<div>On 2/28/06, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Jeffrey Fisher wrote: >=== >Sometimes Bartlett is a tad too robust. His chapter "Why the Bush >Tax Cuts Didn't Deliver" might be more convincing were the economy >not in the fifth year of a humming expansion. >=== > >are we prepared here to agree with that claim of will's? It's not really humming. Despite massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, this is the second-slowest post-World War II expansion, based on GDP growth, and the slowest in employment growth. It's been great for corporate profits, though. Doug</blockquote><div> well, this is the thing i don't get. how is will allowed to get away this? if we say it enough times, loud enough, it will be true? is it just that everyone wants to believe it? or is it precisely because the focus is on profits? are profits during this expansion better than the clinton-era boom? are they even comparable? according to what measures? i'm sorry if i'm being dense, here, but what am i missing? is there someplace i can go that would help me get caught up on this in a quick and dirty way w/o people here having to repeat themselves or state the obvious? cause i admit i've barely gotten my head out of the sand (yes, i said *the sand*) for the last oh, well, year, really. j </div> </div> -- "lo que decimos no siempre se parece a nosotros"