It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Recession? What Recession?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:24 PM
Personal horror stories aside, the economy, though struggling is still growing. Therefore no recession...

So much for predictions that the U.S. is in a recession.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Wednesday. In the fourth quarter of 2007, real GDP also increased 0.6 percent.

A recession is defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

CNS News

The Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy the economy, yet the economy continues to grow.

This slow down in the economy is obviously in response to a potential Democrat as POTUS.

Want to see a real recession or depression? Elect a Democrat for President.


posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:53 PM
And I thought this was a conspiracy site - not a republician party broadcast!!

The world entire have had their fill with those dam republicians and their foreign policies. As for Bush, what has he done for the US economy?

Enough is enough! End the Bush - Cheny nightmare.


posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:00 PM
If you look up, you will see this..

Discuss the merits of liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. political ideologies and politicians.

Pretty clear to me..


posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by Breifne

To answer your first question, the Bush tax cuts have helped my family contribute wonderfully to the economy over the years.

Secondly, the "Bush-Cheney nightmare" as you so eloquently put it, will be ending soon no matter who is elected. It drives me crazy how so many people are still using Bush as an argument against the upcoming election when the man isn't even running!

Seriously, we know you hate Bush, but he's leaving office soon.

Get over it.

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

Thank you for this thread Semerfortis, me and a friend at work were talking about this and how we are still growing. Give people a fake fear scenerio and they go into survival mode and retreat to safety. We haven't seen hard times like the great depression. And I feel that with the technology and work force we have we won't see that kind of hard time again. We all just need to keep working and putting into our country what we can. Don't get me wrong, we still need to look out for ourselves and stock up on some things but I'm not gonna go crazy because some say the skies falling.

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 10:43 AM
Technically you're right semper. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we have just had a quarter of 0.6% growth.

Maybe we need a new word to use, because recession just isn't adequate for the current economic climate. The best explanation I have would be a series of financial earthquakes and stagflation. There is a growing fear rising, not due to any numbers being put out, but due to the fact that jobs are becoming unreliable at best in many industries and wages are being quickly degraded due to inflation.

No inflation you say? That's what the government tells us. What they don't mention is that the inflation index used for the last decade or two does not include prices of food or fuel. Add those in and you get a number pretty close to 10% inflation. Wage growth is pretty much stagnant.

I tried to get a more normal job before I took this last gig driving a truck. The problem wasn't that there were no jobs; I could have went to work almost immediately. the problem was that I could not pay for the fuel to drive to work and back and the groceries to raise a family of four on a wage of $7 an hour, especially not when overtime was non-existent. I have an option: a CDL with a clean driving record, that allows me to work outside the local economy. Not everyone has such a luxury.

The simple truth in this area is that most people make less than $10 per hour. That's $400 dollars a week, or about $1700 a month. Insurance now takes a minimum of $400 of that, leaving $1300 a month. taxes will grab at least $300 more, dropping take-home pay to $1000 a month.

Now the average good American who is supporting the economy will have a fairly late-model car for transportation to and from work. there's another $250, and that's being VERY generous. The mortgage which is now a way of life for 95% of the population pulls out another $500 an the average (again, very conservative). That leaves $250 a month for food and fuel and entertainment... am I the only one who sees a problem here?

The solution is that most people here also get food stamps from the government and sometimes a bit of additional aid in the form of SSI or welfare. That money is coming not from taxes any more, but from debt. There is no more money in the Treasury with which to pay for these programs, but the Congress still spends like there's no tomorrow. Maybe they realize there won't be.

This situation cannot continue. At some point, this economy will come crashing down like a house of cards. We all know it, even when we decry the recession as a myth. So yes, recession is a myth, but imminent collapse is a fact.

Call me a fear-monger if you want, or say I am calling for a self-fulfilling prophesy. I don't think one lone truck driver has that power. My purpose is not to destroy, but hopefully to let others know so they can weather the coming storm. I'm already pretty secure, even if this job should go bust, and I'm busily securing myself more each day.

In other words, I fear not for me or mine, but for you and yours.


posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:05 PM

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis emphasized that the first-quarter "advance" estimate is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision.

The above quote from the lead CBS article, should be considered the operative text. Yesterday's GDP number was a political necessity/economic stop-gap: recession?...what recession? Please don't become spellbound...revisions will be quietly forthcoming...especially with respect to the GDP inflation component.

Today's economic conundrum is not a partisan issue...neither is the skewing of economic data as political/economic expediency. Rather, a confluence of policies and events...spanning decades...and both political power groups.

For example, does anyone really believe that price inflation has abated since the 1st quarter 07? Well, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis would have you believe that it has. Here is a detail from the BEA's GDP release yesterday...courtesy of Jesse' Cafe Americain.

Maybe the sooner we quit bickering from the position of individual political ideologies, educate ourselves, and accept responsibility as an American collective...the better-off we'll be.

Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:12 PM
People want to keep living beyond their means, rack up as much debt as possible to keep living beyond their means. They go out and say Ooow! look at that house, I want it and they do what ever it takes to buy it without thinking down the road about the money it's really gonna take to buy that house. You have people on food stamps that have a cell phone, a nice car and a mortgage, but yet they can't get off their lazy @ss and work. And everyone wonders why the Mexicans are crossing the border and taking all the jobs. Well it's because they will work their @ss off so they won't have to go back to a life they were living and they send money back to their family and get them ready to come over next. They give them a call and are saying hey brother, sister, mom & dad there's so many jobs over in America available that nobody wants to do so come on over and get this job. All I hear from alot of American is there is no jobs, but yet there seems to be jobs for Mexicans. No matter how this happened we let it happen by accepting the credit cards, food stamps and the idea that I'm worth more than that job. But who do we blame it on? I know the government did this, the government made me do this. I was taught to get out and make it and at times I worked two jobs and weekends to better myself. Alot of people I know will not work over forty hours a week and they spend their weekends partying it up. We have cell phones, internet, cable, regular phone line, playstations, laptops, suv's and all the other goodies, but go look at another country and tell me we're in a recession. It's gonna get hard, but it's gonna get harder if you're not ready and working.

Just an edit to say I'm sorry for the rant and I know not everyone is in the scenerio I just spoke about, but back in WWI & II days an American would take any job available.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Solarskye]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 05:34 PM
I think we are in a consumer recession for these reasons.

GPD has not declined for two consecutive quarters but I think this is mostly due to the methods we use to calculate GDP. GPD is calculated by C(private consumption in the economy) + I(investments into the stock market) + G(Government expenditures) + The net exports (exports-imports).

The bold definition of G is what I am getting at. Whenever the government spends money, it spends money at the expense of C(consumption) and I(investments). As we all know, government (mis)spends A LOT of money and this figure has been growing strong since we started having income tax, but especially since FDR's New Deal and the programs set up under it.

As many can figure out, our GDP isn't declining, but this is not because consumers are spending more money or investments are increasing but because the government is spending more money, and much of that money it does not have.

How to get out of this recession/slowdown/whatever?

1. Lower taxes (C and I will increase, but G will as well when these new investments reciprocate more money)
2. Allow the market to decide its own interest rate instead of a slow to the punch Fed. (Yes, Ax the fed)
3. Use government funds more efficiently. Our taxes are nothing more than a forced 'donation' to a charity that has a poor track record of utilizing funds efficiently. Basically, for every dollar we spend on this charity, a small portion is actually used to do good(i read the figure a couple of years back, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 cents per dollar, I need to find that source). In many cases the government spends money to HURT our economy.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:05 AM
I would like to add a few things.

The reasons this is a big deal is due to it being an election year. If the Dems can blame Bush for this they can in turn blame the Republicans and possibly put a greater stranglehold over the economy.

Recessions come and go. That is the nature of economy. It is just part of it. You take the good with the bad. Our hope is that the good will outweigh the bad, but if we continue to overspend(both political parties are to blame for this) and use the government to regulate the freedom out of our economy, we can expect a bigger bubble to burst in the future.

Another key issue is the oligopolies that run our economy are held up by government. This insures that new/small businesses do not overtake big business and that politicians get payed. When one of these oligopolies fails miserably (Bear Sterns) the government is there to bail it out at our expense.
Governing is not a job for politicians. They are used car salesmen with nukes. We need statesmen who have a career (in the real world) who feel the call to, not power, but service.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:11 AM
Argue the semantics all you like. This discussion nearly seems irrelevant in the face of an obliterated middle class.

Slice it any way you like, growth is meaningless if the membership is bloating on the extremes.

THAT is a real problem.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by loam]

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 01:42 AM
Ok fine. But if a democrat gets us out of an endless war and failed foreign policies I'll gladly eat bread and water every day. Not far from what I do now. It's spring, I can even make a dandelion salad.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by jpm1602

Ok fine. But if a democrat gets us out of an endless war and failed foreign policies I'll gladly eat bread and water every day. Not far from what I do now. It's spring, I can even make a dandelion salad.

The Democrats (excluding Kucinich) have no intention of getting us out of Iraq. Under neither of the political parties are we going to leave Iraq. Look at Korea and Japan for proof. The language between the candidates is different but the end is the same.

I think the Iraq issue is just another example of why politicians are not fit to lead, not just on economic issues. As economists know more about the economy than politicians, Military leadership knows more about war.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:30 AM
Dinnstarr you know you are one my most respected contributors to this site. I 'thought' Obama had mentioned he wanted to get us out in a controlled fashion in a year or two. But I am frequently wrong.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by jpm1602]

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I WISH there were a such thing as a $500 mortgage payment in my area! I think that the lowest house price I have seen for anything that isn't a complete shack would be around $215,000. The mortgage payment is usually around $1500-$2000 per month. On an average income, that is impossible to pay unless you just enjoy not eating. You would think we'd have a higher minimum wage, but in all actuality, it's only 8.10, which still is just not enough to make ends meet.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:39 AM
reply to post by scarlett1125

The figures I gave are rough (and based on memory/hearsay, as I haven't had a mortgage in 20 years), but higher payments than I mentioned only worsen the matter.

As far as minimum wage, it brings it's own problems. If one works at a job that pays minimum wage, a raise in that minimum wage will do little if any good, since it will drive prices up and thereby negate any real effects. The problem we find ourself in now is that once people have a minimum wage instituted, the economy will become dependent on it. Should we remove the minimum wage, quite a few people will see their wages drop, and that in itself would worsen their situation to the point of being unable to provide the basic necessities.

In a perfect world, people would understand that the value of their time is not measured by how many dollars they make per hour, but by what amount of buying power those dollars bring. If my wages rise by 50%, it does me no good if prices rise by 100%. My wages are worth less when it comes to buying food, clothes, energy, etc.

So we either live with minimum-wage-driven inflation, or allow people to suffer even more. Sort of like a 'damned if we do, and damned if we don't' situation. I really don't have an answer to this, other than to allow the economy to slide back down to acceptable levels. I seriously doubt that's going to happen. It's more likely that we'll allow things to worsen to the point that the economy crashes rather than simply deflates.


posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:15 PM
I think that government economic data is very similar to the old computer programming acronym GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out. Its often revised anyway. Inflation numbers have been BS since at least Reagan (ask Jimmy Carter what inflation can do to a political career). I'm currently laid off for the second time in a year and am looking for a job, competition is tough and there have been tons of people at the job fairs i'v been to lately. We've actually started buying food in bulk if possible, with the rate that food prices are going up, we get a better return off of stocking up on staples than we do with it in the bank. In my current situation (even with about another month of severence pay) it would be imprudent to spend the "stimulus" on anything other that paying down debt, getting ahead on the mortgage, or socking it away for emergency. And most eveyone I know isn't planning on goin out and buying something they want. If they are buying anything with it, it's necessities that they have put off due to increases in food and gas. Anyone who thinks that the consumer can continue to hold up this economy with a depreciating house, no access to the home ATM (home equity), rampant inflation in necessities, and no wage growth is dellusional.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:37 PM

Dinnstarr you know you are one my most respected contributors to this site. I 'thought' Obama had mentioned he wanted to get us out in a controlled fashion in a year or two. But I am frequently wrong.

He may have opposed the Iraq when the vote came up, but complete withdrawal is not an option for the major candidates.

From his own website

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

I want to bring your attention to the final sentence. Basically, I want to express that our troops will never leave Iraq in the way Obama is implying. Best case scenario(highly unlikely as we have come to expect from Iraq), we have a small force around our diplomats and an airbase near Baghdad.

Don't believe me?
We still have troops in Kuwait, Italy, Germany, Korea, Japan, Philippines, the UK, France, Bosnia, Qatar, Turkey, Hungary, Spain, Iceland, and all of the floating islands we have floating around the Indian, Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans(also the forces we have in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean).

History is an example of what we can expect in the future.

If we add in the economic burden his Caps on production and "Fair" trade, we can expect to be fighting over our bread and water in our own country in a few years.

Luckily, politicians take their sweet time.

I don't care who is president, they are all out to make us all poor one way or another. On the conservative side, even Reagan could not decrease the size of government (he merely stopped its expansion, with the exception of our defense).

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Should we remove the minimum wage, quite a few people will see their wages drop, and that in itself would worsen their situation to the point of being unable to provide the basic necessities.


It's to late to remove minimum wage. Have you read the HR25 bill (Fair Tax )? It covers all the basic necessities and you get that money back each month. Plus everyone pays taxes no matter if you are visiting or live here rich or poor. But those basic necessities for life are free.

Also wanted to let you know TheRedneck that I read that you have a CDL and wanted you to know that " I know " that you guys & girls are the backbone for this country and I really feel for you and others with the rising fuel prices. Without you all we would be waiting weeks and months for anything we buy. You guys get it here just like that! Thank You and I hope something is done about it soon.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by Solarskye]

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:38 PM
Interesting thread Semper. Worthy of a lot of discussion.
Economy seems to be the number one issue for voters this year, followed by the Iraq war.

I thought members might like a definition of GDP.
Here is a simple formula, that I retrieved from here

A common equation used to calculate GDP is as follows:
GDP = Consumption + Government Expenditures + Investment +Exports - Imports

I suggest that reading the definition is a good place to start, and will allow for well thought-out replies.

This is a large number. So it takes a lot of change to move the numbers up and down. But I still believe it can be manipulated easily.
For example, one way to move the numbers in a positive direction would be increase military orders. As long as it it produced in the US (BTW it does NOT have to be produced by a US company, just within the borders).

Another way, would be to reduce the number of imports, since they are a MINUS against the GDP. How can you reduce imports? Anti-Chinese sentiments could do that.

One question I have though is if Foreign goods produced within US borders are a plus..What about US goods, produced in Foreign countries? They seem to be counted towards the OTHER country's GDP. Why aren't they a plus for the US GDP?

I wanted to add one more thing. With the current definition of a recession.
It would behoove the current Administration to be SURE that there were never 2 negative quarters in a row. If the GDP report and be manipulated, then this manipulation can help eliminate that possibility.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by spacedoubt]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in