Comments on: On the other hand

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:25:11 +0000

I don’t understand your point, Matthew. IANAE (not an economist), so please bear with me. Do you mean that buying bonds would increase a household’s wealth now (if so, how?) or later?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:19:24 +0000

Er…to the extent that the defict was funded by domestic purchases of bonds it is an increase in household wealth, not a decrease. Otherwise you’re double counting.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:43:11 +0000

In this case there was no need to split the difference between what the two camps were saying. As Paul Krugman has often noted, if Bush said ‘The earth is flat’ and the Democrats said ‘The earth is round’, then the US media would write it up as ‘Shape Of Earth: Views Differ’.

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:46:54 +0000

grammar nazi has been trying for a while to control the grammar, they will presently realize that this is impossible and that the grammar must instead be exterminated. The truth can still be between miserable and improving if the truth is just ‘really bad’.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:46:40 +0000

Real income isn’t supposed to rise over time. There’s no connection between the expectation that GDP will rise over time—which it would, in the US, simply by increased population producing at the same level as in the initial period—and the expectation that real income will rise over time. Flatline GDP growth in the US over an extended time would be a disaster, because that would mean real living standards must be falling. The discussion of deficits is much more complicated than the discussion here. Note that the figures presented are for the first two years of the Bush administration (2001 and 2002), and do not include 2003. Note also that the largest decline in household income occured in 2001. Note also that the budget was in surplus in 2001.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:14:47 +0000

I think the good news is that it doesn’t really matter. My guess is that Americans don’t care what either candidate says about how the economy is doing. Instead they just assess their personal situation and those close to them, and judge accordingly. Points probably to Kerry.

By: lerxst

lerxst — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:46:32 +0000

The decline in median income is not a slam dunk for Kerry … but not because of the reasons cited in the article. I show a chart on the yearly percent change after-tax median income since 1980 and discuss it here

By: Grammar Nazi

Grammar Nazi — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:39:53 +0000

“journalists feel compelled to try and present an even-handed picture” try to present

By: Bob McGrew

Bob McGrew — Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:35:28 +0000

Isn’t it usual for median household income to fall during a recession? Also, surely, whether they are improving now is different from whether they have improved since before the beginning of the recession. I’m just not seeing the contradiction between Bush’s and Kerry’s statements.