Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 133

Thread: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Excellent discussion thus far. .
    thus far it was.............. now hide.
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, the economy is showing growing signs of stabilization and modest growth should occur during the second half of 2009, even if GDP bottoms in Q3 rather than Q2. I suspect that the Fed's monetary policy statement to be released this afternoon will note growing indications of economic stabilization and reaffirm prospects for moderate growth in the second half.

    With respect to the President's fiscal stimulus, I believe it has also helped contribute to the recent stabilization and possible imminent recovery. A fiscal stimulus increases aggregate demand. Risks associated with the stimulus e.g., timing of withdrawal, are farther ahead.

    Today, Bloomberg.com quotes a number of economists or trade group representatives who give some credit to the stimulus. One such person is Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board stated, “We’ve averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working.”

    As so often happens in political battles, the reasonable case that could have been made against a stimulus (increased debt burden, poor track record of reversing the stimulus later, etc.) is discarded for apocalyptic rhetoric e.g., the economy will not revive, or superficial fallacies e.g., each dollar spent by the government is taken from the private sector and that amounts to a wash or worse (as the private sector is more efficient than the government). Of course, the fallacy is just that. When the private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, the hoarded cash is not contributing to economic growth. So, when the government borrows from the private sector, and then spends the money, that translates into an increase in growth. In addition, the federal government borrows from abroad.

    In the long-term, if the deficits are not reduced, the stimulus is not adequately withdrawn, and the additional debt incurred from the stimulus is not paid off, that situation will make an adverse contribution to the economy e.g., in the form of higher long-term interest rates than might otherwise be the case. However, that's another issue that is beyond the scope of whether the President's fiscal stimulus played a role in stabilizing the economy.

    Don,

    You are bad. I cannot even express how bad you are. You are as bad as Obama supporters are. You are even worse because they cannot think and you can… sometimes. 2 things are standing out in your post.

    1. You, like everyone else, make an assumption that the historical rule of thumb is the rule we should follow without any doubt. The rule says that economy always recovers. Thus Obama can abuse it for personal and ideological purposes and that would result only in some delay, but economy will recover. Economy will still start recovering on his watch and will grant him the 2nd term (especially if to consider the massive brainwashing campaign in media and Internet). However this rule is accepted by everyone as the rule of the thumb there is always one justone who has no problems of challenging it. It has to be challenged at least because of the position taken by everyone except for one justone. The position is that everyone is sitting and guessing – have we hit the bottom yet? Are we seeing the signs of recovery? Can we call it recovery or sluggish growth or another BS? All of it begs one justone question – do we have to sit on our hands, pick our noses and, looking at the content, keep on guessing when Obama says it is enough for him?

    2. The question 1. may take time to discuss. The 2nd thought standing out in you post represents the logic of supporters of Obama, the deeply fallacious logic.

    You have expressed the extremism of such a magnitude that it can be only compared if not with the extremism of the Obama’s administration then at least with extremism of Muslim terrorists. As any extremism it is not arguable because it not only lacks any rational (the less it does when you take the rule above as the rule of the thumb) but it also ignores the facts of reality. Generally in the bolded part you are conducting the war on the private sector blaming it in all sins and saying that the Messiah is here to save it and the economy.

    As the matter of the fact the apocalyptic rhetoric was brought in by the gov-nt but not by the private sector. It was the gov-nt which screamed the end of the world, - the banks falling and failing, Wall Street going down, credits disappearing – the end of the world, an emergency, TARP as soon as possible, - now, $700B! Of course, this scream was full of superficial fallacies as I pointed to you at that time, and explained some irrational and obviously wrong calculations. (In one instance the calculation of $700B was done with the false assumption that the price of oil was reflecting the real value of oil which was there to stay or go up. In reality the fall of the speculated price by itself put $700B in pockets of consumers. In another instance you did not answer the question - What was bad in the Wall Street falling and breaking into pieces, - we wouldn’t see savages taking and saving each and every valuable piece? Was it better to keep on spending on the pieces which were no value even to the last savages?) I pointed to many other totally irrational apocalyptic rhetoric which IN FACT came from the gov-nt and caused the slow down to dive into the deepest recession.


    The fact is, - it was gov-nt which injected fear and the apocalyptic rhetoric on the 1st place, but not other way around as you and other extremists tell us.

    When the gov-nt acts so irrational, so mad, it causes a deep recession. The private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, as it is the only rational choice it has when the gov-nt runs amok on the healthy part of the private sector. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. The gov-nt propaganda against the private sector you introduce here is neither factual nor logical.

    When the gov-nt ‘’borrows’’ money from the private sector, it is not borrowing, it is extraction and extortion, - for the simple reason that gov-nt expects the private sector to pay money back to itself. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. Making profits constitutes economic growth. When the gov-nt spends the extorted money with NO PROFIT the economic growth is false, it is should be called the growth of deficit. The apocalyptic rhetoric was introduced almost a year ago, the program of gov-nt spending and running the deficit high started almost a year ago, and still you are guessing the present results and close your eyes on the unstoppable debt as on “another question”. Don, it is an undividable question, pointing only to the tip of the iceberg and not payning attention to the rest of it you are to bring the Titanic to the bottom. How things could be worse and will be worse if the gov-nt did not go into the spending madness a year ago? You are telling the private sector – ‘you are bad you are not contributing to the economic growth in your fears, look we will teach you how to make economic growth, how to spend.’ The private sector wants to be thought how to invest money for profit, how to make money, not how to spend. As money spent by the gov-nt return NO PROFIT and are not spent for the goal of making profit, I wouldn’t know what the gov-nt will call to be recovery when it will call something to be recovery.

    We had the Internet bubble, we had Housing bubble, when economy will enter the same cycle of intensive production of goods and services, call me so I would call it recovery. But isn’t it your goal – not to have such intensive cycle of production of goods and services anymore? In your war on the private sector – who will be there to make profits?
    Last edited by justone; 08-12-09 at 03:33 PM.

  2. #32
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    thus far it was.............. now hide.



    Don,

    You are bad. I cannot even express how bad you are. You are as bad as Obama supporters are. You are even worse because they cannot think and you can… sometimes. 2 things are standing out in your post.

    1. You, like everyone else, make an assumption that the historical rule of thumb is the rule we should follow without any doubt. The rule says that economy always recovers. Thus Obama can abuse it for personal and ideological purposes and that would result only in some delay, but economy will recover. Economy will still start recovering on his watch and will grant him the 2nd term (especially if to consider the massive brainwashing campaign in media and Internet). However this rule is accepted by everyone as the rule of the thumb there is always one justone who has no problems of challenging it. It has to be challenged at least because of the position taken by everyone except for one justone. The position is that everyone is sitting and guessing – have we hit the bottom yet? Are we seeing the signs of recovery? Can we call it recovery or sluggish growth or another BS? All of it begs one justone question – do we have to sit on our hands, pick our noses and, looking at the content, keep on guessing when Obama says it is enough for him?

    2. The question 1. may take time to discuss. The 2nd thought standing out in you post represents the logic of supporters of Obama, the deeply fallacious logic.

    You have expressed the extremism of such a magnitude that it can be only compared if not with the extremism of the Obama’s administration then at least with extremism of Muslim terrorists. As any extremism it is not arguable because it not only lacks any rational (the less it does when you take the rule above as the rule of the thumb) but it also ignores the facts of reality. Generally in the bolded part you are conducting the war on the private sector blaming it in all sins and saying that the Messiah is here to save it and the economy.

    As the matter of the fact the apocalyptic rhetoric was brought in by the gov-nt but not by the private sector. It was the gov-nt which screamed the end of the world, - the banks falling and failing, Wall Street going down, credits disappearing – the end of the world, an emergency, TARP as soon as possible, - now, $700B! Of course, this scream was full of superficial fallacies as I pointed to you at that time, and explained some irrational and obviously wrong calculations. (In one instance the calculation of $700B was done with the false assumption that the price of oil was reflecting the real value of oil which was there to stay or go up. In reality the fall of the speculated price by itself put $700B in pockets of consumers. In another instance you did not answer the question - What was bad in the Wall Street falling and breaking into pieces, - we wouldn’t see savages taking and saving each and every valuable piece? Was it better to keep on spending on the pieces which were no value even to the last savages?) I pointed to many other totally irrational apocalyptic rhetoric which IN FACT came from the gov-nt and caused the slow down to dive into the deepest recession.


    The fact is, - it was gov-nt which injected fear and the apocalyptic rhetoric on the 1st place, but not other way around as you and other extremists tell us.

    When the gov-nt acts so irrational, so mad, it causes a deep recession. The private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, as it is the only rational choice it has when the gov-nt runs amok on the healthy part of the private sector. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. The gov-nt propaganda against the private sector you introduce here is neither factual nor logical.

    When the gov-nt ‘’borrows’’ money from the private sector, it is not borrowing, it is extraction and extortion, - for the simple reason that gov-nt expects the private sector to pay money back to itself. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. Making profits constitutes economic growth. When the gov-nt spends the extorted money with NO PROFIT the economic growth is false, it is should be called the growth of deficit. The apocalyptic rhetoric was introduced almost a year ago, the program of gov-nt spending and running the deficit high started almost a year ago, and still you are guessing the present results and close your eyes on the unstoppable debt as on “another question”. Don, it is an undividable question, pointing only to the tip of the iceberg and not payning attention to the rest of it you are to bring the Titanic to the bottom. How things could be worse and will be worse if the gov-nt did not go into the spending madness a year ago? You are telling the private sector – ‘you are bad you are not contributing to the economic growth in your fears, look we will teach you how to make economic growth, how to spend.’ The private sector wants to be thought how to invest money for profit, how to make money. As money spend by the gov-nt return NO PROFIT and are not spent for the goal of making profit, I wouldn’t know what the gov-nt will call to be recovery when it will call something to be recovery.

    We had the Internet bubble, we had Housing bubble, when economy will enter the same cycle of intensive production of goods and services, call me so I would call it recovery. But isn’t it your goal – not to have such intensive cycle of production of goods and services anymore? In your war on the private sector – who will be there to make profits?

    I see you attack Don without looking in the mirror at your own biases that you have plainly laid on the table with this post. You clearly are defining Obama as a socialist, when there is no proof of such a thing, but rather the new "negative" campaigne that the GOP uses rather than solid answers to problems the nation is facing. Conservatives had their chance and led us to the mess we are in, why take your advice now?

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    One supposes we'll know soon enough.
    Yes, at least within the next four years and I actually hope my pessimism, which is rare, is actually misplaced and unwarranted and wrong. My fear is that it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    Not to get all factual here, but we started running large deficits starting with Reagan. It cooled under Clinton, but then went back full throttle again under W. They never worried about it, either. So I see little reason to call out Obama. He's just one of many. Further, a recession in 2010 has nothing to do with 2010's deficit. The economic problems with having a large national debt and running current deficits are felt way later. So any recovery right now will not be hampered by the deficit. You are confusing the short term with the long term.
    I am amused when you talk of getting factual then attempt to compare the deficits of Reagan and Bush to what we are witnessing right now.

    It begs the question; you are kidding right?

    Let me clarify this for you; Bush, or rather the Republican led Congress ran up a $200 billion deficit which at the end of their control was heading DOWN to $168 billion in 2006.

    Putting that into perspective with the $1.8 trillion today it once more begs the question; you are kidding right?

    Now let's review Reagan's Presidency; it was under a Democrat controlled Congress so it happens to be Democrats who again ran up deficits. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.

    Now let's re-visit Clinton's Presidency; it was under Republican control and the FIRST time in decades the Government actually balanced its budget. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    Short term versus long term confusion again! In terms of this recession the worst is very likely behind us. However, the worst is also in front of us. It's just decades off.
    There is no confusion here, I am looking at this as a four year realization while you are pretending it is decades off.

    Perhaps I am wrong; we shall all see won't we?

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    The problem with the stimulus package is that it simply was not needed. So even if you say it worked on any level (and, no, I don't care how well it did or did not work) I can only say, "so what"? They spent $1 trillion to help an economy improve when it would have improved anyway. Sort of like going to the doctor and paying money to be treated for the flu. That's the part that's always left out when people debate its effectiveness. Who cares?
    I think the proper analogy would be this: There is a lake and this lake represents the American economy. Democrats are dipping their buckets into the water on one side of the lake, walking to the other side with great media fanfare and saying to Americans; "see, we are adding water to the lake."

    Essentially, Government is taking money OUT of the economy and competing with private markets for scarce financial resources and claiming that they are putting money back in. It is far from the truth and when the bill becomes due and payable, before our currency becomes the laughing stock of the world, the effects of this pushing us back into the abyss will become a sad reality.

    Again, I only hope that I am wrong; my fear is that I am not being overly pessimistic.

  5. #35
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Yes, at least within the next four years and I actually hope my pessimism, which is rare, is actually misplaced and unwarranted and wrong. My fear is that it is not.
    We will certainly be in recovery in 2010. You'll be fine.

    I am amused when you talk of getting factual then attempt to compare the deficits of Reagan and Bush to what we are witnessing right now.
    Not sure what you are talking about. I merely pointed out a simple fact. You don't like deficits. They ran up huge deficits. Sorry that bothers you. But it's not my problem. Obama is indeed running a record deficit. Following Bush's record deficits. Keeping the trend going, so to speak. So feel free to criticize him. AFTER you do the same starting in 1981.

    Now let's review Reagan's Presidency; it was under a Democrat controlled Congress so it happens to be Democrats who again ran up deficits. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.
    Refer to yesterday's thread about partisan bull**** posts. It should link to this post. It's getting hard to take you seriously at this point. I see what others have pointed out now. Great stuff there.

    Now let's re-visit Clinton's Presidency; it was under Republican control and the FIRST time in decades the Government actually balanced its budget. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.
    See above.
    Last edited by stekim; 08-12-09 at 03:48 PM.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  6. #36
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Essentially, Government is taking money OUT of the economy and competing with private markets for scarce financial resources and claiming that they are putting money back in.
    Technically, that is not the case. Of course they take money out, but the stimulus money was not taken out of the economy.

    It is far from the truth and when the bill becomes due and payable, before our currency becomes the laughing stock of the world, the effects of this pushing us back into the abyss will become a sad reality.
    When the bill comes due we are indeed in trouble.

    Again, I only hope that I am wrong; my fear is that I am not being overly pessimistic.
    Long run, you are not. Short run, likely so.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  7. #37
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    The problem with the stimulus package is that it simply was not needed. So even if you say it worked on any level (and, no, I don't care how well it did or did not work) I can only say, "so what"? They spent $1 trillion to help an economy improve when it would have improved anyway. Sort of like going to the doctor and paying money to be treated for the flu. That's the part that's always left out when people debate its effectiveness. Who cares?
    Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

    For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

    In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

    For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

    In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
    Bravo......

  9. #39
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

    For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

    In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
    Do you take cover when a tornado is predicted, or just assume that they may be wrong and act later? Potential emergencies are dealt with as if they will occur. If you take the position that the bottom may not fall out, and do nothing, there is nothing to save your ass if the bottom falls out.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I see you attack Don without looking in the mirror at your own biases that you have plainly laid on the table with this post. You clearly are defining Obama as a socialist, when there is no proof of such a thing, but rather the new "negative" campaigne that the GOP uses rather than solid answers to problems the nation is facing. Conservatives had their chance and led us to the mess we are in, why take your advice now?
    You clearly define yourself as an Obama supporter.
    1. You are engaging in a disorderly conduct. You shouldn't quote a whole post and not to address anything said in the post, but just to define yourself as an Obama supporter.
    2. I don't attack Don, I submit my arguments. I exactly bold his statements and submit my arguments against.

    3. I do not single out Obama, obviously Bush hated by you is specifically put in the 1st place.

    4. I do not define Obama as a socialist, for 2 simple reasons, - 1.because I do not define what is socialist 2. Don knows that I stated many times that such definitions were meaningless.

    If you gather that Obama fits your definition of a socialist be so, but don't forget that Don calls it state capitalism, other call it national socialism, others call it fascism, other call it the right thing to do. For me it does not matter how you call it, but only the effect it produces matters.

    5. When the conservatives did have their chance, - when the last two years of liberal Bush was pushed around by the Democratic majority? You are clearly deceptive.


    As you have submitted at least 5 fallacies, deceptions and false statements in 3 sentences and have addressed no points made by me you are proven to be an Obama supporter. Did you say you were not biased? Can you repeat, please?




    Obama supporters are such an entertainment.
    Last edited by justone; 08-12-09 at 04:35 PM.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •