"Worst Economy Since Hoover" Sets Dow Record High!

If I recall correctly, from the news yesterday, there are still more jobs than they can find "qualified" people for. This turns it back to education, on which I side with the democrats.

I agree with Damo and Ihate on this part.......I give no credit to (or place no blame on) the President or his policies for the economy. I felt this way with Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" back in the 90's and the republican's harping on it at the end of the Clinton era.
 
Cypress said:
Whew! I'm glad you straightned me out on that one.

There were several thousand PhD economists who led me to believe that a government who runs up a 10 trillion dollar debt, launches an unneccessary war costing half a trillion, and decides to de-invest in basic scientific research and electrical and transportation infrastruture, can have a detrimental afffect on the nation's long term economic health.

Thanks for clearing that misconception up!
Click to expand...
Yet even they aren't giving credit for the immediate economy to the President nor do they blame the immediate economy on the President. Hmmm.... Maybe they aren't the ignorant.

Pretending that such long-term predictions are the same as saying the current low unemployment rate is good because the President effects this economy is a dichotomy.
 
leaningright said:
If I recall correctly, from the news yesterday, there are still more jobs than they can find "qualified" people for. This turns it back to education, on which I side with the democrats.

I agree with Damo and Ihate on this part.......I give no credit to (or place no blame on) the President or his policies for the economy. I felt this way with Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" back in the 90's and the republican's harping on it at the end of the Clinton era.
Click to expand...

Really, that's pretty amazing. Here are the latest job statistics from the University of Washington's job service center.

4 percent of last year's BAs are still looking for work.

6 percent of last year's MAs are still unemployed.

8 percent of last year's Ph.D.s are still unemployed.
 
Damocles said:
Yet even they aren't giving credit for the immediate economy to the President nor do they blame the immediate economy on the President. Hmmm.... Maybe they aren't the ignorant.

Pretending that such long-term predictions are the same as saying the current low unemployment rate is good because the President effects this economy is a dichotomy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this comment was intended for Dixie?, since he's the only one on the thread doing a victory dance about a temporal, one-day jump in stocks.

All the data and comments I've posted, have been about the long-term macroeconomics. And how - strangely - they seem to do better (long term) under democrats ;)
 
If one believes in a command economy like Venezuela or Bolivia than sure the leadership is responsible for the economy. But is a more free market capitalistic society such as ours the leadership of our government does not have the ability to directly shape the economy.

Do things like war and public policy influence things? Of course they do.

What I was referring to as ignorance it the idea that the DJIA being up is because of Bush and if is down it is also because of Bush. Most of the things in the market are not under the governments control however.

Take for example the plummet in 2002. This was caused by lack of confidence after the Enron Scandal. Was George Bush cooking the books and lying to shareholders? No.
 
Looking only at the Dow to see how the economie is doing, is like looking at only 4 pages of a 30 page intelegence report to see how the war on terror is going!
 
well if the investment peopl have no confidence in what the president is doing or think it will negatively impact their investements. Yes the president does have an impact on the volitile stock market. But not nearly as much impact on the rest of the economy , at least over the short term.
 
IHateGovernment said:
If one believes in a command economy like Venezuela or Bolivia than sure the leadership is responsible for the economy. But is a more free market capitalistic society such as ours the leadership of our government does not have the ability to directly shape the economy.

Do things like war and public policy influence things? Of course they do.

What I was referring to as ignorance it the idea that the DJIA being up is because of Bush and if is down it is also because of Bush. Most of the things in the market are not under the governments control however.

Take for example the plummet in 2002. This was caused by lack of confidence after the Enron Scandal. Was George Bush cooking the books and lying to shareholders? No.
Click to expand...

the leadership of our government does not have the ability to directly shape the economy.

Do things like war and public policy influence things? Of course they do.

That's all I've ever said. I simply object to you making assumptions, and saying people are ignorant if they think the government has any influence over the economy.

You just said, right here, that public policy does have an influence.

I'm with you: Government's main job is just to not screw up and make things worse. And, to of course regulate commerce as neccessary and appropriate.

But, good public policy can also can help promote good, long term economic health. Investments in basic scientific research, public infrastructure, and education all play a role in this. We have the best public research universties and higher education in the world. This has been a direct positive for the long term economic vitality of the nation
 
Thats fine Cypress but I object to such simplistic views such as:

Dow is up, Good Bush

Dow is down, Bad Bush

Unemployment up, Bad Bush

Unemployment down, Good Bush.
 
IHateGovernment said:
If one believes in a command economy like Venezuela or Bolivia than sure the leadership is responsible for the economy. But is a more free market capitalistic society such as ours the leadership of our government does not have the ability to directly shape the economy.

Do things like war and public policy influence things? Of course they do.

What I was referring to as ignorance it the idea that the DJIA being up is because of Bush and if is down it is also because of Bush. Most of the things in the market are not under the governments control however.

Take for example the plummet in 2002. This was caused by lack of confidence after the Enron Scandal. Was George Bush cooking the books and lying to shareholders? No.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are at least two kinds of influences--direct influences such as Bush saying he is going to attack Iran tomorrow and oil prices shooting through the roof based on "uncertainty in the market." And there are indirect influences such as taking a laissez faire attitude when certain and several huge corporations begin to implode from corruption scandals. Could Bush have calmed fears by taking a strong stand against such book juggling, who knows, he didn't do so. Could he have aided California and helped things there and calmed fears elsewhere when he decided to stand back and let Enron rape that state, who knows he didn't do so. It's funny that generally the same people who say that the President has no control over the ecconomy will claim that killing some unknown someone in the electric chair or by lethal injection deters others from committing violent crime. But of course, the President's actions or lack of actions in any situation has little or no effect on anything. I guess what all this means is that a butterfly's wings are more powerful than the leader of the free world. I wonder do you think Bush has had any effect whatsoever (either direct or indirect) on the economy of Iraq???????
 
Prakosh you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't deny the President has influence. As I said I don't support though the typical view of the layman who sees the stock market up and says Bush is good and then sees it down and says Bush is bad.
 
Isn't it incredible, how different the philosophies are on this, now that the economy is great and the Dow is at an all-time high? All of a sudden, Bush doesn't have a damn thing to do with the economy and never has, no president has anything to do with the economy in any way whatsoever... yet, just 2 years ago, the Democratic presidential nominee rallied these same people around the mantra that this was "the worst economy since Hoover!"

It's absolutely astonishing, how Bush takes it in the shorts, left and right, on the dismal and sluggish economy, in spite of having to overcome 9/11, the dotcom bubble burst, and massive corporate corruption (which actually happened on Clinton's watch)... All we heard for months, was rant after rant on how bad things were, and it was all the fault of Bush and his tax cuts for the rich... now that the economy is at a record high... *chirp*chirp* ...What? The president doesn't have anything to do with the economy, I don't know what you're talking about....

Despite what you want to project, the president and the administration policy does effect the economy... ergo, Jimmy Carter... Ronald Reagan. You can't mention Bill Clinton without one of these pinheads lauding his wonderful economic prosperity of the 90's! So, don't give me this shit about the president isn't responsible for the economy being good, if Clinton was responsible for the great economy of the 90's, Bush is responsible for the current boon. The Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy and grew it out of the Clinton recession, in spite of all the various negatives the economy had to overcome. Now that the Dow has set a record high, you're goddamn straight Bush is going to take credit for it, and deservedly so.
 
Dixie said:
Isn't it incredible, how different the philosophies are on this, now that the economy is great and the Dow is at an all-time high? All of a sudden, Bush doesn't have a damn thing to do with the economy and never has, no president has anything to do with the economy in any way whatsoever... yet, just 2 years ago, the Democratic presidential nominee rallied these same people around the mantra that this was "the worst economy since Hoover!"

It's absolutely astonishing, how Bush takes it in the shorts, left and right, on the dismal and sluggish economy, in spite of having to overcome 9/11, the dotcom bubble burst, and massive corporate corruption (which actually happened on Clinton's watch)... All we heard for months, was rant after rant on how bad things were, and it was all the fault of Bush and his tax cuts for the rich... now that the economy is at a record high... *chirp*chirp* ...What? The president doesn't have anything to do with the economy, I don't know what you're talking about....

Despite what you want to project, the president and the administration policy does effect the economy... ergo, Jimmy Carter... Ronald Reagan. You can't mention Bill Clinton without one of these pinheads lauding his wonderful economic prosperity of the 90's! So, don't give me this shit about the president isn't responsible for the economy being good, if Clinton was responsible for the great economy of the 90's, Bush is responsible for the current boon. The Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy and grew it out of the Clinton recession, in spite of all the various negatives the economy had to overcome. Now that the Dow has set a record high, you're goddamn straight Bush is going to take credit for it, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...


"Despite what you want to project, the president and the administration policy does effect the economy." I'm with you on this one Dixie, and that is why it has taken Bush 6 years to boost the Dow over what it was during the Clinton administration. I would say that is a pretty dismal record. How many CEOs could take over a company and take 6 years to get back to or exceed the producton numbers of the person whom they replaced??? Answer: 0!!!! You know why???? Cause no collection of stockholders in America would stand for that level of iincompetence. Voters however seem to be much less concerned than stockholders. Most CEOs with such a record would be out on their asses after a year at most. Not re-appointed for 4 more years after the first 4 dismal years of failure. If there were extenuating circumstances they might be given an extra year, but six years hardly. This President who with his MBA promised to run the country like a business, has been a dismal and lackluster failure, does he have something to do with the economy, you bet. And will oil prices surge when he starts screaming about Iran right after the election, you bet...and will the stock market retreat on those increased oil prices, you bet...so glory in it, my man, because it won't last much longer.
 
Do Dixie what about when the economie was so bad during Bush SR.'s term... after 8 years of Regan?
 
Cypress said:
The Dow in 9% higher, that the day Clinton left office almost 6 years ago

A growth rate of 1.5% a year! Yay!

Victory for Bush!
Click to expand...
You forget we went through a slowdown dork.
Bush I signed the Dem house's tax increase request and a huge recession followed.
Bush Junior signed tax cuts and we stayed out of a recession.

Watch out you nasty little snivelling liar...
 
Dixie that argument might work on people who praised Clinton but I didn't credit him for that economy and I'm not going to give Bush any credit either.

If a President actually did start controlling the economy I would denounce him as a socialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top