Who saiid that? Do you even read the posts?

I think Bush is personally responsible for GTA IV getting delayed.  Think about it, it wasn't delayed before he was president, but then it was delayed while he was president.

I'm not even going to bother with a point-by-point responce to this ridiculousness as this is a video game forum.

BUT, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the US or global economy, perhaps you should read the Wall Street Journal or The Economist instead of relying on television.

 Average real wages (real means adjusted for inflation) peaked in the early 70s. They've tended to fall or stay stagnant since then. The reason people haven't been getting poorer in a material sense during this trend is thanks to increasing technology making goods cheaper over this time peroid.

Your acedotal evidence gleaned from everybody you've known since high school probably has more to do with individuals climbing the corporate ladder than changes in real wages or inflation. I'm pretty confident that the average 30 year old is richer than the average 20 year old.

Yeah, I wouldn't go looking to the White House for accurate economic data. "Real After-Tax Per Capita Personal Income Has Risen" is code for "Bush made a lot of tax cuts." Given that those tax cuts are a major reason for the huge deficit in the huge US Federal budget, it's kind of like me claiming my income went up $10,000 dollars this year because I took out a loan. Any accountant would slap me in the face for saying something that stupid.

  Real wages quite possibly rose 1.3% in the last year. They also quite possibly dropped 1% the year before. This is the best chart for real wages I've been able to find:

 http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)

Real wages made some nice gains in the late 90s, but they were pretty flat during Bush's first term. All well below the 70s peak.

Yeah, the government just makes up everything dood! Diebold Halliburton Enron Katrina Guantanamo 9/11 conspiracy!

From the 07/16/07 Economist: "Yet they have one weapon: the surprising strength of tax revenues, which have cut the budget deficit far quicker than anyone expected. The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show a budget deficit perhaps as low as $150 billion (though it could be as high as $200 billion) at the end of the year, just over 1% of GDP—less than at the end of Mr Clinton’s first term."

I can't find the graph online but the CBO predicts the budget deficit will shrink dramatically over the next 3-4 years because of increased tax revenues.

B-b-but tax cuts by-definition evil right?? Jon Stewart said so on the Daily Show and he was totally sarcastic and pretentious and the audience laughed at his snarky comments so it must be true. A tax cut leading to... econmic growth... increased tax revenues... deficit reduction: that's unpossible! Unprecedented in the annals of economic history!

Again, why are people discussing economics in a video game forum? But as long as they are... people should go subscribe to The Economist and rent The Commanding Heights.  But if you're not an expert you can always leave the economics to U of Chicago Nobel Prize Winners.

The point of stockpiling for christmas?

If there's demand and you can't deliver, only about 1/2 of your potential customers is going to wait for your product to be available again. The other half is going to choose a product of the competition. This way, you're making money for your competitors (and giving away marketshare).

People are ready to buy millions of game consoles for christmas, and Nintendo would be complete idiots if they didn't make sure they have millions ready for sale. Don't know much about economics, but this I remember.

... but here's an optional second answer, just for kber81, since he's getting annoyed:

Wii sales are declining, stockpiling is not a possibility, demand is over, fad has passed, PS3 wins.

"net value of each person"? Did you just invent that term?

This "debt crisis"* is somewhat recent??

Which specific years was there a balanced budget during the Clinton administration? Was it for the entire eight years? Or was it only after a Republican Congress was swept into power and enacted The Fiscal Responsibility Act in early 1996 as part of their Contract with America?

And are you just going to ignore all external events and just link everything to the US President (not even the legislature as shown above)? The dot com boom and burst bubble? The Asian financial crisis? 9/11? And of course the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has no control over the US economy, right?

*("debt crisis" is in quotes because that's not the unnecessarily alarmist term I would use. Plus there is not even agreement on whether debt is a bad thing: Some argue a surplus could result in a deflationary recession as the money supply contracts. See also "Learning to Love Debt". I don't fully agree with all of it, but it's another perspective...)