Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense but your post is economic illiteracy. How can government spending be excluded from GDP when the definition of GDP is:
where:
C = consumption
I= gross investment G = government spending
X = exports
M = imports
Government spending is a component of GDP.
Moreover, it makes no difference from a macro-economic standpoint if GM sells a car to you or it sells it to the Interior Department. e proceeds go into the economy; people are working to produce the car, etc. Those people take their earnings and spend it in the economy.
I haven't seen that formula on a board since my freshman year. When "I" is down (because of a once a century financial collapse), then one of those variables has got to pick up the slack. And a lot of what is referred to as "spending" was really money used to shore up financial institutions that were holding trillions of dollars in counter-party risk. If AIG had defaulted, we would have witnessed something akin to a Mexican firing squad among the world's banks. That may have been enough to wipe out every single pension fund on earth.
Your source is as reliable as your posts. You Republicans want the economy to suck. How about putting what is best for the nation first sometimes other than partisan politics.
So I have "unreliable posts" that makes me chuckle, sorry you didn't like the source I happened to pick, how about Forbes...are they reliable enough for you?
Without question, that was driven by Washington, D.C. Government spending rose by 3.7%. Looking closer, you’ll see most of those political dollars went toward defense. Defense spending jumped 13%.
Subtract defense outlays from the data, and GDP increased only 1.36%. Remove D.C. entirely: GDP stayed the same. “Without considerable, temporary help from government spending, GDP would have grown at the same disappointing 1.3% pace in the third quarter as it did in the second quarter,” says FTN Financial economist Chris Low.
You can go back and see in most of my posts that I am A) not republican, and B) not voting for Romney because I despise the growth that I'd expect to see under his administration specific to military spending. No different here under an Obama administration where I despise the growth in military expenditures.
I do believe I am putting whats best for the nation first:
-Less wars/conflicts
-Reduced spending
-Less wounded/dead military members
-More military members home with their families
-Fewer countries and rouge groups that despise us for our foreign policy and military conquests
No offense but your post is economic illiteracy. How can government spending be excluded from GDP when the definition of GDP is:
where:
C = consumption
I= gross investment G = government spending
X = exports
M = imports
Government spending is a component of GDP.
Moreover, it makes no difference from a macro-economic standpoint if GM sells a car to you or it sells it to the Interior Department. e proceeds go into the economy; people are working to produce the car, etc. Those people take their earnings and spend it in the economy.
No offense, but your reading comprehension is lacking.
I said..."GDP is not a great measure of the health of the economy unless government spending is taken out"
GDP is GDP, obviously, its a well defined (as your example points out) measure, I just don't believe it to be a valuable measure of how the actual economy is doing.
So I have "unreliable posts" that makes me chuckle, sorry you didn't like the source I happened to pick, how about Forbes...are they reliable enough for you?
You can go back and see in most of my posts that I am A) not republican, and B) not voting for Romney because I despise the growth that I'd expect to see under his administration specific to military spending. No different here under an Obama administration where I despise the growth in military expenditures.
I do believe I am putting whats best for the nation first:
-Less wars/conflicts
-Reduced spending
-Less wounded/dead military members
-More military members home with their families
-Fewer countries and rouge groups that despise us for our foreign policy and military conquests
How are those "partisan politics" in your eyes?
This undercuts the entire conservative argument against "spending." If government spending on the military grows the economy, then it stands to reason that government spending on other things also grows the economy. If you don't have an objection to the government writing checks to Lockheed Martin to design carbon-fiber hoods for Humvees, then you shouldn't have any objection to the government writing checks to green companies to build windmills.
This undercuts the entire conservative argument against "spending." If government spending on the military grows the economy, then it stands to reason that government spending on other things also grows the economy. If you don't have an objection to the government writing checks to Lockheed Martin to design carbon-fiber hoods for Humvees, then you shouldn't have any objection to the government writing checks to green companies to build windmills.
How does the government spend without
A) Removing the money from the economy or
B) Devaluing the dollar?
This undercuts the entire conservative argument against "spending." If government spending on the military grows the economy, then it stands to reason that government spending on other things also grows the economy. If you don't have an objection to the government writing checks to Lockheed Martin to design carbon-fiber hoods for Humvees, then you shouldn't have any objection to the government writing checks to green companies to build windmills.
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, I can be dense sometimes, but I strongly oppose BOTH of the items I've bolded above.
Which is debt that needs to be removed from the economy to pay it back..
Maybe you didnt read the choices carefully, hell there was only TWO of them.. thats bad
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
