[typoon]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.

I wonder how the Dems are going to spin this.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.

I wonder how the Dems are going to spin this.

As you can see from the large number of views and no replies, their favorite tactic is to bury the news and pretend that it never existed.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As you can see from the large number of views and no replies, their favorite tactic is to bury the news and pretend that it never existed.

What is there to reply to? He posts a topic like this every week.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by typoon:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

I wonder how the Dems are going to spin this.

Analysts are *never* wrong. Ever.

[Zimphire]

They've skipped the "Economy sucks and it's Bush's fault" rant awhile back.

It got too embarrassing for them to continue it any longer.

[OldManMac]

There's nothing to spin. Just because some "analysts" say so, doesn't mean squat. If anybody's been following, inflation is starting to be a concern, and there are other analysts who say that there's going to be another mini recession soon.

[BRussell]

The economy must be picking up because it looks like Democrats are going to be in control again in a few months.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by KarlG:
There's nothing to spin. Just because some "analysts" say so, doesn't mean squat. If anybody's been following, inflation is starting to be a concern, and there are other analysts who say that there's going to be another mini recession soon.

This is all just spin from both sides. Dems and Rep's, trying to make things look beneficial to them.

1. It's impossible to predict for 20 years. So you know something is bogus. Predicting 2 years is pretty tough. 20 years is just picking random numbers. We could have an atomic war with a planet we don't even know exists within that time period.

2. Inflation is a concern.

3. Millions entering the workforce in the next 10-15 years. Retirement age is creaping up as people don't want to 'sit around doing nothing'. Baby boomers are statistically not to interested in complete retirement... This means millions more people looking for jobs, and no sign of the job market opening up at any more than it has.

Nobody has yet to find a fix for #3. This will be the first generation where parent and child are in the workplace together full force. Typically one is leaving when the other enters. We will have 2 (large) generations overlapping for the same jobs. Also remember many baby boomers lost some serious retirement funds in the whole dot-com hype. Meaning they need the extra years to make up for it. Everyone knows some of them (I can personally think of a few dozen of the top of my head).

The problem with our economy right now is instability. Because of 1,2,3. Add in a possible energy crisis, growing distance between our allies, and foreign hostilities... and that's an uncertain economy.

Uncertain economies don't grow well. They bounce up, but typically drop back down hard.

Nobody to date has solved the problems our economy is facing. Until 1,2, and 3 are solved, we won't have a true boom.

Then again, the late 90's weren't a true blessing, since it was a lot of hype. Not to many people made money off of dogsWearingPanties.com's non-existant IPO.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The economy must be picking up because it looks like Democrats are going to be in control again in a few months.

[Spliffdaddy]

Because we all know how big business loves Democrats.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As you can see from the large number of views and no replies, their favorite tactic is to bury the news and pretend that it never existed.

There is no news. Tell me what happened.

Many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

Not to mention that typoon seems to have a knack at finding wildly inaccurate links. E.g., http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=155158 .

[Atomic Rooster]

Topic:

"Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years"

Ready...Set....Pffft...

They must be opening 250 more Wal-Marts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Topic:

"Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years"

Ready...Set....Pffft...

They must be opening 250 more Wal-Marts.

That sells glasses that are half empty.

[itai195]

Length matters

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That sells glasses that are half empty.

Actually, they're 3/4 empty now. They needed more profit.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Topic:

"Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years"

Ready...Set....Pffft...

They must be opening 250 more Wal-Marts.

Actually, considering how much of our economy Wal-mart dominates (many companies have over 50% of their sales through the companies stores)... that's not to far from the truth. Walmart could easily take a company to being one from dominating a national market, to going out of business.

It's a more powerful company than our nation has ever allowed. Far beating the phone companies, microsoft, and other monopolies. Never before has one company controled most consumer product distribution in our nation.

[hyteckit]

Would this analyst happen to be called Kenneth Lay?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

[Spliffdaddy]

"many analysts", it said.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"many analysts", it said.

Just like 'many experts' "KNEW" there were WMD's in Iraq.

and many experts "KNEW" the earth was round.

and despite the Great Wall being only a few meters wide, it's was KNOWN to be visiable from space (while it's really not, and basic optics would tell you that).

[greenG4]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Actually, they're 3/4 empty now. They needed more profit.

The glasses are niether half empty nor half full--there's simply too much glass...

[fireside]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
and many experts "KNEW" the earth was round.

i think you mean "wasn't."

[tie]

link

Job growth ground nearly to a halt last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, in a new sign that the economy has weakened in recent months.

Employers added just 32,000 jobs in July, a small fraction of what forecasters had expected and the smallest gain this year. The government also announced that job growth in May and June was less than initially estimated.
...
The new report creates a nettlesome political situation for President Bush, who had pointed to the strong job gains earlier this year as a result of the tax cuts he had championed. The weak job growth of the last two months means that he is now highly likely to stand for re-election with an employment level lower than when he took office, the first time that has happened in 72 years, when Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 amid Depression-era job losses far greater than any experienced in recent times.
...
Over the last 12 months, though, weekly pay has risen only 2.4 percent — considerably less than inflation, which has been running above 3 percent.

In other positive signs, the average length of unemployment fell, as did the number of people saying they were working part-time because they could not find a full-time job.

As part of its regular revisions, the Labor Department said that the economy added 283,000 jobs in May and June. The previous estimate was a gain was 347,000 jobs.

In other news, oil companies have been posting enormous profits (e.g. Chevron-Texaco up 50%) thanks to high gas prices. Good news for Bush's oil baron buddies.

[Krusty]

Here's an interesting little article that well describes the Bush job record. If you read it, it actually points out that by some surveys, the Bush record is a lot better than is represented by the "official" numbers. However, even though it is better than it seems ... its still the worst record of any President since Truman (who had to deal with the shift from a War Time economy running on all cylinders to a peace time economy). The article is fairly short and fairly well balanced ... giving Bush credit where it is due and not completely lambasting him.

Over all, the household survey now shows that employment has risen by 1.9 million jobs, or 1.4 percent, since President George W. Bush took office, while the establishment survey shows employment is down by 1.1 million jobs, or 0.8 percent.
.
Going back to Harry Truman, that is the poorest job creation record of any president to this point in a presidential term, by either measure. The second worst was turned in by Bush's father, who did not win a second term in 1992.
.
But good job records also do not guarantee electoral success. The two best terms by that measure were the terms ending in 1968, when Lyndon Johnson was president, and in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. In each year the Democrats were thrown out of the White House by dissatisfied voters.
.
A Democratic partisan would note that six of the seven best presidential terms, as measured by the establishment survey through the first three and a half years, have been under Democratic presidents. The only Republican to make that list was Ronald Reagan in his second term, when jobs grew by 9.5 percent. The seven worst by that measure were all Republican administrations.
.
On average, the establishment survey has shown a 10.1 percent rise under Democrats and a 4 percent rise under Republicans. The household survey has shown a less marked preference for Democrats, whose edge is 6.7 percent to 4.8 percent.

[tie]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Here's an interesting little article that well describes the Bush job record. If you read it, it actually points out that by some surveys, the Bush record is a lot better than is represented by the "official" numbers. However, even though it is better than it seems ... its still the worst record of any President since Truman (who had to deal with the shift from a War Time economy running on all cylinders to a peace time economy). The article is fairly short and fairly well balanced ... giving Bush credit where it is due and not completely lambasting him.

But Bush doesn't deserve any credit on jobs. The establishment survey is widely regarded as the more accurate one. E.g., Alan Greenspan: “I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate. Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.” Additionally, the benchmark for Bush is being set too low. Generally the media is asking whether employment in January will be equal to what it was four years ago. At this point, that is nearly impossible. Really, though, even to just keep up with population growth, several million new jobs would have to be created.

[BlackGriffen]

One Washington Think Tank (right leaning, actually) has used the 's' word:

"A whiff of stagflation is in the air," and the negative impact on corporate earnings and stock prices "could be ugly," said John Makin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

Some economists are outraged at Makin, saying he's exaggerating current conditions by using "stagflation," a term coined during the malaise of the 1970s to describe the combination of slower growth and higher inflation.

Nevertheless, many experts have acknowledged the U.S. economy is downshifting and inflation pressures are rising.

That sucks.

BlackGriffen

[tie]

Where is typoon? No thoughts about this thread?

Anyway, more news: (AP link)

The U.S. trade deficit hit a record $55.82 billion in June as the country's foreign oil bill surged to an all-time high, the government reported Friday.
...
The Commerce Department's monthly trade report showed the June imbalance was up a sharp 19.1 percent from a revised May imbalance of $46.88 billion. Exports of goods and services fell by 4.3 percent to $92.82 billion while imports climbed 3.3 percent to a record $148.64 billion.

The far bigger-than-expected jump in the deficit caught analysts by surprise. They said it would act to further slow an economy already struggling with what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described as a ``soft patch'' in the early summer.

``America is bleeding badly in the trade area,'' said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. ``This implies not only weaker economic growth but a weaker dollar, which will contribute to inflation down the road.''

Economic growth, as measured by the gross domestic product, slowed sharply in the April-June quarter to an annual rate of just 3 percent, down from 4.5 percent in the first quarter.

Economists said June's huge widening of the trade gap would force the government to lower the second quarter GDP figure to an even weaker 2.5 percent.

They also said the record highs for oil prices, which topped $45 per barrel this week, would make them trim their forecasts for growth in the second half of this year. Many said second-half growth probably would come in at 3.5 percent to 4 percent.
...
The surge in the foreign energy bill was the biggest factor in June's trade deterioration. Energy imports climbed to a record $15.30 billion, up 17.8 percent from May.
...
The Bush administration blamed the weakness on a global economic slowdown. ``Growth in the rest of the world appears to be slowing,'' Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters after an appearance in Boca Raton, Fla.

But the campaign of Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, said the soaring trade deficit was an indictment of the current administration's trade policies, which it blames for the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs over the past three years.

``This administration hasn't come close to doing enough to enforce trade agreements and fight for jobs here at home,'' said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Kerry has promised that as president he would end a tax break that allows corporations to defer payment of taxes on overseas earnings and would review trade agreements to ensure they contain enforceable protections for worker rights and the environment in the trading partner countries.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by tie:
Where is typoon? No thoughts about this thread?

Anyway, more news: (AP link)

SSSSHHH!!! Zimphire's not done pretending.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
SSSSHHH!!! Zimphire's not done pretending.

Whaaa?