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

danlbrau		2003-11-25 01:21:30 PM

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

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

Too bad that money went to the upper 10% leaving the rest of farked.
The funny thing about this line of "reasoning", is that the liberals have pretty much eliminated taxation on the bottom 50% of Americans, making tax cuts by necessity benefiting the top 50% (and given the progressive nature of the tax code primarily the top 5%.

I'm not in the top 5% but I'm not envious of those that are, unlike the class warriors on this board. I think those that produce should be able to keep a few dollars more of their own money. It's not for politicians to buy votes with anyway.

Gesthemane		2003-11-25 01:21:46 PM

Anyone out there in the real estate or home mortgage business? Is the market really doing this well for you?
just curious

I have a whole family of inlaws that are realtors. They say it sucks. This is mostly South East. Many properties for sale, and no buyers. Or, at the very least, no buyers that can qualify.

TheConvincingSavant		2003-11-25 01:22:15 PM

DrToast

*delete post*

You stole my thunder.

Isuldirs		2003-11-25 01:24:07 PM

I hate it when people pull the "rich get richer and poor get poorer" card. You know why that is FOR THE MOST PART. Cause poor people refuse to work or work hard and EXPECT shiat from rich people who work and WORK HARD. GET OFF YOUR ASS and do what needs to be done, and stop looking for handouts!

GOODDAMN HIPPIES!

azpenguin		2003-11-25 01:24:08 PM

Still no word on how far this growth has gone to catch us up from there we were before. In other words - are we out of the hole yet, or are we still crawling out? That will be the most important question, especially when things level off.

Big_Bad_Dad		2003-11-25 01:24:17 PM

Face it Bush could walk on water and the liberal farkers and the wussy media would declare " See Bush can't swim"

Korovyov		2003-11-25 01:24:23 PM

stpickrell --
Protectionism also hurts the consuming classes by removing the threat of price competition and permitting excessive inefficiency to continue.
Steel tarriffs, for instance, hurt every domestic industry which uses steel and that would prefer to get it from superior suppliers and lower prices.

elendilmir		2003-11-25 01:24:24 PM

What's better, the Dow is creeping up towards 10,000 again. Am I the only one to notice?

And just to set you primitive screwheads straight. The economy is a big 'ol thang, and she changes slowly. Part of the job of being the guy at the top is to be the poor sap who takes credit for it, or the blame for it when it happens. If meaningful progress is to be made, it will be us, American Workers, who will do it. It's high time we took some responsibility for ourselves and got to work. Gubment ain't gonna do it.

Oh yeah. I'm glad things are coming around. Hope it continues.

danlbrau		2003-11-25 01:24:49 PM

Real estate in California booming, lots of new construction and existing homes soaring in both number of transactions and price. But of course its been that way since at least 1998. The only area where it is tough is Silicon Valley, where people aren't using their freshly minted dot com money to pay $2 million for a 800 sq. ft. bungalow any more.

BrotherMaynard		2003-11-25 01:24:50 PM

olddinosaur

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.

It's not private in the usual sense. The Reserve is controled by 7 Governors who are all appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. All the actions the Governors take can be overriden by the House and Senate at anytime.

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.

So.. The US Federal Reserve made Germany invade Poland? The Fed started Communism?

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.

We had the same cycle of recessions, inflation, and depression before the Fed was created. As a matter of fact, the creation of the Fed was created in response to the first great depression of 1893 as well a financial panic in 1907.

BenJaxBchFL		2003-11-25 01:25:39 PM

DeanMoriarty

I just do not follow your logic. So I will ask. Do you believe there was a dot.com bubble? Do you believe that bubbles create articial wealth? If the perceived growth is considered fast paced does leveraging take place in order to participate in a perceived wealth maker?

My point was that a bubble occurred. It had a positive effect on the frontside and a negative one on the backside. It was just one aspect of the decline in the economy. Most economists recognize that the slow down in the economy was due more to a leveling off in the creation and demand of new technology.

IamsosmartSMRT		2003-11-25 01:26:11 PM

This thread needs more funny picutres.

Dave_bsr		2003-11-25 01:26:23 PM

I think the point to all of this is that when the economy is good, nearly everyone said it was about Clinton. And when the economy went bad about the time he was getting out, the economy had nothing to do with clinton if you were a Dem, and perhaps something to do if you were GOP.

And now...here we are. the economy might be coming around, and now of course FARK says it has nothing to do with bush. Well the majority of fark. *sigh*. anyone want to discuss the new medicare bill?

stpickrell		2003-11-25 01:27:13 PM

practicalhippie

you're right. globalisation will fail because capital is mobile and labour is not, and this inevitably leads to a race to the bottom, which saps demand. of course it was kept alive by the it revolution which did change things and provide jobs (at least for a while) in the developed world. now even the it jobs are going bye-bye.

Demetrius		2003-11-25 01:27:17 PM

I think the tax cuts and huge deficit spending have spurred the economy, but I think in the long run it'll hurt us more than help us.

Instead of cutting the taxes, that money would have been far better spent aiding state and local governments, spurring jobs and helping to grow the economy far better than what we've already seen. Take a look at your state and town right now. Your local taxes going up? Mine went up far more than any tax cut will pay for. How's your town doing financially? How is your state doing financially? My town and state have seen layoffs, pay cuts, reductions in services and education while trying to pay for the "No child left behind act".

If you choose to blame Clinton for the poor economy now, then you need to blame Reagan for the mess that George HW was in during his presidency. Deficit spending in the long run hurts the economy, and we're racking up the hugest deficits of all time right now, and we'll be piling on the prescription drug benefit real soon. Who's going to pay for that? Your children. Your grandchildren. But you've got an extra $200 in your pocket right now, so everything is right with the world.

I used to be with the Republicans on being fiscally conservative and smaller government. Republicans were the ones, while hating Clinton, were trying to limit him with a balanced budget. He did it (at least in the eyes of the auditors that Congress appointed), but now the party in charge cries that it doesn't apply to them. Being fiscally conservative not happening anymore and we're on a pretty slippery slope right now. Instead, all our lawmakers, R & D, are trying to bring home whatever pork they can. You'll see a small recovery, but in the long run it's gonna get ugly.

Cygnis-x		2003-11-25 01:27:35 PM

Owner of my company is a rich dude.

with the tax cut, he got richer.

So now he is starting a new company so that he can get even rich-rich richer.

i guess that means new jobs. But no where in that does it mean a raise for me.

sigh.

NathanAllen		2003-11-25 01:29:55 PM

I've been waiting since the 80's for the "rising tide" to help out my little dingy, ohh wait nevermind it's been staved.

ESH		2003-11-25 01:30:19 PM

Isuldirs

Collecting interest on investments != working hard.

Sure wealthy people are so for a reason, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they all got there through hard work. They call it leisure class for a reason.

Many, many lower and lower middle class people work their ass off.

felixecho		2003-11-25 01:30:23 PM

Tis the season! And we cant afford a turkey or any of the rest of it for thanksgiving!
Deck the halls!

ghare		2003-11-25 01:30:48 PM

This is like taking out a $10,000 cash advance on your credit cards and saying you made more money. But I don't care because my kids will take care of me.

Satan'sLittleHelper		2003-11-25 01:31:31 PM

Laughing Budda - My deepest apologies sir....I attributed a moronic comment by another Farker to you and I am deeply sorry for it.

And sorry for taking so long to get back...I went to lunch.

SixOfDLoC		2003-11-25 01:32:03 PM

This should be really amusing watching all the same idiots who claimed that the president "inherits his economy from the previous president" do a complete 180 and try to say Bush is responsible if it takes an upturn.

stpickrell		2003-11-25 01:32:03 PM

korovyov
Protectionism also hurts the consuming classes by removing the threat of price competition and permitting excessive inefficiency to continue.

the usa is a $10 trillion economy. the only way there could not be sufficient competition would be a cartel or a monopoly, both of which you dislike, right?

Steel tarriffs, for instance, hurt every domestic industry which uses steel and that would prefer to get it from superior suppliers and lower prices.

red herring.
(1) general motors, for example, spends more on health care than on steel.
(2) you also seem to think these wonderful people outside the usa are always always always going to be eager to provide us with steel.
(3) of course, if there is no domestic industry to compete with foreign industry, foreign providers would have us by the short hairs (see: opec).
(4) have you actually looked at steel prices lately? last i checked, they were down to pre-tariff levels.

greenpants		2003-11-25 01:34:12 PM

I for one, at least in my personal situation, am seeing real results of economic growth. 18 months ago, I was unemployed after the dot com bust, as were about 25 of my computer programmer buddies. Today, all of us are gainfully employed again, each at different companies in completely different industries (although still in techy type jobs). And for most of us, salaries are up from 2 years ago. True we may not be getting all those shiny stock options, but those never turned out to be worth the paper they were printed on anyway.

At least for me and a bunch of other people I know, I'm in less debt and making more money than 2 years ago. Go economy!

/flame me if you want

SnapDaddy		2003-11-25 01:34:15 PM

Yeah lets go back to trickle down economics cause it worked so well in the past.

Satan'sLittleHelper		2003-11-25 01:34:54 PM

dave76tx - You are the moron to which I was referring....

Laughing budda...Once again... I aam sorry about that.

ManCalledFoot		2003-11-25 01:35:09 PM

yes, I need more, I need a reference that says Bush is being bad for the economy.

Sheesh, what are you trying to prove here? Do you honestly think you are gonna convince people that the Democrat candidates don't blame Bush for this "bad economy"? OK, I'll waste time on you:

Let's see...first search...how about Howard Dean's website. First click. Here's some excerpts:

"The economic policies of the Bush Administration are misguided, unfair, and unsuccessful."

"They are policies that have created a legacy of debt for future generations."

"Since this Administration took office, nearlythree million Americans have seen their jobs disappear."

"Month after month, for nearly three years, manufacturers have fired more workers than they hired, and the world-class manufacturing sector that has been the heart of Americas strength continues to shrink."

"I believe we must take drastic actions to repair the damage that this President is inflicting on our economy."

"As Governor for more than 10 years, I guided the Vermont economy through two Bush recessions."

The real challenege should be finding an issue that the candidates DON'T blame Bush for.

Cat-Butt		2003-11-25 01:35:12 PM

All of the big corporations are making bigger profits because they're shipping all of their work overseas. The economy is booming, but nobody below management and their gardeners will see any of it.

But at least all of that increased bling will be funneled into the public tax coffers ... oh wait. No it won't. Not a single penny. And even if any of it does get to the public it will be in the form of defense programs railroaded through on the backs of bludgeoned American soldiers.

Huzzah for the great economy! Two packs of Ramen noodles for everyone! Such glorious times!

pcvzeno		2003-11-25 01:36:39 PM

Demetrius

AMEN!!!

But no one is going to have an answer for you.

EyeballKid		2003-11-25 01:36:43 PM

Which reminds me, how's Ken Lay's tennis game coming along?

Clawed Le Mew		2003-11-25 01:36:59 PM

Even the Detroit Lions can have a good quarter.

jdave34		2003-11-25 01:37:39 PM

OK. CNN's front page has this story as it's main feature. There's a fancy graphic, and the headline reads 'Economy grows at blistering 8.2 percent'.

My question: Where o where is the left wing media bias that I hear the right scream about so much? Why does no one on the right have a problem with CNN's 'biased' coverage today? COuld it be that the CNN left-wing bias doesn't exist? Could it be that it only gets trotted out when the right is absolutely stumped and can't think of any real arguments?

Come on righties! Why aren't you discrediting the source today? Could it be that you're all full of shiat and will scream 'bias' at any news source that dares to criticize your beloved Deserter-in Chief?

5 bucks says that every Farker on the right puts on the 'who farted?' face and proceeds to ignore the shiat out of this post.

adrosal		2003-11-25 01:37:39 PM

The economy is recovering?

IT'S ALL THAT #$#%&(&@^ CLINTON'S FAULT!!

Isuldirs		2003-11-25 01:37:45 PM

ESH

Isuldirs

Collecting interest on investments != working hard.

Sure wealthy people are so for a reason, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they all got there through hard work. They call it leisure class for a reason.

Many, many lower and lower middle class people work their ass off
============================
Everything you said is very true. I am speaking more about the "complainers" Sure there are TONNES of poorer people who work damn hard and will always be hard up. And there will be lazy rich white dudes getting paid to do jack shiat.
But in North America we have such a problem with people that think because they are poor and someone else is rich, they deserve money. Its insane.

CAPTSKI		2003-11-25 01:37:54 PM

To the Demoncrats, "It's the economy, STUPID."

Dorsai		2003-11-25 01:38:37 PM

"As Governor for more than 10 years, I guided the Vermont economy through two Bush recessions."

If he becomes President, won't Dean be surprised to discover the U.S. economy consists of more than ice cream and maple syrup?

SnapDaddy		2003-11-25 01:38:46 PM

el mental:

Yeah that's cause half the homes in CA burnt down. Of course building is up there. heh

ESH		2003-11-25 01:39:00 PM

Cygnis-x

That's because you had nothing to do with the guy's cash windfall. Now, if your company kicks ass and he pockets the money without rewarding the people who helped make it happen. Update your resume and bolt.

All

Why is it that only C-level administrators are credited with the success of a company? When I was at IBM, people were all up Gerstner's ass while most people in the company were getting paycuts, benefit cuts and meaningless gift certificates to Wal-Mart for their efforts.

You can only be a company man for so long until you realize your hard work goes unnoticed and unappreciated.

sp		2003-11-25 01:39:10 PM

It's clear to anyone who knows anything about economics that economic cycles are good things. When interest rates are low, savings are hit hard, but I more than made up for that with the long term money I'll save by refinancing my house(went from $190,000 30 year note at 8% to $170,000 20 year note at 4.75%). That put money in my pocket today because of the lower payment and it puts money in my pocket long term because I'll save a bundle on interest. Probably more than my savings would have generated if rates were high.

As for the comments on the unemployment rate, most economic theories(on the left and the right) consider somewhere from 4-6% unemployment to be full employment. That doesn't make the unemployed feel any better(and I've been there too), but we really aren't in bad shape.

The dems have a hard time making realistic economic arguments because their core philosophy is diametrically opposed to policies that are good for growing an economy. That doesn't mean they're evil, just misguided. The class warfare isn't going to cut it anymore. The top 10% should get tax cuts. They pay most of the taxes. Have any of you gotten a job from a poor guy lately? Everyone got a tax cut of one form or another. Every taxpayer, that is. By definition, a taxpayer is one who pays taxes.

Dozhdbog		2003-11-25 01:40:54 PM

DrToast

Thank you for responding.

wayward2		2003-11-25 01:41:17 PM

stpickerell
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.

Nice try, but the world doesn't quite work that way.

Generally speaking, free trade benefits both sides. Some people may be hurt short term, but long term, everyone benefits.

When people talk about free trade around here, they point to the numerous abandoned old textile mills as evidence that it is bad for America. However, what you don't here is that clothing is considerably cheaper for everyone. My mother-in-law used to make her own clothes as late as the early 1980's. Store bought clothes were fairly expensive back then and she could save money doing it herself. However, now clothes are so inexpensive, it's not cost-effective (or time effective) to do it yourself. Also, the South, the region where many textile mills were located, is one of the fastest growing regions in the country economically.

Another case can be shown by the recently added steel tariffs. Steel manufacturers wanted the tariffs so they could better compete with foreign steel. While this protectionist measure may have saved a few jobs in the steel industry, the increased price of steel cost jobs in industries that use steel to make a finished product, leading to a net loss of jobs.

Free trade is a mutually beneficial agreement. Protectionism harms the economy by making things artifically expensive.

BenJaxBchFL		2003-11-25 01:41:19 PM

Dave, they will ignore the post because it is made by an idiot. Why don't you focus on Canada?

dbaggins		2003-11-25 01:41:22 PM

sp

yes, the but refinancing fairy eventually leaves. Eventaully everyone has refinanced, and then the money spigot for the economy turns off.

Korovyov		2003-11-25 01:42:00 PM

stpickrell --
Domestic industries aren't necessarily as strong competition for each other as overseas ones. The US steel industry, for instance, doesn't have that many players, and the ones that are left aren't the most terribly efficient. They have substantial pension obligations, for instance, as the workers had sufficiently strong negotiating positions to get relatively generous benefits. Their overall per-unit production cost is likely much higher than outside plants which spent the money more on technology and infrastructure.
Manufacturing industries also don't lend themselves nearly as readily to international cartels as do the assorted natural resources. There aren't as many known good sources for, say, uranium or diamonds as there are potential sites for manufacturing, textiles, and so forth.

ESH		2003-11-25 01:42:08 PM

Isuldirs

Agreed. Americans are notoriously plagued by a sense of entitlement. This is not, however, confined to the lower classes. Many of the wealthy are just as clueless.

capn_conservative		2003-11-25 01:42:08 PM

SP: "The dems have a hard time making realistic economic arguments because their core philosophy is diametrically opposed to policies that are good for growing an economy."

Excellent point. This fact is often overlooked.

bill_01915		2003-11-25 01:42:15 PM

Next November will see a sad choice at the polls. Choose a tax and spend democrat (whomever he may be) or a tax cut and spend republican. Either way, we the taxpaying public will end up footing the bill.

harryjrf		2003-11-25 01:43:16 PM

. Very

. I find your faith in politics

. I find the general economic status very VERY

voodoochild		2003-11-25 01:43:25 PM

2003-11-25 12:40:12 PM muhpet
Anyone out there in the real estate or home mortgage business? Is the market really doing this well for you?

just curious

I work in real estate in Chicago, and there is plenty of business. New homebuyers, investment and income producing properties, you name it. Even foreclosures. Those that got screwed by getting laid off or lost net worth from poor performing Wall Street investments are selling and settling for less expensive properties, but still trying to hold some real estate.

supertbone		2003-11-25 01:44:31 PM

The tripe that only the rich have benefitted under Bush is utter crap. I am middle class and I grew up that way. Under Bush, the company that I work for expanded greatly because of his economic policies and I was hired. My wife who grew up poor got an even better job that myself. To top it off we even bought a house.

Displayed 50 of 612 comments