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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (55522)	3/7/2007 8:36:25 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I see clueless is back revisiting all the tired, discredited memes all over again. FWFW, the reason they talk about the fantastic job recovery starting in 2003 was that was when the tax cuts took effect. DUH! And you should already know it since it's been pointed out to you before. Sadly, like a true believer leftist, facts & reality are lost on you when they do not fit into leftist revisionist history.

To: tejek who wrote (55522)	3/7/2007 10:42:20 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

Well, look what the cat dragged in. "Prior to the last year and half, job creation more often than not was less than 150K per month." How many months were 300k versus 100k is irrelevant - it is averages that count. Average monthly non-farm payrolls gains for each of the last three years are 2004: 172k, 2005: 212k and 2006: 187k. The average from mid-2003 is 176k. Using the household survey, which captures small businesses and the self employed missed by the establishment survey, job gains from January 2002 to January 2003 averaged 143k per month - not too shabby for the first year of recovery. It also beats the average for the last year of Clinton's presidency by 42k per month. Oh, and for Jan 2003 to present, the household survey shows average monthly gains of 195k jobs. "ask your WSJ guy why he starts the count in mid 2003 when the recession ended in 2001" Because 1) employment gains lag output gains and 2) the 2001 tax cuts didn't take effect in any significant way until 2003.

To: tejek who wrote (55522)	3/7/2007 11:02:21 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

Counting from 2003 makes sense because that's when the tax cuts fully took effect. Also because late 2001 and at least early 2002 where hit by the aftermath of 9/11. And finally the editorial is talking about the recovery. 2001 and 2002 where not really the recovery. Prior to the last year and half, job creation more often than not was less than 150K per month. And a year and a half is long enough to make the claim that this is a jobless recovery bogus. Also from unemployment was low even prior to the last year and a half, and never got all that high even at the worst economic point after the tech bubble popped. If unemployment isn't high, its more difficult to get high job growth. Maintaining the low unemployment is itself something of an achievement. How much of the achievement is actually Bush's can be debated. I do think that presidents often get too much blame and too much credit for good or bad things that happen while they are president. OTOH tax cuts are frequently beneficial for the economy.