The Economy as of TODAY August 6, 2004

[maxwell's demon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128222,00.html

NEW YORK — U.S. stock markets hit new lows of the year Friday after the government released much worse-than-expected unemployment data and investors continued to fret over high oil prices.

The blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average ended lower 147.70 points, or 1.50 percent, to close at 9,815.33. The technology-laced Nasdaq lost 44.74 points, or 2.52 percent, to end at 1,776.89, while the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index was down 16.73 points, or 1.57 percent, to close at 1,063.97. It was the lowest close for all three indexes this year. The Dow last closed lower on Nov. 28, the Nasdaq on Aug. 26 and the S&P 500 on Dec. 10.

For the week, the Dow dropped 3.2 percent, the S&P 500 fell 3.4 percent and the Nasdaq plummeted 5.6 percent. It was the worst weekly performance for the Dow since the second week of March, and the worst week of the year for the other two indexes.

Early Friday the Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose 32,000, and the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent from 5.6 percent in June.

The July job report reflects the weakest increase in hiring since December and comes after a revised gain of just 78,000 in June, even less than previously reported. Economists had forecast the creation of roughly 243,000 jobs for July.

------------------------------------------
and to get few other perspectives go here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5624615/

and here:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3823099

(these stories seemed a bit too long to post them all here- but if people would prefer i will post them all.)

I'll let you all make up your own minds before i say anything.

[Morg]

*shrugs* Business for me is good :) In fact I made enough extra money for another trip to Vegas next week :D

[Constantine J.]

The fact is that the economy is still far from recovering, no matter how many "Indicators" say otherwise the fact is that the FACTS prove just the opossite...it's sad really

[snazzy J]

But I thought we turned a corner? And we were never turning back?

[Mr.Furious]

Dude, Fox news is so trying to get Bush out of office with this damn left leaning news reporting. Is there no un-bias media in this country?

[maxwell's demon]

Originally posted by Morg
*shrugs* Business for me is good :) In fact I made enough extra money for another trip to Vegas next week :D
Morg, I'm glad things are going well for you. I wish they were going that well for everyone.

[maxwell's demon]

marvel took a dive? i wonder why?

[Matt]

Originally posted by maxwell's demon
marvel took a dive? i wonder why?

probably because Ultimate Gwen died ;) but she was a damn good character :(

[juggaloryda]

I love how since there isn't a record increase of jobs Bush is the enemy, that's odd, I don't see anywhere where it says there's been a decline in the economy. By the way thanks for the figures Maxwell I'm glad you present facts for your case

[Brodie Bruce]

Originally posted by juggaloryda
I love how since there isn't a record increase of jobs Bush is the enemy, that's odd, I don't see anywhere where it says there's been a decline in the economy. By the way thanks for the figures Maxwell I'm glad you present facts for your case He never mentioned Bush:up: Jason Blood is bad at math:up:

[maxwell's demon]

Originally posted by juggaloryda
I love how since there isn't a record increase of jobs Bush is the enemy, that's odd, I don't see anywhere where it says there's been a decline in the economy. By the way thanks for the figures Maxwell I'm glad you present facts for your case

you're welcome.

but jug- it does say the economy is doing worse, and more importantly, it says it is doing worse the Bush said it was doing right before the numbers were released.

[snazzy J]

Originally posted by maxwell's demon
you're welcome.

but jug- it does say the economy is doing worse, and more importantly, it says it is doing worse the Bush said it was doing right before the numbers were released. But...but...but...the corner? What happened to the corner? :confused:

[maxwell's demon]

it's a very large corner. i think it's like, humungous or somethin'.

[maxwell's demon]

why is it that when i post real and hard news to start a thread with no one wants to discuss?
Slag? Defenders? CrAzYMoFo? Juggy (you only made one statement, where'd you go?)

[juggaloryda]

sorry, the debates were going on in the other thread that's why I haven't posted in this one. Plus your news is irrefutable. The economy hasn't gotten better lately. That doesn't mean we're headed back into a recessioin, it could go either way at this point so I wouldn't really call this bad news yet

[Mastermold]

Okay, I realize the author of this post wasn't trying to be partisan, but I want to say this anyway...

The economy now is as good as it was when Clinton ran for reelection-same unemployment rates and everything. Yet Democrats called that the best economy ever and call this the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Also, someone told me that only 8,000 jobs were created in July of 1996 as opposed to 32,000 in July 2004. Anyone know if that's true or not?

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
Okay, I realize the author of this post wasn't trying to be partisan, but I want to say this anyway...

The economy now is as good as it was when Clinton ran for reelection-same unemployment rates and everything. Yet Democrats called that the best economy ever and call this the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Also, someone told me that only 8,000 jobs were created in July of 1996 as opposed to 32,000 in July 2004. Anyone know if that's true or not?


Well, there's an important fact you seem to be forgetting here, During 1996 the economy was actually on the rebound not in a sustained nosedive for facts and figures go here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0) so the situation is more dire than first expected, the fact that people quote "indicators" and not the actual economy should be enought to make you suspicious. So by definition the economy right now is doing worse and the trend that has been created due to deficit spending will only further damage any hopes for the economy.

[Mastermold]

Um...what does that link have to do with anything? It's about surpluses and deficits...okay dude. I'm talking about the shape of the economy, which budgets can have an impact on, but don't always..

Fact: Unemployment rates in the summers of 1996 and 2004 are the exact same. ..http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I guess the economy was good in 1996 cause a Democrat was president

I'll try to corroborate that "8,000 jobs in July '96" story...if I can back it up, the Democrats will look like even bigger dumbasses if that's possible.

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
Um...what does that link have to do with anything? It's about surpluses and deficits...okay dude. I'm talking about the shape of the economy, which budgets can have an impact on, but don't always..

Fact: Unemployment rates in the summers of 1996 and 2004 are the exact same. ..http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I guess the economy was good in 1996 cause a Democrat was president

I'll try to corroborate that "8,000 jobs in July '96" story...if I can back it up, the Democrats will look like even bigger dumbasses if that's possible.

You really think that revenues have no impact on economy? also the fact that the tables show deficit spending does nothing for you?
And by the way, if you had bothered to read the table YOU POSTED you would've noticed that if you widen the criteria to show the same data since 1989 by 1996 the economy was allready in fact recovering, not in steady decline...but here, how about we see that same table and compare the two terms given the fact that Clinton's first term actually created jobs instead of losing them, and then see the steady rise, by the way corelate this with the other tables in the link you deemed had "nothing to do with the economy" and perhaps you will see the fragility of your argument. The point is YOU are again turning this into a partisan issue, you're so bent in making "Democrats look like dumbasses" that you cannot realize that there are bigger dumbasses in office right now, and that this has nothing to do woth the fact that they are republican, just that they have done a lousy job.

I urge you to open your eyes. The fact that Clinton taxed the wealthy (and yes the middle class also) along with other good administrative decissions brought the U.S. into the best economy that it had ever seen.
No matter how much people look at his administration and put him down for petty irrelevan t things, this is not about you disliking him, this is about the facts, please look at the two administrations behind him, see what little they did for the economy, what Reagan's "Trickle down economics" brought upon the U.S. and the fact that the Bush political stand right now is by all rights a rehashing of Reagan's failed plan.

[Mastermold]

And you still have not rebutted one simple fact:

The unemployment rate of the summer 1996 and summer 2004 are the same-5.5 percent.

Yeah what's your point about recovery? The economy had been in recovery since March 1991 when Clinton ran for reelection. Currently, it's been in recovery since Nov. 2001.

[Backdrifter]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And you still have not rebutted one simple fact:

The unemployment rate of the summer 1996 and summer 2004 are the same-5.5 percent.

Yeah what's your point about recovery? The economy had been in recovery since March 1991 when Clinton ran for reelection. Currently, it's been in recovery since Nov. 2001.

Listen, the unemployment rate isn't everything when it comes to the economy, go take an econ course.

C.J. has pretty much layed it out for you an you still are dodging his facts by coming back to this one, and miniscule issue that is the unemployment rate.

[Mastermold]

Another thing...I don't know where the hell Democrats got this argument that Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term.

January 2001: 136 million employed ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

July 2004: 139.7 million employed http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Research is fun! I wonder what else the liberal media is lying about...

[Mastermold]

Originally posted by Stewie Griffin
Listen, the unemployment rate isn't everything when it comes to the economy, go take an econ course.

C.J. has pretty much layed it out for you an you still are dodging his facts by coming back to this one, and miniscule issue that is the unemployment rate.

Really what facts? He gave me a link to a table of surpluses and deficits, not unemployment.

[Backdrifter]

Originally posted by Mastermold
Really what facts? He gave me a link to a table of surpluses and deficits, not unemployment. And you don't think surpluses and deficiets have anything to do with the economy and the future economy?

Tell me where are all the baby boomers are going to get social security now that the president has thought it wise to issue massive tax cuts and increase governemnt spending ever increasing the national debt, bankrupting the surplus and sky rocketing deficits...

This deficit spending also helps Bush avoid the debate on national priorities we would have if these expenditures were being financed through higher taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. After all, we're not paying the bill now; instead, it will come due far in the future, long after today's policy-makers are out of office. And this debt is being incurred just as the baby boomers are about to retire. In January 2004, Charles Kolb, who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush White Houses, testified before Congress that, at a time when demographics project more retirees and fewer workers, projected government debt will rise from 37 percent of the economy today to 69 percent in 2020 and 250 percent in 2040. This is the sort of level one associates with a Third World kleptocracy.

NYPRESS.COM

Things are bad right now, and they are going to get worse in the future, there is no refuting these facts.

[Mastermold]

And I'm not disputing them necessarily, but you and he are changing the subject from the shape of the economy to the government's finances. And it was Democrats who created the nanny state....so ask them why we have so much debt.

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And I'm not disputing them necessarily, but you and he are changing the subject from the shape of the economy to the government's finances. And it was Democrats who created the nanny state....so ask them why we have so much debt.

actually the deficit first became a major thing with reagan who denounced wasteful government spendin and then racked up a 2 trillion dollar deficit buying things that go boom, george bush is doing much the same. Also the unemployment figures actually get taken off the registry after a certrain period of time so most likely the bush level is higher couple that with the record layoffs and no pay rises i'd say that Bush's stewardship has hardly been good for the economy.

[maxwell's demon]

WHAAAAA?????

I go away for the night to hang out with my friends, and i come back to see...
can it be?

an actual DISCUSSION?
no flaming....?

it...

it... im getting choked up here guys....

and what's this? actual figures...?...sniff... and researching? and a relative lack of insults?

It...it brings a tear to my eyes guys.
really.

thanks! i feel so much better about the hype now. iwas about to lose hope.

you guys are the best.

[Mastermold]

Originally posted by El Diablo
actually the deficit first became a major thing with reagan who denounced wasteful government spendin and then racked up a 2 trillion dollar deficit buying things that go boom, george bush is doing much the same. Also the unemployment figures actually get taken off the registry after a certrain period of time so most likely the bush level is higher couple that with the record layoffs and no pay rises i'd say that Bush's stewardship has hardly been good for the economy.

Try typing coherent sentences next time.

And if the unemployment rate is really higher than it looks, which you don't provide any info. to prove, then it was also higher than it looked when Clinton was running for reelection-unemployment was the same-5.5%

As far as I know, the method for measuring the unemployment rate has not changed since '96.

[maxwell's demon]

i think it's pretty hard to provide info for that, as the names do get taken off the registry....once they're gone- there are no really figures to trace them- resulting in alot of frustration for those trying to give an accurate account.

i'm not trying to stir things up- but i've seen that statement reported on often, by reporters and commentators on both sides of the fence.


of course- that doesnt mean it might not also have been higher .than it looked back in 1996- it's be a very difficult thing to prove either way --
I have noticed the registry situation reported on much more in relation to the current admin than i did back in 1996. but maybe that's just me.

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Mastermold
Try typing coherent sentences next time.

And if the unemployment rate is really higher than it looks, which you don't provide any info. to prove, then it was also higher than it looked when Clinton was running for reelection-unemployment was the same-5.5%

As far as I know, the method for measuring the unemployment rate has not changed since '96.

No, but the people on unemployed then would be taken off the registry now. I'm not defending clinton, although he did preside over either the largest or second largest period of growth ever. All of these figures are kind of irrelevant when you consider the ****ty minimum wage and the fact that pay rises have all but stopped for the average worker, and there are 1 million less jobs than when Bush started (under clinton things IMPROVED from the last administration) . there was a reason the stock market was hit by the job creation figures released yesterday.

[Mastermold]

I already debunked the "Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term" myth. Why do liberals continue to say stuff that isn't true even after it's been disproven?

It's like when they scream "no banned weapons have been found in Iraq" even after sarin and long-range missiles were found.

[Mastermold]

Here I'll post the info again...

January 2001: 136 million employed ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/...t.02022001.news

July 2004: 139.7 million employed http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And you still have not rebutted one simple fact:

The unemployment rate of the summer 1996 and summer 2004 are the same-5.5 percent.

Yeah what's your point about recovery? The economy had been in recovery since March 1991 when Clinton ran for reelection. Currently, it's been in recovery since Nov. 2001.

Actually NO if you were to look again at the table you posted (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000) you would notice that there had been a nosedive in the economy since bush took office , even if you just went with the table you posted you should be able to realize that the economy was FAILING since 2001 (under your same criteria) and the current situation is still so bleak that it could seldom be called a stabilization.

[maxwell's demon]

i'd have to agree with Constantine- i think maybe it's a question of context- the times spanned for each figure have to be consistent, otherwise the corrolation of info is meaningless---

[maxwell's demon]

in other words, looking at any one month is not going to give you nearly as much meaningful information as taking alonger amounts of info.

your point is ABSOLUTELY irrefutable correct- the numbers- for the ONE month, were the same. But what do we truly learn from this? I would say very little. because if we compare many other corresponding months the numbers are NOT matching.

TO reiterate what Constantine said specifically-
while the numbers were each 5.5%, in Clintons case there was an overall DOWNWARD trend in unemployment- while Bush has been in office there's been an overall UPWARD trend in unemployment.

[Backdrifter]

Well, it looks like you don't know how to analyize the economy there Masterfold, if all your looking at is the unemployment rate. Again, go take even an introductory economics course and you'll be able to arge maybe a FEW vaild points.

[maxwell's demon]

Please go to the chart linked - i believe by mastermold originally, showing unemployment figures-
table (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000)

once opened, if you go to the top- where it says:
Change Output Options:
you can display all figures going back to 1948 and forward to 2004.

Here, now, is a list of the terms of each of our presidents and their party affiliations-Please connect each presidents term with the corresponding figures.
then look at whether there was an overall upward(negative) trend in unemployment or downward(postive) trend in unemployment for each parties time in office.

Harry S. Truman Democratic 1945–53
Dwight David Eisenhower Republican 1953–61
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Democratic 1961–63
Lyndon Baines Johnson Democratic 1963–69
Richard Milhous Nixon Republican 1969–74
Gerald Rudolph Ford Republican 1974–77
Jimmy Carter Democratic 1977–81
Ronald Wilson Reagan Republican 1981–89
George Herbert Walker Bush Republican 1989–93
Bill Clinton Democratic 1993–2001
George Walker Bush Republican 2001–

EVERY time a Democrat has been in office Unemployment has gone DOWN(positive). Even Carter, who it has been said was very ineffectual during his time in office, saw a slight dip during his tenure.

[maxwell's demon]

and you'll note the ONLY time since 48 that a republican's time in office marked a DOWNWARD(positive) OVERALL change in unemployment was during Reagans tenure.
Now it has been said that the longer any party is in office the more it can get done. Often blame for one term presidents falls on the fact that they 'just didnt have time' or whatver.
SO one would presume that Bush Snrs. time in office, adding another 4 years to the previous 8 years of Republican control of the white house, along with the fact that he served Under Reagan as his Vice President, would see even more great results.

HOWEVER- you'll also note that the change Reagan presided over, from 7.5 to 5.3 (fairly impessive) was almost entirely undone during Bush's time in office -in other words the trend started going back up, reaching heghts between 7.0 and 7.3.

[maxwell's demon]

Originally posted by Mastermold
I already debunked the "Bush is the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term" myth. Why do liberals continue to say stuff that isn't true even after it's been disproven?


In other words- i agree with your above statement- Bush is not the first president to lose jobs. many republicans have done so.

It should also be noted that for ten months of Reagans first term (september '82 to june '83) our nation saw it's highest unemplyment rate, consistently coming in at over a staggering 10%, in the past 56 years.

[Constantine J.]

Originally posted by Mastermold
And I'm not disputing them necessarily, but you and he are changing the subject from the shape of the economy to the government's finances. And it was Democrats who created the nanny state....so ask them why we have so much debt.

Well actually we are not. But I will show how this all relates, If we were to use unemployment (like you are) as a yardstick for the economy you would have to notice that in 1996 as you so clearly stated the unemployment numbers were pretty similar, however there is a key difference, If you query the data for people unemployed for 5 weeks or less (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS13008396) you'll see that the numbers are pretty similar, But then if you query the data for those unemployed27 weeks and over (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS13008636) you would realize that in fact the 2004 economic situation is much more dire than the one in 1996, And if you were to objectively corelate this with the table Iposted which shows spending trends and deficits, as well as revenues you would see that the most effective economic policy belongs to the Clinton administration, and you would see that this asertion you made about the Democrats putting the U.S. in debt is a falacy, you need to stop making this a partisan issue Clinton was far from perfect, but the current economic policy and spending trends is driving the U.S. further back from economic recovery than you can imagine, you said a while back "Research is fun" but if you're just researching to find fault in the Democratic party I'm sure you will find what you're looking for, you have to do your research in order to find the reality of the matter and not just exalting those facts that you think prove your point while remaining blind to those that thoughly disprove it.

[Backdrifter]

And if you want to REALLY get into the unemployment issue, you need to determine what KIND of unemployment your talking about. Frictional, Structural, Cyclical, Seasonal...im sure most of this is above Mastermolds head..

[maxwell's demon]

hey- lets not take personal potshots stewie- we seem to be doing well enough sticking to figures.

[Backdrifter]

yeah sorry bout that. my apologies

[maxwell's demon]

s'ok-i'm just trying to keep this thread as clean as possible-

i'm really impressed so far by both sides.

[Darren Daring]

This thread doesn't apply anymore.

[maxwell's demon]

wtf brodie?

[Man-Thing]

I've made about 3,000 dollars this week, pretty good to me.

[Karem-Knight]

Brodie.........