Safire's Rosy Senario say econ trends in 04 will help Bush

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/opinion/29SAFI.html

The Pollyanna Conspiracy
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

<snip>Why do the conspirators treat this hyperactive inaction by Greenspan & Co. as such good news? Because the Fed knows in advance what Thursday's announcement of the increase in gross domestic product will be. The conspirators guess that the figure for the rate of America's economic growth will be a whopper: it is likely to be over 6 percent for the quarter, which is double the good growth in the previous quarter. The jump would stand in sharp contrast with the three quarters of post-bubble decline in 2001 inherited from Bill Clinton.

COMMENT _ WHAT BULL - THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE QTR UNDER CLINTON IN 2000 - - INDEED IT WAS 2nd QTR - As revised by Bush - THAT WAS THE FIRST NEGATIVE GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY - IN GNP - -- And that was caused by the forever deficit projection from the Bush Tax cut for the rich proposal making long term rates "sticky" so they did not follow, as quickly as they otherwise could have, the Fed interest rate cuts downward - thereby reducing corporate investment.


<snip>Aha! say the Pollyanna Conspirators: the reason the Fed can safely continue to stimulate is in another figure — the powerful growth of output per worker, the productivity that subtracts from inflation and protects those, like the elderly, who live on fixed incomes and savings.

<snip>But what about the Schopies' mantra, "Bush has caused a loss of three million jobs, a greater loss than any president since Hoover"? Are the incipient good times to be a "jobless recovery," with companies getting leaner and meaner, needing fewer workers, and outsourcing future labor needs to China and India?

<snip>We conspirators — I admit to membership in the confidence cabal — along with Saddam-hunters and Cubs fans say, "Wait'll next year." Come 2004, with economic growth steadying near a brisk 4 percent — and, sustained by the low interest rates justified by productivity's suppression of inflation — the current 6.1 percent unemployment rate should begin to trend downward. And it is the trend, more than the level, that makes news and affects elections (...spend more on defense and Medicare while resisting Democratic attempts to raise taxes. As the noninflationary recovery proceeds, the Fed will be able to hang loose in its stimulative mode. Tax revenues from increased profits should shrink the deficit and bring about budget balance in our time).<snip>

[JeebusH]

1. Mr "talking points" strikes again ...

Safire will never release a book of the OP-Eds he's been writing in the Times for the last few years because he's been so wrong so often

[dfong63]

2. must be nice living in a such a cozy dream world

"Wait'll next year." Come 2004, with economic growth steadying near a brisk 4 percent — and, sustained by the low interest rates justified by productivity's suppression of inflation — the current 6.1 percent unemployment rate should begin to trend downward. And it is the trend, more than the level, that makes news and affects elections

what bullshit. trends don't pay the bills. try paying your rent or buying groceries with a "trend". Safire is crowing over a "trend" that hasn't even started yet. and even if it does, Safire is overlooking the fact that the current "level" of unemployment is vastly understated, along with the level of misery and anger that it carries. many of the jobs that disappeared have disappeared for good. many of the unemployed are long-term unemployed. and when jobs appear, many of them will be low-wage, unstable jobs, not careers that will enable someone to buy a home or raise a family.

Safire is engaging in wishful thinking.