Economy "may be showing signs of a possible recovery"

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Yup, that is what I heard on the radio today. It may be showing signs of a possible recovery. It absolutely kills the libs to have to admit that the tax cut has helped speed up the recovery, that Bush is not the destroy of the nation and that, in fact, "Economy Rockets Ahead At Fastest Pace In 20 Years!!!
Third quarter GDP revised to 8.2% on strength of business investment fueled by tax cuts"

Read this:www.atr.org...




posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 01:07 AM
link   
HAHA

I want to see what the libs will cry about now!

probably they will double their effort in bashing Bush in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 10:10 AM
link   
NO DOUBT! The Republicans PICKED the Democrats POCKET and snagged Medicare as an issue and the economy is roaring back to life, roaring back in a very unique way however...

One of the most amazing parts of that GDP number is how much more efficient we have become. Unemployment is at 6.1% and we have a GDP rocketing straight UP.

That's a sign that the FAT has been cleved from Corporate America...

The "do nothing" middle manager (think of Dilbert's boss) is extinct!

Now we need to find a way to put all those service technicians back to work whose jobs answering the phone went to India.

The economy is changing IMHO, we have tremendous GDP growth with virtually no improvement in unemployment, this is a monumental situation. Either it's as I stated above or the machines REALLY are taking over!


When you look at manufacturing output it's pretty flat beyond the inventory replenishment that has to occur about once a quarter. This raises the question where is this GDP rise coming from?

Homebuilding is certainly a big portion of it, if not the bulk of it. Think of all the produce that goes into a house...

Lots of that stuff is STILL made here in the USA.

Very interesting data behind the numbers... I'll be looking forward to seeing the fourth quarter beige book indeed...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Yes. the libs are diminished without any substantive gripe (besides Iraq) to harp about. I believe the 4qtr GDP is estimated at 4.4%....if the economy is growing, are 3 million people going back to work? Maybe....maybe it was only 300,000 that were out of work to begin with.

Bush lands in Iraq and crushes Hitlary in a politcal coup ala Hollywood- Awesome!!



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 11:10 PM
link   
From It's Still the Economy Stupid-

"Even though the official unemployment rate is 6%, this has not tracked the number of people that have left the labor force in the last three years. If we used a constant labor force participation rate, the unemployment rate would be about 7.5%. All these people are contributing less taxes, less spending, many have to pay more for insurance, they've had to reduce their contributions to retirement plans or if they are less fortunate, dip into them or other assets to put food on the table.

Without a sustained increase in employment, these trends are going to continue. Government budgets are going to be strained. The projected federal deficit for 2004 is between $500-$550 billion. My home state's budget for 2004 has cuts for every single program except education and health care. Health insurance premiums are scheduled to go up 16% on average next year. God forbid if we have a cold winter. Heating oil prices are up around 20% from last November. Natural gas prices are up 10%. In short, it's going to take a lot more than 100,000 jobs to fix things for most Americans. We need 2.6 million just to get back to where we were three years ago, and about 3 million have entered the potential labor force since then. It's hard to see how more tax cuts are coming, with the budget problems we already have. If we were to see any kind of economic slowdown from here, I shudder to think what would happen."

itstheeconomy.blogspot.com...
I'd like to see some repubilcans take this guy apart, if you can....



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 11:47 PM
link   
first, I think the housing bubble is inflating property values, hence more property taxes. Not to mention the volume at which this housing bubble is moving along at.

And, maybe it's the tryptophan talking but i think this 'blogger' is an ass. Namely, when he says 'Not wanting to be greedy' - blah. Then don't take all the deductions, stupid! Give your money to the government if it really makes you happy! This guy complains about income tax losses because of people buying larger houses. But, he doesn't mention that he's probably paying more property taxes from that bigger house. (and not to mention the expenses that come with a bigger house)

nor does this ass mention anything about tax cuts. since he's worried about expenses I am sure he'd prefer NOT to roll them back. He's the only breadwinner, therefore I am sure him and his are quite fine with the couple hundred extra dollars a month being put into his pocket. (that is obviously why he didn't seem to mention tax cuts)

If unemployment is his bitch then I don't think it holds much water: employment is the last economic indicator to kick in. We've seen good GDP numbers among others, jobs follow.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Well, you also have to take into consideration that the election season is coming up & Bush's popularity numbers really *need* something to boost them up.

...You also have to remember that, very early after 911, Bush publicly announced that the government was going to initiate an *active disinformation program* for the general public...In other words, he said that the government is going to *continue to lie*.

How can the economy be starting such an upswing with those millions of jobs gone missing? How can people contribute to the GNP when they can't even find a job without moving overseas to look?

...Just sounds like more "disinformation" to me...



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 07:53 AM
link   
MD, you are trying to mix apples and oranges. It was not Bush, but a general that said disinformation would be used, but that obviously means in the war, not in other things.

The misinformation that you often see, and always see when a republican is president, is the harping of the millions of missing jobs without the mentioning of the new jobs.
In Alabama, we have lost our textile industries, they have gone overseas. But, more and more auto manufacturers are relocating here. Jobs are springing up! Big ticket sales are up, these things have to be made. New houses mean new everydarned thing.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 09:58 AM
link   
....as in crack pipe.

-10 + 5 = -5, right?
So, till numbers bridge over the break even point, take a vector for what it is, a vector - not steady state solvency.
The big rise in the stock market is definitely telling us something. Bulls think it says the economy is about to take off. But I think it's a sign that America is still blowing bubbles — that a three-year bear market and the biggest corporate scandals in history haven't cured investors of irrational exuberance yet.
Or, to put it another way: it's hard to find any real news to justify the market's leap. Instead, investors seem to be buying stocks because they are rising — which is pretty much the definition of a bubble.

Before the Iraq war, optimists attributed the economy's weakness to prewar jitters. They predicted a great postwar economic surge: oil prices would plunge, reassured consumers would open their wallets and businesses would start investing again.
We're still waiting. Oil prices are off their prewar highs, but they're still higher than they were last fall. Consumers seem to be spending a bit more, but we're talking about fractions of a percent. And businesses are still more interested in cutting costs and laying off workers than buying new capital goods.
There have been some pieces of good news — a not-too-bad manufacturing survey here, a pretty good housing-starts number there. But there has also been bad news, especially regarding employment. Payrolls are still contracting; since the U.S. economy has to create 80,000 jobs a month just to keep up with a growing working-age population, the already miserable job market continues to get worse.
Don't tax cuts and low interest rates create the conditions for an economic rebound? Well, interest rates have been low for a while. And everything that has happened since 2001 suggests that Bush-style tax cuts — which, because they are targeted on the very affluent, basically give people with plenty of cash to spare even more cash to spare — provide very little employment bang per deficit buck. Meanwhile, desperate state and local governments are continuing to slash services and, in a growing number of cases, raising taxes, undoing much or all of the stimulus from the federal government.
Does the collective wisdom of the investor class perceive an imminent, vigorous recovery that is invisible in the data? The market isn't always right. It wasn't right when it sent the Nasdaq to 5000; it wasn't right in the fall of 2001, the summer of 2002 or the late fall of 2002 — three would-be bull markets that fizzled. And selling by corporate insiders hit a two-year high in May.
Meanwhile, the average stock is selling at 31 times earnings, twice the historical norm. And if you take into account pension liabilities and the cost of stock options, that number goes above 40.
A few months ago, some analysts began to argue that because interest rates were so low, even today's very expensive stocks were a good buy. I don't agree, but that's a long discussion. What's clear, however, is that investors' big move back into the market has been driven not by careful comparison of returns, but by the fact that stocks are rising — and the fear that if you don't buy stocks, you'll miss out on a good thing. The new bull market isn't forecasting anything; it's just feeding on itself.
Could the story I'm telling be wrong? Of course. Maybe a vigorous, though still invisible, economic recovery will deliver the sustained, double-digit earnings growth that analysts — apparently not chastened at all by recent history — are once again predicting.
But even if that happy scenario comes to pass, it's hard to justify current stock prices — because if the economy booms, the low interest rates that might conceivably make stocks worth buying at 30 times earnings will soon go away. If and when businesses start borrowing again, they'll have to compete for funds with the federal government, which will be running $400-billion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile, foreigners won't keep lending us $500 billion each year; in fact, private investment inflows into the United States have already dried up.
Oh, and the banana-republic policies now being followed in Washington won't just drive up interest rates; they'll probably generate a full-blown fiscal crisis one of these years. That can't be good for equity prices.
In my industry, we won't likely see the same demographics ever again: Applications Developement will come in a can from India/Taiwan et al, for the forseeable future. We no longer have the movement in those ranks on anything near a career staging level. Infrastructure at least has the on site component always inherent; but that too has dwindle in high level numbers. What you have now is a shift towards the things that can't be sent out of country: desk side support , break/fix & some help desk. None of which have career options in the $100K salary range outside of management. So it never was 'technician' grade folks being displaced, but those who had metriculated & had a solid career in play. People outside of the industry don't realize that we've had a whole segment of a white collar profession simply die. In 3 years.

I am hoping and praying for economic growth - I need it to stay self employed and to eventually grow my business again.
BUT, I am not buying the pipe dream and faith based economics over substance. I won't because I can't eat it. I can't cut a multi year contract on it. And I can't sign up for it.
At the end of the day, even though I am against eveything that the Bush team has brought us, if they brought us some real economic growth that's sustainable , real and, well, real, I would sing their praises. I am, after all, a money lovin' capitalist!

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Bout Time]



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 11:22 AM
link   
THis has been a really informative thread. i wish I could mod it up or something. (sorry for the weak, under 250 character reply
)



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Yeah, and flared trousers and mullets maybe be showing signs of a possible recovery into popular culture again, it doesn't necessarily make it so though does it?



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Well, I wouldn't be too quick making this a liberal vs cons issue. In macroeconomics you basically see tax cuts and increased government spending as the same kind of action. This is because they create the same effects - a deficit (and increased spending). This is why the situation is really serious.

Aside from the fact that measuring growth rates of GDP is a matter of perspective, these "phenomenal" figures are the result of increased government spending (mainly on defense items) and the fact that American households are now more in debt than ever before.

Therefore, if the stock markets goes up it's not because stocks are actually worth more. As bout time says, there is no substance to it (yet). If you really want to know just ask, but I won't go into the mathematics of it in this post. When you have stock market with an average p/e of 30, and interest rates this low, you're out of your mind buying stocks based on any real value. For pure speculation, fine, but you can just as well bet on horses and probably get better odds.

Anyone who has studied macroeconomics knows that growth in the long run cannot be achieved through tax cuts, increased government spending or whatever. It might give you a short boost, but will result in inflation eventually.

So, don't think this is over yet.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Yergen (or anyone else)- Would you recomend buying other currencies (the Euro springs to my mind). What currency would likely be the strongest if the USA collasped? Is gold a better option?

Additionally, if I were to move to Canada before a US market collapse, how badly do you think Canada would be affected. Would I be able to eat? Would it be worse than the US?



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Or, to put it another way: it's hard to find any real news to justify the market's leap. Instead, investors seem to be buying stocks because they are rising — which is pretty much the definition of a bubble.

This is why having an economy based upon "market forces" & "insolvent debt" is just another lie...A bubble made of soap that's destined to pop every time somebody blows one.

This is why we need to get back onto an economy that has some *real backing* to it...Something more than a "promise" made by people who've *never been trustworthy*. Since our current use of "corporate scrip" instead of actual currency is only 10% backed by something of real value, that means that 90% of the economy is based on a lie.

Support NESARA!



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:23 AM
link   
ktprktpr, I wouldn't buy into any single asset. The key to risk management is diversification. Don't put all your eggs into one basket, as it were. There is no guarantee that the Euro remains stable, if the dollar (or the US economy) were to collapse. If you on the other hand put your money in many different assets (both types and origin) the total value of your portfolio is more likely to be stable. This is valid under any circumstances.

If you really want to invest in one thing only, my bet is real estate rather than gold. Gold has a few industrial purposes, but is not an asset based on any real value.

MidnightDStroyer I've been through this discussion before, and this is probably not the proper thread, but backing a currency with gold does not solve anything. Rather it would create an even worse situation. Fixing a rate to gold increases the possibilities of speculation and won't disable the market system. The problem (if any) you should focus on is the deregulation of financial markets (Reagan, Thatcher et al) and its consequences.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 10:39 AM
link   
ktprktpr, as yergen said: diversify. Also, if you buy into gold an/or the euro and the US economy improves you may lose money. (Cause you’re buying high right now). I think buying a house is good place to start also, if you dont already own one. Interest rates are still great and if the economy doesn’t get better rates may drop even more and you could re-fi.





top topics
 
0

log in

join