Jeb Bush Wants 4 Percent Growth. That Will Be Hard to Reach.

Well, Jeb! - if you find your 4% plan doesn't pan out, you can always start another war. The voters seem to eat that macho stuff up.

Jeb Bush will get 4% growth, just not in America.

Hey, we already are an “economic superpower like no other". No health care for everybody, and as much military spending as the next ten down the list.

And for Lincoln Chaffee, the only one not on the metric system.

4% was not even the norm during "average" times, nevermind the historical norm for periods after serious banking crisis. Anyone familiar with economic history would know this. Apparantly Jeb lacks this knowledge. All the more reason that he is not qualified to become President.

The Republican administration of G,W, Bush, ended in an economic disaster that was called; "the Great Recession".
The previous Republican Administration of G.H.W. Bush, ended in a recession.
It took two Democratic Administrations to rescue the nation from the economic chaos!
Why would anyone expect the American people to believe that a third Bush presidency, utilizing the same failed. Bush/Republican, tax cuts for the wealthy, trickle down nonsense, would provide four percent growth, instead of another Bush Administration engineered economic collapse?

After US taxpayers pay off the 28 debt ceiling increases of ReaganBushBush and the 312% increase in US debt they incurred, it will be clear sailing ahead.

We will have an extremely tough time achieving anything like 4% growth with the albatross of Big Government around our necks, and Big Government is not going anywhere. In fact, it seems like Big Government is more popular than ever, which is why Bernie Sanders is inexplicably so popular these days.

"...even if you exclude the recession that was underway when Obama took office..."

After which, the author lays out the 2.2% Obama growth of 2010-2014.

The insidious NYT bias is alive and well.

Write the story. Critizque the merits or components of the plan. Leave the Obama apologia out of the appraisal.

He will be regarded as a failed President. Let's look at turning a page. To anyone.

So what did his father and brother achieve? Two banking crises (with the help another Bush brother - Neil). Four percent growth? Hardly actually a pair of recessions. Einstein said that doing the same experiment over again and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Maybe that';s the tag line "JEB! Crazy enough for you?" Alternatively "JEB! Just another Economic Bust."

Jeb Bush wants you to forget he is George W's loyal brother, at least for now.
Look up in the sky! It's a growing pie!

If Jeb! were as thoughtful as The New York Times seems to insist he is, he'd realize that what he "wants" is of zero consequence.

"Neither of those are things that a president has much control over." That last sentence describes the state of the political fiction that we accept when deciding on who to vote for. While governments prepare the ground for business, governments don't generally cause the business' to grow. While the governments can launch a war that creates employment and demands more goods and services this isn't a sustainable model because most of the money never gets re-invested in the domestic economy.

Governments can also invest in national infrastructure but lately the political and legislative leaders are against that and willing to see the national infrastructure rot so that they can blame the current administration for the failures of the infrastructure.

The private sector is all about demand and supply - and demand for anything but essentials is difficult to stimulate when the consumer is frightened that the next paycheck may be the last one or has massive debt that sucks up all the discretionary income.

"[None] of those are things that a president has much control over."

Both Bush and Clinton will make promises that they, and we, know they cannot bring to fruition.

As if Bush has any clue what he's talking about. Why settle for 4%? Why not 6%? He's just making up numbers. If the economy is at or around full capacity in late 2016 as Irwin suggests and he's probably right (we're not that far off now) and all of a sudden spurts to 4% we'd rapidly start to overheat, inflation would take off, the Fed would tighten and bingo RECESSION. And how is this spurt achieved? Tax cuts? Back to deficits don't matter? Massive public spending on infrastructure? It's like his claim congress is going to magically pass immigration reform when his own party is fanatically opposed to it.

Without going into the "magic wands" of the "confidence fairy," "tax cut fairy" and "deregulation fairy," the only tools in any Republican's economic policy kit, Bill McBride gives a pretty good break out of basic raw material of economic growth (demographic increase in the prime age work force and productivity) http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/06/4-sustained-gdp-growth.html. Because of the echo-birth boom of the late eighties and nineties, the prime labor force will be increase somewhat the next decade. Productivity is a mysterious wild card (although I speculate that t there is a link between low unemployment and rising real wages since the high productivity gains of 1950s, 60s, and 90s, were periods of low unemployment and rising real wages). So sustained 4% is growth is pretty unlikely absent a radical liberalization of immigration policy or bringing those who have dropped out of the labor force (the 10% of the population stuck in places like West Baltimore or Appalachia, etc.) back into it.

Dear Jeb, during Republican administrations since the election of Reagan, there were only 4 years where GDP growth exceeded 4% and it averaged less than 3%. So how would your administration be different if you continued the current failing Republican economic policies? (see Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin for examples).

The potential output numbers are a bit confusing. What is the CBO estimate of potential growth? If 2.2% growth is and has been gradually closing the output gap, it must mean the CBO estimate of potential growth is less than 2.2%, but then the 2.2% itself is here and everywhere described as insufficient or middling, etc. How can that be when it is exceeding 'Potential'?

So, it seems there are not very good grasp of these (productivity) numbers.

One way to spur growth is to ramp up the economy. One way to ramp up the economy is war.
The formula is simple. Daddy Bush = 1 war and a big budget deficit. George Bush = 2 wars and a huge budget deficit. What we can expect is Little Brother Bush = 3 wars and a gargantuan budget deficit.
Yes, there is the inevitable cost on the down side but just blame the Democrat in the White House. The one elected to clean up the mess left by his predecessor.

4% sustained grow (through more deregulation, lower taxes for the wealthy, etc.) would only be possible through the creation of more bubbles that could destabilize an already fragile economy. It's time to reject the nostrums of the political and economic bubble-brains that only create temporary bumps in GDP, the benefits of which seemingly only go to the well-to-do.

You can listen to Republicans without hearing them. When they talk about spurring growth, they talk about deregulation, not full employment. The way Bush hopes to achieve 4% growth is by letting big business make the rules. Restrictions on carbon emissions, restraints on competition, the minimum wage, and corporate taxes, he tells us, get in the way of growth. If Bush is intent on 4%, there's no telling what harms to our quality of life he may have in mind.

Demographics is destiny. An aging population buys less than a young population and generates less growth. There is not a developed country today that generates anywhere near 4% growth over any sustained period. No matter one's belief in "American Exceptionalism", the laws of economics still apply, as do those of physics and climatology.

In the unlikely event of a third Bush presidency, I will gladly wager a considerable sum that growth over his entire tenure will be much closer to 2% than 4.

Regarding potential GDP, we are putting too much faith in arbitrary lines drawn on a graph.

The present constraint on growth is demand, not supply - and has been for more than a decade.

If and when we reach supply constraints, those constraints will be very easy to see, in the form of rising wages and prices. The important thing at that time, would be to avoid taking the foot off the accelerator, and allow the market to work it's magic to alleviate the temporary shortages which will at first appear. A period of fast growth is likely to be associated with higher inflation, which must not be excessively feared. The higher prices are needed, to identify shortages, and offer profits to those willing to take risks to fill those shortages.

The US economy has been restrained by lack of demand for a very long time. But when demand is returned after periods of very slack demand, it's effects are very strong indeed, as history has proven again and again.

We must resolve to alleviate the lack of demand, so that the problems of our economy become more obvious, and easy to solve.

JB's fault lies not in his assumption that strong growth is possible, but in his lack of understanding as to it's cause, and his lack of a plausible policy to make it occur.

In Florida he was a bust
Serving the Rich folk's money lust,
Backward to the core
In running their "store"
His bona fides are just dust!

That's not really likely to happen! If the GDP of the USA starts growing and the economy increases it's growing processes the USA still has it's national debt that the creditor countries may submit to pay!
Jeb is a businessman not a politician!

The more I read about Jeb Bush the less impressed I am with his intelligence.
We would be better off with a good high school junior leading the country than Jeb Bush.

Jeb is no brighter than his brother and less honest, which is no small feat. A US GDP growth rate of 4% doesn't make any sense, given the exit of 10,000 Boomers per day from the workforce, most of whom will face declining incomes. Even if it did, interest rates and inflation would soar because of significant skills gaps and bottlenecks in the economy, leading to the next recession and more bad news for the Federal Budget and debt service.

A majority of major US metros have unemployment rates under 5% today, many in the 3% range. Of course, in the economic miracle state of Florida, 3 of 4 major metros are on the wrong side of 5%, because of a hangover from pre-recession boom times which collapsed.

I'll take steady growth, employment gains and low inflation.

Well he better not count on the current congress to help with getting anything done. Maybe shut down the government once or twice. They have set us back forty years.

Ninety three million Americans no longer in the workforce. Anemic GNP growth,art time jobs, no overtime. Pathetic. GNP growth averaged 5.5% for three years under Bush. Now that appears impossible. The new normal? Obamanomics has been a huge failure.

Impossible for Dem. president to reach. So hard is what we Republicans try to do. We need such growth to provide jobs, and perhaps we can take some growth back from say China by resourcing manufacturing in the US by "whatever means necessary".

In plain terms, the "output gap" which must grow in order to achieve the 4% growth rate, is dependent, at least in significant part, upon a) steady growth in jobs over a long (6-8 years) period and b) significant growth in wages, sufficient to permit people to spend more on cars, houses, vacations, college tuitions, and the like.

In classic economic terms, it is all the same: unless disposable income increases and spurs both consumer demand and business investment, growth will stagnate. There was a significant "output gap" between 2008 and 2010 because the economy collapsed, jobs were withdrawn, and money on wars collared domestic spending. Knowing what we know about GOP economic policy--corporate tax cuts, estate tax elimination, cut infrastructure spending--JEB Bush is unlikely to cause anything to grow.

It's a verbal chimera, enticing the unknowing into thinking Bush and his mates actually "care" (he actually used that word) about them. What he cares about is getting him and Bush BFFs back in the saddle. Now, if he had taken the stage and said that he would ask Congress on his first day in office to appropriate money for bridge, water, road, hospital, school, energy conversion, projects along with money to train people to do those jobs, then he deserves to be listened to. But, he didn't say that.

If he knows how to achieve 4% growth doing what he and the GOP are likely to do, then I know how to keep mosquitoes off my head in August.

"There's not a reason in the world we can't grow at 4% a year..." Will Bush bring manufacturing back, or just suggest we trickle our way up to that?

We can't financialize, technologize, trade, or consume our way to 4%, and our heavily subsidized Corporatocracy hasn't shown any desire to help by increasing real wages, despite record profits and years of access to nearly 0% Fed money. Millenials are saddled with student loan debt and older workers are conserving cash.

If we want to see consistent 4% growth, bring manufacturing back and restructure the tax code with higher rates and fewer loopholes for the wealthy. That's a start.

Did he say that he was going to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour?
If not, then I'm not interested.
(Don't you just hate people who only dream big dreams when it only applies to them?)

60,000 factories have permanently closed in this country since Bush2.
Unless jeb has a plan to bring the jobs back to this country that were shipped overseas, AND a plan on where those workers are supposed to work, then, instead of pie-in-the-sky dreaming, he needs to worry about negative growth, because that's what's on the way.

And, no. Scott Walker won't be any better. He's another pie-in-the-skyer, telling his state that he can bust the terrorists-unions, reduce taxes on his wealthy benefactors, and create all the jobs needed. Instead, he is gov of the state that places 35th in job growth.

The fact is: There's not a Republican in the pack that has a legitimate plan.

Look to Kansas, boys and girls.... that's the Republican plan in action.

Conservatives typically argue that we had 4% growth under Reagan, and therefore should have such growth now.

The Reagan recovery occurred when the economy was emerging from a horrid recession and interest rates were falling sharply from record highs. The huge baby boomer generation was entering its peak productive years, the world was mainly at peace and energy prices were dropping fast. When you factor all that in, it's not surprising that we had some quarters of 4% or stronger growth in the mid-1980s under Reagan.

By contrast, until the last year, gas prices remained at historic highs under Obama, interest rates were stable throughout his terms (they were zero when he arrived and couldn't go lower, though of course the Fed tried to help with its bond-buying programs), and there was no explosion of baby boomers entering the workforce. The rest of the world's economies, other than China's, were also under pressure, and terrorism and war cast a pall over much of the globe.

To claim that we had 4% growth under Reagan (while ignoring the sharp recession in his first two years), and therefore should have 4% growth now, is to ignore many relevant factors.

For so many reasons, this is a ludicrous goal in 2015. If we had constant 4% growth, we'd probably also have the kind of inflation that conservatives are always warning us against and trying to head off. This kind of growth would go against the interests of Bush's own financial donors, as it would mean much higher wages they'd have to pay labor.

If that is his goal, then I guess he will be voting for Hillary because the GOP economic approach has done nothing but increase the deficit, decrease economic mobility, increase income inequality, and stagnate or decrease the income of everyone outside the top 1%.

Oh, he got me. GDP is income, and he is talking about increasing the income by 4% ON AVERAGE.....which means the top 1% gets the gains while the rest of us get nothing. Same as what the GOP has done since it adopted insane trickle down supply side economics despite all of the studies that show it gives the poor outcomes listed above.

We don't need another Bush. The last 2 left the country in ruins, we don't need another one to come over and finish your family's job. A Bush will never get my vote.

A bigger housing bubble or world war that destroys everyone's industrial base but ours ought to do.

He's actually asking an old an irrelevant question. He should be telling us what percentage of the economy can be converted into a sustainable, humane economy that doesn't chew up its participants each year. Can we convert 4% of the economy each year? So that after 25 years we have an economy that benefits everyone without killing the planet? That's a real question.

How is it that with consumers needed to contribute 65-70% of GDP and healthy wage earnings, candidates expecting greater growth are not telling us how the consumers will get more money to spend and the labor participation rate will increase. Are they all forgetting the math? Or is it the usual pie in the sky promises of what they want to achieve but have of way of getting to 4% growth.
Promises, promises, but what can they produce realistically??

High growth rates typically occur in countries with relatively many younger people, and relative fewer older people. The US was like this in the 50s, with all those born in the 20s who had just returned from WWII, and again in the 80s, when the baby boomers were in their 30s and 40s. The economy certainly boomed then.

People in their 20s and 30s experience rapid growth in their skills and productivity, and create a high demand for goods and services. This was particularly noticeable in the 50s, when enormous numbers of ex-GIs went to college and got an education. At the same time, there was an enormous pent-up demands for goods, since nobody had bought much since 1930, at first because of lack of money, then because of rationing and shortages.

Now what is our situation today? A large percent of the population is over 60, and is more concerned with getting rid of excess possessions than buying new ones. There is a big generation of young people, but their skill levels are relatively low and they have high debt. This suggest a Japan-like stagnation to me, as young people struggle to pay off debt while older people try to conserve their capital.