Bush economic policy approval soaring

[Jocko]

Found a nice primer page you may want to look at, Ion. It even mentions the jobless factor, though it doesn't exactly endorse it:



Everything you wanted to know about recessions and were forced to find out

 

[Ion]

...
Nor over your assertions that the war is for oil, etc. etc.
...

For a war for oil, do a search in this forum, and you will see links where I show that since October, Chevron sells for profit in U.S., the Iraqi's oil.

 

[Ion]

...It even mentions the jobless factor, though it doesn't exactly endorse it:
...

The jobless recovery is a myth as long as I showed that the U.S. GDP is declining.

Only massaged numbers inflate the GDP numbers.

See, three posts ago about artificially inflated GDP.

 

[Jocko]

I debunked U.S. GDP here:

That's an editorial, as far as I can see. And didn't I just say I didn't want to go into the war for oil issue? That's been done to death already around here.

 

[Ion]

That's an editorial, as far as I can see. And didn't I just say I didn't want to go into the war for oil issue? That's been done to death already around here.

Then it's an editorial.

That makes points.

Worth considering.

Instead of a robotic and mindless GDP graph by toxy.

As for the oil, that's why I didn't bring the link here, because of not going into "...the war for oil issue..." but I mention that "...the war for oil issue..." is amply documented with links in this forum.

 

[Jocko]

Then it's an editorial.

That makes points.

Worth considering.

Instead of a robotic and mindless GDP graph by toxy.

An editorial cannot debunk anything. It's an opinion, perhaps backed by facts, perhaps not. In this case, it does raise some interesting issues, but the fact remains that 6 months of negative GDP=recession, and all the letters to the editor in the world won't change that by itself.

As for the oil, that's why I didn't bring the link here, because of not going into "...the war for oil issue..." but I mention that "...the war for oil issue..." is amply documented with links in this forum.

About as amply as your editorial "debunking" of the GDP. Maybe that's good enough for you, but I don't get my opnions from just one page in the newspaper. No offense meant, but you seem to be confusing opinions with facts, and assumptions with conclusions.

 

[Troll]

Ion please pay attention to reality for a moment.

This thread was a bout Bush and his economy policy approval. It is up. His ratings in te poll as far as economy are up. Dispute it if you like but to do so means you have to show a poll that says his aproval ratings as far as the economy goes are down.

Now you've skipped it and people other than you and even you yourself have posted links and other evidence that shows a rise in the economy. Yes it's been like the last two to three months, but even your links show it.

You don't like Bush, you wish it was otherwise. I can understand and deal with that. But even you own numbers in your own links show that recently things are getting better.

Now ya pissed me off on a tech level though. Software? that's what you do? Kiss my ass. I did the prototyping for numerous things including Direct TV equipment. Others engineers and software guys like you would send stuff to me and others and pray we made it work. When we found faults and errors you freaks would spend more time whining than anything before you discovered you were wrong and then went back and corrected your mistakes.

But at least you're consistent. You seem to be applying the same to your posts. You try something, get told it's wrong, see the proof, deny it, argue it, then go back and fix it later. You're just shy of fixing it right now.

 

[BTox]

I had better work, more intellectual and with a genuine collegiality in France, after I graduated there.

It all makes sense, now. No wonder you know nothing about economics, or anything else - you were "educated" in France. And no wonder you're a maniacal Bush-hater - you're a cowardly Frenchman! Gee, I should've known...

In any event, forget the Santa advice - you need to seek out the Wizard of Oz. You need a brain AND courage!

 

[BTox]

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.

Still don't know how to read a graph - there's that French education for you! I see why you are so bitter about your occupation and meager salary.

 

[BTox]

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

That fool doesn't realize that employment and consumer confidence always lags a recovery. The fact is both are increasing now and have been for months.

 

[Ion]

Ion please pay attention to reality for a moment.

This thread was a bout Bush and his economy policy approval. It is up. His ratings in te poll as far as economy are up.
...

With jobs from 132,000,000 in Feb. 2001 to 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003, with consumer confidence from 136 in 2000 to 91 in Nov. 2003, there is no approval "...soaring...".

Otherwise the consumer confidence would be higher than 91, would be around 136.

So:

no "...soaring...".

 

[Ion]

This:

An editorial cannot debunk anything. It's an opinion, perhaps backed by facts, perhaps not.
...

is too general.

In particular here, U.S. sheds jobs, so the GDP must be massaged like that article calculates the fake.

 

[Ion]

It all makes sense, now. No wonder you know nothing about economics, or anything else - you were "educated" in France.
...

You speak like if you knew better than me..

132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush, 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush, and consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush, 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush, that's recession.

During this recession, Bush took taxes from the consumer economy and wasted them in a war for oil.

During this recession, Bush didn't invest these taxes in the economy.

 

[Ion]

Still don't know how to read a graph - there's that French education for you! I see why you are so bitter about your occupation and meager salary.

I read graphs better than you:

.) 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush and 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush and 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush.

 

[Jocko]

This:

is too general.

In particular here, U.S. sheds jobs, so the GDP must be massaged like that article calculates the fake.

It doesn't make anything fake. It's an opinion, an interpretation of what a "recovery" is. I could say I measure a recovery by the amount of trick-or-treaters I got last Halloween - that doesn't make it a fact.

If you're complaining that the recovery isn't impacting all sectors at the same rate, I'd agree. I'd also point out that's always been the case. And what BTox says is true - employment always lags behind GDP increases because producers want to know if hiring makes sense in the long term. I don't know how to quantify that, but it's always been true in the past.

Recovery starts with spending. Accumlated inventories drop, and eventually producers must ramp up production. But they're not going to do it until they have to, right? It all makes perfect sense if you think about it.

All the same, you'd best invest in a dictionary before you use "recession" erroneously again.

 

[Jocko]

I read graphs better than you:

.) 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001 before Bush and 130,000,000 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) consumer confidence of 136 in 2000 before Bush and 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush.

The tech bubble burst. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame your own marketing department and the investing fools who listened to them.

 

[Ion]

That fool doesn't realize that employment and consumer confidence always lags a recovery. The fact is both are increasing now and have been for months.

Really?

Comparing worst under Bush with mediocre under Bush?

You have to show me that both jobs and consumer confidence increase under Bush for a sustained sequence of many quarters, to say that there is a trend (and a trend only) out of the recession.

As of now, there are not even two consecutive quarters of job and consumer confidence growth, under Bush since 2001.

It there are -ever under Bush- many quarters of growth, that would be only a trend out of the recession, and the question is why did Bush not invest money in the economy so that the recession wouldn't have taken place to begin with?

 

[Ion]

It doesn't make anything fake.
...

The loss of jobs -a hard fact- makes the GDP calculation a fake.

That article explains how.

 

[Ion]

There we go:

The tech bubble burst.
...

Here is where Bush could have invested some of the $100 billion that he wasted in a war for oil in Iraq.

 

[Jocko]

The loss of jobs -a hard fact- makes the GDP calculation a fake.

That article explains how.

You mean the EDITORIAL OPINES how.

Sorry, Ion, you're obviously far too convinced that the entire world is wrong for me to continue. Good luck in your industry.