Economy on track for a 20 year record high

[Ripsnort]

WASHINGTON — The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices (search) and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product (search), will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president -- Ronald Reagan -- was running for re-election.

"We are moving into a sweet spot for the economy with interest rates not too high, jobs coming back and business investment providing strength," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One (search) in Chicago, who is predicting GDP growth of 4.8 percent this year.

President Bush is highlighting the improving economy at every opportunity while Democratic challenger John Kerry has focused on what he calls a middle class squeeze of rising health and tuition costs and laid-off workers forced to take lower-paying jobs.

more to the story here....

[midnight Target]

We are set to have our 2nd straight record month in terms of sales dollars. We're talking big ticket disposable income toys here. The economy must be OK.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by midnight Target
We are set to have our 2nd straight record month in terms of sales dollars. We're talking big ticket disposable income toys here. The economy must be OK.

Boat sales are doing good too, record sales in the last quarter.

[ra]

I sold my house in 8 hours.  My economy is doing good.

[Wanker]

But, but,......Mr. President, where are those weapons of mass destruction?

[DoctorYO]

My economist has a different opinion... (note economist; not faux reporter.) And be advised he isn't the only one claiming what he's saying.   He's just the most stinging / published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

For those who dont have registration access, Im sorry to hear that..  Times gets poohy when you repost their stuff..

So you have to goto:

http://www.pkarchive.org/

under the columns section all his articles are archived. (I suggest Tuesdays (Bye Bye, Bush Boom) and mid Aprils (One Good Month) articles for reference to your Faux story..)

I really hope his and my opinion are wrong with the economy..  I really do.. But statistics show otherwise..  

"On another note Fauxnews... News at eleven.. "

 (Faux.news is as credible as the "The Kentucky Fried Movie" )(No offence Zucker Brothers, More like a compliment to your satire..)







DoctorYo



Job growth dictates the economy not boat sales..  You need jobs to buy the boats which in turn supplies more jobs.  Ft. Lauderdale sells more boats than any other location on the planet; care to wager...I should know..I live here..Get a refresher in macroeconomics.. you need it..

[Pongo]

Deficits on track to set galaxy high record!
Hope your kids like your truck and camper Rip. If they ever have to start paying back the money your "conservative" leader is spending on his buddies in the defence industry and oil contracting industry they will be paying 70% taxes and will not be able to afford thier own.

[ra]

(Faux.news is as credible as the "The Kentucky Fried Movie" )(No offence Zucker Brothers, More like a compliment to your satire..)

Paul Krugman ain't exactly known for his crediblility either.  And neither is the NYT.

[Sandman]

Booming!

For the first time since 1932, employment is lower in the summer of a presidential election year than it was on the previous Inauguration Day.

[Eagler]

the economy can't be good - the war hero just said it was bad and he said he'd fix it - LOL

[DoctorYO]

I dont think our economy is bad..  Its shaky...  One enron scandal / terror attack could shift us back into deep recession..  record deficits while at **war are not positive either..  Shrimp tariffs against china might set off a trade war against an emerging ally and trading partner and global energy is erratic to say the least..  IF you consider that as good precursors of a booming economy your either ******* ignorant or have some biased agenda..

In regards to realestate, boatsales, car sales due to interest rates your going to have strong proformance in those sectors..  This isn't rocket science this is rudimentry economics.

On to Paul Krugman, he isn't perfect and he acknowledges this...  He errors but you noitce he clearly points out his errors which is far more to say than the biased agenda of Faux.. (O factor, no spin.. hypocrisy abound..) That guy is always wrong.. and he doesn't own up to his statements..) (I remember a bet he lost to that Geni Garfunk(whateverr her name is..)in regards to WMD... He's been a clam / welcher ever since.. Credible indeed..

Like I said I hope im wrong.. I don't want doom and gloom economy (it indirectly affects me to) but these deficits are not going to go away on their own..


DoctorYO

[midnight Target]

Our high sales figures are partially due to low interest rates, and partially due to the shift in the overall demographics of the Country. Some figures I've heard say we get about 400,000 new potential customers per year. (Americans achieving retirement age.)

[Sixpence]

Is this where we say it's because of the president?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
My economist has a different opinion... (note economist; not faux reporter.)

Sorry, this was an AP story reported on Fox, nice try, and thanks for playing. Consolation gifts at the door as you leave (Life size Monica blow up doll with real cigar)

[Dune]

The Krugman Truth Squad

I’ve seen Paul Krugman make lousy predictions about the economy before — lots of times (actually, every time). But until I read this memo, I had no idea that he could be so thoroughly, spectacularly, awesomely, shockingly wrong. And this is no mere Krugman jeremiad on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. This is a document on United States Government letterhead, written in order to guide national economic policy. Thank God Ronald Reagan was smart enough not to believe one word of it.

This September 9, 1982, memo addressed to CEA chair Martin Feldstein and member William Poole must have been among the first Krugman wrote upon arriving at the CEA. In it, Krugman warns that the dramatic drop in consumer price inflation from its double-digit levels in 1979, 1980, and 1981 was a temporary aberration, and that inflation would soon come back with a vengeance. He wrote,

We believe that it is reasonable to expect a significant reacceleration of inflation in the near future. Much of the apparent progress against inflation has resulted from the temporary side effects of tight money and high real interest rates. These side effects must be expected to reverse themselves as real interest rates decline and the economy expands. … Our very rough guess is that correction of … distorted relative prices will add at least 5 percentage points to future increases in consumer prices … This estimate is conservative …
Before we drill down to understand exactly how and why Krugman was wrong, let’s look at the sheer magnitude of his wrongness. In the top panel of the chart below, you can see the history of consumer price inflation in the years before Krugman wrote his memo, and for the rest of the Reagan presidency. When Krugman wrote his memo, inflation was running at an annual rate of 5.97 percent — “at least 5 percentage points” higher would be a minimum of 10.97 percent. Krugman wasn’t even close. In fact, if anything, the right number was closer to 5 percent in the other direction.