I'm sorry, but I have some really really bad news: we're not poor. No, this isn't snark. Remember the good old years under Clinton? Pick a year, any year - don't matter. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP in 1994 was $33,691. In 1998 it was $37,238. Does anyone remember it being so horrid under Clinton? We're those good times or bad? Well, guess what inflation-adjusted per-capita GDP is now. Go ahead, just guess. Ok, I'll tell you:
$42,517.
Yup, that is correct - INFLATION ADJUSTED PER-CAPITA GDP: $42,517 in 2010. How does it feel to be 26% wealthier than we were under Clinton? And yes, that is per-capita, which means immigrants aren't stealing our wealth. And neither is inflation, 1910 dollars be damned. 26% wealthier!
Why is this bad news? Well, if our country can be on-average 26% wealthier and you have alot of angry people out there, 'growing the economy' (which is all our politicians talk about) ain't the problem. If you are 26% better off than where you'd be if this were 1994, what the heck is promised economic growth going to do for you anyway?
oh, and that crazy out-of-control federal spending? 23.8% of GDP in 2010, versus 21% in 1994. So wealth is up 26%, spending is up 13%, so we're still up 13%, and this is comparing a bottom year now to a relatively decent year under Clinton.
So, why is this bad news? Well, all of our economists and pundits and politicians are obsessing on economic growth as a cure-all. If 26% growth has done you a damn then, what will it do for you now?
Here are some links to some data, see for yourself:
A cool chart
Historical GDP, spreadsheet form
federal spending spreadsheet
Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 3:21 AM PT: OK - two points:
1) We have the money to fix our problems but not the will to use it.
2) Economic growth won't solve our problems. Jumping off a cliff by lowering critical taxes, firing school teachers, cancelling pensions, all the crazy @#$% we are doing to promote 'growth' is only going to double-down on the 'improvement' we've seen from the early 90s to now.