GDP Jumps 7.2 Percent, Biggest Increase in Nearly 20 Years

News link

ABCnews link

 

One month.....

Does not a recovery make...

 

Biggles you really need to just quit letting your politics shine through in your comments about economics. I was listening to Jack Welch yesterday and you fit in his "Yea but" people who are putting their political beliefs first when talking about the economy.

8 quarters of growth and the latest is the biggest in 20 years. You really need to learn what recovery means.

Also a quarter equals three months not one. Not that this implies you have no clue when it comes to economics.

 

There are some problems with this boom. Most of the growth came frome durable goods. That means people are borrowing money. That means they wont be spending as much in coming months. Also the labor market is yet to turn around. Firms are not increasing R&D and consumer confidence was really low the last time the index was released. The low intrest rates and tax cuts are helping at this minute, but could cripple the economy in 2005 when they are reversed. I am on the fence on this one. I hope this is sustainable and the true start of a boom like the one we saw in the 90s, but am still skepticle. Jack Welch's comments are comforting though.

 

As much of a W fan as I am, I must remain skeptical. It's not a recovery until jobs start growing. While this is good news, good news needs to continue. It will take a while (job growth under Clinton didn't begin in earnest until 1995) but I think things will be fine. We may not be out of the woods yet.

I remain a firm believer that Presidential Administrations do very little to impact the economy. They have limited stimulus and leadership powers, nothing else. And that is the way it should be. Had Gore been elected or Clinton been allowed a third term, recession still would have occurred. I think Bush's tax cuts had a minor positive impact, maybe softened the blow a little. But only time will tell whether or not it was a sound economic move.

It certainly doesn't make fiscal sense if he continues to spend our money the way he is. War or no war, we have got to get federal spending under control.

 

Being in recovery does not mean that everything is 100% just that things are getting better. Welch pointed out that the last recovery started in 91 but jobs did not pick up until 92 or 93. Businesses are going to be more conservative when it comes to creating new jobs. The fact the fact that businesses are spending money on equipment and software show that they are starting to feel better about future growth and are getting ready for it by upgrading.
Welch was real positive about the job Bush is doing at home and abroad.
I agree the impact of Presidents is not as great as the media and others would have you believe, but that has not stopped some from blaming both Bushes in attempts to get Democrats in office. It worked with the first Bush even though the economy had already started its recovery. Clinton comes in and gets full credit for saving the economy when the cycle had already started. In fact he may have slowed it a little at first by raising taxes and threatening to have the government take over 1/7 of the economy.
I firmly believe that this is an economy not only in recovery but close to being recovered. I think there will not only be job growth in 2004 but possibly be a job boom somewhere between late 2004 to late 2005 regardless of who gets elected to the Presidency.

 

yes, it seems majority disagrees with you..

one monthly number does not make "voters" warm and fuzzy for W....

and the unemployed vote not economists..................

 

Re: yes, it seems majority disagrees with you..

Where in the heck are you getting this majority from?

Economists and the employed do vote.

Also will you please remember that a quarter is made up of three months. It will make your posts seem not so out of touch.

 

Would this be the boom that was propped up by corporate corruption, cooked books, inflated profits, shaky investments such as the internet "gold rush", etc. The booming economy of the 90's was a mirage, a hoax that eventually cost milliions of Americans their future.

 

The tech boom contributed quite a bit to the economy in the 90's, but it was not propped up by corruption. In my experience one of the biggests drivers of the 90's economy was the abundance of venture capital. There were startups everywhere. Even though a lot of those investments were poor decisions (and not because of corruption), many other great companies were created as well.

I and most of my friends did very well in the 90's, and I would take that economy over the current disaster any day.