For all those who are pinning there hopes on a poor economy to defeat Pres Bush in the next election, the recent economic numbers must constitute a real slap in the face.
Here are the highlites:
GDP surges at a 7.2 percent annual rate (best performance since 1984);
Consumer spending gained at a hefty 6.6 percent pace (the biggest increase in consumer outlays since early 1988 which are attributable to more cash in consumer hands due to tax cuts);
Business spending rose 11.1 percent ;
Sales of U.S.-made goods and services rose 7.8 percent;
All of these positives are the necessary precursors to hefty job growth over the next several quarters. It’s beginning to look like we will have a rip roaring economy by next summer and fall for which GWB will be able to credit his tax cuts and economic policies. A good economy and a few more terrorist heads on the end of sticks is the recipe for a landslide.
When the GDP keeps dropping it’s easier to get a larger number to bounce up when it finally does. I’m sure Bush’s brilliant foreign policy will push him through the next election.
without a proportionate job growth the figures indicate Americans today have to work harder and longer than ever before to keep productivity at the same or increased levels.
UD and PA hit teh nail on the head, ppl would be more satisfied when they see more jobs..here in US...i look at the growth percentages with interest. They look impressive..but remind me of a failing student who gets a "most improved" medal because he managed to move his GPA to a C level? there is growth..and its good news, but its growth from the levels things had fallen to..how does this compare to lest say 1999..
You read this here first. It may be too breadtaking an accusation but I DO NOT BELIEVE SOME OF THESE NUMBERS. I think these numbers have been cooked up. Some definitions have been changed somewhere and the secret of the change is buried.
Economic recoveries do not start with the creation of new jobs. They end with such job creation. Jobs are created when spending (consumer, business and government) increases and inventories decrease.
If you have ten widgets in inventory and no orders for widgets, you stop making widgets and lay off the people who manufacture them for you. Once you start getting orders for widgets and see your inventory go down, you need to hire those people back to make you more widgets.
It all necessarily starts from increased spending.
As to the effect of jobs on elections, it is only important insofar as a significant part of the electorate becomes worried that they may lose theirs. People don't vote against a candidate because someone they don't know and/or can't relate to doesn't have a job.
Assuming the economy keeps chugging along, the overall unemployment rate will start declining. Corporate profits will start looking better and the stock market will be in an upward cycle. The vast majority of the electorate will no longer feel uncertain about their employment future. They'll see more money in their bank accounts. They'll spend a little more and the economic boom will roll on for another normal business cycle. They'll breathe a sigh of relief and vote to Stay The Course.
I hope the Dem candidates keep pounding away during the primary season on the jobs issue. If that's the basis upon which one of these guys gets nominated, he will be trounced in the general election because that issue won't be around in November, 2004.
so woukd Thap or someone do a nice excel graph to show the growth rates as well as the actual total figures to understand this situation better. where are the excel junkies?
