The '60's was the age of IBM and Xerox and the Nifty Fifty. The '70's were ugly thanks to the oil shocks. The '80's saw the boomers come of age - there was a huge growth in family formations and then, the earliest of the generation entered their peak earning years. The '90's did benefit from technological gains, but the growth was not unique. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2000's saw greater productivity gains than the preceding decade.
I went to the OECD to check on annual US productivity gains, and the data went back to 1985:
1985 - 1990: .7
1990 - 2000: .9
2001 - 2008: 1.4
So - I hope this puts to rest the idea that the 1990's were some sort of unnatural era in productivity growth. They weren't. However, our government tax and spending policies were disciplined for the first time in a generation, at great political cost to the adults in the room.
7 comments:
Yes but...
Somehow I know the Libs are going to try and blame Capitalism for the following mess. Note, I have changed from Bush to Capitalism (vs. government controlled "Socialism" ie. Obama)
Absent hyperinflation from deficit spending, which is not present, there is no way to place the BLAME for the current mess on Capitalism.
We should be up and running by now, we should have full employment, we should have more confidence. We have none of those things because the "o" has plucked up our country.
On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that January new-home sales dropped 11.2 percent from December, plunging to their lowest level in nearly 50 years.
-- On Tuesday, the Conference Board reported that February consumer confidence fell sharply from January, driven down by the survey's "present situation index" -- how confident consumers feel right now -- which hit its lowest mark since the 1983 recession. On Friday, the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey also showed a falloff from January to February.
-- On Thursday, the government's report on new jobless claims filed during the previous week shot up 22,000, which was exactly opposite of what economists predicted. Forecasters expected new jobless claims to drop by about 20,000.
Taken together, what do these reports tell us?
We've got a long way to go to get out of this economic mess, and we may be actually losing a little ground.
"The economy is extremely mixed with manufacturing being the only area that has shown signs of legit improvement because of inventory restocking and export growth," said Peter Boockvar, equity strategist with Miller Tabak. "Consumer confidence being weak and the jobless claims data still reflect a difficult labor market with much uncertainty on the part of business to hire because of the unclear economic outlook."
Jim:
Your comments are unsupportable an utterly absurd. "We should have full employment"? Please describe a time that such an economic collapse has been followed by full employment only a year later. I mean it - give us some examples, please.
Jobs were being shed at 700,000 per month when "O" took the oath of office and now, apparently, job growth has returned. That is actually a very impressive turnaround.
You should look up the word "socialism" in Websters lest you continue to misuse it.
New home sales should drop more than 11% - the last thing we need right now is new homes. We have historically high inventory that needs to be worked through before we start to see material, sustainable improvement in new home sales.
Historic collapses such as the one that Bush delivered cannot be turned around overnight or even in a year. The Good Doc should know better.
I have looked it up, I have posted the definition. If you wish to continue to deny it out of blind obedience, that is your issue.
Straight from Merriam-Websters:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods - THIS CERTAINLY DOESN'T QUALIFY.
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property NOR DOES THIS b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state NOR THIS
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done NOT THIS ONE EITHER
Okay, Doc, I posted the definition from Websters, since you didn't. NONE of them qualify for Obama or the Democrats. No charge for the lesson.
Still waiting on examples of economic collapse and full employment only a year later. Lets hear it or you will once again be guilty of baseless blather...
An oldie but goodie
1970 4.9 1971 5.9 1972 5.6 1973 4.9 1974 5.6 1975 8.5 1976 7.7 1977 7.1 1978 6.1 1979 5.8 1980 7.1 1981 7.6 1982 9.1 1983 9.6 1984 7.5 1985 7.2 1986 7.0 1987 6.2 1988 5.5 1989 5.3 1990 5.6 1991 6.8 1992 7.5 1993 6.9 1994 6.1 1995 5.6 1996 5.4 1997 4.9 1998 4.5 1999 4.2 2000 4.0 2001 4.7 2002 5.8 2003 6.0 2004 5.5 2005 5.1 2006 4.6 2007 4.6 2008 5.8
Ah - the Good Doc wants to change the subject to the unemployment rate. Well, lets talk!
9.7% at this point in the cycle is actually rather strong. It is easy to see the unemployment rate skyrocket when you inherit a collapsing economy shedding a net 700,000 jobs a month.
Most economists give a great deal of credit to Obama for turning it around - the economy is growing again and, apparently, so are jobs.
The Stimulus Package added/saved over 2mm jobs according to the CBO.
So - we have a theme - Bush hands over collapsing economy to Obama, who turns it around in under a year...
Post a Comment