U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q[W:487:681]

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Khayembii Communique said:
Ah yes, the single time that the economy has had a real annual GDP growth rate at that level in the past 40 years. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable expectation. :roll:

Are you looking at total or Federal government spending? Not that it matters, it's just a line shift but the trend is similar.

GDP doubled during the Reagan term and 17 millions jobs were created. Reagan had a Democrat controlled House and got things done. Obama doesn't have a clue nor do his supporters.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
The recession of 1981 was nothing similar to the demand-lacking, liquidity trap, recession we have today. The 1981 recession was essential deliberately caused by the Fed raising interest rates to fend off inflation, when they took their foot off the breaks, everything bounced back. It was what economists call a V-shaped recession.
EDIT:

That Reagan recover did not "average" 7%. One year it rose for the reason that I mentioned. Overall, the Reagan years under-performed economically.

This shows what everyone was supposed to know: we had an awesome performance in the generation following the war (despite very high tax rates on the rich and a very strong union movement); we had a long period of poor productivity performance that spanned the Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I administrations; we then had a revival during the Clinton administration, but even so not up to postwar standards. By the way, I don’t give Clinton credit for that revival; it was about learning to use technology. But in any case, there is no hint of a Reagan miracle in the data.

View attachment 67170408

Your opinion noted, but the 81-82 recession was a double dip that affected every American, how did this recession affect you and your family?

Khayembii Communique · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, but the 81-82 recession was a double dip that affected every American, how did this recession affect you and your family?

lol wtf does this have to do with the very obvious data he posted?

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Khayembii Communique said:
lol wtf does this have to do with the very obvious data he posted?

The data posted is distorted and doesn't tell the who story, what does tell the whole story is the fact that GDP doubled, 17 million jobs were created, and Govt. Income tax revenue grew 60% with tax cuts three years in a row.

Seems that manipulate data is what liberals provide.

You tell me how this recession affected you and your family vs. the 81-82 recession?

MTAtech · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
GDP doubled during the Reagan term and 17 millions jobs were created. Reagan had a Democrat controlled House and got things done. Obama doesn't have a clue nor do his supporters.

Real GDP did not double and the GDP gains under Reagan were not atypical.

Moreover, under Clinton, job gains were 22 million and percent GDP gains were essentially the same.

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, but the 81-82 recession was a double dip that affected every American, how did this recession affect you and your family?

My family isn't the benchmark. But data is data:

Khayembii Communique · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
The data posted is distorted and doesn't tell the who story, what does tell the whole story is the fact that GDP doubled, 17 million jobs were created, and Govt. Income tax revenue grew 60% with tax cuts three years in a row.

Seems that manipulate data is what liberals provide.

You tell me how this recession affected you and your family vs. the 81-82 recession?

Real GDP was at 6.49 trillion at the end of 1980 and 8.60 trillion at the end of 1988 so I have no idea where you're getting this "GDP Doubled" idea from. The other items you bring up aren't even relevant because this isn't a "Reagan vs. Obama" discussion but rather the point was made that the 81 recession is not comparable to the 2007 crash which you can't apparently understand?

eohrnberger · Jul 30, 2014

It should be noted and blatantly obvious to everyone, that just because at one time higher taxes coincided with a good economy, it has very little to do with reality that some are pushing, which is 'To fix the ailing economy we need to raise taxes'. That's just ludicrous.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
Real GDP did not double and the GDP gains under Reagan were not atypical.

Moreover, under Clinton, job gains were 22 million and percent GDP gains were essentially the same.

My family isn't the benchmark. But data is data:

Real numbers are irrelevant as they are numbers inflation adjusted and don't take into account that revenue and expenses are the value during the period of time.

Your family isn't any different than any other family. You were hurt in the 81-82 by high inflation, high interest rates, and malaise, no such thing during this recession.

By the way I get my GDP numbers from BEA.gov and they went from 2.6 trillion to 5.2 trillion, that is double

MTAtech · Jul 30, 2014

eohrnberger said:
It should be noted and blatantly obvious to everyone, that just because at one time higher taxes coincided with a good economy, it has very little to do with reality that some are pushing, which is 'To fix the ailing economy we need to raise taxes'. That's just ludicrous.

I don't know anybody stating that higher taxes are a solution to fixing the economy. Higher taxes are a solution to other problems, however.

It should go without saying that lower taxes also do not fix economies, unless the taxes are at rates that are confiscatory, and therefore hamper the incentive to earn. That hasn't existed for a long time. The current rates are not confiscatory -- nor were the rates since the 1970s. Only in Ayn Rand novels do people stop working and investing because they have to pay taxes. Nobody gives up to $1,000,000 in income because they have to pay less than $380,000 in taxes.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
I don't know anybody stating that higher taxes are a solution to fixing the economy. Higher taxes are a solution to other problems, however.

It should go without saying that lower taxes also do not fix economies, unless the taxes are at rates that are confiscatory, and therefore hamper the incentive to earn. That hasn't existed for a long time. The current rates are not confiscatory -- nor were the rates since the 1970s.

Your opinion noted but obviously you have no concept as to the components of GDP with consumer spending making up 2/3 of the GDP. Tell me that putting more money into the hands of the consumers because of bigger take home paychecks due to tax cuts doesn't benefit the consumers? Rates don't matter, what people pay does

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
Real GDP did not double and the GDP gains under Reagan were not atypical.

Moreover, under Clinton, job gains were 22 million and percent GDP gains were essentially the same.

My family isn't the benchmark. But data is data:

I find it quite interesting that liberals like you believe people in the 80's lived and spent in 2005 dollars. Wish I had 2005 dollars in the 80's but didn't nor did any of your family. Further people provide me with the BLS data that shows 22 million jobs created during the Clinton term? You seem to want to ignore the affect the GOP Congress had on Clinton economic policies. You ought to educate yourself.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Khayembii Communique said:
Real GDP was at 6.49 trillion at the end of 1980 and 8.60 trillion at the end of 1988 so I have no idea where you're getting this "GDP Doubled" idea from. The other items you bring up aren't even relevant because this isn't a "Reagan vs. Obama" discussion but rather the point was made that the 81 recession is not comparable to the 2007 crash which you can't apparently understand?

So tell me did people of the 80's have 2005 dollars? That seems to be what you want to contend. Wish I had those dollars in the 80's. The GDP when Reagan took office was 2.6 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.2 trillion, that is double. BEA.gov could be a good friend of yours rather than leftwing websites.

Khayembii Communique · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
So tell me did people of the 80's have 2005 dollars? That seems to be what you want to contend. Wish I had those dollars in the 80's. The GDP when Reagan took office was 2.6 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.2 trillion, that is double. BEA.gov could be a good friend of yours rather than leftwing websites.

So you don't want to adjust them for inflation, is what you're apparently saying? Or are chained dollars a liberal conspiracy?

Fruityfact · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
The only thing holding this economy up are the red states with pro growth economic policies as well as capitalism.

Like Kantsus?
Oh, and don't just post isolated examples such as resource rich Texas or the oil rich Dakotas
Show me an overall trend where red states do better

MTAtech · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
Your opinion noted but obviously you have no concept as to the components of GDP with consumer spending making up 2/3 of the GDP. Tell me that putting more money into the hands of the consumers because of bigger take home paychecks due to tax cuts doesn't benefit the consumers? Rates don't matter, what people pay does

First, I have every "concept" of the components of GDP. It's really not a difficult equation.

Second, "putting more money into the hands of the consumers" doesn't guarantee that they will spend that money, and therefore, boost aggregate demand and GDP. Consumers can save that money too. There is ample research on all of this and the conclusion is that tax-cuts are inefficient stimulus. Tax cuts do work as stimulus. It's just that government spending will work even better, since the government can decide to spend that money entirely, thereby creating more effective stimulus. Hence, the multiplier effect is higher with government spending than tax-cuts.

eohrnberger · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
I don't know anybody stating that higher taxes are a solution to fixing the economy. Higher taxes are a solution to other problems, however.

It should go without saying that lower taxes also do not fix economies, unless the taxes are at rates that are confiscatory, and therefore hamper the incentive to earn. That hasn't existed for a long time. The current rates are not confiscatory -- nor were the rates since the 1970s. Only in Ayn Rand novels do people stop working and investing because they have to pay taxes. Nobody gives up to $1,000,000 in income because they have to pay less than $380,000 in taxes.

Well, given that many multinational corporations which were based in the US are entertaining 'inversions' to take themselves off shore, seems that we have an answer if their US tax rates are confiscatory or not. Yes?

MTAtech · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
I find it quite interesting that liberals like you believe people in the 80's lived and spent in 2005 dollars. Wish I had 2005 dollars in the 80's but didn't nor did any of your family. Further people provide me with the BLS data that shows 22 million jobs created during the Clinton term? You seem to want to ignore the affect the GOP Congress had on Clinton economic policies. You ought to educate yourself.

It's clear that you don't understand what "real" and "chained" mean. They are a method to adjust money to take into account inflation. As an example, a worker in 1935 might have earned $20 per week. In 1990, a worker might have earned $190 per week. Does that mean the 1990 worker is 9.5 times richer than the 1935 worker? No. Adjusted for inflation they earned the same amount.

Adjusting for inflation is a standard in both finance and economics. Your ignorance of this is breathtaking.

Montecresto · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
So tell me did people of the 80's have 2005 dollars? That seems to be what you want to contend. Wish I had those dollars in the 80's. The GDP when Reagan took office was 2.6 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.2 trillion, that is double. BEA.gov could be a good friend of yours rather than leftwing websites.

And the ND was tripled, which is fine if you don't mind Obama doubling it I suppose. Our economy crashed the last year or so of the Bush administration, we'd be where we are now no matter who is in the WH.

MTAtech · Jul 30, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Well, given that many multinational corporations which were based in the US are entertaining 'inversions' to take themselves off shore, seems that we have an answer if their US tax rates are confiscatory or not. Yes?

Inversion has no effect on GDP. All sales are still in the U.S. What inversion does is make it "look" like the earnings are overseas. It is also not proof that corporate rates are confiscatory, since reducing rates to zero, regardless of the tax-rate, will always be preferred.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Khayembii Communique said:
So you don't want to adjust them for inflation, is what you're apparently saying? Or are chained dollars a liberal conspiracy?

People living during the times paid with the dollars they received during the times so to say that the 5.2 trillion dollar economy at the end of the Reagan term equates to 8.6 trillion now does what? Reagan doubled the economy with the dollar value during the time. Obama is generating numbers today with the dollars of today. What exactly is your point? What purpose does it serve claiming the 5.2 trillion dollar GDP which grew from 2.6 trillion isn't a success? Tell me that winning 49 out of 50 states in 1984 doesn't matter?

You don't seem to understand leadership at all or what it takes to drive a Private sector economy. You and Obama are two of a kind.

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Fruityfact said:
Like Kantsus?
Oh, and don't just post isolated examples such as resource rich Texas or the oil rich Dakotas
Show me an overall trend where red states do better

Right, and of course there are no resources in California or along the East Coast. It is very easy to show what you are unwilling to accept, red states have a growing population, growing job market and a growing GDP. What is wrong with people like you, jealousy trumps reality. Steal shamelessly and you could create a Red state economy in your blue state

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
First, I have every "concept" of the components of GDP. It's really not a difficult equation.

Second, "putting more money into the hands of the consumers" doesn't guarantee that they will spend that money, and therefore, boost aggregate demand and GDP. Consumers can save that money too. There is ample research on all of this and the conclusion is that tax-cuts are inefficient stimulus. Tax cuts do work as stimulus. It's just that government spending will work even better, since the government can decide to spend that money entirely, thereby creating more effective stimulus. Hence, the multiplier effect is higher with government spending than tax-cuts.

What do people do with their money and what effect does that have on the economy? Whether they save it, spend it, invest it, or pay down debt that helps the economy. You cannot seem to grasp that reality.

It really is hard dealing with people like you so entrenched in your own ideology that you cannot see how keeping more of your own money affects you and benefits the economy.

Govt. spending has done a great job, hasn't it, we have a 17. 6 trillion dollar debt and pay out 250 billion a year in debt service. That is total bs.

Khayembii Communique · Jul 30, 2014

Conservative said:
People living during the times paid with the dollars they received during the times so to say that the 5.2 trillion dollar economy at the end of the Reagan term equates to 8.6 trillion now does what? Reagan doubled the economy with the dollar value during the time. Obama is generating numbers today with the dollars of today. What exactly is your point? What purpose does it serve claiming the 5.2 trillion dollar GDP which grew from 2.6 trillion isn't a success? Tell me that winning 49 out of 50 states in 1984 doesn't matter?

You don't seem to understand leadership at all or what it takes to drive a Private sector economy. You and Obama are two of a kind.

So you are saying chained dollars are a liberal conspiracy???

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

MTAtech said:
It's clear that you don't understand what "real" and "chained" mean. They are a method to adjust money to take into account inflation. As an example, a worker in 1935 might have earned $20 per week. In 1990, a worker might have earned $190 per week. Does that mean the 1990 worker is 9.5 times richer than the 1935 worker? No. Adjusted for inflation they earned the same amount.

Adjusting for inflation is a standard in both finance and economics. Your ignorance of this is breathtaking.

Understand completely, doesn't change the fact that the money generated in the 80's or as you pointed out in the 30's is in 80's and 30's dollars both in revenue and expenses. Reagan took an economy from 2.6 trillion to 5.2 trillion in 8 years. Bush took an economy from 10 trillion to 14.4 trillion in 8 years, Obama has taken a 14.4 trillion dollar economy to 16.5 trillion. Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion on that 5.2 trillion dollar economy, Bush debt was 10.6 trillion on a 14.4 trillion economy. Obama's 16.5 trillion dollar economy is on a 17.6 trillion debt. you tell me about inflation and results?

Conservative · Jul 30, 2014

Montecresto said:
And the ND was tripled, which is fine if you don't mind Obama doubling it I suppose. Our economy crashed the last year or so of the Bush administration, we'd be where we are now no matter who is in the WH.

Tripling the debt to 2.6 trillion dollars and creating 17 million jobs along with doubling GDP is a pretty good use of money in a 5.2 trillion dollar economy. What percentage of GDP is that 2.6 trillion vs. what it is today?

Our economy had a lot of help in crashing. The problem is Obama said he had the answers, he ran for the job and now he is running from the results he has generated.