If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Economy grew at slower pace in first quarter; in other news, graph shows the GDP "flipping the bird" (with pic of graph)   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 235
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

21860 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2004 at 2:24 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-06-25 03:36:34 PM  
Corporations pocketing the gains from increased worker productivity -now that's my kind of recovery

/Bring it on!
 
2004-06-25 03:37:08 PM  
amen. the job loss id due directly to all the dumbass companies going out of business.

2004-06-25 03:34:34 PM koniver


modernhamlet:

The reason those jobs were higher paying is that most of them were worthless internet start up companies that went out of business. Those jobs will never come back. There is no need for a CEO of Cheesegraters.com or their salary of over six figures.

Also follow the news. The new job markets that are opening up are higher paying jobs. (The source for that is CNN sometime this week on their money page.)
 
2004-06-25 03:37:15 PM  
Kazan:You're ignoring the fact that during recessions and depressions people take out loans at a VASTLY lower rate, because they don't forseee being able to pay it off easily.

This is why, in a recession, the Federal Reserve cranks down interest rates, so that borrowing money becomes ultra cheap. Hence the re-financing boom of the last few years, which helped the middle class far more than the wealthy, by the way.

P.S. I wasn't repeating posts, I just type slower.
 
2004-06-25 03:38:17 PM  
knovier recovering my arse, most indicators still point negative.

Jobless claims on average falling
You mean people going to government employeement agencies and claiming unemployeement benefits are declining

Stock market gaining
yeah big gain here

NASDAQ


Also define who is among the people with the highest propensity to save, I want to see facts here
googling is unfortunately innundating me with bad hits so i cannot find the several reports i've read on this.

So let's approach this from an intuitive manner.

Person A makes $100,000/year
Person B makes $40,000/year

Say that they both receive $1000 bonuses on the same day for Person A 1% increase in their yearly income that's a 2.5% increase for Person B

so let's figure out what percentage of suprlus income this is.

Let's figure they both have the same appartments, costs etc Let's say it's $600/month for their appartment, all bills paid except for electric and phone (common around where i am). Let's Figure $150/month for food, $50/month phone (cell phone), and around an aevarege of $40 month for electricity. That bring the grand total to $840/month.

Ok now their car - let's assume they have the same assurance rates, let's say $650 every six months, and fuel costs of around $60/month

that's $12100 righbt there in a year. Let's fudge this up to around $15000 for minor bills and such.

so Person A's surplus income is $85000 so that's a 1.1% increase in his surplus income
and Person B's is $25000 making a 4% increase in his surplus income.


Now obviously i'm ignoring taxes on their incoming which make the surpluss income numbers even lower and the spread between them even more noticeable.


So whom is more likely to spend that additional $1000 and whom is more likely to plop it in a bank.


IPOs are happening at a much greater frequency
then when? right after the market drop that occured after bush got in office? we're definantly not at our lowest point, that is for sure, however the economy is still chronically weak and the current administrations policies are only exasterbating it and lengthen the period of weakness
 
2004-06-25 03:38:32 PM  
Oh, no, we're going through a DROP!!! in growth
 
2004-06-25 03:40:18 PM  
konifer: Clinton was considered good for the economy but he did nothing

You mean besides signing NAFTA, GATT, passing welfare reform, expanding the WTO, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, passing balanced budgets that led to budget surpluses, and containing the Mexican peso crisis? I mean, besides all that, Clinton did nothing, sure.
 
2004-06-25 03:40:32 PM  
revscat
"BamaTide: Bothered? Only in the usual way that morons who use terms like "Dumbocrats" do. It's a childish rhetorical trick that does nothing more than make you look like a giggling college freshman childishly laughing over his keyboard. You have a problem with policy, talk policy. "Dumbocrats/Hitlery/KKKlinton/etc." Bush's policy sucks and the current state of affairs proves it."

Yeah because none of you libs replace the S in Bush or Republicans with swastikas or use Republicons. Both sides do it and of course it's childish, but don't let it bother you. Just ignore it, as for me I will still use Cliton because I like giggling over my keyboard.
 
2004-06-25 03:40:43 PM  
2004-06-25 02:54:14 PM MooseBayou

Sustained 8.2% growth would lead to inflation
That's why the Fed is raising the Prime Rate. To fend off inevitable inflation from a RAPIDLY IMPROVING ECONOMY.
Everyone knows that, even liberals.


Well, with growth of 8.2% and a 12-month inflation rate of 3.1%, one would expect interest rates to be around 5%. Do you really think the Fed is going to raise rates by 4%, or do you think a .25% or .5% is more likely? Besides, it takes a couple of years before the effects of a raise in interest rates are felt.
 
2004-06-25 03:41:07 PM  
corporations dont pocket money. they reinvest it (spend) or give it to their share holders (who spend it) or hiher more people to work for them (who spend it). get a grip dude. corporations ar not evil they are the largest employers in the world.
without corporations we mind as well be living in africa.

2004-06-25 03:36:34 PM Horg


Corporations pocketing the gains from increased worker productivity -now that's my kind of recovery

/Bring it on!
 
2004-06-25 03:41:45 PM  
Well, modernhamlet, I am much more selfish than you are, and not nearly as indecisive as your Shakespearean namesake. Naturally, I'm going to latch onto any possibility that stands a reasonable chance of helping me improve my own situation. If it helps others improve theirs as well, so much the better. But I look out for myself, first and last and always.
 
2004-06-25 03:41:57 PM  
bama_nerd

I went looking for a link about today's Tampa disclosure, but here's a fairly even-handed evaluation of Moore's presentation of that flight.

If I find the link about Tampa Intl. & the 9/11 commission, I'll post it.

The gist is that the flights were authorized after the Saudi government pulled every diplomatic string they could and that the current administration was willing to allow the Bin Laden family evacuation. The official White House line has been "no comment."
 
2004-06-25 03:41:58 PM  
knovier

PS: Gore didn't claim he invented the internet

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
 
2004-06-25 03:43:59 PM  
BamaTide: Yeah because none of you libs replace the S in Bush or Republicans with swastikas or use Republicons. Both sides do it and of course it's childish, but don't let it bother you. Just ignore it, as for me I will still use Cliton because I like giggling over my keyboard.

Don't accuse me of it. I think it's stupid and a sign of weakness. My ideas and beliefs are based upon avialable facts, not on vapid rhetorical techniques. Further, I don't think there is any need to resort to "Bu$h" in order to show that Bush is a bad president. The facts stand for themselves.

Also: Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your mother teach you anything?
 
2004-06-25 03:45:00 PM  
koniver, during Clinton, 22 MILLION new jobs were created. Following your logic that "Most of them were worthless internet start up companies", the bare minimum for "MOST" would be 51% or 11.2M jobs. There is NO WAY that there were 11.2 million jobs created by places like pets.com or pencils.com

Nice try, though.
 
2004-06-25 03:45:21 PM  
Kazan:

Way to use a graph just from this year and does not show the recovery from 7500-8000 range. You should work for Michael Moore. The market has recovered close to three thousand points.

Second, you are wrong on the saving thing yet again. Ask anyone who gets a tax return/bonus, what do they do with it? THEY SPEND IT. Everyone plans vacations and purchases around their bonuses and tax returns, so again you are wrong.

Third, read the paper. They list the amount of IPOs coming out. In the past two months and in the months coming up, a lot more companies are going public than they did during the crash.

Fourth, the economy is recovering that is why they are increasing interest rates, if I have to explain this, you should not be arguing economics.

Fifth, if you check the timeline you will notice that the recession started under Clinton not Bush, so plesase do not bring that into this.

P.S. You are still in college aren't you?
 
2004-06-25 03:46:04 PM  
koniver
The reason those jobs were higher paying is that most of them were worthless internet start up companies that went out of business. Those jobs will never come back. There is no need for a CEO of Cheesegraters.com or their salary of over six figures.

As a former .commer, let me assure you, those jobs were gone long before Bush was inagurated.

flameingtoilet

Certainly. And it's a perfectly good point. I wish that the inevitable recession would have been better planned for. My issue is with Bush. The last 3 years have sucked. Jobs are down. Personal and national debt is way up. I repeat, I am not a Clinton apologist. His economic policies were fairly restrained. He let things grow, maybe even a little too much. He doesn't get credit either way as far as I'm concerned. But the Bush administration has been much more active in setting policies that have generated the problems we're facing today.
 
2004-06-25 03:46:17 PM  
cannibolic
This is why, in a recession, the Federal Reserve cranks down interest rates, so that borrowing money becomes ultra cheap. Hence the re-financing boom of the last few years, which helped the middle class far more than the wealthy, by the way.

Which still does not cause a net gain in the number of loans created - however it does make students extremely happy to be able to get fixed interest consolidations at 2%
 
2004-06-25 03:47:13 PM  
BamaTide
...Bush & Dick...

That ain't funny. Them's their names, boy.
 
2004-06-25 03:47:37 PM  
2004-06-25 03:45:00 PM GimmeAnEffingBreak

Not just the internet companeis but think of all the other companies that boomed and hired more people because of the internet boom. All of these companies needed support staff, shippin, janitors, etc.

These positions are called linkages. See we all learned something new today.

So when the center of the economy fails, many other jobs around them fail.
 
2004-06-25 03:48:39 PM  
Ohhhhhhhhh!
The assholes are out tonight! YEHAW!!!!!!!
The assholes are out tonight! YEHAW!!!!!!!

They gots them thar republicraps a yowlin' bout them dems,
They gots them thar democrobots a biatchin bout the feds,

The assholes are out tonight! YEHAW!!!!!!
The assholes are out tonight! YEHAW!!!!!!

They make there dumbsh*t speaches bout their favorite wealthy dicks,
You'd think they maybe smart enough to fergit about them pricks, OH!!!!!!!

/gots nuffin

It gets far beyond tiring to point out the obvious in every single one of these threads.

/Now watch this Fahrenheit 9/11
 
2004-06-25 03:48:53 PM  
One was President of the United States. The other is a political hack and a pig. See the difference?

When was Michael Moore President?

/liar!
 
2004-06-25 03:49:47 PM  
Kazan, for some people, not even the large font will be enough.
 
2004-06-25 03:50:04 PM  
StretchCannon

Actually several of us are trying to have a civil conversation. Take the threadjack elsewhere.
 
2004-06-25 03:50:20 PM  
2004-06-25 03:40:18 PM revscat

None of that had to do with the US economy except for the budget balancing/surpluses. Those he had nothing to do with because of the .com bubble

Also, some would argue that those international promises hurt the American economy and take away our jobs. One could argue he opened the floodgates of outsourcing.
 
2004-06-25 03:50:58 PM  
Enjoy the 3.9% now, because when Q2 numbers come out we'll be whistfully looking back to it.

Think about it this way, we had a 20% spike in Gas prices through most of the 2nd quarter and no significant increase in jobs or housing starts to push the GDP high enough that the inflation tied to a significant increase in the Consumer Price Index .

Unless I'm mistaken, the CPI for Q1 was just over 5%, which is nearly 2% higher than the increase over Q1 2003.

I'm imagining the direct CPI for Q2 will be easily over 8%, which would continue the same trend of increases in excess of the prior years increaase.

Now, if inflation is a ballgame, the CPI is the ball, so keep your eye on the ball.
 
2004-06-25 03:51:38 PM  
GimmeAnEffingBreak

In regards to your response about "worthless internet companies," those "worthless" jobs were taken by a certain Hassenpfeffer, and while the companies tanked, the aforementioned Hassenpfeffer gained valuable technical skills and experience and now works as a web development consultant.

I, along with others, made quite a bit of money during that time, which was perhaps the only saving grace coupled with the experience I gained during that time that allowed me & my family to get through Bush's economic reforms.

Thanks, Bill! I owe ya one.
 
2004-06-25 03:52:47 PM  
konvier

Look at the five year trend on the NASDAQ and the DJI average

All the people who your asking are in the lower half and that's why they spend it. It is a simple economics fact that the top people (who bush's tax cuts overwhelming favor] have the highest marginal propensity to SAVE. Just becuase you don't know any of them does not invalid this fact.

Wow! Imagine that, more companies going public after a maeger economic upturn after a large crash. That's no surprised

If you call this painfully slow trend that is being drawn out and made slower by fiscall irresponsibility in the whitehouse a recovery, then sure. However this is an extremely poor recovery.

IF you check the timeline and knew what was going on you'll notice the decline didn't start in earnest until afte rbush made some bad comments that eroded consumer confidence shortly after becoming president elect.

Furthermone economists (including Clintons IIRC) expected a small correction to occur - poor fiscal management on bush's part turned a small correction into a major catastrophe.

PS: Attempting to condescend upon a person by asking things like "You are still in college aren't you" shows the weakness of your argument. Go back to college and learn about logic bubba.


modernhamlet: however the ".com bomb" didn't harm the econom overall, and made no long term dent.
 
2004-06-25 03:53:01 PM  
Golf clap for enry.
 
2004-06-25 03:53:20 PM  
Kazan: That was just a lame joke by me because I get tired of discussing the economy. It is my job, and I analyze the economy all day long, 5 days a week. So sorry if I am propagating an urban legend but everything else I have said today is pretty much accurate. Of course I would be considered a bull by most people.

Speaking of said job, it is now over so have a good weekend, I am going home and getting drunk. I am looking foward to it.
 
2004-06-25 03:54:14 PM  
Hey modernhamlet.....



Yeah buddy!!! TAKE THAT!!!
 
2004-06-25 03:54:38 PM  
hassenpfeffer

Whereas, I was just slightly too late to the game (graduated in '97 without a technical degree) to make good money or skills off of the boom. I'm pedalling as fast as I can to stay still now.
 
2004-06-25 03:55:00 PM  
NathanAllen
BINGO!

Give this man a prize
 
2004-06-25 03:58:43 PM  
Not just the internet companeis but think of all the other companies that boomed and hired more people because of the internet boom. All of these companies needed support staff, shippin, janitors, etc.

These positions are called linkages. See we all learned something new today.

So when the center of the economy fails, many other jobs around them fail.


Not going to question that at all. However, figure even if you had a very low ratio of staff:maintenance, or staff:administrative staff (say 5:1), you're still WAY over-estimating the effect of the dot-com era.

Losses in manufacturing and state/local government jobs (teacher's & teacher's aides, maintenance, etc.) had a MUCH greater residual impact on the economy than the dot-commers.
 
2004-06-25 03:59:00 PM  
modernhamlet

See that small downturn before 2000? that was the ".com bomb", see that large one after 2000? that's when Bush became president-elect

 
2004-06-25 03:59:09 PM  
workers are not reaping the benefits of the increases in their productivity - this is the first time in history that their productivity is not being matched with their pay

Corporations are not bad, I didn't say that, I am saying the wealth is not being shared as equitably as it previously was in our history
 
2004-06-25 03:59:20 PM  
About the Snopes.com link that says it is "False" that Gore claimed to create the internet... I read more than just the verdict. The direct text from Gore's quote states, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Ok, so he didn't say "invented" but he sure tried to take credit for "creating" it...
 
2004-06-25 03:59:43 PM  
modernhamlet
Whereas, I was just slightly too late to the game (graduated in '97 without a technical degree) to make good money or skills off of the boom. I'm pedalling as fast as I can to stay still now.

I have one word for you. Plastics.
 
2004-06-25 04:01:49 PM  
masteropp

And read the explaination - took the initiative in helping SECURE THE FUNDING for the creation of what we now call the internet
 
2004-06-25 04:02:05 PM  
modernhamlet

I'm a Democrat, and I am willing to admit the job situation has improved over the past year. But not enough yet to make up for the down years of 2001 and 2002.

Bush loses points in my book for his wishful thinking tax cuts -- namely, if we give more money to the rich, they might invest in America. In 1962 and 1982, this worked, as America was the best place to invest for the most part. But in 2002, wealthy Americans and corporations can invest in other places -- China and India, for example.

He also loses points in my book for not seeming to care about the plight of middle and working class people who lost ground.

Not to mention, of course, his foreign policy, where it seems dealt cultists have taken over his Mideast policy. Elsewhere (Liberia, Sudan, Korea, he seems to have been more rational.)

In Sudan, Bush's insistence on UN action probably is much better than Clinton's performance in the runup to Rwanda 1994. In Korea, he's managed to hold Big Hair Kim at arm's length. I will say he misstepped with Venezuela, supporting the coup leaders even after they announced they would be no better (and probably worse) than Chavez in undermining democracy.
 
2004-06-25 04:02:10 PM  
2004-06-25 03:59:00 PM Kazan

In all fairness, something that happened on 9/11/01 also contributed to that downward slope.
 
2004-06-25 04:02:53 PM  
And for people who don't understand what impact the CPI has on our politics, let me translate.

Soccer Moms paying $4 for milk and $2.25 for gas don't vote for the sitting President.
 
2004-06-25 04:03:36 PM  
modernhamlet

of course, i see what you mean, its just the graph seemed just to show what would have happened at some point or another but in a sort of bad light for president bush. but i dont really like him as a president either and i agree the recession weve gone/are still minimally going through could have been better planned for. but then again hindsight is 20/20 and i suppose i wouldnt have really known when to plan and what to do either.
 
2004-06-25 04:04:47 PM  
Something_else

That is very true, and if you look at a graph - in late 2001 there is a another sharp drop, with limited recovery.

Even with an economic genious in the with house 9-11-2001 would have had a short-term deliterious effect on the market, HOWEVER it would not have any long-term deliterious effects so it cannot be used as an excuse (Which i know you're not doing so)
 
2004-06-25 04:04:51 PM  
Kazan
See that small downturn before 2000? that was the ".com bomb", see that large one after 2000? that's when Bush became president-elect

You gotta hook me up with your dealer, braugh. Whatever he's giving you is apparently way better than what I get.

Now why don't you show the part of the graph that shows the 3 years of economic hemmoraging we as a nation went through in exchange for a $300 carrot?
 
2004-06-25 04:05:28 PM  
Kazan

FROM THE SAME SNOPES ARTICLE...

Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
 
2004-06-25 04:08:06 PM  
If we're going through a drop in growth, does that actually mean we're going through a shrink?

Is our economy not manly enough? Are we no longer able to get it up? If we can't stiffen and harden the economy, will we no longer be able to adequately pleasure other aspects of our society?

/Just sayin'...
 
2004-06-25 04:08:12 PM  
Horg
workers are not reaping the benefits of the increases in their productivity - this is the first time in history that their productivity is not being matched with their pay

Thank you for clearly stating a point I've been trying to make. Well put.

hassenpfeffer

God, I love that movie.
/at the bottom of the pool
 
2004-06-25 04:09:36 PM  
NathanAllen
Soccer Moms paying $4 for milk and $2.25 for gas don't vote for the sitting President.

You are my new personal hero.
 
2004-06-25 04:12:08 PM  
koniver

p.s. Gore did not create the internet.

Newsflash! Gore never actually said that he did. That's a myth the Republicans were happy to stir into a frenzy. I know what you're thinking - "The Bush team and Karl Rove lie!?!? That's unpossible!"

(Hell, I bought it and a great deal more at the time. It was one of the many contributing factors to my migration to the left.)
 
2004-06-25 04:13:34 PM  
kazan

Even with an economic genious in the with house 9-11-2001 would have had a short-term deliterious effect...

First, *genius*, *white house*, and *deleterious*. (sorry, spelling and grammar nazi)

Second, it depends on what you define as short- and long-term. An attack of that magnitude had a large impact on the airline industry, the tourism industry, oil prices, etc. It affected so many sectors that, cumulatively, it affected the economy as a whole.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report