Comments: the Graph

Comments

Brilliant! I want a copy of this chart suitable for printing and posting at the library, coffee shop, etc.

Is it fair tho to in these times with the whole world economy based on interdependence and with so much variables to shove all the lost jobs on Bush's sleave?

(not a fan of bush at all btw)

not blaming Bush here, just illustrating a fact. The viewer can make what they want of it. But I don't see anything in the graph that says "this is Bush's fault", the facts are illustrated, but quite honestly the explanation for them is still unknown. And if people take an anti Bush read off of seeing the truth laid out, so be it.

Woah, there, what's this backing-off? Don't get soft before the election. FQuist (Dutch?) raises a valid point, but take also into account the length of time across which the world economy has been "interdependent." If we're being technical, then every president in this chart ought be held to the same standard of allowing jobs to be created in spite of difficult international times. If we're being more Dow-Jones/NYSE oriented (which, I think, is FQuist's vantage point), the picture focuses as thinly as a laser beam on economic dropkicks levied by Bush, Jr. This isn't an anti-Bush sentiment (anti-Bush administration, certainly), it is a statement of causality. So seriously, why the "explanation still unknown" bit?

no, no backing off here. I just think this piece (and the revised one one entry later) stands well without any pointers towards blatant politics. I'm never exactly comfortable telling people how to think, even though I'm down to do it for a cause I believe in.

As for the "explanation unknown", I take my economics seriously, I have strong suspicions as to where this "jobless recovery" we are in now emerged, and they indeed point to Bushco. But I don't have strong evidence and there for they don't need to be presented here. The graph speaks for itself. And that happens to be my favorite sort of propaganda. But no worries it'll get raw again for sure...

Dutch indeed. And points taken, especially Abe's about "taking an anti-bush read off of seeing the truth layed out". It's just that I've seen many people simplistically blaming Bush for every single lost job - which I projected a bit unto you.

I guess I'm still a little unused to US elections, living in the quiet attack-ad-less country of NL. It's also why I am often uneasy with things like these.

JK, about the causality: I think it's not entirely true - just part of it, I think reality is way too complex to have this being a matter of causality. I'm afraid to comment on your same standard comment, not knowing a lot about the former presidents and the spites and despites of their economic results.

FQuist, US politics are completely brutal, this graph is like a feather dusting compared to what goes on behind the scenes. In the 60's the four most popular leaders of the left where all assassinated (JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X), and we're dealing with a sitting president whose father once headed the CIA. In 1980 its quite likely that the Reagan/Bush campaign arranged a deal with Iran trading money and weapons to prevent the release of the American hostages being held there until after the election. And they got a way with it. A little graph just isn't in the same league.

On the causality issue, yes the economy is global and it actually is more global then its been since the 20's so there is something of a point there. But the jobless recovery we are seeing is unprecedented and it seems to have an awful lot to do with Bush's policies. His policies have given corporations far broader range to exploit labor then they have had since 1920's again. And the very wealthy are being taxed less then ever. Luxury spending is up, everything else is down. Its the economics of stratification, deliberate and brutal.

On top of all that it looks like the global processes are actually benefiting the American economy not hurting. The Asian central banks continue to buy seemingly unlimited amounts of US government bonds at extremely low interest rates. As soon as they cut off the line of credit we are in for a shock, big time. And that's blamable entirely on Bush, as Clinton left office the deficit was contracting at a nice clip, and now we are borrowing like no tomorrow, while reducing government revue. All sorts of nastiness lies ahead...

FQ--you called my causality bluff. In truth I have done wrong in simplifying the chain of event-response from Presidential action to economic effect.

With all due respect to the complexity of the global world market, however, certain events express such, how shall I safely say, expected outcomes under probable sets of variables. In the case of the current Bush, rural American states like my own (Arkansas) were shaking in their boots when Bush Jr. announced his revised tex plan some years ago. When the poorest 60% of an entire state receive around 16% percent of the tax cut (as opposed to 33% of the tax cut the year prior)while the wealthiest 20%, in the same period, jump from receiving around 40% to 66% of the tax cut, events are thron into motion that mean nothing but trouble. As the economy here is still largely argricultural, and tax cut money in the wealthiest tiers has been shown to be spent on primarily services (not goods, e.g. agriculture), a fair portion of that poorest 60% goes into the red. And so on. This wasn't the national standard, but, in Arkansas' case, it was the proverbial straw that broke tha camel's back. Here the causality of the current economic standstill if crisply clear and has been since 2001 saw Bush's taxation changes.

Abe--Sorry, I got carried away.

Take it easy, all.

The source for my tax figures, btw: Citizens for Tax Justice; CTJ ISsue Brief: The Bush Tax Cuts in Arkansas (www.ctj.org).

FQ--can I just expatriate myself to the Netherlands? I'm a steady rent payer, if you're interested.

cheap prescription

You can also check the sites about...

You can also check the sites about...

You can also check the sites about...

online pharmacy

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.