Fun with Statistics

[Dooby]

"History shows if the GDP is 3.5 percent or higher, the incumbent president wins," said Van Jolissant, chief economist for the Chrysler Group. "

FYI-2004 GDP forecast was recently adjusted upward to 4.7% from 4.5%.

[FishForLunch]

Trade Gap Shrinks as Imports, Exports Hit Record

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. trade deficit narrowed in February as a combination of the weak U.S. dollar and stronger economic growth propelled both exports and imports to record levels, a government report showed on Wednesday.

The February trade gap totaled $42.1 billion, down more than 3 percent from January and slightly below analysts' pre-report expectations of $42.5 billion.

U.S. exports leapt four percent -- the highest monthly increase since October 1996 -- to a record $92.4 billion, while imports rose 1.6 percent to a record $134.5 billion.

The politically sensitive trade gap with China fell nearly 28 percent in February as imports from that country slipped to $11.3 billion, the lowest level in nearly a year, and exports to China rose 17 percent to $3.0 billion.

The lower dollar appeared to help all categories of exports, as shipments of industrial supplies and materials and autos and auto parts both set records. Exports of consumer goods were only slightly below the record set in November and exports of capital goods, such as aircraft and industrial machines, were the highest since May 2001.

Exports of services, which include travel, also set a record.

Meanwhile, the surging U.S. economy sucked in record agricultural and industrial imports, while auto and auto parts imports had their second best showing.

However, oil imports fell to their lowest level since February 2003, while average oil prices rose for the fourth consecutive month to $29.17 per barrel.

Despite the monthly improvement in the trade deficit, analysts have said it could take several quarters to see a permanent improvement, in part because the weaker dollar and production cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have driven up the cost of petroleum imports.

[madape]

A strong GDP is great, but it is a metric mostly transparent to the average working American. To voters, employment and wage increases are much more tangible indicators of a strong economy.

We had a rising GDP during the '92 elections, but slow job growth. There was still lingering frustration among the voters about the recession they felt still was going on. Bill Clinton "felt their pain", and the incumbent was defeated.

Bush is fortunate. Last year at this time, the job market looked pathetic. However, if job growth unfolds the way it's looking like it's going to, come November, we'll have logged over a year's worth of significant positive job growth. The voters will notice.

.Here's a link to a 1995 research paper that models voters as caring about two presidential abilities: the ability to make war and the ability to manage the economy. Unfortunately, the paper is only available by subscription, but the basic idea is this: To get reelected an incumbent President must convince voters that his combined abilities make him better than a challenger. Apparently this model has incredible predictive power.

You can understand why the Democrats are so desperate to paint the Iraq war as a failure, and why they have invented a bizarre metric called the "Misery Index" in a desperate attempt to describe a booming economy as anything but what it is.

If the Dems critisms lose credibility on either front defined in this model, the election is essentially over.

[Dooby]

Kerry's Middle Class Misery Index is a pure joke. I hadn't read about until today. Is this the kind of crap his staff was working on while he was on vacation? I am telling you. His staff is a bunch of morons.

[Mavdog]

As you say ape, it is difficult for the average American to grasp GDP. They really look at their personal situation, and of course what they synthesize through the press. They look at their situation, if their friends are working, do they have enough $ for the little things that give them enjoyment, and that is the extent of their economic analysis.

If the job creation continues at an average growth of around 200,000 jobs/month, the economy will not be a negative for Bush in November. If the job creation slows to 100K or less, the economy will be an issue, and a negative one for Bush. In as much as I am not a big fan of Bush, it is not reasonable to lay the blame for an anemic economy solely at his feet. Likewise a boom is also not the President's work either; it's really due to some forces outside his control. Nevertheless, the public thinks that the pres can make or break an economic cycle and expect results.

The "misery index" worked well last time it was used, it's a damn good campaign tactic because it is a simple concept that the average American can grasp. To be effective tho there has to be an acceptance of the thought that times are indeed tough and that there truly are some who are in "misery". It's all about perception, it's not about reality...

The war will be a drag on Bush unless the situation changes quickly. The scenes of chaos, of the American forces facing civilians who don't give the image of a combatant, are all eroding the support of Americans for this campaign. I have been critical, and will continue to do so, of the missteps the WH has made in this war, and others are as well.

There is one big accomplishment of the war in Iraq, Bush has managed to get the Sunni and the Shia to work together...unfortunately it is working in unison against us,

[Dooby]

The Misery Index is a real statistic-unemployment plus inflation. Although whose misery it actually guages I am not really clear. But Kerry's "Middle Class Misery Index" is something he and his staff made up to make the economy look bad. And it is based on odd factors that are not particularly relevant or insightful. For example, one of the factors is the number of bankruptcies filed. I am practicing bankruptcy attorney. There were a lot of bankruptcy filings this year; more than last year. With rare exception, there are more bankruptcy filings than the previous year every year dating back to 1978 when the modern bankruptcy code was passed, even during the tech boom. In other words, it really isn't a mearsure of the economy on any scale.

Despite Kerry's best efforts to make it look this way, the great depression it ain't.

BTW, going back and looking at Kerry's "Middle Class Misery Index", the heyday for America's economy was under Carter in 1978-80. Genius. Energy crisis and double-digit inflation. Good times.

[Drbio]

I don't think Mavdog had his head in the sand either. Clearly it was entrenched somewhere else. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[FishForLunch]

Each person has his own reasons why the War in Iraq is a legitimate one. For me it was to get rid of the Arab Hitler, with some fringe benefits like like denying Hamas, Hizbollah and maybe Alqeda from getting State support for their terrorist activities. So I am glad an US president had the resolve to tackle this situation like Clinton in Kosovo.

I also feel it is an election year issue regarding the June 30th handover uproar created by Ted Kennedy and JFKerry, but I agree with the Iraqis nobody wants to be ruled by occupiers indefinetely, it not as if the US troops will leave Iraq June 30th.

I have patience regarding the Iraqi situation, unlike some from the left. I know it is an difficult situation in Iraq and it takes time normalize the situation. I will believe the writing of Iraqis anyday than read stuff in the WP, NYT and BBC.




Read this blog and other Iraqi blog linked on this site to get the views of the Iraqis.

Link

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Each person has his own reasons why the War in Iraq is a legitimate one. For me it was to get rid of the Arab Hitler, with some fringe benefits like like denying Hamas, Hizbollah and maybe Alqeda from getting State support for their terrorist activities. So I am glad an US president had the resolve to tackle this situation like Clinton in Kosovo.

The goal of removing Saddam Hussein, which is clearly a good thing, did not require a unilateral action by the US as it could (IMHO) have been better accomplished with multi-national support.

I also feel it is an election year issue regarding the June 30th handover uproar created by Ted Kennedy and JFKerry, but I agree with the Iraqis nobody wants to be ruled by occupiers indefinetely, it not as if the US troops will leave Iraq June 30th.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, it certainly is not "Ted Kennedy and JFKerry" who are pushing for the quick handoff but the Bush WH. They didn't cause an "uproar" either, for it is clear that the Iraqis are NOT ready, the systems of goverance are NOT ready, and without the legitimacy that an elected (rather than appointed) government gets the probability for its success is limited. Why the rush? Answer: Fall elections, and the ability of GWBush to make the claim that Iraq is making progress in its new government.

I have patience regarding the Iraqi situation, unlike some from the left. I know it is an difficult situation in Iraq and it takes time normalize the situation. I will believe the writing of Iraqis anyday than read stuff in the WP, NYT and BBC.

Read this blog and other Iraqi blog linked on this site to get the views of the Iraqis.

Link

Yes it does take time, so why the rush to orchestrate a faux Government handover at the end of July?

Here's another blog on the same site that also is (presumably) "the writing of Iraqis" that has a bit different view than your writer. Here's what they wrote last Sunday:

"A whole year has passed now and I can't help but feel that we are back at the starting point again. The sense of an impending disaster, the ominous silence, the breakdown of most governmental facilities, the absence of any police or security forces, contradicting news reports, rumours everywhere, and a complete disruption in the flow of everyday life chores.
All signs indicate that it's all spiralling out of control, and any statements by CPA and US officials suggesting otherwise are blatantly absurd"

Iraqi Blog

[FishForLunch]

ot quite sure what you're saying here, it certainly is not "Ted Kennedy and JFKerry" who are pushing for the quick handoff but the Bush WH. They didn't cause an "uproar" either, for it is clear that the Iraqis are NOT ready, the systems of goverance are NOT ready, and without the legitimacy that an elected (rather than appointed) government gets the probability for its success is limited. Why the rush? Answer: Fall elections, and the ability of GWBush to make the claim that Iraq is making progress in its new government.

No "Ted Kennedy and JFKerry" are the ones that are rejoicing that the Iraqi situation is proving difficult and want Bush to extend the handover so they can bash him more untill the November election. You say the Iraqis are not ready but they will be when they have control, the US army will be there to help them.

You may trust the UN but I sure dont trust those corrupt people who screwed the Iraqi people in the Oil for Food program.

So you think Russsia and France would ever joined the coalition when they had businees ties with Saddam. I dont belive that.