November 20, 2003
BUSHONOMICS:
U.S. October Index of Leading Economic Indicators Rises 0.4% (Bloomberg, 11/20/03)
The index of leading U.S. economic indicators rose in October for the fifth time in the last six months, suggesting the economy will continue to expand through early next year.The Conference Board's gauge of how the economy will perform over the next three to six months rose 0.4 percent, more than forecast, following no change in September. Fewer initial jobless claims, improving consumer confidence, rising stock prices and a jump in building permits paced the increase.
Builders started construction on new homes at the fastest pace in almost 18 years in October and regional reports suggest manufacturers ramped up production this month to keep up with demand. The economy may grow at a 4 percent rate this quarter and maintain that pace in the first half of 2004, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, as the economic expansion enters its third year.
"Folks are going to commit to this recovery,'' said Geoffrey Somes, a senior economist at Fleet Bank in Boston, before the report. Falling claims and higher confidence "will make for a strong holiday shopping season and will help us transition from a recovery to a sustained expansion.''
Economists had forecast a 0.2 percent in the leading indicators index, based on the median of 60 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey, following a previously reported decrease of 0.2 percent. Projections for October ranged from minus 0.1 percent to 0.5 percent.
The economy may expand at a 4 percent annual rate in the first three months of 2004 and at a 3.9 percent rate from April through June, according to the median estimate of 57 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News this month. The U.S., the world's largest economy, grew an average 3.6 percent a year during the record expansion from 1991 to 2001.
It's time to start discussing what we're going to do with the surplus again. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 20, 2003 11:13 AM
Another round of tax cuts, what else?
Posted by: Sam at November 20, 2003 11:34 AMBut did anyone ask Krugman for his projection? Perhaps the minus 0.1 for October was his.
I hope so!
Posted by: genecis at November 20, 2003 1:21 PMGiven the percentage of the nation's economy that comes out of California, Arnold's deficit problem may be partially solved by Bush's recovery, though it would be unwise of anyone in his administration to say that until they wring all the spending cuts possible out of the reluctant state legislature by pinning the voters' fears of mounting deficits on them.
Posted by: John at November 20, 2003 2:35 PMWe've already spent it.
Posted by: Robert D at November 20, 2003 4:12 PMThree words... Defense, Defense, Defense... Another 3-5 Army Divisions, couple more carrier groups... get the 5 premiere experts in Military matters to write what he feels the US will need to address any threat that might crop up in the next generation, take the one that calls for the most stuff, and add one of everything to it.
Posted by: MarkD at November 20, 2003 8:37 PMRobert D is exactly correct.
MarkD:
That would probably result in a huge, bloated, and extremely costly military debacle.
We beat the Soviets, who had such a policy, so why emulate it now ?
That is, more or less, the Gregg Easterbrook theory. As we obviously are no good predicting what the next crisis is going to require, we're better off buying everything.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 21, 2003 8:11 AMWe are, however, pretty good at buying whatever we'll need for the next crisis, once it hits.
I could certainly support a larger Navy, specifically a few more carrier groups.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 22, 2003 5:33 AM