Ok, I'm going on the record. Obviously, I WANT McCain to win. So I freely admit to a whole lot of bias. I will also admit to not being any kind of pollster. I'm just a guy with a computer and a blogger account. So what did you pay to get in here?!? Here's what I think about this election. I think it's more than obvious that the polls are skewed this year (as in many past years) in order to help drive the election process. I have been saying all year that unless Obama is up by 10-15 points in the polls, he can't win. This is due to what is called the "Bradley Effect," named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley. Bradley lost the 1982 California Governor's race despite being ahead in the polls. According to Wikipedia, "some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation." Understand, these people may or may not be actual racists, they're just afraid of being judged as racists. In this election during the primaries, Obama was way ahead going into the New Hampshire primaries and lost to Hillary. (I'm still convinced this had less to do with the Bradley Effect and more to do with the inability to poll the voting preferences of people in Massachusetts and New York for the New Hampshire primary, but I digress. . .) The same thing could happen here. A combination of falsely inflated polls and Bradley Effect could combine for a McCain shocker.
So let's look at today's polls. The national polls have the race a virtual dead heat right now. So just from that standpoint alone my prediction goes to McCain. But let's look deeper. I went to RealClearPolitics. com and looked at the most recent state polls. States that are solidly for Obama have him ahead by more than 10 points. Let's concede those states. That gives Obama 238 electoral votes. If my prediction holds up, that's all he'll get. McCain would win with 300, not only a shocking come-from-behind victory but a virtual landslide! If Obama can mange to win even half of the leaning states he has (73 electoral votes), he can win the election with 275 electoral. BTW, 270 are needed to win. It would be a narrow win, but well within reach if the polls are to be believed.
So, for the record, I'm sticking with my original prediction: McCain 300-238.
We are just a few days away and I believe this is a turnout election. That is to say, whoever turns out to vote will win. (Ok, maybe they're all turnout elections!) But it is important not to be discouraged and go out and vote no matter who you are for. Let the people speak and let their voice be heard and we will see if I am right about these polls.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
WorldWatch - October 5, 2008 - Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? - The Ornery American
WorldWatch - October 5, 2008 - Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? - The Ornery American
Wow! Does this guy hit it out of the park!! He not only takes on the Obama press but also those who continually blame Bush over Iraq. And this guy's a Democrat!! He calls himself a Moynihan Democrat and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democrat Party. Finally a journalist calling out the so-called journalists in the rest of the media. I hope this is as far as the pendulum is going to swing! Maybe we can get back to having honest disagreements with each other over issues without having to defend the very nature of our democracy! (too many !'s?!?)
Wow! Does this guy hit it out of the park!! He not only takes on the Obama press but also those who continually blame Bush over Iraq. And this guy's a Democrat!! He calls himself a Moynihan Democrat and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democrat Party. Finally a journalist calling out the so-called journalists in the rest of the media. I hope this is as far as the pendulum is going to swing! Maybe we can get back to having honest disagreements with each other over issues without having to defend the very nature of our democracy! (too many !'s?!?)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Oil Prices Sticker Shock!
Well, here's something I don't hear ANYONE talking about. Yesterday, I filled my gas tank with regular unleaded gasoline. It was the lowest price I have seen in months: $3.059. Imagine my astonishment when I drove past the same station today and the price had dropped to $2.939!! A $.12 drop in just a day. (OK, I'm sure you can do math.) For the record, I don't remember the last time I paid less than $3/gallon for gas. It may have been earlier this year, but I don't think so. That price drop is the most staggering drop in price I have ever seen. I'm hearing a lot of talk about how the price of oil is coming down due to decreased demand. I believe this is definitely part of the reason, just judging from my own experience. I definitely stopped driving so much and started planning my routes a lot better so I could get a lot of errands done on one trip. If you multiply my experience by millions, I'm sure there is a lot less demand out there. But I believe that there are other market forces at work. On September 30, the US ban on offshore drilling expired. There is NO will in Congress right now to reinstate it. I believe this is the primary reason for the dramatic drop in price over the last few weeks. And I believe I can prove it!
The Federal Government provides a wide range of information from a variety of sources that we the people can access on the internet. I found a list of crude oil prices going back to 1978. You can follow along by downloading the table of prices at the Energy Information Administration. For our purposes, lets concentrate on July of this year. These numbers are provided on a weekly basis and the price for the week of July 4 was the highest reported ever: $133.60. I'm sure I heard at some point that oil had reached $144/barrel so I think this table is weighted but I believe it will work for our purposes. Let's look at the drop in price from July 4- Sept. 30, 2008. The last price reported before 9/30 is $97.90. This is actually higher than the two previous weeks listed. So at this point it appears that oil has bottomed out and is headed back up. But let's look just at the price drop. The oil price dropped an average of 2.25%/week during that time. That's a total of 27%. Then the ban expires on 9/30. Over the last two reporting periods (the only ones we have at this point), the price dropped an additional $17! That's a drop of 17% in just two weeks, four times the previous rate!! Coincidence?
So what, you may ask. Well. . .think back to early summer when this all started to hit the fan, we were told by Mr. Obama and his Democrat friends that we, "can't drill our way out of this." As I have detailed before on this blog, as soon as the President announced his rescension of the executive order banning offshore drilling, the price started to drop. That is to say, the market reacted. As I said at that time, the market has a way of responding even before the first well has been drilled. The market is anticipating what the price will be and reacting to it. This is market economics at its finest. Don't forget, the price of oil was going back UP when the ban was lifted and then started to drop at an alarming rate. Who knows where the bottom is but I don't think anyone is taking the lifting of the ban into account. Of course, there are many variables at work, just as there were at the time when the price started skyrocketing, but the notion at that time was that there was nothing we could do to lower the price. Here we are just a few months later and the price is dropping.
I'm not sure if the expiration of the ban will result in actual drilling anytime soon, but the fact that Congress is unwilling to reinstate the ban shows that the political winds are changing and it is only a matter of time before the drills are turning. This is another big issue in this election. After initially opposing it, Barack says we can "look at" some offshore drilling. McCain/Palin are all for offshore drilling. The key is going to be the legal challenges that any oil company will face from the various environmental groups who no doubt want to keep the oil from flowing here in the states. (That's why the ban was in place for the last 30 years in the first place!) Now the folks in the middle east are freaking out because they are seeing their profits plummet. Who knows how long the drop will last but it is a fascinating time and a good lesson in market economics. Supply and demand rule the day!
The Federal Government provides a wide range of information from a variety of sources that we the people can access on the internet. I found a list of crude oil prices going back to 1978. You can follow along by downloading the table of prices at the Energy Information Administration. For our purposes, lets concentrate on July of this year. These numbers are provided on a weekly basis and the price for the week of July 4 was the highest reported ever: $133.60. I'm sure I heard at some point that oil had reached $144/barrel so I think this table is weighted but I believe it will work for our purposes. Let's look at the drop in price from July 4- Sept. 30, 2008. The last price reported before 9/30 is $97.90. This is actually higher than the two previous weeks listed. So at this point it appears that oil has bottomed out and is headed back up. But let's look just at the price drop. The oil price dropped an average of 2.25%/week during that time. That's a total of 27%. Then the ban expires on 9/30. Over the last two reporting periods (the only ones we have at this point), the price dropped an additional $17! That's a drop of 17% in just two weeks, four times the previous rate!! Coincidence?
So what, you may ask. Well. . .think back to early summer when this all started to hit the fan, we were told by Mr. Obama and his Democrat friends that we, "can't drill our way out of this." As I have detailed before on this blog, as soon as the President announced his rescension of the executive order banning offshore drilling, the price started to drop. That is to say, the market reacted. As I said at that time, the market has a way of responding even before the first well has been drilled. The market is anticipating what the price will be and reacting to it. This is market economics at its finest. Don't forget, the price of oil was going back UP when the ban was lifted and then started to drop at an alarming rate. Who knows where the bottom is but I don't think anyone is taking the lifting of the ban into account. Of course, there are many variables at work, just as there were at the time when the price started skyrocketing, but the notion at that time was that there was nothing we could do to lower the price. Here we are just a few months later and the price is dropping.
I'm not sure if the expiration of the ban will result in actual drilling anytime soon, but the fact that Congress is unwilling to reinstate the ban shows that the political winds are changing and it is only a matter of time before the drills are turning. This is another big issue in this election. After initially opposing it, Barack says we can "look at" some offshore drilling. McCain/Palin are all for offshore drilling. The key is going to be the legal challenges that any oil company will face from the various environmental groups who no doubt want to keep the oil from flowing here in the states. (That's why the ban was in place for the last 30 years in the first place!) Now the folks in the middle east are freaking out because they are seeing their profits plummet. Who knows how long the drop will last but it is a fascinating time and a good lesson in market economics. Supply and demand rule the day!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
ABC News: Obama's Exclusive Interview With 'GMA'
ABC News: Obama's Exclusive Interview With 'GMA'
(Click the links for the video of the quotes.)
Part of the fun of this election cycle is having two candidates who are guaranteed to say something stupid almost every day. Yes, I'm talking about Joe Biden (who's on a Hall of Fame pace right now) and the Great Orator, Barack Obama. Honestly, some of Barack's gaffes have been Hall of Fame material too. My favorite is still on Memorial Day when he said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Apparently, he sees dead people. . .all the time. This week, he made another one on national television with Chris Cuomo. Cuomo (to his credit) was challenging Obama about all the negative ads his campaign was putting out. Those are a bunch of gaffes on their own. Obama, speaking now from his high horse, said, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." ABC was quick to point out (although Obama didn't apparently realize his "mistake") that he "apparently" meant that John McCain was putting out more negative ads than he was. I guess we're supposed to miraculously know what he means when he says the opposite. So I guess when he says he's only going to raise taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers he "means" grab your wallets and hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy night! Or when he says he's going to hold Wall Street's feet to the fire, he actually means he's going to threaten them with government sanctions until they've donated enough money to get him reelected. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but how can we be sure. It was just a couple of weeks ago he told George Stephanopolous about "my Muslim faith." George, dutifully, was quick to correct him, "You mean your Christian faith. . ." Words mean stuff and Obama is apparently rewriting the dictionary!
(Click the links for the video of the quotes.)
Part of the fun of this election cycle is having two candidates who are guaranteed to say something stupid almost every day. Yes, I'm talking about Joe Biden (who's on a Hall of Fame pace right now) and the Great Orator, Barack Obama. Honestly, some of Barack's gaffes have been Hall of Fame material too. My favorite is still on Memorial Day when he said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Apparently, he sees dead people. . .all the time. This week, he made another one on national television with Chris Cuomo. Cuomo (to his credit) was challenging Obama about all the negative ads his campaign was putting out. Those are a bunch of gaffes on their own. Obama, speaking now from his high horse, said, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." ABC was quick to point out (although Obama didn't apparently realize his "mistake") that he "apparently" meant that John McCain was putting out more negative ads than he was. I guess we're supposed to miraculously know what he means when he says the opposite. So I guess when he says he's only going to raise taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers he "means" grab your wallets and hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy night! Or when he says he's going to hold Wall Street's feet to the fire, he actually means he's going to threaten them with government sanctions until they've donated enough money to get him reelected. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but how can we be sure. It was just a couple of weeks ago he told George Stephanopolous about "my Muslim faith." George, dutifully, was quick to correct him, "You mean your Christian faith. . ." Words mean stuff and Obama is apparently rewriting the dictionary!
Friday, September 19, 2008
AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim
AFP: Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim
Earlier this week, the New York Post reporter "Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari" as saying that Barack Obama ". . .had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election." Obama's camp was quick to deny this. If this were true, Obama would be in big time hot water. Senators who want to be President don't have the power to negotiate with other nations. That's still the job of our current President. Until the waters have receded and the coronation, er, I mean inauguration, in January is complete, Obama is still just a citizen (of the world). Of course, no explanation from the Obama camp would be complete without completely confusing the issue. Here's what Wendy Morigi said after taking the obligatory swipe at John McCain. According to AFP, Ms. Morigi explained that, "In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office." Ahh, come again?!? Didn't she say that Obama DID urge the Iraqis to postpone the deal?!? This is one wacky denial. Not sure they know the meaning of the word. Would love to see the State/Justice Departments get involved. Won't happen though, I wager.
Earlier this week, the New York Post reporter "Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari" as saying that Barack Obama ". . .had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election." Obama's camp was quick to deny this. If this were true, Obama would be in big time hot water. Senators who want to be President don't have the power to negotiate with other nations. That's still the job of our current President. Until the waters have receded and the coronation, er, I mean inauguration, in January is complete, Obama is still just a citizen (of the world). Of course, no explanation from the Obama camp would be complete without completely confusing the issue. Here's what Wendy Morigi said after taking the obligatory swipe at John McCain. According to AFP, Ms. Morigi explained that, "In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office." Ahh, come again?!? Didn't she say that Obama DID urge the Iraqis to postpone the deal?!? This is one wacky denial. Not sure they know the meaning of the word. Would love to see the State/Justice Departments get involved. Won't happen though, I wager.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive
Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive
I've been waiting for this. I've been telling my friends that the Republicans are the ones who are energized and will not only take the White House but the Congress as well. Obama has lost the momentum he should have had out of his convention because he didn't pick the right VP. No one in the Democrat party is excited about Joe Biden. On the other hand, picking Sarah was transformational for McCain. The more they attack her for her lack of experience, the more people will identify with her. We know what her experience is because it is something we can relate to. Obama lacks experience, but his background is nothing we can relate to. And she has MORE experience than him because she's been a mayor and a governor. She has been an agent of change while Obama has not. There is a revolution going on and it is in the Republican party! We are taking back Washington from the do-nothing-but-try-to-hurt-America Dems!! How many times did the Dems try to cut funding for the troops in Iraq, I lost count. Thank God for the Republicans who blocked those votes and now our troops are coming home in victory!!
I've been waiting for this. I've been telling my friends that the Republicans are the ones who are energized and will not only take the White House but the Congress as well. Obama has lost the momentum he should have had out of his convention because he didn't pick the right VP. No one in the Democrat party is excited about Joe Biden. On the other hand, picking Sarah was transformational for McCain. The more they attack her for her lack of experience, the more people will identify with her. We know what her experience is because it is something we can relate to. Obama lacks experience, but his background is nothing we can relate to. And she has MORE experience than him because she's been a mayor and a governor. She has been an agent of change while Obama has not. There is a revolution going on and it is in the Republican party! We are taking back Washington from the do-nothing-but-try-to-hurt-America Dems!! How many times did the Dems try to cut funding for the troops in Iraq, I lost count. Thank God for the Republicans who blocked those votes and now our troops are coming home in victory!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Crypt: House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking - Politico.com
The Crypt: House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking - Politico.com
Please tell me that everyone will hear about this. This is the kind of grass roots effort that has the potential to make real change. This handful of Republican House members has the great American spirit running through their veins! This is the kind of spirit that helped found this country. Don't think for a minute that this will have no effect. The point has certainly been made and it's only a matter of time before the American people will have their voices heard on this matter.
Please tell me that everyone will hear about this. This is the kind of grass roots effort that has the potential to make real change. This handful of Republican House members has the great American spirit running through their veins! This is the kind of spirit that helped found this country. Don't think for a minute that this will have no effect. The point has certainly been made and it's only a matter of time before the American people will have their voices heard on this matter.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Kudlow's Money Politic$ on National Review Online
Kudlow's Money Politic$ on National Review Online
For those of you who know me, this is what I've been saying for weeks now. It may take years to see new oil but it will take minutes for the market to react. Bush strikes again!! They just can't wait for him to leave!
For those of you who know me, this is what I've been saying for weeks now. It may take years to see new oil but it will take minutes for the market to react. Bush strikes again!! They just can't wait for him to leave!
Greatest Hope for the Poor
Here's something that has been bothering me for a while now. Can we all please agree that the greatest hope for the poor is not a free handout, but opportunity for ownership and self-determination? That is to say: Capitalism! It seems these days it's politically incorrect to be an unabashed capitalist. I believe in the free market and I believe that the free market has been proven over and over again. Right now, we are in the midst of a true crisis. The price of oil is skyrocketing and there is no end in sight. The oil companies and their CEO's are being vilified for their huge profits. I am a person who believes that you have to insure the future of your company by maximizing profits. Didn't we learn this with the Enron people? Their company started to go under and they screwed their employees by not telling them to sell their company stock which they had their retirement accounts invested in. Who works at these oil companies? Wealthy oil barons? Sure! But also those men (and women) who work on the oil derricks, those who work in the offices, and a variety of other blue collar/middle class jobs. Do we want their incomes to go away when the demand for oil goes down? Remember, there are lots of oil products that the oil companies produce including jet fuel, kerosene, heating oil, lots of other things that don't power our cars. I realize the idea that demand will go down is a little far fetched, but what about supply? We are constantly being told that we are living on borrowed time with the oil supply. That the poor dinosaurs were in limited supply and we are using their dead carcasses as the fuel for our society. What if that runs out? How will we find more? I think it is only responsible that these oil companies protect their futures by maximizing profits and protecting the jobs of millions worldwide.
Oil companies don't have the right to search for oil wherever they want to. They have to get permission from the governments that own the land and right now there is a ban on drilling offshore and in other areas of the country. So we are dependent on oil from foreign countries. That kind of control is what is causing the prices to skyrocket. We have also not allowed the oil companies to build new refineries which also puts a cap on supply, therefore driving up the price even further. Actually, the oil companies put a lot of the money they make back into the business in the form of Research and Development (R&D). That's why their profit margin is so much lower than other industries. Using information from Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, The Everyday Economist posted a chart comparing the profit margins of the various industries and oil comes in near the bottom! Pharmaceuticals and financial services lead the pack. (It's interesting that the banks have a profit margin almost exactly the same as the interest rate on my credit card. Hmmmm, wonder why that is? But I digress. . .)
So what does this have to do with the poor? Well the oil situation is a good example of what happens when the free market is tampered with. You can demonize the oil companies all you want but the fact is that they are doing what they have to to insure oil for us for the foreseeable future and jobs for them for just as long. The fact of the matter is that businesses, both big and small, provide jobs. And as far as I know, jobs are the only REAL cure for poverty. I think we have to acknowledge that there will always be a certain part of the world's population that will be poor. No matter how much opportunity there is, there are just those who refuse to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, we have been subsidizing the poor to the tune of billions of dollars since the 60's and LBJ's Great Society. If we could just export capitalism to the rest of the world, the number of poor people in the world would drop dramatically, but not disappear altogether. It's time we stop subsidizing the poor, get rid of all those failed government programs, put that money back into the economy so it can grow, embrace those businesses that are trying to provide needed services and jobs and stop letting our representatives in Washington make enemies of those who are just trying to provide real opportunities for the poor! (Oh yeah, and make a quick buck too!)
Oil companies don't have the right to search for oil wherever they want to. They have to get permission from the governments that own the land and right now there is a ban on drilling offshore and in other areas of the country. So we are dependent on oil from foreign countries. That kind of control is what is causing the prices to skyrocket. We have also not allowed the oil companies to build new refineries which also puts a cap on supply, therefore driving up the price even further. Actually, the oil companies put a lot of the money they make back into the business in the form of Research and Development (R&D). That's why their profit margin is so much lower than other industries. Using information from Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, The Everyday Economist posted a chart comparing the profit margins of the various industries and oil comes in near the bottom! Pharmaceuticals and financial services lead the pack. (It's interesting that the banks have a profit margin almost exactly the same as the interest rate on my credit card. Hmmmm, wonder why that is? But I digress. . .)
So what does this have to do with the poor? Well the oil situation is a good example of what happens when the free market is tampered with. You can demonize the oil companies all you want but the fact is that they are doing what they have to to insure oil for us for the foreseeable future and jobs for them for just as long. The fact of the matter is that businesses, both big and small, provide jobs. And as far as I know, jobs are the only REAL cure for poverty. I think we have to acknowledge that there will always be a certain part of the world's population that will be poor. No matter how much opportunity there is, there are just those who refuse to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, we have been subsidizing the poor to the tune of billions of dollars since the 60's and LBJ's Great Society. If we could just export capitalism to the rest of the world, the number of poor people in the world would drop dramatically, but not disappear altogether. It's time we stop subsidizing the poor, get rid of all those failed government programs, put that money back into the economy so it can grow, embrace those businesses that are trying to provide needed services and jobs and stop letting our representatives in Washington make enemies of those who are just trying to provide real opportunities for the poor! (Oh yeah, and make a quick buck too!)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
SPIEGEL Interview with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud: 'Hezbollah Freed Our Country' - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
SPIEGEL Interview with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud: 'Hezbollah Freed Our Country' - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
If this is how they really feel, perhaps we have found the source of the problem.
If this is how they really feel, perhaps we have found the source of the problem.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Reaganomics Part 2
This is the follow-up to the previous article on Reaganomics. I wrote that two years ago, when there was very little data on Bush's economy. During the election period this year, I wrote this follow-up since Bush's policies are similar to those of Reagan. It is interesting to see if they produce the same results.
In the first installment, I traced the history of our economy from Carter to Bush II. I pointed out that to be fair, we must take a critical look at economic statistics from two years into a President’s administration in order for there to be any relevance to that President’s policies. At the time I wrote that piece, W hadn’t been in office long enough to apply the two-year rule. As we approach a new election, I think it’s time to see how W stacks up to his predecessors.
In January of 2001, when George W. Bush took the oath of office, the prime lending rate was standing at 9%; not all that bad. But as I documented in the other piece, we were already in the throes of a recession. The Fed started reducing the prime rate on a regular basis, trying desparately to help stimulate a recessing economy. And then 9/11 hit. This further debilitated the already lagging economy. The Fed continued to lower the prime lending rate until it reached it’s lowest rate since 1958 – 4%! That was in June of 2003, just over two years (sound familiar?) since George Bush took office. As of this writing, the prime rate stands at 4.75%.
So does that mean the economy is on the rebound? Let’s take a look at the change in GDP. When W took office in January of 2001, the economic growth number was at -1.4%. The most recent data has it at 3.3%. It certainly seems that W has had some impact on the economy. That’s a pretty dramatic turnaround in such a short time, especially when you consider that it includes the period after 9/11. Unemployment during this period has gone from 4.2% when he took office to 5.4% currently.
Bear in mind here that George Bush was elected with a promise to cut taxes. He started by giving us a rebate in the summer of 2001. Every American who paid taxes received a check from the government. Shortly after, 9/11 hit. In 2002, another tax cut. Despite the devastating effect of 9/11 on our economy, the third quarter of 2001 was the last quarter of negative growth in George Bush’s presidency – the beginning of a recovery that is still growing.
But this doesn’t include the two-year rule. Let’s apply that and see where we are. Ok, so here we go. In January of 2003, unemployment was at 5.8%. Now it stands at 5.4%. Not much of a change, but the significance here is that it is going DOWN not up! Brace yourself, we’re going to check economic growth next. Are you sitting down? In the six quarters we actually have stats for, economic growth is up 4.23%! That beats Reagan and smashes Clinton. Now I realize this is just six quarters, a snapshot really. But it is all we have to go on and probably not a fair assessment to compare to our last two-term Presidents. And yet, it is absolutely a fair assessment of how he is doing right now! Having inherited a receding economy, unemployment (although low) on the rise, and the worst terror attack on our nation’s soil, It seems that he’s done pretty well.
Recently, Edward Prescott, a professor at Arizona State University and a researcher at the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis, was co-awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics. He believes that George Bush’s tax cuts were too small. According to the Washington Times, Prescott says that adding tax cuts usually provides an incentive to work. Hopefully, President Bush will take his advice when he begins his second term!
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041012-111648-5503r.htm
In the first installment, I traced the history of our economy from Carter to Bush II. I pointed out that to be fair, we must take a critical look at economic statistics from two years into a President’s administration in order for there to be any relevance to that President’s policies. At the time I wrote that piece, W hadn’t been in office long enough to apply the two-year rule. As we approach a new election, I think it’s time to see how W stacks up to his predecessors.
In January of 2001, when George W. Bush took the oath of office, the prime lending rate was standing at 9%; not all that bad. But as I documented in the other piece, we were already in the throes of a recession. The Fed started reducing the prime rate on a regular basis, trying desparately to help stimulate a recessing economy. And then 9/11 hit. This further debilitated the already lagging economy. The Fed continued to lower the prime lending rate until it reached it’s lowest rate since 1958 – 4%! That was in June of 2003, just over two years (sound familiar?) since George Bush took office. As of this writing, the prime rate stands at 4.75%.
So does that mean the economy is on the rebound? Let’s take a look at the change in GDP. When W took office in January of 2001, the economic growth number was at -1.4%. The most recent data has it at 3.3%. It certainly seems that W has had some impact on the economy. That’s a pretty dramatic turnaround in such a short time, especially when you consider that it includes the period after 9/11. Unemployment during this period has gone from 4.2% when he took office to 5.4% currently.
Bear in mind here that George Bush was elected with a promise to cut taxes. He started by giving us a rebate in the summer of 2001. Every American who paid taxes received a check from the government. Shortly after, 9/11 hit. In 2002, another tax cut. Despite the devastating effect of 9/11 on our economy, the third quarter of 2001 was the last quarter of negative growth in George Bush’s presidency – the beginning of a recovery that is still growing.
But this doesn’t include the two-year rule. Let’s apply that and see where we are. Ok, so here we go. In January of 2003, unemployment was at 5.8%. Now it stands at 5.4%. Not much of a change, but the significance here is that it is going DOWN not up! Brace yourself, we’re going to check economic growth next. Are you sitting down? In the six quarters we actually have stats for, economic growth is up 4.23%! That beats Reagan and smashes Clinton. Now I realize this is just six quarters, a snapshot really. But it is all we have to go on and probably not a fair assessment to compare to our last two-term Presidents. And yet, it is absolutely a fair assessment of how he is doing right now! Having inherited a receding economy, unemployment (although low) on the rise, and the worst terror attack on our nation’s soil, It seems that he’s done pretty well.
Recently, Edward Prescott, a professor at Arizona State University and a researcher at the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis, was co-awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics. He believes that George Bush’s tax cuts were too small. According to the Washington Times, Prescott says that adding tax cuts usually provides an incentive to work. Hopefully, President Bush will take his advice when he begins his second term!
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041012-111648-5503r.htm
Reaganomics Didn't Work?
The following is a study I did a few years ago to see if we could detect a trend in economic prosperity based on the criteria: unemployment rate, prime lending rate, and economic growth (percent change in GDP). I wanted to track a change in numbers based on economic policy. I would like to go through a much more in-depth study that looks at the specific policies and their overall effect. I think that this does a good job of showing the impact of Reagan's policies on the economy and how the Democrats before and after him had their own kind of impact.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected with unemployment at 7.5%, economic growth at 5.6%, and the prime lending rate at 6.25%. When he left office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%, economic growth was at -.2%, and the prime lending rate was at 20% (This was down from a high of 21.5% just one month earlier.).
In 1981, Ronald Reagan took office with a promise to install what the press called Reaganomics. His vice-president, George Bush, called it voodoo economics. Whatever you call it, when he left office in 1989, unemployment was at 5.4%, economic growth was at 4.2%, and the prime lending rate was at 10.5%. Unemployment spiked in 1982 at 10.8%, the worst ever since they started keeping track in 1948. Whatever George Bush may have thought about Reaganomics during the 1980 campaign, he changed very little of the plan and by the time he left office in 1993, unemployment was at 7.3%, economic growth was at 3%, and the prime lending rate was at 6%. It was at this point that Bill Clinton was telling anyone who would listen that we were suffering through the worst economy in 50 years.
And what of the Clinton years? We’ve heard so much about the Clinton boom of the 90’s. What are the real numbers? We already know what they were when he took office. How did they pan out in the end? First, economic growth: Over the eight year period, he had a very healthy average of 3.7% with a high of 4.4%, a low of 2.7% (twice) and ending at 3.8%. Compared to Reagan’s average of 3.4% with a high of 7.3% and a low of –2% (in 1982), George Bush’s average of 1.95% with a high of 3.5% and a low of
-.5%. Clearly the Reagan years kept pace with the Clinton years and may have been better. I’ll get to that later. Let’s look at unemployment: 4.1% when Clinton left office in 2001. Very healthy. Virtually everyone who could work was working. In fact, after the high of 7.8% in the middle of 1998, the unemployment rate continued to fall and from the middle of 1997 until the end of his term, it never went above 5% including a low of 3.8% in 2000. Astounding! At that point, literally every American who could work was working. This is tantamount to 0% unemployment, which is unachievable. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot work. This is stellar news. The prime lending rate, however, was at 9%. This is a 50% increase from where it was when Clinton took office. Could this be an indicator of things to come? Certainly, by any standard the Clinton years were economically very good.
But economic policies are not like flipping a light switch. You don’t simply wave a magic wand and change the way business is done in this country. It takes time for policies to be devised and implemented. That’s why I have devised the two-year rule. There is always a bit of lag time between the time a policy is dreamed up, put before congress, voted on, implemented and some results start to take shape. Let’s look at the Carter years for starters. The average economic growth for his term from 1977-1980 is 3.3%, not that bad. But do you really think that his economic policies were in play in Jan. of 1977? How about Feb? In fact, do you think you can say he had anything to do with the success or failure of economic growth in all of 1977? In fact, during this year, unemployment was going down as well. Things were going along very nicely. But what if we offset these numbers by two years. Not an arbitrary number but a reasonable amount of time for someone’s economic policies to take effect. From 1979-1982, economic growth is an abysmal .9%! That is absolutely stagnant. Although unemployment had been reduced to 5.9% in 1979, it grew to an uncontrollable amount of 10.8% in 1982!! Almost double! The worst in the history of the statistic. Clearly, the Carter years were a complete economic failure. Certainly a much more likely candidate (if not, in fact, the only candidate) for the worst economy since WWII.
Ronald Reagan took office in Jan. of 1981. His tax cuts weren’t approved by congress until Aug. of 1981. Would you say that the economic progress (or regress) during this period is Reagan’s or Carter’s? Do you think that there was significant change in the economy in September of 1981? October? Certainly, the two-year rule is a good one. Implementing that for Reagan, we get a revised number of 4%! That’s better than his previous and better than the Clinton boom of the 90’s! Does the two-year rule affect Bush? His new number is 2.3%. Substantially better than before.
But what of the Clinton boom? How does the two-year rule affect him? Clinton’s new number is 3.2%. Not bad, but not close to Reagan. And remember, Clinton followed an economy with a 2.3% economic growth rate while Reagan had a truly abysmal economy to dig us out of. In fact, after 8 years of Clintonomics, he was only able to increase the economy by the same pathetic amount that Carter left for Reagan: .9%. And this at a time when the entire country was working their collective butts off!
Perhaps I’m being a little unfair to poor Bill. After all, he wasn’t responsible for 9/11, which by the two-year rule would fall to him. It clearly had a devastating effect on the economy. But if you look a little closer at the numbers, you’ll see that Bill’s economy was tanking long before 9/11. In the last half of 2000 (before G.W. Bush, before 9/11), the economic growth rate was .25%! Worse than even Carter. In fact, for the 4 quarters before 9/11, Clinton’s number is -.4%!! That includes three quarters of NEGATIVE growth! Obviously, I’m not being unfair at all and he should be grateful these numbers aren’t being published on a daily basis.
George W. hasn’t been in office long enough for the two-year rule to take effect. I can only say this: there hasn’t been a negative quarter of growth since 9/11. Let’s revisit this when the tax cuts kick in!!
Prime rate data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred/data/irates/prime
Unemployment data: www.bls.gov Click “Get Detailed Statistics” then choose “Unemployment Rate.” Select years.
Economic Growth data: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls
In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected with unemployment at 7.5%, economic growth at 5.6%, and the prime lending rate at 6.25%. When he left office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%, economic growth was at -.2%, and the prime lending rate was at 20% (This was down from a high of 21.5% just one month earlier.).
In 1981, Ronald Reagan took office with a promise to install what the press called Reaganomics. His vice-president, George Bush, called it voodoo economics. Whatever you call it, when he left office in 1989, unemployment was at 5.4%, economic growth was at 4.2%, and the prime lending rate was at 10.5%. Unemployment spiked in 1982 at 10.8%, the worst ever since they started keeping track in 1948. Whatever George Bush may have thought about Reaganomics during the 1980 campaign, he changed very little of the plan and by the time he left office in 1993, unemployment was at 7.3%, economic growth was at 3%, and the prime lending rate was at 6%. It was at this point that Bill Clinton was telling anyone who would listen that we were suffering through the worst economy in 50 years.
And what of the Clinton years? We’ve heard so much about the Clinton boom of the 90’s. What are the real numbers? We already know what they were when he took office. How did they pan out in the end? First, economic growth: Over the eight year period, he had a very healthy average of 3.7% with a high of 4.4%, a low of 2.7% (twice) and ending at 3.8%. Compared to Reagan’s average of 3.4% with a high of 7.3% and a low of –2% (in 1982), George Bush’s average of 1.95% with a high of 3.5% and a low of
-.5%. Clearly the Reagan years kept pace with the Clinton years and may have been better. I’ll get to that later. Let’s look at unemployment: 4.1% when Clinton left office in 2001. Very healthy. Virtually everyone who could work was working. In fact, after the high of 7.8% in the middle of 1998, the unemployment rate continued to fall and from the middle of 1997 until the end of his term, it never went above 5% including a low of 3.8% in 2000. Astounding! At that point, literally every American who could work was working. This is tantamount to 0% unemployment, which is unachievable. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot work. This is stellar news. The prime lending rate, however, was at 9%. This is a 50% increase from where it was when Clinton took office. Could this be an indicator of things to come? Certainly, by any standard the Clinton years were economically very good.
But economic policies are not like flipping a light switch. You don’t simply wave a magic wand and change the way business is done in this country. It takes time for policies to be devised and implemented. That’s why I have devised the two-year rule. There is always a bit of lag time between the time a policy is dreamed up, put before congress, voted on, implemented and some results start to take shape. Let’s look at the Carter years for starters. The average economic growth for his term from 1977-1980 is 3.3%, not that bad. But do you really think that his economic policies were in play in Jan. of 1977? How about Feb? In fact, do you think you can say he had anything to do with the success or failure of economic growth in all of 1977? In fact, during this year, unemployment was going down as well. Things were going along very nicely. But what if we offset these numbers by two years. Not an arbitrary number but a reasonable amount of time for someone’s economic policies to take effect. From 1979-1982, economic growth is an abysmal .9%! That is absolutely stagnant. Although unemployment had been reduced to 5.9% in 1979, it grew to an uncontrollable amount of 10.8% in 1982!! Almost double! The worst in the history of the statistic. Clearly, the Carter years were a complete economic failure. Certainly a much more likely candidate (if not, in fact, the only candidate) for the worst economy since WWII.
Ronald Reagan took office in Jan. of 1981. His tax cuts weren’t approved by congress until Aug. of 1981. Would you say that the economic progress (or regress) during this period is Reagan’s or Carter’s? Do you think that there was significant change in the economy in September of 1981? October? Certainly, the two-year rule is a good one. Implementing that for Reagan, we get a revised number of 4%! That’s better than his previous and better than the Clinton boom of the 90’s! Does the two-year rule affect Bush? His new number is 2.3%. Substantially better than before.
But what of the Clinton boom? How does the two-year rule affect him? Clinton’s new number is 3.2%. Not bad, but not close to Reagan. And remember, Clinton followed an economy with a 2.3% economic growth rate while Reagan had a truly abysmal economy to dig us out of. In fact, after 8 years of Clintonomics, he was only able to increase the economy by the same pathetic amount that Carter left for Reagan: .9%. And this at a time when the entire country was working their collective butts off!
Perhaps I’m being a little unfair to poor Bill. After all, he wasn’t responsible for 9/11, which by the two-year rule would fall to him. It clearly had a devastating effect on the economy. But if you look a little closer at the numbers, you’ll see that Bill’s economy was tanking long before 9/11. In the last half of 2000 (before G.W. Bush, before 9/11), the economic growth rate was .25%! Worse than even Carter. In fact, for the 4 quarters before 9/11, Clinton’s number is -.4%!! That includes three quarters of NEGATIVE growth! Obviously, I’m not being unfair at all and he should be grateful these numbers aren’t being published on a daily basis.
George W. hasn’t been in office long enough for the two-year rule to take effect. I can only say this: there hasn’t been a negative quarter of growth since 9/11. Let’s revisit this when the tax cuts kick in!!
Prime rate data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred/data/irates/prime
Unemployment data: www.bls.gov Click “Get Detailed Statistics” then choose “Unemployment Rate.” Select years.
Economic Growth data: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls
Friday, November 26, 2004
Welcome to my thoughts!
Well, for months I've been looking for a place to place my thoughts. I've looked at groups and websites but this seems like it might be the place to vent. I will be addressing the things that are most important to all of us: politics, sports, and movies! Sure, I may diverge from these topics, but since this is most of what I think about, I'm sure it will be most of what shows up here on the blog.
I'm new to blogging and don't know how often I'll be able to update, but I'll try to get here a few times a week. Feel free to respond. I won't take things personally if you choose to disagree with me. All I ask is that you do the same for me. Of course, the fact that we are sharing very personal thoughts in a very public way and that someone has chosen to criticize you for that can't possibly be taken as anything other than personal, but I digress!
I am currently working in television as a free-lance replay specialist. My primary duties are to do slow-motion replay for televised sporting events. Various production companies will call me and book me for certain upcoming games. I do a lot of travelling and see a lot of games. It mixes my love of sports with the pressure of live television. I love it.
I'm sure I'll have a topic to address very soon, so stay tuned.
I'm new to blogging and don't know how often I'll be able to update, but I'll try to get here a few times a week. Feel free to respond. I won't take things personally if you choose to disagree with me. All I ask is that you do the same for me. Of course, the fact that we are sharing very personal thoughts in a very public way and that someone has chosen to criticize you for that can't possibly be taken as anything other than personal, but I digress!
I am currently working in television as a free-lance replay specialist. My primary duties are to do slow-motion replay for televised sporting events. Various production companies will call me and book me for certain upcoming games. I do a lot of travelling and see a lot of games. It mixes my love of sports with the pressure of live television. I love it.
I'm sure I'll have a topic to address very soon, so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
