Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 987 times:
"US economy up sharply in 3rd quarter....instead of business it is now consumers and housing that is providing the growth....federal government expenditures increased...and national defense spending rose by 13%" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20096380
Congratulations to America and I am hoping the nicer growth spreads to the EU!
Pu
ps
This story is on the BBC, the Wall Street Journal and CNN, but why not Foxnews.com?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 968 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 1): Not sure i believe the numbers
Hopefully the economy is indeed improving, and I don't really care who caused it, I am very glad!
But like I've said in many threads, I hope this isn't a temporary spike upwards, I hope it's the beginning to real, sustainable growth. I know the economy has been slowly growing but I wouldn't really call that a "success" for any political party.
I'll stop being such a negative Nancy, this is good news!
jakeorion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 897 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): But like I've said in many threads, I hope this isn't a temporary spike upwards, I hope it's the beginning to real, sustainable growth. I know the economy has been slowly growing but I wouldn't really call that a "success" for any political party.
I would like to agree with you, but when you toss that much money into the economy you're only stalling the inevitable. If we don't stop printing money soon the inflation rate is going to SKYROCKET, and then we'll all be screwed.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 868 times:
These numbers really aren't anything to get excited about...I really wish it was 3-4%, but 2% is just mediocrity especially considering the growth we need to really get us out of this economic slump. The 1.7% annual growth rate for the first nine months of 2012 are still behind 2011's 1.8% and very much below 2.4% in 2010 and isn't high enough to spur hiring which would have a tangible effect on the economy and on most Americans. It's encouraging however to see that consumer spending has risen, but it's unfortunate when it's overshadowed by a huge spike in government expenditures which drove the growth (though that's not unexpected as this is the end of the government fiscal year where there are always spikes in government spending).
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 862 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 5):
These numbers really aren't anything to get excited about
Unless they reflect an economic benefit that you happen to have experienced. Of course, if you are hell bent on pushing Romney to a win, these otherwise encouraging numbers are simply noise, not progress. I think we all know which camp you fall in.
Who doesn't? Are the numbers posted better than 0%? Of course they are. Will you give any credit to the current government? I doubt it, not over your dead body, as they say. After all, why should achievement or progress obscure political blinders?
Except it is better than 0%. Granted, from your perspective, 2% must be mediocrity because, otherwise, your candidate has no raison d'etre for his candidacy.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 6): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 5):
but 2% is just mediocrity
Except it is better than 0%. Granted, from your perspective, 2% must be mediocrity because, otherwise, your candidate has no raison d'etre for his candidacy.
Oh ok right, so any critiquing of these numbers automatically makes you a shill for the Romney campaign, got it
2% growth is anemic by any economic standard, but of course if you use the standard that "it's better than 0%", then mediocrity is going to sound stupendous to you.
Quoting cws818 (Reply 6): Will you give any credit to the current government?
What credit is there to give? Credit for the slowest economic recovery in our history? Mediocre GDP growth by any reputable economic standard? If Obama wants to take credit for this then by all means, but 2% is anemic whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 719 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 7): 2% growth is anemic by any economic standard, but of course if you use the standard that "it's better than 0%", then mediocrity is going to sound stupendous to you.
Walk before you can run. 2% is a pretty damn good starting point, we've just had 1% growth here in the UK which is, by recent standards, the best for several years. I should think the same is true in the US.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 686 times:
REAL economic growth for the USA requires something north of 3% by most economic estimates. We're still well below that here--and the prospects of higher taxes due to the "fiscal cliff" and to pay for more Obamacare mandates is hampering economic growth.
bristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 645 times:
If an economy grows too fast it's not sustainable. Look back at the George Bush era - fast growth followed by a catastrophic bursting of the bubble. Would you rather have 5% growth for 4 years followed by a collapse or 2-3% growth year on year?
It is true that in America the Fed has been in stimulus mode nonstop since the early Bush-era recession, right through the recovery and housing boom, into the catastrophe, and here in the recovery again. I wonder if they can ever conceive of interest rates higher than incidental?
If that's a starting point when the recession supposedly ended in 2009/2010, that's pretty sad.
Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 11): Would you rather have 5% growth for 4 years followed by a collapse or 2-3% growth year on year?
No, GDP growth needs to be at least between 3-4% to keep up with population growth, encourage hiring and tangibly start moving the country toward recovery.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 538 times:
Quoting Pu (Thread starter): This story is on the BBC, the Wall Street Journal and CNN, but why not Foxnews.com?
It was reported. Also reported was the fact that there was a very significant increase in government spending, without which no economic growth would have been registed or at least far less than reported). in effect, the government is "spiking the punch", as they say. Completely unrelated to the elections? Yeah, right.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 527 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Completely unrelated to the elections? Yeah, right.
I wouldn't really say it's related to the elections, but it's certainly nothing to be ecstatic about as I said previously. This was the end of the fiscal year for the government and, as happens at this time every year due to the f*cked up way the budget works, all departments spend their remaining monies in their respective budgets, so there's always a massive spike in government expenditures this time of year as compared to all others
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 516 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 7): 2% growth is anemic by any economic standard, but of course if you use the standard that "it's better than 0%", then mediocrity is going to sound stupendous to you.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 459 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 15): there's always a massive spike in government expenditures this time of year as compared to all others
A couple of details. Without the government spending spike, Growth would have been 1.3%. Yawn...
I haven't found any neat little charts to the effect, but from what I've read it appears that this year's spike is sharper than previous years. I'm sure that will come out soon.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 18, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 451 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 15): This was the end of the fiscal year for the government and, as happens at this time every year due to the f*cked up way the budget works,
Kinda off topic, and I'm not arguing whether or not this caused the upwards growth, but is there any attempt to reform the spend it or lose it crap that the government engages in? It makes me cringe seeing the waste at the end of fiscal years
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5091 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 247 times:
From what I am hearing from businesses, a substantial number of projects of value which were I the development phase are now being shelved. Investors lack confidence in business conditions in a continuing business-hostile administration.
It is said that an addict must hit bottom before improvement can start; apparently, we haven't done that yet! Strap on, it's gonna be a rough ride.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, RR: 40 Reply 21, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 247 times:
Quote:
“I am surprised with the reelection of Mr. Obama. The S&P is only down like 30 points. I would have thought that the market on his reelection should be down at least 50%...I think Mr. Obama is a disaster for business and a disaster for the United States. Not that Mr. Romney would be much better, but the Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn't care about piling up debt. You also have in the background Mr. Bernanke, who with artificially low interest rates enables the debt to essentially escalate endlessly.”
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2135 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
