Would the Economy be better under Gore?

[coloradodem2005]

In keeping with my alternate reality thread, I neglected to ask what would have happened with the economy.

[Langis]

1. Do you even need to ask the question?

:shrug:

[coloradodem2005]

2. I'm Speculating.

Although I did laugh at your response.

[Barbara917]

3. Bozo the Clown could do better

[tritsofme]

4. The 2001 recession was unavoidable,

but their would have been a much better and actually thought out fiscal policy enacted that would have made the effects much more limited.

Simple things like investing in our infrastructure instead of reckless tax give-aways to the rich would have done a world of difference.

The surplus could have actually been used as a rainy day fund instead of being pissed away.

[NewJeffCT]

14. I know

I'm still wondering what's happening following the big blackout of a few months back. Everybody seemed to balk at spending what was said to be $50 to $60 billion to modernize the national power grid... but, we've spent $75 billion or so in Iraq so far and are committed to $87 billion next year...

[Bandit]

30. That is total BS

That sounds just like the GOP saying when President Clinton's 1993 budget was presented that it would totally destroy the economy and that was unavoidable. Well we know what happened. Not only did we not go into recession as the GOP said was unavoidable but we went on to have the greatest economic expansion in the history of this country. I ask you to name any Democratic President that had a recession in their term of office. Why do you feel that recession was unavoidable when we were experiencing a trillion dollar surplus? Gore would have continued the policies that brought about those surplusses and not done the exact opposite that brought about huge deficits and reversed the surplus to debt.

[Gulf Coast J]

31. The recession began in March 2001

What could Gore have done in 38 days to avoid it? And budget surpluses and recessions are not mutually exclusive.

And there was a recession from January 1980 through July 1980.

[tritsofme]

37. ok

>>>I ask you to name any Democratic President that had a recession in their term of office

Truman in 1948 and Carter in 1980.

>>>Why do you feel that recession was unavoidable when we were experiencing a trillion dollar surplus?

The economy peaked in 1999, looking at the numbers shows that clearly. If I had it my way, that huge surplus would have mostly been impounded to starve off the possibility of inflation and partially used to pay down the national debt.

Look at the GDP numbers for the last half of 2000, they werent that great, I dont think we registered 1% growth in either Q3 or Q4 of 2000. We were at the end of the business cycle, what goes up must come down.

Gore would have been able to use fiscal policy much more responsibly than giving a trillion dollar tax cut to people who didnt need it. But the trend was toward recession, and there is nothing anybody could have done to avoid it.

The question is, what would have been done to make the recovery more widespread.

[paulk]

40. not complete B.S.

There have been true recessions under Democratic Presidents - Jimmy Carter comes to mind. The economy expands and contracts continually. While there is some evidence that it overall does a little better under Democrats, there's really not much of a difference. The real difference is the strategy the parties use to get out of a slump. The Democrats push money toward the middle and lower classes, the Republicans give it to the rich. So the amount of money the economy is generating stays about the same, it just goes to different people.

A better measure of the difference between parties can be measured by the unemployment rate. Since 1947 the average unemployment rate under Republican administrations is 6.3%. With Democrats it's 4.8%. Under Republican administrations unemployment is a full 30% higher!

If you extropolate this 30% into a Gore (Democratic) presidency we would now have gained 2 million jobs, instead of the 3 million Bush has lost.

I'd go for that, anyday.

[area51]

5. "Would the Economy be better under Gore?"

I think we would've had a short, mild recession under Prez. Gore, instead of the economy spiraling downward into the 2nd Great Depression under Geo. W. Hoover.

[Yupster]

6. Key question

Could he have stopped all the jobs from leaving the country?

We haven't been in a recession for two years now. The problem is the recovery has been jobless. For every nine jobs being produced, ten have been lost, with half of them going to India or the Philippines. Could Gore do something about that? I don't know?

One thing I would predict.

If Gore were president, Ross Perot would be everywhere on TV, and maybe running for president again. He'd be mocking Gore saying "Do you hear that giant sucking sound yet Mr. President?" I don't think Perot appreciated looking foolish during that debate with Gore.

And the Republicans would be right there with him, having completely forgotten that they voted for NAFTA and other free trade agreements too.

[salin]

8. When did Perot debate with Gore?

Perot debated Clinton in 92 and 96. Perot didn't run in 2000 (against Gore). SO how did Gore make Perot look foolish in a debate?

Another point of clarification - the recovery is more accurately described as a Jobloss recovery rather than jobless. As more jobs continue to be lost than created. Would also be interesting to see a comparison vis a vis skills/wages between lost jobs and newly created jobs.

[mdmc]

10. The point is that Perot looked foolish

when he debated Clinton in 1990. I, a Jerry Brown liberal in Colorado at the time, was very interested in the early Ross Perot campaign. Ah, to be young again. :~)
:dem:
I believe that Gore would never have passed across the board tax cuts. If these tax cuts hurt the economy, then Gore would be a better choice. Also, if war is bad for the economy, Gore would be a better choice.

[Yupster]

19. Perot - Gore debate

Am I the only one who watched this on TV? It was a real big deal when it happened.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/02/briefs/index.shtml

On edit, here's the transcript. Perot is pretty funny.

http://ng.csun.edu/e200sp99/assign/perot.htm

[DUreader]

12. for every 9 jobs produced 10 are lost? Source

It seeems like it is worse than that

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Care to Back That Up With Data?

Didn't think so. This is Econ 101 hypothetical-speak.

First, there is still a recession. The 4 qtr moving average of the GDP growth (real) for the last 8 quarters exhibit every point at least 1.5 sigma beneath the mean. This is statistically significant shift in the mean with less than a 1 in a million chance of Type II error.

Secondly, the % of GDP represented by consumer spending has been falling since early 2002. The current "growth" is fomented by gov't spending of borrowed funds. Recessions are NOT, despite the protestations of traditional (read, LAZY) economists, based solely on growth rate. The other elements of the GDP must be considered.

Third, the jobless issue is rooted in a LACK OF GROWTH. The country is still operating with 30+% excess capacity, and people aren't buying. So, the job growth is obviated. The move of jobs overseas are being done by the only industries wherein there is true fiscal growth. It's all the other stagnant industries, that AREN'T moving jobs overseas that cause the jobless "recovery" issue.

Fourth, based upon the above information, it's clear that there is no recovery.

On your points regarding Perot, i have no opinion. I don't think much of Ross and don't think he has the influence on the electorate that he does, and apparently that you do. That's your opinion, and we can differ on that.

However, the premise of your statement regarding joblessness, etc. is rooted in bad information. If you have data contrary to that i've pulled off the Statistical Abstract of the United States, and a model to contradict mine, i'd be happy to discuss further.
The Professor

[Yavin4]

18. Don't Forget the Impact of Historically Cheap Debt

We haven't had interest rates this low in 40 years. All the "growth" that you're reading about is nothing more than debt-related growth, refinancing and new borrowing. In a sense, we're calling this explosion of cheap debt, economic growth. This is exactly what Enron did. They called borrowed money, equity, and Arthur Andersen signed off on it.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Good Analogy

Also, the growth itself is predicated on MASSIVE Governmental borrowing. Consumer spending isn't rising, so that debt boat has sailed. The "growth" is an illusion, because NOBODY IS BUYING ANYTHING!

That's why we're at 30+% excess capacity in the U.S. Nobody is buying the stuff we can make! This obviates any talk of recovery.

The Professor

[Yupster]

20. USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm

Don't argue with me. Argue with the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee. They're the ones who declared it over.

Maybe they're wrong and you're right.

I'm sure they've been wrong before.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. The Definition Has Been In Dispute Since The Late 40's

I'd say 50% of us have disagreed with the simplistic view of recession for the last 50 years! Simple reason: It's not statistically valid. The politico-economists like the simple version because it's maleable to their pre-existing theoreticals. The econometricians don't like it because it's a mathematically invalid definition.

The causation within the macroeconomy is far more complex that the Smithians, Hazletians, and von Hayekians understand. To look at such simple definitions is fool's game.

And, sorry, but USA Today is not on my list of authorities on macroeconomic matters. Neither is anyone who writes for them. Remember, Larry Kudlow is a Ph.D. economist. You should need no more information than that to reject this definition, because that's the one he believes, and my dog knows more about macroeconomics than Kudlow.

The fact is, that you can call it whatever you want, that's fine with me. But, let me make this abundantly clear; THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE OF RECOVERY. At best, we are in grotesque stagnation on a macro scale.
The Professor

[Yupster]

25. Now I, as a layman, have a problem

I have this group -- "which consists of top academic economists, met in Cambridge, Mass., to discuss the issue." -- saying the recession ended in November 2001.

On the other side, I have a guy who calls himself the professor and uses many big words that I don't understand who says it's still going on today.

The place where I read the first view is USA Today's Money section.

The place where I read the second view a partisan political chatroom.

As a layman, there's no telling who's right, but I'll go with the academics in Cambridge understanding of course that either side may be wrong, or it could truly not be known.

[Gulf Coast J]

24. There are other ways to look at it

The National Bureau of Economic Research looks at things like unemployment, income, production and wholesale-retail sales. To the best of my knowledge, they are pretty much the authority on dating business cycles. They have the most recent recession starting March 2001 (I doubt Gore could have stopped that!) and ending November 2001. I've yet to see anything suggesting that we are still in a recession, especially with employment starting to rebound.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html/

As for the original question, I think our long term outlook would be better with Gore, but I don't know if our current situation would be better or not. For all the talk about Bush being a right-wing radical, you have to keep in mind that non-defense federal government spending has been increasing at a faster rate under Bush than it did under Clinton. If you believe that government spending is a better stimulus than tax cuts, it's hard to imagine Gore being able to increase spending more than Bush did, especially with a GOP controlled Congress. When government debt starts pushing up interest rates, we will start to feel the pain of Bush's fiscal policy. But until that starts to happen, it's pretty hard to argue that we would be better off with Gore right now.

[Punkingal]

7. Everything....

would be better under President Gore.

[HFishbine]

9. Everything

except satire.

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. The economy would have been better because with Gore,

there would have been no hare-brained tax cuts for the rich and the country would not be mortgaging its future for generations with a series of imperialistic military misadventures.

[Kahuna]

13. Everything would be better under Gore...

Puleeze!

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Does the Pope Sh?t in the Woods?

We would still be operating in the black and Al did win! Al Gore wouldn't have plundered the treasury and started nonstop wars!

[slinkerwink]

16. of course~

[spanone]

21. Who knows? At least we wouldn't have the stench of 2000 on us.

[NewJeffCT]

26. My guess

We'd still have had a recession... but, we would not have raided the treasury to pay for tax cuts for the rich. The budget deficit would have been much, much smaller because we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and Afghanistan may have been avoided (didn't Clinton have Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan hunting bin Laden that were pulled out when Bush took over? I'm guessing they would have remained there and been able to get bin Laden a lot easier and cheaper...)

We also likely would not have had a brewing major trade war with our allies, and a friendlier China might have been more amenable to letting their currency float...(Bush refusing to apologize for the spy plane incident is still an issue to many Chinese, and then sending Powell to shake hands with the Pres of Taiwan was another slap in the face of China...)

I know here in CT, UTC lost out on a major European defense contract because of political pressure to not give it to America, even though UTC's bid was significantly lower.

[Nederland]

27. No

Presidents have precious little effect on the economy.

[Yavin4]

28. Wrong. Dead Wrong

So, if Bush launches a nuclear attack on France, then that wouldn't affect the economy? Right?

Presidents have a tremendous impact on the economy, both positively and negatively. Why? Because the federal government under control of the president, is the biggest entity in the economy. Through trade deals, government spending, government borrowing, taxation, wars, etc., a President can greatly influence the direction of the economy.

I believe that President Gore's team would have prevented 9/11 from happening. He would have followed up on the evidence that was presented before him, like Bush didn't do. Imagine what the economy would be like without 9/11.

[tritsofme]

29. The Fed has much more power on the economy than the President or Congress

could ever hope to have.

[Yavin4]

41. And Who Gets To Choose The Fed Chairman?

The President.

[tritsofme]

42. But chances are that particular president did not appoint that chairman

to the board.

Dont you think Gore would have reappointed Greenspan as well?

[Nederland]

34. My mistake

So, if Bush launches a nuclear attack on France, then that wouldn't affect the economy? Right?

Yes, you are correct. If Bush launched a nuclear attack on France the economy would be affected. However, given that he didn't actually do this, I'm struggling to see your point. The Fed chairman and Congress has way more impact on the economy than the president could ever hope to have. People just enjoy the simplicity of being able to blame (or give credit to) one person.

[NewJeffCT]

36. again

9/11 may have been prevented (remember, when Bush took over, his team said Clinton was too obsessed with bin Laden/terrorisim and the special forces and intelligence agents tracking bin Laden were pulled back...) - that was a hit on the economy.

If 9/11 was prevented, we also would not have had to have spent hundreds of billions of $ on Afghanistan and Iraq, and we could instead have invested in infrastructure and upgrading the power grid...

Maybe if Bush wasn't busy pissing on the Chinese over the spy plane incident and, more recently, having Powell shakes hands with the president of Taiwan, they would have been more amenable to letting their currency float, which would have slowed the manufacturing job losses. Would Gore have done these things? I think not.

A recession was coming - but, it would have been milder because the deficits would have been much lower, and it would not be a jobless recovery.

[tritsofme]

39. And if we did end up with deficits

they would have been completely cyclical, meaning when the economy got back on track they would have dissapeared. The problems with dumbos deficits is that they are structural, and they are not going anywhere no matter what happens for a very long time.

[Yavin4]

43. My Point Is...

that presidents through their actions/inactions can directly affect the economy. If we go in Syria and Iran, it will affect your ability to get a job.

[blm]

32. Yes. No question.

.

[LastTime2BeFree]

33. There is no correct answer

"All the above" is not even close.

[leftofthedial]

35. yes

but then the economy would be better under my dog.

[durutti]

38. Yes

More than likely.

[tom_paine]

44. Short answer: yes

We'd be paying down the debt, we'd still be in surplus or at least breaking even.

As a result, the recession and jobless recovery would have been a much milder slowdown, IMHO.

Clinton-Gore policies would have left everyone feeling so prosperous by virtue of staying the course. Given the fact that the Busheviks have pounded the shit out of the economy, the Middle Class, and the American Dream for 3 years now and it still hasn't fully broken indicates what a strong position Clinton-Gore left us in, that we can withstand 3 years of continuous lootin and lying and job-loss.

There's more, but just those two things would effect a complete turnaround of the economic malaise that requires the full force of the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media and the Corporate TV Pravda which dances to it's Totalitarian tune, along with the Treasury and the Plunge Protection Team (not to mention the alterations in data gathering methodologies that are giving a distinctly Soviet airs to the Imperial Economic Pronouncements) which serve to put a smiley face on the carnage.