Bush = Good Economic Record ?
Wow, I simply do not know where to begin with this one: Bush Has a Good Economic Record.
Tell you what, rather than me telling you why I think this is a steaming pile of enzyme free donkey fazoo, flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary, let's crowd source this: How many analytical errors, half truths, misstatements, and out of context data points can you find in this commentary?
If you cannot access the full OpEd, its posted (temporarily) after the jump
>
Source:
Bush Has a Good Economic Record
KEITH MARSDEN
WSJ, September 3, 2008; Page A23
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html
>
Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party's call for "change," and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a "third Bush term," delegates groaned.
Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).
How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:
- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.
- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.
- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.
While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.
- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.
Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.
When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.
The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.
- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.
The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.
The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.
The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.
~~~~
Mr. Marsden, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an adviser at the World Bank and a senior economist in the International
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 | 07:32 PM | Permalink
| Comments (90)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e554f9f8388834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush = Good Economic Record ?:
Comments
Before hovering over the link, I knew it would go to online.wsj.com
Posted by: Troy | Sep 3, 2008 7:37:47 PM
Is this another Jerry Bowyer book that will sell for a dollar on Amazon?
Posted by: Jeff M. | Sep 3, 2008 7:39:42 PM
Another Larry Kudlow vision of goldilocks !
Posted by: X | Sep 3, 2008 7:49:51 PM
Wow. I don't know where to start. One of the highest growth rates..using what for an inflation adjustment? The CPI? Per capita health costs...what does that mean? Most developed countries spend half what the US does and have as good or better health care score cards. A virtual doubling of the national debt for my kids and grandkids enjoyment? Come on.
Whatever happened to careful, thoughtful and thorough analysis? Is all mainstream media just a mouthpiece the Murdochs and GEs of the world?
Lest you think I'm one of those pinkos, I will point out I have spent 30 years in corporate finance and private tax practice.
Ross
Posted by: Ross Thompson | Sep 3, 2008 7:57:42 PM
President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton.
And a national debt 72% greater.
GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's
Our GDP is inflated by imputed rents and hedonic adjustments.
Our mean national household income is ~$60K. The number of households is ~116M, implying our true GDP should be $7T, for a TRUE per-capita GDP of $23,000.
The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's
American households were $8T in debt at the end of 2001 and will be over $15T in debt by the end of 2008, an increase of 87%.
The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain.
And has the health outcomes of a 3rd world nation. We have the higher overheads of any health delivery system.
The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.
This is an outright lie. The uninsured MAY receive treatment in SOME urban hospitals for EMERGENCY care.
in 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.
LOL. nice shift away from the first-world for quintile-level comparisons of income distribution.
The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards
This is because we don't count the unemployed when their benefits run out.
the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.
Nice way to saddle Clinton with St Ronnie's debt service!
It's also amazing how you can spin the numbers when you fake the GDP.
In 1998 we paid $363B on net interest, in 2008 we will have paid $500B, a 37% increase.
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget
BULLSHIT! We've borrowed that money, every penny of it!
Posted by: Troy | Sep 3, 2008 7:58:32 PM
It's 19% total growth in the economy measured in dollars, which are half the value against the Euro a down 26% against the world basket.
If inflation is 2.3% or more, the 2.2% growth this guy likes so much that’ negative growth. Could Gas, Health Care, education, food and housing be up more than that? They used a 1.2% deflator adjustment this last quarter down from the 1.8% deflator they’ve been stuck on at the BLS
Household consumption has always been more in the US but the difference is LESS under Bush. Funny how they left the old numbers, from 2000, out.
Is spending the most on Health care good? That's because the GOP Congress (They had a 9% approval back then too) and Bush signed a Medicare prescription drug benefit that doesn't allow the government to negotiate prices. We negotiate price on some of the most sensitive procurements of national defense, computers, etc.. but not Health care. Stupid.
Life expectancy is hilarious they compare today's US rate with one country's old rate. Nice stat.
The investment number is all about housing, which sit empty, are being foreclosed and add no productivity enhancements.
The list is nutty and he claims to know Obama is going to run a “social justice” strategy. More empty GOP media machine catch phrases.
Posted by: VennData | Sep 3, 2008 8:06:05 PM
lol!! nice one!
Posted by: Oscar | Sep 3, 2008 8:19:04 PM
A fine piece of creative truthtelling by a devoted apparatchik.
Posted by: SR | Sep 3, 2008 8:19:20 PM
I'm sorry Barry.
I just couldn't bring myself to even look at the propaganda. The fascists are going down fighting. Well bully for them.
You just walk out your door in Vermont and you know that people aren't just angry; they are fatigued. Every ounce of energy people in this country have will be devoted to ousting incumbents (Republican AND Democrat). With few exceptions, we've got about 435 problems in congress, 100 problems in the senate, RATS in the supine court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) and two bozos in the White House.
Posted by: AGG | Sep 3, 2008 8:26:42 PM
Right out of the gate the article begins by describing the Democrats scorn for the Bush economic performance in their convention speeches and then, in the beginning of the next paragraph, states they "cited no good evidence" to support this claim.
Now this may sound like nit picking but what the writer is setting up is a rather carefully calculated lie, or a misleading half-truth if one prefers, because with the exception of Ross Perot and the early Obama (he's learned better since) there are very few politicians who will risk losing their audience by citing "good evidence" in speeches, they leave that to surrogates, media, academia, etc.
Which leads right into the initial closer since "citing no good evidence" -- did you note there is no support for this claim -- appears to be referring only to the speeches but its placement in the following paragraph could be interpreted as a reference to all the evidence available. Needless to say there is an absolute mountain of evidence and analysis out there delineating the relative poverty of Bush's economic performance (which I'll leave to others to cite).
In any case this first turn nicely moves the initial set up into the following paragraph which appears to dispassionately make the case -- note the contrast to the Democrats "poured scorn" -- for Bush's good economic results but rather than beginning with the historical record, which would of course necessitate a comparison to the Clinton administration's far superior results much too early in the piece, the writer moves first to an international comparison using multiple data sources which, not coincidentally, allows cherry picking of data from the source that makes a particular comparison look most favorable to Bush and/or reference to data that is more fuzzy or prone to misinterpretation allowing it to appear more favorable to Bush.
I'll stop there but wish to reiterate that this article is clearly not intended to actually inform its readers; it is a skilled, well-developed, politically driven sales piece. I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs because it was giving me a headache but based on the initial paragraphs will predict that there are few if any readily demonstrable falsehoods in the entire article. It's advertising copy, well done, but that's all.
Posted by: RW | Sep 3, 2008 8:30:37 PM
Come on, guys. Let's forget the left/right, anti-Democratic Party / anti-Republican Party rhetoric. We're all patriotic. We're all hugely fortunate. And we're all grossly over-consumptive.
George Bush is a thug; he's a war criminal by any measure; and he's been an economic disaster. We have to change the way we live. We have to stop spending money as if it comes out of a tap (i.e. today's announcement that we'll give a billion bucks to Georgia is obscene - we don't have it, we'll have to borrow it, and your kids and my kids will have to pay the money back).
We will NEVER get out of this mess without drastically changing our habits. There is no easy solution that will not cause an immense amount of dislocation and pain.
And let's make our decisions based upon facts. We will NEVER be energy self-sufficient. We will, at some point, not be WATER self-sufficient. Step #1 in dealing with both of these issues is conservation. It is NOT bombing the shit out of somebody 12,000 miles away (or in Canada, for that matter).
So let's collectively get our heads out of our asses and start wrestling with the real issues.
Posted by: Chip Pitfield | Sep 3, 2008 8:43:50 PM
Life expectancy:-
"While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000."
US-78.06
DE-78.95
Source CIA
Note it is estimated that curing cancer would increase life expectancy by about 1.5yrs
The gap is material!
Posted by: Tim | Sep 3, 2008 8:43:53 PM
You really don't have to go past the first one to see misleading statistics in action:
"Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period."
It looks like he is comparing GDP growth in constant home currency (and has a mistake for Germany, which should be 10%).
Sure, we beat Italy, Japan, Germany, and France. Woo hoo! But we were 152nd out of 179 countries. Our economy grew slower than the UK, Canada, Mexico, and Israel, among others.
But even this sub-par performance is due in large part to our relatively rapidly growing population. GDP per capita is a better measure of standard of living. GDP growth per capita in constant national currency was only 9.6% in the US...slower than both Germany (10.2%) and Japan (12.4%)...as well as all other developed countries except for Italy and France. So woop-de-doo, our economy grew faster than those two perpetual losers. And we got beat by such economic powerhouses as Lebanon, Nepal, and Uganda...as well as everyone of our neighbors, including Mexico, Canada, UK, Brazil...you name it.
Way to go Bush!
Posted by: jackdan | Sep 3, 2008 8:45:46 PM
Why do I keep hearing the words of George Orwell?
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
Posted by: Winston Munn | Sep 3, 2008 8:48:24 PM
I didn't think anyone could be less inspirational than Meg Whitman just was at the RNC...until they brought Carly Fiorina on.
Posted by: Steve Barry | Sep 3, 2008 8:49:35 PM
This clearly wasn't an honest effort by Marsden.
Of course, if he is on the WSJ opinion page, I really don't need to find evidence to back up that accusation.
But even if he didn't think to consider the per-capita numbers rather than the totals, which would be an elementary issue for any competant economist, he must have looked at the data on growth and seen we were near the bottom...and then scoured the list for the four OECD economies that we beat...never mentioning the dozens that performed better than us.
A true spin job.
Posted by: jackdan | Sep 3, 2008 8:53:15 PM
Why would we compare the US economy under Bush to other countries? We should compare the US economy under Bush to the US economy under other Presidents. This OpEd is a joke and is clearly meant to mislead and misdirect.
Posted by: Jim-Bob Jones | Sep 3, 2008 8:56:38 PM
I'm confused.
Would someone please tell me again why on Earth we're handing out Stimulus Checks?
I woulda thought the alphabet soup of lending excuses over at the Fed woulda been a clue that things might not be quite right somehow.
Anybody around here shouting "Hooray!" every time they're opening their 401k statement?
GM is dumping Hummer because of...
You don't even have to address the Journal's figures. We all have wallets. We are trading our asses off to keep from being down 800% or something.
I've voted Republican all my life, but this mess is outta control -- my fixed-income family members are starving. Don't give me that crap about being flush.
By the way, I think anyone who believes these numbers should visit Shadowstats.com. You're in for an epiphany.
kent
Posted by: kent | Sep 3, 2008 9:08:06 PM
Never overestimate the intelligence of the voting public.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 3, 2008 9:09:48 PM
AGG:
You say 100 problems? Don't you like Bernie Sanders? I'd say 98 problems in the Senate(you can keep the whole House) as Feingold and Bernie Sanders are keepers.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Sep 3, 2008 9:20:14 PM
Here's another absolute truth about the Bush Administration economy:
"The Bush economy is the worst of the twenty-first century. Bar none!"
I expect that truth to continue throughout the century. Too bad I won't be here then to smile at my foresight.
Posted by: Terry | Sep 3, 2008 9:20:34 PM
The REAL Bush economic record
1. The USA needs $2B a day from China et al or could not keep its economy stable or spare the dollar from collapse.
2. The USA already has close to $10 Trillion in national debt
3. The USA has a trade deficit of $800B/yr
4. The USA is the prime engine for derivatives 'ticking bomb' that grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion in 2000 to $516 trillion by 2007 that is going off in blowback stages
5. The USA already has way too many Americans overwhelmed by personal debt racking up a household debt-to-income ratio of 1.42 ( for total of $13.8 trillion in debt including mortgages ) that already matches the country’s $14 trillion G.D.P.
6. The USA has Bushie boy racking up $32 Trillion dollars in total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future payments since 2000.
In a speech a few months ago at the National Press Club, former GAO Comptroller General David Walker said:
"If the federal government was a private corporation and the same report came out this morning, our stock would be dropping and some people would be talking about whether the company’s management directors needed a major shake-up".
“The federal government’s total liabilities,” Walker explained, “translates into a de facto mortgage of about $455,000 for every American household and there’s no house to back that mortgage. In other words, our government has made a whole lot of promises that, in the long run, it cannot possibly keep without huge tax increases.”
7. Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/067...9070/ groksoup04
Phillips describes the consequences of our misguided economic policies, our mounting debt, our collapsing housing market, our threatened oil, and the end of American domination of world markets.
Yes that's the REAL Bush economic record !
Posted by: steve | Sep 3, 2008 9:20:40 PM
Troy seems to have done a good job putting forth figures. Producing reports for America isn't in my job description, but I keep my eyes open and ears listen'g.
I see jails overcrowding; dumpy vehicles on the road; red line debt levels in government books; failing roads / bridges / electrical / water systems; near abandoned properties left and right; pensions going broke.
The USA population being healthy? I see many overweight; addictions to a slew of drugs; 50 somethings increasing in numbers on the obituary page; kids not try'g.
Posted by: Greg0658 | Sep 3, 2008 9:25:32 PM
Wow! the true colors of the self-proclaimed moderates gloves come off very quicly whith anti-bush liberal retoric just as soon as anything posistive is atributed to Bush.
While there are some ireleveant facts and missstatements in this WSJ article. There are also many whole truth and worthwile pieces of information.
This is not the only article that has been posted on this site that contains numerous half-truths, and these types of statistally manipulated arguements.
The anlysis of the economy by political party article posted on this blog a month back analysed GDP without considering inflation.
This was a blatent attempt to make Democratic Presidents economic records appear better than they really were. Especially that of Jimmy Carter's
Posted by: Brendan | Sep 3, 2008 9:28:06 PM
@Brendan: The truth is not "Democratic" or "Republican", "right wing" or "left wing", or even "moderate". It's just the truth. You should try it sometimes.
Until more people try it, this country will continue its rapid descent.
Posted by: Jeff M. | Sep 3, 2008 9:41:20 PM
