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 does a GDP rate which is lower than the amount needed to keep up with jobs, increase ones chances of re-election?
People dont vote based upon GDP, they vote upon INDIVIDUAL situations.
Actually, people vote the way they do based on many different reasons. One of those reasons is their perception of how well the economy is doing. An increase in GDP is favorable economic news, indicating the perception that the economy is doing better under this administration. This has an impact on voting and this is why it is factored into the analysis.
The other day the stock market took a big hit. Silver's prediction also lowered his prediction that day to reflect the negative news. How well the stock market is doing is also important.
Actually, people vote the way they do based on many different reasons. One of those reasons is their perception of how well the economy is doing. An increase in GDP is favorable economic news, indicating the perception that the economy is doing better under this administration. This has an impact on voting and this is why it is factored into the analysis.
The other day the stock market took a big hit. Silver's prediction also lowered his prediction that day to reflect the negative news. How well the stock market is doing is also important.
The stock market can be doing fabulous because companies arent hiring more employees and/or laying them off. This increases their profit margins by reducing expenses.
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?
Don't take it personal. I did not say your posts were unreliable. I said his was as reliable as yours... I give them the same weight. He is just a blogger your an anonymous poster. My statement was in artful, I will apoligize for that.
As far as:
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
Which is debt that needs to be removed from the economy to pay it back.
You're funny.
When the government "sells treasuries," it's not BajanYankee the individual who buys them. It's money being moved from equities and index funds into Treasuries to hedge against volatility. And since interest rates are virtually at zero, the government essentially gets an interest free loan on all of this money. That's why the "debt crisis" is really overblown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Maybe you didnt read the choices carefully, hell there was only TWO of them.. thats bad
When the government "sells treasuries," it's not BajanYankee the individual who buys them. It's money being moved from equities and index funds into Treasuries to hedge against volatility. And since interest rates are virtually at zero, the government essentially gets an interest free loan on all of this money. That's why the "debt crisis" is really overblown.
Maybe you had a worthless major in college...
maybe you dont understand basic entry level accounting.
When the government "sells treasuries", money moves from the economy to the government to be spent, and when the treasuries are due, then the government needs to remove that money from the economy previously pumped in, so they can pay them back.
The fact that its an interest free loan, doesnt mean it doesnt need to be paid back.
hey Bajan, why doesnt the government just sell $100 Trillion in treasuries and flood the economy? Come on, you cant be that dumb...
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, I can be dense sometimes, but I strongly oppose BOTH of the items I've bolded above.
So the government shouldn't write checks to anybody? Well, you can continue to live in that fantasy land if you want. The federal government (and foreign governments as well) are often the biggest clients for financial firms, software providers, construction companies, and builders (ever heard of HUD or a Sovereign Wealth Fund??). It's nice to believe that the private sector gets it all done with innovation, ingenuity and efficiency, but the reality is that the private sector benefits from public spending tremendously.
The fixed income market makes up about 90 percent of the securities market. When the government "sells treasuries," it's not BajanYankee the individual who buys them. It's money being moved from equities and index funds into Treasuries to hedge against volatility. And since interest rates are virtually at zero, the government essentially gets an interest free loan on all of this money. That's why the "debt crisis" is really overblown.
Maybe you had a worthless major in college...
Butting in here, I had a history major in college, and it is valuable beyond price. History tells us that stampedes in the markets end badly for the stampeders. When interest rates eventually rise, the widows and orphans and retirees and endowments and retirement plans that bought Treasuries at their peak price will suffer market value losses that will dwarf the tech bubble, the real estate bubble, tulip mania and every other stampede in history.
The government is benefitting hugely from the interest free loan, as you say. But that massive benefit will be fully paid for by investors who will get nailed. And rising interest rates will absolutely explode the government budget as Treasuries roll over at higher and higher rates, consuming a higher and higher fraction of government revenues.
Solution? Step One, get rid of the $16 Trillion Dollar Man, the guy who wants to borrow $2.7 BILLION MORE dollars every day of every year for the next four years.
Other than the fact that Obama is leading us to disaster, he's a great candidate.
So the government shouldn't write checks to anybody? Well, you can continue to live in that fantasy land if you want. The federal government (and foreign governments as well) are often the biggest clients for financial firms, software providers, construction companies, and builders (ever heard of HUD or a Sovereign Wealth Fund??). It's nice to believe that the private sector gets it all done with innovation, ingenuity and efficiency, but the reality is that the private sector benefits from public spending tremendously.
If there is no negative effects to selling treasuries to pay for our expenses, then whats it matter what we spend on the military?
According to you, we could spend $10 Trillion a year on the military, who cares right? No negative effects on the economy because they are selling treasuries to do so..
The stock market can be doing fabulous because companies arent hiring more employees and/or laying them off. This increases their profit margins by reducing expenses.
You seem to forget people with 401Ks and mutual funds. A healthy stock market is a wonderful thing to these people.
You seem to forget people with 401Ks and mutual funds. A healthy stock market is a wonderful thing to these people.
I'm not at all arguing that its not, to those people. But simply saying the stock market is up, thus the economy is better, is about as ridiculous as saying the GDP is up because of government spending, and therefor, the economy is improving..
A lot of folks dont have $500 to their name, so the stock market is meaningless.. I suppose to people like Warren Buffet, thats fabulous news, but I was unaware that you cared about millionaires and billionaires.
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.
