muckmaw: Miko-
Please understand, I do not bother to read whatever it is your saying. This is the reason for my lack of replies. I simply do not have time today to go through your posts. Sorry.
That's OK. Most people on this board would have heard the meaningless and misleading stuff you did have time to copy and paste, so I may as well try to educate them.
I certainly do not blame you for coming up with those views.
AKIron: Looks like consumer and business spending rather than government spending to me.
Sure. The people and businesses used the money created by fed and made avaibale to them via credit to bid away the resources used productively elsewhere. The prices increase, so if you measure the activity in dollars, you see growth. Does it grow really? How much of it is converting capital into consumption? Who knows.
muckmaw: ...but I'm just interested in the mechanics of it. I don't have time or the inclination to ponder the deeper meaning.
I though the "mechanics" and "deeper meaning" are the same - understanding the actual processes happening behind the reported aggregate numbers.
...a stronger than expected GDP is a single indicator of an accelerating economy.
Accelerating what? Monetary expansion not backed by expansion in production that causes prices to increase? Yes, that would cause inflation.
Usually accelerating economy means acceleration of wealth creation - either increase in amount of production for consumption or in the amount of capital or both. That would cause drop in prices and interest rathes - not raise.
Increase in prices of the same goods is not wealth creation. Increase in consmption due to the reduction of capital is not wealth creation either.
I wouldn't be talking about Greenspan having to do anything with Iraq...
Greenspan could have explained to Bush what would happen if more countries - many of which are located close to Europe and trading mostly with Europe - followed Iraq's lead and switched to Euro from Dollar as the reserve currency.
DmdNexus: There's a reason why I didn't study economics... it's like psychology... there's as many theories as their are quacks...
That's BS. There are only three-four major doctrines and a dozen or so of schools and one of them is certainly correct. If you spent a few years learning all of them and comparing their theories and prediction records - like I did - you would have no problem spotting the right one and maybe a couple that are close.
AKIron: My quote was taken from a Yahoo! Dow Jones report. Are you denying it's validity? Let's be plain spoken Nexus.
He just admitted to be ignorant of economics.
One needs to read at least a few hundred pages of right economic books and articles to understand why that stuff is "not valid" - or rather meaningless.
What we see can either be good or bad - depending on mechanics of what's going on.
miko
