Quote:
Originally posted by Scipio
There are reasons for thinking that the current economy might not reflect what has happened in the past. Certainly, the downturn in job growth is unprecendented. If our main means of predicting the future is the past, we're in a situation we haven't been in for quite a while.
Sure, the growth predictions might put us back on that 20 year slope, but that doesn't mean they're realistic as predictions. Morever, the administration never bothered to look at reality, and instead kept saying, "help is right around the corner!" They were just assuming of course. We don't have much evidence, but you know, the past does have a tendency to repeat itself.
The administration also did things like predict that, over a year, we will recover 2.6 million jobs. Hmm. Isn't that roughly the number of jobs we lost over the Bush years to date? Wouldn't it be convenient if we got back 2.6 million jobs? What a coincidence.
As far as I know, that IS how they make their predictions, as wrong as they've been. An ability to make educated guesses based on what's happening today is sorely lacking.
Is it their plan to keep putting out these predictions until they happen to be right? Then, when and if that happens, "We knew it all along! See, just like we said!" Sure, he's the president, and he has to be optimistic, but wouldn't it be honest of him to come out and say, "Look, I can't control the economy. Things might get a little worse before they get better, but I'm doing everything in my power to make things right."
|
Can you point to reasons that the current economy is somehow vastly different than the past? I can think of two or three reasons that certainly impact it but they don't necessarily redefine the economy in the short term. Economic fundamentals change over time, there are rarely, if ever, clear trend breaks. The few breaks that do occur can only be identified when looking back with some perspective.
The downturn in job growth is not unprecedented...
The chart above shows the number of unemployed from 1970 thru today. There are clearly jumps which are more severe.
The predictions are certainly "realistic" in the sense that there are firm mathematical and historical reasons why they are forecast. Despite what you believe, they do not just pull the numbers out of the air to justify themselves. They most certainly choose from the ones that fit their general beliefs and will always pick the ones that make them look most favorable (as every politician does). This doesn't mean that they aren't valid forecasts.
Most people believe that we will continue on along that 30+ year trendline. (I have my own theory, but we're simply discussing the overall trend and the forecasts of the President's advisors.)
The thinking along the lines of the 2.6 million jobs gained in a year goes with the dam bursting theory of job creation which puts emphasis on the employers holding out until they absolutely have to hire new people. At the point where they can't hold off any longer some believe demand for employees will go from 0 to 200 mph. Not everyone buys into this theory but it's certainly not just the President who is proposing it or buying into it.
As for your last statement,
"Look, I can't control the economy. Things might get a little worse before they get better, but I'm doing everything in my power to make things right."
God I wish he could. Economic growth has become so politicized that any statement like that would be suicide for a politician. Bush's opponents (and I'm just looking at this objectively, you could substitute Kerry's name just as easily if he was the incumbent) are already deriding him as the cause of the "horrible economic times" and voters only want to hear about what politicians will do to make things better not about how they can't control things.