Tim Blair

common sense doesn't come easily for most, which is why economics is so difficult for many to understand. those who want to spin 5.6% as bad will do so, and those dumb enough to believe it will vote kerry.

common sense doesn't come easily for most, which is why economics is so difficult for many to understand. those who want to spin 5.6% as bad will do so, and those dumb enough to believe it will vote kerry.

"Full employment: In principle, this is when all of our economy's resources are being used to produce output. This is one of the five economic goals, specifically one of the three macro goals (the other two are economic growth and stability). In practice, our economy is considered to be at full employment when the unemployment rate is around 5 to 5 1/2 percent and the capacity utilization rate is about 85 percent. This unemployment rate includes structural and frictional unemployment."

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.pl?fcd=dsp&key=full+employment

[Some people are pissing up a stump.]

I still remember the Jimmy Carter era when unemployment was around 7 percent with inflation over 13 percent. Today we've got 5.6 percent unemployment, inflation is next to nothing, with a solid 4 percent growth rate, and the media acts as if we're in the midst of another Great Depression.

Here is the part that always amazes me, 1,000,000 jobs lost in 2001. Hmmm, lets see that is half of the job losses in 3 years, but Bush hadn't even had a chance to get the tax cuts and other economic stimulus going until the middle of that year. Though I disagree with the man on some of his social policies, his economic steps have been right on the money.

" "A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches."
Why? It didn’t for Clinton."

Because Clinton can do no wrong and Bush can do no right. *Anything* that can be made to stick, no matter the facts, will be thrown at Bush again and again. Plastic Turkey, anyone?

I continue to be amazed how many feminists not only gave Clinton a free pass, concerning sexual harrassment of women, but how they defended Clinton and went after the *women* who claimed to have been sexually harrassed by Clinton. These are the same feminists who have tried to brainwash many into believing that harrassment has taken place when the woman merely 'feels' harrassed because of a look or gesture. (Look or gesture,here, not being the obvious ones you'd associate with a sexual come-one.)

Pres. Bush has a female high-ranking member of his staff (Condi Rice) and has potentially helped thousands of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, the feminists are silent, at best, about Rice and her achievments. They are also pretty silent about the help given to the women in Afghanistan and Iraq because of our military actions.

If Clinton had done what Bush has in terms of his staffing and Iraq/Afghanistan, the feminists would not stop singing his praises.

I don't see a double standard here. Does anyone else? (=sarcasm)

CNN = Chicken Noodle Network. What more can you expect from these "spin cycle" idiots. It's true, Anon, the dumb ones will vote for Kerry. Chris, you are correct about Bush being a force in feminism - he HAS liberated Afgani women and Iraqi women. Unfortunately the media (especially the Chicken channel), never emphasises this.

Perhaps the point is one of expectations:
5.6% would be excellent for a Dem administration;
however, we expect more from a Republican one.
- and yes, a figure below 5% is very dangerous to an economy, and completely the wrong goal.

Chris: have you already forgotton that Condi is supposed to be called a white man? - conservatives all look the same, you know.

No way.

You're telling us that CNN holds Democratic and Republican administrations to different standards?

That thar's crazy talk, Tim.

Hmmm. Fuzzy math here it seems. How does the market add 66,000 jobs when unemployment falls 0.1%, but when it increases 0.2%, millions of jobs are lost. Seems likely that only 120,000 jobs were lost in aggregate between Dec 2001 when unemployment was 5.7% and Feb 02 when it dropped to 5.5%.

Maybe CNN uses the new math. Calculation doesn't matter as long as the answer feels right.

This is an OUTRAGE.

If 5.6% of the burgers I purchased were meatless, heads would roll.

5.6% of journalists have “already low” intelligence. The remaining journalists are just plan stupid.

One of my fixed opinions (so to speak) is that many political arguments could be resolved -- or would never occur -- if people were simply better educated. Especially in mathematics and, in particular, in statistics.

I'd love to live in a country where 5.7 per cent unemployment is considered HIGH.

Look at Germany - slumming around at 11%+.

Good thing they've got Michael Moore telling them they have a superior economic system.

Sortelli -- I've "clarified" that opening paragraph, as Howard Dean would say.

Now you're flip-flopping on the burger platform, you... you... [i]McBlogger![/i]

Perhaps the US and International media, which hold the actual working class in such contempt, might concede that they believe at least 5.7% of Americans are unemployable knuckle dragging mouthbreathers who are fit only to grace the set of "The Jerry Springer Show" when they aren't out flying the flag and beating up Muslim neighbors.

Taken in that context, the unemployment rate is actually 0%!!! Good job, W! Well done.

Sortelli: use regular html pointy brackets, not php coding. I know the ".php" endings of the files here is confusing, but I have them php-enabled for other reasons.

as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.

This is another media spin for the economically illiterate. Anyone want to guess how long the economic cycle between recessions is?

Perhaps we need to paint the parking lots at Wal-Mart's in a color scheme that represents employment and tax refunds. Maybe 90% of the lot in yellow lined spots; and each 1% more in various psychedelic colors. Then we all can measure the economy in the simplest and most direct manner. The more multi-colored parking spaces used, the better the economy, stupid. Hey, my 3rd grader understands it, maybe the democrats might-think?

Thanks, Andrea. I knew better, but hit the post button a little too fast again. :(

Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”?

Yes. As long as you're starting from some place even lower.

From NewsMax: "The economy's performance in the second half of last year marked the best back-to-back quarterly performance since the first two quarters of 1984."

See full article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/85551.shtml

Tim- the template is already in for Bush and the economy. Liberal pundits will ignore everything except the raw job creation of the monthly payroll number- forget GDP, productivity the market etc. The Clinton bubble put Bush in a jobs hole and that is the club they are already using against him here . Bush= Hoover, that's the line that is already being pounded- circumstances be damned. If this country falls for it, it deserves Kerry.

All old media in America (the NYTimes, CNN, etc.) is just Jayson Blair lite. They know it, they've always known it, and now the rest of us are starting to catch on. Jayson's problem was that his making stuff up was too clumsy, too obvious. The rule is: don't obviously make stuff up, just spin and shade leftward, in everything and always.

Hmm. I also seem to recall an interesting little debate in the late 1990s over whether or not the 5% mark was a natural unemployment rate; the consensus by the end of the decade was that 5% wasn't that important, as far as I remember. So, the goalposts have shifted, but not because of partisan animus, it seems to me. Oh well.

I have a little more faith in people. People are not stupid. They see a little more in their take home pay. They'll see a little more given back come tax time. And when people open their statements for those 401k's etc etc- they see nice returns in those also.

You guys are ridiculous. Of course 5.6% is high for Bush and was ONCE low for Clinton. When Clinton started the unemployment was over 7%, so to get it down to 5.6% was a mammoth task. When he finished though, he was under 5% and very close to being under 4%. So, when Bush goes up from 4% to 5.6%, IT IS HIGH!

For example, when Bill Gates was 10 years old, $20 was a lot of money for him; $2 wasn't. Do you think if Bill Gates was to lose all his $40+ billion dollars and end up with only $20 he should still refere to that $20 as "a lot of money?" Of course not. The fact that we have regressed is the problem. Don't be dopes and argue a point you are know you are wrong about. You can say that Bush hasn't had enough time, you can say that there are other factors affecting the economy, but you can't say that economically we were worse off under Clinton that we were under Bush.

JJ shake is basically right I think but with some comments.

The 4% inflation rate in the late Clinton years established a new baseline. Before that 4% would have been assumed to cause wage inflation.

Also Dems may have built themselves a trap here. If job growth begins to exceed 200k/month in the late spring and summer, all Kerry will be able to say is something like, "the jobs should have come sooner" to which Bush can say "well if Congress had passed the tax cuts faster they would have".

The Dems are digging another hole on this one. Job creation will accelerate; in fact, it already has. In 6 - 8 moths (the election window), job creation and the jobless rate will not be anything you can hang a campaign on.

Fortunately, the Dem fellow travellers in the press will see to it that, like all their other false starts and dead issues, this one drops into the memory hole, too.

Guys

Bill has put it all in perspective for us: change the subject.

Alas, guys, they're gonna keep up the myths about the Economy: one of Billy Crystal's jokes last nite at the Oscars had it that the present economy is "tanking". Um, tanking, must've been thinking of Dukakis!

TomCom

Pretty simple, unless you are a knee-jerk partisan. The unemployment RATE is low because of low participation, not because of a strong job market. If the job market were strong, there would be (a) plenty of jobs, and (b) quickly rising wages - we have neither. Instead, we have an extremely weak labor market, and the first net loss of jobs of any administration since Herbert Hoover.

Given their corporate business accumen in the years after the March 2000 tech bubble burst, CNN is probably more concerned about the 2001 5.6 percent jobless rate because so much of that was made up of former AOL Time Warner employees...

Apparently even simpler if you are a knee-jerk partisan: "Bush bad! Facts negotiable!"

Bill,

You don't make alotta sense fella. The starting point should be irrelevant in using charged terms like "HIGH" and "LOW." Surely you see that.

Bill
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I suspect you'll do that even if I'm right), but didn't Osama bin Ladin have a tiny bit to do with the job losses? I don't hear much discussion of this part of the equation. Beyond the economic damage he directly caused, the diversion of resources required to throw him out of Afghanistan, the increased costs of home defense, the need to eliminate the basing of terrorists in MidEast countries (a process started in Iraq), etc all have had a huge impact on the economy. Someone could probably calculate hom many of the job losses are due to this. In that Clinton had his chances to get the B**tard, I think that percent could be laid at his door, and the door of the party that hamstrung our intelligence efforts over the past decades.

Hey Dwayne, are you old enough to remember the Nixon, Ford and Carter adminsistrations? I thought not. You (and whoever you are parroting) don't know anything about job losses.

Millions of jobs lost. First administation since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs. Unemployment benefits are running out without there being new jobs, so they fall off the unemployment rolls and are not counted. Remember, you need 150,000 jobs each month just to account for population increases. The unemployment rate is failing to show what the other unemployment statistics clearly show: a bad job market that's getting worse.

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. manufacturers may finally be close to adding jobs after 42 straight months of layoffs, a survey suggested on Monday, but they also face pricing pressures that could squeeze profits." May finally be getting close. Great news, guys.

Let's put a bit of perspective on this: http://jobsearchtech.about.com/library/weekly/aa122099b.htm

If we measure "low" as something relative to previous years, that CNN report isn't that bias.

If we look at the jobless rate before Bush takes office and compare it to now... several million people are without jobs that had them before. Of course, one could always argue "high and low" are meaningless words and trends really matter. Jobs isn't an area "trending" well for Bush.

Look, if we're going to be taken seriously, the right needs to stop sniping about the media. We really sound like idiots. The same way the left does when it comes to defense.

Dwayne - check your math - Bush in office Jan 2001 until today = 37 months. Manufacturing job losses extend to the last 5 months of Clinton administration. How did ANY policy decision by GWB have ANY influence on that?? Answer = zero. The bubble had burst before Jan 2001.

Great news Huh?

If you are asking for honesty from conservative side, how about you? Or isn't this in your CNN talking points?

Dwyane,
You fail to take into account the small business start-ups by those who are no longer looking for work. My family is one of those. Wife's position (mid management) was eliminated last fall. Unemployment ran out (she did have a nice vacation tho.) Started a small business. Life is great - however, technically, she is still listed as unemployed and not rehired. . . not exactly an accurate picture.

Regards.

What, you were expecting consistency from the media? You can't even get consistency from Clinton's director of National Economic Council Gene Sperling[now works for the Center for American "Progress", a "non-partisan" think tank].

06/09/1997 Washington Post

Myth No. 4: The deficit is balanced only for a nanosecond.

Another myth is that the budget achieves balance for an instant, then immediately returns to deficit. That's plain wrong. The budget agreement achieves balance in 2002 and then goes into a surplus of $ 5 billion in 2003 that grows to $ 34 billion in 2007. Now that we have balanced the budget, we must tackle the generational imbalance we face -- particularly in the areas of long-term Medicare and Social Security reform. This agreement, however, is a crucial step to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boom generation.

02/14/2000 Washington Post

With African American and Hispanic child poverty rates still disgracefully high, we have both an economic and moral imperative to use a good portion of our hard-won savings to attack child poverty and increase education and training while continuing the debt reduction and low interest rates to keep providing economic opportunity for all Americans.

03/20/2001 Boston Globe

Therefore, there is reason to fear that it is more than coincidental that since Vice President Cheney made headlines in early December by claiming we were on the front edge of a recession, expectations about the future have fallen a whopping 32 percent, even though confidence about present circumstances are high and have fallen only 8 percent. Indeed, the difference between overall consumer confidence and expectations for the future is the largest since 1973.

Since Cheney's initial warning bell, President Bush has repeatedly sought to send out the same dark message. He continually used the bully pulpit to describe his tax cut as needed to make sure our economy does not go into a tailspin. In his State of the Union address, while he mentioned that two pictures could be painted of the United States, he led his address speaking about warning signs, increasing layoffs, and rising energy prices without a single reassuring word about the current economy.

By my count Gene Sperling is an economical opportunistic commentator. His prediction of a declining deficit going away in a nanosecond as false came true. His prediction of fiscal irresponsibility with a surplus as false came true. His assessment of Cheney and Bush as telling the truth about the economy as damaging to consumer confidence was entirely true.

I guess that when you work for and advised the smoothest cat to ever hold the White House telling the truth wouldn't get you a job with the Center for American "Progress". Of course Gene Sperling is consistent. He's consistently WRONG!

What happens when the unemployment rate falls below the theoretical structural unemployment rate of 5-6%? Is it a good thing?

When the rate was about 4% I took my car in to have the brakes adjusted. The head mechanic said he didn't want the kids he had on duty that day to work on them. Apparently, they could barely manage oil changes.

The inexorable law of supply & demand cuts both ways in the labor market. When labor supply is tight, incompetents are hired at high wages and perform to the level of their ability. In the short term this is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to auto brakes.

Dwayne,

While you're at it, please explain for the rest of us the cost of labor (esp. gov't. imposed costs); it's relationship to the unemployment/employment rate; how that applies to labor markets in western Europe; and how John Forbes Kerry or any Democrat (I don't care, pick any of them) would fix all that so the jobs market rebounds.

Blaming Bush for the business cycle and the unfortunate effects of 9/11 is easy.

Extra points if you can show how tax increases (which all Democrat candidates promise) and deficit reduction (which no Democrat candidates speak to) lead to IMMEDIATE stimulation of the job market. Double extra points for showing how curtailing free trade agreements lead to IMMEDIATE stimulation of the job market.

Don't worry, take your time.

We'll wait.

Dwayne-

The unemployment rate is falling because the HOUSEHOLD survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate, not because people are giving up. According to the Household jobs survey, almost 2 million NET new jobs have been created under Dubbya. "How can this be??" asks CNN. He CAN'T have created JOBS. There must be some mistake.

The main difference between Household and Payroll surveys? The household survey takes into account independant contractors and those who start their own business. These people are employed, but do not show up on the Payroll survey.

It just BURNS when facts get in the way, doesn't it Dwayne?

Bill forgets one thing w/Bubba v. W.

So, Bill, how many millions of people have we added since 2001?

Do you think that might make a difference?

There's also an argument that w/the tax cuts, more SAHM decided to find a job because pay was more attractive.

You're parsing words and playing "gotcha" while ignoring the real danger to the President.

These are the national unemployment rates for the past few election years:

1992 - 7.4%
1996 - 5.4%
2000 - 4%

And now 5.6%, a significant increase when only about 500,000 votes separated Bush and Gore in 2000. Whether or not low unemployment rates are good for the economy, people who had jobs under Clinton and don't under Bush are probably of one opinion about it.

Also, Dwayne and Bill need to start reading Bill Hobbs.

Check out the LLCs started in TN alone in 2003.

And one can make a wonderful argument against National Health Care when one realized that a lot of the uninsured are SBOs and making $50K and above who CHOOSE not to have health insurance.

Here is a chart of the 10-year NASDAQ, and here is a chart of the 10-year GDP growth. Notice the tight overlaps during the contraction, and notice the fundamentals of the last ~18 months.

Everything you need to know about the economy:

-the bubble rose and burst on Clinton's watch

-the collapse was accompanied by a decline from 7% growth to 1% growth, followed by a small bounce then a quarter of negative growth, and then another small bounce (all of that occurred under Clinton)

-the 'official' recession started during Bush's first quarter (also Clinton's last quarter), with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but it clearly began much earlier

-the 'official' recession ended in Q4 of 2001, but the bubble continued collapsing into Q3 of 2002; we did not start real growth until the bubble had finished contracting back to 1996/1997 levels

-we are at the 14-month point in the real recovery, and job creation usually kicks in at the 12-18 month window, and we are right on schedule; expect +200k jobs every month from May forward, assuming there is no other major blow to the economy.

-Bush policies eased the recession (indeed, we had positive GDP growth while the bubble continued to contract), and have facilitated a strong recovery. Low capital taxes, low interest rates, and low exchange rates combined in a very powerful mix.

In sum, the Democrats don't have much of an argument against Bush's handling of the economy, given the mess that he inherited. What they can complain about (to their base anyway) is that Bush did not do enough to ease the pain and suffering of the people whose jobs were destroyed in the bubble's contraction. My personal opinion is that those kinds of policies are why Europe is suffering so much (paying their people not to work, redistributing [aka, destroying] capital, etc), and we should not be following their lead. Bleeding hearts have different beliefs, of course.

Bryan, the facts are clearly burning you, as Bush. The loss of jobs is real and clear. The job statistics, taken as a whole, show an extremely weak job market. The length of time people spend on the unemployment rolls makes this abundantly clear.

Only partisans are claiming the job market is strong. There are people who have left the job market out of frustration, and some who prefer to call themselves "self-employed" rather than unemployed, but the weakness of the job market shows up in statistic after statistic.

If the job market were strong as you claim, and people are able to work for themselves at decent rates, salaries would be rising quickly. Instead, we see flat salaries. The payroll data tell truth, which the voters see and feel.

Those that are screeching the "sky is falling" are either economically ignorant or politically motivated liars. Very simple. Hmmm, let's see "millions of jobs lost" from the peak of an economic bubble that by any economic analysis was not sustainable....nor SHOULD it have been sustained for the long term health of our nation. Yes, a bubble mania is the standard by which we judge success in the economy. Uhhh huh.

I am enjoying watching Dwayne hold his ears and scream "I'm not LISTENING!!!!" - anyone else?

Dwayne Besuden

According to the BLS there are ~2 million more employed workers in 2003 than there were in 2000.

The job loss has to be parsed to reflect factual evidence. Manufacturing jobs have been lost. That statement is true.

What I would like liberals to explain is why they love more government workers while hating privatisation. Then they love payroll employees as a product of giganto corporate privatisation and start hating the "self employed" privatisation. I guess the next in line for liberal hatred are government workers assuming the future White House increases the government labor force. This last statement is only reflective if there is a Republican in the big house though.

Don't forget Krugman saying the lowest sustainable unemployment rate was 5.5% to 6% -- and using this to lambast the stupid illogic of the "four percenters" who wanted to target 4% economic growth.

Because five years of 4% economic growth would reduce the unemployment rate to an obviously impossible 1.5%.

This being just before the economy experienced 4% growth for five years. ;-)

http://www.economicclub.org/Pages/archive/fulltext/arch-krugman.htm

To top it off, he used the lesson he administered here to illustrate why he was an "irritating economist" in the minds of so many.

That being: He applies rigorous thinking, logic and models to determine the *truth*, and he has the character to tell it -- which of course is very irritating to logicless fools like the "four percenters" who just believe what they want to believe.

Yes, a bubble mania is the standard by which we judge success in the economy. Uhhh huh.

ken: Show me JAMES CARVILLE/PAUL BEGALA! I'm waiting for the first pundit to say "What terrorist attack on 9/11?".

I nailed this lame argument a month ago.

Whether the bubble level was sustainable, and whose fault it is for the employment picture, is a different question. But the employment picture today is far worse from what it was at 5.6% a few years ago. The voters know this, and Bush is too smart to claim that getting a job (or a raise) is as easy today as it was in 1996.

Are employers hiring like crazy, just calling them "contractors" instead of "employees"?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4407705

The government jobs figures are wrong. Read Virginia Postrel's article in the NYT magazine 2/22/04. The feds says there are 30,000 manicurists. Somehow the states think there are 56,000 nail salons, most with a number of employees. Same goes for massage therapists. These two professions account for 500,000 missing jobs.

For a good time, check out the BLS statistics pages here. You can play with the numbers all day.

The gap between household and payroll employment is interesting. Apparently only about 25 percent of the discrepancy is due to self-employment.

There is one way the CNN spin is justified (although not mentioning the fact opens them to the criticism we see):
unlike under Clinton in 1996, the discouraged job-seekers not counted among the "unemployed" is now much higher; in that sense, the unemployment rate is worse now.

--Orson

Not only are independent contractors and home business owners and other entrepreneurs drastically under-represented in the government's official employment statistics, but I would argue that these unacknowledged jobs are much better jobs. Not necessarily because they pay more than traditional jobs (although they often do), but because they are much more responsive to opportunities and consumer demands.

I happen to work for a giant corporation, which is constantly launching new management initiatives in an effort to better connect to the marketplace, reduce costs, increase productivity, etc., etc. It's not easy, because a large company has a lot of inertia and a big overhead structure which burdens its costs and limits its competitiveness. "Big" and "nimble" don't go together very well. My company actually does quite well, but it faces a constant struggle to keep from becoming obsolete.

My wife and my daughter each run their own home businesses, advertising over the Internet. They have invented products, created markets, and innovated in a whole host of different ways. Ten years ago, maybe even five years ago, they couldn't have done it; the Internet infrastructure wasn't developed enough. Now they are filling unmet demands and satisfying customers who didn't even know such products existed. In a year or two they could become wealthy (or at least extremely well compensated) if their respective business take off as it appears they might.

The United States' economy is much healthier and more robust because of all the self-employed entrepreneurs who are not tied down by old assumptions and ossified business structures. And government statistics which fail to capture this vibrancy are worse than useless.

I for one, am married to a millionare because she was laid off in the '90s and 'had' to start her own business. Self employment is not the end of the world for the people involved, trouble is, when someone becomes responsible for themselves, they become Republican, if they weren't already, as in our case.

Once again, it is shown how the moronic liberal media corrupt every single thing they report.

They don't say that the recession started under Clinton, they won't say Kerry is a bankrupt (morally) liberal who voted time and time again to make this country weaker in the military and intelligence and who takes lobbyist money but condemns it, and they won't say that the Democrats have absolutely no plan to do anything except to beat George W. Bush.

I have said it once and I will say it again: a vote for John Kerry and the Democrats this November is a vote to sign the surrender papers to Osama bin Laden.

You liberals are totally stupid and wrong. Bush's economy is creating millions of new manufacturing jobs at McDonalds and Burger King right now! The proud employees of those companies don';t have Helath Insurance becasue they DON't WANT IT! It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that liberal media that hand-held the public through the Iraq war - and credulously reported every rumor fed to it by the administration - is trying to ruin our greatest president by painting him as a loser on jobs. If it was not for Bush, the stock market would not be blistering hot. I just wish I made enough money in my programming job to afford to buy some stock - since my employer froze out matching funds for our 401K. In any case, I am proud to support George Bush.

What do the Demoncrpas have anyway? No ideas and stupid ideas. They want a national healthcare system - what communists. Some of them did not want us to go into Iraq - stupid liberals. They want to repeal bush's tax cuts - and repeal the astounding growth along with it. they want to add all kinds of costly rgulations to industry - what are they? Communistic simpletons.

We don't need any sort of communistic national Healthcare plan. Private industry is already providing a great service at a low price. I don't mind my premiums going up by 250% every year while my deductible grows faster than my salary. I know that when I need service, I can find at least 1 doctor within 150 miles that my PPo will work with.

We needed to attack Iraq. obviously Saddam Hussein hid all his weapons really well - but I know we will find them - and those liberals will be sorry. Besides, soon all that iraqi oil will be flowing to the pumps - and our gas will get cheaper and cheaper.

Why do those liberals want to repeal the tax cuts? i don't know. I think they just hate average Americans and they hate that Geroge Bush gave us back our money so that we could spend it how we saw fit. i used mine to pay for my property tax - it was able to pay off a good 40% of that. Our liberal governor had the gaul to increase our property taxes - just to mess up President Bush's plans. My friends, the liberals are destroying America.

They moan about deficits - well, duh - the deficits will be gone in a few years after we are all made rich by astounding growth. They moan about a sinking dollar. They seem to think that the increased crude oil costs becasue of poor dollar conversion will dull the incredible economic boast the shareholders of American exporters get. I mean, come on - when those expporters move their businesses to India, they are saving a ton of money - which translates to more Hummers and more Rolexs at home!

Liberal hate America cause they don't like anyone to be free. They want us all to moan about how horrible everything is - when in fact - compared to Haiti, our country is doing fantasitcally.

you see, it's all relative!

GWBush in 2004!

Big Brother in 2008!

The phony benchmark behind CNN's jobs spin is the unsustainably high employment numbers produced by the Fed-generated artificial boom of the late 1990's -- with businesses in a frenzy to anyone and everyone for jobs which had no chance of being permanent. The best explanation of this artificial Fed-generated boom and bust comes from economist Roger Garrison.

Dwayne,

Going to your Reuters' story, I noticed the following quote:

'Chicago Fed President Michael Moskow expects "very strong" job growth in 2004, though economic slack, which means fairly high unemployment and unused factory capacity, could persist for "some time."

Two things here: First, "very strong" job growth is expected in 2004. If this means 200k/month is yet to be seen, but it certainly means something. However, we've been seeing strong showings in the manufacturing sector over the past nine months. This is only one example, but the unemployment trend has been downward. Economic growth has been strong and constant. I don't see any reason for the unemployment rate not to decrease.

Second, the reporter refers to 5.6% unemployment as "fairly high unemployment." Your arguement is that the unemployment rate is an unimportant indicator because it fails to account for an "extremely weak job market." Fair enough, please show me then the quantifiable data which is able to distinguish job seekers and those who have given up. What can you present to prove to me that the jobs being created are significantly worse, in pay, benefits, etc... matched to a reliable index? Could you please explain to me how jobs being created for the long term (as it seems reasonable to assume) are worse than those created in a bubble?

I will admit that the job situation looks worse than in 2000, but remember that Bush managed to beat Gore, despite that economy. John Kerry is not the successor to Clinton. This economy is not bad enough to give him a decisive edge over Bush, and I don't see this being the tipping point for independents.

That's why it's called CNN - Clinton News Network...

In January 2004, there were 2,428 mass layoff actions by employers, as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single establishment, and the number of workers involved totaled 239,454. (See table 1.) This marked the most events for a January and the third highest January level of mass-layoff initial claims since the series began. Both the number of layoff events and initial claims were higher than a year ago. January 2004 marked only the third time in the last two years that initial claims had increased over the year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf

A decade ago, Roger Labunski assumed he would continue pulling in $100,000 or better each year. Lately he has been lowering his sights — a lot. He has been out of work for 18 months. He gave up his home in a divorce, sold many possessions, borrowed money from relatives and still ended up filing for bankruptcy. He now lives in a rental loft near Decatur. "I have given up on a full-time job," Labunski said. "I have to reinvent myself."

In the past three years, unemployment has jumped from 5.7 million to 8.3 million. Some jobless people, especially during hard times, go many months searching for work — but that group has rarely been so large for so long. About 650,000 of the jobless in 2000 were out of work six months or longer. Now, about 1.9 million Americans — 23 percent of the jobless — have been unemployed for more than six months. Most lost their jobless benefits after 26 weeks; some had a 13-week extension.

***

"People think that if you don't have a job, it's because you are not looking," said Athena Jones, 38, of Stone Mountain, who says she has done little else. Previously a human resources professional for a medical device company, Jones has been out of work for 18 months.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=19803151

Self-employed computer programmer Thomas Mooney -- who bills himself as the "president/janitor" of his Minneapolis company, TeleProc -- said he cannot last much longer with so little work in an industry that was once booming.

"I'm barely employed -- no income yet this year," Mooney said. "I have $7,000 in future prospect business and that is all I know about for the rest of the year."

Mooney, a 52-year-old father of two teenage boys, is convinced the job market is even bleaker than official figures suggest, since he and other idled independent contractors do not collect unemployment benefits and thus are never counted among the unemployed.

"If I had to put a label on myself, it would be 'severely underemployed,'" he said. "And the market is still getting worse rather than better, as far as I can see."

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/040208/economy_employment_1.html

I'm sure that they are the exception, and the millionaire self-employed/independent contractors are the rule.

The unemployment rate (either survey type) doesn't include those who have stopped looking for work and doesn't note when people are significantly underemployed. This causes significant flaws in a long-term poor economy, when people either give up looking for jobs or take jobs well below their previous salaries because they've been out of work too long to survive.

2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost since Bush took office.

If I have $100 but you take $50 then give me back $25, that doesn't make me rich.

Wow, some really ridiculous comments above. I especially like all the name calling and finger pointing, reminds me of kindergarden. Especially loved the taunts of commies and signinging a surrender letter to OBL. If you are one of the above, take a chill and remember what your parents (hopefully) taught you- no one will listen to you unless you are polite and certainly no one will change their minds unless you treat them with respect. I wanted to learn something here, but frnkly gave up after a while. That said, finger pointing (problem started under Clinton, etc) is sort of besides the point- the post wanted posts relating to the media potential fudging of numbers. And to paint teh media as Liberal in this day in age is getting a tad silly. So where does that lead us? The media says it, not nessasarily because it is true, but because people want to hear it. And where does that lead us? (No we wont be signing surrender papers - whatev)
Oh, and who ever thinks that people dont want health insurance should think twice. I have a family member in the hospital for the forseeable future and we would be bust without it. A canard I tell you!

It's very interesting to me that you criticize the "liberals" for viewing statistics through tinted lenses. Did you pause to think about the statistics you chose to quote?

When Clinton's mid-presidency numbers were termed "low", it was because that administration had, in 4 years, managed to recover the unemployment rate from the Reagan/Bush era.

What followed is missing from your original post: The unemployment rate continued to drop. A brief glance at statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics will show you that the average unemployment rate for 1999 was 4.2, a full percentage point and a half lower (i.e. about 30 million people) than the 5.6 number you quote.

Then, after only one year in office, the Bush Administration, Part II, had managed to turn that trend around completely and it was back UP to the mid-five percent level.

The values are quoted as being "low" or "high" because these are what we call "relative terms". In this case, the numbers are lower or higher than they had been previously. In Clinton's case, it was an improvement to get the numbers to that point, and that trend continued throughout is administration. In Bush's case, it was a drastically worse number when compared with the rates of only a couple of years ago.

In short, it doesn't do any good to say "that dress was fifty dollars off!" when it cost $4500 to begin with.

Perhaps next time, you'll notice things like this in the media and wonder what it was that made them say it, or say it that way, rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

But then again, you probably won't.

Another way to look at this is based on reality. If there is 5 percent unemployment, then that means 95 percent of the working-able are working.

If anyone can remember math, try this on for size: suppose there is 275 million people living in the United States. Let's say 200 million of them are able to work. 5 percent of that 200 million is not working, but 95 percent of that 200 million is.

200,000,000 times .95 equals 190,000,000 working Americans. That's 190 million working Americans. That leaves 10 million without jobs.

Now that 10 million able to work may not be working because they are either retired, still in school, or just enjoy collecting the extended weeks of unemployment because they are too lazy to go find any job.

My numbers are a bit outlandish, but just the other day someone stated the obvious for the first time: we have a quarter of a billion people living in this country. That's honestly the first time I heard anyone express the United States like that. If there is 95 percent employment for those old enough to work in a country with a quarter billion people, then that's saying something.

And face reality: there is no real true such thing as 100 percent employment. That's a pipe dream that people with left leaning views should stop smoking.

Are all Americans really this dumb and short sighted ? 5.7 % unemployment? Does anyone here actually know how those statistics are calculated (and collected), and how certain groups are excluded from those statistics? Its damn crazy you lot even think that you have 5.7% unemployment.. get a brain, look at the realities of the very large, and growing lower class of people you have in your society. And of course, these statitistics happily include all the 'impoverished' labour that so blindly goes on.. What about working for unemployment? How the hell can you say someone is unemployed when they are working for the unemployment payments??!!! you lot are mad!!?? Im really very disappointed that such a society can even hope to think they are doing so well when in excess of 3 million of your fellow human beings are living off the streets, oh, and because of that, they arent included in the unemployed.. well done united states.. its great to see that your BS marketing flows throughout your own community as well as the rest of the world..

It's likely that CNN wrote editorials on with the intent to give democrats a push, but criticism itself is hardly unfounded.

These so called stimulants to the economy are coming at the expense of a massive deficit, as did the multiple wars fought recently.
Given that president bush has sacrificed a GREAT deal of national credit in the name of artificially raising economic growth and lowering unemployment, those are poor figures.

Growth is unsustainable if it rests on the back of deficits. No one is suggesting a balanced budget approach, but you can't set the equilibrium relying on those "loans", which is what being done. Wars aside, bush's fiscal policy would in itself ensure debts. It seems like this is in the name of raising commonly quoted figures to desirable levels to ensure a second term in office. Sustainability isn't something that can be given a value, and isn't something the public will give much consideration to, but it is something that matters more than any of the marginal improvements in the other figures. Don't be suprised if a certain alan greenspan has something to say of this shortly before the next federal election. He certainly did before bush sr would have been set to serve his second consecutive term, and it undoubtedly had a powerful effect on the results.

Where did the number for the 5.6%, 5.7%, etc. come from?? I remember the 7% under Carter and it seemed we had more jobs then than now. How many of those jobs counted are poverty level types? I see many couples working on two poverty jobs to pay their rent and meet the necessities of their families. I also see many people with family members at home with them, as they can’t find work. These polls don’t reflect the true economy. Our economy is like a huge tanker. When the motor stops, it is carried many miles with just the kinetic energy it had stored while under way. When it does stop, it takes a long time to regain the ground lost. Americans are about to see many things stop. Local governments are hurting so bad they are having their enforcement groups give citations for things like having garbage out too early. One woman in Dallas put her trash out; the garbage collectors didn’t come by to get it, and the code enforcement officer cited her with a $250 fine. I saw the New York City groups doing the same thing. What happens when those people simply say, “Put me in jail, I can’t pay the fine!”. Whose going to pay for those incarcerated when that happens?

Where did the number for the 5.6%, 5.7%, etc. come from?? I remember the 7% under Carter and it seemed we had more jobs then than now. How many of those jobs counted are poverty level types? I see many couples working on two poverty jobs to pay their rent and meet the necessities of their families. I also see many people with family members at home with them, as they can’t find work. These polls don’t reflect the true economy. Our economy is like a huge tanker. When the motor stops, it is carried many miles with just the kinetic energy it had stored while under way. When it does stop, it takes a long time to regain the ground lost. Americans are about to see many things stop. Local governments are hurting so bad they are having their enforcement groups give citations for things like having garbage out too early. One woman in Dallas put her trash out; the garbage collectors didn’t come by to get it, and the code enforcement officer cited her with a $250 fine. I saw the New York City groups doing the same thing. What happens when those people simply say, “Put me in jail, I can’t pay the fine!”. Whose going to pay for those incarcerated when that happens?

Where did the number for the 5.6%, 5.7%, etc. come from?? I remember the 7% under Carter and it seemed we had more jobs then than now. How many of those jobs counted are poverty level types? I see many couples working on two poverty jobs to pay their rent and meet the necessities of their families. I also see many people with family members at home with them, as they can’t find work. These polls don’t reflect the true economy. Our economy is like a huge tanker. When the motor stops, it is carried many miles with just the kinetic energy it had stored while under way. When it does stop, it takes a long time to regain the ground lost. Americans are about to see many things stop. Local governments are hurting so bad they are having their enforcement groups give citations for things like having garbage out too early. One woman in Dallas put her trash out; the garbage collectors didn’t come by to get it, and the code enforcement officer cited her with a $250 fine. I saw the New York City groups doing the same thing. What happens when those people simply say, “Put me in jail, I can’t pay the fine!”. Whose going to pay for those incarcerated when that happens?

"The unemployment rate continued to drop. A brief glance at statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics will show you that the average unemployment rate for 1999 was 4.2, a full percentage point and a half lower (i.e. about 30 million people) than the 5.6 number you quote."

I assumed that something like that happened during the time between reports. Thanks, you saved me from doing the research. :)

I only wish some of the people around here would also go to the effort of finding some facts before flying off the handle.

There is no doubt that the economy is worse off in this presidential cycle than it was in Clinton's. As for the unemployment rate being "low" at 5.7% or "high" at 5.7% most of you are right, it is arbitrary. Like Thinman previously posted, 5.7% was a considerable improvement during the Clinton era and the 5.7% was worse during the Bush era.

However, the other reason that the economy is worse during the Bush administration is due to the number people that have taken themselves out of the job market. The unemployment rate only measures people who are actively looking for jobs, so while the unemployment rate improved over the last year, a large part of that was due to the fact so many people either a)found a job or b)quit looking. SO, the people in class B contributed to the unemployment rate improvements.

And in a direct response to WAYNE, while I agree with you on Bush's Social policies, I also disagree with his tax cuts. I am a young man who will suffer as I get older. As a country, we cannot continue to spend on everything from Military to Health Care and continue to cut taxes. The cut taxes and spend borrowed money only works for so long before someone has to pay the piper. Unfortunately, it will be me and my young family.

"The unemployment rate only measures people who are actively looking for jobs, so while the unemployment rate improved over the last year, a large part of that was due to the fact so many people either a)found a job or b)quit looking. SO, the people in class B contributed to the unemployment rate improvements."

That's not a valid criticism. That has been true for every instance when the unemployment rate has been measured. There's no conclusive evidence to support the belief that a higher proportion of people have "stopped looking" lately. There are other reasons, but that's not one of them. Discouraged workers are a means of proving that all unemployment rates are understated, not in arguing that it was more prominent in one year versus another.

This is quite amusing, first off, statics are never right or wrong, they can be made into any arguement you want to. And because i dont have time to look any up, i wont use any of them. Unemployment... my dad is a carpenter, one of those jobs that usually determines how the economy is doing becuase when times are good, people will pay for a new kitchen, but when they aint, people dont. This shows lots of trends, when people are buying kitchens they are either selling their house or have bought a new one (not always but usually). Since housing is the biggest investment most Americans will ever purchase this has a lot to do with how the economy is doing, at least for the middle class, who do most of the house buying, getting laid off, and voting in this country. So my dad is busy, really busy, booked for the next year, because people are buying kitchens. Grant it this is kinda a simple arguement for most of you who are quoting statics that only the people polling know what they are talking about, but when people sell and buy houses the economy is usually doing well.

9/11 was the biggest economic hit in Americas history. Why did 9/11 happen, partly cause too much gov't money was going to the economy, reducing unemployment to 4% or whatever it was then, and not enough to military and intel, and partly because Americans were busy arguing the constutionality of stoping the vote counting in Flordia, and who was really the Pres. to see any kind of threat to our way of life. Consequently thousands of Americans died in a terrorist attack against us, so maybe we should shift some attention away from the economy towards the terrorist who just killed many of your neighbors, maybe your mom, dad, or just friend.

So you women complaining about your rights, thank Pres. Bush for not only liberating but also saving millions of women's lives. You people complaining about being laid off from your nice office job, go get a real/different job, work some consturction, start a business, try being more than some yesman that didnt really need a job in the first place. People complaing about the nation not being able to get a raise. Hmmm for you to get paid more the company has to make more, which means they charge more, which means when you get more, it will only level you back off at what you used to be, if you want more money, prove yourself worthy of a promotion, not call your local union to get a raise. Again to you job loosers, learn a new trade, get this... join the military. Maybe if you learned how great the country you are fighting for is, you would appreciate the ability to even live here, much less work here.

This opinion is a personal view from an 18 year old college freshman. Your right i dont remember all to much from your pasts, or past presidents, but instead of looking back, look foreward, the people looking back are missing what is going on now, the people looking foreward are fixing the problems.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but the actual statsitics tell a different story:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Casper KnightShade said: Now that 10 million able to work may not be working because they are either retired, still in school, or just enjoy collecting the extended weeks of unemployment because they are too lazy to go find any job.

I, for one, would like to poke Casper right in the eye, because I am one of those 'made-up number' unemployed, and it is not for any of those reasons listed. It's because no one will hire me, even for positions way under my potential.

What I don't understand in all of this debate over the unemployment rate is why don't people include a discussion of the following issues:

1) What type of jobs exist which influence this rate? The issue is not just the rate of unemployment, it is far more complicated than this.

2) Where is the discussion about the high amount of consumer debt which is higher than ever and looms ominously as a threat to this economy?

American news corporations are worthless, thats why.

If you're wandering where all the retards in this thread came from, Fark.com linked to it.

Dwayne Besuden:

"Pretty simple, unless you are a knee-jerk partisan."

Or actually know something about economics.

"If the job market were strong, there would be (a) plenty of jobs, and (b) quickly rising wages - we have neither."

Quickly rising wages will inevitably lead to inflation unless productivity increases or jobs are outsourced overseas. Wage increases commensurate to inflation is the goal, not “quickly rising wages.” The last thing that any government (or population) wants is 100% employment.

”Instead, we have an extremely weak labor market, and the first net loss of jobs of any administration since Herbert Hoover.”

Very interesting since the Department of Labor states that there are over 750,000 more jobs than there were in January of 2001 when President Bush took office. The media’s claim that two million jobs have been lost is referring to the increased number of people who are out of work, not the net jobs created. The difference is because the labor pool has expanded by three million since President Bush took office.

Chris Josephson:
I am afraid you do not understand feminism. When a woman is appointed to a high-level position, it is not necessarily indicative of a feminist victory. Another example is Margaret Thatcher, she played the game of power politics quite beautifully, yet she did little that feminists would celebrate. Feminist theories vary widely, but most seek to improve life for ALL people, regardless of gender. I would argue that the militarization of society does not lead to an improved quality of life, for women, men, children, whoever. Furthermore, Clinton's attitudes toward women may have been deplorable, and I don't know of any feminists who would "go after" the women he allegedly harassed, unless they were criticizing Monica for merely seeking spotlight attention rather than trying to truly deal with the issue of harassment. Please, Chris, do not fling anti-feminist rhetoric unless you understand the diverse theoretical implications of feminism.

Jobwatch.org:

Greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression
Since the recession began 34 months ago in March 2001, 2.4 million jobs have disappeared, a 1.8% contraction. The Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression). In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs had fully recovered to above the pre-recession peak within 31 months of the start of the recession. Today's labor market would have an additional 3.88 million jobs if jobs had grown by the 0.7% rate that occurred in the early 1990s recession and so-called "jobless recovery," the worst record prior to this current period. The picture is bleaker for private-sector jobs, which have dropped by 2.9 million since March 2001, a 2.5% contraction.

eh, lets face it. bush sucks. havent had a good president in years and it'll be years till we have a good one. dems and reps are full of shit.

Mountains/Molehills. All this from some reporter's lame attempt at making the job numbers interesting before deadline.

Is it possible that they treated Clinton’s number as low, because it was right after a recession? They treat Bush’s number as high because it’s after an economic boom? For instance, if I’m unemployed, then get a job paying $6 an hr, I’d feel like I was swimming in dough, but if I had a job earning $12 an hr, then went to the $6 job, I’d feel poorer.

I'd agree that it's all relative, but I'd say it's relative based on the economy, not the president.

It is not all relative and to spin it as simple relativism betrays a brand of journalism that is, to say the least, a shade of jaune.

The problem is in the actual definition of the unemployment rate, which is not the same as the colloquial assumption of that definition. The unemployment rate explicitly excludes those that have simply become not-employed, that is, they have given up. The common assumption is that the unemployment rate equals the percentage of the workforce that is not employed. That is not the case. Many perfectly employable individuals choose not to work, whether because they are independantly (or dependantly) wealthy, housewives or househusbands, students etc.. The current unemployment figures leave out those potential employees who have out of apathy exited the workforce and become, rather than unemployed, simply not-employed. They would very much like to work, but they have not been able to find work for in excess of 18 months, so they've given up and are now "not employed" but they are also not "unemployed." A thoughtful analysis of that fact would put this sort of journalism into the black and out of the yellow.

this poor weblog's comments script... :(

Silas, I've been disappointed by most of the spelling, syntax and arguments in this post. I attributed most of it to ignorant, liberals, conservatives and voters. I disagree with alot of what I've read from both points of view. To see your post, professed to be representing our youth and future... with the misspellings, inappropriate grammer and basic lack of taste... made me sad for whichever future we have. Kerry (who I dislike and distrust) or Bush (who I feel has done a tremendous job lifting us out of Monica's panties and standing up to the Muslim radicals of the world), I hope the young generation that you pretend to represent can spell you're... and other "important" words.

George Bush has done NOTHING for this economy. Half the people are still making below average income. Roughly 1 worker in every 10 is in the bottom 10 percent. These are ACTUAL VERIFIABLE STATISTICS!!! Clearly the liberals expect to do better than this.

what about health care? we still have a 100% mortality rate...and this is the most developed health care system in the world?

Joel,
I hate people who REPRESENT FACTS WITHOUT EVER SITING ANY. Yet, they have the gall to announce them in capital letters. Where are the VERIFIABLE STATISTICS coming from???

Joel, I'm a conservative, but you give the liberals all of the ammunition by being ignorant.

Joel, where does your "data" come from"?

Grant, do you ever see us moving away froma 100% mortality rate? Either you are a smart ass, or you are not very bright.
which is it?
s

Oh Fark? I've debated with those folks before. They're game for Black Helicopter rides whenever they matriculate to the net. Sometimes they link to Zmag and call it "news".

If Fark wasn't mentioned I was going to suggest that some Paul Krugman army had linked to this site. A lot of these posts are straight out of the "The Great Unraveling". I forget, was that book about the NY Times?

Before you get too exicited about Joel and Grant's posts, they're yankin' your chain; just do the math.

"Half the people are still making below average income." The other half are making above average income.

"Roughly 1 worker in every 10 is in the bottom 10 percent." 1 in 10 IS 10 percent ... top, bottom or middle.

"we still have a 100% mortality rate" Duh! about every one of us is gonna die some day.

They're just pointing out how you can spin the most basic and obvious statistics and people get excited. These stats are verifiable because they're just based on the definition.

Steve,

Although I appreciate the sentiment, in the future, please do not post criticisms of others' grammar and usage: you're barely literate yourself. Also, it should be abundantly clear that Grant and Joel and Scott Fanetti are all taking the piss and merely attempting to show the 'debate' contained on this puerile thread for the inane, uninformed, finger-pointing ranting by half-intelligent cretins that it is. I won't be checking this thread again, but I will leave all of you with this one piece of advice: don't be impressed or incensed by things you don't understand.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. 14% of all people know that.

Dubya '04!

Well you are all forgetting something, unemployment percentage come from a survey of company, which with time as become less and less acurate, since now more and more people work in small business which means they aren't calculated in the total. And don't forget that when a company file for bankruptcy they are taken off the survey. That's why the massive headcount reduction at Worldcom never appeared on any employment figure. If you want a good statistic about unemployment try the household survey, or the people who file for first time unemployement benefit, which is about 300 000 people a WEEK.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

-Benjamin Disraeli

I would not read too much into the numbers folks.

My healthcare costs rose 30%, yet the highest average raise at my job went from 5% to 2%. That's a net LOSS of 33% in MY income. At this rate, I'll be in the breadline sooner than later. And that's if I HAVE a job till then.

Knowledge is gathered by many a hand,
Experiance is gathered by your own.

Only when one does not have experiance should one draw on knowledge.

Bush is going to create new jobs! Just wait until he re-classifies "Burger Making" to "Manufacturing" and he'll get all the job growth he needs.

I can't wait until everyone in this country has a McJob or Wal-Job since that's all there is going to be if we keep this up.

The number of intelligent journalists continues to climb to an all-time low of 5.6%.

My healthcare costs rose 30%, yet the highest average raise at my job went from 5% to 2%. That's a net LOSS of 33% in MY income. At this rate, I'll be in the breadline sooner than later. And that's if I HAVE a job till then.

Knowledge is gathered by many a hand,
Experiance is gathered by your own.

Only when one does not have experiance should one draw on knowledge.

Sorry, you're a moron. When your healthcare costs rise by a third, that does not mean it's taking a whole 1/3 off your income. That's simple math.

Somebody offered "extra points" to show how things could be done better. Read this 46 page document and learn something.
Trade Perspective

I'll be back for my points tommorrow :)

My jaw drops as I watch you mindless Fox news watching mental defects defend this administration on any issue, particularly economic policy and effectiveness in light of this fact:

Bush's chief economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw recommends redefining fast food sector as a segment of the manufacturing sector .

This administration overtly fabricates and spins, and you sheepeople just keep on bleating.

God help America, we shall soon be known as the United States of Denial...

Now just think of how the inclusion of the Armed forces in the BLS employment numbers has skewed the unemployment statistics to the LOW side, and how the BLS withdrew its modeling definitions in late 2001. You think the economic numbers issued by this administration have any relation to reality beyond that fact that they are still called statistics (lies)? BTW, PhD Applied Economics (Econometrics).

Meg for President 2004, why not, at least I won't lie to you, unlike the current field of candidates. -

i don't know about low or high but i do know that the unemployment rate isn't a good measure of misery because people go off the labor force after a while. its mostly a measure of labor market slack, ie. how much you have to accept your worker's demands.

Krugman has a PhD too, and he's also useless.

I have to agree with greg. Work in the mortgage industry and though I am new to the business, it seems that a lot of people are pulling out equity in their houses to cover debts. Property values are starting to top out in a lot of markets too. Those two factors combined seem like trouble to me when property values start to fall.

Ursus

Please respond to the following two questions relevant to my point that this administration is overtly undermining the economic outlook before equivocating my observations as also useless:

Please pick any combination of the following options for each of the questions below:

The article I cite is:
a). inaccurate
b). incomplete
c). a malicious fabrication?
d). accurate
e). reputable

If you find the article does not demonstrate a factual instance of the overt manipulation by this administration then please characterize your state of mind:

a). dishonest
b). deluded/insane
c). ignorant
d). mentally challenged

Thank you for addressing the subject matter of my post and not dismissing me as useless until you've read the body of my work. BTW, have you ever hear of Jeffrey Sachs (a prime architect of privatization in the UK, Russia and much of South America)? You may wish to reserve your libel for an individual whose work you DO NOT respect.

Megan Graye,

Which two questions?

Question 1 - The article I cite is (in question form - "What terms would you use to characterise the article I cite above?"):
a). inaccurate
b). incomplete
c). a malicious fabrication?
d). accurate
e). reputable

Question 2 - If you find the article does not demonstrate a factual instance of the overt manipulation by this administration then please characterize your state of mind:

a). dishonest
b). deluded/insane
c). ignorant
d). mentally challenged

Like the blind leading the blind.

Doesn't matter who they elect it'll be four more years of the same, and no mention of repealing or changing any of the idiotic moves made by this administration.

No mention has been made to the fact that our growth since 9-11 has been fueled more by war stocks, bonds, and equities. And that the real winners of that type of growth are already rich stock holders, and friends of key policy makers who get hot tips.

One person did notice local and state governments are hurting. That a new source of revenue has been found by fining local citizens for almost anything possible. If you don't believe check your local DUI arrest sheets and imagine how much the total fines add up to by year end in your county. Imagine a larger picture of the state, then all of America. The next big buisness will be a return to making our citizens the enemies so we can arrest them, fine them, and place them on supervision. Not slavery, but getting there.

Megan Graye,

That's still only one question. Are you sure you want to continue making a fool of yourself?

S Whiplash sweetie,

You are soooo perspicacious!!! You're brilliance has driven me to tears! For your benefit, since you cannot address the subject matter itself, I will phrase both of the items as questions... Now close your mouth and breathe through your nose so you can better concentrate on your answer.

Question 1 - The article I cite is (in question form - "What terms would you use to characterise the article I cite above?"):
a). inaccurate
b). incomplete
c). a malicious fabrication?
d). accurate
e). reputable

Question 2 - If you find the article does not demonstrate a factual instance of the overt manipulation by this administration then please characterize your state of mind (in question form - "If you find the article does not demonstrate a factual instance of the overt manipulation by this administration what would best describe your state of mind?"):

a). dishonest
b). deluded/insane
c). ignorant
d). mentally challenged

Love,

Meg

How many drugs has Meg taken:

A> A lot
B> Many
C> Plenty
D> Not enough

Just keep using Liberal spin words like Sheepeople and Neo-Con and your Liberal masters will praise you again with another gold star.

I read the article, all it states is they were thinking about reclassifying it, They didnt actually do it because it was rather asinine, and, was pointed out as so by Mr. Chin..I mean Kerry himself.

Im sure YOUR administration has NEVER done anything like that to try and make themselves look good. Like, start a small pushbutton war to make everyone concentrate on it, instead of a blue dress.

Have a nice day.

Megan Graye,

Here's a question for you. (I ask because I really don't know.)If I take a piece of meat, bread and spice it and freeze it before selling it, does that count as manufacturing?

I have to say, I enjoy reading threads like this. There's something so pleasing about realizing, with absolute certainty, that one is right. The unbelievable hypocrisy, the inability to even think that there are issues about which the administration is doing a poor job...It boggles the mind. But refreshing, as well, to see that there are one or two (just one or two, sadly) right-leaning individuals here who would actually be a pleasure to discuss politics and economics with. Same goes for the lefties, so carry on yelling at each other like a bunch of 4-year olds in the sandbox. No wonder most of the world thinks we're morons...

About the welfare state and how it´s supposedly hurting european economies:
Sweden and Norway (in Europe for those who don´t know) are commonly cited (along with other scandinavian countries) as some of the biggest welfare states around.

In relative value to these countries currencies the dollar has fallen about 30% (in the last 3 years). All of these nations have "floating" currencies ie. they don´t shore up their own currencies. This means that the difference in relative value is not caused by artificial stimulus (at least not from the european side). Which leaves us with supply-demand, market, effects to explain this change.

Currencies just as stocks are bought and sold according to the markets expectations for future returns which means that lower demand is seen as a consequence of lower expected future returns. Simply put international currency investors see the US as having a future ROI that is roughly 30% lower than these supposedly hurting european welfare states.

People will most likely start citing 9/11, the wars and other things as the causes behind this but the facts are as stated above. Someone will propably ask me to present statistics to substantiate these claims (and propably later call them bogus). I won´t, the data is available for those who which to find it...

Sorry to ramble on but I needed to vent after reading so many uninformed posts...Personally I don´t care whether R or D´s win...same sh*t different name to me...

It's a good thing that there's no liberal bias in the media!

What's curious is how those like Meg determine that an administration that is Republican is "spinning" and "fabricating" while one that is Democrat is not...despite the two administrations doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

It would seem to be a no-brainer then that someone like Meg would nod her head in vigorous, vacuous agreement to anything coming from CNN while deciding to paint everyone else as mouth-breathing Fox News watchers.

The fun part is watching someone like Meg completely ignore the facts the author of the article points out (that CNN spins the hell out of the news...and therefore drives a great many percept