Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
Why would they be lagging? Sure you could argue quality of jobs and such, but thats beside the point. The jobs still exist, and were created, all 5 million of them during Bush's term.
|
Well, by "lagging indicators," I meant that job growth and unemployment may reflect older trends in the economy. In other words, the numbers "lag" behind the root causes that make them change.
And if I'm right (not sure if I am), that's actually good news for Bush--because it means that slow job growth early in his presidency is the fault of the Clinton administration--if indeed, it's anyone's fault at all, which I doubt. It would also mean that current job growth is because of his economic policies early in his presidency.
I think all of these things are matters of debate--and though I'm no Bush lover, I'm not sure that we can evaluate these kinds of benchmarks right now anyway. I don't think we need to wait 40 years, but it's definitely true that in economics, the benefits of hindsight are sometimes great.