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.
So if government increased spending by $10 TRILLION a year, and the gdp doubled, that wouldnt indicate an economic problem to you?
Figures
The issue isn't whether the government doubling GDP instantly would cause problems. The assertion was that government spending doesn't count.
Doubling GDP in one year would likely cause many problems, like demand for wages and materials doubling -- which would increase wage pressure and price pressure. Nevertheless, the notion that government spending 'does really count' is disproved by that very example. Government demand is demand and economically speaking, no different than private demand.
The impact is not material, but the point to underscore is the overall trend line. Unemployment has been trending down since 2010 and that is seen, on the whole, as a positive thing (definitely more positive than trending up). And contrary to popular belief on Internet Boards and Fox News, a sizeable number of Americans do not hold Obama accountable for the massive job losses incurred from Day One in office. They don't expect a patient who broke his back to be back on his feet competing in an Iron Man contest in two months. People who blame the economic woes of the country on Obama were not likely to vote for him anyway.
The other thing is that a number of people arefully employed and thus view news of better than average GDP growth as a good thing.
Models that use GDP growth to determine electoral outcome are not focused on trend lines. People may be concerned with trend lines, but the models are not. The model used by the OP is basically saying that because GDP is growing, the electoral outcome is different. In good times, I can see this potentially holding true. In down times, like now, I don't see GDP growth in and of itself changing anyone's opinion or vote.
The issue isn't whether the government doubling GDP instantly would cause problems. The assertion was that government spending doesn't count.
Doubling GDP in one year would likely cause many problems, like demand for wages and materials doubling -- which would increase wage pressure and price pressure. Nevertheless, the notion that government spending 'does really count' is disproved by that very example. Government demand is demand and economically speaking, no different than private demand.
They didnt say government spending doesnt count, they said its not a great indicator..
If government spent $10T a year, this would double the GDP, but according to you liberals, this would be news to celebrate..
But clearly thats not true because it would equate to money being needed to first be removed from the economy or the deflating of the dollar.
GDP in Zimbabwe I'm sure skyrocketed when their current when to crap, but I'm pretty sure their economy didnt boom when that took place.
They didnt say government spending doesnt count, they said its not a great indicator..
If government spent $10T a year, this would double the GDP, but according to you liberals, this would be news to celebrate..
But clearly thats not true because it would equate to money being needed to first be removed from the economy or the deflating of the dollar.
GDP in Zimbabwe I'm sure skyrocketed when their current when to crap, but I'm pretty sure their economy didnt boom when that took place.
You clearly illustrate the willingness of right-wingers to believe myths based not on reality but on their own projection. On the right, people are for smaller government as a matter of principle — smaller government for its own sake. And so they naturally imagine that their opponents must be their mirror image, wanting bigger government as a goal in itself.
But it’s not true. I don’t know any progressives who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do — like guaranteeing health care. Size per se doesn’t matter. But people on the right apparently can’t get that.
You clearly illustrate the willingness of right-wingers to believe myths based not on reality but on their own projection. On the right, people are for smaller government as a matter of principle — smaller government for its own sake. And so they naturally imagine that their opponents must be their mirror image, wanting bigger government as a goal in itself.
But it’s not true. I don’t know any progressives who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do — like guaranteeing health care. Size per se doesn’t matter. But people on the right apparently can’t get that.
I can't defend it if you don't argue what is wrong with it. Try reading it and then we can discuss it.
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.
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.
