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.
Waell, I have to admit that you're right. Your main argument was "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLS" and you offered "Everybody knows" as a citation. We are all enriched by your insights.
Every growth cycle is a bubble of some sort. That's why there is no such thing as permanent, uninterrupted growth. That's why we have booms followed by busts. That is the nature of the business cycle. We had a tech boom under Clinton and a housing boom under Bush. Both were followed by corrections. It's how we have responded to the last correction that has landed us in the current mess.
Seems to be a bit of a flat assertion, there. WHat would the Republican response have been, apart from tax cuts for the rich?
I would actually say that all of the growth that happened after the late 1980s outside of tech was mostly an illusion, caused by the availability and mass overuse of credit cards.
To answer your question, no I think like Japan, our economy is simply maxed out and done growing. It won't necessarily get worse, and it's not necessarily a bad thing for it to not be growing anymore.
I almost agree but I think we will see a crash for the worst case scenario and for the best we just stagnate along like Japan. I just do not see a boom taking place by new technology, it will move off shore like China to be produced and Americans will sell it making crap wages. I also think housing is still too high priced vs wages and prices will drop.
Why am I not surprised at your Republican reaction to facts?
Lol... "Look at college boy countin' w/ numbers!"
No, you got that wrong. It's not the Republican reaction to facts. It's the rational reaction to intellectual dishonesty.
It's like when Obama made that announcement "We've created 6,000,000 jobs" and didn't mention "But we've lost 5,000,000 jobs in the same period". He only actually added 1,000,000 jobs but by being intellectually dishonest, mentioning job creation but leaving out job loss, he implied that he added six times as many jobs as he actually did.
In your case, the story the graph doesn't tell is that on the private sector front the recession occurred during Bush's term and bottomed out as Obama was starting his term. The economy was rebounding as it has done after every recession in history. It's similar to how Democrats try to hail Clinton as a genius when he simply happened to be sitting in the White House when the tech industry exploded. He had nothing to do with it. It would have happened no matter who was President. On the public sector front you'll notice that beyond the census effects, the public sector was relatively stable for the first half of his term and then started to trend downward in the second half of his term. Now, let's see here...what happened halfway through Obama's term. Oh, that's right. He lost control of the House. The cutbacks you're trying to give him credit for didn't happen until the "obstructionist" Republicans came around. The cutbacks you're trying to give him credit for were forced on him. They weren't his idea. When Democrats were in complete power, the public sector line was steady.
So, just as with Obama's disingenuous job creation claims, when you look at the context in which your graph occurs you see that the claims you and ThinkProgress are making with it don't hold water.
Housing is still in a bubble and when interest rates go up (they MUST go up), talk about the shock. People are going to be crying in their cheerios. Houses are still WAY too high compared to income levels. It is going to pop and with the level of irresponsible twits in this country, count on a nation wide escape as people try to get out of having an over priced home. It will be a mass exodus of people running from their loans.
This is both true and not true. Bear with me.
I agree that housing was never allowed to fall to a natural level. What that level is exactly I do not know so I do not know whether they are still way high or not but they have been artificially propped up.
Raising rates is exactly what we should do and it will at worse leave prices where they are at now in the end.
If the Fed indicated tomorrow that they were going to stop the free money people would realize it would be time to get off the pot if you are planning to do anything from expanding your business, buy a car or buy a house. All three things would go into overdrive mode. Businesses would expand, people would buy cars and houses before the rates really got up there. That would be a real boon for the economy.
With seniors also being able to once again rely on interest on their savings they could retire again opening up jobs for the unemployed. Another boon for the country. The trick then would be to keep things at a reasonable trade off and allow for stability in the markets.
Also much of the country did not experience the stupid house prices and never had to deal with the crash. Where I live housing prices barely moved.
I almost agree but I think we will see a crash for the worst case scenario and for the best we just stagnate along like Japan. I just do not see a boom taking place by new technology, it will move off shore like China to be produced and Americans will sell it making crap wages. I also think housing is still too high priced vs wages and prices will drop.
I think the next tech revolution will be in medicine, the aging baby boomers will push life extension in a major way ... I think the information revolution is essentially over though.
No, you got that wrong. It's not the Republican reaction to facts. It's the rational reaction to intellectual dishonesty.
It's like when Obama made that announcement "We've created 6,000,000 jobs" and didn't mention "But we've lost 5,000,000 jobs in the same period". He only actually added 1,000,000 jobs but by being intellectually dishonest, mentioning job creation but leaving out job loss, he implied that he added six times as many jobs as he actually did.
Except it's nothing like that. How you understood what was said is wrong, so your analogy is wrong. 6M created is 6M created. If he presented in as net growth, you might have a case, but he didn't.
And guess what... even if your facts were right, my graph covers net job growth, so your point about Obama using gross numbers still doesn't work as an analogy.
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.
