• 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!

Economy Shrank in First Quarter as U.S. Trade Deficit Surged

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
3,750
Reaction score
2,758
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Economy Shrank in First Quarter as U.S. Trade Deficit Surged - Bloomberg Business

The world’s largest economy hit a bigger ditch in the first quarter than initially estimated, held back by harsh winter weather, a strong dollar and delays at ports.
Gross domestic product in the U.S. shrank at a 0.7 percent annualized rate, revised from a previously reported 0.2 percent gain, according to Commerce Department figures issued Friday in Washington. The median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.9 percent drop. By contrast, the report also showed incomes climbed, fueling the debate on whether GDP is being underestimated.

I wonder if conservatives will reiterate the belief that Obama has done nothing in regards to the economy? So, good or bad, it's not relatable to him.

Or is it only the bad that's his fault?
 
Economy Shrank in First Quarter as U.S. Trade Deficit Surged - Bloomberg Business



I wonder if conservatives will reiterate the belief that Obama has done nothing in regards to the economy? So, good or bad, it's not relatable to him.

Or is it only the bad that's his fault?

I think it's the last two quarters. Conservatives know that our fiscal policy is stupid. Nobody can do anything about it because of the idiot in chief. His idea of tax policy is to increase it and put more people on the dole.
 
McConnell said the GOP takeover of Congress caused the economic uptick earlier this year, so now he's got to take the blame for the sluggishness.

I'm sure Mitch will stand up in Congress later today to take the blame.
 
I think it's the last two quarters. Conservatives know that our fiscal policy is stupid. Nobody can do anything about it because of the idiot in chief. His idea of tax policy is to increase it and put more people on the dole.

The trade deficit has what to do with tax policy, exactly?
 
McConnell said the GOP takeover of Congress caused the economic uptick earlier this year, so now he's got to take the blame for the sluggishness.

I'm sure Mitch will stand up in Congress later today to take the blame.

McConnell deserves some blame, he has not done much to try and stop Obama, he's been a bit of a door mat.

But, nothing new here, a weak economy and Obama's policies just suck more and more life out of it. As I've said before, he had a template from the '80's on how to revive the economy, and he did the opposite.

He is not all that concerned with the economy or how people are doing. Social programs and government control are at the top of his list, and it, quite obviously, shows.
 
Economy Shrank in First Quarter as U.S. Trade Deficit Surged - Bloomberg Business

I wonder if conservatives will reiterate the belief that Obama has done nothing in regards to the economy? So, good or bad, it's not relatable to him.

Or is it only the bad that's his fault?

Again, I would hope for the last time, it is not all or nothing.

A President is not entirely responsible for economic results nor is a President entirely immune from culpability for those results. The fact of the matter is we do *not* have a hands off market economic model, we *do* have a mixed economic model where economic policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy all play parts in our very complex system of economy.

When you consider GDP calculation it is not complicated to understand why GDP for 2015 Q1 was recalculated to be -0.7% vs. the original calculation of 0.2%. The equation is not all that complicated but the accumulation of that data behind the math is subject to revision and clarification based on all factors and sources. A larger trade deficit speaks directly to E, or Excess of Exports over Imports (in our case this is usually a negative number.) Smaller accumulation of business inventories speaks directly to I, or Investment made by Industry. And, a downward revision to consumer spending speaks directly to C, Consumer Spending. When these numbers change, or are further clarified, the GDP math changes.

Our political issue is how much a President's (and associated Congress') prior actions influence any one quarter's results. In this case it appears our government's influence on these single quarter's results is next to nil. One key issue that is still somewhat unresolved is how we handle seasonal fluctuations. The best example to use for this is how we "normalize" both retail sales and residential construction starts data. Every single year retail sales tend to rise in correlation with the holiday shopping season, and every single year residential construction starts falls due to weather conditions in roughly the same time period. So the data is "normalized" to account for this. We have to normalize this as the GDP results tends to influence political and monetary policies. We do this so frequently it tends to make our mixed economic model subject to political reaction.

Most economists agree that the disappointing 2013 Q1, 2014 Q1 and 2015 Q1 results have more to do with issues related to input data normalization effort than any one economic, or fiscal, or monetary policy we have seen to date. Makes sense as the former has more impact with the quarter to quarter GDP results, and the latter has more to do with overall trend lines over several year's worth of GDP results.

Therefor it is a bit naive to suggest we should run out and blame the President and Congress (any President and Congress) for any single quarter's GDP results. We can however blame a President (and Congress) for actions which seem to make an overall influence on the results over time. Saying the lackluster recovery is something we can pin on politics, saying one quarter was that was adjusted to account for data clarification is the fault of politics is naive. Since we already know that 2015 Q2 is looking to be somewhere in the 2% range we can conclude the math adjustments seem to be the culprit, over any single action of the President and Congress that directly harmed only one quarter's results.
 
Again, I would hope for the last time, it is not all or nothing.

A President is not entirely responsible for economic results nor is a President entirely immune from culpability for those results. The fact of the matter is we do *not* have a hands off market economic model, we *do* have a mixed economic model where economic policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy all play parts in our very complex system of economy.

When you consider GDP calculation it is not complicated to understand why GDP for 2015 Q1 was recalculated to be -0.7% vs. the original calculation of 0.2%. The equation is not all that complicated but the accumulation of that data behind the math is subject to revision and clarification based on all factors and sources. A larger trade deficit speaks directly to E, or Excess of Exports over Imports (in our case this is usually a negative number.) Smaller accumulation of business inventories speaks directly to I, or Investment made by Industry. And, a downward revision to consumer spending speaks directly to C, Consumer Spending. When these numbers change, or are further clarified, the GDP math changes.

Our political issue is how much a President's (and associated Congress') prior actions influence any one quarter's results. In this case it appears our government's influence on these single quarter's results is next to nil. One key issue that is still somewhat unresolved is how we handle seasonal fluctuations. The best example to use for this is how we "normalize" both retail sales and residential construction starts data. Every single year retail sales tend to rise in correlation with the holiday shopping season, and every single year residential construction starts falls due to weather conditions in roughly the same time period. So the data is "normalized" to account for this. We have to normalize this as the GDP results tends to influence political and monetary policies. We do this so frequently it tends to make our mixed economic model subject to political reaction.

Most economists agree that the disappointing 2013 Q1, 2014 Q1 and 2015 Q1 results have more to do with issues related to input data normalization effort than any one economic, or fiscal, or monetary policy we have seen to date. Makes sense as the former has more impact with the quarter to quarter GDP results, and the latter has more to do with overall trend lines over several year's worth of GDP results.

Therefor it is a bit naive to suggest we should run out and blame the President and Congress (any President and Congress) for any single quarter's GDP results. We can however blame a President (and Congress) for actions which seem to make an overall influence on the results over time. Saying the lackluster recovery is something we can pin on politics, saying one quarter was that was adjusted to account for data clarification is the fault of politics is naive. Since we already know that 2015 Q2 is looking to be somewhere in the 2% range we can conclude the math adjustments seem to be the culprit, over any single action of the President and Congress that directly harmed only one quarter's results.

I agree.

But, when Conservatives make it a point to dump all economic results on the president... at day one... must also credit that same president when their prediction of doom do not come to pass and the end results are overall positive. In fact, those same people need to praise the president. But, will that happen? Nope.

The problem is, there's no honor or culpability in our political system. The doomsayers can make their blanket predictions and when proven wrong, they suffer no ill. The same applied to this messageboard. Those that follow blindly can say the most outlandish things, and those that side with them will never point out the error in their statements so long as they tow the line. The line of the past few years is: Obama IS causing the downfall of America. Facts be damned.

Personally, I just want to make fun of them. But hopefully, the sheeple will wake up and see it for what it is.
 
McConnell deserves some blame, he has not done much to try and stop Obama, he's been a bit of a door mat.

But, nothing new here, a weak economy and Obama's policies just suck more and more life out of it. As I've said before, he had a template from the '80's on how to revive the economy, and he did the opposite.

He is not all that concerned with the economy or how people are doing. Social programs and government control are at the top of his list, and it, quite obviously, shows.

Yeah, there's not a sentence I agree with here. And the 80"s?? Trickle down has been proven to be a failure, was then, and still is.

Anyway all presidents gets too much blame when the economy is bad, and too much credit when the economy is good. In the case of Obama he gets no credit when it's going good, and all the blame when it's sluggish. Whatever.
 
For perspective:

The last 8 quarters of annualized real GDP growth have been:

2013 Q2 +1.8%
2013 Q3 +4.5%
2013 Q4 +3.5%

2014 Q1 -2.1%
2014 Q2 +4.6%
2014 Q3 +5.0%
2014 Q4 +2.2%

2015 Q1 -0.7%

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/pdf/gdp1q15_2nd.pdf

Average annual growth rate for the past 2 years (2013 Q1 through 2015 Q1): +3.2%
Growth rate for the past year (2014 Q1 through 2015 Q1): +2.7%

Last year, weather played a huge role in the temporary contraction. A big snap back followed. This year, weather and a work stoppage contributed. However, there was a headwind created from the rising dollar, which adversely impacted the trade balance. Improved competitiveness is a slower process, so the second quarter rebound will very likely be less than what occurred last year (2%-3%? vs. 4.6%). The temporary factors related to the weather and work stoppage that impacting shipping will no longer have an impact and there will likely have been some pent-up demand that is reflected in Q2's figures (for which the first estimate will be released on July 30).

Overall, the narrative of general economic expansion continues. The pace of growth remains modest to moderate. The Fed's Beige Book to be released on June 3 will provide fresh insight and, I suspect, it will reaffirm the growth narrative.
 
Yeah, there's not a sentence I agree with here. And the 80"s?? Trickle down has been proven to be a failure, was then, and still is.

Anyway all presidents gets too much blame when the economy is bad, and too much credit when the economy is good. In the case of Obama he gets no credit when it's going good, and all the blame when it's sluggish. Whatever.

Yes, what a disater that booming economy was, lasted almost 20 years. Talk about denying reality! Are you kidding???

But, I know you need to be able to lie to yourself in order to support the left's agenda. I mean, you really can't truthfully look at the economy that Reagan unleashed and then sit there and say Obama is doing a good job. Or even a mediocre job. I see your dilema.

I guess you have to decide to either keep believing them, or your own intellect. Good luck!
 
The problem is, there's no honor or culpability in our political system. The doomsayers can make their blanket predictions and when proven wrong, they suffer no ill.

This issue is a chronic one. The political opposition typically warns of very dark economic scenarios when the opposing party takes control of the White House. One witnessed it when Reagan took office in 1981, Clinton took office in 1993, Bush took office in 2001 (though the slowly mounting housing bubble and related risks were not on the radar of the critics' predictions), and when Obama took office in 2009. Fiscal policy helps shape economic outcomes. Public investment helps shape innovation with long-term economic consequences. But many non-public policy variables also shape macroeconomic performance.

Unfortunately, when it comes to economic predictions, there is virtually no media scrutiny. Hence, politicians and pundits, many of whom have abysmal records, continue to make on-air predictions with little or no consequence to their reputations or ability to make new public predictions. The result is good analysts are crowded out and public perceptions of are skewed.
 
I agree.

But, when Conservatives make it a point to dump all economic results on the president... at day one... must also credit that same president when their prediction of doom do not come to pass and the end results are overall positive. In fact, those same people need to praise the president. But, will that happen? Nope.

The problem is, there's no honor or culpability in our political system. The doomsayers can make their blanket predictions and when proven wrong, they suffer no ill. The same applied to this messageboard. Those that follow blindly can say the most outlandish things, and those that side with them will never point out the error in their statements so long as they tow the line. The line of the past few years is: Obama IS causing the downfall of America. Facts be damned.

Personally, I just want to make fun of them. But hopefully, the sheeple will wake up and see it for what it is.

I'm with you. The politics of economics tends to trump economic reality, and we all end up doing this from time to time.

In a very sad way we see plenty of examples, both left and right, of doomsday economic predictions based on opposition policy. But I will concede that conservative economics tends to be more vocal about "disaster" from Obama's (and Congress') actions. We all recall the Gold predictions based on hyperinflation predictions that did not happen. And we all recall the right wing recession predictions when 2011 Q1 slumped, only to see 2011 Q2 up over 3% and 2011 Q4 at almost 5%. We saw these disaster predictions again when 2014 Q1 was down 2%, only to see 2014 Q2 hit over 4% and 2014 Q3 hit 5%.

The one thing we have to remember is the business model of political commentary, making a target demographic of followers increasingly scared and or angry at political opposition. Which means most economic disaster calls by political commentary all boil down to opportunism devoid of reality.

That said, our present economic model has plenty of faults. And I do not agree with plenty of actions Obama and the associated Congresses (112th up to our present 114th) have taken. I see plenty of economic bubbles forming in everything from Student Debt to the overbought Equity Markets. Fed has made some matters worse and I am concerned that present politics has not really helped the matter either. Again, not all or nothing. But present crew up on the hill has caused some headwind and it explains well why our overall recovery period has come with faults. Like, low labor participation rates and disparate unemployment rates by race. Like, high private debt risk taking. Like, running Government Total Debt well above 100% of GDP.

So I agree that saying "Obama has caused the downfall of America" is partisan uselessness, but that does not mean I will all of a sudden say Obama and crew have done what is best to handle the real economic faults of our present economic model of trade deficits and consumer debt.
 
For perspective:

The last 8 quarters of annualized real GDP growth have been:

2013 Q2 +1.8%
2013 Q3 +4.5%
2013 Q4 +3.5%

2014 Q1 -2.1%
2014 Q2 +4.6%
2014 Q3 +5.0%
2014 Q4 +2.2%

2015 Q1 -0.7%

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/pdf/gdp1q15_2nd.pdf

Average annual growth rate for the past 2 years (2013 Q1 through 2015 Q1): +3.2%
Growth rate for the past year (2014 Q1 through 2015 Q1): +2.7%

Overall, the narrative of general economic expansion continues. The pace of growth remains modest to moderate. The Fed's Beige Book to be released on June 3 will provide fresh insight and, I suspect, it will reaffirm the growth narrative.

I really hope so, since we are a growing country and a positive rate of growth is just a given. As I recall, we've had Winters every year so far, so that is also a given. Negative growth rates are a pretty bad thing, and our overall growth rates have been lackluster at best. And when you throw out the numbers and just take a look at how well people are doing as far as jobs and income, as well as the amount of people that have just given up... well, it's been a Hellish several years.
 
I'm with you. The politics of economics tends to trump economic reality, and we all end up doing this from time to time.

In a very sad way we see plenty of examples, both left and right, of doomsday economic predictions based on opposition policy. But I will concede that conservative economics tends to be more vocal about "disaster" from Obama's (and Congress') actions. We all recall the Gold predictions based on hyperinflation predictions that did not happen. And we all recall the right wing recession predictions when 2011 Q1 slumped, only to see 2011 Q2 up over 3% and 2011 Q4 at almost 5%. We saw these disaster predictions again when 2014 Q1 was down 2%, only to see 2014 Q2 hit over 4% and 2014 Q3 hit 5%.

The one thing we have to remember is the business model of political commentary, making a target demographic of followers increasingly scared and or angry at political opposition. Which means most economic disaster calls by political commentary all boil down to opportunism devoid of reality.

I saw a commercial yesterday with Ron Paul(who I always kind of liked, not everything he stood for, but the man stuck to his guns and I admired that, something no politician does anymore) saying just what you and others here are talking about. Go to his website, watch the free video on how everything is going to collapse, and what you can do, and probably buy(I haven't watched the video) to protect yourself from the impending doom.

I thought better of Ron Paul, I didn't think he would sink to that level. IDK, they all suck.
 
I really hope so, since we are a growing country and a positive rate of growth is just a given. As I recall, we've had Winters every year so far, so that is also a given. Negative growth rates are a pretty bad thing, and our overall growth rates have been lackluster at best. And when you throw out the numbers and just take a look at how well people are doing as far as jobs and income, as well as the amount of people that have just given up... well, it's been a Hellish several years.

The last two winters have been particularly severe in parts of the U.S. responsible for a lot of economic activity.
 
I saw a commercial yesterday with Ron Paul(who I always kind of liked, not everything he stood for, but the man stuck to his guns and I admired that, something no politician does anymore) saying just what you and others here are talking about. Go to his website, watch the free video on how everything is going to collapse, and what you can do, and probably buy(I haven't watched the video) to protect yourself from the impending doom.

I thought better of Ron Paul, I didn't think he would sink to that level. IDK, they all suck.

Ron Paul has a slightly different take on monetary implications of Fiat Money systems, than the typical Conservative rhetoric you hear on Obama's economic policy.

Back in 2008 and well into 2010 we all recall everyone from Goldline International to APMEX advertise mostly on right wing TV and radio (FoxNews and other radio networks,) mostly talking about buying Gold as a hedge against at best inflation and at worse instilling fears of hyperinflation. It complemented well the rhetoric then on those commentary productions about left wing economics "destroying the nation" and our economy. It quickly turned into a real instance of predatory activity. Of course economic reality of the situation then and now told us the conditions for hyperinflation to occur did not really exist. GDP rose just enough to handle what the Fed was doing with reserves held as deposits, currency in circulation did not go up near enough to trigger inflation into hyperinflation territory.

Ron Paul on the other hand is more speaking about Fed existence to date, and the continual devaluation of the dollar to handle Fed policy in concert with self serving fiscal policy. Some, I repeat some, of what he is saying makes sense but it is easy to see that get derailed when he gets too close to the typical Conservative rhetoric on using Gold to hedge against those policies. Over the very long term Ron Paul has been right just as much as he has been wrong about economics. The "impending doom" talk is something that is of question as to when it could occur as he describes. Our reality is there is only so far you can push Fiat Money systems in a climate of currency competition for investor sentiment. Liberals generally do not like to hear that suggesting there is no investor reality to Government/Fed actions.

But, no matter where you fall we can see examples both left and right appealing to the politics of the issue over the economic results. We know that is basically true as no matter who is in charge our economic model of the past 30-40 years (in some cases longer) is prone to the very bubble and pop economics most economists warn us about. A clear sign of "left wing" and "right wing" politics trumping the reality of the economic model they have clearly influenced.

Back to Ron Paul. There is plenty of examples I can agree with him on, then other times he is well deserving of epic facepalm memes.
 
I'm with you. The politics of economics tends to trump economic reality, and we all end up doing this from time to time.

In a very sad way we see plenty of examples, both left and right, of doomsday economic predictions based on opposition policy. But I will concede that conservative economics tends to be more vocal about "disaster" from Obama's (and Congress') actions. We all recall the Gold predictions based on hyperinflation predictions that did not happen. And we all recall the right wing recession predictions when 2011 Q1 slumped, only to see 2011 Q2 up over 3% and 2011 Q4 at almost 5%. We saw these disaster predictions again when 2014 Q1 was down 2%, only to see 2014 Q2 hit over 4% and 2014 Q3 hit 5%.

The one thing we have to remember is the business model of political commentary, making a target demographic of followers increasingly scared and or angry at political opposition. Which means most economic disaster calls by political commentary all boil down to opportunism devoid of reality.

That said, our present economic model has plenty of faults. And I do not agree with plenty of actions Obama and the associated Congresses (112th up to our present 114th) have taken. I see plenty of economic bubbles forming in everything from Student Debt to the overbought Equity Markets. Fed has made some matters worse and I am concerned that present politics has not really helped the matter either. Again, not all or nothing. But present crew up on the hill has caused some headwind and it explains well why our overall recovery period has come with faults. Like, low labor participation rates and disparate unemployment rates by race. Like, high private debt risk taking. Like, running Government Total Debt well above 100% of GDP.

So I agree that saying "Obama has caused the downfall of America" is partisan uselessness, but that does not mean I will all of a sudden say Obama and crew have done what is best to handle the real economic faults of our present economic model of trade deficits and consumer debt.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, even though we're on opposite sides of the aisle. :)

All I'm after is for Conservatives to concede that Obama isn't the anti-Christ for business, and has not been the harbinger for American apocalypse.

Is the economy perfect? Hell no. But, the results of Obama's economy over the course of his tenure has been positive overall.
 
Ron Paul has a slightly different take on monetary implications of Fiat Money systems, than the typical Conservative rhetoric you hear on Obama's economic policy.

Back in 2008 and well into 2010 we all recall everyone from Goldline International to APMEX advertise mostly on right wing TV and radio (FoxNews and other radio networks,) mostly talking about buying Gold as a hedge against at best inflation and at worse instilling fears of hyperinflation. It complemented well the rhetoric then on those commentary productions about left wing economics "destroying the nation" and our economy. It quickly turned into a real instance of predatory activity. Of course economic reality of the situation then and now told us the conditions for hyperinflation to occur did not really exist. GDP rose just enough to handle what the Fed was doing with reserves held as deposits, currency in circulation did not go up near enough to trigger inflation into hyperinflation territory.

Ron Paul on the other hand is more speaking about Fed existence to date, and the continual devaluation of the dollar to handle Fed policy in concert with self serving fiscal policy. Some, I repeat some, of what he is saying makes sense but it is easy to see that get derailed when he gets too close to the typical Conservative rhetoric on using Gold to hedge against those policies. Over the very long term Ron Paul has been right just as much as he has been wrong about economics. The "impending doom" talk is something that is of question as to when it could occur as he describes. Our reality is there is only so far you can push Fiat Money systems in a climate of currency competition for investor sentiment. Liberals generally do not like to hear that suggesting there is no investor reality to Government/Fed actions.

But, no matter where you fall we can see examples both left and right appealing to the politics of the issue over the economic results. We know that is basically true as no matter who is in charge our economic model of the past 30-40 years (in some cases longer) is prone to the very bubble and pop economics most economists warn us about. A clear sign of "left wing" and "right wing" politics trumping the reality of the economic model they have clearly influenced.

Back to Ron Paul. There is plenty of examples I can agree with him on, then other times he is well deserving of epic facepalm memes.

Thank you. Damn good post.
 
Yeah, there's not a sentence I agree with here. And the 80"s?? Trickle down has been proven to be a failure, was then, and still is.

Anyway all presidents gets too much blame when the economy is bad, and too much credit when the economy is good. In the case of Obama he gets no credit when it's going good, and all the blame when it's sluggish. Whatever.

First, " trickle down " is just a simplistic politicized description of Supply Side economics and who exactly has " proven " that to be a failure " ??

MSNBC ? Paul Krugman ? You ? Lol.

And yes, Obama gets the blame. He signed ObamaCare and he and the Democrat party are responsible for the multiple job killing tax increases and regulations that are contained in that law.

He gets the blame for all of his partisan rhetoric about making the " Rich pay their fair share " and his EPA mandates that would increase energy cost on the poor and middle class.
 
First, " trickle down " is just a simplistic politicized description of Supply Side economics and who exactly has " proven " that to be a failure " ??

MSNBC ? Paul Krugman ? You ? Lol.

And yes, Obama gets the blame. He signed ObamaCare and he and the Democrat party are responsible for the multiple job killing tax increases and regulations that are contained in that law.

He gets the blame for all of his partisan rhetoric about making the " Rich pay their fair share " and his EPA mandates that would increase energy cost on the poor and middle class.

History has proven supply side economic is a failure.

But if you consider the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and country increasing its deficit year over year as success, then you'll disagree with history.
 
History has proven supply side economic is a failure.

But if you consider the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and country increasing its deficit year over year as success, then you'll disagree with history.

No it hasn't....Lol ! That's ridiculous. Giving consumers more of their own money to spend and incentivizing new investment in a economy creates growth and whats really neat about it is, its not dependant on the " weather ".

If you don't believe me take a look at Texas's economy as compared to a State like California's economy. Two distinct strategies with two distinct outcomes.

Whats been proven to be a failure is " stimulus to increase aggregate demand ", debt and taxing wealth creation.

Its why our economy is stalled after 7 years of record low interest rates, Trillions in new spending, unprecedented Monetary Stimulus and now low fuel cost.

Central planning with Nationalization of private industries has also been proven to be a failure.
 
Global warming and all....

The distribution of short-term temperature anomalies is driven by the prevailing synoptic patterns. That a region is cold and another warm neither proves nor disproves scientific understanding of climate change. FWIW, the global temperature maps and anomalies for January-March 2014 and January-March 2015 (2014 Q1 and 2014 Q2):

JFM2015_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The trade deficit has what to do with tax policy, exactly?

GDP is an indicator of the general health of the economy and the measure by which countries are judged to be in recession when it recedes two consecutive quarters. That has much to do with tax policy. All economists agree that when an economy is in recession, taxes should not be raised and to stimulate economies taxes are often reduced.
 
Back
Top Bottom