The truth about Bush and the economy

Maybe I got suckered in to the brainwashing leftist hype for once, but I actually thought that the American economy was in a little bit of trouble during the last four years. Despite a major correction/recession in late 2001, the U.S. economy has not only bounced back strong - it's come back stronger than anyone else! In a time when every nations' economy is more inseparable from what we call the "global economy," comparative prosperity is more significant than absolute prosperity.

According to the OECD, even through what Democrat's term as "Bush's mismanagement" of our economy from 2001-2004 the U.S. was still in a better position than any other industrialized nation. Based in Paris (France, not Texas), the OECD is similar to the UN in purpose but specializes in economic and trade matters. After reading through their material I was surprised at what I found. For the purpose of replacing myths with facts, I thought I would share it with you.
(Note: All stats come from a OECD .pdf file which you can download if you don't trust me.)

GDP
Gross Domestic Product growth for 2004:
USA: 4.7%
Japan: 3.0%
Euro Area: 1.6%
Germany: 1.1%
France: 2.0%
Italy: 0.9%
UK: 3.1%
G6: 3.4%

Confidence
The U.S. has had, on average, higher Consumer Confidence and Business Confidence than any other country from 2001-2004. While these statistics are closer to polls, and are more subjective than objective, they nonetheless have a significant influence on the economy. Consumer Confidence predicts consumption, which is tied to the demand for goods, which is tied to production, which is tied to jobs. Business Confidence predicts creation of new companies and maintenance of existing companies' financial growth, which is tied to job creation and overall economic stability.

Real Wage Growth
U.S. wage growth averaged 1.7%/yr vs. 1.1%/yr in Europe and -0.6%/yr in Japan over the last four years. While the raises themselves are small, and the difference may not seem significant, it's still an average 55% larger annual raise you'd be looking at in the U.S. (vs. Europe).

Core Inflation
1.5%/yr in the U.S. vs. 1.9%/yr in Europe, a 27% difference. The most telling comparison is that U.S. Real Wage Growth exceeded Core Inflation by 0.2%/yr, while in Europe people lost an additional 0.8%/yr due to Core Inflation exceeding Real Wage Growth.

Unemployment
Let me take this opportunity to remind you that 3-5% is considered the ideal unemployment range. Any higher and the country is not making the most of it's capable workforce, any lower and too many probably-less-than-capable people are being paid for sub-par work. 0% is NOT an ideal unemployment number.

The average U.S. unemployment rate from 2001-2004 was apx. 5.1%, just a little outside of the ideal range - not too shabby at all! By contrast, Europe's average unemployment rate during the same period was 8.4%!

For the Democrats who continue to whine about how Bush's policies have increased unemployment and hurt America's economy I offer the following: During the Clinton administration unemployment averaged 5.5%, yes, higher on average than during Bush's first term (5.1%). And Clinton was in control of a historical industry boom, while Bush had to pull America out of two simlutaneous disasters (911 and the 2001 major market correction). So quichyerbichin about Bush and unemployment, the facts don't support it.

What does the OECD say about America's economic future under Bush's policies?
"...US expansion increasingly hinges on employment creation and business investment. Household confidence is affected by the sub-par pace of job creation recorded to date, but remains around its long-run historical average, boding well for the resilience of consumption. Firms are far more upbeat. They have taken advantage of the prolonged spell of historically low interest rates to strengthen their balance sheets and enjoy ample profits. This should allow for robust business spending and greater hiring going forward."

Gas prices
Another myth, that we had the highest oil prices under Bush, is just that - a myth! Using 2004-adjusted dollars it is clear that oil prices peaked in 1982 at over $80/gal. Oil prices were also much higher for the duration of the Carter Administration than they have been under Bush. Moreover, today's oil prices are influenced by the emerging giant China as well as a huge increase worldwide for oil-based plastics that was not a significant factor in oil demand until the last two decades. Blaming Bush for the "highest ever gas prices" is groundless. It is factually untrue. And even if it wasn't, prices would be high due a global rise in demand, not Bush's economic policies.

How do I feel?
Now I know many Democrats want us to emulate Europe's more social employment practices, but consider how well they work. Euro GDP growth was half America's, with nearly twice as many people unemployed (9.6% vs. America's 5.35% over the last 12 years). America's confidence and wage growth are higher, inflation and unemployment are lower. While I don't particularly care for Bush, and I didn't vote for him in 2004, I can't fault his economic policies. This is one instance when he can accurately say, "Mission Accomplished."