U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
So why would you post CNS News as a resource for economic commentary? Because you are trying to pound the square peg of factual data into the round hole of political propaganda. So what's wrong with your latest piece of dribble?? Why isn't the economy doing better?
That is quite clear and quite as easy answer. People like you who don't understand much and elect idiots to Congress. People like you who elect people to Congress who think cutting budgets in times of great economic stress is the right thing to do.
While the Federal Reserve has done about everything it could to help the country recover, the fiscal stimulus needed to halt and recover from the devastating type of recession we faced never materialized. Because of propagandists like you and the people like you elect.
We have squandered the opportunity we had to put people back to work and shove the economy into a higher gear.
To the stupidity of your comment about 5% unemployment...did you bother to read the article? Here is the next to last paragraph:
You actually COMPLAIN about a low unemployment rate and the article you posted claims that overhauling the tax code will increase employment. Well, based on your comment the unemployment rate isn't important.
Here is another quote from your article:
What funded that economic boom? Have you ever looked at the deficit spending under Mr. Reagan? Maybe you should. Have you ever looked at what interest rates were before and after the Fed induced recessions on the early 80s? Does today's current interest rate scenario and tomorrow's interest rate outlook have anything remotely in commons with that of the 1980s? No.
Here's another quote:
We'll ignore the editorial failure to catch the typo. Were there commonalities between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Yup....the underlying cause was the same...a financial crisis that resulted in a complete collapse in the availability of credit. No lending = no economic growth.
So what was different in the recovery periods. Did we embark on a prolonged national infrastructure building program after the Great Recession? No. Did we restructure the banking and investment industry to make them safer for the overall economy? Only modestly, but certainly not to the extent needed. Are we now embroiled in a global war that has destroyed the rest of the developed world's ability to manufacture goods, a war that left us standing as the only unscathed economy? No.
What is interesting is that your article seems to shine a light on the post Great Depression era as one of glorious expansion...and then highlights this quote:
Coming out of the Great Depression and WWII, our debt to GDP ratio was much higher than it is today. So why does your CNS New decry today's debt levels, but not the level coming out of the Great Depression???
One other difference between now and the end of the Great Depression? We were a youthful nation. Today we are a gray nation. Our demographics are a major reason from the labor force participation rate issues. Any first year econ student understands this. Our demographics are a large part of our national debt issues...as is our inability to raise the revenue to pay for the spending we've already committed ourselves to...a situation that began in earnest 35 years ago and should have been fixed under the last administration...but that opportunity, like so many others, was thrown away at the behest of political expediency and to satiate an ignorant electorate.
That is quite clear and quite as easy answer. People like you who don't understand much and elect idiots to Congress. People like you who elect people to Congress who think cutting budgets in times of great economic stress is the right thing to do.
While the Federal Reserve has done about everything it could to help the country recover, the fiscal stimulus needed to halt and recover from the devastating type of recession we faced never materialized. Because of propagandists like you and the people like you elect.
We have squandered the opportunity we had to put people back to work and shove the economy into a higher gear.
To the stupidity of your comment about 5% unemployment...did you bother to read the article? Here is the next to last paragraph:
You actually COMPLAIN about a low unemployment rate and the article you posted claims that overhauling the tax code will increase employment. Well, based on your comment the unemployment rate isn't important.
Here is another quote from your article:
What funded that economic boom? Have you ever looked at the deficit spending under Mr. Reagan? Maybe you should. Have you ever looked at what interest rates were before and after the Fed induced recessions on the early 80s? Does today's current interest rate scenario and tomorrow's interest rate outlook have anything remotely in commons with that of the 1980s? No.
Here's another quote:
We'll ignore the editorial failure to catch the typo. Were there commonalities between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Yup....the underlying cause was the same...a financial crisis that resulted in a complete collapse in the availability of credit. No lending = no economic growth.
So what was different in the recovery periods. Did we embark on a prolonged national infrastructure building program after the Great Recession? No. Did we restructure the banking and investment industry to make them safer for the overall economy? Only modestly, but certainly not to the extent needed. Are we now embroiled in a global war that has destroyed the rest of the developed world's ability to manufacture goods, a war that left us standing as the only unscathed economy? No.
What is interesting is that your article seems to shine a light on the post Great Depression era as one of glorious expansion...and then highlights this quote:
Coming out of the Great Depression and WWII, our debt to GDP ratio was much higher than it is today. So why does your CNS New decry today's debt levels, but not the level coming out of the Great Depression???
One other difference between now and the end of the Great Depression? We were a youthful nation. Today we are a gray nation. Our demographics are a major reason from the labor force participation rate issues. Any first year econ student understands this. Our demographics are a large part of our national debt issues...as is our inability to raise the revenue to pay for the spending we've already committed ourselves to...a situation that began in earnest 35 years ago and should have been fixed under the last administration...but that opportunity, like so many others, was thrown away at the behest of political expediency and to satiate an ignorant electorate.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Was the "typo" calling the range of years 1930-33 "four"? I publish statistics for the government - and we count the years as discrete elements, because a FULL year's data is required to publish anything. So that would be the years 1930, 31, 32 and 33. It may be a typo, but the way we do it here is the end points count as discrete years.
On the probability of a recession beginning in the next year...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/jim-rogers-there-s-a-100-probability-of-a-u-s-recession-within-a-year
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/jim-rogers-there-s-a-100-probability-of-a-u-s-recession-within-a-year