2.2% GDP growth 1st quarter

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 5:07 PM GMT
    Not nearly good enough as compared to past recoveries.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/us-gdp-growth-q1-2012_n_1458628.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    What do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 5:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhat do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.


    You know that I'm not talking about rate of negative growth as we're entering a downturn. I'm talking about the rate of growth during the early part of a recovery. This is about half the rate of growth that we generally experience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 6:45 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 saidWhat do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.


    You know that I'm not talking about rate of negative growth as we're entering a downturn. I'm talking about the rate of growth during the early part of a recovery. This is about half the rate of growth that we generally experience.


    This wasn't a typical recession. It was closer to the Great Depression where we suffered nearly a decade of slow and erratic growth. That coupled with what I mentioned above are the cause of slow growth and recovery.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Apr 27, 2012 6:52 PM GMT
    Much better than the UK` s -0.2% 'negative growth' this last quarter! It`s the second quarter in a row of such 'growth', so we`re apparently,officially, in a 'double-dip recession' now! Interestingly, most of the economic forecasters got it wrong; which is causing a few furrowed brows. No one in government denied this possibility, but the 'mood music' was always optimistic.

    Although, to be fair, the margin of error on such statistics is 0.2%!

    And more public spending cuts to come as the Chancellor has asked all government departments to find further spending reductions!

    The last time a government here cut public spending so sharply and quickly(the Conservative-Liberal coalition of 1921), the result was fifteen years of 'sub-recession' ie very poor growth of less than 0.5% per annum. What changed all this was massive public spending- beginning in 1936-rearmament. Then the economy began to grow strongly again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 7:01 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Christian73 said[/cite]
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 saidWhat do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.


    You know that I'm not talking about rate of negative growth as we're entering a downturn. I'm talking about the rate of growth during the early part of a recovery. This is about half the rate of growth that we generally experience.


    We disagree with the cause(s) and you know that. I think we would do much better with no government. Well, I don’t exactly mean ‘no’ government, but I think you understand where I’m coming from. What we just went through was very similar to the 1980-1982 in terms of depth and duration, but this recovery is running at about half the GDP growth rate that we generally produce. This could end up being similar to the 30s. I hope not. I’m so very old that this is my last shot.

    Given the amount of time that folks in (my) business spend just discussion the effects of federal government impediment / involvement is probably worth a full point off of GDP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 7:15 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said[quote][cite]Christian73 said[/cite]
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 saidWhat do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.


    You know that I'm not talking about rate of negative growth as we're entering a downturn. I'm talking about the rate of growth during the early part of a recovery. This is about half the rate of growth that we generally experience.


    We disagree with the cause(s) and you know that. I think we would do much better with no government. Well, I don’t exactly mean ‘no’ government, but I think you understand where I’m coming from. What we just went through was very similar to the 1980-1982 in terms of depth and duration, but this recovery is running at about half the GDP growth rate that we generally produce. This could end up being similar to the 30s. I hope not. I’m so very old that this is my last shot.

    Given the amount of time that folks in (my) business spend just discussion the effects of federal government impediment / involvement is probably worth a full point off of GDP.


    FIF -

    While I was very young in 1980-1982, I'm fairly certain that it was not a near collapse of the entire world economy...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said[quote][cite]Christian73 said[/cite]
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 saidWhat do you expect when Republican governors are laying off public workers, killing projects (like the tunnel between NJ and NY) that would stimulate the economy and Republicans in Congress refuse to countenance any pro-growth policies?

    Still 2.2% is much, much better than the negative growth overseen by the last two years of Bush II.


    You know that I'm not talking about rate of negative growth as we're entering a downturn. I'm talking about the rate of growth during the early part of a recovery. This is about half the rate of growth that we generally experience.


    We disagree with the cause(s) and you know that. I think we would do much better with no government. Well, I don’t exactly mean ‘no’ government, but I think you understand where I’m coming from. What we just went through was very similar to the 1980-1982 in terms of depth and duration, but this recovery is running at about half the GDP growth rate that we generally produce. This could end up being similar to the 30s. I hope not. I’m so very old that this is my last shot.

    Given the amount of time that folks in (my) business spend just discussion the effects of federal government impediment / involvement is probably worth a full point off of GDP.


    FIF -

    While I was very young in 1980-1982, I'm fairly certain that it was not a near collapse of the entire world economy...


    Because I'm so very old, I don't remember without looking it up, but the rapid rise in world oil prices as also happened then, generally causes a (near) world wide downturn. I'm in car wash right now and will be out in a minute so i'll have to take a look tonight.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Apr 27, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    I should also add that in those years, the early 1930s, the UK saw worse, much worse, as the economy shrank markedly due to the Great Depression.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 27, 2012 8:27 PM GMT
    Oh My Goodness .......

    THANK GOD WILLARD ROMNEY HAS KEPT ALL THE BUSH ECONOMIC PEOPLE AT HIS DISPOSAL

    WHEW!!!!!

    I was worried .... LOL


    Oh Free you do so much crack me up

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 9:31 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidNot nearly good enough as compared to past recoveries.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/us-gdp-growth-q1-2012_n_1458628.html


    The funny thing is that there are those like metta8 who seem to think that you can just have governments spend money to have any sustainable impact on improving the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 9:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    freedomisntfree saidNot nearly good enough as compared to past recoveries.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/us-gdp-growth-q1-2012_n_1458628.html


    The funny thing is that there are those like metta8 who seem to think that you can just have governments spend money to have any sustainable impact on improving the economy.


    How's your socialized healthcare treating you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 9:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    freedomisntfree saidNot nearly good enough as compared to past recoveries.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/us-gdp-growth-q1-2012_n_1458628.html


    The funny thing is that there are those like metta8 who seem to think that you can just have governments spend money to have any sustainable impact on improving the economy.


    How's your socialized healthcare treating you?


    Well other than the wait that it takes and the low level of service you get if you dont' live in a major city, it's decent though they believe it will need to be restructured soon given how unsustainable it is with the needs of the baby boom generation.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Apr 27, 2012 11:40 PM GMT
    Actually, the net GDP growth for the first quarter was negative when you factor in inflation and the growth of the money supply. One must however allow the proletariat to believe what they wish to believe,. (Of course, I'm not speaking of you conservative guys here.)

    When such foolish belief becomes endemic to a group of people, their future is set in stone. (You guys such as Christian73 and Lincbear.) Allow them to continue on their path, but ensure you do not make their mistake.