Score one for Bush

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 30, 2003, 1:49 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/ec ... tm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter of 2003 to the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, in a report that was much stronger than most economists expected.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

"This is obviously an extraordinarily strong report, led by the consumer, but also with good signs about the state of the business sector and business confidence," said Lehman Brothers economist Drew Matus.

The burst of GDP growth was led by a 6.6 percent growth rate in consumer spending, the fastest pace since 1988. Consumer spending grew at a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter.

Child tax credit checks and lower rates of income tax withholding helped fuel the third-quarter spending surge, enabling the Bush administration -- which pushed for tax cuts earlier this year -- to take a victory lap Thursday morning.

"Today's report on real GDP in the third quarter shows that the president's economic policies are having a positive impact on the economy," Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 30, 2003, 2:16 pm

definitely good news for Bush, but unless the growth translates into created jobs, it won't help him 367 days from now

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 30, 2003, 2:45 pm

a total of 10% wont make up for the fact we were -45%.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 30, 2003, 2:57 pm

More tax cuts for the wealthy, please!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 30, 2003, 3:09 pm

Raistin wrote:a total of 10% wont make up for the fact we were -45%.

Its not really a total of 10 percent, each of the numbers I believe are annualized percentages. In other words the 7 percent in the third quarter says if growth was consistent at the rate across the whole year, the economy would have grown by 7 percent (if my understanding is correct). The actual annual number will be under 7 percent since the first two quarters growth was substantially below 7 percent (unless we have an unbelievably good fourth quarter).

Where does -45% come from? We haven't lost anything even remotely close to that.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

The link listed as "Current-dollar and "real" GDP, 1929-2002, XLS " its an excel file.

GDP percent change based on chained 1996 dollars by quarter

1998q1 6.1
1998q2 2.2
1998q3 4.1
1998q4 6.7
1999q1 3.0
1999q2 2.0
1999q3 5.2
1999q4 7.1
2000q1 2.6
2000q2 4.8
2000q3 0.6
2000q4 1.1
2001q1 -0.6
2001q2 -1.6
2001q3 -0.3
2001q4 2.7
2002q1 5.0
2002q2 1.3
2002q3 4.0
2002q4 1.4
2003q1 1.4
2003q2 3.3
2003q3 7.2

We had 3 slightly negative quarters back in 2001 but that was about it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 30, 2003, 4:02 pm

Raistin wrote:a total of 10% wont make up for the fact we were -45%.

That -45% was 100% Monica Lewinsky's fault!

Mort · Post by **Mort** » October 30, 2003, 6:54 pm

Positive Bush speak will not be tolerated on VV!!111!1 You sir, have been warned.....

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 31, 2003, 11:29 am

Voronwë wrote:definitely good news for Bush, but unless the growth translates into created jobs, it won't help him 367 days from now

Indeed, but it may make a difference come next Tuesday. As you stated though, it doesn't mean shit so long as people have trouble finding work.

We're still running up the deficit on an unbalanced budget and someone is going to have to dig us out again. But who cares, I'VE GOT NEW SALT AND PEPPER SHAKERS!!! THANK YOU MR. BUSH!

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » October 31, 2003, 11:48 am

Yeah but I bet Bush is happy enough toooo ........................
http://www.patrioticpartysupply.com/Bus ... ngbush.swf

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 31, 2003, 12:37 pm

Jobs cannot be created unless people spend money. People can't spend money if they don't have jobs. Spurring the economy Bush has done a very good job twice during his term with tax cuts and rebates.

Jobs will be created with the increased spending, but the problem will compound itself as the amount of jobs being created will be far outweighed by the amount of jobs that US companies are outsourcing overseas. At some point the government may have to step in to eliminate this outsourcing to other countries if they ever truly want to have the economy healthy.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 31, 2003, 1:12 pm

Rebate checks are a short-sighted solution and no true ecomonic recovery occurs as a result. It's possible some companies may see this as a sign of better times but I think they are well aware of the bubble we now rest upon.

His admin has done what others like him have done, they financed the future for a check that amounts to very little overall. All the while, spending w/in the admin continues to increase. It's really a simpleton's way of spurring long-term growth, mainly because it doesn't work for long-term growth. It's a snippet for the news and the ads for like-minded (and blinded) simpleton voters that can't see past dinner let alone five years down the road.

I'm not going to disagree on the overseas bit though as it's becoming even more pronounced of a problem as it begins to occur in industries outside of manufacturing. But it's short sighted solutions like tossing money you don't have that cause this problem, not assist it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 31, 2003, 1:22 pm

what chidor said about the checks, and with all the refinancing in Q3, people took out cash to spend on home improvements, etc. In other words a lot of the spending was deficit spending on a personal level.

the news is good, there is no doubt about that, but to say we are on the road to recovery is premature. and of course it will take more than one solid quarter for the job market to pick up, which is expected to lag behind numbers like this anyways.

Valgul · Post by **Valgul** » October 31, 2003, 6:04 pm

I agree with you Vor, it will take more than one quarter to see the benefit. Unlike 1984 (Two years after Reagan dropped the tax rate) we are not seeing +8 for a year. But this is a start. We can revisit this question about the long term effects if this last quarter results continue.

I hope the economy continues to improve over the next year. I'd love to see everyone who wants a job able to get one. Anyone know what the unemployment numbers have been for the last 50 years, like the nice chart of the GDP? Is the current unemployment higher than the 13 percent in the late 70's under Carter?

The Silicon Valley will be the last place to recover. We were the last place to recover from the last recession.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 31, 2003, 6:24 pm

unemployment numbers are not accurate measures of how many people are unemployed. those numbers are the number of people drawing unemployment benefits. plenty of people are out of jobs who do not draw that from the government.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 31, 2003, 6:41 pm

They are useless as an absolute number, but a good indicator of job trends.

The percentage who draw versus those who do not is fairly stable.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 6:44 pm

Unemployment numbers for September put the current unemployment rate at 6.1%.

http://www.bls.gov is where to look for unemployment data/tables by the way

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#data
The page with links off to most of the unemployment tables.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Has annual unemployment percentages.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln
Has the most requested statistics, check the one listed
Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14000000
to get the rate month by month. You will also have options at the top to adjust what years you want to look at. You can also generate a graph if you like.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 6:53 pm

Voronwe and Fallanthas are right in that you have to be careful of what exactly you are looking at with the statistics (that is pretty much true with all statistics). The links I gave are all to the household survey, I think I have heard before that there is another set of numbers they have using a separate collection method. Also those are the unemployment rate of those that are considered to be looking for jobs. The percentage of the populace who fall under that fluctuates over time. Its also useful to look at some other supporting statistics such as how long the typical person is unemployed. Pretty much all of this data is also on the http://www.bls.gov site, if you can find it in the mass of data they have there.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 31, 2003, 7:39 pm

Unemployment rates are sometihng I argued about awhile back whe it came to being a economic indicator as it stands alone. No sense in rehashing that but there are things that lend to percentage rates being what they are.

What should make people terribly uncomfortable is that federal interest rates are at an all time low and new home sales continue to be an all time high, yet people continue to get shitcanned left and right. All traditional measures of addressing this problem have been exhausted yet the current policy makers continue to throw proverbial bones at the public.

I really feel bad for people that think the economic situation is better under this Bush admin (not George Sr mind you as he was victim to cyclical turn over) than Carter. Sad really, but that's what they count on

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 31, 2003, 7:39 pm

Aren't employment statistics a lagging indicator? I suspect that the results you're looking for Voronwe are coming given time.

That aside, I question the effect that Presidents have on the economy.

I didn't think Bill Clinton was responsible for the 90s growth, nor the late 90s bust. I don't think Bush has a big impact on the economy either.

It's a beast that runs on it's own.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 1, 2003, 11:36 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Aren't employment statistics a lagging indicator? I suspect that the results you're looking for Voronwe are coming given time.

That aside, I question the effect that Presidents have on the economy.

I didn't think Bill Clinton was responsible for the 90s growth, nor the late 90s bust. I don't think Bush has a big impact on the economy either.

It's a beast that runs on it's own.

that is very true

but americans are stupid and will blame the growth/fall of the economy on whoever holds office of presedent, because they for the most part think hes more of an elected dictator who controlls every aspect of american life

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 1, 2003, 11:44 am

One of the major factors in the American economy is "consumer confidence". To explain; if I'm "confident" I'll have a job next month, I'll spend money because I believe it will be refreshed. In turn, that money goes back into the economy to pay people who also then get to keep their jobs and spend money in my industry. It's cyclic.

If I (and enough other people) believe the monkey running the country is doing such a poor job that I'm likely to be out of a job next month, I'll "save" my money for the hard times coming.. and they will come, based purely on people sitting on their cash instead of spending it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 2, 2003, 10:38 pm

I would not go so far to say as the government doesnt have much of an effect on the economy.

watch how trading on wall street immediately follows all major policy announcements, fed rate changes for example.

consumer confidence is something the government does really contribute to, and it is a real factor in the economy.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 3, 2003, 12:04 pm

Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Aren't employment statistics a lagging indicator? I suspect that the results you're looking for Voronwe are coming given time.

That aside, I question the effect that Presidents have on the economy.

I didn't think Bill Clinton was responsible for the 90s growth, nor the late 90s bust. I don't think Bush has a big impact on the economy either.

It's a beast that runs on it's own.
that is very true

but americans are stupid and will blame the growth/fall of the economy on whoever holds office of presedent, because they for the most part think hes more of an elected dictator who controlls every aspect of american life

While the economy follows cyclical trends, plans can and do get implemented to curb potentially disasterous economic effects. Overseas trade agreements are a perfect example of this. Don't think that because history proves the economy ebbs and flows doesn't allow them to wash their hands of the situation.

All of these economic "sparks" still haven't created a significant number of jobs. Now that you can't lower the interest rate any more, what do you do? Because new home sales remain high, (a statistic which used to be a good indicator of economic strength), yet consumer confidence remains low, what do you do? What you don't do, is continue to throw money you don't have at a situation that realizes little to no long term value. And long after our future is pissed away because the gov't policy of no-tax yet spend more has tossed our deficit back into the 80's, everyone that chooses to think fiscal policy and economic trends are independent of each other will be left scratching their heads.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 4, 2003, 3:27 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/04/news/ec ... /index.htm

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. job-cut announcements rose in October to their highest level in a year, according to a report Tuesday by an outplacement firm that keeps track of job cuts.

U.S. businesses announced 171,874 job cuts in October, up 125 percent from September's level of 76,506, according to Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas. It was the greatest number of job cuts since 176,010 in October 2002.

Challenger CEO John Challenger noted that October has in recent years become one of the worst job-cutting months of the year, since it's a time when many companies are finalizing budgets and plans for the following year.

Nevertheless, Challenger said he doubted new jobs would be quick in coming.

And the scary part...

Challenger's firm also surveyed about 50 human resources executives and found that 78 percent don't expect to see a "significant" upturn in hiring until the second quarter of 2004.

Eleven percent of those surveyed said the pick-up would be delayed until the third or fourth quarter of 2004. Another 11 percent said there would be no hiring rebound at all in 2004.