• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Economy Up 3.5% in 3rd Quarter, Capping Best 6 Months in Over a Decade[W:75]

Dude you are deliberately misquoting me and refusing to answer whether or not you think it is an ideological position that the Obama administration has been doing what Obama has said it would be doing. Report you? nah - the credibility you are hurting is your own.
Arguing that "things happened" is not establishing fact, I'm sure you can find some out of context absolutist "statement" to "justify" your ideologically driven argument....of this I have no doubt...and again, it will be biased...as it already has been.
 
His point was that we were in a more technologically advanced and globalized era than previous post-war depressions, and implicitly that that was the cause of our exceedingly slow, low-growth recovery.
No, it wasn't. Why would you lie when I've explained TWICE what my point was?
Is that what I said?

No, it isn't. I said trying to compare completely different situations with one another really isn't much more than a waste of time. Just accept the good news for what it is.
What are you talking about? Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting about what I said?

I told you exactly what I said (that different situations are different). Take your nonsense someplace else.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

We're talking about a situation where the building already burned down and we're in the process of rebuilding it. Asking how quickly a shed was rebuilt when we're busy building a mansion is pointless.

And no, I have absolutely zero confidence in your ability to understand what I just said. People like you generally don't.
I guess when you have no leg to stand on, simply lie about what the other person has said.
Dude you are deliberately misquoting me
I cannot begin to tell you how hard I laughed when you said this. For you to complain someone else is misquoting you, when you DELIBERATELY have misquoted me multiple times, despite me specifying for you multiples times what I said, is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Because domestic oil production falls under GDP. That isn't relevant to what I said so I don't really get your point.

If we became energy independent, not only would that improve our economy due to decreased costs for consumers and producers, it would lower energy costs worldwide since we are a major consumer of oil. If we're not buying oil, then the price drops worldwide. Not only would energy independence be a huge domestic security boon, but a hugely significant economic boon.
 
Seems like just the other day when Bush was pres and dems were calling 3.4% growth anemic. How times change.
 
According to the BEA, defense spending increased 16% in Q3, compared with 0.9% in Q2.

There is a big chink of the GDP gain.


Oh, and apparently, exports rose while imports shrank (so obviously a stronger dollar did not help that, as I said above).

And real personal consumption and durable/non durable goods declined from the previous quarter.

News Release: Gross Domestic Product




The bottom line, once again, is this makeup of the Q3 growth is not sustainable in the long run.
As Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead."

But I am confused, I thought Keynesian economics is a "failed theory" according to you conservatives? But according to what you wrote, government spending raised GDP. I assume that this government spending on defense was spent on defense contractors who paid employees, who then spent those earnings.

As for personal consumption:

fredgraph.png
 
But according to what you wrote, government spending raised GDP. I assume that this government spending on defense was spent on defense contractors who paid employees, who then spent those earnings.
What is this? Trickle-down government?
 
What is this? Trickle-down government?

No, it's macroeconomics.

When you have economy-wide deleveraging; when everyone is trying to spend less than his or her income, so as to pay down debt, you have a fundamental adding-up problem. My spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if both of us try to spend less at the same time, what we end up achieving is depressed incomes and a depressed economy, with millions of willing workers unable to find jobs.

Things aren’t always this way, but when they are, the government is not in competition with the private sector. Government purchases don’t use resources that would otherwise be producing private goods, they put unemployed resources to work. Government borrowing doesn’t crowd out private borrowing, it puts idle funds to work. As a result, the government is doing the right thing spending more (and should be spending even more.) If we ignore this insight and cut government spending instead, the economy will shrink and unemployment will rise. In fact, even private spending will shrink, because of falling incomes. And if you want to insist that some other kind of scenario would save us if only markets were perfect and pure enough, tell me how.
 
Personal Spending, Income Weaker than Expected

'U.S. consumer spending fell in September for the first time in eight months, suggesting the economy lost some momentum heading into the fourth quarter.

The Commerce Department said on Friday consumer spending declined 0.2 percent last month as demand for goods tumbled and services barely rose.'

Personal Spending, Income Weaker than Expected | Fox Business

News Release: Personal Income and Outlays


So 3'rd Qtr GDP rose by 3.5 even though consumer spending (which represents 2/3'rds of the economy) was down for a third of the quarter (and flat in another third).

This number is based on greater government spending, reduced inflation (which affects the GDP) and smaller trade deficit...not healthy consumer spending.


Always look beyond the headlines.
 
Improving Economy? Thanks Obama.
 
'The Trade Gap (net deference between Exports and Imports) increased 7.6% to $43.03 and when adjusted for inflation (CPI) increased to $50.76 billion, this is not good.

This will also trickle over into the Gross Domestic Product (GDP); because just last week the third-quarter published ESTIMATE had a DROP in the trade gap to $38.1 billion. Trade was reported to contribute 1.32 percentage points to the GDP of the 3.5% third quarter estimate. No doubt that this actual widening trade gap and decline in exports will lower the revised GDP estimates.'

Alibaba and Exports? | Silexx Financial Systems: Market Preview
 
""No doubt that this actual widening trade gap and decline in exports will lower the revised GDP estimates.""

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real GDP increased by 3.9% in Q III 2014, and 4.6% in Q II 2014, as per released in today's revision.

source
 
This will not end well for our children's children...

Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks—To Pay Old Debt
November 28, 2014 - 2:37 PM

By Terence P. Jeffrey

The Daily Treasury Statement that was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.
...

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme," says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission. “With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” explains the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

Full Article: Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks
 
This will not end well for our children's children...

Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks—To Pay Old Debt
November 28, 2014 - 2:37 PM

By Terence P. Jeffrey

The Daily Treasury Statement that was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.
...

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme," says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission. “With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” explains the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

Full Article: Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks



Zv05zvz.gif
 
If we became energy independent, not only would that improve our economy due to decreased costs for consumers and producers, it would lower energy costs worldwide since we are a major consumer of oil. If we're not buying oil, then the price drops worldwide. Not only would energy independence be a huge domestic security boon, but a hugely significant economic boon.

That will never happen. For one, we EXPORT the oil produced here because it is more expensive. We still import mostly all of the oil we use domestically. Now with the price plunge you will see a good drop in production here since they would lose money trying to get it out of the ground.

Energy independence is a pipe dream unless we find alternative energy sources.
 
That will never happen. For one, we EXPORT the oil produced here because it is more expensive. We still import mostly all of the oil we use domestically. Now with the price plunge you will see a good drop in production here since they would lose money trying to get it out of the ground.

Energy independence is a pipe dream unless we find alternative energy sources.

Whether we export it or not is irrelevant. More oil on the market means lower prices globally.
 
Median US wage $13/hr. 50% of Americans don't work, of the 50% that do work they make less than $13/hr.

/thread

<-IDNeon wins thread
 
Back
Top Bottom