Posted on 02/27/2004 8:47:08 AM PST by xsysmgr
President Bush is taking a beating on the economy, partly because he has failed to realize the power of numbers. In his 1996 reelection campaign, Bill Clinton took the numbers from a recovering economy and repeated them until the American public reached the point of statistical saturation and became convinced the nation had achieved economic nirvana. It was a classic case of "talking up" the economy. Lately, Democratic presidential candidates have done exactly the opposite, making a recovering economy seem a cesspit of misery. If Bush is to save his presidency, he must push back. He must tout his numbers.
The numbers speak of strong overall economic growth. The gross domestic product — the figure for the total output economy — grew at an 8.2 percent rate in the third quarter of 2003, and at a 4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. The GDP is forecast to grow at a 4.5 percent rate in 2004. As economist J. Edward Carter writes: "For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States." [Posted on FreeRepublic as "Better than Clinton".]
The numbers indicate an economy constantly finding new and better ways to work. Nonfarm productivity — a crucial indicator of economic efficiency that corresponds over the long term with higher wages and greater national wealth — grew at a healthy 4.2 percent rate in 2003. During Bush's first three years in office, productivity has been increasing at a 4.1 percent annual rate, the best start to any presidential term in roughly 50 years.
The numbers highlight a booming housing market. The rate of homeownership hit 68.6 percent during the past three months of 2003, an all-time high. Sales for new and existing homes were also at all-time highs last year. Housing starts have jumped 26 percent since 2001, and the 30-year fixed-mortgage rate has dropped 20 percent, from 7.06 percent to 5.66 percent.
The numbers tell of bustling activity all around. Manufacturing production has increased 2.3 percent since January 2003. There was a 10 percent increase in equipment and software spending in the fourth quarter of 2004, the third consecutive quarter of strong growth in such investment. In January, retail sales were up a robust 5.8 percent over a year earlier. Profits among companies that are part of the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index increased by 26 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003.
The numbers trumpet a stock market that has recovered from the Clinton-era bubble. Since the trough of October 2002, the stock market's value has increased by more than $4 trillion. The market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ has grown roughly 40 percent since October of 2002.
What do the numbers say about those tax cuts that are either irresponsibly large or laughably small, depending on which Democrat is attacking them? Personal tax payments have declined 19 percent since 2001, and disposable income has thus increased 11 percent. In 2004, U.S. households are expected to receive $300 billion more in income-tax refunds than in 2003 (yes, the budget deficit has gone up, but it is economically inconsequential, and Democrats don't have any serious plans for reducing it anyway).
The numbers provide some perspective on Bush's biggest political liability: lagging job growth. Since reaching a high of 6.3 percent in June 2003, the unemployment rate has dipped to 5.6 percent, lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
The numbers even like George Bush more than Bill Clinton. According to J. Edward Carter's calculation, during the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).
Bush should introduce the American public to these numbers. They are among the best friends he has.
— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Is this because Dubya's chief economic adviser redefined flipping burgers at Mickey-D's as "manufacturing"???
He's Dubya's CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER, for cripe's sakes.
What kind of credibility does "Dubyanomics" have if the moron doesn't know the difference between manufacturing and flippin' burgers???
Why is the Administration feeding the American People this line of BS in an election year?
GWB works for me!
But what do you care?
Sometimes, we're our own worst enemies.......whoever gave the greenlight to that item in the economic report should be fired. Have you seen a copy of the response that Sen. Dinngle sent to the White House? It's pretty funny, I'll have to admit...
Hate to sound negative, and I'm not a troll, a dim, or anything akin, but JOBS are where the race will be won or lost.
If he's out of work, it's cause for concern. If you're out of work, it's a recession. If I'm out of work, it's a depression.
Somehow, someone has to start creating jobs at a phenomenal rate or at least convince people that it's being done. Otherwise, I'm very fearful.
It doesn't look like it's going to happen until sometime in the second half of this year at the earliest, and maybe not until next year, just in time for President Kerry to take credit. I have a feeling we'll get some good numbers in the last one or two reports before the election, but the media will tell everyone to ignore it. Just like in 92 when we got an initial estimate of 3rd quarter growth of over 5%, and Peter Jennings instructed his viewers not to pay any attention. Then after Clinton won it was revised upwards to over 7%.
I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't back it up:
In the report last week, Bush's chief economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw called the definition "somewhat blurry" and asked whether it should be changed. "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?"
Source: Manufacturing McDonald's?
It's not Willie Green's fault that N. Gregory Mankiw is publicly displaying that he's an absolute moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.