FARK.com: (733525) Crappy economy grew at rate of 8.2 percent in third quarter

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.

		Crappy economy grew at rate of 8.2 percent in third quarter (money.cnn.com)		612
		More: Cool

• • •

4579 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2003 at 12:25 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/733525

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

612 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

ReBurninator		2003-11-25 09:28:10 AM

My prediction for this thread:

Farker 1 - Did not!
Farker 2 - Did too!
Farker 1 - Did not!
Farker 2 - Did too!
Farker 1 - Bush is just like Hitler!
Farker 2 - No, Clinton is just like Hitler!

etc...

ignom		2003-11-25 09:34:44 AM

Did not.

Guy Incognito		2003-11-25 09:36:23 AM

presidents have very little effect on the economy, unless they're busy fattening the profits of defense contractors and oil and drug companies.

oops! sorry.

Guy Incognito		2003-11-25 09:37:04 AM

anyway, did too.

HappyDaddy		2003-11-25 09:37:19 AM

I'm really interested in seeing what the 4th Q does. My prediction = 6%.

Nabb1		2003-11-25 09:46:25 AM

Look at all the productivity. Good to see others have been picking up the slack while we've been sitting around on FARK all day.

TheConvincingSavant		2003-11-25 09:52:45 AM

2003-11-25 09:40:26 AM Wake_N_Bake

every hard-working employed american can pat themselves on the back for helping to pull our economy up by the bootstraps (as it were).

Pat, pat, pat.

Oops, you said back.

now we see all the clinton apologists who said 'clinton's economony ruled!' turn 180* with 'the president doesn't influence the economy that much...'

I've seen one so far, but I bet it doesn't stay that way.

Warming up Mr. Toasty.

TheConvincingSavant		2003-11-25 10:02:59 AM

KazamaSmokers		2003-11-25 10:22:20 AM

OOOH... eight percent!

Based on 5% deficit spending.

3horn		2003-11-25 10:24:07 AM

Wake_N_Bake
let me be the first to say that this growth is a real growth, not an artifically inflated .com bubble which was never real.

"The new estimate, based on more complete data, reflected stronger investment by business on new equipment and software, less severe cuts in companies' inventories and more brisk spending on residential projects. "

Would you care to revise that comment?

now we see all the clinton apologists who said 'clinton's economony ruled!' turn 180* with 'the president doesn't influence the economy that much...'

It's going to take more than 3 good quarters to make for 12 or so bad ones.

3Horn

Unfreakable		2003-11-25 10:26:07 AM

I am now ready for this thread.

3horn		2003-11-25 10:36:17 AM

Wake_N_Bake
No. The markets were artifically inflated during the .com bubble. Part of the reason the economy is up is because businesses are spending money now. See?

But IT spending is cyclical, you buy your machines and software, and then hold on to them for a few years. It's not a continued spending.

3Horn

rrtt22		2003-11-25 10:40:03 AM

It has always been true that Presidents have very little control over the economy. About the only they can do is get a tax cut passed. Bush got two through. Yea

doccm9		2003-11-25 10:50:20 AM

Too bad that money went to the upper 10% leaving the rest of farked.

TheConvincingSavant		2003-11-25 10:51:57 AM

Hey, I got twininized!

Quick1		2003-11-25 10:54:35 AM

I blame Clinton.

hansomdevil		2003-11-25 11:08:18 AM

All that money was spent on cost cutting technology; which is ironic I guess. I'd be ecstatic if this was real growth, but it isn't. We as a country still aren't making jack squat. We're evolving into a nation of service industries. Our industrial infrastructure is still stuck in the 40's. This is HUGE growth if its real sustainable where are all the jobs?

JangoFett		2003-11-25 11:10:40 AM

Damned economy! Why won't you just slow down? You're making all of the news reporters look stupid.

NyQuiLlama		2003-11-25 11:26:43 AM

Thank you President Bush.

Jabber		2003-11-25 11:33:12 AM

Well, when you hit rock-bottom there is no way to go but up.

impaler		2003-11-25 11:40:52 AM

I you want to show how party X is good with economies, and party Y sucks:

If the economy is good during Y's term, it's because of the lagged effects from the last X administration.
Also one could argue that economies are cyclical, and this is a natural upturn in the economy, and it would be a lot better if Y's policies weren't hendering it.

If the economy is bad during X's term, it's because of the lagged effects from the last Y administration.
Also one could argue that economies are cyclical, and this is a natural downturn in the economy, and it would be a lot worse if X's policies weren't helping it.

If the economy is bad during Y's term, it is completely because of Y's policies.
If the economy is good during X's term, it is completely because of X's policies.

EatHam		2003-11-25 11:42:08 AM

impaler

Here's how I do it:

If the economy is good, it's "our" policies.
If it's bad, it's "their" policies.

Have You Met Miss Jones		2003-11-25 11:43:58 AM

I think we all know that President McKinley is who to thank for this growth, right boys and girls?

jsfrancis		2003-11-25 11:58:25 AM

I'd hit it

Auckum		2003-11-25 12:03:49 PM

Well, when you hit rock-bottom there is no way to go but up.

We were no where near rock bottom. This was probably the shortest recession in history caused simply by the .com bubble bursting.

And to all of jackasses who think the President has anything to do with economic policy (other than this crappy ass prolonged deficit spending thats probably being used to kill social security) obviously hav never heard of Alan Greenspan, the sole reason that we have had the economic successes that we have had since the mid-1980s. It wasn't Reagan, nor Bush Sr., nor Clinton, nor W. it was Greenspan.

Auckum		2003-11-25 12:10:16 PM

Cyclical is the perfect word to use to describe the last recession. We had a growing economy every farking quarter from mid 1992 to mid 2000. Thats 8 years of continuous growth. Unfortunately it had to end sometime, and when it did everyone started screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and Oh my God the economy sucks." Guess what, no matter who was president we would have had a recession in 2001. Not because of Clinton, but because the economy was cycling (although its wasn't bicycling or menstrating).

dbaggins		2003-11-25 12:29:13 PM

every hard-working employed american can pat themselves on the back

yeah! all you lousy unemployed people were just holding us back ! go wander off somewhere and die already so us productive amercians can live our shiny new future.

Kuta		2003-11-25 12:29:42 PM

God Money
Let's go dancin' on the backs of the bruised
God Money's not one to choose.

HumbleGod		2003-11-25 12:29:45 PM

How fortunate for the economy that Americans had more time to go out and buy stuff on credit. I mean, it's not like they had jobs to go to or anything.

St.Alfonzo		2003-11-25 12:30:44 PM

Of course most of that growth was in the booming "repossessions and forclosures" sector...

Githerax		2003-11-25 12:31:09 PM

Good news! Now there's no justification to withhold raises. I'll start spending the bonus I know I'll be getting this year.

After the obvious sarcasm, let me point out that "growth" numbers don't mean poop. Read 1984 to understand the difference between reported numbers and reality.

mattyc		2003-11-25 12:31:12 PM

did not

dbaggins		2003-11-25 12:31:16 PM

I, for one, welcome our new home refinancing overlords.

CrazyCurt		2003-11-25 12:31:18 PM

God I hate humans.

The_Enabler		2003-11-25 12:31:19 PM

Precisely the reason the Dems have turned all their criticisum towards Iraq...they no longer can blame Bush for the bad economy.

brap		2003-11-25 12:31:44 PM

Yippee! Now I can buy more cool stuff as we race into the apocalypse!

EyeballKid		2003-11-25 12:31:58 PM

In other news, a man who has been on unemployment for 2 months since his company outsourced him was thrilled for his former bosses who sold his job out to the lowest bidder has turned a bit more profit than earlier expected.

Man, it's like people who already have lots of money get even more money, and yet people with little money, who culd really use that extra money,will wind up having even LESS money. How does that happen each time a Republican holds the presidency?

OH! OH! OH! Lemme guess: Liberal media bias?

LawTalkingGuy		2003-11-25 12:32:27 PM

Miss_Jones Pfffftt... McKinley totally rode the coattails of Chester A. Arthur.

dbaggins		2003-11-25 12:32:31 PM

they no longer can blame Bush for the bad economy

I don't think I ever heard any democratic candidates blame Bush for the bad economy.

Can you get me a reference ?

Satan'sLittleHelper		2003-11-25 12:32:34 PM

Employment is still way too high...Also this growth benefited the upper class primarily. There are many people still reeling from layoffs that happened and are busy working menial jobs who saw no benefit from this growth. Of course Bush will say that everything is O.K. now...but he will find out the truth come election day! Overall we are still much worse that we were three years ago.

Sarquad		2003-11-25 12:33:03 PM

If this is true then why am I being laid off?

farking bullshiat statistis have very little bearing on reality.

billeguerriero		2003-11-25 12:33:09 PM

good news...keep it comin'

LarsThorwald		2003-11-25 12:34:02 PM

Consumer confidence has hit a 14 month high...

I, for one, welcome my new high-definition plasma TV overlords.

/eyes up Best Buy ads

jdave34		2003-11-25 12:34:18 PM

Thanks to Clinton for creating the environment that is now pushing the economy to new heights!

billeguerriero		2003-11-25 12:34:22 PM

"they no longer can blame Bush for the bad economy"

well we ain't out of the woods yet, unemployment is still 6%, but this is good news for everybody.

ZAZ		2003-11-25 12:34:25 PM

Bush-Ashcroft 2004. You know it's coming.

pchristle		2003-11-25 12:34:27 PM

Just think of how much more spending there would be if there was 250,000 males between the ages of 18-30 here to spend their moeny!!! (our boys in Iraq)
/Obvious

Satan'sLittleHelper		2003-11-25 12:34:31 PM

2003-11-25 12:31:58 PM EyeballKid

In other news, a man who has been on unemployment for 2 months since his company outsourced him was thrilled for his former bosses who sold his job out to the lowest bidder has turned a bit more profit than earlier expected.

Man, it's like people who already have lots of money get even more money, and yet people with little money, who culd really use that extra money,will wind up having even LESS money. How does that happen each time a Republican holds the presidency?

OH! OH! OH! Lemme guess: Liberal media bias?

My point exactly....but more eloquent. Good post!

Guy Incognito		2003-11-25 12:34:34 PM

well, i moved, and took the opportunity to buy a whole bunch of new crap, so i think that 1% is me. apologies.

FifthColumn		2003-11-25 12:34:36 PM

Great. With the economy growing so much the 7.5% of Michigan should have no problems finding work finally. Wal-Mart is always hiring, but I'd feel bad if I worked there; I would be taking away jobs veterans need because Bush cut benefits again.

Displayed 50 of 612 comments