[Zimphire]

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts’ forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/986926.asp?0cv=BA00

I am sure it all had to do with Clinton.

Not that it had to do with Bush either..

The President controls little of what the Economy does.

[Zimphire]

BTW for you "If the economy is bad" doomsdayers of the next election will have to use another crutch.

It's on the rise.

[NYCFarmboy]

The Bush tax cuts are paying off big time... I had two friends who were without work here in NYC for ages..they both got hired last week at some ad agencies...ad spending is going up...FINALLY. REJOICE...should be great news for Apple computer...some of the agencies I work for are actually going to buy new macs now FINALLY.

The economy is starting to roll !!!!

Yeay!

I can pay some bills and when the G5 powerbooks come out actually buy one!

yeay!!!!!!!!!

[Spliffdaddy]

Yep. I'm having my best year ever as far as raking-in the greenbacks.

Go Dubya!

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW for you "If the economy is bad" doomsdayers of the next election will have to use another crutch.

It's on the rise.

Damn, the economy was Bush's only weak point. He's strong on foreign policy, education, health care, the middle east, literacy, poverty...

Guess we lost this one.

[Sven G]

... The question rises spontaneously: is

Economy = "God"

for many neo-cons?

[chris v]

Fueled largely by consumer spending. Some attributed to tax cuts, (at least a decrease in witholding-- it may still be due at the end of the year) but also increased by mortgage refinancing due to low rates. the Refi boom may be largely over, and Wallstreet is looking at these numbers as "temporary." Increased consumer debt will eventually bite us in the ass, if that's what's fueling the growth.

Has job growth shown any signs of life? (I hired someone yesterday--does that count?)

CV

[finboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... The question rises spontaneously: is

Economy = "God"

for many neo-cons?

Must be important to the Lefties too, since the "Gang of Nine" keeps talking about it when they're on the campaign trail.

They'll have to find something else to talk about in the meantime.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by finboy:
Must be important to the Lefties too [...]

Well, quite fair: the importance of the economy is over-emphasized on both sides, indeed. Now, the real question maybe is why The Economy™ is considered more important (by politicians) than the persons who supposedly should actively contribute to make it (the economy)...

[RooneyX]

That's odd, the dollar is at an all time weakest against the sterling and Euro.

[thunderous_funker]

[moki]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
That's odd, the dollar is at an all time weakest against the sterling and Euro.

Which is exactly where the US government wants it -- the weaker the dollar, the more expensive imports are.

[moki]

Here's another article on the subject. I'm guessing that if the economy stays strong, and Iraq is at least somewhat sorted out, Bush gets re-elected next year.

from: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031030/D7UGJQTO0.html

.....

Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984

Oct 30, 11:33 AM (ET)

By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.



"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy in the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "The key challenge now is jobs," he said.

On Wall Street, stocks were mixed. The Dow Jones industrials were down 2 points, while the Nasdaq was up 2 points in morning trading.

President Bush's spokesman, Scott McLellan, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Columbus, Ohio, that "today's numbers are another positive sign" that the president's strategy for boosting the economy by cutting taxes "is working, getting more money into people's pockets."

"While the economy is moving in the right direction, because of the actions that we have taken, there is more work to be done," McLellan said. "We need to contine to act and build upon the steps we have taken to get our economy growing so we can continue to translate growth into job creation."



The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists said. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining, they said.

Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.

"This has largely been a jobless recovery," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Although the nation's payrolls grew by 57,000 in September - the first increase in eight months - the economy needs to add a lot more jobs than that each month to drive down the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, analysts have said.

The administration has argued that as economic growth improves, meaningful job creation will follow. Bush will be counting on that as he heads into the 2004 presidential election season.

In other encouraging economic news from the Labor Department, new claims for unemployment benefits last week dropped by 5,000 to 386,000, a sign that layoffs are slowing. U.S. workers' wages and benefits went up by 1 percent in the third quarter, up slightly from a 0.9 percent increase in the previous quarter.

Economists believe the economy will grow at a slower - but still healthy - 4 percent rate in the final quarter.

In the third quarter, consumers ratcheted up their spending at a brisk 6.6 percent annual rate. That was the biggest increase since the first quarter of 1988 and was up from a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter.

Consumers in the third quarter spent lavishly on big-ticket items, such as cars, boosting such spending by a whopping 26.9 percent rate. And, they also spent briskly on "nondurables" such as food and clothes, which grew at a 7.9 percent pace, the strongest showing since the first quarter of 1976.

While consumers have been the main force keeping the economy going, there are more signs that businesses are starting to do their part.

Especially encouraging was the 15.4 percent growth rate in spending by businesses on equipment and software in the third quarter. That marked the largest increase since the first quarter of 2000 and was up from a 8.3 percent growth rate in the second quarter.



Sustained turnarounds in capital spending and in hiring are crucial to the economy's return to full throttle. Economists said business wants profits to improve and wants to be sure of the recovery's vigor before it goes on a spending and hiring spree.

The red-hot housing market, powered by low mortgage rates, also contributed to the strong showing on third quarter GDP. Investment on residential projects grew at a 20.4 percent rate, the biggest increase since the second quarter of 1996, and more than three times the 6.6 percent growth rate seen in the second quarter.

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war - which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate - helped to catapult economic growth.

A better trade picture in the third quarter also contributed to GDP growth.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Here's another article on the subject. I'm guessing that if the economy stays strong, and Iraq is at least somewhat sorted out, Bush gets re-elected next year.

er...don't know what to tell you, but for me, economy and "sorting out" Iraq would not affect my vote. Bush is a dangerous man/neocons a dangerous cabal. They need to be gone. period.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by moki:
Which is exactly where the US government wants it -- the weaker the dollar, the more expensive imports are.

Ahh... armchair economists. Yay weak dollar! It's a good thing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Ahh... armchair economists. Yay weak dollar! It's a good thing.

It's a tradeoff.

Stronger dollar -> cheaper imports -> worsening job market (cause nobody's buying the stuff we make)

Weaker dollar -> more expensive imports -> strengthening job market (cause we can make it cheaper, and sell it both here and there).

BlackGriffen

[petehammer]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It's a tradeoff.

Stronger dollar -> cheaper imports -> worsening job market (cause nobody's buying the stuff we make)

Weaker dollar -> more expensive imports -> strengthening job market (cause we can make it cheaper, and sell it both here and there).

BlackGriffen

I agree its a tradeoff, but because we're a service economy (in general) I would argue that the import strategy isn't such a hot argument (no one is buying our products, since we make so few). I think a strong dollar is prefered, mainly because we hardly make consumer goods anymore.

[thunderous_funker]

Its good to see the consumer confidence numbers up. That is probably the most meaningful stat I can see.

Aside from that, growth in the GDP is value-neutral--pollution, crime, natural disasters all increase GDP--so its not really an indicator that Americans are better off economically than they were last quarter.

How much of that growth in GDP is simply a measure of Pentagon spending? Deficit spending? Consumer debt? All of which can have very negative medium or long term consequences.

Hell, the California brush fires will probably drive up GDP next quarter.

There is some good news here, but let's not overstate it. We still have a massive trade deficit (not Bush's fault), a collosal housing bubble that expert keep expecting to burst (not Bush's fault), and the labor market is still abysmal.

So yes, on the one hand the economy is showing signs of improvement, but OTOH, for whom is it improving? And is it really improving for the vast majority of Americans or simply the tiny minority that got the hugest part of the tax break?

Politically, the job market will matter most to voters. More than GDP, anyway. And what kind of jobs will be created? The statistics don't show value difference. All they show is jobs lost or gained, not what kinds of jobs. Millions of well paying manufacturing jobs replaced by minimum wage service jobs might look good statistically, but it certainly isn't good news for the workers effected.

[petehammer]

thunderous_funker

Very nice non-partisan and intelligent reply. Good read.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
er...don't know what to tell you, but for me, economy and "sorting out" Iraq would not affect my vote. Bush is a dangerous man/neocons a dangerous cabal. They need to be gone. period.

I didn't expect that it'd change your vote, you are clearly zealously against the man.

I'm just stating that if the economy keeps doing well, and Iraq is sorted out, get ready for 4 more years of Bush.

[moki]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Ahh... armchair economists. Yay weak dollar! It's a good thing.

There's nothing armchair about it. Depending on economic conditions, a weak dollar is often exactly what you want.

People who favor armchar economics hear "weak" and they think "not good" -- that isn't the case at all. Probably the worst thing (in a global perspective) about a weak dollar is that Europe is going to continue to get creamed by a high cost of goods sold in the US.

The same would be true with China if they weren't artificially keeping their currency down.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by moki:
There's nothing armchair about it. Depending on economic conditions, a weak dollar is often exactly what you want.

It's what I want. I frequently change dollars to pounds and vice versa whenever the rate swings

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
er...don't know what to tell you, but for me, economy and "sorting out" Iraq would not affect my vote. Bush is a dangerous man/neocons a dangerous cabal. They need to be gone. period.

Of course none of those things effect your vote, Lerk. Nor do they effect others of your political leanings.

Just like if Clinton had gone to church every day it wouldn't have made Zimphire vote for him.

Your mind is made up. But it's the voters who haven't made up their mind that all this matters to.

Why is the economy important? Because who gives a flying monkey's butt if Iraqis are pissed if they can't pay their mortgage and feed their kids! Do politicians have much to do about the economy? Not really. But what they do have is all the blame if it's not good.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hell, the California brush fires will probably drive up GDP next quarter.

Oh, good. Then Montana has done it's part to help the economy the last 4 or 5 years... whew!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its good to see the consumer confidence numbers up. That is probably the most meaningful stat I can see.

Aside from that, growth in the GDP is value-neutral--pollution, crime, natural disasters all increase GDP--so its not really an indicator that Americans are better off economically than they were last quarter.

How much of that growth in GDP is simply a measure of Pentagon spending? Deficit spending? Consumer debt? All of which can have very negative medium or long term consequences.

Hell, the California brush fires will probably drive up GDP next quarter.

There is some good news here, but let's not overstate it. We still have a massive trade deficit (not Bush's fault), a collosal housing bubble that expert keep expecting to burst (not Bush's fault), and the labor market is still abysmal.

So yes, on the one hand the economy is showing signs of improvement, but OTOH, for whom is it improving? And is it really improving for the vast majority of Americans or simply the tiny minority that got the hugest part of the tax break?

Politically, the job market will matter most to voters. More than GDP, anyway. And what kind of jobs will be created? The statistics don't show value difference. All they show is jobs lost or gained, not what kinds of jobs. Millions of well paying manufacturing jobs replaced by minimum wage service jobs might look good statistically, but it certainly isn't good news for the workers effected.

Don't forget the next 10 years will be the largest induction of new-workers (baby boomers children) into the workforce... and the lowest retirement flow in United States history, as most older people perfer to work past.

That's anticipated to be a giant work shortage. A much larger workforce, and no anticipation for the job market to increase.

Those are many college grads etc. with no jobs.

It's not going to be pretty. Sadly, it's just now starting to get attention... although it was brought up about 15 years ago by some congressional rep. saying "Now" (then) was the time to start thinking about the problem.


IMHO, a few more years, and we will see some serious issues in the workplace. A serious job shortage, people working for lower wages, just to have something. Many not getting the "better job that the college degree brings".

That's going to be an ugly picture.

[chris v]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Oh, good. Then Montana has done it's part to help the economy the last 4 or 5 years... whew!

Thanks! Light a fire for economic prosperity today!

CV

[finboy]

I guess what I have the most trouble with are those folks who say we shouldn't "overstate the importance" of the economy after telling us for the past year that the economy was EVERYTHING and in the SH*TTER to boot. It either IS EVERYTHING or it IS NOT, make up your g*dd*mn*d minds.

If econo-FUD(tm) can't be countered effectively with REAL RESULTS, then what works?

There's a real good piece on today's WSJ editorial page by Jack Welch, former head of GE (and adulterer). He addresses the constant "but" that analysts seem to use. Same idea.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
Probably the worst thing (in a global perspective) about a weak dollar is that Europe is going to continue to get creamed by a high cost of goods sold in the US.

Or that some oil producing country starts selling its goods in €...

The same would be true with China if they weren't artificially keeping their currency down.

You mean if their currency weren't pegged to the dollar?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess what I have the most trouble with are those folks who say we shouldn't "overstate the importance" of the economy after telling us for the past year that the economy was EVERYTHING and in the SH*TTER to boot. It either IS EVERYTHING or it IS NOT, make up your g*dd*mn*d minds.

If econo-FUD(tm) can't be countered effectively with REAL RESULTS, then what works?

There's a real good piece on today's WSJ editorial page by Jack Welch, former head of GE (and adulterer). He addresses the constant "but" that analysts seem to use. Same idea.

Is that a jab at my post?

If so, please clean your glasses so you can tell the difference between overstating the importance of this report, and overstating the importance of the economy as a whole.

I happen to agree that the economy is going to be a big issue for voters in 2004, and good news is good for Bush. What I'm questioning is exactly how good is the news in this latest media gush over GDP growth.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
Here's another article on the subject.

Hey! It's the same article that Zimpo posted above, just a few words rehashed:

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Oct. 30 - The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

and

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Is that a jab at my post?

No, although you've dished your share of econo-FUD(tm) in the past. It's a jab at all of the talking heads and their response to this. I can hardly wait to see the Sunday shows. The backpeddling will generate enough power to run the USS Abraham Lincoln for a week.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, although you've dished your share of econo-FUD(tm) in the past. It's a jab at all of the talking heads and their response to this. I can hardly wait to see the Sunday shows. The backpeddling will generate enough power to run the USS Abraham Lincoln for a week.

If all the growth is because of Government spending and consumer debt, they won't really have to do much backpedalling. And if the promised job bonanza doesn't materialize (or all the new jobs are minimum wage with no benefits), they won't have to backpedal much.

But yeah, you're probably right. People who think that a "blistering" GDP means everything is wonderful might be tempted to pretend that they never thought the economy would be Dubya's undoing. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

From where I sit, it seems "pundits" from every party spend most of their time backpedaling.

[moki]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Or that some oil producing country starts selling its goods in €...

I've read this argument before; it holds no water with me. It's a lovely conspiracy theory, but alas, the world would not change radically with Iraq selling oil in Euros. It was just Iraq thumbing his nose at the US, and cozying up to the EU.

Given the EU-areas continuing poor performance economically, one would think there were more pressing issues to address than oil sold in Euros.

You mean if their currency weren't pegged to the dollar?

Yes, which is artificially keeping it down. Every sane analysis states that if it were free-floating, it'd rise significantly.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
I've read this argument before; it holds no water with me. It's a lovely conspiracy theory, but alas, the world would not change radically with Iraq selling oil in Euros. It was just Iraq thumbing his nose at the US, and cozying up to the EU.

Given the EU-areas continuing poor performance economically, one would think there were more pressing issues to address than oil sold in Euros.

You might not think it matters, but OPEC is paying attention.

If all petro-dollars where converted to Euros, the impact on global currency markets would be very significant.

Originally posted by moki:

Yes, which is artificially keeping it down. Every sane analysis states that if it were free-floating, it'd rise significantly.

Which would be terrible for China's economy. They might not be playing fair, but they're not stupid.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
It's a lovely conspiracy theory

A very popular conspiracy theory apparently:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/b...d69315?source=

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...18&id=3619

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You might not think it matters, but OPEC is paying attention.

If all petro-dollars where converted to Euros, the impact on global currency markets would be very significant.

Most likely it's due to the US only buying 13% of the oil it uses from the M.E.. We've been on a steady decline regarding our dependence on Arab oil for some time. With production further ramping up in Alaska and off the California coast, we'll probably be dipping well into the mid to lower single digit percents. I'm sure OPEC's noticed this and simply refocusing it's market.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I didn't expect that it'd change your vote, you are clearly zealously against the man.

I'm just stating that if the economy keeps doing well, and Iraq is sorted out, get ready for 4 more years of Bush.

and there are some who are zealously for the man...what's your point?

And as far as 4 more years, I agree that's possible, he could be appointed president again, but you might be surprised. I know a LOT of republicans who are unhappy with him who voted for him and who don't plan to again. And I know some people who never vote who are registering so they can vote against him. Sure, its anecdotal to my experience, but it could be interesting.

[Zimphire]

II know a lot of Democrats that are happy with him, that didn't vote for him the last time also.

heck I know a lot of Democrats that voted for him the first time. El Goro was just a loser.

WV usually votes Democratic all the way.

Guess who got their vote this time around.

Yes folks, the economy is going up.

I know you dems hate to hear that. Even ones in the US.

Which is sad, and does say a lot.

You'd rather the economy go down the tubes when Bush is in office so you'd have more to complain about.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes folks, the economy is going up.

I know you dems hate to hear that. Even ones in the US.

Which is sad, and does say a lot.

You'd rather the economy go down the tubes when Bush is in office so you'd have more to complain about.

Nobody has said this.

NOBODY.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Nobody has said this.

NOBODY.

Of course not!

No one would EVER admit this.

.. and now that I re-read my post.

I didn't say anyone had.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You'd rather the economy go down the tubes when Bush is in office so you'd have more to complain about.

... because you're either with us or against us right?

[soiled.panties]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You'd rather the economy go down the tubes when Bush is in office so you'd have more to complain about.

Actually, I'm looking for a job right now. I would prefer a growth in jobs instead of a gain in GDP.

GDP was up 7.2% this quarter.
41,000 jobs were lost in the last month. 3.3 million jobs lost in this admin.

All this gain in GDP means is we made more ****. Doesn't mean we sold it. (Inventory Clearing) Productivity was up. Un-Employment was also-up.

Or was this good news a result of the good time single injection of the BUSH tax cut. NOTE "SINGLE". Does, the cut promote long term economic growth?

[asleep@thewheel]

they musta opened a few more walmarts where all the products are made in china.

the u.s. is ****ed!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
II know a lot of Democrats that are happy with him, that didn't vote for him the last time also.

heck I know a lot of Democrats that voted for him the first time. El Goro was just a loser.

WV usually votes Democratic all the way.

Guess who got their vote this time around.

Yes folks, the economy is going up.

I know you dems hate to hear that. Even ones in the US.

Which is sad, and does say a lot.

You'd rather the economy go down the tubes when Bush is in office so you'd have more to complain about.

you know, without liberals, who would you have to hate?

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you know, without liberals, who would you have to hate?

I don't think that you need worry on that score - He'd find someone.

[gadster]

*tumbleweeds*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by soiled.panties:
Actually, I'm looking for a job right now. I would prefer a growth in jobs instead of a gain in GDP.

Historically, surges in GDP are followed by job growth. As for your situation, check your local newspaper or Monster.com. There are many jobs available.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Historically, surges in GDP are followed by job growth. As for your situation, check your local newspaper or Monster.com. There are many jobs available.

really? This sounds like the perennial republican response to unemployment "there are lots of jobs available in the paper".

whoosh. I just got a reaganomics flashback.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
really? This sounds like the perennial republican response to unemployment "there are lots of jobs available in the paper".

How else would you reply to someone who says to you "I am looking for a job"? I recommended some places to look.

[tie]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess what I have the most trouble with are those folks who say we shouldn't "overstate the importance" of the economy after telling us for the past year that the economy was EVERYTHING and in the SH*TTER to boot. It either IS EVERYTHING or it IS NOT, make up your g*dd*mn*d minds.

I'm not saying this. But I'd just like to point out a hole in your argument, that in the last year we've gone to war with Iraq (apparently for no good reason, but even still..).