Economists upgrade US outlook after surprisingly strong data

[ProfJohn]

This is one of those stories that is good news for everyone.

The economy may have passed its 'soft landing' point and started to grow again.
The best news of all in this, and not talked about in the article, is the impact with has on our deficit. The faster the economy grows the faster the deficit falls. Great news for EVERYONE. It is possible that we could have a balanced budget before Bush leaves office, but that would require strong growth and controlled spending. Let's hope that happens.

(Also lost in this, some time this year most likely, Bush will pass up Clinton when it comes to growth of the economy during his term. I'd have to dig up the numbers, but Bush has been closing in ever since the economy started to rebound in 2003. Average growth under Clinton was 3.5% it is harder to find a figure for Bush since he is still in office and most of the figures I can find only state GDP growth since the 2001 recession ended.)

link

Economists are hastily upgrading their forecasts for the US economy after a series of surprisingly strong reports suggesting the so-called "soft landing" may be over and growth is accelerating.
Over the past week, surprises have come in stronger-than-expected reports on US job creation, the trade balance and retail sales -- all key contributors to economic activity.

Lehman Brothers chief US economist Ethan Harris on Friday boosted his forecast for fourth quarter 2006 growth to an annualized rate of 3.3 percent, a leap from the firm's prior call for just 2.0 percent growth.

"After slowing in November, the economy seems to have regained its stride," Harris said.

"With the last of the major data in, we are now revising fourth quarter GDP to an above-trend 3.3 percent. A wide range of indicators have been stronger than expected. Most important have been the strong consumption data and the surprising improvement in the trade balance."

 

[imported_gardener]

The housing sector is what has been keeping this economy going, and it has weaken over the past year. And the Fed is closer to cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy than they've been in 3 years.

Add to that the trade imbalance, federal deficit, war costs, dying auto sector, and job growth that is predominately low pay/no-benefit retail and service work, and I ask myself if you are even conscious when you post.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn...
(Also lost in this, some time this year most likely, Bush will pass up Clinton when it comes to growth of the economy during his term. I'd have to dig up the numbers, but Bush has been closing in ever since the economy started to rebound in 2003. Average growth under Clinton was 3.5% it is harder to find a figure for Bush since he is still in office and most of the figures I can find only state GDP growth since the 2001 recession ended.)
...

So your argument is that economic growth under Bush is better compared to economic growth under Clinton as long as you leave out the massive recession that started during his term and continued for at least several years afterward? Boy, that's just some great stuff, but I'll do you one better. Let's find the 5 minutes when Clinton was President that the economy grew the most and claim THAT as his average. :roll:

 

[nullzero]

This article is all smoke and mirrors by the end of the year we should see the full effects of a slowing housing market on the economy. This spring and summer I expect more homes for sale to flood the market then ever before. Nothing is going to move on the inventory side of things and we will see a big drop across the nation in real estate value.

 

[conjur]

An incredibly weak dollar results in a slight lessening of the current accounts deficit and that's seen as strong growth?


Jesus Christ, these "analysts" will grasp at any straw to try and keep money flowing into the stock markets. I guess the government's deficit-funding of the markets isn't enough anymore.


We're fooked.

 

[Genx87]

People are morons if they think the president has control over the economy. As witnessed several times in this thread.

 

[NeoV]

Control = no

Impact = yes

I really like the part about the balanced budget happening before Bush leaves office - don't hold your breath on that one

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

(Also lost in this, some time this year most likely, Bush will pass up Clinton when it comes to growth of the economy during his term. I'd have to dig up the numbers, but Bush has been closing in ever since the economy started to rebound in 2003. Average growth under Clinton was 3.5% it is harder to find a figure for Bush since he is still in office and most of the figures I can find only state GDP growth since the 2001 recession ended.)

link

"With the last of the major data in, we are now revising fourth quarter GDP to an above-trend 3.3 percent. A wide range of indicators have been stronger than expected. Most important have been the strong consumption data and the surprising improvement in the trade balance."

I might not be the best at math but I'm pretty sure that 3.3 is less then 3.5%. So that the 4th quarter puts bush even farther behind Clinton. But nice try.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Control = no

Impact = yes

I really like the part about the balanced budget happening before Bush leaves office - don't hold your breath on that one

Me going down and buying a new TV == impact.
People give presidents too much credit in good economies and blame them for bad economies.

The economy under Bush has been neither good nor bad. Considering the situation however, I think the economy is showing a very good resliance to it.

The balanced budget is always the carrot on the end of teh stick that gets waved by pundits on both sides of the aisle. Congress has more control over a balanced budget than the president as they craft the legislation that eats up the budget.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeoV
Control = no

Impact = yes

I really like the part about the balanced budget happening before Bush leaves office - don't hold your breath on that one

Me going down and buying a new TV == impact.
People give presidents too much credit in good economies and blame them for bad economies.

The economy under Bush has been neither good nor bad. Considering the situation however, I think the economy is showing a very good resliance to it.

The balanced budget is always the carrot on the end of teh stick that gets waved by pundits on both sides of the aisle. Congress has more control over a balanced budget than the president as they craft the legislation that eats up the budget.

That's not true. The deficit is very closely related to which party is in the White House, not the Congress.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeoV
Control = no

Impact = yes

I really like the part about the balanced budget happening before Bush leaves office - don't hold your breath on that one

Me going down and buying a new TV == impact.
People give presidents too much credit in good economies and blame them for bad economies.

The economy under Bush has been neither good nor bad. Considering the situation however, I think the economy is showing a very good resliance to it.

The balanced budget is always the carrot on the end of teh stick that gets waved by pundits on both sides of the aisle. Congress has more control over a balanced budget than the president as they craft the legislation that eats up the budget.

That's not true. The deficit is very closely related to which party is in the White House, not the Congress.

Look back at the historical data, you will find defecits no matter matter which party is in the white house or controlls congress.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

That's not true. The deficit is very closely related to which party is in the White House, not the Congress.

Look back at the historical data, you will find defecits no matter matter which party is in the white house or controlls congress.

All post-WWII debt after inflation is from republican presidents

Democrats = debt down, republicans = debt increase, see the graph

Any questions?

(Read the second graph text for an interesting story on Reagan calling the lowest debt as % of GDP the worst debt when attacking Carter in 1979).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

That's not true. The deficit is very closely related to which party is in the White House, not the Congress.

Look back at the historical data, you will find defecits no matter matter which party is in the white house or controlls congress.

All post-WWII debt after inflation is from republican presidents

Democrats = debt down, republicans = debt increase, see the graph

Any questions?

(Read the second graph text for an interesting story on Reagan calling the lowest debt as % of GDP the worst debt when attacking Carter in 1979).

And in that same time period it is worth noting that there has been one balanced budget and that was about 40 years ago. It also worth noting that democrats had a stranglehold on the both the house and senate for a large part of last century. And it is ultimately the congress that spends the money in this country.

 

[irwincur]

So your argument is that economic growth under Bush is better compared to economic growth under Clinton as long as you leave out the massive recession that started during his term and continued for at least several years afterward?

Hate to burst your bubble, but the recession was well under whay during the end of the Clinton presidency. Furthermore, the fiscal cycle is offset from the election cycle by seven or eight months, so you could say that the recession (true recession, not recovery) all occured during Clinton's final fiscal year. In all actuality, the recession was extremely short lived and it was technically over before Bush's first fiscal year even began.

Now that being said, as posted earler, the President has little control over the macro economics of the nation. The Fed and the end users have total control. I guess you could say the media also does, since they can essentially exert control over the end users and change perceptions to fit the need of the day. The last recession in terms of numbers was pretty weak, in terms of media coverage, it seemed to most to be much more major than it was.

It would be much better if they reported the news rather than attempted to make the news. But, this is an age old problem, and I have a feeling that it will not be going away anytime soon.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
So your argument is that economic growth under Bush is better compared to economic growth under Clinton as long as you leave out the massive recession that started during his term and continued for at least several years afterward? Boy, that's just some great stuff, but I'll do you one better. Let's find the 5 minutes when Clinton was President that the economy grew the most and claim THAT as his average. :roll:

The recession actually started during the 3rd quarter of 2000, before Bush was even elected.
Here is evidence of that fact:

GDP growth for the third quarter of 2000 was NEGATIVE .5%, this is the start of the recession.
NASDAQ hits its peak in March of 2000 and was in decline when Bush took office and did not bottom out untill near the end of 2003.
Unemployment hit its lowest point in April and was on the rise when Bush took office.

When Bush took over the economy was already trending downward.

You can find the GDP figures here: Table 1.1.1

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: senseamp

That's not true. The deficit is very closely related to which party is in the White House, not the Congress.

Look back at the historical data, you will find defecits no matter matter which party is in the white house or controlls congress.

All post-WWII debt after inflation is from republican presidents

Democrats = debt down, republicans = debt increase, see the graph

Any questions?

(Read the second graph text for an interesting story on Reagan calling the lowest debt as % of GDP the worst debt when attacking Carter in 1979).

It's that graph again...

Red is not equal to Republicans...
Ike, Nixon/Ford were all Republicans.