|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 9, 2007 16:56:08 GMT -6
After overhearing the Larry Kudlow propaganda hour today, and the comparison of the Bush economy vs. the Clinton economy, it seemed necessary to restate some of government-documented statistics. During Bush's Clinton's last 6 years in office, 12.9 million new jobs were created. In Bush's 1st 6 years, 8.3 million jobs were created. That's a difference of 4.6 million, or over 50% more under Clinton. This can be seen from the graph below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The key numbers are underlined in red. ![](http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/unlawflcombatnt/4-9-07grphEmplymtBLS-X.gif) Not only were far fewer jobs created under Bush, real hourly wages increased only 1/2 as much. During Bush's 1st 6 years, real wages (measured in 1982 dollars) increased $0.27/hour. During Clinton's last 6 years, real wages increased $0.55/hour, or twice as much. This can be seen from the chart from below from the BLS. ![](http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/unlawflcombatnt/1-18-07grphRealWageTbl66-07-X.gif) It's also worth showing the decline in the hours in the average workweek. This, along with minuscule real wage increases, further refutes claims of a strong job market, or a strong economy. Below is chart of change in the average hourly workweek. ![](http://www.briefing.com/Common/Images/Content/PageContent/EcData/workweek.gif) It's just amazing to see the Kudlow-ish blowhards claim the Bush economy is better than the Clinton economy. There aren't any facts or statistics to support that point of view. This seems to be the hallmark of the Bush economy. The media propagandists provide nothing but fact-free reporting, supported by nothing but hot air.
|
|
|
Post by rjfliberal07 on Apr 9, 2007 20:17:05 GMT -6
Larry Kudlow, what can I say about him? Oh yeah, he is a great example of what abuse of Cocaine can do to you. Kudlow thinks the economy is better than under Clinton, which is true.....IF YOU ARE IN THE TOP 1% INCOME BRACKET! Otherwise, if you are an average Joe it hardly is better. More than likely it is much worse with higher local, state taxes, increased health- care costs year after year, decline of good paying jobs, higher gasoline and energy costs just to name a few. Yeah, I'd say its bad alright.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 10, 2007 2:26:15 GMT -6
During the last few years we've seen a constant upward redistribution of wealth, with an overall stagnation in wealth creation. Money is being made increasingly by collecting interest and fees on loans, and progressively less from any kind of productive endeavor.
When the housing bubble finally deflates completely, and the financial "innovation" industry goes down with it, even the top 1% are going to get hurt.
Meanwhile, the Kudlows and his ilk will be talking up the economy to very end. Just like they were doing before the 2001 recession. And just like the financial "experts" were doing in early 1929.
|
|
|
Post by mdub on Apr 10, 2007 20:27:46 GMT -6
It's actually much worse than you stated. Between Jan.01 and Dec.06, the economy only added 3.4 net new jobs. Along with 3 mil. manufacturing job losses, the "Information" sector lost 638K jobs, "Computer Systems Design and Related" lost 46k jobs. "Engineering and Architecture" only added 129k jobs. These industries were supposed to have added millions of new jobs in the "new economy". Turns out it was all a farse. www.mbginfosvcs.com/pdfs/usjobs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 11, 2007 0:31:49 GMT -6
It's actually much worse than you stated. Between Jan.01 and Dec.06, the economy only added 3.4 net new jobs. I think you're referring to the total number of private sector jobs created. And a net increase of 3.4 million is right on target according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's private sector job creation that's the best measure of real job creation. During the same amount of time under Clinton, from January 1995 to December 2000, 14.7 million private sector jobs were created. 14.7 million under Clinton vs. 3.4 million under Bush. And many of Bush's 3.4 million were jobs created by government contracting. Those tax cuts sure worked well, didn't they.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Apr 11, 2007 10:49:03 GMT -6
I also caught Kudlow yesterday with the OMB chief. He was up in arms over the Bartlett "Death of Supply Side" economics piece he wrote.
Here is my biggest gripe with Kudlow and the rest of the supply side ideologues. They insist of bringing up the kennedy tax cut as proof of that the theory works and that kennedy was a supply sider.
First of all comparing todays economy to the 61 economy is simply apples and oranges. Inflationary pressures were demand pull. Labor was organized. In such a case, tax incentives to expand supply and capacity relieve inflationary pressures. That is a common sense approach to economics. That doesnt mean that approach will work in every instance and that was Reich's argument had he been allowed to speak. and he was absolutely correct in stating that business investment is down as is productivity. Business will not invest in capacity without a rational expectation of future demand. Supply does not create its own demand. The basic Maslow driven core of the economy is demand driven. The rest of the wants and needs that drive consumption are dependant on the income and future expectations of the consumer.
Kudlow, Laffer and the rest of the ideologues insist on applying similar policies in all conditions of the economy and that is just plain foolish.
Ive nev
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 11, 2007 13:37:02 GMT -6
Business will not invest in capacity without a rational expectation of future demand. Supply does not create its own demand. The basic Maslow driven core of the economy is demand driven. The rest of the wants and needs that drive consumption are dependant on the income and future expectations of the consumer. Kudlow, Laffer and the rest of the ideologues insist on applying similar policies in all conditions of the economy and that is just plain foolish. You're absolutely right. The conditions that may have justified supply-side economic policy have never existed during Bush's presidency. One of the prominent advocates of supply-side policy under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, has stated that the conditions justifying supply-side tax cuts have not been present during Bush's presidency, and Bush's tax cuts made no sense, even from a supply-side point of view. Here's Roberts' take on Bush's tax cuts: " The George W. Bush regime was faced with no stagflation and no worsening trade-offs between employment and inflation. The Bush administration did not use changes in the marginal rate of taxation to correct a mistaken policy mix or an oversight in economic policy. Moreover, global labor arbitrage is causing American jobs to be outsourced abroad. As Americans are experiencing declining opportunities to work, the response of labor supply to better incentives is small. Similarly, US companies are locating their investments in plant and equipment abroad. The substitution of foreign for American labor and the relocation abroad of US plant and equipment prevent reductions in marginal tax rates from having any appreciable effect on aggregate supply in the US.
I am not a partisan of Dubya’s tax cuts. Income distribution is a legitimate issue. This is especially the case when offshore production and jobs outsourcing are destroying the American middle class.
Just as Dubya hides behind "freedom and democracy" to wage wars of naked aggression, he hides behind supply-side economics in order to reward his cronies. There seems to be no American value or legitimate principle that the Bush regime is incapable of despoiling...." The point here is that there is no rationale for supply-side tax cuts in today's economy, nor at any time during the Bush presidency. And this assessment comes from a prominent supply-side advocate like Paul Craig Roberts.
|
|