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.
I think it is hard to argue that stimulus is responsible for this since only 10% has been spent to date. The stabilizing of the financial markets is much more important than any stimulus which wasn't very stimulative anyway. Both Bush and Obama should be credited for stabilizing financial markets.
It depends on where you live. Some of the jobs like in the 70's recession will not be coming back which was going to happen anyway. New jobs will have to be created instead just like then.Plain old inflation like the 70's as you call it will get into double digits. Of course then we didn't have the huge deficits then.
Americans who get to work, open businesses, create jobs, buy homes etc..
I thought "Nobama" was going to be the end of all of that, and we were on a rocket ship to socialist hell. What gives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
I think it is hard to argue that stimulus is responsible for this since only 10% has been spent to date.
If a small fraction of it actually has to be spent, then all the better. I can't say I'm a fan of the bailouts, but I'd take them over doing nothing a la Herbert Hoover and letting it become another depression.
I agree, I think it is way too soon to breakout the champagne. Declaring the end of the recession is kind of useless.
Well, if the economy is truly growing (as most economists think it is) then it probably IS accurate to say the recession is over (which I believe to the case) - and there ARE psychological advantages to pronouncing it so. However, the Administration was burned pretty bad when they underestimated the severity of the recession and announced that they expected the unemployment rate to top out around 8% or so - and then it ended up going far beyond that. So, with an eye towards being cautious in their optimism I can understand why the Fed etc is going to hesitate officially stating that the recession has ended (even if they believe it has) until the job losses ease further.
It depends on where you live. Some of the jobs like in the 70's recession will not be coming back which was going to happen anyway. New jobs will have to be created instead just like then.Plain old inflation like the 70's as you call it will get into double digits. Of course then we didn't have the huge deficits then.
Oh I know - and I'm not minimizing "plain old inflation", but there IS a VAST difference between that and the "Zimbabwe" type inflation many of the Obamabashers were so recently predicting. They are 2 completely different scenarios.
The "Zimbabwe" scenario is just NOT going to happen.
Period.
It is a prediction, but since they have all of this room to work with I believe they should use it now. I believe we can effectively say the economy has turned. This is when the interest rate moves have to be made before it is too late. I think one tick up will do the trick for a couple reasons:
1) It will begin to stave off future inflationary pressures and;
2) It will signify a confidence from the fed that the economy has truly turned a corner. This confidence will flow and people will at least begin to get comfortable consuming again.
Hard to say for sure, but you bring up a couple of interesting points.
It could've been a lot worse for 300 million. We're not all lining up at soup kitchens, are we?
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.