Will these 2 be in the front row?
Posted on 02/03/2006 5:36:15 AM PST by new yorker 77
Unemployment Falls to 4.7%
January +193,000 Jobs
December +140,000 Jobs - A 32,000 Upward Revision
Maybe they're gearing-up for the march on the WH tomorrow.
Will these 2 be in the front row?
|
Is there anyone around here that can handle this one-- I'm all out of aspirin.
They're having a pep rally over here on a thread inspired by Bernie Sanders.
You can look on the Michigan Office of the Budget website at the different years to compile data. FY2006 is predicted at a 773M deficit. FY2005 was a 375M deficit. Engler left with his final budget projecting a 968.2M deficit that ultimately balloned to near 1.8B.
Much of the recent shortfalls have been blamed on unfunded federal mandates.
Still, neither performance is that impressive.
Who would that be?
During the Revolutionary War we experienced hyperinflation. Why?
In the past century the year with the highest inflation was 1946. Why?
The decade of the 1970's had much higher inflation than the 1980's or the 1990's. Why?
7.2%, not 8.2%....
http://www.economicindicators.gov/
Once again, 4Q99, and the difference in growth rate has been almost nonexistent between this recovery and the previous, when taxes were raised.
LOL - hilarious.
Been there, just out of school with a BA in history, spent a year and a half looking before I found something, not great, but I am looking to trade up, and finding it easier. Now all I have to do is find a job outside of NYC and I am set.
The argument of Laffer goes back to economic growth. If tax rates are too high, a reduction of rates spurs faster economic growth, which then more than accounts for the lower tax rates. However, given no change, natural economic growth will result in higher tax revenues as well. The question is how flat is the laffer curve and where are we on it?
If you look at the curve you posted, there is little correlation between the "top tax rate" and tax receipts. There are periods when the tax rate increases, yet receipts climb just the same. The rate from 1950 to 1965 for example, stays high and steady, while tax receipt growth is nearly linear and identical in slope to 1990-2000, when rates were lower. (I realize you used a log scale, which is crucial to help identify faster or slower periods of growth than the nominal).
If tax cuts really resulted in growth, you should see a higher slope than average shortly after each drop in the tax rates, whereas a tax hike should see the opposite effect. You don't see either effect....
Gee, what a lousy economy. [sarcasm]
When was the last time the Liberals mentioned Hoover?
My ass boss keeps passing my desk saying, "Bush is losing me", and he claims he is a Republican. I hate this dip and I don't discuss politics with him and I never asked him whom he voted for. I basically ignore him if I can. He is repeating the 120B that President Bush wants for the war. He knows nothing of the good economic news and the growing GDP. HELP ME!
Hmmm...what was happening in 4Q99 again? Oh, right, insane Y2K spending. What was the growth in the 4 quarters after 4Q99? +1.0, +6.4, -0.5, +2.1, looks like an average of about 2.25%. What did the 4 quarters after 3Q03 look like? +3.6, +4.3, +3.5, +4.0, looks like an average of about 3.85%.
Clinton took office in 1Q93. The 4 quarters before he took office were +4.2, +3.9, +4.0, +4.5, looks like an average of about 4.15%. Safe to say the recession was over. The 4 quarters after he took office, and raised rates. +0.5, +2.0, +2.1, +5.5, looks like an average of about 2.53%. How about the following 4 quarters? +4.1, +5.3, +2.3, +4.8, looks like an average of about 4.125%. The next 4 quarters? +1.1, +0.7, +3.3, +3.0, looks like an average of about 2.03%. We just can't get back to those pre-tax hike rates, maybe they did slow the economy? At least a little?
How about Bush's pre and post tax cut growth rates? Before his May 2003 tax cuts the previous 4 quarters were +2.2, +2.4, +0.2, +1.7, about 1.63% average. After the cuts, +7.2, +3.6, +4.3, +3.5, about 4.65%. How about 4 more? +4.0, +3.3, +3.8, +3.3, about an average of 3.6%. Still well above the pre-cut average of 1.63%. Maybe the cuts did help the economy? At least a little?
All GDP data here.
You're absolutely right --why!
Maybe we'd be better off if we shifted gears and agreed on definitions-- especially in how were difining "wages", prices, and inflation. There're lots of good definitions out there-- how about we use the following from U Mich:
| Inflation | Increase in the overall price level of an economy, usually as measured by the CPI or by the implicit price deflator. | |
| Consumer price index | A price index for the goods purchased by consumers in an economy, usually based on only a small sample of what they consume. Commonly used to measure inflation. Contrasts with the implicit price deflator. | |
| Price index | A measure of the average prices of a group of goods relative to a base year. A typical price index for a vector of quantities q and prices pb, pg in the base and given years respectively would be I = 100Spgq / Spbq. | |
| Implicit price deflator | A broad measure of prices derived from separate estimates of real and nominal expenditures for GDP or a subcategory of GDP. Without qualification the term refers to the GDP deflator and is thus an index of prices for everything that a country produces, unlike the CPI, which is restricted to consumption and includes prices of imports | |
| Wage | The payment for the service of a unit of labor, per unit time. In trade theory, it is the only payment to labor, usually unskilled labor. In empirical work, wage data may exclude other compensation, which must be added to get the total cost of employment. |
If we use this framework, then we've decided that wages are the prices of one part of the economy --labor. If the price of labor goes up, this increase calculates out to a higher price average (sum of items divided by the number of items). If the average is up then the calculated price index number is greater, and that's inflation.
Then again, if these definitions aren't good with you feel free to offer something else.
Bush's fault!
were difining = we're defining
Not entirely true. If you have looked for a job in the last month you are still part of the labor force and would count as an unemployed worker. If you have quit looking for work and have decided to get by on some source other than labor employment, then you are no longer counted as an unemployed worker.
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.
