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.
Indeed it was [16.7%]. It was caused largely by a massive surge in exports, as well as spikes in government spending and private investment.
Well, also in personal consumption expenditures, and since those are the only four things that go into making up GDP, it looks like one could call it a broad-based, across-the-board advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
However, after that year things went downhill and growth was weak until the very last quarter of 1980.
Actually, growth over the next two quarters was at 4.0% and 5.4%. Then the Arab Oil Embargo hit and put a significant crimp in things.
The disgrace and outrage over the response to Andrew were among the reasons why Clinton spent virtually his entire eight years beefing up FEMA into a first-class emergency response organization. It was a big mistake by Bush in not keeping Director James Lee Witt on, and the push of FEMA out of cabinet-level status and into second-tier status at DHS was no help either. Nonetheless, FEMA's work in Brother Jeb's state in 2004 won nothing but praise, unless you count the investigations into money being handed to people in the politcally critical I-5 corridor who were nowhere near the path of any of the hurricanes.
Gee, Saggy, I thought this was about the economy.
As you have complete faith in the Bammer, please put all your money in the market NOW. Put your money where your mouth is.
Funny thing. I bet old Saggy is out of the market and has hedges against the dollar and has dumped his corporate bonds by now. There will be a short term correction of the dollar before the Bammer really does his "good" work at the behest of his master, George Soros. Saggy, can you be honest for once?
Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in more than a year, propelled by stimulus-driven gains in consumer spending and home building.
The world’s largest economy expanded at a 3.5 percent pace from July through September, exceeding the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, after shrinking the previous four quarters, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. Household purchases climbed 3.4 percent, the most in more than two years.
***
Payroll cuts peaked at 741,000 in January before falling to 263,000 job losses in September.
Can the stimulus be working? How soon will businesses start hiring? George Soros said in an interview, "[Obama is] concerned about the unemployment and I think he is right to be concerned. Now, the trouble is that it seems that businesses are extremely cautious and even as you have some recovery, they don’t actually hire. They actually are producing good profits by cutting costs and so you’re going to have continued unemployment."
What hooey! Propelled by the government monetizing the debt is more like it.
Well, also in personal consumption expenditures, and since those are the only four things that go into making up GDP, it looks like one could call it a broad-based, across-the-board advance.
Indeed.. Many of the figures were up several fold from the preceding quarter. I did a little reasearch and did not find any reliable source explaining what could have caused such gains, aside from a wave of deregulation of various industries in '78.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Actually, growth over the next two quarters was at 4.0% and 5.4%. Then the Arab Oil Embargo hit and put a significant crimp in things.
That is still way down compared to 16.7%. Growth was weak until the last bit of 1980 and early 1981 following the end of OPEC price controls, then growth bounced around before booming again in 1983 and remained positive for the rest of the decade. Not to get carried away but I particularly like the figures for 1992, in which all 4 quarters showed stable growth above 4.0%...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillman
In truth Clinton was far worse.
True, the Dot Com bubble did mask significant losses in key industries, but the overall growth rates for the period 2Q '96- 4Q '99 were excellent. Quite a change from the bell curve of Clinton's first couple years in office.
In any case, Bush Jr. had some rather crappy growth rates compared to Reagan and Clinton. The 3Q of '03 and 1Q of '06 are probably the only periods worth mentioning (although the stretch from 2003-2005 was stable, but still very weak).
The disgrace and outrage over the response to Andrew were among the reasons why Clinton spent virtually his entire eight years beefing up FEMA into a first-class emergency response organization. It was a big mistake by Bush in not keeping Director James Lee Witt on, and the push of FEMA out of cabinet-level status and into second-tier status at DHS was no help either. Nonetheless, FEMA's work in Brother Jeb's state in 2004 won nothing but praise, unless you count the investigations into money being handed to people in the politcally critical I-5 corridor who were nowhere near the path of any of the hurricanes.
clinton 'beefed' up fema????
WRONG
clinton gave 400,000 fedeal employees the pink slip,,many from fema...I was one of the lucky ones that only lost a grade with a move
and Fema does NOT provide tranportation...FEMA is a MANAGEMENT with the LOCAL ASSETS
Well, also in personal consumption expenditures, and since those are the only four things that go into making up GDP, it looks like one could call it a broad-based, across-the-board advance.
Well....since consumers are not spending and business is not investing, it isn't hard to determine where the growth comes from - The Federal Government.
Everything is way down in comparison to 16.7%. It's an outlier that can't be ignored -- it did happen -- but is not in itself indicative of the state of the economy at the time. I mention it only because another poster had added yet another chapter to an already long history of partisan cherry-picking and using outliers to suggest the opposite of the preceding. Confirming that he'd never actually looked at the data for 1978, the response came back, no way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Growth was weak until the last bit of 1980 and early 1981 following the end of OPEC price controls...
Again, the 4.0 and 5.4 percent growth rates from the following two quarters are not examples of weak performance. In 1979, you start to see the effects of the oil crisis, an event that doubled the percent of GDP going to petroleum purchases in about six months. Dislocations result from such outside shocks, and the second oil crisis was little different in that respect from the first one in 1973-74.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
...then growth bounced around before booming again in 1983 and remained positive for the rest of the decade.
That bouncing around as you call it included the second worst depression of the 20th century, extending from late 1981 through about mid-1983. People sometimes forget that unemployment (for the tenth month in a row) was still above 10% in June 1983. The GDP numbers for 1983 meanwhile came as blessed relief, but keep in mind that they are similar to this week's gain of 3.5% in GDP in that they were realized over something of a weak base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Not to get carried away but I particularly like the figures for 1992, in which all 4 quarters showed stable growth above 4.0%...
It is fun to see people argue about which party helps the economy out more, as if things are that simple.
On a side note, is there such thing as an economic conservative (much less spending in general) that also believes in nationalized single-payer health insurance and tighter wall street regulation? That would be me .
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.
How soon will businesses start hiring? George Soros said in 
.
