Is This an Economic Recover?

[rushmc 23]

I know

It is Bush's fault

Quote

U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Contracts in Fourth Quarter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578273611039517142.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Depends. Is it a trend, or a deviation?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Depends. Is it a trend, or a deviation?

A bit of a reversal but, the trends upward have not been strong (upward) at all

Now this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

I always like to show someone this when they cant grasp how the economy is doing

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Gravitymaster 0]

Hey, this is the US of A. Everything is going to be fine. Don't be an alarmist. Obama's gonna fix it once he implements his master plan. People are just to stupid to appreciate his brilliance.

[Gravitymaster 0]

He, it's all good. Nothing to worry about.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dems-tout-claim-best-looking-contraction-us-gdp-youll-ever-see_698863.html

Quote

In response to the news today that the economy contracted -.1 percent in the final quarter of last year, Democrats are touting the claim that this is "the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you'll ever see." The claim was originally made by chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics Paul Ashworth.

"The drag from defense spending and inventories is a one-off. The rest of the report is all encouraging," Ashworth also claimed.

The claim was quickly seized upon by Democrats, looking to share good news about a contracting economy.

Democratic party communications director Brad Woodhouse quickly began spreading the word on Twitter:

[billvon 3,111]

>Is it a trend, or a deviation?

From the article:

"Mr. Hopper said he expects the economy to return to moderate growth this year."

"For all of 2012, gross domestic product expanded 2.2%, an improvement compared with 1.8% growth in 2011."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

He, it's all good. Nothing to worry about.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dems-tout-claim-best-looking-contraction-us-gdp-youll-ever-see_698863.html

Quote

In response to the news today that the economy contracted -.1 percent in the final quarter of last year, Democrats are touting the claim that this is "the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you'll ever see." The claim was originally made by chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics Paul Ashworth.

"The drag from defense spending and inventories is a one-off. The rest of the report is all encouraging," Ashworth also claimed.

The claim was quickly seized upon by Democrats, looking to share good news about a contracting economy.

Democratic party communications director Brad Woodhouse quickly began spreading the word on Twitter:

If the part that indicates that positive GDP depends on government spending, we are worse off than I thought

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>If the part that indicates that positive GDP depends on government spending, we are
>worse off than I thought.

GDP depends on ALL spending. Reduce any spending and you reduce the GDP.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If the part that indicates that positive GDP depends on government spending, we are
>worse off than I thought.

GDP depends on ALL spending. Reduce any spending and you reduce the GDP.

Is this a Mr Obvious quote or something?

Again, if a positive GDP for the US requires massive gov spending, we are not in good shape economicly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>Again, if a positive GDP for the US requires massive gov spending, we are not in
>good shape economicly

A few points:

1) When the economy is doing well we don't need any government spending. When it is doing poorly, all the government spending in the world won't make it positive. When it is heading downhill - or heading back uphill, as it is now - THEN it might make a difference between positive and negative.

2) We have to stop expecting infinite increases in everything. A steady GDP, with a steady population worldwide, is a much better goal.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Again, if a positive GDP for the US requires massive gov spending, we are not in
>good shape economicly

A few points:

1) When the economy is doing well we don't need any government spending. When it is doing poorly, all the government spending in the world won't make it positive. When it is heading downhill - or heading back uphill, as it is now - THEN it might make a difference between positive and negative.

2) We have to stop expecting infinite increases in everything. A steady GDP, with a steady population worldwide, is a much better goal.

Mostly good points however
IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

The out of control spending is keeping the economy down

Now some will point to the stock markert as something proving my wrong

Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

If the government had not tried to stimulate the economy via spending the recession would have lasted longer and been deeper. Even GOP economists admit this. It's not rocket science; government spending gives people jobs, drives demand for products etc.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a much better question. If you're going to stimulate the economy with borrowed money when it's doing badly, then you have to STOP spending the money when the economy is doing well and recover that money via taxation. If you don't want to spend any money on such Keynesian attempts, then you have to live with longer, deeper recessions.

And unfortunately people don't like either option; they prefer to spend lots when the economy is doing poorly, and spend lots when the economy is doing well, and not pay that money back.

>Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

I'd be doing great - which is why Keynesian solutions work, at least in the short term.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

If the government had not tried to stimulate the economy via spending the recession would have lasted longer and been deeper. Even GOP economists admit this. It's not rocket science; government spending gives people jobs, drives demand for products etc.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a much better question. If you're going to stimulate the economy with borrowed money when it's doing badly, then you have to STOP spending the money when the economy is doing well and recover that money via taxation. If you don't want to spend any money on such Keynesian attempts, then you have to live with longer, deeper recessions.

And unfortunately people don't like either option; they prefer to spend lots when the economy is doing poorly, and spend lots when the economy is doing well, and not pay that money back.

>Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

I'd be doing great - which is why Keynesian solutions work, at least in the short term.

I will never beleive it is a good thing for government to stimulate anything

Not thier job and they are not good at it


The short term pain may have been a bit worse (maybe) but I am confident (by looking back at our history and what other countries have done) that it would have been over years ago

Government is extending the problems we have today

The same as it did during this countries worse depression

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Mostly good points however
IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

The out of control spending is keeping the economy down

Now some will point to the stock markert as something proving my wrong

Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

I didn't know you were an economist!

Why is no one listening to your opinion!

It's BS we are still experiencing a sluggish "economic recover(y?)" when people like you had the solution all along.

But as already said:

Govt. spending is a vital part of GDP when the economy is not spending in the private sector. When credit markets dry up and no one is lending money it becomes hard for business to SPEND money. SO the govt. steps in. They don't HAVE to of course. But they really don't want to see another great depression so they do their best despite master opinions like yours.

Spending does not keep the economy down.

Spending is the economy.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Spending is the economy.

It's later than we think.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

>IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

If the government had not tried to stimulate the economy via spending the recession would have lasted longer and been deeper. Even GOP economists admit this. It's not rocket science; government spending gives people jobs, drives demand for products etc.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a much better question. If you're going to stimulate the economy with borrowed money when it's doing badly, then you have to STOP spending the money when the economy is doing well and recover that money via taxation. If you don't want to spend any money on such Keynesian attempts, then you have to live with longer, deeper recessions.

And unfortunately people don't like either option; they prefer to spend lots when the economy is doing poorly, and spend lots when the economy is doing well, and not pay that money back.

>Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

I'd be doing great - which is why Keynesian solutions work, at least in the short term.

I will never beleive it is a good thing for government to stimulate anything

Not thier job and they are not good at it


The short term pain may have been a bit worse (maybe) but I am confident (by looking back at our history and what other countries have done) that it would have been over years ago

Austerity has worked SO well in those other countries, right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Spending is the economy.

It's later than we think.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>IF the gov was spending less today we would IMO have come out of this mess much sooner

If the government had not tried to stimulate the economy via spending the recession would have lasted longer and been deeper. Even GOP economists admit this. It's not rocket science; government spending gives people jobs, drives demand for products etc.

Whether or not this is a good thing is a much better question. If you're going to stimulate the economy with borrowed money when it's doing badly, then you have to STOP spending the money when the economy is doing well and recover that money via taxation. If you don't want to spend any money on such Keynesian attempts, then you have to live with longer, deeper recessions.

And unfortunately people don't like either option; they prefer to spend lots when the economy is doing poorly, and spend lots when the economy is doing well, and not pay that money back.

>Well, if some gov was throwing 65 billion a month at you, how would you be doing?

I'd be doing great - which is why Keynesian solutions work, at least in the short term.

I will never beleive it is a good thing for government to stimulate anything

Not thier job and they are not good at it


The short term pain may have been a bit worse (maybe) but I am confident (by looking back at our history and what other countries have done) that it would have been over years ago

Austerity has worked SO well in those other countries, right?

Too many pigs...not enough tits.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

I didn't know you were an economist!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Too many pigs...not enough tits.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

I didn't know you were an economist!

Now you do.

Finance and economics are my fields of study and practice.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I didn't know you were an economist!

Now you do.

Finance and economics are my fields of study and practice.

Hmm

Tell me where you advise so I never make a mistake and come there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

BTW

At this point I do not believe you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't know you were an economist!

Now you do.

Finance and economics are my fields of study and practice.

Hmm

Tell me where you advise so I never make a mistake and come there

you probably already do business with us, knowingly or not.