The Curious Bush Recovery

lewrockwell.com ^ | February 19, 2004 | Steven LaTulippe

[steve50]

I was unaware that Karl Marx was advocating anything to be free. My understanding is that he believed that everything, including trade, should be under government control.

Correct. He was a big fan of managed capitalism, much like we are today.

[going hot]

You're are just trying to confuse people with facts. Stop it!
/sarcasm

[537 Votes]

Ever notice that there's an inverse relationship between the length of the whack-job articles on sites like anti-war.com and and lewrockwell.com and the intelligence found therein?

I agree that lewrockwell.com has been home to some ravings. But this article is well grounded in libertarian economics rather than generic Bush-bashing.

BTW, if you need a clue as to whether the 2.3 million jobs lost during the Bush Administration will return before the election, just divide the $87 billion we're spending to rebuild Iraq by 2.3 million, and you get $37,826 per job. I suppose you could mumble a Keynesian mantra like, "We owe it to ourselves," but that won't put food on the table for 2.3 million Americans. Or their families.

[rocklobster11]

Good point! I've been thinking that this recent hysteria is alot like when we thought the Japanese were going to buy America in the early 80's (anyone remember that silly Michael Keaton movie about the auto industry?).

Outsourcing has been going on for decades, and outsourcing in the technology sector has been going on heavily for the past 6-7 years. All of the sudden, we are in an election cycle, and we're getting bombarded with doom and gloom predictions about outsourcing at an astounding rate. Perhaps the Dems are trying to talk down the economy?

[PattonReincarnated]

>> Ever notice that there's an inverse relationship between the length of the whack-job articles on sites like anti-war.com and and lewrockwell.com and the intelligence found therein?

Very good observation. I agree 100%. (and don't tell anyone; my IQ is much higher than some others would ever comprehend)

[dark_lord]

1980 per-capita income: $22,883
2003 per-capita income: $35,650
Inflation adjusted to 2000 USD.
1980 unemployment rate: 7.1%
2003 unemployment rate: 6.0%

True, true. But consider 2 additional factors.
1st, taxes per capita are higher today. Yeah, Bush's tax cut helped - but it does not effect social security, medicare, state, sales, or real estate taxes. Just as an example, in Cook county in the Chicago metro, the real estate taxes typically run $5000 - $9500 per year for a single family home, with a sales tax running around 9% - 11% (variation depending on product or whether you are buying a meal).
2nd, we don't calculate unemployment rate today the same way it was calculated in 1980. Just as one example, in 1980 the military was not counted as "employed" in the statistics (they were excluded from the statistics) -- whereas today it is.

Therefore, even after adjusting for inflation, we are not comparing apples to apples. So the raw percentages are not as valid as they first appear.

[m1911]

WARNING: Off point post.

I was fascinated by this line: "This president is about to become one of a very few in history to never have vetoed a single bill during a 4 year term in office. ", so I googled "presidential veto". It took me to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html, where I discovered that Adams (both of them), Jefferson, W.H. Harrison (< 1 mo in office), Taylor, Fillmore, and Garfield (<6 mo in office) are the other presidents not to have exercised the veto. If he doesn't veto for the remainder of his tenure, however long it may be, he would be the first in 120 years to do so, 150 if you don't count Garfield since he got shot shortly after becoming president.
Of course, how many presidents have had their party control both houses of Congress, as GWB has for half of his first term?

[WOSG]

In a nutshell, the US government is spending money at a heretofore unprecedented pace…and is going into debt at a rate seldom seen before in human civilization.


----

In a nutshell, nonsense! Both spending as a percentage of GDP and the deficit as a percentage of GDP is smaller than it was during the Reagan mid-1980s.

So much that is shades of grey is painted in stark black and white terms. This kinds of false picture only aids the demagogues fool the ignorant.

[WOSG]

"Do you deny that the "recovery" has been strangely Job-Impaired?"

There is nothing strange about it. Productivity is surging. We dont need new jobs and we are gaining a great benefit with doing more production with smaller workforce.
With unemployment at 5.8%, and total employment near all-time highs, we are not bad off there at all.

"Do you deny that the deficit is exploding?"
The deficit next year is smaller than it was last year.
The term for that is SHRINKING. This problem has been quite overrated IMHO, a lot of the short-term deficit increment is war-related and the rest is simply due to being a bit lax on the spending side. And yet, that kind of thing doesnt hurt the economy short-term. ... so in 2005 when our economy is revving up well, govt can go back and throttle back on spending, and it will balance out pretty well.

"Is the megatrade imbalance an illusion?"

In a sense yes, because capital surplus balances trade deficit and vice versa. Moreover, our intellectual property ie hollywood is not counted in the manufacturing trade but is very real.

All these things - trade deficits, jobs, etc, are concerns but are secondary to overall economy's PRODUCTION and STANDARD OF LIVING. In 2003, the economy grew over 4%. That is a very good number and if we can keep that up, it will help rebalance all these secondary items.

"Tell me, where will America be in 20 years?"

If we follow Bush's lead and cut taxes, reform legal system, keep regulations in check; then if we also educate ourselves and the next generation and keep a productive workforce; if we win the war on terror; if we find a way to stem the tide of illegal immigration; find low-cost new energy technologies (ie next-gen nuclear) to go beyond the age of oil; ... then in 20 years America will be better off than every before.

[WOSG]

It is fascinating that our share of world GDP actually increased in the last 23 years despite all the howling about being taken over by others (in the 1980s it was Japan, in the 1990s, Asian tigers, now its China).

[dr_who_2]

He's not an economist, but he plays one on LewRockwell.com

[GraniteStateConservative]

The way it has to work is for the US to create some new grand idea and make the products for it and then create a next new grand idea immediately thereafter. We have to hit homerun after homerun. The law of averages catches up to us, though, and we have a drought. I think we will come up with the next big thing, but I don't know when. I'll say, though, that Japan is doing amazing work on robots and I hope that somehow robots aren't the next big thing.

[FreeReign]

A 13 year airforce vet and physician wrote this article

I remember when the Clintons were able to muster 100 physicians with a certain POV and yet it didn't stop Conservatives from seeing the BS.

Gee-whiz, how times have changed.

[FreeReign]

...and total employment near all-time highs, we are not bad off there at all.

Isn't total employment at an all-time high now?

[mcgiver38]

This "Jobless recovery" is pure and simple a democrat talking point, open the Sunday paper and look at the employment ads, there are tons of job advertisements on the west coast (southern) and a lot in southern Maryland, I checked two weeks ago when I was there just to see if we were an anomaly, this issue is going to turn on them big time in the coming months, one by one every hysterical issue they bring up is being smashed right before our eyes.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As with everything else concerning this administration, it leaves one wondering what the hidden agenda is and who is pulling the levers.

From the dems most recent talking points memo.

[Tempest]

"As with everything else concerning this administration, it leaves one wondering what the hidden agenda is and who is pulling the levers."

I stopped reading the moment the author donned his tin-foil hat and revealed his true disposition.

[Tempest]

Pssttt... Job recovery is always the last indicator in a economic recovery.

[EagleMamaMT]

Read later.

[AmericanVictory]

The fact that OPEC continues to accept only dollars for oil purchases is a biggie. If America was any other nation, the recent plunge in the value of our currency would result in a gigantic surge in the price of oil. This alone would short-circuit the recovery and slump the economy back into recession…shutting off our ability to import and thus bringing the trade deficit to balance. But since the dollar is the medium of oil purchases, OPEC gets hosed when the dollar drops, while we continue to import oil at the same price. One might ask why OPEC goes along with this charade. In fact, some oil-exporting nations have discussed switching to the Euro, to gold, or to a basket of currencies. But this would undoubtedly raise the ire of some very heavily armed people. The last guy who switched from dollars to Euros for oil purchases was Saddam Hussein. He changed over in 2000, and found himself in a jail cell just a couple of years afterwards (as to whether these two events are connected in any way, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide).

Bump!