Hey folks, sorry for the long silence but every now and then real life throws you a curve or two and I've been flat out running from early morning to the dead of night for the last couple of weeks, which is frustrating, because there are so many things I want to talk about. Like:
Just a few scattered thoughts while I have the time. I'll try to get back here again before too much time passes by, and y'all forget me.
It was kinda cool though. I got an e-mail from another member of the RTB, checking up on me since I'd been quiet for so long. It's nice to know that if I fell and hurt myself, and couldn't call for help, somebody would eventually notice my absence and check on me before I really started to stink up the place.
Posted by Rich at February 25, 2004 11:07 AM | TrackBackNader's sudden entry into the scene means only one thing: he's convinced Howard Dean to run as his Veep. There's no other explanation for the timing of his entry, or the cryptic messages Dean gave as he bowed out.
huh? This is part of his statement on Nader entering the race:
When I announced last week that I am no longer actively pursuing the presidency, I urged my supporters not to be tempted by any independent or third party candidate. I said I would support the nominee of the Democratic Party, because the bottom line is that we must defeat George W. Bush in November, whatever it takes.
Posted by: Manish on February 25, 2004 1:14 PMWe'll see. I question why he says he's no longer "actively" pursuing the presidency, instead of simply saying he's out of the race. He's leaving a window open for something; I just don't know what.
This is just one possibility.
Posted by: rich on February 25, 2004 2:08 PMThe American people are drifting back to sleep again as we grow less afraid of a repeat of 9-11
While I agree with this, I am sure our perspectives are different. Fear has definitely been an oft-wielded tool by this administration, but it's finally wearing thin. The American people aren't drifting back to sleep, they're waking up.
The economy is growing steadily, jobs are being created, and unemployment is down
Hardly. We've finally stopped losing jobs, yes -- much like a hemorrhaging artery that has finally clotted. The problem is, we're not adding jobs at a rate that even keeps up with population growth, much less repairs the damage.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 25, 2004 8:53 PMChris,
Instead of relying on one number, try evaluating all the data. That way, you would have a more complete picture of employment trends in America. Of course, it doesn't make for a good attack on Bush, but isn't reality better than fiction?
Manufacturing jobs have been hit hard over the last two years, and while we are seeing a comeback now, it will never be the same again. This isn't because of anything Bush has done, but because of the nature of new global markets. Manufacturing jobs are migrating to the developing nations where they can be performed by relatively low-paid, unskilled labor. The benefits are 2-fold. First, the developing nations begin to develop a technological base to their economy, bringing them up out of poverty. Second, goods are manufactured mush more cheaply, allowing them to be affordable for a larger portion of the global population, raising the global stanfdard of living.
This is a good thing.
But what of our poor, unemployed factory worker? Whatever shall this helpless child do to make ends meet? Fortunately, most of them are not nearly so helpless as liberals would have us believe.
Many of them are going into business for themselves, starting up smaller companies, exploring and expanding new areas of the economy. These new business are not captured in the BLS statistics, which is why you must include the household statistics to get a true picture of employment.
This shift towards entrepreneurial growth is a good thing. Economic growth occurs at the small business level, not from big business. The more startups there are, the sooner the next big expansion will occur. I can't tell you what it's going to be; nobody predicted what would happen when Microsoft got started, but there's a group of laid off workers out there who've just started the next Microsoft. In tme, we'll discover them
By the way, the chart you linked to does more to support my argument than yours. If we were creating jobs at less than the rate of population expansion, the slope of the curve would still be negative. In fact, the curve has bottomed out and the slope is positive, indicating that we are now creating jobs faster than the population is expanding. Considering that this chart is based on the more conservative BLS statistics, rather than the more complete household stats, it is obvious that we are creating jobs at a much faster rate than the curve shows. This is partially born out by the unemployment rate, which has been dropping slowly but steadily for several months.
Look, here's the deal. Forget the politics because it just gets in the way. If you want to fix a problem, first you have to accurately define the problem, and that means looking at all the facts, not just the ones that make for a politically effective sound bite. Otherwise, you'll wind up with a solution that might win great political points, but doesn't address the actual problem.
Sound familiar? It's business as usual in DC, whether it's a Donk or a Rep in charge.
Posted by: rich on February 26, 2004 2:27 PMWe'll see. I question why he says he's no longer "actively" pursuing the presidency, instead of simply saying he's out of the race. He's leaving a window open for something; I just don't know what.
Yeah, that had me scratching my head too. One theory I have is that if Edwards wins, he might choose Dean as his running mate and not dropping out would presumably allow Dean to keep campaigning and raising money at a point when Edwards would have hit the public funding spending cap.
He also may be betting on a brokered convention and the delegates that he has to date may translate into bargaining power for him. I have no doubt that he has an angle, I'm just not sure what it is.
Posted by: Manish on February 27, 2004 5:30 AMManufacturing jobs have been hit hard over the last two years, and while we are seeing a comeback now, it will never be the same again. This isn't because of anything Bush has done, but because of the nature of new global markets. Manufacturing jobs are migrating to the developing nations where they can be performed by relatively low-paid, unskilled labor. The benefits are 2-fold. First, the developing nations begin to develop a technological base to their economy, bringing them up out of poverty. Second, goods are manufactured mush more cheaply, allowing them to be affordable for a larger portion of the global population, raising the global stanfdard of living.
Save the free-trade rhetoric. You're preaching to the choir.
But this isn't a cut and dry trade issue. Imports are not exclusively to blame for these job losses. Relocation of manufacturing jobs from the US to low-wage economies has been happening for years. These jobs are rarely lost: they are simply relocated to export-driven industries. That's not really what we're seeing now. What we're seeing now is an anemic recovery with underwhelming demand.
In addition, highly educated labor is increasingly the latest victim, which is no doubt why suddenly protectionism is making a frightening resurgence. It's one thing for poor people to lose their jobs, but god forbid that healthy white middle class computer geeks start being affected!
But, I digress. So anyways, I think we're in agreement on this, except I think you are under the impression that trade is a much bigger culprit than it really is.
But what of our poor, unemployed factory worker? Whatever shall this helpless child do to make ends meet? Fortunately, most of them are not nearly so helpless as liberals would have us believe.
They would be less helpless if there were a better social safety net to provide health insurance, et al. in the event that their jobs are displaced by free trade. But we can save that discussion for another time.
Many of them are going into business for themselves, starting up smaller companies, exploring and expanding new areas of the economy. These new business are not captured in the BLS statistics, which is why you must include the household statistics to get a true picture of employment.
Substitute "many of them" with "some of them" and you have a true statement.
The discrepancy between the payroll and household survey is largely one of methodology, as many have speculated for a long time. There's little evidence that the difference is due to anything more than an overestimation of population by the household survey. Greenspan himself recently chimed in:
"I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate," Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in congressional testimony on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow."
I happen to agree. Further, even the job growth reflected in the household survey still pales in comparison to most recoveries we've seen in the past.
As for self-employment, the numbers are clear as well.
This shift towards entrepreneurial growth is a good thing. Economic growth occurs at the small business level, not from big business.
Which is why it's unfortunate that Bush chose to do little to stimulate it.
Economic growth occurs for a number of reasons, including small business growth, which is largely driven by surges in consumer demand.
What do you do in a recession to boost demand? You can rely on monetary policy and hope the Fed can ride out the storm. Or, you can use fiscal policy to deliver jobs via government spending or use a tax cut to put money in the hands of the lower and middle classes where it will drive demand.
What did Bush do? He rammed through a tax cut for the rich.
Is our economy improving? Yes, finally. Unfortunately we've had to struggle for three years to get here. Lost opportunity.
Is it perfect? No. Job growth is anemic, deficit-spending and the increasing debt and the foreign investment propping up our dollar are all very scary things.
By the way, the chart you linked to does more to support my argument than yours. If we were creating jobs at less than the rate of population expansion, the slope of the curve would still be negative. In fact, the curve has bottomed out and the slope is positive, indicating that we are now creating jobs faster than the population is expanding. Considering that this chart is based on the more conservative BLS statistics, rather than the more complete household stats, it is obvious that we are creating jobs at a much faster rate than the curve shows. This is partially born out by the unemployment rate, which has been dropping slowly but steadily for several months.
For the last few months, yes, after a downward tank for three years. It's not the first time things have improved in the short-term. Here's hoping it keeps up.
Otherwise, you'll wind up with a solution that might win great political points, but doesn't address the actual problem.
A solution that only wins great political points but doesn't address the actual problem is precisely the solution that GWB has delivered.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 27, 2004 12:22 PMLooking at the chart you provide, you can see two break points in the downward slide that correlate nicely with the Bush tax cuts. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but the link does indicate that it is possible that the slowdons in job losses were related to the tax cuts, in which case, the cure fit the disease.
Additionally, whether the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich is debatable. My taxes were reduced by about 50% by the last tax cut. The actual dollar amount was chump change to a millionaire, but it certainly made a difference in my budget.
Considering both the actual dollar amount and the precentage reduction (again, looking at all the data) gives a more complete perspective of the tax cut, and demostrates that it wasn't totally biased to the wealthy.
I agree with you that things are not perfect, but I do believe we are moving slowly in the right direction, although the unrestrained deficit spending has me concerned.
Posted by: rich on February 27, 2004 1:16 PMObviously, correlation is not causation, but the link does indicate that it is possible that the slowdons in job losses were related to the tax cuts, in which case, the cure fit the disease.
Yes, and likely a symptom of the meager portion of the tax-cut that wasn't for the rich that did drive some demand. But not enough, obviously.
Additionally, whether the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich is debatable. My taxes were reduced by about 50% by the last tax cut. The actual dollar amount was chump change to a millionaire, but it certainly made a difference in my budget.Considering both the actual dollar amount and the precentage reduction (again, looking at all the data) gives a more complete perspective of the tax cut, and demostrates that it wasn't totally biased to the wealthy.
It's hardly debatable at all, especially in the context of a tax-cut that was supposedly designed to stem job-losses and cure a recession. Bush's tax cut was not a recession-fighting tax-cut. The CBPP report on June 1 sums this all up way better than I ever could:
The tax-cut package the President signed into law May 28 carries an "official" cost of $350 billion through 2013, but does so only through the massive use of budget gimmicks. Every provision in the bill but one expires between the end of 2004 and the end of 2008, and most or all of these provisions are nearly certain to be extended. If the provisions are extended, the cost of the legislation through 2013 will be $807 billion to $1.06 trillion.[1]In addition, the bill is heavily tilted toward the upper end of the income scale, with households that make over $1 million a year receiving an average tax cut or $93,500 in 2003, while households in the middle of the income spectrum receive an average tax cut of $217. Some 36 percent of households will receive no tax cut at all; 53 percent will receive $100 or less. Because the bill provides the preponderance of its tax cuts to higher-income tax filers, a group more likely to save rather than spend its tax benefits than middle- or low-income households, the bill also is likely to be highly inefficient in boosting the economy in the near term.
I agree with you that things are not perfect, but I do believe we are moving slowly in the right direction, although the unrestrained deficit spending has me concerned.
Indeed. But as far as I am concerned there's no great mystery about why we're seeing this tax-cut/deficit spending cocktail from the Bush administration.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 27, 2004 6:19 PMI have yet to see any rational "cure" from the left as to keep jobs from "leaving" the states. All I hear is the usual rhetoric...
"He rammed through a tax cut for the rich."
or better yet...
Or, you can use fiscal policy to deliver jobs via government spending or use a tax cut to put money in the hands of the lower and middle classes where it will drive demand.
Didn't parents receive an additional child tax credit last year/this year? I suppose that those who are "rich" just kept all the money they saved via tax cuts and stuffed it in a mattress vs spending/investing it eh?.
Posted by: justin on February 27, 2004 11:37 PM"tax cut for the rich" = "tax cut for small business."
Many many many MANY small businesses are subchapter-s corporations. The defining feature of a sub-s corporation is that it is taxed at the individual rate. So for tax purposes, a sub-s corporation is an individual. But as you can imagine, a sub-s corporation typically makes a lot more in "income" than most individuals, meaning that it counts as a "rich person." So a tax cut for "the rich" disproportionately benefits small businesses.
Most of the jobs in this country are created where? Why, small businesses, thanks for asking.
