You asked in direct reply to the post that stated the points.
I'm not sure repeating them would be of any benefit.
But I'll try one more time.
1 - (If your concern is about Bush's economic record) Bush's policies have only been in effect 5 to 7 years.
a - Since 2003 (inclusive) growth has averaged over 3%.
b - But of course the future doesn't look so bright right now, and while there are plenty of reasons that have little or nothing to do with Bush, he can't escape responsibility completely
2 - (If your concern is "a decade" more than it is Bush) - A decades is measuring from at or near the top of a bubble, to a point after another one has been popped. Its not measuring from the equivalent point of the economic cycle.
3 - (Either way) You shouldn't "subtract our the temporary gains" because as I pointed out earlier
"If a gain is temporary, and you subtract it out from the year it occurs, but don't add it back in the year when the end of the temporary gain actually impacts the GDP statistics then your double counting the negative.
If in year 1 GDP is 100, and in year 2 its 110, but the 10 was just a temporary factor, and in year 3 it goes back to 100, you will have had zero growth over the period. With a growth of 10%, then a loss of a bit less than 10% (9.09%) from a larger base, to get back to the original 100.
But if you subtract out the temporary factor of 10 factor than the growth from year one to two becomes zero, and instead of growth of 10%, then -9.09%, resulting in a net zero growth, you get growth of 0%, followed by -9.09%, making it look like there has been negative growth overall when that wasn't really the case."
Message 25309558 |
