Economy/GDP Grows at Fastest Rate Since 1984.
Go ahead, jimmac, keyboard, et al: Tell me it's just going to slide back. The economy is now basically fully recovered, and even beginning to boom. Sorry guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
I linked to that news site just for your pleasure.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
I linked to that news site just for your pleasure.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
The economy is now basically fully recovered, and even beginning to boom. Sorry guys.
Why are you sorry...surely economic recovery is good for all of us?
Besides, GDP is a pretty poor indicator of national well-being. It just records financial transactions and treats them all as positive. Lets say you buy a car. GDP goes up. Crash into a parked car, necessitating repairs. GDP goes up. Hospitalize the kid in the back of the parked car. GDP goes up. Pay a lawyer to keep you out of prison. GDP goes up. Lose the case and go to prison. GDP goes up. Level a natural resource - like say a wildlife reserve - and make a buck. GDP goes up. Spend a huge amount of money going to war. GDP goes up.
Three of my friends still don't have jobs...that's my personal measure of how well the economy is or is not doing.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The economy is now basically fully recovered, and even beginning to boom. Sorry guys.
Yep, consumers spent more; businesses spent more...
Yeah, um soooooo what happened to those millions of jobs? China, huh? India, ay?
Yes nothing fluffs the coffers more then outsourcing. Once those costly American workers have been replaced the company can spend freely elsewhere.
Recovering yes; not recovered.
Boom? Hardly... in fact, not at all.
Screed
As for this comment from kneelbeforezod:
GDP increasing by a greater amount than it has since the tail-end of the first Reagan recession is hardly indicative of things being back to 'normal.' Scoring 7.4% higher in a test than you have since you started school means very little if you've only ever gotten Fs.
Oh My God!
1. We were clearly in a recession WELL BEFORE Reagan took office, By 1984, the economy was beginning to boom. The first "Reagan Recession". Jesus Christ, you sound like Dick Gephardt.
2. Your last statement makes a nice sound bite, but it's so horribly inaccurate it makes me sick. Recession is defined as two consecutive quarters or more of negative economic growth (measured by...wait for it.....GDP). By this defintion, we had a very narrow recession and a slow recovery, with economic growth in the 1%-2% range for several quarters. Even when we were in negative growth, we were only such by less than .5% (point 5, or 1/2 of one percent) each time. Measured cumulatively, the economy can be said to have contracted perhaps a TOTAL of 1.5% or less. Now, we have had positive growth for several quarters....to the tune of 3.3% for the second and an astounding 7.2% for the third. It's not the same as failing as test with a score of 48 and then failing it again with a score of 59.....it's simply a poor analogy on your part.
When people here start telling me that GDP isn't a good measure of the economy, that's when I stop taking them seriously....because it shows how we have already descended into "intellectual dishonesty land".
Get real.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Three of my friends still don't have jobs...that's my personal measure of how well the economy is or is not doing.
Two of my friends still don't have jobs. My wife's last day at Yamaha was today. I'm still slaving away at that "this job will do until the economy improves even though I'm earning 35% less than I was three years ago." I'm also still waiting for that check from the federal government which includes my tax-cut. Must've got lost in the mail
I was reading a similar article this morning and laughed at loud at how quickly SDW put this thread up. I read one of the articles from Drudge that said, " ...consumers, with fat wallets from tax cuts, went on a spending spree..." and I just about pee'd my pants. Who's wallets are they referring? The upper 1%? My wallet's taken a 35% cut lately and it's about to take another 50%. The job market is still miserable for anyone in the creative arts.
Out of all my friends and family (30-40 people), everyone's worried about not being able to afford Christmas. Well, I'm glad everyone else is doing so well, spending willy-nilly, because the picture aint so rosy here in burning Southern California.
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. Your last statement makes a nice sound bite, but it's so horribly inaccurate it makes me sick. Recession is defined as two consecutive quarters or more of negative economic growth (measured by...wait for it.....GDP). By this defintion, we had a very narrow recession and a slow recovery, with economic growth in the 1%-2% range for several quarters. Even when we were in negative growth, we were only such by less than .5% (point 5, or 1/2 of one percent) each time. Measured cumulatively, the economy can be said to have contracted perhaps a TOTAL of 1.5% or less. Now, we have had positive growth for several quarters....to the tune of 3.3% for the second and an astounding 7.2% for the third. It's not the same as failing as test with a score of 48 and then failing it again with a score of 59.....it's simply a poor analogy on your part.
These are great statistics and all, but it doesn't mean a hill-of-beans to me. 1 - 1.5% loss, 7% growth, whatever. What is the R E A L I T Y to the average bloke who's just trying to earn a living, put some money into savings and buy a home? In MY WORLD none of these statistics has trickled down into my world.
Some might argue that interest rates are low, so borrowing money directly benefits me. Huh? I need to EARN money, not BORROW it. None of these "indicators" translators into dollars and cents in my bank account.
Military spending is steady after increasing by a large amount last quarter, and with interest rates low, people are refinancing houses, consolidating student loans, and buying cars. As long as the war in Iraq is going badly, we can expect a lot of our taxes to go to the military and to rebuilding that country.
Unfortunately, that type of spending doesn't equal jobs, as no new jobs have been created. In fact, in the quarter with the greatest increase in the GDP in 20 years, the workforce lost approximately 50,000 jobs. You can say that the unemployment rate is a 'lagging indicator' that we might start coming out of this thing, but the fact remains that there's a large group of people out of work, and the businesses that let them go aren't hiring them back at this point. On the contrary, most companies are still looking to cut people.
There is still a long way to go before we start seeing the same kind of economy we had in 1998. We also can't keep up the type of Federal Spending that the Bush Administration is doing. Our debts are too high and we can't afford to take more money out of Social Security or Medicare again. Eventually, something has got to give.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The idiocy here astounds me.
your arrogance astounds me.
i read the boards and i know many of the people posting are posting because they've been furlowed, laid off, part-timed, downsized, or victims of the burst.
i agree that i think the economy is better, (i'm even noticing a remarkable increase of dot.com advertising on television) but to say it's over is naïve, and thoughtless.
saying it's "basically recovered" based on one economic indicator is idiocy.
Originally posted by Fran441
Unfortunately, that type of spending doesn't equal jobs, as no new jobs have been created. In fact, in the quarter with the greatest increase in the GDP in 20 years, the workforce lost approximately 50,000 jobs. You can say that the unemployment rate is a 'lagging indicator' that we might start coming out of this thing, but the fact remains that there's a large group of people out of work, and the businesses that let them go aren't hiring them back at this point. On the contrary, most companies are still looking to cut people.
Great point Fran. I forgot to mention in my earlier post that the company I currently work for just cut 15% of its workforce. The economy hasn't been that kind to the PC manufacturing business. So, I wonder what these newly unemployed folks think of these great indicators. Probably the same as me...not much.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead, jimmac, keyboard, et al: Tell me it's just going to slide back. The economy is now basically fully recovered, and even beginning to boom. Sorry guys.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
I linked to that news site just for your pleasure.
You have a talent for ignoring the obvious! The very same headline at CNN states " Will job growth follow ".
That's been the problem all along. This most recent recession wasn't like any other we've had. It was longer and deeper in some areas. So even though we're recovering it will take awhile even if it's growing as fast as it was in '84.
This is encouraging news however we're far from out of the woods yet jobs wise. Also some states are still floundering and not growing like the rest of the country.
Sometimes I get the feeling you have a simplistic child like view of this.
Job growth will drag this down if it doesn't follow.
Also I don't think it will be fast enough to save your precious Dubbya. Which is basically all you care about regarding this.
Isn't it sad that some people subscribe to the belief that "liberals" want the economoy to fail so that bush JUNIOR will be defeated? I know that's what they preach on hate radio, and read in falsehood filled books by Ann Coulter...but you think that grown(?) men could think for themselves once in a while. sigh.
Well I have news for them, the economy is just one of many reasons he will lose this Nov....
I wonder if bush JUNIOR knows what "jobless recovery" means?
GDP up, so why are we still losing jobs?
by kos
Thu Oct 30th, 2003 at 16:19:44 UTC
The GOP is prancing about with glee at the latest GDP numbers, which showed surprisingly strong growth.
U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate
Sounds great, huh? Except that (and those same GOoPers won't mention this) we are still losing jobs.
Even as the recovery quickened in the third quarter, a net 41,000 non-farm jobs were lost, bringing the number of job losses since President Bush took office to 2.6 million.
So the economy is growing, but job prospects continue to lag. As economist Brad Delong notes, something will have to give.
How can such strong output growth coexist with such lousy employment news? It is this year's great economic data mystery. Everyone believes that it cannot last. Either (i) firms will find themselves unable to meet rapidly-growing demand with their current labor force, and will start hiring at a furious pace, rapidly expanding employment; or (ii) households will take a look at their less-than-certain employment prospects, cut back on spending, and the pace of demand growth will slow drastically.
Current forecasts are smack in the middle: predictions of output growth at an annual rate of between 3.5% and 4.0% per year over the next year and a half or so, coupled with employment growth of perhaps 125,000 a month on average--enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising, but not enough to make unemployment fall.
However, the longer the disjunction between fast output growth and stagnant employment continues, the less likely this smack-in-the-middle forecast becomes. Things are very likely to be either significantly better or significantly worse than the current consensus forecast--but we have no idea which.
Runaway defense spending likely had a role in the strong GDP numbers, and I'm interested in seeing exactly how big that role might be.
Here's another one that sort of sums it all up:
Governor Dean's Statement on Today's Economic Figures
SEATTLE--Governor Dean issued the following statement today regarding the new economic figures.
"President Bush has compiled the worst economic record since the Great Depression, and it is going to take a lot more than one quarter of growth to clean it up. The Bush Administration spent trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, put us trillions in debt, and delivered pink slips to 3.2 million Americans. The real measure of a strong economy is when average Americans see real benefits and the people who lost their jobs under President Bush are working again."
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. We were clearly in a recession WELL BEFORE Reagan took office
All economic growth indices (revenues and employment as well as GDP) were positive when Reagan entered office. Then the supply-side voodoo of tax cuts and deregulation began, and by 1982 (Reagan's second year of office) we found ourselves in the worst year for economic growth since the Great Depression. The only problem Reagan inherited was high inflation (which was a contributory factor to the 1982 recession in so far as the inflation reduction policies of fed Chairman Paul Volcker exacerbated the other problems).
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. Your last statement makes a nice sound bite, but it's so horribly inaccurate it makes me sick. Recession is defined as two consecutive quarters or more of negative economic growth (measured by...wait for it.....GDP). By this defintion, we had a very narrow recession and a slow recovery, with economic growth in the 1%-2% range for several quarters. Even when we were in negative growth, we were only such by less than .5% (point 5, or 1/2 of one percent) each time. Measured cumulatively, the economy can be said to have contracted perhaps a TOTAL of 1.5% or less. Now, we have had positive growth for several quarters....to the tune of 3.3% for the second and an astounding 7.2% for the third. It's not the same as failing as test with a score of 48 and then failing it again with a score of 59.....it's simply a poor analogy on your part.
When people here start telling me that GDP isn't a good measure of the economy, that's when I stop taking them seriously....because it shows how we have already descended into "intellectual dishonesty land".
Re-read my post. I never disputed the validity of GDP as a measurement of economic growth. I pointed out that it is a very broad indicator and that it does not measure national well-being. GDP growth has to be interpreted alongside other indices, such as the unemployment rate (still 6.1%). The economy may be improving, but this improvement has yet to be experienced by anyone I know. Reading about what great shape the economy is in means very little to someone without a job. A number of other posters are making this exact same point, but you appear to be disregarding it entirely.
I'll concede that the grade analogy is more of a soundbite than anything else, but the point I was making stands. Economic growth that brings you closer to where you were five years ago is good, but economic growth that brings you to a higher point that you were five years ago is better. A 7.2% rate of GDP growth after a protracted period of little or no real growth does not mean the economy has "basically fully recovered," no matter how many superlatives you use to describe it.
Finally, read the Businessweek article ('Why the War against Terror Will Boost the Economy') I linked to. Barro estimates that every $1 of military spending increases GDP by 60-75%. Military spending has grown at an annualized 45% rate (so far) this year, amounting to an increase of around $75 billion. This estimated $50 billion (from Barro's multiplier) contribution to GDP accounts for about half of the growth you are so excited about.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Incidentally...just in case you think this really does constitute economic recovery: GDP increasing by a greater amount than it has since the tail-end of the first Reagan recession is hardly indicative of things being back to 'normal.' Scoring 7.4% higher in a test than you have since you started school means very little if you've only ever gotten Fs.
Besides, GDP is a pretty poor indicator of national well-being. It just records financial transactions and treats them all as positive. Lets say you buy a car. GDP goes up. Crash into a parked car, necessitating repairs. GDP goes up. Hospitalize the kid in the back of the parked car. GDP goes up. Pay a lawyer to keep you out of prison. GDP goes up. Lose the case and go to prison. GDP goes up. Level a natural resource - like say a wildlife reserve - and make a buck. GDP goes up. Spend a huge amount of money going to war. GDP goes up.
Three of my friends still don't have jobs...that's my personal measure of how well the economy is or is not doing.
Wreck the car and auto body shops employ people and parts companies make parts. I have to admit you have a tone of whine cry and moan in this post. If this were under the watch of Clinton or Gore I would speculate you would not have such a sour tone.
people really need to think outside the party for once. BR is RIGHT
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I have to admit you have a tone of whine cry and moan in this post.
what's so wrong with whining, crying nd moaning when you have something to whine, cry or moan about personally? certainly seems like those closest to him have enough justification.
as for me, i'm just mad that, now that we left canada and my wife was in the hospital in august for an afternoon, we incurred charges of $1500. it was covered, but the check won't be here until december. so we'll be in debt (which has to be shunted to the credit cards to float us) until then.
hope the interest charges i am paying to citibank pay for someone's nice weekend getaway. sigh. yeah, i'm bitter...
p.s. before someone thinks that post is all "canada's so much better than the u.s," let me just say that if it weren't for the inept handling of this cross-border charge that the canadian health insurance company said they would cover to begin with, we would have that check 4-5 weeks earlier. but they felt that had to sit on it that long, and need personal confirmation from us, and correct an address we corrected with them 3 friggin' years ago. sheesh...
p.p.s. apologies for the copious editing and additions after the fact.
Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts contributed to a record budget deficit in the recently ended 2003 fiscal year and have done little to spur significant job growth.
notice the moan and bitching? From democrats?
from Fox News Link
But across the atlantic those in similarly minded political philosophy defend deficits for the purpose of growth in GDP as you will see here:
Aug. 27 - Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin of France defended his country's continued violation of Europe's budget rules today, saying his primary job was to restore growth and increase employment in France.
Defiant amid criticism from countries with balanced budgets, Mr. Raffarin urged that the rules underpinning the euro be interpreted in a more flexible way to allow countries with faltering economies to stimulate growth. His comments came at a news conference after a meeting of the European Commission.
So it all depends on which side of the atlantic one is on whether defecits are such a big deal..... mmmmmhhhhmmmmm
from This Link
Fellows
Originally posted by rok
what's so wrong with whining, crying nd moaning when you have something to whine, cry or moan about personally? certainly seems like those closest to him have enough justification.
as for me, i'm just mad that, now that we left canada and my wife was in the hospital in august for an afternoon, we incurred charges of $1500. it was covered, but the check won't be here until december. so we'll be in debt (which has to be shunted to the credit cards to float us) until then.
hope the interest charges i am paying to citibank pay for someone's nice weekend getaway. sigh. yeah, i'm bitter...
I am sorry you have gotten into debt I am indeed but being "mad" does not accomplish much.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I am sorry you have gotten into debt I am indeed but being "mad" does not accomplish much.
Fellowship
yeah, i know. but as it is, i'm kinda hamstrung, so it's either that or get really really drunk.