Economic Facts: U.S. Economy Is Doing Quite Well 26 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt.
How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment.
Economic Fact #1: The latest World Bank findings show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's (see chart above).
Economic Fact #2: U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The U.S. economy is 19% larger than in 2008, and this U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
Economic Fact #3: Average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was 27% above the levels in the UK ($25,155), 38% higher than Canada ($23,526), 30% above France ($23,027) and 47% above Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.
Economic Fact #4: The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
Read more here of Keith Marsden's article in yesterday's WSJ.
The way the media reports it, the U.S. is a basket-case economy on the verge of plunging into another Great Depression. The factual evidence suggests otherwise.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
OK, so the US number averaged between 2.35% and 9.4% from 2000 to 2007 and between 2.6% and 10.4% from 1992 to 2000. The EU rate ranged between 4.15% and 16.6% from 2000 to 2007.
Take your pick.
I suppose I could pull the study and fact-check the WSJ op-ed piece, but my main points above would be unaffected. For example, consider this from the WSJ article, "The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries." Two questions about this: 1. Are we in the business of crushing our working class to fight global poverty? 2. Does it even work if the sending countries get to relieve their population pressures without exercising the self-restraint that would otherwise by required? (I would be a little sympathetic re Q.1., if you could offer me a cintilla of proof that the answer to Q.2. is YES).
There was a reallocation from labor to capital in the benefits of the last recovery period in the US, compared to all prior post-WW-II recoveries, as well as the reallocation from the tax cuts. Cherry-picking to the contrary notwithstanding.
The US economy grew significantly faster than most EU countries between 2000 and 2008.
As I understand your main points:
1. Facts 1 and 3 are averages, not medians. Yes, and that says nothing about the basic point that the US economy grew more during the period than did the economies of (most of) the EU.
2. Fact 2 omits differential population growth. So?
3. The rest of your original post appears to be gibberish.
As to Q1 and Q2 your last post: Huh? Q1: Immigrants are crushing our working class? I'm working class and I don't feel crushed by immigrants. Q2: Double Huh!
Are you a professor?
PPP)_per_capita'>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wall Street together with the World Bank will say anything to keep the system afloat with dollars. What about the misery index, that's an economic statistic too. "Performance of the economy" is not something that can be defined strictly by GDP. It all depends on who's benefiting and how to measure. Efficiency is relative.
So, let me get this straight. squashnut, kebu77, mouse, and the hand, you are all saying that the EU economies are doing better than the US economy? If so, please provide the data to back up your assertion.
I can't quite figure out what surgcare is saying. Can somebody help?
Oh, nevermind. You mean per capita, right? Gee so you do finally understand about averages.
B. There are home equity loans and home equity lines of credit. I have used home equity loans to remodel my house. I have a HELOC that I used to buy a car and to remodel my kitchen. So those actions don't represent growth or production?
No fool, your buying a car does not represent growth or production, despite it being counted towards GDP. That would be making a car or making a car factory.
Again, let me get this straight. Your evidence that the US is not doing better COMPARED TO other advanced economies is that unemployment is up to 6.1% (compare that with Germany, France, UK, Italy, the EU as a whole).
US national debt as a percent of GDP is 65%. Compare that with other advanced economies. Now, what this has to do with the price of rice in China, I don't know. I'm also not sure what widening wealth disparity has to do with this article (i.e., the article you are commenting on).
You seem to have an ulterior motive. Do I gather from your comments that you are an Obama supporter? Well, I'm not. I'm not a McCain supporter either. I haven't voted for a republicrat for president since 1972. Both parties are responsible for the terrible mess the US economy is in (of course, our economy is not as bad as the economies of most advanced countries -- which is all the author is saying). And the only thing worse than the last (pick a number) republicrat presidents is the last (pick a number) republicrat congresses.
So here, complete this logical syllogism: The bigger the government has gotten, the worse the economy has become. More government taxing and spending means bigger government.
You can argue the premises and come up with a conclusion.