RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
So What ARE the 'Fundamentals'? And Are They Good?
September 16, 2008 9:20 AM
A simple question I put to some nonpartisan economic experts.
Free from politics, when people generally talk about "the fundamentals" of the economy what do they mean?
And are they good?
"One definition," responded one, providing THIS LINK and this definition: "A very broad term which includes such economic measures as interest rates, the government’s budget deficit, the country’s balance of trade account (relating to exports and imports), the level of domestic business confidence, the inflation rate, the state of (and confidence in) the banking and wider financial sector and consumer confidence."
"By this definition, things aren't so good," the expert said.
Another said, "To which we might add health of job market, value of home prices and stock prices (which have the greatest impact on household wealth) and ability of wages to keep up with prices -- these fundamentals are also not good."
- jpt
September 16, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (78)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
McCain has voted to deregulate. It shows his judgement and lack of understanding of the economy. He voted with Phil Gramm and he gets advice from Phil Gramm.
Posted by: SET | Sep 16, 2008 11:19:56 AM
"You should be concerned."
-----
We should be concerned that this supposed Democrat has nothing substantive to say about "the economy" beyond dissing McCain.
We should be concerned that the great black hope says not one word about poor people -- for whom the continuing impoverishment of what's left of the middle classes isn't exactly a pressing problem.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Sep 16, 2008 11:12:33 AM
How much tip would you leave on a $28,500 dinner?
Posted by: Peggy | Sep 16, 2008 11:11:34 AM
McCain on the Today show "We are in crisis"...
Is he scaring people? C'mon.
Obama and McCain have an obligation to discuss this issue. Neither is trying to scare, just draw differences in policy and record.
Posted by: Distortions | Sep 16, 2008 11:09:48 AM
Wow, the price of dinner and a concert really went up! The average American really can't afford it anymore. $132 for a family of 4 is a lot let alone $132,000!
Posted by: PDR | Sep 16, 2008 11:09:24 AM
Interesting how so many fear mongers are now looking for a binky. Actions have consequences.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | Sep 16, 2008 11:08:38 AM
Making comments about the economy on the day two major financial institutions failed is not Obama trying to scare you. You should be concerned.
Posted by: Stacey | Sep 16, 2008 11:04:17 AM
"I wonder what Obama's (almost) VP pick Mike Bloomberg meant yesterday when HE SAID that the fundamentals of the US economy are good?"
-----
Probably meant "don't panic", same as McCain.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Sep 16, 2008 11:02:48 AM
Obama: STOP TRYING TO SCARE US!
Posted by: MeganRiley | Sep 16, 2008 10:59:37 AM
I wonder what Obama's (almost) VP pick Mike Bloomberg meant yesterday when HE SAID that the fundamentals of the US economy are good?
Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | Sep 16, 2008 10:57:45 AM
Obama thinks the economy is in bad shape and yet has a $30,500 dinner/concert with Streisand! I guess it is not as bad as he wants us to think. How much would the tickets cost if the economy was in good shape?
Posted by: Brad | Sep 16, 2008 10:57:03 AM
"Why is this race even close?"
-----
IS it close? With Biden looming behind the curtain?
Meanwhile, Democratic saboteur John Kerry, architect of this supposedly "post-partisan" ticket, has a primary challenge today -- the first since 1984.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Sep 16, 2008 10:57:02 AM
The Democrats are in charge of Congress.
Democrats understand the tax and spend and give aways.
Whoops -- and the Democratic Chairman of the Ways and Means commitee (which is in charge of the tax code) didn't understand he had to pay taxes on income received from and rental property and he didn't know his loan on the property was for 0%. I'd like that deal.
Posted by: susie | Sep 16, 2008 10:53:04 AM
I guess Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan was just another gimmick. I certainly doesn't appear to be his stance on the economy.
Posted by: CarolWI | Sep 16, 2008 10:52:00 AM
Next time, Jake, attach names of the "experts" so readers know who they are. Economics is a soft science, answers always depend on underlying assumptions and comparison points. And, philosophical bias - ex., Chicago School.
I could just as easily find experts who say fundamentals are fine, given an infrastructure which shows resilience (financial, regulatory, legal), interest rates (higher than before by a point or 2, but not in the double digits as has previously happened), inflation rate which is being managed, GDP growth, trade deficit improving, commodity prices dropping, unemployment not surpassing highs on a national level, growth in key future-facing industry sectors (it/tech, biotech, pharma, etc.), etc.
How many people here are facing water/food rationing? How many people here waiting in line for hours to get gas? How many people here with a 20% (15%) interest rate on a traditional mortgage? How many people here without a tv, computer, cell phone/phone, and other creature comforts? How many people here unable to get emergency medical treatment? How many people here are unable to find a paying job (not a "good" job, or a suitable for me education/experience, but a PAYING job?).
Posted by: ENF | Sep 16, 2008 10:51:58 AM
I would rather have a president who points out some positive things with the economy instead of just doom and gloom. I really don't trust that Obama has our best interest at heart after hearing that he really wanted to delay bringing home the troops.
Posted by: PaulS | Sep 16, 2008 10:50:01 AM
How did McCain vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was critical in deregulating the financial service industry back in 1999? He voted Yes.
Posted by: deregulated | Sep 16, 2008 10:49:28 AM
sally, the race really isn't as close as it appears. If you look at the breakdown on the ABC site you will see that 96% of blacks and 38% of whites are voting for Obama. Kind of distorts the real story.
Posted by: Grace | Sep 16, 2008 10:46:29 AM
Obama was a lawyer for ACORN in Chicago.
ACORN has been connected with voter fraud in many states.
Another questionable associate of BO.
Radical on the inside--deceptive nice guy on the outside.
Why is this race even close?
Posted by: sally | Sep 16, 2008 10:39:26 AM
Some of us remember Econ 101 and there was never a time when employee productivity and the entrepreneurial spirit was ever part of the fundamentals metrics used to gauge the economy. This guy did not lie when he said he did not understand the economy yet some of us want him to be president. Not only that, we know that Phil Graham will be in charge of the economy should McCain win and this guy thinks if you don't make 7 figures, you should bend over, take it and stop whining.
Posted by: Tommy Thompson | Sep 16, 2008 10:36:58 AM
Post a comment


