Dean,

In those numbers, I notice a pattern of job growth: It is better under Democrats.

Interesting how the Republican crowd distort facts, making it sound as if their policies are the ones that keep the Economy going and everyone else is a free-loader.

Sadly, many others do so too. Well, the big Media is owned by the Big Corporations, informing is not their true agenda.

Thank you.

What is so dishonest is the assertion that the president is the one defining factor that controls the economy. Never mind that we are in a global economy. Never mind that technology waves come and go as in the nineties and the sitting president gets credit for it.

Nope, it's the president who tells the economy what to do. I understand why Dean and others who actually know better use these statistics and ask the reader to jump to conclustions that they, themselves, are unwilling to make. It's because the public doesn't have an understanding of how the economy works and it serves their political purposes.

I still just hate the dishonesty of it all....

Take create? Shouldn't the title be take credit? [correction made --DB]

The American media is about as "free" as the media in the old Soviet Union, where it was typical for Russian citizens to hear continuous reports of how this "5 year plan" exceeded production, or how wonderous a "miracle" the socialist economy was.

Nobody believes the American media on most anything, from the Iraq War to Bush's boasts about how well his tax cuts are working to "create" jobs.

In the old Soviet Union, there was no central censorship really, it was a conspiracy of editors and publishers doing what was expected of them, and anyone who didn't tow the line lost their jobs.

So it is in America's modern media...tow the "official" line, or you won't get promoted.

The American system of "politial correctness" shows itself overtly in "conservative" media like Fox News, but also in supposedly "liberal" media like the NYT.

The Soviet System resembled our US system in that any disagreement was ccnfined to a handful of newsletters or hand-typed essays that were spread from hand to hand. The improvement in the American system is the internet, which allows "dissentors" like Dean Baker to access the internet.

What's scary is that the Federal Government monitors the internet, and can block or turn off the internet any time it chooses. The technology exists.

I suspect the only reason we have a "free" press in the US is so the Big Money boys can spread it's lies, and that "private property" exists only to benefit the rich keeping themselves rich.

Thanks Dean for the oxygen yo supply to the fact-starved citizens in our "free" society.

Worse, Dean Baker has a record of cherry picking data or just making it up.

How could he get 1.8% growth in recent years as he wrote a few posts earlier?

How could he get 1.8% growth in recent years as he wrote a few posts earlier?

Baker did not say what you claim he said, he said "noted the 1.8 percent rate of productivity growth in the fourth quarter" just as the WSJ ("Worker productivity in the U.S. grew at a 1.8% annual rate in the final quarter of 2007") did. They did this because those are the numbers for the quarter in question. And for that matter, if you look at a graph you see it's not been good, and getting worse, for some time now.

There is no point in arguing with Trolls like El Viajero and Anonymous. They, like our President, are members of the faith based community and for them numbers exist simply to manipulate to support the revealed faith. To the people losing their jobs and homes the last year, their response is "you better believe us and not your lying eyes." I do note that Dean was criticizing President Bush for taking credit for something not within his control, that the economy will quite naturally create jobs. Presidents can , through sound fiscal and regulatory policies and efficient operation of the Government encourage economic growth. And through unsound policies they can undermine long term economic growth. Dean's numbers are essentially the same as printed that refuge of left-wing propaganda, Business Week. Meanwhile Anonymous, follow Larry Kudlow's advice on investing your money. Soon, worries about Democratic tax hikes will be the least of your worries.

Here is what Dean Baker wrote a few days ago:

"More importantly, over the last five years, Japan's 2.0 percent annual growth rate somewhat exceeds the 1.8 percent rate in the United States."

I'd like to see him list growth rates for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

It isn't 1.8%

The problem is that Baker scolds journalists for getting numbers wrong, yet he does the same thing. Journalists often don't know any better, but Baker does.

I believe this is full context for the quote:

"According to data from the IMF, over the 15 years from 1992 to 2007, Japan's per capita GDP grew by an average of 1.1 percent annually compared to 1.9 percent in the States. But, if we go back to 1987, taking in some of Japan's pre-crash boom years, both countries showed per capita GDP growth averaging 1.8 percent annually. More importantly, over the last five years, Japan's 2.0 percent annual growth rate somewhat exceeds the 1.8 percent rate in the United States."

I still do not see the 1.8% rate for the U.S.

You must have meant GDP/capita. CAn you put up the US figure for 2007? The British government has been slow to get that.

See how a history of spinning leads the reader to doubt?

Baker wrote:

"Kennedy-Johnson -- 3.3%
Nixon-Ford -- 1.9%
Carter -- 3.0%
Reagan -- 2.1%
Bush I -- 0.6%
Clinton -- 2.4%
Bush II --0.6%

(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

If reporters actually did some analysis..."

Ditto for the economists.

For example, what percentage of the new jobs were due to government intervention: directly, where the government is the employer or indrectly, because of contracts awarded to companies? And how many of those jobs were created in the private sector becasue the government backed off its 'supernanny' role?

Enquiring minds want to know...

El Viajero makes a good point. However, I believe he reduces the Presidential factor too much. Sitting Presidents, while not in total control of fiscal policy do lead Congress by proposing budgets. Their budget proposals carry great weight. U.S. fiscal policy has a great effect on the economy. And, while the Federal Reserve is responsible for monetary policy, they are under considerable influence(especially Ben Bernanke)from the White House and Wall Street. I am happy to tell my Republican clients that the historically large and long Bull Market of the late '90's was mostly due to Federal Budget surpluses created by Bill Clinton's willingness to raise the highest tax rate just 2 points while keeping spending in check. Thanks to Dean for debunking the Shrubster's brag about all the jobs he has created.

Oops! I want to take responsibility for the above post "El Viajero makes a good point..."

I get 0.9% -- not 0.6% -- average annual job growth from 2000 to 2007 (est.).

And BTW, since 2000 was a cyclical peak wouldn't it be fairer for comparisons like this to start from, say, the second year of each administration, under the argument that the first year really represents the predecessor's policies?