Bush's 2004 ads

[Beet]

I'm hardworking, decent, and generous. Wow! Flattery works

[Beet]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.

This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

note of interest- Greenspan's interest rate policy. He never cut interest rates in 2000.

[Beet]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.
This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

quoting 2 1/2 year old snapshots is pretty weak!  Here is the most up to date GDP info:
And, as you can see, the  Leading Economic Indicators were in decline way before Bush took office:

...and Business Spending went negative in Q4 of 2000:

Gosh I wish the government wouldn't revise its GDP data 3-4 years after the fact. You'd think if they had any pertinent information, especially information important enough to turn three quarters from expansion to contraction, it wouldn't be sitting in the file cabinet for that long. I guess this means the third quarter's 8.3 percent expansion could be revised up to 12.3 or down to 4.3 percent in 2007. But at least they're doing better than Arthur Andersen!

Now, working with the numbers...

I appreciate what you point out on economic indicators. However, the economy as a whole did actually keep expanding right through March 2001. The economy continued to look stable through the end of 2000, or Alan Greenspan would not have kept interest rates at 6 1/2 year highs throughout the year. Mr. Greenspan knows a lot more about the economy than you or I. Business spending and abstract terms like leading economic indicators sound impressive, and they do measure substantial elements of the economy, no doubt. But they do not determine when recessions begin or end for the economy as a whole. Expert economists like Mr. Greenspan and others make determinations about that. There are two measures of recession, the word used in the ad:
1) two consecutive quarters of contraction.
2) the official estimate by the National Bureau of Economic Research
and right now neither of them support that the U.S. was in recession in January 2001; jmfcst said they "might" be revised, but right now that is just speculation; it "might" happen.

[Beet]

RE: Economic Data
You all can argue until you are blue in the face, but history has shown that regardless of the laws of macroeconomics, the incumbant tends to be rewarded for a good economy (even if he doesnt deserve the credit), and punished for a bad one.

I agree, but I take issue with someone pulling out a 2 1/2 year old chart and trying to make a political point about it.  It's dishonest.  

Also, that old of a chart isn't exactly easy to find.  It took some digging by someone trying to distort the facts.

I also take issue with the obvious presumption that members on this forum are too dumb to notice the age of the chart.

jmfcst,

1) Firstly, I wouldn't underestimate your knowledge about economics because I've read your thread on economic indicators and we've discussed this before, so I know you know.

2) Gosh you make a lot of assumptions. Suppose you were looking for quarter economic data from 2001, what would you do? Go to Google and type in "U.S. GDP growth 2001" and click on the 6th link from the top.

3) Look I'm not saying leading economic indicators weren't negative or that it was Bush's fault. All I'm saying is the the economy was not in recession in January 2001 by any of the two traditional measures of a recession. Just because the economy might have been headed towards a recession, it doesn't mean the recession had already begun.

4) Now in case you think all this is too bitchy, here is my point: In 2000, the media repeatedly misquoted Gore with quotes like "I invented the Internet" saying that he stretched the truth. Now it is eight months before the election and in his very first ads Bush is already stretching the truth. If the media were really so "liberal" they would point this out.

[Beet]

jmfcst,

1) Firstly, I wouldn't underestimate your knowledge about economics because I've read your thread on economic indicators and we've discussed this before, so I know you know.

2) Gosh you make a lot of assumptions. Suppose you were looking for quarter economic data from 2001, what would you do? Go to Google and type in "U.S. GDP growth 2001" and click on the 6th link from the top.

First, if you read my economic thread then you should know that I've had a chart of GDP performance in one form or the other on the first post of the thread for many many months now.  So there shouldn't had been any need for you to google it.  But that's a minor point.

Second, and more importantly, if you follow economic news at all, you'd know the numbers represented on your graph were revised two whole years ago.

So the only conclusion I can make is that you were either acting in ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity) or with the intent to deceive.  But, you have, as you should, the benefit of the doubt.

Well, this distracts from the point of the campaign ad, which was meant to decieve.