Sorry, even this arguement seemed to shed this new information in a positive light, but I'm here to point out, several things in order to address statements with-i the article that a highlighted in bold.

If the growth rate isn't procurring any jobs, that I'm interested in what they consider growth rate? It just means either more goods are being purchased overseas, but who's getting the money for it? Not those people that apprently still don't have a job in this *booming* economy. Secondly, the dollar's value has weakend, which is pretty self explanatory, so I wonder how everyone thinks this is a magnificent sign of steady growth? And most importantly, Consumer spending is up higher than its been all year. No kidding,welcome to the holiday season! That has to be the biggest spin on consumer spending ever. They would do much better to compare it to last year at this time than just the first two quesrters of this year. No one purchases anything in Jan-March just to recover their credit card bedt from the Oct-Dec X-Mas season. I hope everyone else caught that when reading the findings of the reports.

Basically, what I get from the report, which apparently the times missed a bit, was this.Companies are producing more goods, selling them to overseas markets and to desperate Americans who's kids are going to freak if they don't get this year's tickle-me-elmo. They're keeping the small financial gains (aka *maximizing profits*) instead of hiring more people, because they know come January, aka *slow* quarter, they'll just have to lay them off again. The dollar has weakened, so even minimum wage won't really be able to buy you a gelati in Italy, or some churros and chocolate in Spain (Thank the Euro...it made it alot tougher for me to be a tourist in Europe). And parents everywhere still need to go through x-mas consumer hell, just this year, they still have 5 K hanging over their heads from never fully rebounding from last year. Can anyone say 10K debt by Jan. 15th?

Yeah, the economy is healthy, and doing swell.

-Dolce

OMG!

The economy grew, but slower than expected?? Where do I sign up for the doomsayers brigade?

Come on, dolce, this is just spin. Economy forecasts are one of the least reliable things in the world. The economy grew at 3.7%, which is very good for any time period. Just because analysst were expecting more (remember, these are the same analysts that were forecasting $5 trillion surplus for the decade, among other things), doesn't mean the economy is doing bad.

Consumer confidence has dropped for three months in a row, but prior to that it grew for 5 months in a row. The drop is attributed to rising gasoline prices.

You talk about jobs, as if there is some sort of a problem. The unemployment is at 5.4% which is a normal rate.

There's nothing alarming about any of the figures you just posted; you just want to see them in a bad light, in order to make Bush look bad.

Only by 3.7%?

You should be happy about that. Germany's GDP grew by 0.9% last year...and that if you neglect inflation.

We expect our economy to grow at 100% annualy if the preisdent is a Republican; otherwise, the economy is a failure.

What are you talking about? My whole criticism of the article was that it said exactly what you did. A nice 3.7. But when you add in that there has been, and are no prospects of, job rate growth, the dollar has weakened, and the increase in consumer spending is just due to the holidays, I personally think that 3.7. is b.s. Thats all. I'm not argueing that 3.7, wouldn't be a nice growth rate, I'm argueing that whatever they're basing their 3.7 on is a joke. Its pretty much just holiday sales, which we all know has no long-term effect on economic advancement. Its not pushing new industries, this time around its admittedly not even producing a couple jobs or a strong internation stand for the U.S. dollar. All that 3.7 looks like to me is alot of people going into bad credit ratings around March unless they get really lucky between now and then and win the lotto.

-Dolce

Keep in mind, that increased consumer spending (which is not attributed to the holiday season) generates jobs as well. You don't want consumers not to spend; what's been happening in Japan for the past 15 years is the direct result of very low consumer spending. The consumer debts you keep talking about is a scarecrow that's been used for the past 2 years. I've yet to see any evidence that there's something fundamnetally wrong with the levels of consumer debt right now, as opposed to the years past.

The decreasing value of the U.S. dollar is not a prima facia wrong; sure it must suck to be a tourist in Europe now, compared to 10 years ago, but low dollar makes American goods that much more attractive.

Also, job creation is not something that we should be targeting, especially considering that the unemployment rate is at a healthy 5.4%. You personally talked about how unwise it is to meddle with the job market. Jobs come and go, and while some people may become displaced between them, overall, it is good for the society to have such job liquidity.

Funny read. making it sound like it's a bad thing for it economy to grow. Funny old americans make rusty laugh

The job growth during this economic revival remains anemic by historic standards. The percentage of 3.7 isn't bad but that is only one measure of several ways to look at it.

If you are in some hard-hit states -- like oh say Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida to name 3 at random -- you are facing a much worse jobs situation than in others.

Comparisons to Germany are silly due to the different welfare state and labor laws over there which make being unemployed less harsh.

Archie, what is the level of unemployment that you consider acceptable?

Ok, a little economics lesson here.
GDP is meaningless without consideration for inflation. Basically, if GDP isn't outpacing inflation, then you have no real growth.
A GDP of 3.7 percent in the current economy is REAL growth because it outpaces inflation.. It is good news.
As far as the argument about consumer spending being up because of "the holidays," since when is July to September the holidays? These are the THIRD QUARTER numbers.
However, for an economy to be considered robust, then GDP should be about five percent and we're still well below that.

You are correct to some extent. But you raise an interesting issue. Traditionally in the US economy, 4 percent unemployment was considered FULL employment. Basically, anybody who really wanted a job could find one - not necessarily the job he/she wanted, but A JOB.
However, many argue since we now have a majority of two income families, many part-time workers and much more generous and lengthy unemployment benefits in this country than two decades ago (from 13 weeks to 26 weeks and, in some cases, 52 weeks), then unemployment could be as high as 6 percent and we would still have what is considered economically as FULL employment in the U.S.
In other words, the employment picture is not as bad as it might look at first glance.

3.7 is good. But this is a massaged and spun number.

This neglects to tell you that the job growth was at Starbucks, Target and Wal Mart.

I hope Mr. Bush has some time to get started on his economic program now that the "war" has been over for 18 months. I wouldnt want to be left behind.

Anything to back that up?

And to clear up some confusion - the 3.7% is the Real GDP growth number; it already accounts for inflation. However, the number itself doesn't tell you anything about employment. You can achieve higher GDP by productivity increases as well.

Kremmy
You know real estate is in GDP right? Interest rates are at a 50 artificial low are they not?

Back that up:
goto Monster and see if
AT&T, Cisco, IBM, GM, Ford, Microsoft etc are hiring en masse

There will be 1 million extra retail jobs for Xmas and lots of Xmas spending but that doesnt build: buildings, bridges, steel, cars, missiles, machinery etc

I think W needs to climb down from the tank and start his 1000 points of light thing that he promised in his RNC address, dont you.

Last time I checked you and I were on pretty much the same page, I am pointing out that the new 3.7 is really like a old 2.0 and we need to be at a 4.9 to "get out of the woods"

Well the thing is, back in the late 90's AT&T, Cisco, etc. WERE hiring en masse for what turned out to be unneeded jobs. So just because they're not hiring now, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the jobs outlook we have. The fundamentals of the economy are good, and I'd rather Bush stay out of it than try and fiddle around with it.

Well the thing is, back in the late 90's AT&T, Cisco, etc. WERE hiring en masse for what turned out to be unneeded jobs. So just because they're not hiring now, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the jobs outlook we have. The fundamentals of the economy are good, and I'd rather Bush stay out of it than try and fiddle around with it.[/quote]

LOL !

The economy took a turn for the worse in October, when 337,000 new jobs were added

By the way, it looks like Bush WON'T be the first president since Hoover to lose jobs in his term. Suck on that, John Kerry.