Our Friends on the Right and Economics
Quick question ... who are you more likely to believe: a rightwing blogger spinning GOP party-line spin, or professionals who track the economy for a living?
I am so sick of hearing retailers whine about their "modest" Christmas sales increase year-on-year of 3 to 3.5 percent. When GDP grows by that amount annually, we call it a booming economy. So why not call it that when Christmas sales are up by that amount?
Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers:
"This is not a great showing, but not a poor showing. It is somewhere in between" ... "Consumers are not splurging everywhere. It is a little here and there. The consumer is very selective."
John D. Morris, a retail analyst at Harris Nesbitt:
Not bad, kind of average...."
The economy, under Bush, can only be described fairly as a break-even economy. Job growth breaks even with population growth ... economic growth balances out spikes in key commodities like gas and energy prices. There's no breakthrough in the economy ... or if there is, it's incredibly well hidden. The yield curve has inverted, frequently (but not always) an indicator of bad things for the economy. Mid-cap funds are beating small-cap funds, which means that small startups aren't in a growth environment. The primary avenue of high growth is in hedge funds, a particularly risky investment reminiscent of the mid-80s move towards junk bonds as a growth industry.
But, then again, what more could you expect from a President whose understanding of the economy is that, when things go south, you wait for a friend of your dad to bail you out ... a President who entered office with the belief that the economy's primary ache was due to SEC overreach (and this was before Enron imploded). The cabinet is and has been stocked by old-economy mavens. Dick Cheney's complete understanding of the new economy is limited to the belief that if you have an eBay account, you should be counted as employed.
So it probably shouldn't surprise anyone that these folks can't grasp what is "booming" and what is "average." Remember, these are the same folks who predicted doom and gloom when Clinton put his imprimatur on the economy of the 90s. Credability is not exactly "of the essence" when you hear a Republican spinner yammer on about the economy.
CredAbility?
Your hatred of all things Whited (and lately to a great extent, Elam) is quite shocking for a man who blogs so extensively about the growth he has experienced in his spiritual life. Did Kevin say word one about job growth? Population growth? Did he mention a breakthrough in the economy? Did he discourse on mid-cap vs. small-cap? Did he invoke the name of Bush, Cheney, or Clinton? Show me where he uses the acronym SEC. Show me where he puts forward his opinion of the Bush cabinet.
Do you even intend to refute the point of the measly three sentences of commentary Dr. Whited makes? Can you submit with a straight face that a 3.5% growth in GDP is not considered "booming"? Do you intend to counter-point his argument that retailers have a double-standard, other than to quote economists PAID BY RETAILERS? Did you intend to address the part of the article where Niemira admits that sales reached the high end of his forecast?
Apparently not. So you delve off-topic, because that's your habit. You feel the need to slam the man or slam his political party because he's offended you personally by revoking your commenting privileges on his popular blog, and that irks you even months later. Enough so that you call it the low point of your year on this blog.
Why must you grasp at straws (like these THREE sentences criticizing retailer-paid economists), looking for any sort of reason to criticize Dr. Whited because of a personal dislike? Your knowledge is extensive, we all know that. But your belligerence severely impedes your ability to effectively communicate your wisdom.
You have taken THREE sentences, and twisted them to suit your pre-conceived notions of Dr. Whited's politics. You have, in your own mind, 'refuted' Dr. Whited's post, by quoting two economists paid by retailers. When Dr. Whited and you actually AGREE - that you are both tired of economic spin - you instinctively look to run from any common ground.
You've got to learn to let things go, Greg. If you're intending to make a go of this Lakewood movement, and learn what it means to experience a relationship with Christ, then you need to learn to let go of your animosity.
You don't have to like what I have said, but you should consider it. You've got a lot to offer your readers when you use your knowledge to lend a reasoned and informed voice. Unfortunately, its like crawling through a landmine trying to avoid your explosions of irrelevancy and rabbit trails against your online "adversaries".
It clearly depends on one's perspective.
For those who feed at the public trough, times are very good.
For those who struggle day after day, sun up to sun down fighting the bureaucracy, and have little to say thanks over after paying taxes, the economy is not so good.
Simply amazing, Chris. For what it's worth, you'll be happy to know that there's absolutely no animosity on my part towards either Kevin or yourself. But each of us operates a website where we broadcast our views to the world, for better and worse. There are those who will agree with each of us and there are those who disagree with each of us. If we fail to accept that someone might actually disagree with us, then perhaps blogging isn't something we're cut out for.
That you see a point of disagreement stated in this post and wish to see a personal grudge is to see something that simply doesn't exist. As you are well aware, there's ample room where I agree and disagree with Kevin and yourself. And yes, I do rank it as a disappointment that someone who writes with occassional flourishes of insight such as Kevin just cannot get beyond personal matters of his own and sees fit to write with a dismissive tone towards so many others (not just me ... whiny retailers don't seem to fare any better). Covering areas of substantive disagreement does not automatically rank as a personal assault and if you'll check the post above, about the only remark I direct Kevin's way is that the professionals who track such trends for a living call the growth average while Kevin is of the opinion that it represents a "boom" for the retail sector. I think I'll go with the folks who have to make money decisions on that one. Furthermore, I've yet to hear of a retailer who believes 3.2% growth is booming when so much of the business model in the idustry relies on consists of wages and benefits (both of which face far more pressure than a 3% sales growth allows them to cover).
To the extent that I weave that sentiment into the grander scheme of things political, it's up to the reader to accept whether or not it's applicable. If you disagree, then that's your perogative.
So it's not a personal issue and it doesn't exactly strike me as if I'm the one who isn't "letting go" when this post represents a relative rarity in the fact that I reference Kevin far less than I read his material ... or far less than I reference others who haven't seen fit to take a personal issue of things. I've quarreled with far more folks that haven't seen fit to believe it a personal affront that I actually disagree with them on something, many of them I count as good friends (there's bound to be some excellent material between myself and Kuff re: Iraq in previous posts here).
Me. I'll say that 3.5% GDP growth is anemic. Why? BECAUSE IT IS.
Greg, you might also want to look at wage growth which has been pretty much non-existent. Another factor to mention that indicates weak growth at best (the R word at worst) is the price of gold.