| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 169
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |     |
We can hope... but I created jobs last December too, and I seriously doubt that any of them were in the "1000" numberthat was tossed around so frequently. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
They were probably in the statistics, because it's an estimate. Let's hope they know (or assume) there are businesses like yours. You don't have to be individually counted to officially count. Kinda like when you're at Yankee Stadium and they announce that today's attendance is 11,351 fans, and you figure that the '1' at the end of the number is you. It can be, or it can be someone else. In any case, you were counted.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
las
Citizen
Username: Las
Post Number: 8
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Yeah, Tom, that sounds great. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 215
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
From the WSJ...read the entire article...I like the last line...This should provide the administration with some respect. Now we need to see how the deficit plays out. Perhaps AG will say something similar in six months about the administration claims of the long term effect of the deficit.
Greenspan Sees New Strength,
But Says Deficits Are a Danger
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday the U.S. economy has made "impressive gains" since last summer and predicted that even the lagging jobs market should perk up in coming months.
But he also cited the soaring federal deficit as a risk factor, saying the problem must be addressed soon to avoid the threat of "serious longer-term fiscal difficulties."
In delivering part of the Fed's twice-a-year economic report to Congress, Mr. Greenspan repeated the central bank's recent pledge to be patient in keeping interest rates at a 45-year low to ensure that the economic rebound takes hold. However, he cautioned that such low interest rates "will not be compatible indefinitely" with the Fed's primary job of fighting inflation.
Financial markets tumbled in late January after the Fed dropped a promise it had been making since August -- to keep rates low "for a considerable period" -- and replaced that phrase with the pledge to be "patient" before raising rates.
Testifying Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Greenspan delivered a generally upbeat outlook, saying the economy's prospects had "brightened" since his last report in July. He said conditions had been helped by a reduction in geopolitical tensions, strengthened consumer and business confidence and a sharp rebound in economic growth as measured by the gross domestic product.
"Overall, the economy has made impressive gains in output and real incomes; however progress in creating jobs has been limited," Mr. Greenspan told the committee.
But even in the jobs area, Mr. Greenspan held out hopes for an improvement in coming months as continued strong GDP growth makes businesses more confident about hiring back laid-off workers. "As managers become more confident in the durability of the expansion, firms will surely once again add to their payrolls," Mr. Greenspan said.
But he also said the optimism could turn out to be misplaced if any of a number of risks derail the economy's prospects. Among the risks he listed were a sharp increase in oil and natural gas prices and the possibility that investors will become spooked by the soaring budget deficit. Last week, the administration projected that this year's deficit will hit an all-time high in dollar terms of $521 billion.
"Should investors become significantly more doubtful that the Congress will take the necessary fiscal measures, an appreciable backup in long-term interest rates is possible," said Mr. Greenspan. That view is at odds with the Bush administration, which has argued that the deficits pose no immediate threat of pushing interest rates higher.
Mr. Greenspan devoted a considerable part of his testimony to urging Congress to get control of the soaring deficits, which the administration is pledging to cut in half over the next five years.
Mr. Greenspan said the need to start taking action is critical in light of the country's soaring current account deficit, which hit $550 billion last year, requiring the U.S. to borrow that amount from foreigners during a period when the dollar is weakening in value. "Given the already substantial accumulation of dollar-denominated debt, foreign investors, both private and official, may become less willing to absorb ever-growing claims on U.S. residents," he said.
Many private economists are concerned that if foreigners suddenly become spooked and start dumping their U.S. holdings, stock prices could plunge and interest rates soar.
Mr. Greenspan's testimony was accompanied by a new Fed forecast for 2004 that was moderately more optimistic about the economy than was the July forecast. The new forecast predicted the GDP will grow by between 4.5% and 5% in 2004, up from a July forecast that had pegged 2004 growth at between 3.75% and 4.75%.
The Fed predicted that the unemployment rate, which dropped in January to 5.6% , would show a slight improvement this year, edging down to be 5.25% and 5.5% by the fourth quarter. The Fed projected that inflation will remain under control with an inflation gauge tied to the GDP rising by just 1% to 1.25% this year, around the level that the Fed considers as representing price stability.
Bush Jobs Projection Isn't 'Fantasyland'
During a question-and-answer period, Mr. Greenspan said the Bush administration's expectation that employers will add 2.6 million jobs this year if recent tax cuts are made permanent isn't "fantasyland" but the "most likely projection" of what will happen in the job market.
He said employers so far haven't created many jobs as the economy has recovered because they've been able to squeeze more output from fewer workers. In January, employers created just 112,000 jobs more than they eliminated. Since 2001, employers have made net cuts of more than two million jobs and have restored barely a tenth of them during the recovery.
But Mr. Greenspan said the rapid productivity gains of workers -- more than 5% last year -- is bound to slow to a rate closer to the historical average of about 2.5%.
"My impression that the backlog of unexploited inefficiencies is probably running out, and if so it's probable we will fall back to a more normal level of productivity growth." When that happens, he said, jobs will grow "significantly."
"Is the administration's forecast feasible? If productivity growth slows down to more historic levels, it's probably feasible," Mr. Greenspan said. He later added, "I don't think it's fantasyland. I think it's probably the most likely projection."
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 967
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
A response to the AG presentation. This is an editorial from the NYT. In light of AG being duped by the Bushies on the issue of tax cuts and deficits, one wonders how much spin Greenspan incorporates in his presentation.
February 12, 2004
Mr. Greenspan Weighs In
Alan Greenspan has cleared up any questions about whether a half-trillion-dollar deficit is a danger to the American economy, and whether the huge Bush tax cuts are part of the problem. Testifying before Congress yesterday in that polite, jargon-riddled way of his, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted the Bush administration and its allies, who have been dismissing the significance of deficits. Mr. Greenspan also complained about "diminished restraint" on discretionary spending — perhaps an indication that he has lost some faith in the conservative credo that cutting revenue is the best way to control spending.
Mr. Greenspan's warning that the "outsized federal demands on national saving" will appreciably raise long-term interest rates is the stuff of Econ 101 orthodoxy: if the government gobbles up too much credit, it drives up the cost of capital for the rest of us. But apologists for the Bush administration's reckless fiscal policies like to write off such thinking.
Mr. Greenspan's overall outlook on the economy is quite bullish, but the most striking thing about his testimony was that he did not confine his warnings about federal deficits to the long term. He said they threatened his short-term rosy scenario.
Listening to Mr. Greenspan testify is more interesting in the context of what we now know about the early Bush administration. According to a recent account by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Mr. Greenspan backed the tax cuts because of a mistaken belief that he and Mr. O'Neill would be powerful enough to convince the White House and Congress that the reductions should be temporary. The notion was to include a trigger mechanism that would revoke the cuts in the event of budgetary conditions like the ones the nation is now facing. We know now, and presumably Mr. Greenspan understands as well, that this is an administration whose commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthy is not subject to any respect for sound financial management.
Given the relatively meager slice of federal spending that can be substantially cut and the alarmingly meager federal receipts, as a percentage of the economy, there is only one responsible way for Congress to heed Mr. Greenspan's warnings about those spiraling deficits. Instead of debating whether some of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, it's time to consider rolling some of them back.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4632
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
You can't belief a word AG, as he now seems to be called here, says. After all he is a Clinton holdover like Tenet!!
Look for him to be replaced before the cherry trees bloom!! |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
The law requires replacement of Greenspan, for better or worse.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
I recommend visiting http://www.marketplace.org/shows/2004/02/11_mpp.html and clicking on the link marked "Commentary - Democrats and growing the economy from the bottom up". You get to hear an audio commentary by Robert Reich who used to be Secretary of Labor. He outlines what he thinks will do the best job at growing the economy.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 357
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
No offense, but Robert Reich maintains the traditional democratic view where income re-distribution must occur and that taxes must be increased. He suggests this be accomplished by increasing taxes only upon those very rich folks, the highest 1%. He justifies this by saying they will be taxed at a rate no higher than they once were 25 years ago.
Regardless of your personal level of experience with economics, please ask yourself this one question. The money Reich suggests going into government via taxes, where is it being used presently. Can you guess?
I suggest that it is being used in important ways to fuel the economic recovery we are currently experiencing. Once you take that money out of the economy and give it to government, it will no longer be able to used as efficiently. The resulting impact will be to stymie or eventually hault the pace of economic recovery. The government has a history of inefficiently wasting money. It is this money, the large amounts of capital held by the rich that is crutial to continued economic recovery. Once it has been given a chance to do what it is doing so well, tax revenues will result. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 358
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
If you really wish to focus solely upon the deficit go right ahead. However, as the economy improves, so will tax revenues. In fact the entire tax base will expand. Give it a little time, look back at history. What does it tell us?
You can raise taxes later on, once jobs have returned and revenues are up. What's your hurry? Defecits aren't all that bad when they are temporary. Stop having so much gloom and doom in your desire to see the Bush administration fail. After all America is your country too! |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4642
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
What is the difference between tax money spent by the government and the same money left in the hands of individuals to spend as they see fit?
Back in the 1950s we spent billions of tax dollars on interstate highways and defense and the economy prospered. Is an individual buying a Mercedes or a Bimmer better for the economy than the government buying four or five Fords or a Humvee or two? Does money invested in the stock market (where I suspect a lot of tax savings is going) create jobs?
This isn't philosophical, just practical. I am not a fan of 70% tax rates for the top 1% although I don't think their total tax bite percentage, including payroll taxes, should be lower than a working stiffs.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Guess again, cowboy. In the commentary I referred you to, Reich didn't say any of that. I invite you to listen to what he said and speak of the merits thereof.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2260
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Bobk,
I am sure that if we had given the rich back their tax dollars in the 1950s, they would have funded the interstate highway system privately.
Look, Bushenomics makes perfect sense. You need faith and pixie-dust. Perhaps you are short on one or the other of these ingredients. Check at your local Reelect Bush office and freshen up your supply. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2125
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Defecits aren't all that bad when they are temporary.
Quite true, when they're an investment in the economy. The rich and powerful are not currently investing their tax cuts in our economy, they're shipping jobs away.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 704
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
I don't think that's true Tom venture capital is on the rise. The firm we work with is in the process of starting 6 new companies. Two years ago they only did 1. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 359
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
It’s sad when the two most notorious “reluctant to take a stand” posters provide further evidence of the lack of fundamental knowledge regarding key economic theory.
Bobk- "What is the difference between tax money spent by the government and the same money left in the hands of individuals to spend as they see fit?"
Gee, I guess there is no difference Bobk. No difference whatsoever...
Tom- "The rich and powerful are not currently investing their tax cuts in our economy, they're shipping jobs away."
Right, and you go right on believing that to be true Tom. They will try to control everything, so they must be stopped. Vote Democratic and redistribute their wealth.
Guys, redistribute all of the wealth all you want. It will only be a matter of time before it goes to those who provide better products and services. That is the key to successful business. Of course, that means you are just going to have to take it away from them again.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Cowboy, your opportunity to impress me is in taking up my invitation and listening to Reich for about two or three minutes. He does not argue in favor of income redistribution. He argues in investing in the bottom rungs of the economy, in things like education. But he is a better speaker than I am, so the best way to refute his points are to hear him make them.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Cowboy,
What's the economic theory. Bobk was noting the FACT that certain things that we value would not exist without government spending. If it were the case that the private sector would develop the infrastructure we value, then I would agree that tax cuts are a great idea.
Now, I was starting to say that if the government had never built any roads, then GM, Chrysler and FoMoCo would have done it. But I don't think so. We'd all be driving tracked vehicles on mud sloughs called roads. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 172
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Of course money invested in the stock market creates jobs... thats probably the biggest creator of jobs possible. Sheesh. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 360
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 1, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
Another good indication of strong growth.
Employment index for the manufacturing sector rose to the highest level since 12/87.
The BLS will report the employment situtation for Feb this Friday, March 5th.
From the WSJ:
Employment Picture Improves
For the Manufacturing Sector
By JAMES R. HAGERTY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
U.S. factory production remained strong in February, according to a private research group, amid signs that lower federal income taxes are encouraging consumers to keep spending.
The Institute for Supply Management said its index of manufacturing activity registered 61.4. Though down from 63.6 in January, it was still a strong showing; readings above 50 point to expansion.
"It appears that the manufacturing sector has sustainable momentum at this point," said Norbert J. Ore, director of procurement at Georgia-Pacific Corp. and head of the ISM survey, which gathers data from purchasing agents at more than 400 industrial companies. "This month, many respondents are particularly encouraged by the increased breadth of the recovery in manufacturing."
The purchasing agents surveyed were particularly bullish on employment in the sector. The ISM's employment index rose to 56.3 from 52.9 in January. The February number was the highest since December 1987.
The latest reading "shows that employment prospects in manufacturing appear to be improving rapidly," economists at Bear Stearns & Co. said in a report. That should encourage economists and investors as they await Friday's U.S. government report on employment in the economy as a whole, which has been feeble in recent months.
Meanwhile, reports from the Commerce Department showed fairly strong consumer spending and wage growth for employees.
Personal income edged up 0.2% in January, the smallest increase since August and well below expectations. Economists had expected a gain of 0.6%, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC.
That weakness partly reflected declines in farm, interest and rental income. By contrast, wages of employees on company payrolls increased a solid 0.5%, partly because of a longer average workweek. Personal tax payments dropped 4.9%, helped by bigger refunds, leaving more money in consumers' pockets. As a result, disposable income was up 0.8% from December and 5.2% from a year earlier.
But consumers didn't blow all of that extra cash. Consumer spending rose 0.4% in January, in line with expectations. The savings rate climbed to 1.8% in January from 1.4% in December.
A separate report from the Commerce Department showed construction spending dropped 0.3% in January. It was the first decline since May. Spending fell in office construction and was flat for homes.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page