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 (10 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 12:58:55 PM  
It does not matter if you like or hate that seal, but I think we can all agree on one thing: that is one ugly-ass baby.
 
2003-11-25 12:59:17 PM  
 
2003-11-25 12:59:34 PM  
I for one welcome our new overlords!
 
2003-11-25 12:59:46 PM  
his shows how disgusting democrats really are. They actually WANT the economy to suffer just so that they can rub it into Bush's face.

Republicans thrive when society is expanding and doing well, and when people are happy and content.

Democrats thrive when society is collapsing and doing poorly, and people are discontented and struggling financially.

Would you rather be well off, or suffering?
 
2003-11-25 12:59:55 PM  
2003-11-25 12:53:05 PM TunaRevenge
I would take this news with a grain of salt. It's not clear how much of this is due to war spending.


Actually, we do know, and it's not significant. Most of the growth was driven by consumer spending (as always) and business investment.
 
2003-11-25 12:59:56 PM  
Satan'sLittleHelper: Love you too, babe.

Moron? Erm.... That was Dave 76tx's supposition. (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).)

I was ragging on HIM.

Please, flame on, but do it with both eyes open.
 
2003-11-25 01:00:27 PM  
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.

Allow me to retort.

The huge amount of growth seen in the IT sector was real. This is the behavior you see any time you see a brand new, innovative technology hit the market. People rush in to reap the profits, and it takes a little while before the demand starts to drop off. By that point, the supply side of the house is saturated, and only the best/most efficient companies will survive.

The IT boom of the 90s was nothing new, and I'm sure we'll see stuff just like it in the future.
 
2003-11-25 01:00:50 PM  
I don't know about you, but I never get tired of that Crybaby Democrat image.
 
2003-11-25 01:01:24 PM  
Am I the only one who misses the old-school Republicans, whose big issue was state's rights? Remember those guys? The ones who respected the constitution and the right to free speech? 'Cause all things considered, they weren't that bad compared to the present Republican party, whose only goal seems to be farkING OVER AMERICA FOR THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS. Come back, Ike! We miss you!
 
2003-11-25 01:02:12 PM  
ArmadilloTamer

It's always easier to sell yourself on your own beliefs when you characterize your opponent as sub-human, isn't it?
 
2003-11-25 01:02:36 PM  
I'll repost this quote. Because, you see, it makes sense.


"Hey, I've got a great idea-- let's take something really complex and slow-moving, like the economy, and then pounce on extremely short periods of time to get our data from! And we'll only look at a few aspects of the whole! Then we can extrapolate and stuff! It'll be fun."
 
2003-11-25 01:03:30 PM  
Most of the articles I've read have said that production is up but no one's hiring (still).

In other words, we're collectively going into debt and business owners are making money (both from tax cuts and from increased productivity) but jobs are no less scarce and the ones you can get are asking you do to 50 hours a week now instead of 45.

Call me when the job market gets better. Until then, this is an economic recovery for rich guys only.
 
2003-11-25 01:03:42 PM  
ArmadilloTamer
Republicans thrive when society is expanding and doing well, and when people are happy and content.

Republicans have done somewhat well over the past few years while the US was in a recession, fought two wars and and suffered its worst terrorist attack in history.

Democrats thrive when society is collapsing and doing poorly, and people are discontented and struggling financially.

The democrats did very well about 6 years ago when we had limited military engagements, and unemployment was at record lows. Or am I missing something?
 
2003-11-25 01:03:42 PM  
My mind will be looking at first quarter 2004.

The post Christmas quarter usually tells the tale for the years employment.

I honestly didn't expcet business spending to increase this year. Where are they getting the money ? domestic sales just haven't increased, who is buying this stuff ?
 
2003-11-25 01:03:47 PM  
Hey anyone good at economics out there? Could someone please explain how this 8.2% growth was arrived at? Is it a percentage difference partially based in the adjustment of the original number for the inventory cuts, or is it based on some fixed standard?

One key reason for the large revision in GDP: a re-evaluation of the rate of change in business inventories in the quarter. Originally, the government said businesses cut inventories by $35.8 billion in the quarter, but that figure was trimmed to $14.1 billion in the latest report.

And if this is so great(and it does seems good, but nothing to crow about, yet), then why this?
"The bottom line is that Wall Street will have to shave off some of its overly exuberant fourth-quarter real GDP estimates," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors.
Why would they have to lower expectations? Damn, these soundbite articles with no depth to them piss me off.

/a little help here
 
2003-11-25 01:04:10 PM  
HA! with the economy improving, the Democrats won't be able to use that as an issue! They'll be left with: foreign policy, education, the environment, judicial activism, corporate scandels, War on Terror, and free trade.

Who votes on the issues anyway? /sarcasm
 
2003-11-25 01:04:47 PM  
2003-11-25 12:59:46 PM ArmadilloTamer
his shows how disgusting democrats really are. They actually WANT the economy to suffer just so that they can rub it into Bush's face... Democrats thrive when society is collapsing and doing poorly, and people are discontented and struggling financially.

UH OH!!! He's found our secret plan!! Damn you, ArmadilloTamer!! First they discovered the Homosexual Agenda, and now the Secret Democratic Plan to Dismantle the Economy and Make Sure That Everyone Is Unhappy.

If it wasn't for you damn kids, I would've gotten away with it, too!
 
2003-11-25 01:05:06 PM  
Before discussing money and the economy, it is necessary to attain a little understanding:

Neither the President nor the Congress bears ANY responsibility for financial policy; that is set by the Federal Reserve, a private consortium founded in 1913. They control the supply of money, and they are the ones who manipulate the economy for their own profit, at the expense of the people at large. In times of prosperity they cause recession, and in time of peace they start wars.

Prior to the Fed, this country enjoyed 137 years of peace, marred only by a 2-year war with Mexico and a 6-week war with pain. The Civil War, while a terrible bloodletting, was an internal revolt, not an international war.

In the 90 years since then, we have had two big wars and three small ones, we have had 46 years of cold war, 50 years of guard duty in Korea, and tens of thousands of soldiers stationed all over the globe. These conflicts persist to this very day.

We have also had recessions, inflation, depression, boom and bust--a constant economic roller-coaster; it enriches the elite at the expense of the common people.

If you want to read the best book about money ever written, get a copy of "Creature From Jekyll Island", by D. Edward Griffiths (American Opinion Press, 1994). This guy takes the dry subject of banking, and makes it read like a spy thriller: he unveils all the plots, and tells who got paid and who got killed, the whole nine yards.

The person who has not read this book cannot discuss money with the one who has; I cannot recommend it too highly.

It also opens your eyes in one other respect: the extreme right wing says almost the same things about the international financial cartel as the communists have been saying for decades; maybe there's not so much difference after all. . . . .
 
2003-11-25 01:05:29 PM  
2003-11-25 01:03:30 PM MrGumboPants
Call me when the job market gets better. Until then, this is an economic recovery for rich guys only.


Yeah, I suppose that's why consumer confidence is booming too.
 
2003-11-25 01:05:29 PM  
Osceola
Are you trying to say that ALL companies are on the same 3 year cycle? I think not.

as a matter of fact, thanks to the massive Y2K overhaul, they essentially are. The entire IT industry right now is being driven by renewed infrastructure spending to replace pre-Y2K installations.



BenJaxBchFL

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

Yup. They were paid in real money, that came from an investor, or actual sales of stock. While the stock value may have been inflated, the actual amount of money spent was real. It either came from people who bought the stock, or investors who offered loans to the companies based on perceived value.

It was actual money that got spent, not imaginary money. Unless you can show me how a rash of bankrupted venture capitalists can throw an economy into a recession, the point is still moot.


the (artificial) money was not in the market long enough to significantly impact employment rates, or infrastructure builds. there are anecdotal examples, but no 12-18 month surge and correction (especially one where none of the new entries into the market replaced older competitors) can take a functioning peacetime economy and throw it into a recession.

In simple terms: Red Hat didn't hire enough people and build enough buildings to cause the economy to fail.
 
2003-11-25 01:05:54 PM  
Max Reax

Am I the only one who misses the old-school Republicans, whose big issue was state's rights? Remember those guys? The ones who respected the constitution and the right to free speech?

Don't forget fiscal conservatism. You are far from being the only one, Max. It sucks to be a displaced Republican, but there's no way in hell I can or would identify with the neocon-artists that pass themselves off as Repubs these days.
 
2003-11-25 01:06:49 PM  
Get a "good" education. Get a "good" job. Make "good" money. Have a fruitful and productive life.

How pedestrian.

Why do we even have to "work" at all? For what? Perform some mundane task in order to receive our daily allotment of crumbs? Seems like an enormous waste of human potential to me.

And why do we have to work so hard? The whole '8 hrs/40 hrs per' are totally arbitrary numbers based upon nothing that some ruling class tard picked out of his arse a hundred years ago.

What happened to the great leisure society? We seem to be headed in reverse.
 
2003-11-25 01:06:53 PM  
Boy, I guess my economics professors were way off...

Here I've thought for years that deficit spending could get the economy out of a recession.
 
2003-11-25 01:07:12 PM  
Shenanigans!
 
2003-11-25 01:07:31 PM  
dbaggins: Can you get me a reference?

Try this, from CNN (first hit on Google):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats support President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation but believe he must do more to strengthen America's economy and its homeland security, said a Democratic governor...

Bush has dealt properly with Iraq and its "ruthless tyrant," Saddam Hussein, said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, who spoke Tuesday night after the president's annual speech, the second in his administration....

"As we rise to many challenges around the globe, let us never lose sight of who attacked our people at home," he said.

Locke also criticized the president's proposed 10 year, $670 billion economic stimulus plan, calling it "upside-down economics" that would create a $1 trillion deficit over the next decade..."


Care for more?
 
2003-11-25 01:07:46 PM  
Well, Satan'sLittleHelper?

I'm waiting for an apology.

I'll take it on the chin for anything I say. I refuse to accept being called a moron for something I didn't say.

*taps foot impatiently
 
2003-11-25 01:07:54 PM  
billeguierroe:

biggest deficit ever... but not biggest deficit as a percentage of tax revenue. It's actually well within the norms for the last 20 years.

saying just 'it's bigger' is like saying 'more people died today than yesterday'... gee, maybe that's just because there's more people total, eh?
 
2003-11-25 01:09:21 PM  
 
2003-11-25 01:09:43 PM  
I would like to remind everyone that they should quickly celebrate this economic victory by visiting the nearest bar of your choice this evening and drinking several name-brand, top-shelf liquors tonight. Oh, and tip your bartender at least 20%.

Example drink to impress your bartender:

Darth Coffee
(serve in Irish Coffee glass)
1 oz Kahlua
1/2 oz Frangelico
2/3 cup coffee
Top with whipped cream.

Hooray!
 
2003-11-25 01:10:07 PM  
BIGTUNA:

I just realized that I pretty much repeated a previous post of yours while I was wasting time writing out a more verbose retelling of your post (the one about trickle-down/supply-side economics not being able to repay the debts they incur).

I also notice that no one has a response to either of our posts.
 
2003-11-25 01:10:27 PM  
I, for one, welcome our new did-too overlords.
 
2003-11-25 01:10:32 PM  
Dozhdbog
It's a trade off. Some people were expecting fourth quarter growth to be driven by businesses' need to rebuild low inventories. However, if the inventories weren't as low as originally predicted, then Q4 might not be as strong as predicted.

It's not exactly bad news. It just means that some growth that was expected to happen in the future actually took place in Q3. It would only be bad news if Q4 growth was so drastically different that it stunted the recovery, but it doesn't appear to be that drastic. Basically it means that instead of, say, 4.5% growth in the fourth quarter it might only be 4%. Still pretty good, but not as strong as original predictions.
 
2003-11-25 01:10:56 PM  
Philistine

I do believe there's a difference between attacking a stimulus package that could actually lose money, and actually blaming him for the economy.

more please.
 
2003-11-25 01:11:05 PM  
New Democrat slogan...

It's the Foreign Policy, stupid.
 
2003-11-25 01:11:25 PM  

the bottom line is that Wall Street will have to shave off some of its overly exuberant fourth-quarter real GDP estimates,"


It all adds up to, manufactuing has been humming and growing in preparation fora big buying season of Christmas. Oringially Wall Street had thought they had been selling this merchandise, but it turns out a lot more of it was ending up stored in warehouses waiting for seasonal demand to kick in.

..So

some of the growth number we are seeing reflects manufacturing gettign a larger lead time on selling, thus , unless we REALLY go nuts with Christmas shopping, manufacturing will have a pretty slow 4th quarter.

thus, some of the 8.2% growth is actually borrowed growth from our 4th quarter.
 
2003-11-25 01:11:31 PM  
Hi, you can actually thank me. I just dropped loot on the new Macromedia MX studio 2004 and Poser 5.

Anytime, guys.
 
2003-11-25 01:11:39 PM  
So giving billions of dollars to private companies over in Iraq for reconstruction doesn't count? Oh it does? nevermind...
 
2003-11-25 01:11:57 PM  
"Yeah, I suppose that's why consumer confidence is booming too."

Listen, I'm not hoping that things go badly. Consumer Confidence is just one metric among many. Every single economist out there (on the left or the right) has said that if you cut taxes as severely as they've been cut, you would minimally expect to see a short term boost like this. If you didn't, we'd all be in huge trouble.

So, fine! I'm glad things have picked up. But whether or not it was good policy is another question entirely.

All I'm saying is, the citizens who are currently seeing an improvement in their financial standings are those who are already quite rich.

That's better than nothing, I suppose. But it's stupid to expect me to cheer until I have a little leverage with the people who employ me. I'm out for me and people who are in my socio-economic class, not the luxury-jet class. They can take care of themselves.
 
2003-11-25 01:12:46 PM  
pcvzeno: apparently it can't be said enough. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
 
2003-11-25 01:13:18 PM  
The economy will be a non-issue by next November. The libs had better come up with something better to rally behind by then. It won't be Iraq either...

Better hope Bush gets a BJ or something...
 
2003-11-25 01:13:31 PM  
A parable for those who believe statistics without having any idea of whats behind the numbers:
Once there was a boy who had two quarters. He was a happy boy, because he had 50 cents. Skipping down the street one day, he dropped one quarter in the storm drain. He was very upset, because he's just experienced a 50% drop in net worth. Nobody likes that very much. He went home crying, to tell his mother he'd lost his quarter. His mother, taking pity on him, found two dimes and gave them to the boy. This made him feel a little better, but he was still short a nickel. His mother explained that he wasn't short a nickle, he'd just experienced an 80% increase in his net worth. After only having lost 50%, he'd now gained 80%. Imagine how happy he was.

The moral of the story is, 8% more than nothing is still nothing.
 
2003-11-25 01:13:42 PM  
as for jobs, we've seen some ok but not stellar numbers in that area. not even the 1970s was one giant recession.

i don't think trickle down works anymore -- back in the 1960s and even the early 1980s there was some reasonable assumption that tax cuts given to the wealthy would either be saved (providing investment capital for others) or directly invested. but the thing was it stayed in the usa.

today corporate investment all too often means "invested in china" or wherever it will make the greatest return.

i am not too worried about deficits. think herbert hoover in 1932. he too was a deficit hawk. the federal debt load as a percentage of gdp is lower today than it was in 1960.

if we ditch the free trade dogma, we might be able to come out of this and return to a producing, as opposed to merely consuming, nation. the problem with free trade is that capital is very mobile. a few keystrokes, a few filled out forms, and your $1bb invested here can be $1bb invested in china.

and spare me the drivel about consumers. consumers can't consume too much if they're getting $7 an hour at wal-mart. out-of-work consumers can't consume too much.

name me a single nation that has led itself to prosperity to free trade.
 
2003-11-25 01:13:55 PM  
Sa, Satan'sLittleHelper is just a troll, huh?
 
2003-11-25 01:14:14 PM  
"Better hope Bush gets a BJ or something..."

Or that soldiers are being dragged through the streets of Iraq... but I'm sure a BJ is much worse.
 
2003-11-25 01:15:42 PM  
Philistine

yes, I need more, I need a reference that says Bush is being bad for the economy. Everything in that DNC news relesae is still true. we are going to have to deal with the debt, which will require a lot more growth than a borrow+spend federal government can stimulate.

Or do you think we are NOT going to end up with that predicted deficit ? that predicted deficit DOES assume economic growth. The point is, the price is too high.
 
2003-11-25 01:16:21 PM  
MrGumboPants
 
I couldn't agree more.  No one really has a problem with the economy getting better.  It's just that the policies that made it better in the short-run are going to hurt it in the long.
 
IMHO, at least.  I'm young, so our growing debt scares the carp out of me.
 
But then again, I'm a farking liberal, so what do I know.
 
2003-11-25 01:17:50 PM  
ctenidae
Now that you seem to understand statistics, may I recommend you learn some economics. Real output in Q2 was the highest real output ever for this country. And before that Q1 was. So, how does your cute little parable relate when growth isn't growth from nothing.

The moral of the story is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2003-11-25 01:18:15 PM  
The tax cuts gave me more "kept income" to allow me to buy my first place, rather than rent. Not a lot more - but just enough to help me cross that affordability line.

Since then, I've been buying loads of goods and services from a myriad of industries to upgrade my home and fill it with products.

So in my personal world, the President/Congress has positively affected my economy and the economies of those who are now beneffiting from my spending. I'll also give props to the Democrats who also voted for the cuts. This need not be a Bush flame topic. If a Democratic-led govt. lets me keep more of my money, I'd be happy with them as well (on this subject).
 
2003-11-25 01:19:34 PM  
New Republican Slogan

Bend over. Bite the pillow.
 
2003-11-25 01:20:09 PM  
These measurements of the economy are bullshiat and have nothing to do with how the majority of people are doing financially.

Don't worry though, soon everyone will be gainfully employed at WalMart.
 
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