Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[JackSwift]

1. Yes we must welcome positive economic news

but it will make our task of unseating the fascist more difficult.

[rfranklin]

5. Productivity means one thing...

People are working harder. People are working longer. People are doing the work of their co-workers that have been fired. They are not being paid more for their productivity. They are paying more for their health benefits. Their vacation days are being taken away. So, the good news is good news for who? That's right, kids, for the CEOs who are being paid enormous sums for increasing "productivity."

[Gulf Coast J]

25. How does it mean people are working longer

If output per hour (what productivity actually measures) is going up, then it seems as though people wouldn't be working as long.

[Skittles]

2. this "recovery" will be fleeting

the deficit is gonna bite us bigtime. It's like the Reagan era - mortgage the future to look good now. In the end we all pay and it's always a Democrat that fixes it.

[kentuck]

3. I would say the "good economy" is an illusion..

brought about by huge deficit, Keynesian spending, and will only accelerate the divisions that you mention above.

[sweetheart]

6. don't give keynes such a bad riff

More correctly, it is military-keynsian thinking. Subsidize the military with tax dollars and call it a recovery.

Whereas, similar keynsian initiatives without the "military" word really would stimulate a recovery... a national initiative to provide medical services to all americans.. a national initiative to rebuild schools that the public educaiton system be all it could be....

It is not keynsian thinking that is bad... rather he's been hyjakked by militarist idiots.

[kentuck]

11. sweetheart, you are correct...

:) Keynes would never imagine spending on the scale of this bunch now in power.

[Gulf Coast J]

27. Non-military spending is also way up

Even without the military and homeland security buildup, federal government spending has increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton.

[Monte Carlo]

12. Huge gov't debt issues are sure to raise interest rates.

It's going to happen sometime. When you have to compete with the gov't for a loan, you are charged higher interest rates, and that is going to be a huge drag on this "recovery".

[dkamin]

15. Not to mention

upward pressure on interest rates from any growth that actually occurs.

Housing prices are overvalued and Americans are overextended on debt. Any growth in the economy will quickly result in depressionary effects, as people's net worths drop because of the fall in their housing prices and more people declare bankruptcy.

How can a "recovery" be so jobless?

[Monte Carlo]

16. It's a Wall St. recovery, not a Main St. one.

If interest rates rise too much, we're going to see a lot of suffering among the American people. This "recovery" is very shaky, and any significant jump in interest rates is going to stop it before it starts, not that it ever would for those who are ready and willing but not able to work.

[kentuck]

17. Bingo !

We should not confuse people on Wall St, regaining their losses, as proof positive of a good economy. When individual wealth is going up and more good-paying jobs are being created and people are buying with cash rather than credit cards, then we might say it is good for Main St.

[Monte Carlo]

21. Whoever wins the Dem nomination would be wise to distinguish them.

And inform the America public that GDP, productivity, and all these other statistic may be showing a rise, but they mean little to nothing to those earning $15k a year.

[lastliberalintexas]

23. I don't think s/he will even have to!

Americans understand that these numbers might be nice, but they are left wondering where the jobs are. Unemployment is still very high, more layoffs have been announced in the last couple of weeks, and holiday spending is down, as is disposable income. People aren't going to hear the good (tho false) info coming from the Shrub administration and yet ignore what is happening in their own lives. They are smart enough to see the difference.

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't continually harp on these issues- I'm just saying that most Americans really do get it.

[Monte Carlo]

26. You're right, but I think some might need a gentle push.

I think the perceptions that the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the whoever else is going to linger around if not addressed directly, so they should be. This recovery is not common.

But you're right, it doesn't take a candidate to tell people that they have no jobs or no savings or are deeply into debt. The bills do that.

[Redleg]

29. You got that one right.

The drones on the business programs are just flush with joy over the increases in Dow, Nasdac, etc. They act as though the whole economy can be viewed in terms of the stock market.

[sweetheart]

4. its the economics of distribution

Has anyone the by-quintile distribution of income 2000-2003 under the BFEE? This would surely show the 5 million americans plunged in to poverty by the new nazi regime.... that is not recovery.

They like to focus on global wall street statistics, but the deeper numbers tell a much more distressing picture despite whether the newsmedia have effectively bubble'd up a fake recovery.

World currency markets tell the opposite story... the dollar is NOW at an all time low against the euro... "free markets" don't lie. Europe did not just become more valuable...no. America's GDP is worth less by 1/4th since shrub came to power in euro terms. Its a rather dramatic destruction of wealth by any measure.

[ArkDem]

9. You may need to help some of us

undereducated types out with the term "by-quintile distribution of income".

[spooky3]

24. I think s/he means

the breakdown of incomes into

top fifth (top quintile)
second fifth
middle fifth
next-to-bottom fifth
lowest fifth

[sweetheart]

28. yes in economist speak

I'm sorry arkdem for using the term... but quintile is used by economists to do like spooky3 said. It shows not only the total wealth of the economy, but the distribution shape.... as by simply averageing the total wealth without considering the median (middle) income, and the shape of the bottom of the curve, little is observable.

Its all part of lying with statistics. Average GDP says that 1 person earning a billion this year averages with a bunch of people in poverty to be an average GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita that is above poverty. When you throw out the richest 1%, the numbers turn distressingly to the south.

My recommendation is simply to penetrate the statistical veil and tell the truth by showing the shape.

[RichM]

7. In practical terms, it will unfortunately have plenty of effect.

If the people are told that the economy is improving, it obviously helps the Republicans, even if the economy is not really improving, or even if closer examination shows that the "improvements" mainly help the rich.

An increase in productivity helps capital far more than it helps labor. (This type of distinction is likely to elude the majority of voters, of course - especially with the media helping to blur the distinction.) If Democrats try to explain this point, they'll simply be accused of "attempting to foment class warfare." The end result will be that the public will believe that the "economy is improving" -- even if almost all of the benefit flows to the "haves."

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Monte Carlo]

8. Nothing is wrong with Democratic economic issues.

We're still short a few million jobs, and thanks to Bush's borrowing and more borrowing, interest rates and inflation are going to rise and cut off this "recovery" before it really gets going.

Just repeat after Walter from The Big Lebowski - "nothing is fucked, dude."

[dfong63]

13. good news on the economy "would" be good,

but what we are seeing now is phony good news, not real.

remember last quarter how the administration was trumpeting "7% annualized growth"? then it turned out that inflation was at an
annualized 9%. the "growth" spin was bullshit.

the economy WILL be a huge election issue.

[PVnRT]

14. IS it good news?

They say that unemployment is down - is this because people are taking jobs flipping burgers or restocking the shelves at Wal-Mart for minimum wage, simply because that is all that there is around? How many college graduates are doing that now because they can't find work in their field and unemployment insurance has run out? How many people are trying to support a family with that and two other minimum wage jobs? Those are the questions that need to be asked and examined.

I agree that positive economic numbers are a good thing, but only if they are actually positive, and not just data-doctoring for PR.

[librechik]

18. yes, thank goodness for the "recovery" economy--now we can concentrate

on Bush's lies, his tendency to despotism, his corporate yard sale of our natural resources, and his endless deadly blunders in foreign policy!

The economy hullaballoo is a mere distraction. Nevertheless I feel those a*holes are kidding themselves about this sucker recovery. The steps that should be taken immediately to save us are not even being contemplated by BushCo, which is only for sale to the highest bidder, not serving the will the American taxpayer.

[andym]

19. The direction of the economy is important

The direction of the economy is important.
If it really is improving and that's a big if,
that is good news for the country. Unfortunately, it is also good
news for the incumbent, given history.

The gains may be fleeting, but if they peak next fall,
it will help the incumbent.

There are two big issues in 2004 for the apolitical American citizen:
Is the economy is on the right/wrong track?
Is the country safe, or on the road to safety (post 9/11)?

The Iraq war could be an issue, but I expect a reduction (if only temporary) of American involvement in summer/fall 2004 for political purposes.

If things are going reasonably well, the election will turn on personality/trust issues, as they did in 1988, 1996 and 2000. These types of elections are more easy for people like Rove to manipulate. The best candidate under these circumstances is the most charismatic and personable one.

[ArkDem]

20. So the most charismatic loses except in these circumstances?

.

[Terwilliger]

22. that IS the bigger issue

if the economy is good George Bush wins...barring some complete Iraq meltdown.