« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Nine Years of Economic Progress
Dow Jones Industrial Average:
Oct 1, 1999: 11497
June 26, 2008: 11453
Thank you, pro-business, Republican-controlled administration.
Advertisement
Thank you, pro-business, Republican-controlled administration.
Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars
House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor
Special Guests
Big names and big brains
Special Features
Pressing topics and trends
Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.
All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.
Comments (44)
You tell 'em, Baby. Depressingly, I doubt it will make any significant difference to the disgruntled people who are into Spite Voting.
I also hear it's going to get worse – GM and Citigroup for beginners.
June 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
GM is a result of a general realization that
a) the US doesn't support manufacturing anymore (very, very bad decision but made by the venture capitalists in the US -- many of whom have strong ties with the Dems)
b) cars are going the way of the dinosaur
Neither of these trends has anything to do with GWB. His sole mismanagement of the economy was a needless war in Iraq. (Even the wasteful bureaucracy in the Dept of Homeland Security wasn't his idea and forced on him by Congress.)
June 27, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cutting taxes while waging war and implementing a medicare drug plan was lousy economic planning, ct. You might say the drug deal was Congress, but Bush didn't veto it. The economy is great if you are a company that exports services and products, but it is lousy for American workers. The cost of living is soaring while wages are stagnating. There's a name for that, isn't there, ct?
June 27, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things for the American Workers have been lousy starting in the 70s. The slide has been continue and the mid-90s when the Clintons were in the White House didn't stop that slide.
I've harped repeatedly how manufacturing took a back seat to financial as the prime sector in our economy during the Clinton Administration.
What we have hear is a game of musical chairs -- which party will end up in the White House when the music finally stops? GWB simply sped up the record player.
(Do not read this as an endorsement of GWB -- but it's important to realize that there are fundamental issues not being addressed properly by either party.)
June 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, fundamental issues need to be addressed. But the republicans have so mismanaged vital, baseline government functions that we will have to spend most of our money and time during the next two terms putting it all back together again. We desperately need to revitalize our infrastructure, plan and implement alternative modes of travel like rail and encourage mass transit projects again and provide funds for research on alternative energy solutions. Taxes can be raise and we can get out of Iraq, maybe, but I'm not convinced that will provide the funds we need.
June 27, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man oh man, I wish I'd taken my retirement money out of mutual funds three weeks ago----Three weeks ago when the Dow was up 1500 points from today.
June 26, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like running in mud.
June 26, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it Baby.
I'll say one thing, this topic is a hell of a lot more interesting then, "I'm bored."
Makes one wonder, don't it.
June 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your avatar makes me want another baby (kind of a sore spot in my house right now). Is that creepy?
Okay, TMI. Going away now.
June 27, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you worry about the planet at all, realize that having more babies is very bad.
June 27, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
libgirl, I've had about 6 hours sleep this week. Sure, I've had lots of quality time with my baby, rocking him as he SCREAMS INCONSOLABLY FOR HOURS ON END.
Just be careful what you wish for.
June 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It passes. And then, it's all cooing and sunshine again. And then you go through the terrible two's. And then that passes and they're all sweetness and sunshine. And then they go through that awkward preteen stuff. Then, that passes and it's all sweetness and sunshine. And then they go through their adolescent rebellion. And then, it's all sweetness and sunshine. And then...
Point: It's a rollercoaster ride. But, it's awesome! Nothing more rewarding than being a parent, I think.
And I have to say, when my son started sleeping through the night, I actually missed our middle of the night one-on-one. Didn't miss the sleep deprivation, however...
June 27, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was still a Democratic administration in 1999... Gosh, my mind is sure playing tricks on me!
For an apples-to-apples comparison:
DJIA
The day before GWB's inauguration, and yesterday:
January 19, 2001: 10587.59
June 26, 2008: 11453.42
The day before Clinton's inauguration, and after the same amount of time had gone by in his administration:
January 19, 1993: 3255.99
June 26, 2000: 10542.99
Of course, much of this was driven by the Internet boom, so it's partially attributable to Gore :-)
June 27, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers don't lie.
June 27, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Allberg... you can't reduce the whole economy to a single number. A much more revealing chart is:
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
You will see that for the most part the economy keeps growing at the prescribed rates.
Now, also realize that the Dow changes companies in the index as well, so that one of the main things you won't see is that manufacturing got swamped in the Clinton era (mid-90s) when the financial sector took over as the dominant portion of the national economy.
And it's also worth pointing out that the Clintons didn't change the general trend towards financialization of the economy started under Reagan and GHWB. The housing bubble now popping started actually in the middle of the Clinton-era when all these new derivatives for mortgages were invented.
My point? That the economy, as measured by the DJIA, has grown at a remarkable steady rate regardless of who was at the helm over the past 30 years.
June 27, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS It's nearly a certainty that the next administration will have the economy crater (as in really nose dive) on them as a result of peak oil. Assuming Obama wins, this means that an equivalent argument to Allberg's above is:
a) Economy nose dives when the Dems are in office
b) Economy nose dives when we don't have a white male in office
Why do I point this out? Because it shows the danger of an argument purposely constructed to get to a pre-determined conclusion (in the case of this blog that the GOP hurt the economy).
June 27, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I'm guessing you don't have a retirement account, yes?
June 27, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I do... and you ask because???????
June 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming that, given your predictions of the impending crash, that you would not be investing in the market - but, I should have worded it differently. That doesn't mean that you don't have some retirement plan.
June 27, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have always had a portion of my retirement in foreign stocks (that's not as hard as it sounds as many mutual funds cater to just such a pail).
However, keeping money under the mattress isn't worth anything either if the dollar goes under. Think Germany in the 20s. If the government's solution to this mess is to print more money, then you can expect to see hyperinflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
In which case, the only solution is not to own dollars at all.
June 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmm.....K, thanks.
June 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that was an ambivalent response! C'mon, Carol, lemme have it!
June 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not ready. Just studying, doing a little research on my own here. Trying to figure out just what the hell we ought to be girding ourselves here for a year from now - two years from now. Not just in this country, but globally. It ain't gonna be pretty. I'm fully behind Obama and the Dems coming into office, but I don't know how the hell they're going to straighten this out. And when we can reasonably expect things to turn around.
June 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time to invest in canned foods and shotgun shells.
June 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that CT has intimated as much in past threads.
June 27, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly my point. My point (to the extent I had one at all) is to undermine the frequent Republican claim that their policies are good for the economy. Quite frankly, I just don't see it. Maybe in theory, but I can't remember the last theoretically pure fiscally conservative Republican administration.
June 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. The GOP wastes money on defense, the Dems waste money on social services.
The problem is money is wasted and no one has been fiscally responsible no matter who is in charge.
June 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defense?? Where do you get that? From my perspective, it appears that the money has been wasted on offense.
And I'd rather have social services than either defense or offense.
June 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I nice dig about the war in Iraq... however, as I said before (a) it was a needless war and (b) private debt incurred is also a huge problem which was encouraged under both GOP and Dems
2) You can have whatever preference you want about where to waste money -- but the money is being wasted.
June 27, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously the first sentence was supposed to be "A nice..."
June 27, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fiscal responsibility. That's the key, right? I've heard many moderates and independents frustrated at the wasteful spending from both sides. They don't want to "throw money" at more problems. I hear that a lot about schools and social programs in particular.
The key is spending wisely, which should always be the Democratic talking point. Always. Of course throwing money at problems isn't the answer. Using it efficiently is.
And the argument always comes down to Republicans throwing money at "defense" and Democrats throwing money at "social programs." But certain social problems, wisely implemented and funded, can be beneficial for the wider American economy as well as the world.
June 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In economics the key is, return on your investment. Investment in defense is important if you think someone's going to try to rob you of your stuff. Investment in offense is important if you think that you can go rob someone else's stuff. Investment in education is good if you think that a smarter population in 30 years will mean higher GDP. Investment in roads is good if it will improve commerce. And investment in welfare is good if you think, what, that the poor will rise up and revolt without it?
I think we have made some poor investments, especially in defense and in some social services that don't have significant returns on their investments. But economics can't explain all public expenditures. There are some important social services that democrats advocate for (and republicans typically do not) which we feel are moral imperatives with or without investment return. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that clearthinker disapproves of these.
June 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, having worked in Human Services for a good bit of my career, I have to admit that those funds are not always spent as efficiently as they should be. But, I also have seen that such programs tend to be terribly under-funded. There is much more need out there, then can be adequately served. We could debate it, and the issues would vary depending on what service we're talking about, but it's hard to talk about money being wasted on things like child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention, child nutrition programs, services for children and adults with disabilities, child care resources, energy assistance programs, college financial aid programs, employment assistance programs, services for senior citizens, ...
June 27, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thing is, these numbers don't mean much to the family scraping by or the people getting laid off or the ones who planned on retiring in a few years. For regular people, the economy flat out sucks right now. Worst part is, there's no end in sight.
June 27, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a famous math professor used to say: death is a statistic of one.
If you think the economy sucks now, wait until Jan 20, 2009.
As I said several years ago, universal health isn't going to even be on the table: without cheap energy much more basic issues will arise.
The war in Iraq definitely accelerated this whole problem, but the biggest issue was the private debt that people heaped on themselves -- when you live beyond your means, at some point in time the piper will need to be paid. That time is coming due now -- at the same time that peak oil hits.
It's the perfect storm and you haven't seen nuttin' yet. :-(
June 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, if I just think happy thoughts...
;)
June 27, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
couldn't hoit! ;-)
June 27, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They just trimmed off the fat
June 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid I should defend the Shrub, but...
Didn't the Dow drop down into the 7000's after 9/11? So it's up like 4000 points since then, right?
I'm just saying that there are many, many more economic indicators that are better than the Dow. Compare unemployment, GDP, quarterly ecomonic growth, inflation/CPI, etc.
Using Dow "point-in-time" comparisons to chart economic performance is primitive and ultimately unreliable.
June 27, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
ecomonic = economic
Preview/edit button some time soon, TPM?
June 27, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dow was at 9605 just before 9/11. By the end of the year, it was back over 10000. All appearances to the contrary, 9/11 was little more than a panic blip on the market.
Look, pick your metric. Write a post. Show me how the economy has done anything but stagnate for the past 8 years. I'm not blaming it entirely on the President, or on Congress - it's a complex thing. But Republicans aren't good at keeping their promises to improve the economy.
June 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was, and remains, that using Dow "point-in-time" comparisons to chart economic performance is primitive and ultimately unreliable.
You can't simply say "WOW! Look at how much higher the Dow is NOW than in 1950! Our economy has ROCKED for 60 years! Dems and Repubs UNITE! Woo HOOOO!"
June 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I say, pick your metric.
June 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, this is your blog. Your argument is the one that needs support. Not mine.
June 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment