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.

(CNN)   Crappy economy grew at rate of 8.2 percent in third quarter   (money.cnn.com) divider line 613
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

4585 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2003 at 12:25 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



613 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-11-25 12:44:32 PM  
muhpet I can't speak for MN, but here in CA building is booming! In my city (pop. ~ 100,000) we have issued over 3,100 building permits YTD with a median homeprice of over 1/4 million...

and the banks/mortgage co.'s can barely keep up with the re-fi's...
 
2003-11-25 12:45:12 PM  
I submitted this article as well with a differnt headline-

Supposedly the economy is growing faster than it has in decades. Guess you can tell that to all the unemployed people at the intersections when they beg for money

Wah
 
2003-11-25 12:45:18 PM  
Jesus christ, some of you are thanking Bush for this? You do know we're doing better because we're running a half-trillion dollar deficit, right? I guess the resulting improved economy will erase these deficits like it did in the 80's... oh wait. Damn.
 
2003-11-25 12:45:27 PM  
Anyway, almost everyone out of the 30 of us has found a new job within 2 months that pays equally as much or more. This includes our divisions in California, Atlanta, and the Baltimore/Washington area.

So based on your anecdotal evidence, should we assume that the millions who still don't have jobs are simply too lazy to find them?
 
2003-11-25 12:45:33 PM  
No way, Aberdeen rules!
 
2003-11-25 12:45:36 PM  
too bad my wages won't go up 8.2 percent in the next 8 quarters.
 
2003-11-25 12:46:02 PM  
I'm going out on a limb and saying that Taft is who should get the credit here.

Go Taft!!
 
2003-11-25 12:46:53 PM  
Nothing like pillaging countries wealthy in resources to boost the economy. Woot. How's the unemployment again?
 
2003-11-25 12:46:54 PM  
A man who hadn't eaten in 4 months ate twice as much food as he normally would. Does that mean he will continue to eat twice as much from now on?

No. He was starving.
 
2003-11-25 12:47:16 PM  
Um. So, like, all the RICH fark.s that own businesses and sit on corporate boards watched their billions in stock options grow by 8.6 percent.

Meanwhile, the few, utterly exhausted fark.ers who they didn't lay off to save on health insurance, relax after their 10th 14-hour day in a row and see that they will be getting a 1.8% "cost-of-living" increase, sorry it couldn't be up to at least INFLATION LEVEL, but we're too poor right now.

And what little money they did save grows by a "generous" 0.4% in the bank (while the bank lends it out at 35% or more). Meanwhile, if you tried to do better by investing in something, you find out that your broker and the CFO of the company you invested in are gay lovers, and ran off to New Zealand with $87 Billion that didn't exist, and you now have NO savings . . .

Nobody watches the watchers anymore. They will drain us dry until we go absolutely crazy with rage, pick up weapons and kill them all. Then it will begin all over again. Why don't we ever learn?
 
2003-11-25 12:47:19 PM  
Welp, since Republicans have not held back blaming Clinton for the economic issues of the last 3 years I think those same 'pubs will now be ready to give credit where it's due-Bill Clinton!! Ahhhh what's that? You say it's only Clinton's fault if the econcomy is going badly but Bush gets to take credit if it's going well? Ahhhhhh... gothca! Thanks for clearing that up, asshats. How bout whoever is in charge at the time has to take responsibility for what's going on? I am sure Republicans will jump at that line of reasoning.... unless the economy goes south again, right boys? Did I say asshats yet?
 
2003-11-25 12:47:20 PM  
As for the "upper class benifit", who do you think is more like to invest the money in America? Give $$ to the upper class, they will invest (longer term effect).

Ah, the rebirth of trickle-down economics. That worked so well in the past, right?

And it's "benefit." Seriously, people, spelling counts.
 
2003-11-25 12:47:42 PM  
Bung_Howdy:

Try begging outside gas stations, I hear you get better results.
 
2003-11-25 12:47:43 PM  
billieguerriero,

Why do you say that tax breaks need to be paid back or we break our kids' back with the defiict? Isn't spending half the equation? And if it is, alternatively, why is overspending not going to break our kids' back?
 
2003-11-25 12:47:45 PM  
the GDP is a relic from the reagan years, an empty number that has little connotation to anything taking place in reality. voodoo economics, that's what good ol' bush sr. called it.

next time i hang out with one of my many unemployed friends, ill be sure to let them know that everything will be ok, since we're having domestic product growth! YEAH!

- and it really isn't the president's fault. bush is hardly to blame for this. a large variety of odd circumstances have led to this
 
2003-11-25 12:47:53 PM  
Dave 76tx: Give $$ to the upper class, they will invest (longer term effect). Give it to middle and lower class, less investment and more consumption spending (short term effect).

Oh. Then, I guess I'll just sign my paycheck over to the corporation I work for. They'll do better things with it, right?
 
2003-11-25 12:48:20 PM  
In other good news, economic growth here is several times faster than in Europe, and unemployment is much lower. Take that, Jacques and Gerhard!

True, unemployment in Germany is about 10.1% and Canada is about 7.5% compared to ours at 6%. 5.5% is considerd full employment.

Isn't also weird that both those countries are countries with a huge entitlement system and massive taxes?

Hmmm. I guess Bush did study economics.
 
2003-11-25 12:48:32 PM  
3Horn,

True, IT spending IS cyclical. Are you trying to say that ALL companies are on the same 3 year cycle? I think not.
 
2003-11-25 12:48:34 PM  
DeanMoriarty

whatever the perceived value of that investment was is moot to this argument, as growth is based on GDP, not perceived assets.


Have you ever heard of people being hired based on investment? people being paid on perceived future business? those people spending those wages?

Pull out your economics book and refresh your memory. Bubbles can and do inflate GDP's due to investment being incresed on a false perception of the future.
 
2003-11-25 12:48:44 PM  
"Why do you say that tax breaks need to be paid back or we break our kids' back with the defiict? Isn't spending half the equation? And if it is, alternatively, why is overspending not going to break our kids' back?"

have you checked out the deficit lately?...biggest.deficit.ever
 
2003-11-25 12:48:56 PM  
My shiat didn't go up no 8%.
 
2003-11-25 12:49:31 PM  
This is the reverse of what happened a couple of weeks after bush took office. The media suddenly started telling all you cattle how terrible the economy was, it was a self fulfilling prophecy. Now they are doing it again just in time for the up coming elections.

ZAZ

I say if you lose any election to a dead guy then you should never be allowed to run for any office again.
 
2003-11-25 12:50:01 PM  
HumbleGod - You are making good arguments....but lay of being such a spelling nazi gay boy.
 
2003-11-25 12:50:08 PM  
Hey humblegod,

What did Bush do to make the economy poor? it was already on a downswing before he came into office. Obviously the war didn't help i'll give you that, but the economy was doing poor before that. Then he gives tax breaks and all the sudden the economy starts to do better. hmmmmmmmm so what where you saying again?
 
2003-11-25 12:50:19 PM  
I'm alittle confused. First, we were told that the President has no control over the economy (Clinton had nothing to do with the growth in the 90's). Then, we were told that the President does affect the economy, but it takes 10 years for us to see it (The 90's economy was becuase of Reagan's hard work). And now, we are being told that the current upswing is because of the current President's economic plan (passed 2 years ago).

What am I missing?
 
2003-11-25 12:50:21 PM  
If a baseball player is 0-for-4 and gets a hit, his batting average goes up 200 points (from .000 to .250), and stays the same if he gets out (.000).

If he's 3-for-4, his average goes up only 50 points if he gets a hit (from .750 to .800), and goes down 150 points if he gets out (from .750 to .600).

It's easier to grow by a larger percentage when you start out so low. I'd still rather be the second player than the first (which is where we are now).
 
2003-11-25 12:50:21 PM  
Don't think of it as a rut in employment rate. Think of it as a seemingly endless rally in the take-this-job-and-shove-it-ness rate.
 
2003-11-25 12:50:59 PM  
OK, peoople on the left can ease up on the "where's the jobs? " rhetoric, and people on the right can accept that and economic indicator rise is rarely an indication of the President's actions.

jobs lag growth, we know that already.

real growth is different from transient growth, it depends on what is driving the growth (dot.com bubble anyone ?)

so, what is driving the growth ? federal spending and tax cuts I think.
 
2003-11-25 12:51:05 PM  
 
2003-11-25 12:51:43 PM  
Being in college and hopefully graduating after next semester, I have been keeping an eye on job openings in my field.

In the last 2 months, I've seen more job opportunities than I saw in all of last year!

Plus, one of my buddies who graduated last winter (Mechanical Engineering), has said he may now have a job offer...
 
2003-11-25 12:51:44 PM  
I don't know if the article mentioned it but stock prices are still low right now and the economy seems to be heading up a little, so it might be a good time to pick up a few shares in a few solid long term growth stocks if you've been thinking about it. It might be Bush, it might have been Clinton, but overall it's just the business cycle playing out. Arguing over who made what happen in the economy is kind of silly, it's kind of like arguing about who made a solar eclipse happen.
 
2003-11-25 12:51:50 PM  
This thread has set a record for bad analogies. Jesus.

(Not aimed at anyone in particular.)
 
Zed
2003-11-25 12:52:01 PM  
"So based on your anecdotal evidence, should we assume that the millions who still don't have jobs are simply too lazy to find them?"

Either too lazy or they shouldn't be in the field they are in now. Which is probably why they lost their jobs in the first place. The majority of the cuts was to trim the fat.
 
2003-11-25 12:52:05 PM  
HumbleGod
Ah, the rebirth of trickle-down economics. That worked so well in the past, right?


Yes it does. The last two times (not counting now) that taxes were cut dramatically it worked. Once with Kennedy, and once with Reagan. Both times money into the government increased dramatically.
 
2003-11-25 12:52:20 PM  
2003-11-25 12:35:20 PM clickman
What the fark? It's a "second study". I don't get it. Did somebody screw up the math the first time? It's not like there's guesswork involved, it already happened...


OMG!!!1111 A "second study"! That's crazy! I mean, they only do this every quarter becuase the preliminary number is based partially on numbers that have to be estimated. And, get this, in a few months there's going to be another number that may or may not be different just like every other quarter!
 
2003-11-25 12:52:24 PM  
The economy is up because idiots are still spending on credit, increasing their debt load trying to maintain a standard of living they had 3 years ago when they were making 50% more money than they are now. Eventually, many will collapse under this debt load because their wages are not increasing.

Like most (employed) people, I'm working for much less money than before, and being made to do much more work. Productivity gains just mean less people doing the work or more people. Business people say it's due to increased efficiency, which sometimes it is, but in this case it's due to people being overworked and taking it because they're afraid of losing their jobs. I know I would have a very difficult time finding a new job if I lost this one, and most people working now are facing the same reality.

Until jobs grow significantly, this is an artificial recovery, or as the media called it the last time the economy grew, a "jobless recovery". Jobless recoveries are by nature un-sustainable, because people are spending on credit, banking on increased wages that never materialize. Hopefully jobs will be created this time unlike last time, but it's too early to count on that just yet.
 
2003-11-25 12:53:03 PM  
billieguerriero,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. My point being that some people seem to say tax cuts will harm us and we need to find a way to pay for them and yet almost no one really wants to even SLOW the growth of spending.
 
2003-11-25 12:53:05 PM  
I would take this news with a grain of salt. It's not clear how much of this is due to war spending. Also, personal bankruptcies are currently running a record pace. Plus there has been no significant change in unemployment.

While the news is encouraging, it's still premature to declare a recovery yet.
 
2003-11-25 12:53:13 PM  
heck, the wildfires in California significantly increased the state GDP.
 
2003-11-25 12:53:45 PM  
TCS:

Never let a reasoned, well thought-out, intelligent posting make it to the board, when a stupid, overused, lame, image will do.

You never fail to meet my expectations.
 
2003-11-25 12:53:54 PM  
I hope the economy tanks and our soldiers continue to get attacked.

/liberal
 
2003-11-25 12:55:12 PM  
Laughing Budda -
Give $$ to the upper class, they will invest (longer term effect). Give it to middle and lower class, less investment and more consumption spending (short term effect).


We need a short term effect when the economy is not doing well to get it jumpstarted. Increased consumer spending you moron!! what is the use of long term investing when you are dying right now.
 
2003-11-25 12:56:17 PM  
GUYS!! Everyone SHUT UP!!! ConvincingSavant has OWN3D the Democratic Party with his new, totally original cartoon depicting a crying baby as the "Official Seal"!!!! WOW!!! I was so wrong about that whole "being a liberal" thing. Jeez, I feel stupid now. Democrats are whiners! Like that filibuster to block those court nominations where they brought in cots and recited Hamelt!!!

Oh... wait... this is awkward...
 
2003-11-25 12:56:30 PM  
Osceola

Actually, the Y2K scare put most companies on the same 3-year cycle, because the vast majority of large companies updated all of their IT hardware right before 2000. This made the already cyclical nature of IT even more extreme, which contributed to the depth of the IT crash in 2001.
 
2003-11-25 12:56:32 PM  
jdave34

I thought that would get you riled up.

You never fail to meet my expectations.
 
2003-11-25 12:57:46 PM  
If you think this flame war is hot now, just wait until they release the 4th quarter numbers.

last Christmas season was the pits, no presents, no travel.

This year everyone is spending again.

although personal debt has once again broken new records and personal bankruptcies are at an all time high. Plue the still hot refinancing market.
 
2003-11-25 12:57:52 PM  
This is all well and good, but tell me, Bush apologists, how are we going to pay off this massive debt that we have now? Will we be floating in money when the economy picks back up? Is that how Reagan did it? Then why did he leave us with a FOUR TRILLION dollar debt???

Look, you've got to pay the piper sooner or later, and Bush is just making sure that it's later. I can't believe that there are still people out there defending supply-side economics!!! Thank you W! Your tax cuts have assured that taxes will be ASTRONIMCAL when I hit my fifties.

And to think, not too long ago Republicans were pushing for a balanced budget amendment (I think that they're rationale was that you can't trust Democrats with the economy).
 
2003-11-25 12:58:19 PM  
So based on your anecdotal evidence, should we assume that the millions who still don't have jobs are simply too lazy to find them?


I acknowledged that it was anecdotal response to an anecdotal question. YMMV.
 
2003-11-25 12:58:26 PM  
Where are the JOBS?
 
2003-11-25 12:58:46 PM  
JFK = first supply-side economist
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report