in this administration; thet view the government as nothing more than their own marketing and pr department, the only purpose of which is to find ways to sell the shit Bush has already made up his mind to do...just like a business.)

[FuseONE]

8. hmmm

Isn't this how the economy "grew" during the 80's?

And I like how it's 'democrats "argue" that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.' as if it's a debatable point or something.

[nolabels]

54. Wow, I thought sceptics were a dying breed

People getting managed, what could be more predictable? They have a couple other threads in GD.

700 Club said that the Economy has grown 7.2% this year. Is that for real?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=616838

I think the burst of the housing bubble has been predicted for a while now, that person that works for the Mortgage company kind of points that out pretty well in there.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

7. How much is attributed to the War?

My guess is over 4% of this is increased war spending. Anyone with
some hard numbers?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

12. Not Yet

Keep an eye on the Economic Policy Institute(www.epinet.org). I'm sure that in a day or two they'll tease out military spending and show that the private sector recovery has been particularly mild.

Remember that last quarter's GDP growth -- minus the military buildup prior to the war with Iraq -- was something like 1.5%. Pretty much the dictionary definition of "anemic."

The message for Democrats is that if we keep going farther and farther into debt, we'll all be riding to the poorhouse in a Lexus.

[4dsc]

96. Is this the report you are waiting for??

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_gdppict

However, many of the causes underlying this growth are temporary: one-time tax cuts lifted disposable income; mortgage refinancing increased household spending; and a decline in inventories contributed to a lower trade deficit. To make the recovery sustainable, future household spending needs to be fuelled by income growth, which requires a recovery of the labor market, and further shrinking of the trade deficit, which requires a sustained decline in the value of the dollar.

[bspence]

9. I hope there aren't any freepers here, but I think...

We're fucked. If the economy's good, that's one less powerful message that we can use to attack Bush.

The only thing that will stop Bush is if job losses continue.

It's funny how more money is being spent by less people, isn't it? Maybe more wealthy people are getting whatever they want?

The poor are becoming insignificant to effect our economy? Not if their numbers continue to grow.

[diplomats]

14. I'm certain the fourth quarter won't be nearly as strong

because several of the factors in third-quarter growth aren't present now. It probably would be better for Bush if growth were steady, like it was under Clinton. I also want to see how job growth is.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fovea]

57. What looks good to an investor

may not look too good to a member of the lower 90%.

Keep repeating the words...

JOB --- LOSS --- RECOVERY

Over and over and over and over and over and over again until
it sticks, because that is the reality on the ground, and will
not change in 2004 ... Remember, congress just grabbed our enconomy by the ankles and spread em to the toon of 80B a year for all time, or until we get a foreign policy in the interests of 90% of Americans.

What we need is to stop ALL corporate welfare, and cancel all non competitive contracts with the government RIGHT NOW! We need to restore progressivity to taxes. Make all disability income tax free.
We need business and social reform like another Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt rolled into one! The Republicans want to be the padrones, that makes the rest of us peons. Get the word out!

We need socialized medicine in the worst way. We need to realize that Europe is going to bury us, because they will be growing into the Russian and Chinese markets while our policies lock us into the role of chump.
We need to realize that the misery of our working class families cannot help but ignite in violence-- and that we live in a world where one disaffected individual can cause hitherto unimaginable damage.

In short, we must break the PNAC forever, or we all will perish.

[area51]

88. we're not fscked

bspence said:

"We're fucked. If the economy's good, that's one less powerful message that we can use to attack Bush."

But the economy isn't good. If it were good, & if we actually had a recovery, unemployment would go down.

"The only thing that will stop Bush is if job losses continue."

Oh, job losses will continue, don't you worry. Business owners know that we haven't had a recovery yet, so for the most part, they're not willing to hire. And those few employers who are hiring, will probably hire using offshoring, which screws Americans out of jobs. George W. Hoover is going to be a one-termer.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Okay, so maybe it was a 7.2% increase,

but that still leaves Shrub's record at about a 40% loss.

A 7.2% increase is much easier when you've tanked the economy, than to take a good economy and try to grow it that much.

Just like it's much easier for a $10 stock to go up or down 10% than it is for a $150 stock to go up or down 10%.

It's just the reality of the math.

of course, the right wing media will be harping on this one as "Seewhat asuccessful, incredible president he is! No one's ever given us a 7.2% increase!" and no one will ask the question, "So how much in the negative are we still, based on where Clinton took us?"

on edit: please note, my "about a 40% loss" is a number I pulled from my butt. I have no idea how far down we actually are, so please don't take that as an actual fact.

[oneighty]

33. Yes!

"Been down so long it looks like up to me"

From a song.

180

[Snellius]

11. That 7.2% didn't go into the people's pockets

This is government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. This is government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. America is being downsized and outsourced, not for the benefit of Americans but for the shareholders of global conglomerates who owe allegiance to no country.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Wonderful. When does all of that "trickle-down" to the bottom 95%?

[lindashaw]

15. I'm looking into my crystal ball. The projected job growth in going

to be in information technology, they say.

Where is information technology blowing out at the seams? India. American corporations will hire in India, not here in the USA.

By the way: I had to make a call about my long-term care insurance, GE Capitol Assurance. The person on the other end of the line said she was in India!!!!!!!

[abelenkpe]

32. India is taking our technology jobs

Even the privately owned studio I work for is outsourcing programming and compositing jobs to India. That's what they feel they need to do in order to compete with the big corporations and studios that are doing the same.

[jobycom]

16. Gee, is this like the first Bush's "growing" economy?

You remember the one where he would announce GDP growth on quarter, then just in time for the next quarter he would adjust the figures down so they actually showed a loss for the previous quarter, and then release new numbers showing growth over the new adjusted figures, even though the "growth" was lower than the declared figures of the previous quarter? Next quarter, repeat. Dan Rather went on a crusade for a while accusing the Bushies of cooking the books, but no one listened much, since Bush was already out of office.

Business is way down where I live. Homes stay on the market forever, and "Reduced" seems a part of every "For Sale" sign. Orders are down. If there's a recovery, it's somewhere else.

[rman]

17. and everyone profits! oh wait...

-

[w4rma]

18. The AP should *NOT* be editorialising like this. (n/t)

[TAH6988]

20. What editorialising

are you referring to?

[booksenkatz]

19. Sorry

I just don't see it anywhere in my life or anywhere in my city. Everyone is job hungry, all the big stores have shut down, it's endless "for rent" signs on all the commercial lots. This is just feel good journalism... hell, you can't pay bills with happy talk!

[gbwarming]

22. 7.2% is a magic (reagan) number. 7.1% would be Clinton territory.

Acording to this slightly more balanced article, the last time the economy grew at 7.1% was 4th quarter 1999. The 7.2 number released today will undoubtedly be revised downward in a couple of months.

Meanwhile, the mortgage refinancing boom, and the spending that went with it is OVER.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10302003/business/106614.asp
Economy sees growth spurt

By Ken Moritsugu
Knight Ridder News Service
...
Special factors boosted consumer spending and drove the summer's strong performance. One was a federal income tax cut that took effect around July 1. The other was a dip in interest rates that spurred many homeowners to refinance mortgages, leaving them more cash to spend.
...
Consumer spending is likely to slow this fall as the impact of the tax cut and the mortgage-refinancing boom fades. Auto sales surged in August as car makers used incentives to try to clear out their 2003 models, but such sales have already tailed off.
<more>

[diplomats]

26. Good article

[KayLaw]

35. So...

We are hearing talking heads gush over the amazing 7.2 figure, while the economy was growing at 7.1 as Clinton was leaving office? Then how can the Bushies say poor Bush had to take over an economy that was in recession, especially when Clinton did it with a huge surplus?

[Frodo]

61. Not exactly.

It was at 7% in the 4th Quarter of 1999. But it was all downhill from there. "as Clinton was leaving office" it was at .5% - 1% (Q3 & Q4 2000).

[smirkymonkey]

23. Yes, statistically, but in what

Sectors of the economy? In the world I live in, and I think most Americans live in, the economy sucks. In fact, joblessness and economic insecurity amongst most people I know seems to growing at a "scorching" rate as well.

What alternative f**ing universe are these people living in??

[BiggJawn]

25. In other news, XYZ Corp announced another round of "Right-sizing"...

"Biggest growth since 1984"
1984 was in the Ray-Gun Reifgn of Fiscal Terror.
In 1984, I was on food stamps, supporting a family of 3 on $98 take-home a week.

Farging ReTHUGlican Spin-Meisters!

Where's the JOBS, you BASTARDS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[smiley_glad_hands]

27. Not Sustainable

These numbers will more than likely be revised, further this type of growth is not sustainable. Considering that military expenditures have risen dramatically one could expect higher growth. This should also be taken in context with the whole economy. The only way this economy is going to grow in the long run is by growing consumers, which means we need to grow jobs. Considering that Tech and manufacturing jobs are leaving this country faster than Rush can pop pills, I don't see any long term ramifications from these numbers. Rep. Thompson's bill isn't going to help either by rewarding companies that outsource overseas. But hey I'm no Repug, so I could be wrong.

[loudnclear]

28. 7% from what base?

If i increase my earnings 7% from earnings of 100 it's less than increasing my earnings by 3% from a base of 1000. 7% of 100 is 7 while 3% of 1000 is 30. Everything is relative! So what are we dealing with here?

[zbdent]

29. Hmmm, could the economy be booming because -

election cash spending?

Watch any "jobs growth" to slip back into the negative sometime shortly after 11/2/2004.

[TAH6988]

30. "election cash spending?"

in that amount??? please explain.

[JBolt]

39. More money is spent

marketing toothpaste than is spent on campaigns. Campaign spending is not causing an increase in economic activity.

[zbdent]

50. meaning that you have a bunch of spending on advertising for a

bunch of smaller-burg candidates - more advertising revenue.

Whatever happened to the cries from the Right about "Free TV time for the candidates!"?

Anyway, not meant to be the only factor. Christmas is coming too. Seasonal employment, which drops off enough after handling of all the returns 12/26-12/31.

[DemNoir]

31. Wow who knew?

The breathless tone of this article is quite amusing.

[Yavin4]

34. If You Keep Interest Rates At A 40-year Low

You'd get the same results. Actually, the GDP should be much, much higher, because of the record deficits in addition to the extremely low interest rates. What's really going on here is that we're calling massive debt, growth.

This is exactly what Enron did.

[KayLaw]

38. Now that you mention it

If all is so wonderful, shouldn't they raise interest rates again? These rates are murdering retirees and savers.

[TAH6988]

41. And kill off

any chance of a real recovery? Hell no!

[knowledgeispower]

36. For whom has the economy grown?

I haven't heard anything about unemployment going down. I haven't heard anything about wage freezes being lifted. I haven't heard anything about rescinding pay cuts employees were forced to take during the recession.

Its fucking Reaganomics all over again. 1984...damn straight.

[JBolt]

40. Lagging indicator

unemployment is a lagging indicator and always the last to improve during times of economic growth.

[knowledgeispower]

42. My point was that this "7.2%" is going to defense companies

The people will see no real benefit from it. Sure, General Electric, Raytheon, and Halliburton are happier than pigs in shit right now, but anybody who makes a living through any means other than killing people is still hurting.

[TAH6988]

43. First of all

that 7.2% is not going to defense companies...read some of the other threads that point that out. Secondly, GE does a LOT more than just defense business, as does Halliburton.

[jmcgowanjm]

97. Unemployment is a coincident indicator

Help Wanted Index, and at 37 it is lower today
than it has been for decades. The index was as
low as 35 this year and has shown very little
rebound with the so-called recovery in the economy.
This index should turn before employment growth
starts, and it seems to be dead in the water.

[jmcgowanjm]

98. Which begs the question--

how can the economy be growing so fast
with a continued loss of jobs? How fast
does the economy have to grow before
we start to generate jobs? You have to
keep in mind that employment is not a
lagging indicator, as the whole financial media would have you believe, but a coincident indicator.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&CFID=3432798&CFTOKEN=83088442&category=Market%20Commentary&newsletterid=1042&menugroup=Home&aol=1

[PassingFair]

86. Compuware...

is forcing a huge wage reduction on it's employees as we speak. Anyone got a link on it?

[callous taoboy]

44. Then why do I feel

left in the dust?

[mbperrin]

78. Cause you are left in the dust!

GDP ain't got a thing to do with spending or growth. GDP is the value of final goods produced during a given time period in one country. Just because they've been made doesn't mean that they will be sold. And if they're not sold, the folks who made these things will be let go. These are inventory goods shipped from the factory, and their value is easy to figure.

All that jazz about spending goes to Aggregate Expenditures (AE), which is MUCH harder to measure accurately! Mom and pop shops, corporate guesses in lieu of harder numbers to come later, discounts and rebates to be garnered afterward and so on. Because AE is so hard to measure, economists use GDP, knowing full well that it has its own set of weaknesses as a measure, but it's an esay number to get, so we use it.

Assuming that this is a good faith number, everything made in the third quarter which is a final good ready for use in that form is included, whether for the military, business, consumers, or your local drug dealers! Doesn't matter- just been made, haven't necessarily been sold. All that talk about spending in the article is about AE, not GDP.

Hope this helps.

[bluedog]

45. thought this was the Clinton

recession? Isn't that what bush said??Now that its picking up he credits himself with the recovery? So, it was the bush recession right???

[Serial Mom]

46. Included in "their" figures

towards the end of the story . . .

But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth.

So the war helped the numbers look better! What's going to happen when that ends and all those soldiers come home - to NO JOBS.

Yes, I know it can be argued that the reservists are "guaranteed" their jobs back, but many businesses will find that they did OK with fewer people, so guess what looms in the future?

What else fudged "their" numbers? Enron accounting?

[E_Zapata]

47. no problem, the war isn't ending, and the soldiers aren't coming home

Did you not get the PNAC memo on 'unending wars'?

Bastards!!

[Snellius]

48. "How do I do it? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs."

I keep hearing this commercial on TV. It shows a guy riding around on a mower cutting the lawn on his luxurious estate. He shows off his nice home. His beautiful new car. He's even a member of the local golf club, he brags. "And how do I do it? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs," he cries. "Won't somebody please help me?"

[sandnsea]

49. Gross National Product

This shows a nose dive and then flat for the next year. Anybody want to explain what the vastly different projections for GDP and GNP mean for the country?

http://www.forecasts.org/gnp.htm

[tom_paine]

51. It's gettin' mighty Soviet here in the Empire

I do not believe that number for a second.

1) Stolen loot from Iraq

2) Stolen loot from the Imperial Subjects of Amerika through Fraud in Iraq

3) The increasing tendency of Bushevik Departments to follow the Soviet Model of economic prediction

Sure, and I believe that the 1987 Soviet Union showed a 600% increase in toilet paper production...

[nolabels]

63. Is what is really funny is some Soviets analyis was using data ........

from the CIA which they found out was just a bogus

http://www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/exurss/sovietreforms.html

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:AZKM1DZaof0J:www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/exurss/sovietreforms.html
+false+economic+statistics+%2B+Soviet+Union+%2B+propaganda+analysis&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Soviet Economic Reforms:
An Inside Perspective
Yuri N. Maltsev

Lying with "Statistics"

The lack of sound economic theory is compounded by an absence of reliable economic and social statistics. Leading Soviet economists use CIA and other Western estimates rather than official Soviet statistics to support their arguments.6 (And Western estimates are no more reliable when they are based on Soviet data.) 7 Until recently, statistics were treated as a form of economic propaganda and as such were used mostly to illustrate the "achievements" of the Communist Party. Even today, official statistics are frequently based on deliberately falsified reports of the ministries, republics, regions, districts, and enterprises, which are inclined to report economic indices in a way that is beneficial to them. National accounts in the U.S.S.R. are calculated by simply adding up the value of all material outputs at their stated prices. Services and other nonmaterial incomes aren't included. This approach, based on the Marxist concept of "productive" and "non-productive" labor, leads to some of the paradoxical statements of Soviet economics. The dentist, for example, is a "non-productive" individual while the dental technician is a "productive" one.

In the Soviet Union, where the "market" (i.e., the existing system of distribution) is totally monopolized by government ministries and enterprises, prices do not reflect costs, nor do costs reflect anything except local or departmental bureaucratic interests. Centrally planned investment decisions, as well as government campaigns against the so-called "duplication and parallelism" of the 1960s and '70s, led to a situation where the rate of monopolization of production of most commodities is up to 100 percent. Moreover, Soviet prices are distorted by huge subsidies (104 billion rubles in 1989) and heavy indirect turnover taxes (105 billion rubles). These taxes sometimes constitute from 90 percent (cars) to 95 percent (alcoholic beverages) of the retail price.

Senseless economic decrees and regulations are being issued by the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. at an accelerated speed of 2,000 per year, compared with "only" 500 to 700 a year during the Brezhnev stagnation years of 1965 to 1982. The 18 million bureaucrats employed by the system still determine everything in the sphere of production, distribution, and consumption. In the current situation, when 234 of 277 basic consumer goods included by the U.S.S.R. State Committee on Statistics in the "market basket" of the Soviet people are now outside the state distribution system, the power of these bureaucrats hasn't diminished, as was expected by the advocates of reform, but has increased enormously. Given such a system, there is no room for hope that in the foreseeable future the needs of the customer will influence what is to be produced.

How Bad is the Crisis?
Because of the lack of reliable economic data, it is impossible to quantify the depth of the economic and social crisis in the Soviet Union. Vital statistics, which to my mind are the best (although an indirect) source of information on the real economic situation and quality of fife in the U.S.S.R., show absolutely desperate figures: life expectancy, the infant mortality rate, housing, and nutrition statistics can be compared only to those of developing countries. This is especially true in the more backward regions of the Soviet Union - central Asia, the autonomous republics in the northern part of the U.S.S.R., and Azerbaijan.
(snip)

edited to fix link

[ProfessorGAC]

53. This Is Simply Untrue

This reporter needs to be fired. That is NOT the fastest growth rate in 20 years. 6 quarters between 1995 and 1999 had higher quarterly extended growth rates.

So, this is completely wrong.

In addition, the real GDP growth rate (adjusted to the standard 1994 dollars), is lower than EVERY QUARTER from 3Q94 to 2Q00. So, whoever wrote this article is a complete buffoon.
The Professor

[progressiverealist]

65. I believe you BUT

..."Economy rockets forward in response to Bush tax cuts" will be splashed across the front pages of every newspaper in America.

We must defeat the spin. If people believe that Bush is helping their personal financial situations then it won't matter if our candidate in 2004 is Jesus... we will still lose.

[quaker bill]

80. I assume it was a reporter

Wouldn't using the terms buffoon and reporter in the same sentence be a bit redundant?

[jmcgowanjm]

100. Not like 1984

According to the Dismal Scientist, in 1984
real GDP grew at 7% for an entire year prior
to the 1984 presidential election. The economy
added 4 million jobs and the unemployment
rate fell 3.6 percentage points from November
1982 to November 1984. This followed the severe
double-dip recession of the early 1980s, which
cleared the way for a vigorous recovery.
Furthermore, in contrast to the current situation,
the trade deficit was miniscule,the consumer
savings rate was double the current level, and
consumer debt as a percentage of GDP was
far lower than it is today.
Comstock 10/30
http://www.flash.net/~rhmjr/

[Nottingham]

55. 3.3 % !!! this is a lie

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[tedzbear]

58. If this is true it's in lock step with the 1993 recovery...

When I match the years up, 3Q 2003 corresponds to 1Q 1993 which is when we first came out of the long slump following the 1990-91 recession.
Remember folks, if the current growth continues, interest rates will rise rapidly (like in 1994) and extinguish the housing/mortgage market and auto sales. At that point, the economy could quickly reverse course and go into another recession (just in time for 04 elections?).

I do think we're a lot more vulnerable this time around because the interest rates are being held at a much lower number than in 93 so the economy will feel much more pain when they climb.

I see a roller coaster GDP in the year ahead. Up then down!

:kick:

[trapper914]

72. I'm not economist...

...but from what I've read, interest rates will need to be continually kept low, and the GOP better hope that oil prices stay steady. High interest rates and out of control oil=last years of Jimmy Carter

Also, I've read an economist or two who warn that most recessions are of the double-dip variety. Will the other shoe drop?

[rl6214]

90. Oil Prices

Heard this afternoon that the OPEC countries are worried about oil prices going down too low and they might have to reduce output.

[Fovea]

94. There was a lot of go-go

in 1993. You might remember the beginning of the Internet boom.

[progressiverealist]

60. "BUSH JUST WON RE-ELECTION"

That's the concensus of the bunch I just finished lunch with.

God tell me it isn't so!

[stanwyck]

67. This type of "recovery" won't work for the GOP

here's why: the average taxpayer is left out. So, he/she is going to be resentful. Who cares if there are a few bumps up in the stock market if you don't own stock? Or your IRA/401K is stagnated? You just feel alone in this "booming" GDP. More people are unemployed, under-employed, or survivor employed. The GOP crowing about an upswing in the economy, which people can't feel, will breed resentment. More people will feel this is just a recovery for the fat-cat CEOs who downsize while getting multi-million dollar bonuses. Besides, it isn't even real. Of course, that won't stop the GOP.

[Emillereid]

62. Is there anyway to independently verify these numbers --

I wouldn't put it past this administration to cook the books?

[Zhade]

64. Ooops, it's a typo - missing 'Big Lie About The' at the beginning.

NT!

[Yavin4]

66. If You Had A Money Printing Press In Your House...

and you could print off sheets of $100 bills, and everyone accepted your $100 bills as legal currency, then you too would show record growth.

This is in essence what Greenspan is doing. He's printing off sheet after sheet of hundreds. He's flooding the money supply. Cash has never been easier to get nor cheaper to maintain. This is where the so-called growth is coming from.

The problems come when people stop recognizing your money as legitimate currency.

[Andy_Stephenson]

68. Strange...

1984 :tinfoilhat:

[Dover]

69. What drugs are these guys on.........Ecstasy?

Or DOPE! Wow man......like......we're flying, man!

[maddogesq]

70. I feel it...I feel the trickle.

But wait, it's coming down, on top of my bald head. OMG, it's yellow! I am being trickled ON!

This article looks more like some campaign rhetoric that came directly from the RNC. What is AP doing? Unemployment is still high, store parking lots are still half empty on Saturday afternoons. Give me a break.

Comparing this to the 1980's: That's what I was afraid of. Sheeesh.

[DeathvadeR]

77. It's called ignorance.... It's contagious....... n/t

[ozone_man]

73. The economy didn't grow, no new jobs.

Just consumer spending fueled by tax rebate and low interest rate refinance loans. It's a one time deal, next quarter, it's back to normal. Since consumer spending is 2/3 of GDP, it has this effect, but it's deficit spending by the consumer fueled by government deficit spending, which includes defence spending also.

GDP = Consumer Spending
+ Business and Residential Investment
+ Government Spending
- Trade Deficit.

There is no free lunch and we (or our children) will pay dearly for the current deficit spending.

[Nottingham]

74. Are they sure thats not India's numbers

:bounce:

[stanwyck]

75. This news is being spread on every possible board

by every breathing RWN. They're overjoyed. But don't be disheartened. Let's all hope that there is improvement in the economy. However, the economy remains one of the major issues for liberals. Loss of jobs, loss of real income, loss of benefits. The crippling deficit. The unemployed, under-employed, and survivor employed. The shell game tactic of cutting federal taxes only to have them come back and drain your wallet through state taxes. The states are bleeding out. Public education parents have to raise money for toner for the schools' printers. There are numerous economic issues that will resonate with voters. Don't let one aspect of a very complex issue have you screaming "we're doomed!"

[robbedvoter]

76. Saved this from the last time we "recovered" (last summer)

[snippy]

79. The economy has improved but no one knows whether it is sustainable.

The improvement in the economy so far has been the result of incredible government stimulus of a size and scope never seen before. That stimulus includes near record low short term interest rates set by the Fed, longer term interest rates at or near 40 or 50 year lows influenced by the Fed, a huge increase in the money supply of well over $400 billion since the first of the year, record deficit spending by the federal government this year and next, a decline in the dollar of around 20%, and the Bush tax cuts. None of this stimulus can be repeated and most can not be sustained for too many more months, especially the low interest rates. Bush is hoping that it will last long enough for him to win in 2004, and it might.

Even with decent economic growth though Bush still may be vulnerable on the lack of job creation. In the fourth quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year GDP growth is likely to be at least 3% and maybe 4%. In the second quarter of next year people will receive larger tax refunds because of the tax cut so growth may be even better then. However, the possibility of rising interest rates is a big wild card. And these growth rates will not be high enough to create a lot of jobs so unemployment likely will decline only 3 or 4 tenths of a percent, if at all. It may rise for several reasons, including increasing productivity, globalization, foreign outsourcing, merger and acquisition activity, and the excess capacity which still exists with a lack of pent up demand to drive the creation of additional capacity.

[Castilleja]

81. Thanks, Snippy

your posts are always educational to me.

[quaker bill]

82. Actual growth or a 'dead cat bounce'

There can come a point in a recession where layoffs and production cuts result in low business inventories. Businesses attempting to restock shelves will increase orders and the economy will seem to grow. Some folks will be rehired.

But if consumption does not increase, supply will quickly outstrip demand again and the layoffs will come back.

This is called a "dead cat bounce". It is a short term event related to overselling the recession. Not an actual recovery.

I haven't seen enough data yet to conclude either way. No doubt with huge deficits (Keynesian demand side stimulus), low interest rates, and tax cuts, Shrubya* has poured enough gas on this fire that the economy should be screaming along.... The fact that it is not is just more evidence of how poor his plan was.

[Pez]

83. does anyone know how many of the reservists in iraq right now...

...were unemployed before they were put into active duty?

maybe the economic "turn-around" has something to do with the government spending money on the reservists? i mean, even if they make next to jack if they were unemployed before you went on active duty for over a year maybe that could explain these numbers in part?

regardless, i don't think this bodes well for the defecit. you know, that thing that will bite us in the ass.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. big fucking deal! am i suppose to be impressed concidering it was the

JOB LOSES WERE THE HIGHEST SINCE 1929...

wow thats some feat........ more fucking smoke and mirrors

[metisnation]

85. analogy

this is like spending all the money in your savings account and not using you checking account and then boosting about how much cash you have. You better take your money out of the market before the shit hits the fan...eventually the analyst will wake up and smell the coffee.

[snippy]

93. I think it is inexcusable that every American over the age of 12

does not know the following facts about job creation, the federal deficit, and the stock market.

Job Creation

Republican presidents are always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.




Fedral Deficit

Since Kennedy was president, republican presidents have always run higher federal deficits in current dollars, in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than democratic presidents, except for 1968. In the 42 years since Kennedy's first budget, the US has increased the publicly held national debt by roughly $3.5 trillion. $3.2 trillion of this debt piled up in 22 years under republican presidents. $300 billion piled up in the 20 years under democratic presidents.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls

The estimates in the table for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer applicable. The current estimates are much higher. Also, the numbers for the first year of a presidential term are from the budget of the preceeding term.

Stock Market

The stock market also performs better under democratic presidents.

The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than
Republican presidencies:nine percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent
for the equal-weighted portfolio.The difference comes from higher real stock
returns and lower real interest rates,is statistically significant,and is robust
in subsamples.The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle
variables related to expected returns,and is not concentrated around election
dates.There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across
presidencies that could justify a risk premium.The difference in returns
through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.

http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf

This analysis covers the years 1927-1998 and separately examines the years from 1927-1962 and 1963-1998. Results which included the years from 1999-2003 would show an even greater difference.

[aeon flux]

91. "The breathless tone of the article is quite amusing."

Mainstream news articles, especially AP-written articles, tend to be much more reserved and deliver just the facts. This particular AP article is loudly gushing with praise towards Bush for whatever reason, as if it were biased toward him. It apparently is, but here it just goes over the top with the praise. Very unprofessional. And very odd.

[cosmicdot]

92. Consumers abandoned spending in abandon

Consumer Spending Dips 0.3 Percent

Consumers kept a tighter grip on their wallets in September, trimming spending by 0.3 percent after a summertime shopping spree that propelled a third quarter of strong economic growth. (AP Graphic)


October 31, 2003 11:40 AM EST


WASHINGTON - Consumers kept a tighter grip on their wallets in September, trimming spending by 0.3 percent after a summertime shopping spree that propelled a third quarter of strong economic growth.

The largest over-the-month decrease in spending in a year, reported Friday by the Commerce Department, came after consumer spending shot up by 1 percent in July and then another 1.1 percent in August. Consumers spent more lavishly earlier as they began to see the cash from President Bush's third round of tax cuts.

~snip~

In September, consumer spending on "durable" goods - big-ticket items, such as cars and appliances, expected to last at least three years, was cut by 5.1 percent, reversing part of August's 3.8 percent gain.

But for "nondurables" such as food and clothes, consumers boosted spending by 0.3 percent in September, after a 1.4 percent increase the previous month. Consumer spending on services, meanwhile, rose 0.4 percent in September, up from a 0.3 percent gain in August.


http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=1&aid=1031120641_5304_lead_story

[kwolf68]

95. All that

Military-industrial complex "investment" is starting to pay off for George.