Bush economic policy approval soaring

[BTox]

Did you refute the two graphs showing recession, toxy?

Perhaps you don't know what a graph is. The only graph in this thread is the one I provided which clearly shows the recession has been over for more than a year.

When?

Who?

Do they feed you GDP, over there in New Jersey?

Yes, it is quite tasty.

 

[Ion]

'Bush economic policy approval soaring', eh, toxy the light of New Jersey?

Go to the U.S. Department of Labor, at:

THIS PAGE

click in the box under "Seasonally adjusted" next to "Total nonfarm" (on the top line), then scroll to the bottom and click on the "Retrieve data" button, you will get the chart to which I am referring.

It shows a peak value of 132,560,000 jobs right after Bush took office in February, 2001.

Jobs immediately begin to be lost, with the bottom of the recession being a value of 130,204,000 jobs in July, 2002, followed by a blip upwards and a double-bottom in December, 2002, at 130,198,000 jobs.

It blipped upwards again and then gave us the triple-bottom number of 129,846,000 jobs in July of 2003.

The number of jobs has been bouncing up again (to the latest figure of 130,174,000 jobs), but it is too early to say with any certainty that there won't be a quadruple bottom sometime early next year.

So far, the economy just isn't creating any jobs to speak of (or else, isn't creating jobs as fast as they are being shipped overseas....).

 

[Ion]

...
Who?
...

toxy.

Of course:

toxy.

toxy needs to learn what does a graph from the U.S. Department of Labor mean:

.) after toxy gets the chart of numbers, as I described, above, toxy must click on the check box near the top that says "Include graphs (new)" next to it;

.) then toxy must select a year range of 1999 through 2003 and click on the "Go" button.

The peak of this graph showing U.S. employment is at Bush's inauguration.

Then it peaks out under Bush.

Until now, November 2003.

Suuuuuure (by toxy's imbecility):

"...soaring...".

 

[Ion]

Regarding the Consumer confidence index, I found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

which shows a peak in 2000, then a decline under Bush in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

So is not like Jocky, Trolly, and Toxy (aka: The Bush-Lapdog-Brothers) claim in this thread that it is just in my wireless telecommunications industry, and that it is just a lack of confidence in the consumer industry in San Diego only:

the lack of consumer confidence under Bush is nationwide and is in all fields.

After my two demonstrations of job and confidence loss under Bush, to summarize my position again:

Bush takes tax money from the consumer industry, develops the U.S. military complex while bringing a lack of consumer confidence that maintains until today the U.S. economic recession, and he invests this tax money in a war for oil in Iraq.

So, suuuuure toxy-the-light-of-New-Jersey:

"...soaring..." eh?

 

[BTox]

It shows a peak value of 132,560,000 jobs right after Bush took office in February, 2001.

Jobs immediately begin to be lost, with the bottom of the recession being a value of 130,204,000 jobs in July, 2002, followed by a blip upwards and a double-bottom in December, 2002, at 130,198,000 jobs.

It blipped upwards again and then gave us the triple-bottom number of 129,846,000 jobs in July of 2003.

The number of jobs has been bouncing up again (to the latest figure of 130,174,000 jobs), but it is too early to say with any certainty that there won't be a quadruple bottom sometime early next year.

So far, the economy just isn't creating any jobs to speak of (or else, isn't creating jobs as fast as they are being shipped overseas....).

See, you're learning something. You just re-iterated exactly what I posted. At least you admit you were wrong... a start.

 

[BTox]

toxy.

Of course:

toxy.

toxy needs to learn what does a graph from the U.S. Department of Labor mean:

.) after toxy gets the chart of numbers, as I described, above, toxy must click on the check box near the top that says "Include graphs (new)" next to it;

.) then toxy must select a year range of 1999 through 2003 and click on the "Go" button.

The peak of this graph showing U.S. employment is at Bush's inauguration.

Then it peaks out under Bush.

Until now, November 2003.

Suuuuuure (by toxy's imbecility):

"...soaring...".

It took you two posts to confirm what I posted in one paragraph? Gee, you're right, you really do have a low IQ.

BTW, the "soaring" is Bush's approval rating on his handling of the economy, which is, although it pains you greatly to even read it, the truth.

 

[BTox]

Regarding the Consumer confidence index, I found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

which shows a peak in 2000, then a decline under Bush in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

And you now also see that consumer confidence is on the rise after the recession ended over a year ago, with the economy booming at a rate not seen in over 20 years. Case closed, once again.

Pleasant dreams, nitwit!

 

[Ion]

See, you're learning something. You just re-iterated exactly what I posted. At least you admit you were wrong... a start.

I admit that you are learning from me that you are wrong:

the peak in employment is at Bush's inauguration:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in February 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in November 2003 under Bush.

How is this for a recession, dumby?

 

[Ion]

...
BTW, the "soaring" is Bush's approval rating on his handling of the economy, which is, although it pains you greatly to even read it, the truth.

Only toxies are soaring with approval.

The graph shows a loss of jobs under Bush.

But toxies soar with approval.

 

[Ion]

And you now also see that consumer confidence is on the rise after the recession ended over a year ago, with the economy booming at a rate not seen in over 20 years. Case closed, once again.

Pleasant dreams, nitwit!

Compared to 2000?

The confidence is lower:

.) 136 in 2000;

.) 91.7 in November 2003.

"...the economy booming..."?

I showed you a loss of jobs and confidence compared with 2000.

toxy, this must be hard for you...

 

[BTox]

Compared to 2000?

The confidence is lower.

"...the economy booming..."?

I showed you a loss of jobs and confidence compared with 2000.

toxy, this must be hard for you...

You try the same tactics as that other lunatic Rouser. Make a false claim, have it shot down with facts, then say you claimed differently. Let's repeat:

Ion: 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

Wrong.

Ion: 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

Wrong.


Keep hoping that maybe Santa brings you that functional brain next xmas!

 

[Ion]

You try the same tactics as that other lunatic Rouser. Make a false claim, have it shot down with facts, then say you claimed differently. Let's repeat:

Ion: 'Total nonfarm payroll employment' shows a peak of a little over 132 million jobs in 2000, then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of a little under 130 million jobs.

Wrong.

Ion: 'Consumer confidence index' shows a peak in 2000 at close to 150 (in whatever units they measure it), then a constant degradation (like I posted) up until today of 91.7.

Wrong.


Keep hoping that maybe Santa brings you that functional brain next xmas!

I think you just showed that my claim is right, dumby:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in Feb, 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in Nov. 2003, under Bush;

and

.) 136 consumer confidence index in 2000, before Bush;

.) 91.7 consumer confidence index in Nov. 2003, under Bush.

Got the recession now, dumby?

 

[Ion]

I think you just showed that my claim is right, dumby:

.) 132,560,000 jobs in Feb, 2001, before Bush;

.) 130,174,000 jobs in Nov. 2003, under Bush;

and

.) 136 consumer confidence index in 2000, before Bush;

.) 91.7 consumer confidence index in Nov. 2003, under Bush.

Got the recession now, dumby?

dumby,

are you there?

dumby?

dumby?

where are you?

Let me try this:

toxy? are you there?

 

[Ion]

toxy-the-light-of-New-Jersey-aka-dummy-aka-dumby:

do you think that (132,560,000-130,174,000), which is 2,386,000 less jobs under Bush, and many underemployed under Bush, that explains why the consumer confidence index dropped from 136 in 2000 before Bush to 91.7 under Bush in November 2003?

I think, it does, dumby.

This is the key of the recession in the consumer economic that persists under Bush:

Bush wastes tax money -taken from the consumer economy- into an useless war.

dumby?

Do you follow?

dumby?

 

[Jocko]

Btox and Ion, you're both going nowhere until you agree on terms. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth - by definition. Ion, if you're claiming that things are tight and the recovery is slow, fine, but to call it a recession is outright incorrect.

I've heard it called a jobless recovery; perhaps that term better addresses your point?

 

[Ion]

Every sequence of two consecutive quarters until now, fits the definition of recession.

There are no two consecutive quarters of growth, since the beginning of 2001.

 

[Ion]

...
I've heard it called a jobless recovery; perhaps that term better addresses your point?

It is not a jobless recovery, it is a downright recession compounded by irresponsibly wasting tax money in a war for oil.

For a jobless recovery, see how I debunk the myth of the GDP on the previous page, where I show that U.S. is massaging GDP numbers with investments in the IT equipment.

Without this massage, the GDP goes down, and so are the jobs going down.

 

[Jocko]

Every sequence of two consecutive quarters until now, fits the definition of recession.

There are no two consecutive quarters of growth, since the beginning of 2001.

I should have remarked also that negative growth defined by GDP. Now, some sources I find also include employment, which would bolster your position, but then others include deflation, which we haven't experienced and would therefore disagree. The one uniform definition I find is negative GDP growth.

Frankly, you and Btox tossing employment numbers back and forth has crossed my eyes so I'm bowing out on that issue.

 

[Jocko]

It is not a jobless recovery, it is a downright recession compounded by irresponsibly wasting tax money in a war for oil.

For a jobless recovery, see how I debunk the myth of the GDP on the previous page, where I show that U.S. is massaging GDP numbers with investments in the IT equipment.

You didn't debunk squat, all you gave were opinions and I don't feel like getting into a spat with you over it. Nor over your assertions that the war is for oil, etc. etc. Just trying to help clarify your terms.

 

[Ion]

I debunked U.S. GDP here:

...
Regarding "...he actually believes that if no one is buying or investing in IT equipment it shows that the GDP will not increase, even if other areas are getting heavy increases in investments." this:

http://persia2.asia1.com.sg/NASApp/...1.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,94718,00.html

(with registration required, unfortunately)


has this quote about U.S. manipulating GDP with IT numbers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of a boost has this 'innovative' growth accounting contributed to US real GDP? Between Q2 2000 and Q2 2003, American real GDP has grown by a cumulative 4.6 per cent. As seen above, real investment in IT equipment has increased 43.5 per cent in this period. Further, the average contribution of computers and peripheral equipment to US real GDP growth - based on Table 8.2 of the National Income Tables - works out to 11.4 per cent over the last three years.

That is, 'real investment' in computers and peripheral equipment has contributed 5 per cent (43.5 per cent multiplied by 11.4 per cent) to US real GDP growth over this three-year period. This exceeds the real GDP growth rate of 4.6 per cent. In other words, but for the hedonic adjustment to prices (quality-adjusted price change) of IT equipment, American real GDP over the last three years would have stagnated at best or contracted at worst. So should one be surprised that the American economy still sheds jobs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it reveals the truth behind the recent surge in productivity numbers: output boosted by hedonic accounting and divided by a shrinking labour input would naturally result in a higher productivity rate. It is just a statistical artefact.

Not only are these tales not being fully told, these statistics are used to berate the economic performance of other countries and regions in the world. In fairness, comparisons should be made only after removing the effect of quality-adjusted deflation in the US data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. statistics on GDP could be a grander version of Enron books.


So, no more garbage about U.S. GDP measuring economic output, OK?