Friday, July 30, 2010

There they go again

I enjoy David Brooks. From everything I can tell, he is smart and has a good heart. I would guess he is a terrific dinner companion. So I was disappointed when I read in his column this morning:

What we have is not just a cycle but a condition. We could look back on the period between 1980 and 2006 as the long boom ...

Sorry, David, but 1980 to 2006 was not a long boom. Consult the National Income and Product Accounts tables, and you will find that real GDP over that time grew about 3.1 percent per year. In the "awful" Nixon-Ford-Carter 1970s, growth was 3.2 percent per year; in the 60s 4.2 percent; in the 50s 3.5 percent, and in the 40s 5.6 percent.

It is not that 1980-2006 was bad, just hardly a boom relative to the previous 40 years.

3 comments:

David Barker said...

Richard,

The New York Times isn't writing for the median American, it is aimed at the wealthy. The relevant measure of boom and bust is therefore not per capita GDP, but stock market returns. The stock market did far better from 1980-2006 than it did during the 1970s.

As I think Studs Terkel pointed out, American newspapers have business (capitalist) sections, but no labor sections.

aiya said...

Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Microsoft word
Office 2007
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Office 2007
Office 2007 key
Office 2007 download
Office 2007 Professional
Outlook 2010
Microsoft outlook
Microsoft outlook 2010
Windows 7

led said...

Christian Louboutin Tall Boots
Christian Louboutin Wedges
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Jimmy Choo Shoes
Moncler Kid's Jackets
Moncler clothing wholesale
Wholesale Moncler Jackets
discount Moncler Jackets
http://www.shopmoncler.hk/moncler-jackets
http://www.utsource.net/BUK444-500B.html
http://www.utsource.net/MG50Q6ES41.html
http://www.utsource.net/UM150CDY-10.html
http://www.utsource.net/MP7002.html
http://www.utsource.net/TMS320F2812PGFA.html
http://www.utsource.net/CEM3374.html
http://www.utsource.net/2sj74.html