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.
As the old saying goes, "The President proposes and Congress disposes. The President increases spending, but only if it passes through Congress.
This has absolutly nothing to do with what I asked you.
Quote:
Mainly the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Now a question for you:
1. Do you agree that there has not been a recession since the one Bush inherited?
what does this have to do with the price of rice in china? We are headed into a recession by the way, so while he inherited one from Clinton he is proudly made one of his very own.
No, no bubbles. We have had market fluctuations...fluctuating is what markets do. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down. No doubt this sort of zig-zag pattern that nearly all markets trace over time was something often seen in some of your economics studies. It shouldn't be too surprising to encounter the same thing in the real world. Bubbles are a different matter. They are outside the norm. Nothing of the recent past has been outside the norm.
No, Clinton had nothing to do with it. Lack of confidence in Bush, however, was a significant factor in the onset of the recession, his election having only sealed the deal. Decision-makers were understandably in a cautious mood over potentially disruptive changes in the economy as Clinton's term began to wind down, and then along comes this guy Gov. Bush preaching his counter-intuitive mantra of economic gloom and doom being just around the corner and how massive tax cuts were the only thing that could possibly head it off. Reasonable people know that massive tax cuts lead to massive declines in revenue and hence to massive deficits, and that frittering away the hard-won surplus on tax give-aways would destabilize what had emerged as a successful public-private relationship in capital markets and elsewhere. Faced with worry and uncertainty over what would actually happen next, decisions were postponed to wait for the dust to settle. Gross private domestic investment went negative for six consecutive quarters starting in the Fall of 2000. Certainly, the sixth one was impacted by 9/11, but none of the first five was. The same effect hit purchases of consumer durables, as startled households decided to scale back or hold off until they were more sure of what all this sudden ruckus was about. And what it was about was reckless tax cuts, reckless spending, reckless foreign policy, and reckless everything else. The economy never quite managed two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but the slump was clear and certain. Over the sixteen quarters between mid-1996 and mid-2000, the average expansion in GDP was just under 4.4%. It has failed to reach even that average mark in 25 of the 29 quarters since.
1. you dont seem to know what a bubble is. 2. ANY economist can tell you that the economy was slowing down BEFORE bush came into office. 3. you would really have to understand economics to understand the impact of 9/11 on the economy as well as the impact of these bubbles. You should really go look up what a bubble is and then go back and read up on these "fluctuations" you are talking about. 4. who told you bubbles arent the norm in America? lol the stuck market crash in the 20s was guess what? Thats right, a bubble when housing prices plummeted in the 90s in certain regions, that too was a bubble. Again you need to do more research, as I told you, I have a degree in international economics. Any first year could explain this stuff to you. I however won't, but I do encourage you to do more research.
Lol. We were under a Clinton economy until about 6 months after Bush was sworn in. Because it takes about that long for a new President's economic policy to take effect
Not much faith in free market capitalism, there. Decision-makers take all the information they have access to into account as quickly as they can. And sort of like homeowners who start boarding up windows when the forecast calls for a hurricane, decision-makers make moves on the basis of their reasonbale fears and rational expectations about the future. Bush's months of relentless negative jawboning raised fears and clouded expectations. People reacted to that by hedging their bets, as the GPDI and consumer durables numbers of the time go to show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The bubble burst for a while in the late-'90s
No bubble, just the expected clean-out of a then still nascent industry, particularly in 1997-98 as the brick-and-mortar big boys, having first been convinced of the power of the internet in B2B applications that let them boost profits through things like just-in-time inventory management, realized that since they'd already invested in the necessary infrastructure, they could quickly and cheaply (not to mention ruthlessly) move into apps for front-end, consumer-oriented operations as well. Hundreds of smaller so-called dot-com companies were either bought out or went belly-up in those years. Meanwhile the efficiency and profitability of web-based commerce marched on. Only the actors on the stage were changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The simple fact is that Clinton inherited an economy coming out of recession and Bush inherited an economy going into one.
The simple fact is that the economy has not performed well under a Republican President since Calvin Coolidge. Even though his abandonment of them led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shia in Iraq, Bush-1 was riding a wave of popular support after the 100-hour Gulf War wound up. Barely 18 months later, he was hounded out of office by a group whose campaign theme was "It's the Economy, Stupid". Fast-forward by eight years, and you've got an economy that rivaled any in US history. That was the Clinton legacy. Then along came another Bush. Fast-forward by seven years and you have a ravaged economy that teeters on the verge of collapse. Unfortunately, that will be only one of the negative aspects of the legacy that W will leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
If you weren't lazy, why didn't you post the link the first time?
And what about it... I already know about the December figures.
Really? Then you should be able to tell us what your December "job-growth" number would look like if we were to split it into public sector growth versus private sector growth. Those might be interesting numbers to know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Well, yes, I guess liberals think that taxes have to be increased. Fortunately, others (Bush, for instance) know different.
Bush isn't running. Fortunately for Earth, he can't. And none of those who seem to have any actual hope of succeeding him seem to have any belief at all that the best way to move forward is by following along with the policies of Bush. Look for significant and long-overdue change no matter who gets elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Yeah, some "disaster." An huge 9.7% GDP growth in one quarter in 1984.
9.3% actually, and it was in June 1983 after a solid 5.0% increase the quarter before. Unfortunately, the five quarters preceding that made the series look like this (numbers in parentheses represent a decline in GDP)...
So, over that stretch, $1000 worth of GDP was turned into $1032 worth of GDP, an average net growth rate of about 0.45% per quarter. Less than one-half of 1%. Miracle or disaster? I wonder which word fits best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Lol. Yeah, "tremendous" damage, like an unemployment rate lower than the average unemployment rate during the '70s, '80s and '90s. And a large 8.3% GDP growth in one quarter in 2004.
GDP growth in CY2004 by quarter: 3.0 ... 3.5 ... 3.6 ... 2.5
Unemployment Rates (SA)...
Jan 1969 (Nixon/Ford in) 3.4%
Jan 1977 (Carter in) 7.5%
Jan 1981 (Reagan/Bush-1 in) 7.5%
Jan 1993 (Clinton in) 7.3 %
Jan 2001 (W in) 4.2%
Dec 2007 (now) 5.0%
Many want to apply the term to any rising market that experiences a downturn. This is an observational definition. Prior to the downturn, everything is hunky-dory. After the downturn, it was a bubble. This is more closely related to the theory of sour-grapes than to any that economics has to offer. Economics will tell you that markets go up and markets go down. It is those who were surprised by the latter who go around babbling about bubbles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
2. ANY economist can tell you that the economy was slowing down BEFORE bush came into office.
GDP growth over Clinton's last five years...
3.7 ... 4.5 ... 4.2 ... 4.5 ... 3.7
GDP growth over Bush's first five years...
0.8 ... 1.6 ... 2.5 ... 3.6 ... 3.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
3. you would really have to understand economics to understand the impact of 9/11 on the economy as well as the impact of these bubbles. You should really go look up what a bubble is and then go back and read up on these "fluctuations" you are talking about.
The economic impacts of 9/11 were quite small on any national scale. The loss of a few office buildings and damage done to the ability of some important financial markets to operate was essentially absorbed by the end of the year. Initial operating losses experienced by airlines were significantly offet by taxpayers. Losses in the overall travel & tourism sectors were somewhat more persistent but minor at best in terms of effect on GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
4. who told you bubbles arent the norm in America? lol the stuck market crash in the 20s was guess what? Thats right, a bubble
October 1929. That was close to 80 years ago. Is this what you use to define the norm? Events which lie within the bounds of common experience are norms. Market fluctuations are the norm. Bubbles are not the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
...when housing prices plummeted in the 90s in certain regions, that too was a bubble.
And what made that a bubble? The fact that the market softened? Markets do this. Did the S&L scandal play a role in that? Did low inflation? Did a stock market that was essentially flat between the Summer of 89 and early 91? Why were the efffects at least regionalized if not downright localized?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
Again you need to do more research, as I told you, I have a degree in international economics. Any first year could explain this stuff to you. I however won't, but I do encourage you to do more research.
You have many years of study yet to do. And a few decades worth of experience to acquire.
Many want to apply the term to any rising market that experiences a downturn. This is an observational definition. Prior to the downturn, everything is hunky-dory. After the downturn, it was a bubble. This is more closely related to the theory of sour-grapes than to any that economics has to offer. Economics will tell you that markets go up and markets go down. It is those who were surprised by the latter who go around babbling about bubbles.
GDP growth over Clinton's last five years...
3.7 ... 4.5 ... 4.2 ... 4.5 ... 3.7
GDP growth over Bush's first five years...
0.8 ... 1.6 ... 2.5 ... 3.6 ... 3.1
The economic impacts of 9/11 were quite small on any national scale. The loss of a few office buildings and damage done to the ability of some important financial markets to operate was essentially absorbed by the end of the year. Initial operating losses experienced by airlines were significantly offet by taxpayers. Losses in the overall travel & tourism sectors were somewhat more persistent but minor at best in terms of effect on GDP.
October 1929. That was close to 80 years ago. Is this what you use to define the norm? Events which lie within the bounds of common experience are norms. Market fluctuations are the norm. Bubbles are not the norm.
And what made that a bubble? The fact that the market softened? Markets do this. Did the S&L scandal play a role in that? Did low inflation? Did a stock market that was essentially flat between the Summer of 89 and early 91? Why were the efffects at least regionalized if not downright localized?
You have many years of study yet to do. And a few decades worth of experience to acquire.
I stopped reading after the "9/11 had a small impact on the economy" comment, I see what you did there.
Also, thank you for showing the GDP during Clinton's presidency. It highlights exactly what I told you; the economy was slowing down when he was leaving office. For the rest of it, as I said, you need to do far more research. Start with finding out what the definition of a bubble is. Has nothing to do with upturns and downturns lol. I will give you a hint, find out what speculation has to do with all this and then you will understand effects of that i.e. "upturns and downturns" lol, no bubble lol.
I stopped reading after the "9/11 had a small impact on the economy" comment, I see what you did there.
It wasn't a comment. It was a statement of fact. The economic impacts of 9/11 were adverse but minor. If you disagree, please feel free to support any theory to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
Also, thank you for showing the GDP during Clinton's presidency. It highlights exactly what I told you; the economy was slowing down when he was leaving office.
Well, think back on some of those SAT or GRE (or even GMAT?) questions, then think what is the next logical entry in this series...
3.7 ... 4.5 ... 4.2 ... 4.5 ... 3.7
There would actually be a range of acceptable answers. None of them is 0.8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style
For the rest of it, as I said, you need to do far more research. Start with finding out what the definition of a bubble is. Has nothing to do with upturns and downturns lol. I will give you a hint, find out what speculation has to do with all this and then you will understand effects of that i.e. "upturns and downturns" lol, no bubble lol.
Speculation is the reasoned acceptance of risk in exchange for a reasoned hope of return. Speculation is a normal part of the economy. Sort any significant list of stock mutual funds by their beta-coefficients to verify. What is not normal is rigging a market so as to minimize risk and maximize profit. This is what was done in many of the IPO scandals of the late 90's and into the early 00's. You may wish to review the role that these criminal undertakings might have played in leading you to your bubble theory...
SAG - I have to disagree with your substitution of "downturn" for 'bubble". Prior to 1928 they called them "panics" and they happened about every 20 years or so as the markets cleaned out the speculators. The crash of 1928 was fueled by the golden years of the 1920’s and the ability of investors to buy and speculate on securities with very little of their own money. IIRC a speculator could buy stocks with a 95% loan from his broker. When people started cashing out their speculative stocks to actually turn their paper profits into cash, the price dropped below the loan amount and the investor was forced to sell in order to cover his loan. This forced panic selling that eventually drove the prices of securities below the actual investment. That is what a bursting bubble is.
In modern terms the Real estate market during the late 1980’s to early 2000’s was a market where investors (speculators) could buy assets (houses) for very little or no collateral. This essentially free money triggered a boom in real estate mortgages and home building. Allowing the banks to pass the risk thorough to the international financial market in the form of Real Estate Investment Trusts effectively insuring (maybe) the banks from losses due to defaults if the loans could not be paid or the buyers could no longer afford the speculation inflated home prices. This created the bubble in real estate and the REIT’s were a Ponzi scheme that will clobber the equity market in the next few months to years.
So we have had the start of a real estate price collapse and are in the very beginnings of a similar collapse in the equities market. The ride up has been fun but the ride down will be really painful for a lot of investors, bankers and brokers.
To get back to the original topic of unemployment we can expect about 10 to 25% of our workforce to be looking for jobs as the real estate collapse removes equity from existing home values and all the businesses and employment associated with home building, furnishing and renovation simply disappears.
On the bright side the next few years will be a great time to invest in rentable housing.
We are headed into a recession by the way, so while he inherited one from Clinton he is proudly made one of his very own.
But wait a minute!
So what, Bush "inherited a recession". I won't say the economy wasn't slowing. Clearly it was.
But what you do during that time impacts how deep the recession is, and how long it lasts and how robust a recovery you have.
Bush's "recovery" took a very long time, longer than previous cycles in history, and its bounce was fairly anemic.
If we go into another recession, one might call the most recent "boom", a blip.
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.