THAT'S 2000:

Jobless Claims Fall Markedly; Inventories Up at Wholesalers (Reuters, 4/09/04)

The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level in more than three years, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

First-time applications for state unemployment insurance fell by an unexpectedly steep 14,000 in the week ended Saturday, to 328,000, from 342,000 the week before.

The size of the decline surprised economists and analysts, and led some to predict that a trend toward more hiring was in place.

"Clearly good news," said Pierre Ellis of Decision Economics in New York. "What appears to be the resumption of new hiring should combine with this reduction in layoffs to promote strong employment growth."

The Labor Department's four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out weekly fluctuations, declined more modestly - down 3,250 last week, to 336,750, and the lowest since November 2000.

At long last, the Greenspan/Clinton slowdown ends.

MORE:
One Good Month (PAUL KRUGMAN, 4/09/04, NY Times)

Leaving the details for another day, it's pretty clear what John Kerry's economic philosophy will be. He's surrounding himself with advisers closely tied to Bill Clinton, and even more closely tied to Robert Rubin, the legendary former Treasury secretary. In office, we can surmise, Mr. Kerry would follow a Rubinesque strategy of bringing long-term budget deficits under control through a mixture of tax increases for upper-income families and spending restraint. No doubt he would move slowly on deficit reduction as long as the economy remained weak, but his advisers would tell him, as Mr. Rubin told Mr. Clinton, that responsible long-run budget policies are good in the short run, too, because they help keep interest rates low.

George Bush has, of course, tried to be the anti-Clinton in all things. His advisers rejected Rubinomics and hearkened back to Reaganomics, insisting that long-run tax cuts, never mind the effect on the budget deficit, are the key to growth. For three years, they've had nothing but red ink to show for their efforts. Now they've had one good but not great month.

In short, this year's election will be a contest between a candidate who advocates a return to economic policies that were associated with eight years of very solid job growth, and one who advocates continuation of policies that have, after three years, yielded exactly one good monthly jobs report. I know: Mr. Clinton doesn't deserve all or even most of the credit for the good times on his watch, and Mr. Bush doesn't deserve all the blame for the bad times on his. Still, on the face of it there's nothing to recommend Mr. Bush's approach. But will voters see it differently?

My guess is no. If the election is driven by economics at all — which seems doubtful right now, with the debacle in Iraq accelerating — it will reflect the job situation on the ground, which remains grim.

Given that Mr. Clinton inherited a growing economy and a massive Peace Dividend from the senior President Bush and then handed off an economy where job growth was headed into decline and where balanced budgets had brought increased, rather than lowered, interest rates, it is hard to argue with a straight face that he deserves much credit for the economy of the 90s, while he and Mr. Greenspan have to take much blame for the subsequent slowdown.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 9, 2004 11:48 AM