Author Topic: U.S. economy today surpasses the Clinton era (Read 1036 times)

miko2d · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:59:40 AM »

Ripsnort: Growth means spending,

You say "spending" while the quote you cite refers specifically to "consumer spending".
Increase in consumption can only be the result of:
- prior increase in production, prior growth, so to speak;
- slower accumulation of capital or even the net consumption of capital - which reduces future growth or even reverses it.
- inflow of foreign goods in exchange for US dollars flowing abroad. Huge amounts of the stuff the consumers are buying are "Made in Elsewhere". Basically, this consumption can be viewed as borrowed consumption. Even if we intend to default on our debts, it only increases our current standard of living but does not grow anything.

Growth means increase in usefull productive capacity.

spending fuels economy.

Only capital spending - investment - causes the economy to grow and causes increase in future production - and potential consumption.
Consumption always detracts resources from investment production - often it detracts resources from maintaining the current levels of production through replacement of used-up capital.

miko

Yeager · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:09:33 AM »

Weve been in and out of debt for 200+ years. Last gigantic debt was erased in a year and no one even noticed.

Doom and gloom?

miko2d · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:24:00 AM »

Yeager: Weve been in and out of debt for 200+ years. Last gigantic debt was erased in a year and no one even noticed.

What event do you mean by that?

miko

Rude · « **Reply #18 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:37:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Only if you smoke big crack rocks. Growth means investment, and using that investment to increase production.

You're so wrong it's laughable....no increased capital investment in the US this past year?

If that was a fact, I would be in serious financial trouble.

Put the shovel down.

Sabre · « **Reply #19 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:42:02 AM »

You can spin it anyway you want, but an 8.2 percent growth in GDP for the third quarter, the third straight quarter of solid growth, is a good general indicator of economic health.

Interestingly, an appreciable percentage of retail sales this holiday season have been in the form of gift certificates, which retailers don't report as sales until they're redeamed. So the reported retail sales are artificially lower than reality, due to internet and gift certificate sales.

It's okay to be optimistic regarding the economy. Optimism is what built this country, and is still a central part of the American (i.e. USA) culture.

Eagler · « **Reply #20 on:** December 23, 2003, 12:42:32 PM »

problem lies in the fact they are sitting around with their thumbs on their "SHORT" buttons waiting for a terrorist fart ....

miko2d · « **Reply #21 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:05:32 PM »

Rude: You're so wrong it's laughable....no increased capital investment in the US this past year?
If that was a fact, I would be in serious financial trouble.

Do you really believe that all capital investment in US comes though your hands? Or that you would have recognsed it if it bit yoy on the ass?
I am trying not to make comment's on people's intelligence but you are making it exeedingly hard on me.
I mean, you can lie all you want and offend people, and make wild unexplained assertions about global phenomena in terms of your personal experience but could you at least come up with a BS that takes more than a few seconds on the web to dispell? Please? Just to make it more of a challenge?

Care to check this chart of commercial and industrial loans at commercial banks at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis site? This statistic went negative in mid-2001, and it has yet to recover. It fell throughout the first half of 2002 to a negative 8% or thereabouts, then "recovered" to negative 5%, briefly, in mid-2003. Since then, it has fallen back to negative 7%?

As you can see, bank credit is up but the borrowing by bisinesses is down. So people are borrowing more to consume but businesses are not borrowing more to invest.

If there any investment into capital going on, the economicst know the source very well - it's the foreign savings that come in as the capital account surplus. Even that is down recently and cannot compansate for the increasing current account deficit - so the dollar has been falling over the last few monthe.

Sabre: but an 8.2 percent growth in GDP for the third quarter, the third straight quarter of solid growth, is a good general indicator of economic health

Ever heard of the business cycle? Or do you have reasons to believe that we will not have a recession that would wipe out part of the gains? I presume by solid you ment "sustainable", right?
Was the growth of the 1990s solid in your opinion?

I believe Greenspan sh#t his pants when he saw that the "growth" got away from his target of 3-4% - because it increases the chance of the required monetary tightening and ensuing recession before the 2004 elections.

miko

miko2d · « **Reply #22 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:07:04 PM »

Eagler: problem lies in the fact they are sitting around with their thumbs on their "SHORT" buttons waiting for a terrorist fart ....

Waiting? Have you checked the price of gold lately?

miko

Eagler · « **Reply #23 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:07:45 PM »

it be the credit card bubble economy

BigGun · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:58:11 PM »

gold...reflation expectation...

2stony · « **Reply #25 on:** December 23, 2003, 04:24:02 PM »

Maybe the economy is doing good, but what about the deficit? Under Clinton we had a surplus. Figure the difference between the two and then ask yourself if we're doing better.

The unfortunate thing is that because people think we're doing good and that we caught Saddam, Bush will probably get re-elected again.

miko2d · « **Reply #26 on:** December 23, 2003, 04:28:27 PM »

The Clinton's surplus was as fake as Bush's economy doing good without an increase in investment borrowing.

For a short time they did not need to borrow money from towards the official governmental debt. But they kept borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund which consists of the government bonds but is not counted as a government debt.

miko

Dago · « **Reply #27 on:** December 23, 2003, 05:38:38 PM »

Dont tell miko that the economy is improving, it will destroy his "sky is falling" conviction.

dago

10Bears · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:13:44 PM »

Hey Miko2d I got a question,

I don’t have the link right now but remember the actual amount of cash on hand was 330 billion the last day Clinton was in office. Bush’s three years as President he’s managed to create a 400 billion dollar deficit. Now isn’t that 3/4 of a trillion freaking dollars?.

Please don’t tell me George Bush somehow misplaced 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

What sort of interest rates are we talking here in the next couple of years?.. Big tickets items like a new car or new house.. I hope it’s not 18% like when Reagan was President.

One thing I haven’t heard much about lately is the national debt. It was 5 billion a year in interest back in Clinton’s term, bet it’s 15 billion by now.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:21:01 PM »

National debt stands at

at 5% interest, the annual payment is about 347 billion.

It has been the largest piece of the budgetary pie except maybe for national defense for a more than a decade.

The monthly payment though is only 28.936 Billion.