Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Prosperity in George Bush's Economy

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted January 6, 2006.


Why are folks so pessimistic about our boom-boom American economy? Because for most of us, it's painful to live in.
010606_story
Prosperity in George Bush's Economy

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The economy the cable news networks gush about is going gangbusters. We're hearing about 10 straight quarters of strong growth in gross domestic product, and jobs being created at a clip of over 2 million per year. Unemployment is down, and more Americans own their homes than ever before. And don't forget, Americans' net worth is at an all-time high! And all this prosperity, the corporate media will tell you, is thanks to five years of President George Bush.

But that's an economic picture you won't find hanging on the wall in any normal American house. Most of us know that we're not doing as well today as we were a few years ago. According to a recent Gallup Poll, almost two-thirds of those asked said the economy was "fair" or "poor," and almost six in 10 thought it was getting worse.

That disconnect has left many commentators -- especially on the right -- either scratching their heads with befuddlement or raging apoplectically at the bias of the "liberal media."

National Review author Victor Davis Hanson scolded those who read the New York Times for living "in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell." In "the real adult world," Hanson wrote, "the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty." But in fact, there are 5 million more Americans living in poverty today than there were four years ago.

Gerard Baker, the U.S. editor for Rupert Murdoch's Times of London wrote, "when it comes to economics, all but America's most fervent critics can still only marvel."

"Everything in the American garden is lovely," Baker continued, "So why the long face, buddy?"

I'll tell you why the long face: The economy most of us experience from day to day has been nothing short of painful over the past five years.

Consider these numbers from the Economic Policy Institute -- a left-leaning think-tank (this essay leans heavily on EPI's excellent research):

  • Salaries are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. That, while productivity -- the growth of the economic pie -- is up by almost 15 percent. Meaning we're working harder, producing more, for the same money as five years ago.
  • Since the recession ended in 2001, 50 percent more of the growth in corporate income was sucked up as profits than after past recessions. That's left less for those of us who work for a living.
  • As a result, median household income has now fallen for five years in a row. It was 4 percent, or $2,000, lower in 2004 than it was in 1999.

That last figure means that Joe and Jane Average American -- the household smack in the middle of the booming go-go American economy -- have gotten a pay cut for five years in a row. Small wonder they're sporting long faces.

And that hasn't occurred in a bubble; health care costs for that same family (with kids) rose over 40 percent -- yeah, 40 percent --between 2000 and 2003.

Here's a brief guide for sorting out the economy we live in versus the one we're supposed to feel fuzzy and warm about.

Go-go GDP

It's not just that the growth in GDP over the past four years has been skewed towards investors -- it has -- it's that much of it is a chimera. Defense spending, consumer spending -- financed largely by debt -- and rising home values have been the growth engines for the current recovery. Author James Howard Kunstler estimates that from "2001 through 2005, consumer spending and residential construction had together accounted for 90 percent of the total growth in GDP." [italics mine]

That growth hasn't been free and isn't sustainable. U.S. household debt, adjusted for inflation, rose by more than a third over the last four years. Mortgage and consumer debt equals 115 percent of after-tax income, and the amount American families spend paying off those debts is at an all-time high of almost 14 percent of their paychecks. In other words Americans are all paying a hefty monthly debt tax to banks and creditors on top of what we already pay the government.

Wealth, wealth everywhere

The National Review's Jerry Bowyer blames the "mainstream media" for "obsessing over the level of debt of the average American family, which they only look at in a vacuum, [and] completely ignoring the growth of family net worth." If they were honest, he argues, they'd have to acknowledge "the highest level of household wealth in our nation's history."

But much of that newfound wealth is in our homes, and all signs point to a bubble in the sky-high housing market (although it varies widely by region). According to the Center for Economic Policy Research [PDF] -- a progressive think tank -- the current market "has created more than $5 trillion in bubble wealth, the equivalent of $70,000 per average family of four." Housing prices are way above their historic pattern when you look at demand, population and earnings. What's more, the price for home sales has been way out of step with the rental market -- something one wouldn't expect to see if the high prices were based on economic fundamentals. The estate might be real, but its value isn't.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
as well as!!
Posted by: ian_m64 on Jan 6, 2006 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent piece! This hardship is all across the world. The rich has gotten so rich that it does make everyone else look like losers. The South and Central Americas are going left and Canada is flirting with higher approvals for the left party - NDP. The media is not talking about this. Keep the people uninformed and they would accept anything crumbs that falls off the table. Mr Reagan's Economics is alive and well and growing but only the controlling circles benifits. We should demand that all peoples are respected and represented equally in society but that is just too much to ask from this soceity that is focused on feel-good games and gimmicks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: as well as!! Posted by: technocrat
The Most Telling Part of the Article...
Posted by: Armafied on Jan 6, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Despite our great wealth, we're an unhappy people; we lead the world in mental health problems year in and year out."

We are such an advanced civilization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the republic
Posted by: the republic on Jan 6, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article.

The Dow is where it was in early 2001. Other indices are down over the same time period. Progress? Not so much.

And when they tout GDP growth, I liken it to this scenario.

Assume Bill Gates and I are the entire economy. Assume last year, he was worth 1 billion dollars and I was worth 100,000.

Assume this year, Bill is worth 1.5 bil and a health issue put me in BK. GDP went up - like I would care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the republic Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: the republic Posted by: Krotos
» RE: the republic Posted by: A. James
Still Voodoo Economics
Posted by: DCH on Jan 6, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan started it with systematic attacks on organized labor and the absurd notion that concentration of wealth was prefferable to the equitable distribution of wealth. The axiom that unregulated capitolisim is dangerous is being played out as governance is being achieved by the judiciary. We are in dangerous times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Economy is GREAT!
Posted by: tcx2 on Jan 6, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you like working at McDonalds, that is.

This whole service economy is looking better by the day, I tell ya. A nation of minimum wage slaves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Economy is GREAT! Posted by: cyclone
» RE: The Economy is GREAT! Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: The Economy is GREAT! Posted by: cyclone
It's Boom Boom if you're rich
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 6, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you own stock in oil or utilities you're sitting pretty. The rest of us that have to earn the right to survive,there is no 'boom' and most would probably say it was a bust.
You know there reallyare folks that make 25,000 a yaer,live modestly and still scrimp on the food budget just to get by. That means no nights out,resturants,or any 'fun' that's not made at home. If you buy what T.V. shovels down our throats,you did'nt give a good enough gift this season if you did'nt gift someone with a Lexus. Get Real!!!
Most folks,even the ones that think they're doing alright, have to watch their money pretty closely. Maybe the food budget is the only thing that gets tight to make all the bills balance,but could you take a $100 increase in your rent? How
about if your car needs a tune-up,a new waterheater for the house,all the kids need new shoes,your new suit got shredded by the dry cleaners and you need it for today's meeting and your spouse chipped a tooth doing God know's what,but won't come out in public until it's fixed and the all need paying TODAY. Not on 25K. Or 45 or 95K, I know folks in all these incomes and not one of them could stand that kind of economic 'hit'. America is over priced and over valued. The products offered are of poor quality and low reliability. Most folks money is sucked out from under them by compound intrest rates. The biggest income scam ever perpitrated on the People. The 60% increase in you utility bills reflects the FINES your utility company has gotten the previous year for over polluting. Try telling your boss you need a fat raise to pay a fine see how far you get.
The problem is numbers. Numbers like 5%. 5% of the people are loving the Bush economic lifestyle.5% have the control.5% think they know what's best for you,me and everyone else.5% think it's perfectly fine to poison your whole family for generations to come so they can keep their fine lifestyles. As for the 95%,we're all kicking and scratching for their 'trickled on' economics entertainment. We all need a kick in the ass!!! We are not the land of 'Richest is Rightest'.
We are a land 'OF THE PEOPLE' We MUST right this nightmare
of economic averice by bringing back the 90% tax bracket for wealthy people and businesses. Greed is a social disease,worse than Herpies, Taxing it is the cure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I knew you were single... Posted by: paulaH
Boom isn't for all
Posted by: lamar on Jan 6, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economy only booms for the few who don't really need it to boom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boom isn't for all Posted by: ALANHESTER
Excellent indeed!
Posted by: redstarwraith on Jan 6, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As my brother told me, "I'd like to keep these facts from this piece at hand to throw in the faces of all the zealot republicans and free-market economists I meet."
If anyone is interested in the psychological side of internalizing that the author talks about at the article's end, I encourage them to read "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kudos, Mr Holland.
Posted by: esactun on Jan 6, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, I would really really really love it if you sent this as an op-ed to every single damn newspaper in the country. Especially those in the red states, as millions of Bush voters still have no idea they're being fleeced, too.

(They're too busy being scared of the terrorist behind every bush, the pinko commie liberals tearing down their churches, the scientists murdering God, the hippies burning their flag, the Mexicans stealing their jobs, the black men marrying their women, and all the other BS red-herring hot buttons the power elites distract them with. Then they proudly go to Wal*Mart to patriotically overextend their credit on cheap junk made in Red China.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kudos, Mr Holland. Posted by: dagoski
» RE: Kudos, Mr Holland. Posted by: goleft
This isn't new but here's some suggestions I recommend Holland and others take to writing on
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 6, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many times when warning signs and articles were posted regarding all this fake "growth" out there. Don't believe me? Take a look at www.moderateindependent.com and read the articles on the real economic situations that have and still continue to exist and you'll see what I mean.

Besides, back in early 2004, it was already being reported that U.S. Labor Department pulled an Enron to fabricate phony March job figures
By Jackson Thoreau


The trick to dealing with this fake rosy scenario is to take it and use it as a weapon. For example, take the statistics on supposedly higher wages and use it against your employer to fight tooth and nail for the pay you know you deserve for all your diligence and conscientous work and never let them force you into the race to the bottom just to help them win their race to the bottom-line. And mind you, you don't have to join the army to muster this kind of courage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One more thing ...
Posted by: JoshuaHolland on Jan 6, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The miracle of tax cuts

The Big Lie that drops so easily from the lips of every economic cheerleader is that the five major tax cuts enacted by George Bush is responsible for the growth we’ve seen since the end of the recession in 2001. That assertion is, simply, nonsense – economic mumbo-jumbo to support the right’s ideological preferences.

The idea takes a sound economic principle -- that targeted tax cuts can spur growth -- and twists it into the harebrained idea that all tax cuts always do. Cutting taxes has become a religion, not a policy tool.

Except for the rebate checks in 2001, the cuts haven’t been designed for their potential stimulus; they’re give-aways to investors paid for by long-term public debt. The proof is in the pudding: $860 billion dollars worth have bought us an economic recovery that by almost every measure is slower and less robust than those in past business cycles. Certainly it has paled next to the recovery in the mid 1990s under Clinton’s watch, after he raised taxes. As economist Lee Price points out [PDF], when $60 billion dollars a year in business tax cuts expired at the end of 2004, it had virtually no effect on investment.

Those cuts were sold by another article of economic faith: that they would stimulate enough growth that the government’s overall revenues wouldn’t be touched. But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that even using the most generous assumptions, only a bit more than a quarter of lost tax revenue might be recouped over the next ten years. Personal income tax receipts, at $802 billion in 2004, were almost twenty percent lower than they were in 2001 ($994 billion). Voo-doo economics, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: badkitty53
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: jeffrey7
» RE: One more thing ... Posted by: cyclone
Confusing
Posted by: benzene on Jan 6, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand the economy much at all. It doesn't make sense to me, primarily in that all the world's current economic models seem to be set up upon the assumption that infinite resources will allow for infinite growth. But the Earth obviously isn't infinite, so this doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone explain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confusing Posted by: cyclone
» RE: Confusing Posted by: tdicks
» RE: Confusing Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: Confusing Posted by: benzene
» RE: Confusing Posted by: JustinObodie
Confusing
Posted by: benzene on Jan 6, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand the economy much at all. It doesn't make sense to me, primarily in that all the world's current economic models seem to be set up upon the assumption that infinite resources will allow for infinite growth. But the Earth obviously isn't infinite, so this doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone explain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confusing Posted by: corylus
Confusing
Posted by: benzene on Jan 6, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand the economy much at all. It doesn't make sense to me, primarily in that all the world's current economic models seem to be set up upon the assumption that infinite resources will allow for infinite growth. But the Earth obviously isn't infinite, so this doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone explain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confusing Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Confusing Posted by: kmeyer
YES, THERE ARE MANY UNHAPPY PEOPLE
Posted by: krose on Jan 6, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES, THERE ARE MANY UNHAPPY/CLINICALLY DEPRESSED PEOPLE OUT THERE, and if they do have health benefits at all, most of them have horrible mental health benefits from HMO plans! Sometimes this limits their treatment to as little as 6 or 12 psychotherapy sessions a year, which allows for only a "band-aid" approach. The HMO's would rather that their clients receive medication and no psychotherapy at all, because it is cheaper! This is symptomatic of the corporate inhumanity that abounds in this country, which would rather export work to the lowest bidder, even if that includes sending it to young children in far away lands, who are being exploited for a few cents a week, in squalid conditions without ANY benefits for themselves! I SHUDDER TO THINK ABOUT HOW FAR WE HAVE REGRESSED AS A PEOPLE, IN A FEW SHORT YEARS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

coporate compensation for federal tax breaks is still in the pockets of CEOs
Posted by: saywhat? on Jan 6, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i am no richer, and in fact poorer since this administration....being self employed i've had to cut and slash my own lifestyle so i can make the mortgage payment....

i don't really know anyone doing better in my circle except for the wealthy , and their charitable enterprises are suppose to be helped by corporations, which previously were funded by the federal government, and corporations are not stepping up to the plate...

i think i last heard a 1.9 trillion deficit? and i am suppose to help the economy by buying cheap stuff at walmart? and we owe the saudis and the chinese $$? sounds to me like we will all be owing the corporate ethos alot of money soon through our personal debt...communists will be capitalists, capitalists will become wahabis, and will be put in prison for what we can't pay back....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GDP alternatives
Posted by: eringhorm on Jan 6, 2006 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read about a few alternatives people are trying to implement for measuring the "success" of a country.

Human Devlopment Index (wiki article here) - Used by the UN Development Programme in it's annual report, this index includes life expectancy and education and links GDP to purchasing power parity.

Genuine Progress Indicator (wiki article here) - A more direct replacement for GDP that attempts to factor in environmental and social costs when determining how a country progresses. For example the Exxon Valdez disaster would actually have produced an increase in GDP because of the money spent on clean-up. The GPI more accurately shows this as a net loss however, since it subtracts the environmental damage from any monetary gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GDP alternatives Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: GDP alternatives Posted by: eringhorm
Oh, the real life fallacy of "trinkle down economics"!
Posted by: kabac55 on Jan 6, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Economic boom? Inflation in check?

I really have to wonder what planet some of these government experts are living on. Granted living in Michigan right now with Delphi in big financial trouble and GM and Ford not so far behind them, my perspective is clouded by the reality of hundreds of people losing their jobs and/or pensions. Along with these large employers, at least 2 smaller manufacturing companies have folded in my current home town in the last 18 months, and several locally owned stores have gone out of business. The local papers are regularly full of pages of mortgage foreclosure notices.

My grocery bill is up with some regular staples rising in price as much as $1.00 since last summer. Utilities are up including city water and sewage and trash collection. If I could afford cable, my rates would be jumping another $5.00/month for basic plus service.

Unemployment is a big problem in MI. And when people are unemployed, they often become involved in other activities--drugs, alcohol, and crime. In Saginaw and Flint, there is often at least one murder or shooting every night of late. Recently there's been a rash of drive-by shootings with people being shot inside their homes.

So much for a booming economy. So much for trickle down economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where is the trickle down?
Posted by: jwg on Jan 6, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer, time to quit sending jobs everywhere but here. The only thing that seems to be keeping the ship afloat is housing and war profiteering, certainly not tax breaks for those that don't need it. The interest deductions that the fed was reviving the economy with have encouraged us to expand our housing, to match our waistlines. But cheer up, this will be the good old days in time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: where is the trickle down? Posted by: Edward George
Now...that's suprising!
Posted by: Ras3hilton on Jan 6, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are all the crazed defenders of the Republic? Can't they see that these "liberal spun facts" need to be attacked en masse? Seriously, I would love to read a comment in here from one of those wacky old Bush supporters. Or could it be that they are ashamed and can't adequately support their viewpoint in the face of such reality? Where are they now?
I mean no offense to those crazed Bush supporters, I'm just really sad for them, because you know they can't all be Cheney-wealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now...that's suprising! Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Now...that's suprising! Posted by: saywhat?
onthewall
Posted by: onthewall on Jan 6, 2006 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An added point to make in this excellent article would be that the Republican Party thrives on the anxiety and feelings of displacement that it produces. For instance, I live in Wyoming.
Of the 96 counties in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, only two, Blaine County (aka Sun Valley) and Teton County (aka Jackson Hole) voted for the Democrat Party presidential candidate in the last election. Supposedly, the well-to-do in these counties had more to lose if Kerry won and taxes were raised. But on a different level, it’s the well-to-do who stand at ease in this world of fast change and relaxed social mores, because it is precisely in this world of globalization and urban prosperity that they succeed.
Whereas for others, the working and rural poor, who feel powerless and are falling ever further behind, it was Bush who managed to run as the outsider who’s angry about the elites, in touch with heartland values, and ready to lead us grimly into the tough new world of deprivation and ugly tradeoffs that are reflected in the everyday situations that his middle and working class supporters face.
This president, who always feels ridiculed and at a loss for words, perfectly embodies the frustrations that so many of his supporters feel and like them he holds for dear life onto a slate of threadbare truths about America’s innate virtue.
When people feel beaten down, they’re drawn to leaders who “have the courage” to “say it like it is.” In other words, while wealth is shoveled into the pockets of shareholders and the executives who do their bidding, the folks who feel baffled and defeated by their own failure take solace in the idea that America “owes no one an apology.”
On global warming, for instance, Bush seems courageous when he says, “I will explain as clearly as I can, today and every other chance I get, that we will not do anything that harms our economy... That’s my priority. I’m worried about the economy.”
Wow!
For the time being, most Americans seem reluctant to question what’s happening because to do so requires an embrace rather than a rejection of governmental actions that would redistribute wealth and more forthrightly address the complex problems that are bearing down on us.
Until people actually begin to question and challenge the social value of the wealth that piles up in enclaves like Jackson Hole and Sun Valley, we’re “lookin’ in all the wrong places.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: onthewall Posted by: veive
» RE: onthewall Posted by: A. James
Matthew
Posted by: mythbuster on Jan 6, 2006 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. It highlights the intentional isolation of disenting voices in our supposed economic success. Barbara Ehrenreich has written about how these creepy success coaches attempt to guilt trip unemployed executives and white collar workers for the downsizing and outsources of their jobs. The reason is clear: if they are responsible for these economic problems, then, by exclusion, neither business or government is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GDP Growth
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 6, 2006 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asise from steadily increasing oil consumption, the only reason GDP growth has continued is because of massive deficit spending. Isn't it obvious? Give me a million dollar loan and of course I'll increase the GDP. Even if I do pay it back I'll buy stuff and sell stuff and buy more and sell more and all of it counts toward the GDP. (But who says I have to pay it back? lol.) It's a total fraud that these people run up the debt and then use that debt to go to the people and say the economy is looking good. It's a [censored] trainwreck waiting to happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bush trumpeting economy
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Jan 6, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the headline for today. I hate them so much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bush trumpeting economy Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: bush trumpeting economy Posted by: overabarrel
» RE: bush trumpeting economy Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: bush trumpeting economy Posted by: branchdavian1
So true
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jan 6, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another great piece by Joshua!

I have been saying many of the same things.

I do find the high ranking of mental health problems to be interesting, our health care cost have been soaring, but mental health coverage is a joke.

A few years ago Metro Transit (bus system in the Twin Cities, MN) went on strike based on increased employee contributions to the health insurance. Letter after letter to the editor talked about how the union should quit whining because they didn't get that good of a benefit.

It was a enough to make you want to scream. Here we were as fellow citizens, trying to drag the union employees down to our crappy level in benefits, when instead we should have turned around and asked why our employers benefits were so inadequate in comparison?

Why is that the uber rich get to whine about the jealousy of the poor and middle class when we want proportional taxation (all taxes as a percent of income), but on something like this the conservative talking heads never mention the jealousy of decent benefits in the same way? Because Dems are not doing enough to fight for economic justice, with the exception to holding fast on social security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sour Grapes
Posted by: bdcbryan@hotmail.com on Jan 6, 2006 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's great how you can turn anything, even a booming economy, into sour grapes with a little spin! Maybe people think the economy and the world is so bad because that is all that they hear from the left. If the American people only hear about doom and gloom day in and day out they will believe it even though all the facts show otherwise. Is it so hard to see that times are always bad for the political group that is out of office? As soon as the liberals gain control of the Oval Office again everything will be great from the environment to the economy to world affairs. And most certainly, conservatives will be telling everyone the sky is falling! I bet my house that if this sort of economic growth was occurring under a left-wing administration, we would hear nothing but joyous celebration from AlterNet’s writers. Does anyone else see this or am I the only one? Do you really buy in to this partisan politics so deeply as not to recognize the hypocrisy from both democrats and republicans?

So if you are a liberal just wait until your party gets control and everything in the world will be restored to perfection! They will even fix the booming economy for you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: bdcbryan@hotmail.com
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: antoniomo
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: mizerock
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: tcx2
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: dogwhisperer
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: Ras3hilton
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: bdcbryan@hotmail.com
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: tcx2
Let's Not Let History Repeat Itself
Posted by: BlueTex on Jan 6, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want Alternet to promise not to employ the language of those who created the "jobless" recovery and widespread poverty to most Americans. Remember that these are the same folks who tanked a vigorous economy that showed no signs of slowing down--despite what Bush has said publically.

From here on out, let's no use the terms: "left, right, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican" unless restating what someone has dubbed themselves or their policy positions. We don't need these implications to determine how to "interpret" the quotes that are supplied. These gratuitous descriptions do nothing to improve the reader's understanding.

For example, why did the author refer to EPI (Economic Policy Institute) as a "LEFTIST" think tank. EPI is pro-labor, but that is not the same as leftist. Leftist is a term created to refer to "communists" theory devotees. EPI DOES NOT ADVOCATE THAT WORKERS OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OR THAT CAPITALISTS ARE BAD.

Now, on to my real comments: All this crap about getting products made overseas to be MORE COMPETITIVE is crap. AMERICANS WERE CONSUMING ABOUT 86 TO 90 PERCENT OF WHAT WE MADE in our domestic market. We export about 10 to 14 percent.

SECONDLY, we tried this same screwed up version of FREE MARKET before. If you remember, during World War I, one of the most devastating developments was the invention of the submarine that the Germans used to "CUT THE SUPPLY ROUTES" to the United States.

During the time that the very wealthy and big business had everything that they wanted: practically no regulations, effectively free markets (i.e. cheap labor) and control over the US government, they owned 85 percent of U.S. wealth while their workers starved. Along came the Great Depression largely caused by bad, pro-wealthy, pro-big business policy caused these problems.

When workers are paid better, the economy does better. CEOs will not be able to pay themselves grandiose salaries that they have not earned, but in the long run, the savings rate will go up; bankruptcies will go down and STOCKHOLDERS will see their investments grow more consistently than those investments do now.


Texas Grrrl

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mizerock
Posted by: mizerock on Jan 6, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is proof that Bush cannot be called "the worst President ever" - he's done exactly what he intended, despite the fact that it required a massive redirection of federal funds, and that only 1% of the electorate is benefiting from these changes. He is truly a genius, more effective than even Ronald Reagan is transforming the economy to benefit those specific people that helped elect him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll take a shot at this idiocy
Posted by: owlsliveintrees on Jan 6, 2006 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, apparently the point of this article is that household net worth is going up but savings is going down. The author points out that there is apparently a HOUSING BUBBLE, which makes the accumulated wealth of the property owning class apparently worth nil. A bubble? You mean prices go up...UNTIL THEY COME DOWN? Wow...crazy talk. Rather than wait and see what comes out of this housing market, idiots like this Joshua Holland fellow (whose expertise is apparently...graduating USC? wow, im impressed) like to point out that prices will come down...well fucking duh! When? he doesn't know. How much? he has no idea, although he relies on a left-leaning think tank to throw out a 70,000 dollar number that apprently we're supposed to listen to. Well, that's it, i'm convinced, honey we're selling the house, and moving to a condo because Joshua Holland says there is a housing bubble. If homeowners had listened to every single screeching liberal whining about a housing bubble the last 3 years, they'd be out a shitload of money. And that's what liberals want.

This is typical liberal garbage. The property owners (we'll call them elites, because it's funny) are sitting on an investment that keeps making money and those who apparently speak in their best interest (alternet maybe? maybe not) are trying to talk down a housing market that liberals have been trying to talk down for the last 3 years.

Why? Because return on investment is the antithesis of modern liberal thought. People buy houses, raise their living standard, but no it's all wrong, right? Because it's unfair for people to make money off investments. That's why liberals love capital gains taxes. Because it punishes people for raising their living standard on their own as opposed to waiting for the government.

Wow, this Josh Holland fellow is a real winner. His cutting edge economic ideas (supply and demand) are what this country needs. It's a good thing alternet gives college kids without any economic expertise a forum, because I can't imagine what I'd do without it. Oh wait, i'll just watch my house go up in value. That'll pass the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'll take a shot at this idiocy Posted by: owlsliveintrees
» owlsliveintrees Posted by: cyclone
» RE: owlsliveintrees Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: owlsliveintrees Posted by: cyclone
» Hey, prick... Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Hey, prick... Posted by: manxome
» RE: I'll take a shot at this idiocy Posted by: dogwhisperer
Don't forget inflation...
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 6, 2006 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government (and the media) tell us that inflation is at the comfortable level of 2 to 3 percent per year. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here is where the real War on the Middle Class is waged. Anyone who accepts this 2-3 percent nonsense just isn't "in touch" with mainstream Americans, and certainly has never paid a utility bill, a property tax bill, or shopped in a grocery store.

I have a decent job with health insurance and a pension plan and I'm pissed. Imagine how pissed I would be if I were like most Americans and had a low paying job with no benefits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rude!
Posted by: bdcbryan@hotmail.com on Jan 6, 2006 8:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your defensiveness and smug attitude reveals that you are extremely insecure. Your personal attacks and calling me a right-winger also demonstrate your lack of intelligence. In fact, I am a libertarian. Anyway, throwing up a bunch of “facts” and then pretending that you’re an expert at something doesn’t make it so. I am not like most of the sheep that read this site – I know what you can do with numbers and I know that you are certainly not an expert especially about the American economy! A freshman at your local high school could have written this for you by pulling together some numbers, referencing a few sources and even throwing in a heart tugging quote from a reader. You have written nothing more than a high school paper. You have left out so many important aspects that your analysis lacks real credibility. It would behoove you to read a few books on the subject of economics. Thomas Sowell, for example, provides a lucid and fascinating introduction to the broad principles of economics in Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. Follow that with Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup and Dwight Lee. Lee was also co-editor (with James Doti) of an outstanding collection of 44 pithy essays, The Market Economy: A Reader. It includes classics from Adam Smith, Fredric Bastiat and John Stuart Mill. Just a few suggested readings so that you don’t look so foolish in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ude! Posted by: drone
» RE: ude! Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: ude! Posted by: bdcbryan@hotmail.com
» RE: ude! Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: ude! Posted by: BriMan
» RE: ude! Posted by: Ratskii
Population and Economics
Posted by: benzene on Jan 6, 2006 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To expand upon a post above, I also have to wonder about the assumption of population growth built into current economic models. We know that the earth is not infinite in spite of our economies being based upon the eventuality of infinite resources. However, in order for businesses to grow and be able to post larger successive net profits, they must 1) cut the costs of producing their product or 2) sell more of their product. Therefore, for most companies, population growth is necessary for dividend growth. The exception to this would be industries with lots of repeat business (such as Shell and ExxonMobil). I understand the tenets above, but I have to still ask:
Is it possible for the economy to continue growing when the population is shrinking?
I know that this is the case of some countries such as Sweden and Italy, but I don't have any economic data from these countries handy. Could someone please enlighten me as to their situations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

eye in the pyramid
Posted by: cheesemissile on Jan 7, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Left, right, whatever. Politics are a puppet dance. This is all part of the Illuminati scheme unveiling the New World Order right before our eyes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

walt
Posted by: wrogal on Jan 7, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really amazing how many people out there think that the economy is, as King "Big Brother" George said in Chicago yesterday, "on the right track" (Like the war in Iraq!)! I invite anyone who thinks that the economy is "on the right track" to go down to an unemployment office anywhere in the country and ask anyone waiting in line to get benefits if they think the economy is "on the right track"!! I am forced to work temporary jobs and have been out of "permanent" work for over 6 months because the economy is on the "right track"! My wife's hours have been cut to making her part-time because the economy is "on the right track"! The client company I am temping for, its employees are getting $400-500 a month heating bills; ask them if they think the economy is "on the right track"!
In essence, those Americans who think that the economy is "on the right track" and that George Bush and the Republicans are the best thing to come along since sliced bread, must obviously, believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and that the government is always right no matter what it does, and runs efficiently, is honest, and listens to the people!!! Its nice to escape to a dream world once in a while, but its very dangerous to actually think you are living in it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: walt Posted by: Nofear
worker-classes' "day in the sun" is long past!
Posted by: yellow on Jan 7, 2006 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the novel things about post-90s US corporate capitalism is the unprecedented growth of profits as a proportion ot the US GDP to between 14% and 20% on average over the past 5 years (most of the post-WWII average was below 10%) while the level of wages and salaries has sunk from a post-WWII average of 65-75% to well under 50%. Never before has the top 1% of the earning population had such a large chunk of the national marketable wealth and income since the runup to the great crash in the late 1920s. Job growth has been slow despite tax cuts for the rich. George W. Bush has the worst record of average monthly levels of job creation since the depression. Post-recession recoveries since the late 1940s all average between 45,000 to nearly 180,000 net new jobs/month created in the first four quarters of economic upturn. Bush's average is around 43,000 net new monthly jobs created since the post-2001 upturn and most of those pay below the poverty level for a family of four. There has been a total disconnect between economic growth and job creation as well as between labor productivity and real wage increases which have been flat or declining over the past three decades. Much of this has to do with globalization and the race to the bottom. The recent spate of GDP growth is not related to tax cuts but to increased stock market activity and will probably be short lived due to an inflation conscious Federal Reserve raising short-term interest rates in order to keep inflation in check. The Bush economy's growth is utterly tied to foreign investment and trade and has little to do with long-term growth of jobs and demand in the domestic US economy. As to be expected, GDP growth will continue to come at the expense of the middle and working classes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because the 90% of citizens have been F*CKED OVER by the Bushzis & Multi-nationalizedBusiness
Posted by: magistre on Jan 7, 2006 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are either going to have take to the streets (where more and more of us are living, anyway) to take back the country or roll-over and take it in the A** like the Neo-CONS want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate citizen, times are vedy, vedy good.. human citizen, no
Posted by: diof09 on Jan 8, 2006 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've wondered many times why we on the Left do not point out the disingenousness of the Christian Coalition which would have us believe the current decay of the American Family is the work of those Godless liberals that are wantonly aborting or secularizing everyone. Liberals make such a convenient strawman to protect the real elephant in the livingroom, the godless corporations who require no rest, pure drinking water or food and yet are given all the privileges of personhood. The corporate media truly does reflect the economic prosperity for the CORPORATE CITIZENS today, certainly not the average human.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elephantiasis
Posted by: Edward George on Jan 10, 2006 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course it hurts! You are being screwed by an elephant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's life
Posted by: Nofear on Jan 11, 2006 12:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life is not fair. Compared to the folks in North Korea and Ethiopia, we as Americans have so much more that I can't comprehend why so many people compliant so much. This article is implying that the economic growth we're seeing is nothing but lies stemming from the Bush's administration and the republicans. But there seems to be just as many republicans buying homes as there are democrats. I don't think the republicans who purchase their homes in this economic boom want to see a collapse in the housing market. The bottom line is that home prices have soared to historical high because of historical low interest rates. Unfortuately this cause many to buy homes as speculators(people of all political line) rather than true investors or home buyers. As for wages, if you don't think you are getting pay enough, then quit and find a higher paying job. If you don't have a skill that will pay you a higher job, then go out and acquire the skill that will pay you that higher wage. This is America, the land of opportunity. There are so many immigrants who came to this country with nothing but become successful through dilligence and tenacity. So stop complaining and make right choices in life that will get you ahead in life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genius!
Posted by: manxome on Jan 11, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a plan! My home is worth 2.5 times what it was 6 years ago. Too bad my square footage didn't increase the same way the value of it did. When I turn on my faucet, the equity doesn't come pouring out in hundred dollar bills so I can benefit by using it to finance a vacation.

So, I sell for $350, and hit the jackpot. But, I have a mortgage to pay off. Subtract 125. Subtract 50 for repairs and minor improvements that I cannot take with me when I sell. Subtract 10 for the free labor I provided making the improvements. Subtract 60 or so for all the interest, etc paid, minus the tax deductions, for the privilege of having a mortgagte. Subtract 25 for commission, lawyers fees, title fees, HO warranty, blah blah blah, for the priviledge of selling.

Wow! After all is said and done, I have made a PROFIT of 80 thousand dollars! It's like hitting the lottery! Woohoo!

Except, I have no place to live now. I am sure I can get a home similar to the $350,000 one I just sold for the $80,000 cash I now have, right? Heck, even if I use it as a down payment on another $350,000 house (since everyone else's house went up in value, too) I now need to get a $270,000 mortgage, which is twice my original mortgage.

At 3% a year, I'm sure my pay raises caused my income to double in 6 years, easily covering the the doubling of my mortgage cost! What a windfall!

Or, put simply, I cannot afford to buy my own home. Or move. So that big windfall is there only if I don't try to get at it.

Wow, my house feels 2.5 times bigger already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Genius! Posted by: manxome
Great article and comments
Posted by: 092098jvm on Jan 11, 2006 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone reading this should buy a little gold ASAP and tell their friends to do the same. The price of gold sends a powerful message to the world about economic mismanagement by governments. Sure you might make a few rich people a little richer, but for the most part the rich are invested in stocks and real estate. For about $60 you can get a 1/10 ounce coin from the US or Canadian mint. You'll be glad to have a few on-hand when this whole mess comes crashing down around our heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Despair Of Alternet's Economy
Posted by: The OttO Show on Jan 16, 2006 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A remarkable piece of spin; it takes hard economic data and dismisses it in favor of polls asking people how they feel about the economy. Curious logic, but then again why look at facts when people have feelings?

It does however indirectly point out what I have always said: the President of the United States has little effect on the US economy beyond affecting consumer confidence. There have been a lot of things going on since 2000: the dot-com bubble crash, the corporate stock scandals, 911, the invasion of two countries, hurricanes, floods etc that should have each caused pessimism in consumer confidence. I am not sure we can blame this on any one person, as the article does. After all, tsunamis are not George Bush’s fault.

More importantly the consumer portion of the economy is only one of three sections, the other two being business and government. And as we know, as consumer spending decreased, causing a recession. Bush spent to make up for it. That is a little something we economists call 'economic stimulus'. If you really want to learn the rationale behind it, I suggest that you look up John M Keynes. Non-economists just call it deficit spending and then support that stance by calling the president names.

Also, the bullet points were a source of great amusement for me:

"Salaries are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. That, while productivity -- the growth of the economic pie -- is up by almost 15 percent. Meaning we're working harder, producing more, for the same money as five years ago."

Their conclusion is bull! The labor force was bloated in 2001. There were people hired in the dot-com boom who produced nothing and were paid extravagantly, in some cases millions of dollars for projects and companies that never produced anything of value at all. That would be considered inefficient; i.e. output/wages would be a smaller number. In order to come to the conclusion they do, the labor force of pre-911 and today world have to be static, there would have to have been no tech bubble and no reshuffling of labor resources.

But of course there was, so the assumption is wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Despair Of Alternet's Economy Posted by: The OttO Show
I really agree with your point
Posted by: reno on Feb 27, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your article says so much. If only those on MSNBC and FOX would discuss these issues with a more open mind, well I'd rather them do something but... acceptance is the first step to recovery. Im thankful that there are people like you who put things into perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]