Economic rebound picks up - Page 4

Kidicious · August 1, 2003, 23:57

The funny thing is you beat me by 4 minutes the first time and 5 minutes the second time. I must be slow.

Velociryx · August 1, 2003, 23:59

Here's one for the books! I'm agreeing with the reds!

The unemployment rate's drop (given that the drop was fuelled not by job creation, but by people vanishing from the roster) is hardly an indication of economic recovery.

There are some short term forces at work in the market that are providing some gains, but without a fundamental shift, those gains will not be permanant (and this is *exactly* why employers have not yet begun to add to their payrolls again....they're waiting to see how it plays, and how long-term and strong the recovery signs that ARE in the market (and there are some....unemployment not being one of them, however), before committing to adding to the payroll.

In short: Too early to say what'll happen, but clearly the economy is not on the rebound yet.

-=Vel=-

GePap · August 2, 2003, 00:04

So the thread is given a second chance of life..how long till it is Fezzed to death yet again?

Kidicious · August 2, 2003, 00:24

Consumer spending has to increase much faster to keep up with the productivity gains. Even then the trade deficit is likely to also increase which will also slow job growth.

Velociryx · August 2, 2003, 00:27

We're on the same page in this one, Kid....I got your back here...

-=Vel=-

GePap · August 2, 2003, 00:52

I wonder how much of the increased customer spending was people using the money they got from re-financing their mortages at rock bottom rates. Now that rates ae slightly moving upward, and applications for new mortages have dropped significantly, will customers finally have to cut back, since they have few new sources of cash?

Tingkai · August 2, 2003, 00:54

I never realised that the Republicans really screwed the poor. The info shown by Kidacious clearly shows what the Republicans did to them. The poor were earning less money after 12 years of Reagan and Bush foolish squandering of tax dollars and tax cuts to the rich.

The fact that household incomes for the poor increased almost every year during Clinton's presidency shows that he was a much better president than Reagan and Bush.

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 01:18

Only if you are the type of person that believe the President sets much economic policy or has much to do with the economic performance of the country at all

.

monkspider · August 2, 2003, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if you are the type of person that believe the President sets much economic policy or has much to do with the economic performance of the country at all

.

So I take it that you are the type of person who thinks it is mere coincidence that the economy always tanks under republican presidents?

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

So I take it that you are the type of person who thinks it is mere coincidence that the economy always tanks under republicans presidents?

A quick look at the 1950s and the late 1980s shows this statement to be quite eroneous

.

Kidicious · August 2, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
We're on the same page in this one, Kid....I got your back here...

-=Vel=-

That's nice for a change

Giancarlo · August 2, 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Fez is BURNNED!

Burned by what? Misplaced evidence that is not supporting those who are attacking me?

You ****ing idiot.

Those numbers brought up by Boris is disputing the evidence I provided, thus it is in inaccurate. Kiddo, is acting like an idiot.

Boris Godunov · August 2, 2003, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Those numbers brought up by Boris is disputing the evidence I provided, thus it is in inaccurate. Kiddo, is acting like an idiot.

Um, Fez, the numbers I provided didn't dispute the Cato numbers, merely showed that Cato was using a slanted interpretation by not presenting actual numbers, just percentages.

I don't think you could say my source was inaccurate, since the numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Kidicious · August 2, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I wonder how much of the increased customer spending was people using the money they got from re-financing their mortages at rock bottom rates. Now that rates ae slightly moving upward, and applications for new mortages have dropped significantly, will customers finally have to cut back, since they have few new sources of cash?

I think what will really hurt is that new home construction will probably decline. That will cut into jobs directly. Construction has already taken a hit from slack business spending. New home purchases have done a lot to keep us out of deep trouble.

Giancarlo · August 2, 2003, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Um, Fez, the numbers I provided didn't dispute the Cato numbers, merely showed that Cato was using a slanted interpretation by not presenting actual numbers, just percentages.

Is that a problem? Reagan was good for the country, better than some dumb@$$ democrat, like Carter or Mondale.

Quote:

I don't think you could say my source was inaccurate, since the numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau.

My source used US Census Bureau statistics aswell.

Tingkai · August 2, 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if you are the type of person that believe the President sets much economic policy or has much to do with the economic performance of the country at all

.

So do you think the massive government spending spree that Republicans always do has no effect on the economy. Do the massive deficits that the Republican free spenders create have no effect on the economy? When Republicans initiate policies that keep down wages for McJobs and encourage greater use of part-timers, does this not affect the poor?

Anyone who says presidential policies have no affect on the economy has their head stuck in the sand.

US economic growth rose in the 2nd quarter largely because military spending ( apolicy decision initiated by the White House) increased at a 44% annualized rate.

The impact of the Bush Jr's record-breaking deficit will be delayed, but it will be felt, and it will damage the US economy, just as Reagan's deficits damaged the economy.

Boris Godunov · August 2, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Is that a problem? Reagan was good for the country, better than some dumb@$$ democrat, like Carter or Mondale.

First, Mondale was never president, so not sure what that means. Second, did you notice the point that Clinton, a Democrat, was, by your logic, better than Reagan? Income growth under Clinton outdid Reagan's by a 2:1 margin.

Quote:

My source used US Census Bureau statistics aswell.

Yes...the same numbers. But you seem to think they're mysteriously false when presented to you without Cato adulteration...how odd!

Cato played a game with you by presenting a percentage chart without showing the actual growth dollars in context. You'd think such an expert economist would see through such a thing...

Kidicious · August 2, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Second, did you notice the point that Clinton, a Democrat, was, by your logic, better than Reagan? Income growth under Clinton outdid Reagan's by a 2:1 margin.

He'll be gone for another hour so he can rationalize that one.

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

Anyone who says presidential policies have no affect on the economy has their head stuck in the sand.

And anyone that ignores that there happens to this other branch of the government called Congress has their head stuck in the sand.

Quote:

The impact of the Bush Jr's record-breaking deficit will be delayed, but it will be felt, and it will damage the US economy, just as Reagan's deficits damaged the economy.

How? The Reagan deficits haven't seemed to damage the economy that much at all. And when you compare it to annual GDP and bring other countries into the mix, suddenly the US deficit isn't that big, and there are plenty of other countries whose deficit/GDP are much higher.

Odin · August 2, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Is that a problem? Reagan was good for the country, better than some dumb@$$ democrat, like Carter or Mondale.

Mondale is't a dumass!

As a Minnesotan I DEMAND you take that back, NOW!

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 01:54

Sorry Odin, Mondale is the dumbass

.

Kidicious · August 2, 2003, 01:57

Income inequality has more to do with the nature of the economy than policy anyway. When there is great inequality income depends more on luck and initial status. When income is more equal income depends more on work. You can make it easier on the losers though, and not even Fex will argue that Reagan did that.

Odin · August 2, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sorry Odin, Mondale is the dumbass

.

Odin · August 2, 2003, 02:01

Who's Fex

OHHHHHH, FEZ.

Nubclear · August 2, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Those numbers brought up by Boris is disputing the evidence I provided, thus it is in inaccurate.

SIG MATERIAL!!!!!

Odin · August 2, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

SIG MATERIAL!!!!!

Yep, that's pure Fez, "I don't agree with it so it's wrong," And I thought Diplomat's creationism arguments were bad!

This is bad, embarassing, and funny.

Giancarlo · August 2, 2003, 03:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

First, Mondale was never president, so not sure what that means. Second, did you notice the point that Clinton, a Democrat, was, by your logic, better than Reagan? Income growth under Clinton outdid Reagan's by a 2:1 margin.

Sig material and utter bullshit.

Quote:

Cato played a game with you by presenting a percentage chart without showing the actual growth dollars in context. You'd think such an expert economist would see through such a thing...

Well an idiot like you denies the evidence they gave.

Sharpe · August 2, 2003, 10:11

I love how Fez's CATO graphs end at 1995. That period of 1989-95 is basically split between the elder Bush administration and the first Clinton administration. However, the recession of 1991-93 would have a significant drag on those numbers - it doesn't take much of a negative percentage to drag down a percentage amount. Of course, the graphs don't take into count the large percentage increases that likely happened in the latter part of the Clinton administration.

You can't look at only one quarter in isolation - you have to look at trends. It remains to be seen if this improvement is a blip caused by the war expenditures or not - 80-100 billion spent on the war is 0.8-1.0 % of a 10 trillion dollar economy.

The American economy is due to rise again eventually just on its own internal factors - i.e. consumer goods getting old, breaking down or getting completely obsolete. For instance a lot of computers that were bought for the Y2K "crisis" in 1999 are getting old and most will have to be replaced within the next 2 years or so.

However, one big problem for the economy is the still high consumer debt load and the poor savings rate combined with the demographic pressures of the aging population. Bush's appalling fiscal record will be a drag the economy as the banks are probably already factoring in at least 10 years of U.S. deficits in interest rate calculations which will force interest rates up.

The fiscal situation is worse than it appears as the deficit is actually forecasted to be over 600 billion when the Social Security surplus is removed - and considering that the U.S. may still be running operating deficits or small surpluses when that S.S. surplus starts disappearing in 7 years - doesn't look good. In fact, you can almost now predict a recession in the 2008-2011 neighbourhood due to the retiring of the baby boomers.

Velociryx · August 2, 2003, 10:21

Hey Sharpe...don't look at me, my savings rate is pushing 20% and soon to nearly double!

I agree with your analysis, btw....there will be a recovery, sure, but without some fundamental changes, there's a storm brewing, no doubt. But, that's the way of it....crisis management. And WHEN the storm hits (lots of boomers retire, SS vanishes), it'll get fixed harshly and in the 11th hour. *sigh*

-=Vel=-

Sharpe · August 2, 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Hey Sharpe...don't look at me, my savings rate is pushing 20% and soon to nearly double!

Yeah I read your thread about that - interesting ideas - my savings rate is about the same except for buying a computer last year...

Unfortunately you are rare as I think that the overall savings rate is still either negative or near zero.

Yeah, a storm is definitely brewing. Here in Canada, we keep the equivalent of Social Security separate from general revenues - and in order to keep it solvent have had a sharp increase in rates over the past few years (with more to come) - however, it looks as though we will avoid that 11th hour problem that the U.S. may face.

On the other hand our government isn't as prudent with our unemployment insurance program as they are included in general revenues and their gigantic surpluses (due to rates that are much higher than they need to be) are right now the only thing preventing our Federal government from joining the U.S. in deficit and are making our fiscal situation look better than it really is.