Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on October 30, 2003, 08:25:58 AM
-
Check the financial news.
GDP numbers came in this morning...
"The futures market gets a solid boost on the heels of a batch of better than expected economic reports. Of particular impact is the advance Q3 GDP, which checked in at 7.2%, well ahead of the consensus of 6.0%. "
Pretty soon, the fed's gonna have to step in to curb inflation!;)
-
that is good news for this admin and the country - what are you doing reporting such a thing!
-
You're both wrong.
It's either NOT good news or it's not enough good news because so many other bad things overshadow it completely.
I'll have someone along to explain it to you in here shortly.
;)
-
this is terrible! what are the dems going to do now?!?!?! :lol
-
It's not the economy, it's the war stupid. :rolleyes:
;)
-
HOLY HELL! Check out this article on Yahoo news...
"Rocketed"???
Did they hire a conservative writer?
GDP Growth Strongest Since 1984
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.
U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the July-September period, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) said. It was the strongest advance since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.
The increase handily outstripped consensus forecasts on Wall Street, where most economists had looked for a gain closer to 6 percent.
Consumer spending rose at a hefty 6.6 percent pace as lower tax withholding on paychecks and child tax credit checks put more cash into shoppers' hands. It was the biggest increase in consumer outlays since early 1988.
The report was certain to be heralded by the Bush administration, which has been happy to trumpet the impact its recent tax cuts have had in spurring a sluggish recovery.
Congress passed a $350 billion White House tax plan in the spring that lowered tax-withholding rates in July and pumped out about $13.7 billion dollars in child tax credit checks in July and August.
Most economists expect growth to cool but come in around a solid 4 percent in the final quarter of the year and through 2004. But some have expressed lingering concerns that growth could falter as the tax-cut impact fades, particularly if jobs growth -- which has been sorely lacking -- does not pick up soon.
Business spending, which has been lacking even as the economy climbed out of recession, rose 11.1 percent in the third quarter, the steepest climb since the first quarter of 2000 and the second straight quarterly advance. Cuts in business spending had long been the missing link for a more broad-based recovery as firms showed a reluctance to commit to long-term spending plans.
The third-quarter increase in business investment reflected a sharp pick-up in spending on equipment and software, which moved forward at a 15.4 percent annual pace. In contrast, spending on structures dipped.
A shrinking in the U.S. trade deficit also helped growth, and ensured that sales of U.S.-produced goods and services rose at an even faster pace than GDP (news - web sites) -- a 7.8 percent increase that marked the strongest performance in over 25 years.
Government spending also rose, even though defense spending was flat after giving a big boost to growth in the second quarter.
The report also offered a sign that inflation was starting to move up after a sharp slowdown earlier this year that fueled worry over the possibility of deflation. The price index for consumer spending, excluding volatile food and energy costs, rose at a 1.8 percent annual rate, accelerating from the second quarter's 1.1 percent advance.
-
Must be something Clinton did :rolleyes: And anyways, its about Bush's lies and sexing up intell :rolleyes:
-
IT'S INTEL!!!! WITH ONE L!!!!!
MiniD
-
it's time for a REAL tax cut next year.....
wasn't there a tax cut in 84?
-
With the government spending 87 billion to buy more bullets, bombs, landmines, handgrenades, and body bags...
A new consolidated HLS administration... 1 million dollar bomb sniffers in every international airport....
Sure GDP is garanteed to go up. :lol
The Fed is keeping the prime at 1%....
Don't you guys realize that Bush really is not in charge...
Bush is just a finger puppet... and the finger leeds to one man!
Allen Greenspan... he's the man with the power....
Funny.. how he's been in power for awhile....presidents come and presidents go... Greenspan stays.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
With the government spending 87 billion to buy more bullets, bombs, landmines, handgrenades, and body bags...
A new consolidated HLS administration... 1 million dollar bomb sniffers in every international airport....
Sure GDP is garanteed to go up. :lol
The Fed is keeping the prime at 1%....
Don't you guys realize that Bush really is not in charge...
Bush is just a finger puppet... and the finger leeds to one man!
Allen Greenspan... he's the man with the power....
Funny.. how he's been in power for awhile....presidents come and presidents go... Greenspan stays.
So if the economy tanks, it will not be Bush's fault?
-
Oooo...
Nice reversal Rude...
*watches with pointed interest
-
muckmaw: U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate...
Pretty soon, the fed's gonna have to step in to curb inflation!;)
It sounds self-contradictory. But perhaps you would care to explain what it means?
What do you mean by "inflation"? General raise in prices?
If so, how could increase in the amount of goods produced cause a raise in prices? Don't goods drop in prices when they become more plentifull?
The more we produce, the more and cheaper goods we have for investing in more production, so the firms borrowing resources for expansion would have lower prices and interests to pay, which in turn result in yet more production.
It would seem the prices will be dropping as well as interest rates, no matter what the fed does. After all, the fed does not prodcue resources for investment - just the money that are used as a medium of exchange.
So why would you imply that the prices may raise and that the fed would be able to affect investment by tightening the credit?
miko
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Don't you guys realize that Bush really is not in charge...
Bush is just a finger puppet... and the finger leeds to one man!
Allen Greenspan... he's the man with the power....
Allen Greenspan ordered the invasion of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Rude
So if the economy tanks, it will not be Bush's fault?
No it will be Bush's fault... blame can't be traced back to Greenspan...
that's the doctrine of "Plausible Deniability"
I wouldn't be talking about Greenspan having to do anything with Iraq...
I don't want to disappear in the middle of the night!
-
Here's another article on it...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
Of course, it's a Fox News story, so some will automatically discount it:p ; however, it jives pretty well with the Reuters report. Interesting that every one of the presidential-wannabees in that debate just a couple nights ago again described the woeful state of the economy. Next to "that quagmire" in Iraq, it was the number one Bush-clubber.
-
Rude: So if the economy tanks, it will not be Bush's fault?
That would be a meanigfull statement in this argument - if still incorrect - if the DmdNexus stated that "growth in economy is not Bush's merit".
But I do not see him saying anything about the "economy" growing. I see him stating that GDP went up due to monetary expansion and the government expenditures.
So you are not replying to anything he said.
GDP is calculated in such way that many items that would be counted as expense in private business are counted as income. GDP is supposed to comprise the value of final goods. Most government expenses cannot be rationally counted as final goods.
Government - Congress and Bush - did not reduce the amount of resources consumed by the government - and withdrawn from economy, they increased it. So that leaves fewer resources available for investment and consumption, even though it printed and gave away the money to buy resources in the form of tax cuts and credit expansion. Oh, yes - he actually caused americans to pay more for steel, lumber, agricultural products and other stuff necessary for business.
So if the economy does tank, it may well be Bush's fault - depending on his actions. It would certainly be Greenspan's fault causing unsustainable misallocation of capital by artificially lowering the interest rate.
At the same time consumer spending increased, indicating that people - americans - are nots aving and investing resources into the increase of production.
So if the production is increasing, it would mean there is a serious capital decumulation going on or someone abroad is investing the necessary capital.
It's not a great trick increasing production in a factory by neglecting the machinery - but a temporary one.
GDP is certainly growing - just look at the money supply. It is actually growing faster than GDP because a lot of money gets siphoned off by foreigners in exchange for real goods.
Economy growing? Maybe - but you would have to demonstrate it to us. Muckmaw clearly does not believe so, since he expect the increase in money supply to run into insufficient production and cause the raise in prices.
miko
-
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.
-
"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy roared ahead in the third quarter, growing at its fastest pace in nearly 20 years, fueled by greater consumer and business spending.
Third-quarter gross domestic product, a measure of all the goods and services produced in the U.S., rose at a sizzling 7.2% annual rate, more than double the 3.3% rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) said Thursday. The economy grew at a 1.4% pace in the first quarter."
Looks like consumer and business spending rather than government spending to me.
-
Miko-
I may have an overly simplistic view of this number, but I'm just interested in the mechanics of it. I don't have time or the inclination to ponder the deeper meaning.
In my universe, a stronger than expected GDP is a single indicator of an accelerating economy, which, if left unchecked will become inflationary and eventually require a move by the federal reserve to tighten the money supply.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
No it will be Bush's fault... blame can't be traced back to Greenspan...
that's the doctrine of "Plausible Deniability"
I wouldn't be talking about Greenspan having to do anything with Iraq...
I don't want to disappear in the middle of the night!
Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too...typical liberal.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"Looks like consumer and business spending rather than government spending to me.
There's a reason why I didn't study economics... it's like psychology... there's as many theories as their are quacks...
Straight from the mouths of the conservative "FAIR and BALANCED" fox news room.... we get these quotes..
"While consumers have been the main force keeping the economy going, there are more signs that businesses are starting to do their part. "
And the most telling quote of all is...
"...in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth."
here's the full text...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
-
Originally posted by Rude
Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too...typical liberal.
The relavence of your bitterness is lost...
Did your dog piss in your wheaties again today?
-
My quote was taken from a Yahoo! Dow Jones report. Are you denying it's validity? Let's be plain spoken Nexus.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20031030/bs_dowjones/200310300841001006
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Straight from the mouths of the conservative "FAIR and BALANCED" fox news room.... we get these quotes..
"While consumers have been the main force keeping the economy going, there are more signs that businesses are starting to do their part. "
And the most telling quote of all is...
"...in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth."
here's the full text...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101680,00.html
You *do* realize that consumer spending accounts for 2/3's of the economy, don't you?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You *do* realize that consumer spending accounts for 2/3's of the economy, don't you?
Hey don't argue with me....
These are not my opinions...
I'm just passing along what the conservative "Fair and balanced" people at fox news are saying iare the "reasons" for this upsurge in the GDP...
go argue with the idiots in your silly conservative movement
-
Why do you guys bother with someone who refuses to think for him/herself and only spouts out party rhetoric?
You cannot win a debate with closed-minded people.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
My quote was taken from a Yahoo! Dow Jones report. Are you denying it's validity? Let's be plain spoken Nexus.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20031030/bs_dowjones/200310300841001006
And my quotes were taken from the conservative right wing "fair and balanced" Fox news...
Are you calling them liars? :lol
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Why do you guys bother with someone who refuses to think for him/herself and only spouts out party rhetoric?
You cannot win a debate with closed-minded people.
that's rather closed minded of you...don't you think.
So if someone expresses an opinion and references other sources in support of those opinions... that's a person who doesn't think for them selves?
What party is the Fox news and the Dow Jones report associated with?
-
I swear you people smoke pot!
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
And my quotes were taken from the conservative right wing "fair and balanced" Fox news...
Are you calling them liars? :lol
You seem to be the only one here denying the subject title.
You're beginning to act a lot like Weazel, you remember him doncha? The guy that acted so ridiculously that no one took him seriously? The guy that got louder and louder because everyone ignored him, finally resulting in him being banned. Keep it up, you're halfway there.
-
DNexus, your "telling" point is taken out of context. The full line from the Fox article is:
Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war — which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth.
I'm not sure what point your are trying to make here, but the gist of the above quote is that business, not government spending on defense, was the primary driver of 3rd quarter economic growth.
-
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
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Rude: So if the economy tanks, it will not be Bush's fault?
That would be a meanigfull statement in this argument - if still incorrect - if the DmdNexus stated that "growth in economy is not Bush's merit".
But I do not see him saying anything about the "economy" growing. I see him stating that GDP went up due to monetary expansion and the government expenditures.
So you are not replying to anything he said.
GDP is calculated in such way that many items that would be counted as expense in private business are counted as income. GDP is supposed to comprise the value of final goods. Most government expenses cannot be rationally counted as final goods.
Government - Congress and Bush - did not reduce the amount of resources consumed by the government - and withdrawn from economy, they increased it. So that leaves fewer resources available for investment and consumption, even though it printed and gave away the money to buy resources in the form of tax cuts and credit expansion. Oh, yes - he actually caused americans to pay more for steel, lumber, agricultural products and other stuff necessary for business.
So if the economy does tank, it may well be Bush's fault - depending on his actions. It would certainly be Greenspan's fault causing unsustainable misallocation of capital by artificially lowering the interest rate.
At the same time consumer spending increased, indicating that people - americans - are nots aving and investing resources into the increase of production.
So if the production is increasing, it would mean there is a serious capital decumulation going on or someone abroad is investing the necessary capital.
It's not a great trick increasing production in a factory by neglecting the machinery - but a temporary one.
GDP is certainly growing - just look at the money supply. It is actually growing faster than GDP because a lot of money gets siphoned off by foreigners in exchange for real goods.
Economy growing? Maybe - but you would have to demonstrate it to us. Muckmaw clearly does not believe so, since he expect the increase in money supply to run into insufficient production and cause the raise in prices.
miko
I'll check back next spring for your post on why the economy has experienced a strong recovery.
-
Sabre: The full line from the Fox article is: "Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter."
The newly-created money that government spent last quarter did not disappear after being paid to the recepients - but generated more "spending" this quarter. It takes time for harmfull effects of new money not backed by resources to propagate trough the economy.
This is the quote you should have paid attention to:
Federal government spending rose 1.4% during the quarter after rising 25.5% in the second quarter. National defense spending was unchanged in the third quarter after surging 45.8% in the second quarter.
miko
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
The relavence of your bitterness is lost...
Did your dog piss in your wheaties again today?
\
Just one more example of how very little you understand things...I'm not bitter at all...mildly amused, but certainly not bitter.
Just to prove it, TAKE THIS!!! :) :) :) :)
BTW, my dog does his business outside and not at the table...I also have not eaten a bowl of cereal in at least 25 years.
Your batting average is falling quickly...standing by for the recovery.
-
Rude: I'll check back next spring for your post on why the economy has experienced a strong recovery.
Who are you kidding?
If you were interested in learning anything, why not check my posts now for explanation why "strong recovery" of the 90s - or 20s, or 50s - resulted in a bust?
miko
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I'm not sure what point your are trying to make here, but the gist of the above quote is that business, [/B]
The empahsis is on the last sentence of that quote.. and that's what the Fox writer who wrote the story was driving home to his reader with the dash "--" which is then followed by a conclusion and summary statement.
"But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate — helped to catapult economic growth."
That dash was not on the first sentence but the last ... which means the writer is saying the cause of the "economic growth" was helped by the "military spending on the Iraq war" in the second quarter.
You conservatives don't even believe your own propaganda!! :rofl
-
Who would have thought a massive tax cut would help the economy heat up and recover.
Watch how that weazel John Kerry and that chameleon Wes Clark will try to claim they supported the cuts in someway... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Rude
\
Just to prove it, TAKE THIS!!! :) :)
Your batting average is falling quickly...standing by for the recovery.
I trolled you and keep catching you in my dragnet! Hahahaha
And your buddy Toad is on my hook as well - Mr. Serious!!
I just get on here to yank you guys chain, because I can getr your panties into wad!
I'm doing it quite well at being absurd - haven't you noticed! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
No one takes BBS posts seriously... you fool! :lol
I troll for sport! Not mean spirited like most of you all... that's because I'm just having fun poking fun at you "ahem" serious thinkers.
Now I'm throwing you back into the pond.... :aok :lol
have a nice day!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Rude: I'll check back next spring for your post on why the economy has experienced a strong recovery.
Who are you kidding?
If you were interested in learning anything, why not check my posts now for explanation why "strong recovery" of the 90s - or 20s, or 50s - resulted in a bust?
miko
Not kidding anyone, especially myself. I know this may be hard for you to swallow, but you're not the single bearer of economic knowledge and wisdom.
While you enjoy the details of the story and relish the principles of economics, I prefer the bigger picture. I'm simple minded in all I do by choice...I learned along time ago not to expend effort without a return.
Still, I'm sure there are many here who prefer your approach.
I'm just curious tho....of the proffessional economist out there, what is your opinion of those that differ with your opinion?
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I trolled you and keep catching you in my dragnet! Hahahaha
And your buddy Toad is on my hook as well - Mr. Serious!!
I just get on here to yank you guys chain, because I can getr your panties into wad!
I'm doing it quite well at being absurd - haven't you noticed! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
No one takes BBS posts seriously... you fool! :lol
I troll for sport! Not mean spirited like most of you all... that's because I'm just having fun poking fun at you "ahem" serious thinkers.
Now I'm throwing you back into the pond.... :aok :lol
have a nice day!
Well...it's good to know you are not who we all thought you were....whew!
BTW...trolling is mean spirited....would stop please?
-
Nothing better than a guy sitting with a line in an empty gallon pail imagining himself as the world's greatest fisherman.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Well...it's good to know you are not who we all thought you were....whew!
BTW...trolling is mean spirited....would stop please?
I'm not being mean.. I'm poking fun at some of the absurd extreme positions conservatives take.... by saying extreme statements as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nothing better than a guy sitting with a line in an empty gallon pail imagining himself as the world's greatest fisherman.
Toad! Nibbles!
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Hey don't argue with me....
These are not my opinions...
I'm just passing along what the conservative "Fair and balanced" people at fox news are saying iare the "reasons" for this upsurge in the GDP...
go argue with the idiots in your silly conservative movement
No no, what I'm saying is, that Fox statement is correct. Its you who's incorrect for belittling it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No no, what I'm saying is, that Fox statement is correct. Its you who's incorrect for belittling it.
Go argue with Sabre because he disagrees with Fox News...
I don't care one way or the other....
I'm not an economist... I have no idea why it goes up and down.
I only parrot what my liberal/conservative silicon chip tells me to say... :lol
-
I blame Clinton.
-
lol was a post just like this with the same people parroting the same crap. you do the numbers and its a crock.
do you even read the **** you think is good news lol.
-
Rude: I'm just curious tho....of the proffessional economist out there, what is your opinion of those that differ with your opinion?
People generally become politicians in order to direct the society - and primarily the economy. For that they need justification and advice of economists. They also get donations for interfering with the economy one way or another. They have influence and trade it to special interest groups. Government hires most economists and education establishments mostly turns out economists that a governments would hire - and the surplus stays to teach in the same academia.
Major media also uses economists, but even if that media may be opposed to the current government, it is sympathitic to the idea that the government should control the economy. They only suggest different direction or details.
So if you have a school of economics like the austrian school or the supply-siders or even monetarists who say that the free market is the optimal arrangement and that any government intervention only harms the economy and that politicians should not interfere with economy (and lose influence) and do not need to hire economists to guide them - which economists would be more prevalent?
It's just like astrology vs. astronomy. An astronomer claiming that the planets were just pieces of rock flying around in circles would get little publicity while astrologers with their very developed "science" were popular and used by rich and powerfull in great numbers - and often even believing in what they said.
You had thousadn astrologers pre one real astronomer, lot of crap published per every scientific treatise.
That's what I think of the "mainstream" economists - they are fraud just like astrologers, with as elaborated meaningless formulas and influence over ignorant.
There are plenty of real economists around - with good track records of prediction - but you would have to read books or on-line publications, not newspapers to know what they say.
miko
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Toad! Nibbles!
Clearly, you are a legend in your own mind.
-
Sure enough, somebody showed up to 'splain to you that it's really bad, bad news.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Clearly, you are a legend in your own mind.
Very good your repetoire of school yard retorts is expanding. What else did you learn in school today? :lol :lol
You keep nibbling Mr. Phish!!!
You could just go away... that's what an adult would do. :lol
-
"There is no more persistant and influential faith in the world today than faith in government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as the panacea for our economic ills...Everything we get, outside of free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for."
-Henry Hazlitt, "Economics in One Lesson"
So the US government goes into debt to give the public cash. The US public spends that money. And some how the economy is improves? Any increased production is based of this debt, which will have to be paid back. So the economy appears to have improved, but what if you take the debt into account as well?
I go and borrow $10,000 and buy a car. I show everyone the car and say, "Ha ha, my net wealth has increased by $10,000. See how good my economy is doing". But of course my networth hasn't increased. What's more I have to finance that debt and my car is depricating. So if I don't use that car to generate enough wealth to make up for the payments on the car, my net wealth has gone down.
-
Hey where's that swedish guy who's always on here hoping the US economy will tank?
He's pretty quiet on this subject.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
[BI go and borrow $10,000 and buy a car. I show everyone the car and say, "Ha ha, my net wealth has increased by $10,000. See how good my economy is doing". But of course my networth hasn't increased. What's more I have to finance that debt and my car is depricating. So if I don't use that car to generate enough wealth to make up for the payments on the car, my net wealth has gone down. [/B]
Balancing the budget, cuting government spending, reducing governement, and balancing the federal budget was working well while the previous administration was in office and as a result the US economy enjoyed the largest economic boom in US history.... [or were the Republicans responsible for that boon?]
Now the current administration is in, wiped out the surplus, increasing government spending, creating bigger governement (Dept of Homeland Security), more beaurocracy and is now spending the country into defecit just like Mr Reagan and Bush Sr. did in the 80's.
It's easy to "pseudo" increase the American standard of living by charging it on credit.... that is until the creditors show up to collect - hardly responsible behavior - typical Republicans.
Why doesn't this country prosper during a Republican administration?
Is it the Democrat's fault.. blame those who aren't even in power!
Republicans control all the branches of the government: Legislature, Executive, and Judicial, and most of the govenors and the state legislatures.
Rape, pillage and burn - shock and awe! It's the republican way.
Now the US treasure is empty and filled with debt notes.
They got want they wanted they are in control... let's see what the republicans can do....
-
I heard that the last time we had these numbers in a qt. report it was like 20 years ago.
Lets see that was about 2 years into the Reagen tax cuts, hmmmm. and we are what, about 2 years into the first Bush tax cuts? hmmmmm
must be all Klintons doing anyway
carry on
-
Originally posted by Scootter
I heard that the last time we had these numbers in a qt. report it was like 20 years ago.
Lets see that was about 2 years into the Reagen tax cuts, hmmmm. and we are what, about 2 years into the first Bush tax cuts? hmmmmm
must be all Klintons doing anyway
carry on
According to the article, it was the best quarter since 1984.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Balancing the budget, cuting government spending, reducing governement, and balancing the federal budget was working well while the previous administration was in office and as a result the US economy enjoyed the largest economic boom in US history.... [or were the Republicans responsible for that boon?]
I sure it was helpfull, but I think miko was right on the main contributing factor. Soviet block and China deside they want to be capitialist. They need stable currency to stablise their economies. US prints of a bunch of pieces of paper with dead presidents on them. US gives these pieces of paper to Soviet block and China. Soviet block and China give a bunch of actual resources back in exchange, US standard of living increases.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
According to the article, it was the best quarter since 1984.
And what followed the mid 80's? You better hope history does not repeat itself.
-
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist" - John Maynard Keynes.
DmdNexus: Balancing the budget, cuting government spending, reducing governement, and balancing the federal budget was working well while the previous administration was in office and as a result the US economy enjoyed the largest economic boom in US history.... [or were the Republicans responsible for that boon?]
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Chronologically, the budget became balanced and economy boomed after Republicans took control of Congress - and in this country it's the Congress, not the President who controls the budget.
Not that the Congress had anything to do with the articficial unsustainable "boom".
There was no budget surplus - it was a trick of using temporary social security surplus and paper profits on the stock market boom that allowed scoundrels to project the surplus. Government's liabilitities exceed it's assets by about $50 trillion on the currently discounted value basis - which means we have much less expected income than liabilities that we will have to pay. Does that look like a surplus to you? And how would would $1 trillion of imaginary surplus in 10 years make a dent in $50 trillion missing?
The largest economic boom was caused by Greenspan's credit expansion combined with wider dollar acceptance due to opening of formerly closed sovier and chinese economies. It ended up in a huge bust that wiped out most of the value created.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
According to the article, it was the best quarter since 1984.
Reagan had 8 years to do something with the economy and Bush senior had 4.... they ran up the credit card and ran the country into the ground.
"Best" quarter? Don't count your laurels just yet.
In regards to profit and gross income this quarter is not very good at all.
Companies are still not growing. Unemployment is still up, and Sony is laying off 20,000 people!!
What I suspect we're seeing is an artifical spike, due to artifical stimulus which can't be sustained. I'm not an expert... just my opinion.
It if lasts up until election next year.. and my 401k increases, yes, I will vote for Bush. I will become a republican, and I will chant the mindless mantra of conservatism.... except I won't wear any of their silly clothes, and sleep with sheep like the rest of the conservatives.
If next quarter, it dies off... well... then it was just a flash in the pan... and Mr Bush is like all the other Republican men in regards to their performance... they talk the talk.. but they can't deliver the goods.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The largest economic boom was caused by Greenspan's credit expansion combined with wider dollar acceptance due to opening of formerly closed sovier and chinese economies. It ended up in a huge bust that wiped out most of the value created.
miko [/B]
So you're saying Greensapn is evil and should be destroyed? :p
I do know in the 1990's my 401k was very nice....jobs were plentiful.. companies were buying and expanding...
Then what's the cure?
Tax cuts?
Defeciet spending?
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Reagan had 8 years to do something with the economy and Bush senior had 4.... they ran up the credit card and ran the country into the ground.
"Best" quarter? Don't count your laurels just yet.
In regards to profit and gross income this quarter is not very good at all.
Companies are still not growing. Unemployment is still up, and Sony is laying off 20,000 people!!
What I suspect we're seeing is an artifical spike, due to artifical stimulus which can't be sustained. I'm not an expert... just my opinion.
It if lasts up until election next year.. and my 401k increases, yes, I will vote for Bush. I will become a republican, and I will chant the mindless mantra of conservatism.... except I won't wear any of their silly clothes, and sleep with sheep like the rest of the conservatives.
If next quarter, it dies off... well... then it was just a flash in the pan... and Mr Bush is like all the other Republican men in regards to their performance... they talk the talk.. but they can't deliver the goods.
Gentlemen, here is another fine example of "I sure hope the economy does not recover while Bush is in office...no matter how many Americans suffer."
WTG :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
It if lasts up until election next year.. and my 401k increases, yes, I will vote for Bush. I will become a republican, and I will chant the mindless mantra of conservatism.... except I won't wear any of their silly clothes, and sleep with sheep like the rest of the conservatives.
.
Mine is up this year to date 21.3% whats wrong with yours:D
And as far as you being a rep. we don't want ya;)
-
Thats a nice return.
I'm a little more conservative and have allocated perhaps a little too much in fixed income so my YTD is only 17.6%
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Gentlemen, here is another fine example of "I sure hope the economy does not recover while Bush is in office...no matter how many Americans suffer."
WTG :rolleyes:
yah you're a liberal! :lol
-
DmdNexus: So you're saying Greensapn is evil and should be destroyed? :p
Actually, Greenspan says Greenspan is evil and should be destroyed: Gold and Economic Freedom (http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan041998.html)
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
Then what's the cure?
Tax cuts?
Defeciet spending?
Tax cuts are meaningles as long as they are only paper given to people while the government continues taking resources from economy.
If the government gives you a tax cut with the money it borrows from you or prints, how will everyone get increase in purchasing power?
The money was printed, so the spending power that some people spend now actually came from their and other people's loss of value in dollar holdings. It's wealth redistribution, not wealth creation.
First and foremost the government should stop printing money. Then all other problems will be corrected or will become visible. The government will not be able to remove resources from economy without openly raising taxes or confiscating people's savings. A congress votes on that. When the government confiscates people's savings throuh inflation, nobody gets to vote on that.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[ First and foremost the government should stop printing money. Then all other problems will be corrected or will become visible. The government will not be able to remove resources from economy without openly raising taxes or confiscating people's savings. A congress votes on that. When the government confiscates people's savings throuh inflation, nobody gets to vote on that.
So... eh... we're screwed?
And what this country needs is another revolution?
-
DmdNexus: So... eh... we're screwed?
And what this country needs is another revolution?
We certainly are.
I do not see a point in inciting "another revolution". If there were enough people willing to figh in such a revolution, there would certainly be enough to elect more than one libertarian to Congress.
You just protect yourself against crash of the dollar and breakdown of the monetary system and wait.
When people carrying bags of dollars are dying of hunger in the streets, the surviving population will become much more receptive to the idea of sound money.
miko
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Hey where's that swedish guy who's always on here hoping the US economy will tank?
He's pretty quiet on this subject.
This is way he's not posting.
The EU Member States
During the second quarter of 2003, six Member States recorded a fall in GDP: Denmark and the Netherlands
(-0.6% each), France (-0.3%) and Belgium, Germany and Italy (-0.1% each). Spain recorded the highest growth rate (+0.7%).
Among the main components of domestic demand, household final consumption increased in all Member States except the Netherlands (-1.3%), being most dynamic in Spain (+1.0%). Growth rates of gross fixed capital formation varied between -4.6% in Denmark and +1.2% in the United Kingdom. Exports recorded the strongest growth in Spain (+3.0%) and Finland (+2.5%) while the United Kingdom (-2.6%) and Denmark (-2.3%) showed the most significant decreases. Imports rose particularly in Spain (+2.9%) and Italy (+2.8%), and recorded the strongest decrease in the United Kingdom (-2.5%).
Compared to the same quarter of the previous year, Greece recorded the highest growth (+4.5%), followed by Spain (+2.3%) and the United Kingdom (+2.0%). Portugal (-2.3%), the Netherlands (-1.2%), Denmark (-1.0%), France (-0.3%) and Germany (-0.2%) recorded falls.
-
oh.:aok
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And what followed the mid 80's? You better hope history does not repeat itself.
What preceeded the Reagan years(think Carter)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
DmdNexus: So... eh... we're screwed?
And what this country needs is another revolution?
We certainly are.
I do not see a point in inciting "another revolution". If there were enough people willing to figh in such a revolution, there would certainly be enough to elect more than one libertarian to Congress.
You just protect yourself against crash of the dollar and breakdown of the monetary system and wait.
When people carrying bags of dollars are dying of hunger in the streets, the surviving population will become much more receptive to the idea of sound money.
miko
This is your best to date....only one problem....this country consumes like no other on the planet....if we stop buying, what happens to the rest of the planet?
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Balancing the budget, cuting government spending, reducing governement, and balancing the federal budget was working well while the previous administration was in office and as a result the US economy enjoyed the largest economic boom in US history.... 7
LOL! you are out of touch!
Two words:
Tech Boom
Incidently, the national debt was still over 5 trillion with Clinton. That bill Clinton passed was one of those "feel good" bills y'all fell for...again.
However, I will say, that paying off the national debt is a good thing that will not, cannot be done by any ONE administration.
-
Originally posted by Rude
This is your best to date....only one problem....this country consumes like no other on the planet....if we stop buying, what happens to the rest of the planet?
Sorry for answering for miko, but he has explained this about a dozen times. So I figured I would give it a shot, if anything hopefully I get it right and demonstrate to myself that I understand some of the priciples, if not hopefully I will be corrected. Anyway...
Lets take a Canadian chair manufacture as an example.
- Canadian chair manufacturer makes a chair.
- He then sells the chair to the US for a piece of paper with dead presidents on it.
- This piece of paper is usless to him, because he can't pay his employees or wood supplier with it, he needs a Canadian dollar for that.
- Canadian government taxes it's citizens and receives Canadian dollars.
- Canadian government buys the US dollar from the chair manufacturer with the Canadian dollars.
- Canadian government throws the US dollar into a vault, never to been seen again.
Net result: Canadian manufacturer is getting paid by the Canadian taxpayer in a make work program. Who is he working for? The US. Who is paying his salary? The Canadian tax payer.
US economy collapses.
- Canadian chair manufacture goes under.
- US doesn't receive any more free chairs.
- Canadian tax payer doesn't have to pay the chair manufacture's salary.
- Chair manufacture finds employment working in an industry that actually benefits Canada (god forbid).
-
doooom, despair, and agony on me
-
Originally posted by Rude
I'll check back next spring for your post on why the economy has experienced a strong recovery.
HA!!
The great Oracle of the BB says: If the economy faulters, it will be Bush's fault. If the economy booms.... it will be anyone but Bush's fault, even though it was Clintons doing that got us the "great" economy of the late 90's lol
I love the sniveling ... "Ya the economy is doing butter but only because blah blah blah" hahah. The economy is doing better... as horrendous is that is, live with it.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Go argue with Sabre because he disagrees with Fox News...
I don't care one way or the other....
I'm not an economist... I have no idea why it goes up and down.
I only parrot what my liberal/conservative silicon chip tells me to say... :lol
No sir, I disagree with your interpretation of the Fox News article, just as you disagree with mine.
-
Originally posted by Rude
This is your best to date....only one problem....this country consumes like no other on the planet....if we stop buying, what happens to the rest of the planet?
They sell to China!!
Bigest growing market on the planet... and companies are climbing ontop of each other to get into it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
That bill Clinton passed was one of those "feel good" bills y'all fell for...again.
You're out of touch!!
The REPUBLICANs were in control of Congress, and they are the ones who wrote it, passed it, and put it on Clinton's desk to sign.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
You're out of touch!!
The REPUBLICANs were in control of Congress, and they are the ones who wrote it, passed it, and put it on Clinton's desk to sign.
Yes it was, final signature on the bill was Clintons. It was a feel good bill, don't care who wrote it. Keep in mind, I vote the issues, not the party.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sorry for answering for miko, but he has explained this about a dozen times. So I figured I would give it a shot, if anything hopefully I get it right and demonstrate to myself that I understand some of the priciples, if not hopefully I will be corrected. Anyway...
Lets take a Canadian chair manufacture as an example.
- Canadian chair manufacturer makes a chair.
- He then sells the chair to the US for a piece of paper with dead presidents on it.
- This piece of paper is usless to him, because he can't pay his employees or wood supplier with it, he needs a Canadian dollar for that.
- Canadian government taxes it's citizens and receives Canadian dollars.
- Canadian government buys the US dollar from the chair manufacturer with the Canadian dollars.
- Canadian government throws the US dollar into a vault, never to been seen again.
Net result: Canadian manufacturer is getting paid by the Canadian taxpayer in a make work program. Who is he working for? The US. Who is paying his salary? The Canadian tax payer.
US economy collapses.
- Canadian chair manufacture goes under.
- US doesn't receive any more free chairs.
- Canadian tax payer doesn't have to pay the chair manufacture's salary.
- Chair manufacture finds employment working in an industry that actually benefits Canada (god forbid).
You missed my point.
I'm sorry guys....those of you who wish to cuddle with the doomsayers, knowk yourselves out....we're too busy buying land and making money...even tho some here say our money and the ground we develope with it is worthless.
I do agree in this way....in my life money has no real value and never has.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
HA!!
The great Oracle of the BB says: If the economy faulters, it will be Bush's fault. If the economy booms.... it will be anyone but Bush's fault, even though it was Clintons doing that got us the "great" economy of the late 90's lol
I love the sniveling ... "Ya the economy is doing butter but only because blah blah blah" hahah. The economy is doing better... as horrendous is that is, live with it.
I'll say it one more time....neither Bush nor Clinton had anything to do with US economic growth or decline....only a Dolt would believe otherwise:)
Still, I do look forward to reading the thoughts of the liberals on this board when three events have taken place.
1. WMD's are found
2. The economy is in full recovery
3. GWB is re-elected for a second term
Oh my, there will be gnashing of teeth:)
-
I suggest you all go check out the times opinion section when you get a chance..
Heres the link: (registration required )
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/opinion/31KRUG.html
Enjoy...
As usual Krugman tells it how it is...
(and note im a republican though im soon to go independent for those who think im some dumbacrat fanboy propaganda engine...all parties suck (they detract from the voter's right to choice) there should only be one political party, the american party..)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate...
Pretty soon, the fed's gonna have to step in to curb inflation!;)
It sounds self-contradictory. But perhaps you would care to explain what it means?
What do you mean by "inflation"? General raise in prices?
If so, how could increase in the amount of goods produced cause a raise in prices? Don't goods drop in prices when they become more plentifull?
The more we produce, the more and cheaper goods we have for investing in more production, so the firms borrowing resources for expansion would have lower prices and interests to pay, which in turn result in yet more production.
It would seem the prices will be dropping as well as interest rates, no matter what the fed does. After all, the fed does not prodcue resources for investment - just the money that are used as a medium of exchange.
So why would you imply that the prices may raise and that the fed would be able to affect investment by tightening the credit?
miko
miko, I think what muck said is what is called "ironic humor".
-
Originally posted by Rude
1. WMD's are found
I sincerely hope they are found. It would restore America's integrity with our allies, and US soldiers would not have died because of a lie.
2. The economy is in full recovery
I'll become a republican, accept Jesus as my personal lord and saver and stop smoking dope.
I reserve the right to change my mind about the Jesus thing and switch to moonie-ism and switch my drug of choice to Oxycotin.
3. GWB is re-elected for a second term
With the current 9 Democratic dwarves opposing him, how could he not win.
-
asdf