[typoon]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html


NEW YORK, Dec. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Revising its year-end economic forecast sharply upward, The Conference Board today projected that real GDP growth will hit 5.7% next year, making 2004 the best year economically in the last 20 years.

The forecast, by Conference Board Chief Economist Gail Fosler, expects worker productivity, which set a 20-year record in the third quarter, to rise at a healthy 3.6% next year. That would follow a gain of 4.3% this year.

The economic forecast is prepared for more than 2,500 corporate members of The Conference Board's global business network, based in 66 nations.

KEY BAROMETERS FLASHING GROWTH

"Growing business spending and continued strength in consumer spending are generating growth throughout the U.S. economy," says Fosler. "This burgeoning strength is reflected in The Conference Board's widely-watched Leading Economic Indicators, the Consumer Confidence Index and the Help-Wanted Advertising Index. While the labor market, a critical factor in sustaining growth, is growing slowly, a pick-up in hiring may already have begun."

Real consumer spending, which continues to fuel growth, will increase at a 4.7% pace next year, up from about 3.2% this year. Another gain of 4.3% is projected for 2005.

While the U.S. economy is expected to generate more than one million new jobs next year, the unemployment rate will edge down only slightly, averaging 5.6% in 2004.

More good news for the country, more bad news for the Democrats.

[Millennium]

War can do that; frankly, it wasn't until World War II that the US finally shook off the last effects of the Great Depression.

However, the wartime benefit to an economy can be quite ephemeral, and burst more readily than any other kind of bubble out there.

[Lerkfish]

Democrats would also benefit from a healthier economy.

You need to keep in mind several things:

1-- This is a private organization of corporate CEOs.
2 -- The most optimistic projection is an increase in worker productivity: translation: the same work being done by fewer workers.
3 -- the majority of the optimism comes from projections based on one quarter of manipulated government figures, rather than a trend over time, and extrapolates that one jump over several years "if thing progress as they are now".
4 -- This is a group that is an association of corporations....and tries to drum up membership. Even though it is "Not for profit" that is not the same thing as "nonprofit".

5 -- if you download their annual report, you'll note that they are rather proud of their "New intellectual agenda for corporate trust"
"and just as our ideas about corporate governance reform proved prescient, so have our early forecasts of economic upturn"...
"Ambitious Ambitions.
having turned around out finances and made important program progress, we feel well positioned and hopeful for the future. Our aspirations for the years ahead include achieving or sustaining four major strategic thrusts:
1. to be the world's premier applied business economics group;
.......
4. To be the most quoted private source of business intelligence."

among their other accomplishments they take credit for are the increase in independent chairmen and boards, and that companies are now expensing stock options. In other words, they've improved the golden parachutes for CEOs.

In other words, you have to consider sources and what their goals are. This doesn't mean what they say is necessarily wrong, but this particular organization (which ironically represents several corporations indicted for various things, including Martha Stewart Living and Merrill Lynch) is concerned about the bottom line for Chief Executive Officers. Therefore, news that the same output will be accomplished by fewer workers is a GOOD thing, to them. They also have a vested interest in boostering corporate america and engendering public confidence and trust in those corporations.

a grain of salt is always helpful.
but, I hope they're right. I hope the largest deficit in history will equal an improving economy.

[osiris]

I wonder how much of that consumer spending is in cash. +Key barometers always rise during wartime.

Even if things change, the best year in the past 20 sounds like a crappy screenwriter's revisionist theory on how to re-elect Bush.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
a grain of salt is always helpful.

And when it comes to any good news for GWB, you love to be that grain of salt...

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
And when it comes to any good news for GWB, you love to be that grain of salt...

Doesn't the truth just suck?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
And when it comes to any good news for GWB, you love to be that grain of salt...

You're right, following blindly without question is key!

[finboy]

What does the Conference Board know? They're just following along blindly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
And when it comes to any good news for GWB, you love to be that grain of salt...

overused conservative fallacious misdirection

#2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid


You can't really refute what I posted, since its true, so you must attack me for being partisan.

[MacGorilla]

The best in 20 years? cool, I really need a job.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I hope the largest deficit in history will equal an improving economy.

Maybe because that money is in the private sector realizing a higher yield than what the Gov't is paying in interest? Sheesh, this is basic economics guys! It's comical, if you simply mention the word "deficit" seemingly intelligent people get all glassy-eyed.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The best in 20 years? cool, I really need a job.

Ditto, and I still won't vote for Bush.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by typoon:


While the U.S. economy is expected to generate more than one million new jobs next year, the unemployment rate will edge down only slightly, averaging 5.6% in 2004.

More good news for the country, more bad news for the Democrats.

Hmmm. These two don't fit together.

PB.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
overused conservative fallacious misdirection

#2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid


You can't really refute what I posted, since its true, so you must attack me for being partisan.

I also didn't say that I believe the hype of the best year in 20 years thing, either.

See, Lerk, you wouldn't come off as so one sided, if, every once in a while, you showed another side.

I didn't say your points weren't valid. I simply pointed out that you are more likely to go after any positive news about Bush with negative "possibilities."

Maybe you should come up with a new play in your playbook, rather than the old "you like Bush, so your point is invalid on it's face" play. It's old. It's worn out.

Difference between me and you. I can find the good side to some of the Democrat cadidates. I can find the bad side to Bush. And vice versa.

I doubt you can say the same thing.

P.S. I have never used the word "y'all" in a sentence. Maybe that should go in left-leaning misdirection, a document in progress - "Assume someone not sharing your leftist viewpoint is stupid, uneducated, and generally without command of the English language. And tell them so in order to validate your own ego."

[ebuddy]

I see the major point being; the failing economy was going to be a major platform for Democrats in 2004. That rug is beginning to slip. I think it's a noteable point. That point is;

When the economy fails it's Bush's fault.

When information suggests the economy is succeeding not only is it a lie, but it's definitely not Bush's fault.

War has historically been good for economy. That is, if you're winning it. It has also been responsible for many developments like; Saran Wrap, refrigeration, mobile technology and communications...Granted, none of these are reasons to go to war.

The economy while flailing the last several months of Clinton's administration was already being debated and policy was already in place to create shift prior to the attack on America. The attack (you may recall) had immediate and disastrous effects on our economy. Personally, I find the most recent projections to be quite positive.

For those of you out of work;

get a job. It's not anyone's fault, but your own.

[Spliffdaddy]

94% of folks that want a job have one.

[tie]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You need to keep in mind several things:

Yes, they are crooks, etc. We shouldn't believe their hype. Nonetheless the economy is likely going to improve in 2004. Not enough to make up for most of the jobs lost under Bush. Not enough to meet Bush's fantasy budget numbers. But still, grow. It's good news, not a conspiracy theory.

Also, Bush is indeed directly responsible for the current surge. The economy was ready to recover last year, but the war in Iraq delayed things. Now that Iraq's WMDs are all accounted for and secured, the world is a safer and less uncertain place. So the economy's growing again.

You just need to add another $500 billion (= 5% of 10 trillion) to the war's cost.

[thunderous_funker]

Let's see....

2 of the worst years in 50+ years - 1 year of the best in 20 years = we're still pretty far behind the 8 ball

Here's a hint for understand economic projections:

In a capitalist system there are always winners and losers. When they announce that corporate profits are way up, that usually means that fewer workers and doing more work for less pay.

Real wages have steadily fallen for 30 years.
Hours worked have steadily risen for 20 years.
Benefits are at all time lows mostly due to the healthcare fiasco.

But don't worry, everyone, the top 1% of 1% report that things for them are really really looking up for next year. Now we can just patiently wait for that tiny tiny tricle to work its way down to the rest of us. Well, a small percentage of the rest of us anyway.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I also didn't say that I believe the hype of the best year in 20 years thing, either.

See, Lerk, you wouldn't come off as so one sided, if, every once in a while, you showed another side.

I didn't say your points weren't valid. I simply pointed out that you are more likely to go after any positive news about Bush with negative "possibilities."

Maybe you should come up with a new play in your playbook, rather than the old "you like Bush, so your point is invalid on it's face" play. It's old. It's worn out.

Difference between me and you. I can find the good side to some of the Democrat cadidates. I can find the bad side to Bush. And vice versa.

I doubt you can say the same thing.

P.S. I have never used the word "y'all" in a sentence. Maybe that should go in left-leaning misdirection, a document in progress - "Assume someone not sharing your leftist viewpoint is stupid, uneducated, and generally without command of the English language. And tell them so in order to validate your own ego."

some responses:

1. You don't ask typhoon or spliffdaddy or zimphire or simey to balance their posts with a little anti-bush stuff once in a while so they wouldn't appear so one-sided.

2. I generally post caveats of things like this, regardless of sides -- I point out how polls are inherently flawed, and I point out how private organizations like this one have a slant or agenda with their information. This is more in line of my work and how I tend to examine sources of information.

3. "you like Bush, so your point is invalid on it's face" -- Show me where I've said this.

4. "Difference between me and you. I can find the good side to some of the Democrat cadidates. I can find the bad side to Bush. And vice versa." So can I, and so have I. I've criticized Dems and lauded republicans when I agreed with them. There aren't going to be as many times as I agree with republicans, though. In that case, should I lie to make you feel better?

5."Assume someone not sharing your leftist viewpoint is stupid, uneducated, and generally without command of the English language. And tell them so in order to validate your own ego." You're really putting words in my mouth here, ugly attacking words that I did not use. If it makes you all tingly inside to libel me like that, I guess you got your own issues to work out. As far as "y'all" -- I used the word y'all because I use the word y'all myself all the time. No slur intended. Unless you're calling ME stupid for using it?

In sum, here's the deal: I make a post with substance, you make a slashing post ad hominem against me. I counter with my list of most overused fallacious misdirections, and then you post this bizarre paranoid tripe.
Why not just comment on the post's substance instead of sniping at everything I post and making wild false accusations?

you appear to have issues where you think I'm demeaning your intellect...you jump at every shadow and think it means that. Sometimes someone using the word "y'all" is just someone using the word "y'all".

Now, see, this is where these fallacious misdirections are a favorite tactic of the right. Here we've wasted bandwidth for several posts, just because you wanted to get in my face, no other reason. You post nothing of substance nor on topic. Tis trolling.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Let's see....

2 of the worst years in 50+ years

Wow..if that were true, you might have a point. We haven't even come close to the Carter "malaise", and the economic downturn started before Bush even took office. Considering the fact that we also had a huge terrorist attack which had some really disasterous effects on the economy, the current turn around seems to be fairly impressive.

If people don't think that this is dissapointing to the democrats in power, you're extremely naive. That's not to say that they want the economy to be in poor shape....just if it is, they'd like it to last long enough to be able to use it as a weapon against republicans and be in charge when the economy rebounds. The same would be true of the republicans if the shoe was on the other foot. The Democrats benefitted from Clinton being in charge when the hi-tech/internet revolution fueled the stock market and the job market, thereby boosting the economy.

The one anti-Bush message that would likely really appeal to independents and swing voters that the Democrats had on their side, was the economy. It's what they used against GHWB, even though he was still in office when the upturn in the economy started, which continued until the last year or so of Clinton's term. It seems as though the current upturn has started too strongly and too soon for the Democrats to use as a credible basis for an attack during the next election.

As for the war, while most people have concerns, they do support it. That's as opposed to most every single democrat candidate, save for maybe Lieberman. IMO, Joe's the only guy who has views which aren't diametrically opposed to the majority of undecideds (according to polls), but he doesn't seem to getting much traction within the party. Also, some other minorities and bigots might not like the fact that he's a Jew. He's the only Democrat I could see myself voting for currently, and I've probably voted for as many democrats for elected office as I have republicans.

With the economy likely not to be a major issue, the Democrats are going to need a lot of luck if they hope to win the next presidential election.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
some responses:

1. You don't ask typhoon or spliffdaddy or zimphire or simey to balance their posts with a little anti-bush stuff once in a while so they wouldn't appear so one-sided.

The difference is I don't pretend to be unbiased.

If I did, then everyone would be screaming for me to 'balance my viewpoint' with some anti-Dubya rhetoric.

If your goal is to appear unbiased - you need to do exactly that. When 98% of a member's posts include negative references to Dubya, it's a safe bet that member holds some leftwing bias...no matter how the member tries to explain it away.

I'm proud of my bias.

You should be proud of yours, too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The difference is I don't pretend to be unbiased.

If I did, then everyone would be screaming for me to 'balance my viewpoint' with some anti-Dubya rhetoric.

If your goal is to appear unbiased - you need to do exactly that. When 98% of a member's posts include negative references to Dubya, it's a safe bet that member holds some leftwing bias...no matter how the member tries to explain it away.

I'm proud of my bias.

You should be proud of yours, too.

where did I claim to be unbiased?
I've admitted my partisanship over and over and in fact defended the right to be partisan whenever Simey or someone else tries to insist I be unbiased.

Where are you getting this impression from?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The difference is I don't pretend to be unbiased.

If I did, then everyone would be screaming for me to 'balance my viewpoint' with some anti-Dubya rhetoric.

If your goal is to appear unbiased - you need to do exactly that. When 98% of a member's posts include negative references to Dubya, it's a safe bet that member holds some leftwing bias...no matter how the member tries to explain it away.

I'm proud of my bias.

You should be proud of yours, too.

Must.... Resist.... Urge to flame.....
I can't do it, not with a setup as beautiful as this one!

Nobody criticizes what clowns say because nobody takes them seriously.



BlackGriffen

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Must.... Resist.... Urge to flame.....
I can't do it, not with a setup as beautiful as this one!

Nobody criticizes what clowns say because nobody takes them seriously.



BlackGriffen

Everybody criticizes what clowns say. Hence your critical reply. Thanks for stepping onstage to play the ever-predictible role of 'everybody' for me. It perfectly illustrates my point.

And thanks, Lerk, for updating me on the fact that you do indeed have a bias. The first step is admitting it. The second step is to outline what sort of bias you hold. As for me, I'm a pro-America, pro-Dubya, conservative southern hillbilly. As if that wasn't common knowledge...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Everybody criticizes what clowns say. Hence your critical reply. Thanks for stepping onstage to play the ever-predictible role of 'everybody' for me. It perfectly illustrates my point.

And thanks, Lerk, for updating me on the fact that you do indeed have a bias. The first step is admitting it. The second step is to outline what sort of bias you hold. As for me, I'm a pro-America, pro-Dubya, conservative southern hillbilly. As if that wasn't common knowledge...

If you took my post for serious criticism, then I was wrong, your a fool not a clown.

Sorry for the off topic flames, folks, we now return you to your regularly scheduled flames.

BlackGriffen

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
With the economy likely not to be a major issue, the Democrats are going to need a lot of luck if they hope to win the next presidential election. [/B]

With the latest feather in Bush's cap, I'll correct my analysis that the Democrats will need more the luck...possibly a miracle. It was bad enough when the front-runner was almost 30 points behind Bush in the polls.

The economy is growing, Sadaam Hussein has been captured, there's a new medicare entitlement in effect that even the AARP supports (whether Democrat extremists do or not), and for the most part Bush hasn't capitulated much to the extreme right. They've even been criticisizing him for spending and the medicare bill. Sounds like he's doing what he needs to in order to simply keep his base, and expand it to those who are undecided.

I'll say a pray for the Democrat part tonight before bedtime. You're welecome.

[tie]

An interesting article at the NY Times: link

Most forecasters had said they thought December would be a breakthrough month for job creation, given the strengthening economy. But instead of the 150,000 new jobs they had expected, there were a minuscule 1,000. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.7 percent from 5.9 percent in November, but that was mainly because so many people chose not to look for work, a requirement to be counted as unemployed.
...
The government lowered by more than a third its original estimates of the number of jobs created in October and November. Instead of an increase of 143,000 jobs in those months, the revised total was 94,000.

That shaved the total job creation to 278,000 in the five months that the economy has been adding jobs. Most economists maintain that job growth must proceed at a pace of at least 150,000 a month, on average, to absorb everyone who wants to work — a rate that the economy is lagging well behind.
...
Reflecting this exodus, the employment-to-population ratio — a measure of the percentage of the working-age population actually holding jobs — has been dropping, as well. It has fallen nearly eight-tenths of a percentage point, to 62.2 percent, since the recession ended in November 2001, and 2.1 percentage points since the start of the recession in March of that year.
...
Despite the mild job growth since August, total employment fell last year by 331,000 on top of a 1.5 million drop in 2002. The last time employment, as measured by the survey of 400,000 establishments, declined for two consecutive years was in 1944 and 1945 as war production wound down.

[MathewM]

Jobs are not just created out of thin air. December is probably the worse month to judge job growth because manufacturing is slower and companies outside of retail slow hiring. The true measure will be in the coming months.

Jobs are out there for those who want one.