Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (512158)	12/18/2003 8:25:24 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You look mahhvelous in the morning. Did Mr. Sandman come visit you in your sleep? Get yourself a cup o joe and come back and write something good.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (512158)	12/18/2003 8:30:46 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

RE:Bush's poll numbers are too low for him to win. You're living in a dream world. Bush's latest poll numbers: CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 14-15, 2003. N=635 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4. Trend includes surveys conducted independently by CBS News and by The New York Times. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" Approve Disapprove Don't Know % % % 12/14-15/03 58 33 9 12/10-13/03 52 40 8

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (512158)	12/18/2003 8:52:51 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Calling an economy growing at what 8%, stagflation is samo samo Lizzie Tudor idiot identification pontification. It's the technology stupid.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (512158)	12/18/2003 4:07:04 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Lizzie, please do, at least, take a correspondence course in economics 101 before commenting on US economy. To put it kindly you sound less than intelligent. Because of the over-stimulation (look it up) it was expected that the resession would be really hard. In 98-99 even the word depression was appearing on occasion

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (512158)	12/18/2003 4:47:21 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

stagflation, which is what the BushCo economy has led us to. Stagflation? Let's start with a definition: Stagflation: High inflation rates at the same time the economy has high unemployment rates. Throughout much of the economic history of the good old U. S. of A., we've seen a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. During an expansion, inflation is usually higher and unemployment is lower. The opposite has tended to occur during a recession. In the 1970s, however, inflation worsen at the same time the economy dropped into a recession. This led economists not only to coin the term stagflation (stagnation + inflation), but also to reevaluate the existing explanation of how the economy works. See misery index. amosweb.com misery index: The sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. For example, a 5 percent unemployment rate and a 3 percent inflation rate gives us a misery index of 8. This index was developed during the 1970s when inflation and unemployment were both moving in the upward direction. amosweb.com Stagflation as an economic term did not exist until the 1970's. I remember it being mentioned a lot in the latter years of Carter's administration, though the term may have been around earlier, during the 1973-75 economic problems. Until then, the rule of thumb was that inflation accompanied a strong economy when unemployment was low, and high unemployment reflected a weak economy where inflation was low. The 1970's brought us a new experience, where both those numbers were persistently high, a situation which reached its apex in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The misery index (unemployment + inflation) is generally accepted as the best way to capture the presence of stagflation. Here is the misery index for the past 30 years, using BLS data on unemployment rates and CPI figures: house.gov As the chart indicates, the misery index was between 10 and 21 from 1975 until 1985. These were the conditions that stagflation as a term was invented to describe. The misery index was between 8 and 12 from 1985 to 1995. This was generally not thought of as stagflation. The misery index then declined from 8 to around 6 from 1995 to 2001, and has since returned to around 8 (the current unemployment rate is 5.9 percent and the CPI increase for the past 12 months has been 1.8 percent (see bls.gov ("The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) decreased 0.3 percent in November, before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The November level of 184.5 (1982-84=100) was 1.8 percent higher than in November 2002.") So we have unemployment at 5.9 percent, which since the term stagflation was coined is below where it has been approximately 60 percent of the time. We have inflation at 1.8 percent, which is about the lowest it has been during the entire period of time since the word stagflation was invented. So if stagflation is a combination of high unemployment and high inflation, and inflation is at its lowest point in 30 years and unemployment is at a point below where it has been in 18 of the past 30 years, how is that stagflation? The amazing thing about you is how utterly and completely disconnected from reality and fact your statements are. You just say stuff, with total disregard for truth or falsity, and apparently don't care a whit for your own credibility in the process. Stuff like this: Bush's poll numbers are too low for him to win. According to ABC News in its latest poll, three weeks before Saddam's capture, Bush's overall approval rating was 57 percent. Interestingly, this is near the lowest of his Presidency.... and yet a significantly higher "low point" than most other recent Presidents have experienced. According to ABC, Bush's "current rating, 57 percent, matches the career averages of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Even Bush's low -- 53 percent [in Oct. 2003] -- is high compared with the previous four Presidents. Clinton's low was 43 percent approval, Reagan's 42 percent. Bush's father bottomed out at 33 percent and Jimmy Carter reached 28 percent." abcnews.go.com (see page 3) So Bush's poll numbers, which at their low point are as high as Clinton and Reagan's AVERAGES and far, far higher than either his father's or Carter's, are too low to win? Lower poll numbers were high enough for Clinton to win. They were high enough for Reagan to win nearly every state! Just keep making stuff up, Lizzie. This is starting to get fun.