Redstate

Yes, GDP is strong, but unfortunately, strong GDP doesn't translate to worker well-being and employment and wage well being.  I think it is a mistake to equate GDP growth alone with a booming economy.

Without a strong GDP, there will not be any growth.  No growth means recession, plain and simple.  

When workers have a job and money in their pockets, they spend.  If gas prices are your concern, the market will correct that.  Market forces are already in play pushing gas prices lower as supplies are greater than anticipated.  I am already seeing gas prices $0.30 lower in the last 3 wks.  They should drop further as we distance ourselves from Katrina / Rita / Wilma.  

If we ignore the doom and gloomers (MSM) and focus on the strong economy and good prospects for the future (10+ years), then we will see things further turn around.  I see so much construction going in Central CA that I believe that I am not the only one that sees the strength in the economy.  

Real Good News for a Republican Agenda

There is a lot of wishful thinking among my fellow conservatives that the recent troubled days of the WhiteHouse will simply burn off the undergrowth for a verdant second term.  Second terms don't normally get second chances to plant and harvest even when the fire doesn't take every structure on the homestead.  

The Republican bleeding (new lame metaphore) involving: Frist, Meirs, DeLay, Katrina (Rita, Wilma), Budget, SS, Gas Prices, Gas Profits (which the Dems will make plenty of hay from) Libby and Rove may be not be mortal but sure ain't good.  This "luck of the Irish," - "I stepped in crap - good thing it wasn't my Sunday shoes!" "my porched collapsed and killed my dog, I needed a new porch and the dog couldn't hunt anyway!" - take on events is surreal.  

The only good news I've seen lately is the Iraqi Constitution and todays economic growth rates.  The Dems applification of every fresh casualty mutes the political credit which should go to Bush for the relative progress in Iraq.  

So we're left with the economy - which is quite a strength (it saved Clinton from removal).  We have to hope that the rising tide of economic growth may  drown the embers (back to first lame metaphore) and wash away the evidence of one of the worst runs of political fortune I've ever even heard of.  

I check redstate to get the conservative view of the whole Libby thing and what is the headline?  ECONOMY BOOMING!  It's just funny.  I mean everyone that's checking this site now (ten minutes before Fitzgerald is going to speak) is interested in this breaking news story.  What's the goal with this economy bit....to convince your readers that everything is peachy with the world?  I guess by talking up the economy everyone will forget that an official in a President's administration was indicted for the first time in 130 years.

But the trickle down doesn't seem to be enough to keep up with cost of living increases.

Are you saying it's NOT "the economy stupid?"

Libby has been the topic all day, and the topic of the day all day.

Isn't that funny?!?

... that today's news wasn't reported positively.  The AP story was very upbeat, and lacked the usual "but life still sucks" qualifier.

Maybe with Bush down to 35% approval, they see no need to try to knock him down farther.

you made us exceed our quota for stupid posts for one day. Bye.

That's funny, right on the front page I see "Scooter Libby Indicted."

Mods, I think we have a pile addition.

even though I've received a promotion.    So maybe GDP is increasing, but my buying power is eroding as my wages are not increasing with inflation.  

isn't data

OTOH both me and my wife have gotten raises in both of the last 2 years. My wife's have been significant - 20% for a move across the country and 12% one year later, but then she's a much better employee than I am and has gotten some additional professional certifications.

Certain measures of one of the American economies are booming. That doesn't tell us much about the other economies. It's possible to have a middle or working class recession at the same time as an upper class boom, for example.

If news coverage seems out of whack from the statistics you're looking at, it may be because the statistics you're looking at don't reflect the "real" economy very well.

On the other hand, maybe the economy IS booming and it just hasn't trickled down to me and mine yet. I don't really know. But I have heard talk that our economic indicators aren't all that great.

that people with jobs don't constitute news and people without jobs do.

As to your personal situation and what it has to do with the economy, you got me.

Don't let that secret out, I'm making good money on my tiny little portfolio and want to add more before everyone else gets in.

Seriously though, the reason the GDP is increasing while (some) middle and lower classes aren't seeing their incomes wise as fast as the Clinton years is because they were investing in their confident economy during Clinton but are too scared to now. Wages will never rise as fast as the stock market, so people get richer by investing or starting businesses.

Is anyone reading this thread jealous that corporate America is getting richer? BE corporate America. It really isn't that bad, and you don't have to be the greedy, puppy-killing criminals that some people make them out to be. In fact, you can donate your corporate earning to charities. Better yet, do like many of them do and donate your time, which you'll now be able to afford with your new-found earnings.

Thank you Adam for pointing this out. The MSM is holding back their followers - especially the lower class - from enjoying the American Dream the American way. One other thing holding them back though: while my $1000 mutual fund has made 6.6% since Jan. or Feb. or something like that, the DJIA has been stuck in the 10,000's since 2003. Even with today's rally, it's at about 10,400 right now, a far cry from my 6.6% semi-annual returns. It's the DJIA that people see, so it's not ALL the MSM's fault, but it is their responsibility to report this so people can start getting richer (and don't forget the foreign economies!). Since it's only being reported on Republican websites like this, it's our incomes that will go up up while the Dems, with a larger share of lower-class individuals who need the money more, will continue turtling along at their slow pace, which will in turn cause the MSM to complain more. But, since I'm not part of the MSM, I won't worry about that except to tell the people I know. So...

PARTY LIKE IT'S 1996!!!!!!! (which also means back off the real estate market, IMAO)

Yes, GDP is strong, but unfortunately, strong GDP doesn't translate to worker well-being and employment and wage well being.

growth almost always does translate into more jobs and higher wages eventually, once this growth begins to effect the labor market.

This expansion is still relatively young -- we're just finising our 4th year. We're at about the same point we were back in late '94 or so during the last expansion, and as I recall, the big gains in wages and employment didn't really begin to accumulate until Clinton's second term.

I think various megatrends are conspiring to produce weaker and shorter recessions (thankfully) followed by longer and stronger expansions (again, thankfully). But it seems that contemporary expansions, while stronger and more robust once they get going (not to mention more durable) tend to be a bit tepid at the outset. This may be largely attributable to the mild, short recessions we now get -- ie., there isn't much of a nasty low from which to sharply rebound. So, the net-net is that our recoveries (the earliest part of the expansion) seem a bit weakish at first, and this is reflected in wage growth, which takes a while to get going.

But once our economy does rev up, its capable of creating wealth and prosperity on a scale never before imagined (as in the late 90s).

"I have heard talk that our economic indicators are not all that great at reflecting economic realities."

Yes, GDP is strong, but unfortunately, strong GDP doesn't translate to worker well-being and employment and wage well being.

growth almost always does translate into more jobs and higher wages eventually, once this growth begins to effect the labor market.

This expansion is still relatively young -- we're just finising our 4th year. We're at about the same point we were back in late '94 or so during the last expansion, and as I recall, the big gains in wages and employment didn't really begin to accumulate until Clinton's second term.

I think various megatrends are conspiring to produce weaker and shorter recessions (thankfully) followed by longer and stronger expansions (again, thankfully).

But it seems that contemporary expansions, while stronger and more robust once they get going (not to mention more durable), tend to be a bit tepid at the outset. This may be largely attributable to the mild, short recessions we now get -- ie., there isn't much of a nasty low from which to sharply rebound.

So, the net-net is that our recoveries (the earliest part of the expansion) seem a bit weakish at first, and this is reflected in wage growth, which takes a while to get going. But once our economy does rev up, its capable of creating wealth and prosperity on a scale never before imagined (as in the late 90s).

There have already been questions raised about the Import component being 0.0%

when the headline personal consumption (even ex-auto) was up and in the face of

a significant spike in oil prices.  Also note that Commerce Dept. pulls a lot of

the initial numbers out of a hat, quoteth DJ:

For its first and second estimates of a particular quarter's GDP, Commerce must make assumptions for some components of economic activity, for which data are unavailable. The Commerce Department said it adjusted its methods in some cases to take the hurricane into account.

Also note a) the great auto give-away was a large part of the jump in personal

consumption and b) combined state/fed spending was up significantly as well.  

This is not to say that any thing in the 3s isn't ok growth - it is - but this

is also the rear view mirror and recent stats are pointing quite the other way,

not a recession but definitely a disappointment.  

One industry that is doing poorly is the news business itself: the NYT and numerous other papers have had big layoffs, TV isn't doing much better, and the big ad dollars seem to be moving toward the Internet.  I can't imagine that this doesn't color media coverage of the economy.

You wouldn't happen to know Emily Messner from the Washington Post, wouldja?  It seems that Ms. Messner is perhaps a little confused about how a participatory blog with several independent editors actually functions.  She could always write info@redstate.org and ask...

mine isn't.  My unemployment rate is 100%, and the biggest reason is because the Bush administration has done nothing from a)American jobs being shipped overseas and b)foreigners coming here to undercut U.S. workers.  I'm not even going to tell you how long I've been out of work.  I don't like to think about it.  

From my view in San Francisco, the economy is good.  Despite increased fuel costs (a direct impact on my bottom line) there seem to be more people taking cabs.  There are more tourists, plentiful conventioneers (despite the scare tactics of striking hotel unions months ago) and many people leaving town by air.

Housing costs in the rental market are decreasing from dramatic (ridiculous) highs.  As a renter who keeps an eye on what is available, I find that I can get more square feet in better neighborhoods than I could have two years ago.

Most importantly, I talk to a lot of people making voluntary job changes.  I have even been solicited for my own resume as a web developer, which given the context seems to indicate that there are plenty of opportunities out there.

we've laid off people every other quarter for the last two years.

personally, i don't blame the current admin as much as i do the repeal of glass-steagall. banks have run wild buying up companies and are the ones responsible for demanding 15 percent eps growth quarter over quarter.

the only way for many businesses to achieve this is to lay off workers -- after six years, they've cut to the bone everywhere else (as we have here).

will the last one out, please turn off the lights

Since few of these "data points" are actually scientific, try this:

"The McDonalds Rule" - The strength of the economy is inversely proportional to the quality of fast food service.

I waited twenty minutes for a Big Mac on Tuesday = 3.8 Growth in GDP. Don't cheat and order something from the "heart healthy" menu or without pickles just to inflate economic strength.

The difference between the economy booming and your financial situation being good is a significant one.  The pie is growing at 3.8% a year right now.  There is no way for people to be better off if the pie is not growing.  As the pie grows, almost everyone gets a piece here or there.  Whether it's a new product such as the internet or DVDs or whether it's a raise or a new job created, it touches almost everyone and sometimes in ways that are not directly seen as "helping."  GDP growth is the largest catch-all indication of the health of the economy and the numbers have been really good for a quite a long period.

Most of the income seems to be going to corp profits.  

The problem is that there is very little to invest in the US because High end services go to India and factories go to China.  

So it piles up on corp coffers or goes to upper management retention programs.

This is a good thing according to market theory, if US workers are superfluous then there is no reason for them to be hired for make work.

On the other hand, in a democracy, this can be a political problem.  

Who knew? Inflammable means flammable.

And that explains why 94% of people looking for work have found a job (just the inverse of 6% unemployment).

US workers are not superfluous.  There are more Americans working today than ever before.  And our unemployment rate is about where it was in the mid-1990s.

It could also be argued that since 1980 the top tax marginal rate hs dropped from 70% to 33% and thus the top producers have a much bigger incentive to produce more (70% of their money is not taken immediately).  This has led to 25 years of robust growth to the point where a 3.8% quarterly growth number isn't a huge anomoly.  That would back up much of the supply-siders argument for low marginal tax rates and trickle-down economics.

I don't think the economy is perfectly described by either school.  But there is evidence that both are right in some cases.