Romulus at Judicious Asininity analyzed today’s GDP report and has this to say:
P.S. 1.9% growth is not a recession. So the next time you hear a politician or anyone else say that the country is in recession tell them they are full of it. Granted, 1.9% isn’t exactly setting the economy on fire but considering what this economy has been through during the Clinton “Boom” and subsequent events such as 9/11 and war it is a tribute to someone that we are not in a depression. We still need to see stronger growth in order to create jobs but that may be coming with some help with the money supply and tax relief. I’m guessing that by Nov ’04 things will be moving along at a very nice clip. That’s right Dems, just in time for GW’s re-election.
JKC
No, 1.9% growth is not a recession. But it’s not leading to much in the way of job growth, either, as even Romulus admits.
As for the tax cuts, we’ll see. There’s not a whole lot of room left to drop interest rates, so I wouldn’t count on the Fed Fairy waving his magic wand any time soon. Also, eventually the ballooning deficit’s gonna push interest rates back up as the debt swallows up available investment dollars.
(BTW, the Republican conference committee’s gutting of tax breaks for the kids of the working poor was the best present the Democrats ever got from the GOP. This doesn’t do much to deflect the whole class warfare meme, kids…)
John Cole
I agree, the economy is not moving the way I would like it to- but considering the events of the past two years, the great drop from the market (when all that pseudo wealth disappeared from the tech stocks- I never invested in the tech sector), the 9/11 damage, and the simple downward cycle of the economy (economies are cyclical), 1.9% growth aint bad.
Not to mention that I am sick and tired of all the people claiming this is a recession, when it clearly is not. Is it where I want to be? No? Are there some structural problems in the economy? Yes. Does the unemployment bother me? Sure- but how much of that is a result of events that we have no control over- moving labor markets and other phenomonen. We did sign something called NAFTA in the middle 90’s, you know….
At any rate, if you listen to analysts, with interest rates as low as they are, and investment capital as abundant as it is, I think we may be on the verge of a boom. In a year from now, I fully expect Alan Greenspan to be talking about taking measures to keep the economy from over-heating.
Also, fwiw- I never think presidents deserve anywhere near as much credit or blame for the economy. That was why Clinton was so successful- he hired rubin, raised taxes marginally, worked with a republican Congress for long term balanced budgets, and basically let the economy be. He deserves credit for not fucking up the boom- which is a helluva lot more than a lot of presidents have been able to do.
Toren
“(BTW, the Republican conference committee’s gutting of tax breaks for the kids of the working poor was the best present the Democrats ever got from the GOP…)”
GMAFB.
How do you “gut tax breaks” for people who don’t pay any? The “working poor” are surely part of the bottom 48% of all American workers who qualify to pay no federal income taxes at all (IRS figures) or they aren’t very damn poor, are they?
More made-up class warfare bullshit from the Donks.
David Perron
JKC, your ass has just been handed to you. Please acknowledge.
HH
Oh don’t worry the Dems will call it a recession all along the campaign trail, just like in ’92 when Clinton and Gore said “recession” every time they possibly could when it had ended the year before.
JKC
Dave- sorry to reply so late.
In politics son, facts don’t always count. Factually, yes, you can’t cut the taxes of people who don’t pay any. Believe it or not, I’m as aware of that as you are.
BUT… picture the campaign theme (if the Dems have the brains and/or balls to use it): “Mean ol’ President Bush gave nothing to the working poor – people who chose not to go on welfare- while giving a dividend tax cut to people who are already well off.”
Facts, as Ronald Reagan once put it, are useless things: if the unemployment rate keeps going up, all the positive GDP numbers in the world won’t make a bit of difference. Shrub himself might find himself among the unemployed.
Let’s see what happens over the next 12 to 18 months. Maybe you’ll get to gloat then. Maybe I will.
JKC
FWIW its worth, John, I agree with you about Presidents and the economy. All they can do is tweak around the edges. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next…
Barney Gumble
“Classified ads at lowest level in 41 years.”
BUT THERE’S NO RECESSION.
stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business%20News/6B3ED6FAED035B4F86256D36000DE8EE?opendocu…
David Perron
Oh, good GOD no! Not THAT!
All those ad copyrighters…what will they do now?
JKC
Barney-
I agree the economy stinks, but technically it ain’t a recession unless it shrinks…
Having said that, monsieur Perron might not want to gloat too much. Recession or no, if the employment picture doesn’t turn around soon, Bush fils might go the way of Bush pere…
David Perron
It’s not gloating, it’s (in the case of Blarney) ridicule. In your case, it was just a request for acknowledgement of error. Which, in my experience, is usually not forthcoming from others. Thank you for doing so.
The idea that classified ads are at a 41-year low is demonstrative of nothing, all by itself. Did classifieds reach an all-time high under Clinton? My point is, without any data to correlate bits of pseudo-data like Blarney likes to spew, there’s really no conclusion one can reach from them. Other than, you know, classifieds are not doing so well.
Andrew Lazarus
Classified print ads have been suffering from web-based competition for the last several years.
Of course, several of these job boards have gone bankrupt under Busho-nomics.
John Cole
Andrew-
I grant you that rightly or wrongly, the President gets credit/bl;amed for the economy.
PRecisely what steps did the preisdent take that helped to bankrupt the advertising boards.
Don’t feed me nonsense about runing a deficit- every Democrat program had a larger deficit in the short term, even without the tax cuts.