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

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

Conservative said:

Do you realize that a trade deficit still is a reduction in GDP. Do you know what the four components of GDP are and what they contribute?

Click to expand...

Good grief

Is this some sort of reflex? Every time someone mentions GDP, you ask "do you know what the four components of GDP are?"

Not only did I explain TWICE last week that I know what the components of GDP are, I even made a post pointing out how exports and imports are treated should be an indicator, and how on that basis GDP should not be treated as the end-all and be-all of economic indicators.

Not only am I aware that exports increase GDP, and that imports decrease GDP, I'm aware that a significant part of the Q1 drop was due to a drop in exports.

And here it is, for the third time:
1) Personal consumption
2) Business investment
3) Government spending
4) Net trade (exports minus imports)

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

Conservative said:

Good, because that is what you are getting in this booming Obama economy. Discouraged workers have nothing to do with retirees. Just another subject you know little about but profess to be an expert on. You simply cannot admit you are wrong on any topic yet your posts prove you know so little.

Click to expand...

I figure that if one leaves the job market, they must have another source of income, and if they are not bothering to look for work, they are retired. my mother in law retired at age 53, she didnt call it retirement, but she had enough money to live the rest of her life without working. She never returned to work, and never looked for a job again.

So where did you get the discouraged workers figures from? I'm not seeing anything about that in the news reports. I'm not saying that you are making that up, but I just want to be able to take a look at your source for that.

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

Visbek said:

Good grief

Is this some sort of reflex? Every time someone mentions GDP, you ask "do you know what the four components of GDP are?"

Not only did I explain TWICE last week that I know what the components of GDP are, I even made a post pointing out how exports and imports are treated should be an indicator, and how on that basis GDP should not be treated as the end-all and be-all of economic indicators.

Not only am I aware that exports increase GDP, and that imports decrease GDP, I'm aware that a significant part of the Q1 drop was due to a drop in exports.

And here it is, for the third time:
1) Personal consumption
2) Business investment
3) Government spending
4) Net trade (exports minus imports)

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting the components. I will admit I have no use for this incompetent in the WH who lacked the experience for the job and here we are 6 years later and he has learned nothing nor apparently have his supporters. It was you who touted the drop in the trade deficit without pointing out the negative still is a reduction in GDP. You then pointed to the 288,000 jobs created without posting the reality that we still have fewer people employed today than when the recession began. Must have been an oversight on your part because I certainly know you have higher expectations than your post would indicate.

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

imagep said:

I figure that if one leaves the job market, they must have another source of income, and if they are not bothering to look for work, they are retired. my mother in law retired at age 53, she didnt call it retirement, but she had enough money to live the rest of her life without working. She never returned to work, and never looked for a job again.

So where did you get the discouraged workers figures from? I'm not seeing anything about that in the news reports. I'm not saying that you are making that up, but I just want to be able to take a look at your source for that.

Click to expand...

Bureau of Labor statistics gets their data from a couple of surveys with one being actual phone calls. Discouraged workers are defined by the BLS and come from survey questions answered by those who call. If your mother in law was surveyed they would have asked her questions that would determine if she was discouraged or not. Discouraged workers are counted by the BLS and put on their website. I have posted those official numbers. You really ought to go to BLS. click on the home page and see all the information listed. It will certainly give you more credibility.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Conservative said:

Thank you for posting the components. I will admit I have no use for this incompetent in the WH who lacked the experience for the job....

Click to expand...

Wow. Not even bothering with a segue into the irrelevant claim, I see.

It was you who touted the drop in the trade deficit without pointing out the negative still is a reduction in GDP.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. Not even close.

The article to which I linked today points out how the June ex-im figures are due to an increase in exports, and a slight drop in imports. What this means is an increase in GDP.

And from my post on 6/27:

"Deep into the thread, we have an analysis of what actually caused the GDP [Q1] drop. Some is a decline in consumption, but big chunks are drops in inventory ("stocks" on the chart), and in a combination of an increase in imports and a drop in exports.

We should note that normally, an increase in imports is actually a positive indicator, as it indicates that Americans were buying foreign goods in significant amounts. A decline in exports will have local effects, but are largely due to conditions outside the US (obviously).

Just one of many reasons why GDP is not the end-all and be-all of economic indicators." http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...t-recession-1q-w-487-a-42.html#post1063456498

You then pointed to the 288,000 jobs created without posting the reality that we still have fewer people employed today than when the recession began....

Click to expand...

Why on earth am I obligated to do so?

Since you somehow managed to miss it: There are a bunch of indicators coming out this week, which are showing how things are getting better, and that Q1's drop was an anomaly due to factors like bad weather and a drop in Q1 exports. These early indicators suggest that Q2 GDP will be positive, and part of that will be postponed demand from Q1.

By the way, when you think on those employment figures, you DO recognize that unemployment was only so low because we were in a huge bubble, which distorted the labor market? You understand that 6.1% unemployment isn't actually that unusual? That participation in the labor force has been dropping since 2000? That while the trend is negative, we're still at higher labor force participation than during most of Reagan's term? That the main reason why labor force participation rose from 1948 to 2000 is because women were entering the labor force, in greater numbers than men were exiting it? That conservatives spent decades decrying women entering the labor force...?

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

Visbek said:

Wow. Not even bothering with a segue into the irrelevant claim, I see.



Uh, no. Not even close.

The article to which I linked today points out how the June ex-im figures are due to an increase in exports, and a slight drop in imports. What this means is an increase in GDP.

And from my post on 6/27:

"Deep into the thread, we have an analysis of what actually caused the GDP [Q1] drop. Some is a decline in consumption, but big chunks are drops in inventory ("stocks" on the chart), and in a combination of an increase in imports and a drop in exports.

We should note that normally, an increase in imports is actually a positive indicator, as it indicates that Americans were buying foreign goods in significant amounts. A decline in exports will have local effects, but are largely due to conditions outside the US (obviously).

Just one of many reasons why GDP is not the end-all and be-all of economic indicators." http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...t-recession-1q-w-487-a-42.html#post1063456498




Why on earth am I obligated to do so?

Since you somehow managed to miss it: There are a bunch of indicators coming out this week, which are showing how things are getting better, and that Q1's drop was an anomaly due to factors like bad weather and a drop in Q1 exports. These early indicators suggest that Q2 GDP will be positive, and part of that will be postponed demand from Q1.

By the way, when you think on those employment figures, you DO recognize that unemployment was only so low because we were in a huge bubble, which distorted the labor market? You understand that 6.1% unemployment isn't actually that unusual? That participation in the labor force has been dropping since 2000? That while the trend is negative, we're still at higher labor force participation than during most of Reagan's term? That the main reason why labor force participation rose from 1948 to 2000 is because women were entering the labor force, in greater numbers than men were exiting it? That conservatives spent decades decrying women entering the labor force...?

Click to expand...

Good Lord, things are getting better, for whom? Do you get out much or just bury your head in the books? The reality is you believe in a failed ideology and no matter the results defend those results. They are a disaster. With the bad recession we had, GDP Growth should have been in the 7% range with a pro growth economic policy. We are over 5 years since the end of the recession and we still have fewer people employed than when the recession began. To a liberal that apparently is good news. Guess it doesn't matter since the numbers look better that we still have over 7.3 million part time workers who want full time jobs or that we have 10 million unemployed people, 700,000 discouraged workers. Oh by the way, yes the reduction in the trade deficit does improve the GDP but the negative number is still a reduction in GDP.

Amazing what low economic standards you have when a D is in the WH and how that changes with Bush. Please tell me the economic numbers Obama has that are better than anything Bush had.

Unemployment? No
GDP NO
Discouraged workers NO
Deficits and debt NO
Job creation NO
Foreign policy NO

Yes, liberalism is a disease that when corrected is too late and saying I was wrong or am sorry doesn't do much good.

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

Conservative said:

Good Lord, things are getting better, for whom?

Click to expand...

As I've already posted this week:

• Auto sales are up
• Retail sales are up
• Unemployment is down (much more than expected)
• Exports are up
• Imports are slightly down

Also, consumer confidence jumped 3 points in June: https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

So obviously, someone is feeling better.

Do you get out much or just bury your head in the books?

Click to expand...

"Get out" where? The US has over 300 million people, with at least 30 cities with populations over 500,000. I seriously doubt that you've been going to different cities every single day, doing surveys of consumer confidence and reviewing their economic status.

The reality is you believe in a failed ideology and no matter the results defend those results....

Click to expand...

Please. What "ideology" do you think I hold?

I haven't denied that Q1 was negative. All I said was that it was bad due to one-time factors, like weather and (once the evidence showed it) a drop in exports; and that as a result, Q2 was very likely to be positive. So far, the evidence supports this view -- one held not just by me, but by mainstream economists and analysts, who have no particular partisan slant.

Meanwhile, you've done everything you can to deny and/or dump on the positive news this week. Hmmmmm

We are over 5 years since the end of the recession and we still have fewer people employed than when the recession began.

Click to expand...

Please. The 2007 recession eliminated more jobs than any economic downturn since the 1930s, before Obama even took office. The real estate market -- as in, the biggest asset in the portfolio of the majority of Americans -- took a major hit, as did the overweighted construction industry. And when the financial markets took a hit, it slowed the economy to a crawl, since they were not willing to lend to anyone, and the mortgage market is STILL acting like no one can be trusted.

Acting like the 2007 recession is no different than other post-WWII recessions is sheer nonsense.

FYO, the 2007 recession started in December 2007. Obama took office in January 2009, which is Month 25 on the chart:

To a liberal that apparently is good news. Guess it doesn't matter since the numbers look better that we still have over 7.3 million part time workers who want full time jobs or that we have 10 million unemployed people....

Click to expand...

It looks better that we have 288,000 more people working than we did last month. It shows that Q1 was not a harbinger of dire times ahead, or that the fundamentals are weak.

And to me, griping about positive numbers looks more like sour grapes than a neutral economic analysis.

Oh by the way, yes the reduction in the trade deficit does improve the GDP but the negative number is still a reduction in GDP.

Click to expand...

Read it again. Exports are up, imports are down slightly. That's a net positive for GDP, though obviously we have to consider the rest of the quarter as well.

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

Visbek said:

As I've already posted this week:

• Auto sales are up
• Retail sales are up
• Unemployment is down (much more than expected)
• Exports are up
• Imports are slightly down

Also, consumer confidence jumped 3 points in June: https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

So obviously, someone is feeling better.



"Get out" where? The US has over 300 million people, with at least 30 cities with populations over 500,000. I seriously doubt that you've been going to different cities every single day, doing surveys of consumer confidence and reviewing their economic status.



Please. What "ideology" do you think I hold?

I haven't denied that Q1 was negative. All I said was that it was bad due to one-time factors, like weather and (once the evidence showed it) a drop in exports; and that as a result, Q2 was very likely to be positive. So far, the evidence supports this view -- one held not just by me, but by mainstream economists and analysts, who have no particular partisan slant.

Meanwhile, you've done everything you can to deny and/or dump on the positive news this week. Hmmmmm



Please. The 2007 recession eliminated more jobs than any economic downturn since the 1930s, before Obama even took office. The real estate market -- as in, the biggest asset in the portfolio of the majority of Americans -- took a major hit, as did the overweighted construction industry. And when the financial markets took a hit, it slowed the economy to a crawl, since they were not willing to lend to anyone, and the mortgage market is STILL acting like no one can be trusted.

Acting like the 2007 recession is no different than other post-WWII recessions is sheer nonsense.

FYO, the 2007 recession started in December 2007. Obama took office in January 2009, which is Month 25 on the chart:

It looks better that we have 288,000 more people working than we did last month. It shows that Q1 was not a harbinger of dire times ahead, or that the fundamentals are weak.

And to me, griping about positive numbers looks more like sour grapes than a neutral economic analysis.



Read it again. Exports are up, imports are down slightly. That's a net positive for GDP, though obviously we have to consider the rest of the quarter as well.

Click to expand...

Yay!! Obama is awesome, it took him over 5 years to generate what liberals call positive numbers none of which are better than anything Bush had. Such low expectations. Add another 700,000(discouraged workers) to the unemployment number and tell me what you have?

You people simply have such low standards and will do anything to prop up the incompetent. Leadership certainly isn't something you understand. Do you realize that discouraged workers were included in the official unemployment numbers prior to 1993 which put them in every major recession but this one? Do you realize that if you pick a point in time during the last 5 years as your focal point that the numbers have to look better. Since Obama ran on having solutions to the recession shouldn't his evaluation be on pre recession numbers? No, didn't think so. By the way, I guess the million discouraged workers monthly in 2010 weren't unemployed and the 700,000 in June aren't either

When you point to numbers being up, you better ask yourself up from what? How about very low numbers. Aren't you one of those people who tout the low percentage change in the debt because the base is so much higher vs. a very low base that Reagan had?

I guess those books that you read and have your head buried in haven't taught you how to think and do research

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

Visbek said:

As I've already posted this week:

• Auto sales are up
• Retail sales are up
• Unemployment is down (much more than expected)
• Exports are up
• Imports are slightly down

Also, consumer confidence jumped 3 points in June: https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

So obviously, someone is feeling better.



"Get out" where? The US has over 300 million people, with at least 30 cities with populations over 500,000. I seriously doubt that you've been going to different cities every single day, doing surveys of consumer confidence and reviewing their economic status.



Please. What "ideology" do you think I hold?

I haven't denied that Q1 was negative. All I said was that it was bad due to one-time factors, like weather and (once the evidence showed it) a drop in exports; and that as a result, Q2 was very likely to be positive. So far, the evidence supports this view -- one held not just by me, but by mainstream economists and analysts, who have no particular partisan slant.

Meanwhile, you've done everything you can to deny and/or dump on the positive news this week. Hmmmmm



Please. The 2007 recession eliminated more jobs than any economic downturn since the 1930s, before Obama even took office. The real estate market -- as in, the biggest asset in the portfolio of the majority of Americans -- took a major hit, as did the overweighted construction industry. And when the financial markets took a hit, it slowed the economy to a crawl, since they were not willing to lend to anyone, and the mortgage market is STILL acting like no one can be trusted.

Acting like the 2007 recession is no different than other post-WWII recessions is sheer nonsense.

FYO, the 2007 recession started in December 2007. Obama took office in January 2009, which is Month 25 on the chart:

It looks better that we have 288,000 more people working than we did last month. It shows that Q1 was not a harbinger of dire times ahead, or that the fundamentals are weak.

And to me, griping about positive numbers looks more like sour grapes than a neutral economic analysis.



Read it again. Exports are up, imports are down slightly. That's a net positive for GDP, though obviously we have to consider the rest of the quarter as well.

Click to expand...

523,000 full time positions were lost in June (799K part time jobs were created).

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Maybe you call 1/2 a million full-time jobs being replaced with part time jobs a 'positive number'...not me.

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

DA60 said:

523,000 full time positions were lost in June (799K part time jobs were created).

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Maybe you call 1/2 a million full-time jobs being replaced with part time jobs a 'positive number'...not me.

Click to expand...

Nor I. Anyone suppose that this is the impact of ObamaCare? Many have been saying that it's impact was to convert many full time employment positions into part time positions, but I have yet to see anything that nails Obamacare down as the cause. Anyone else?

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

Conservative said:

Bureau of Labor statistics gets their data from a couple of surveys with one being actual phone calls. Discouraged workers are defined by the BLS and come from survey questions answered by those who call. If your mother in law was surveyed they would have asked her questions that would determine if she was discouraged or not. Discouraged workers are counted by the BLS and put on their website. I have posted those official numbers. You really ought to go to BLS. click on the home page and see all the information listed. It will certainly give you more credibility.
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Click to expand...

I looked at the link, where did you get that so many discouraged workers left the workforce last month? I didn't see anything like that.

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

imagep said:

I looked at the link, where did you get that so many discouraged workers left the workforce last month? I didn't see anything like that.

Click to expand...

If you go to the link, go down to discouraged workers it will give you the number by month. Be sure to look at the 2010 and 2011 numbers as well. You can put any date into the chart that you want

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

Conservative said:

Thank you for posting the components. I will admit I have no use for this incompetent in the WH who lacked the experience for the job and here we are 6 years later and he has learned nothing nor apparently have his supporters. It was you who touted the drop in the trade deficit without pointing out the negative still is a reduction in GDP. You then pointed to the 288,000 jobs created without posting the reality that we still have fewer people employed today than when the recession began. Must have been an oversight on your part because I certainly know you have higher expectations than your post would indicate.

Click to expand...

Is it just me or did the Republicans force the President to cut 1 million government jobs shortly after/during the Recession?

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

Buddha C said:

Is it just me or did the Republicans force the President to cut 1 million government jobs shortly after/during the Recession?

Click to expand...

Republicans did no such thing, states that require a balanced budget had to cut payroll. State jobs aren't Presidential responsibility and the federal govt. can print money, states cannot.

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

Conservative said:

Republicans did no such thing, states that require a balanced budget had to cut payroll. State jobs aren't Presidential responsibility and the federal govt. can print money, states cannot.

Click to expand...

Balanced budget?

What a joke.

Where can states get additional Credit from?

SURELY not the Federal government :roll:

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

Buddha C said:

Balanced budget?

What a joke.

Where can states get additional Credit from?

SURELY not the Federal government :roll:

Click to expand...

Communist suits you well, total ignorance

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

Buddha C said:

Is it just me or did the Republicans force the President to cut 1 million government jobs shortly after/during the Recession?

Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't say that. The recession put huge financial pressures on the states, so they had few options but to cut staff. Some of those jobs were kept (temporarily) by the stimulus. I'd also say that cuts due to the sequestration are kind of everyone's fault, maybe a bit more on the Republican side, but not that much greater than what would have resulted if they had cut a deal.

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

Conservative said:

Communist suits you well, total ignorance

Click to expand...

OH! How Erudite! :doh

Man, you Are a Conservative, threw and threw baby.

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

Visbek said:

Actually, I wouldn't say that. The recession put huge financial pressures on the states, so they had few options but to cut staff. Some of those jobs were kept (temporarily) by the stimulus. I'd also say that cuts due to the sequestration are kind of everyone's fault, maybe a bit more on the Republican side, but not that much greater than what would have resulted if they had cut a deal.

Click to expand...

Visbek.

Come on. The States could have easily been given enough money by the Federal government to not cut Consumer Demand (read: Gov't jobs) in an already saturated Job Market.

Sequestration was entirely Republican's faults. The Democrats did what they Politically had to do. No blame can be laid on them, you know besides NOT "accidentally" pushing a couple Tea Party loons off a few cliffs :lol:

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

Buddha C said:

OH! How Erudite! :doh

Man, you Are a Conservative, threw and threw baby.

Click to expand...

Yep, your English is incredible, threw and threw? LOL, I can see why Communism has lost its support around the world

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

Conservative said:

Yep, your English is incredible, threw and threw? LOL, I can see why Communism has lost its support around the world

Click to expand...

The opposite?

And I'm a Communist in the end-game sense, i.e. after I Die.

Currently, Socialism, or as it's called in the West "Mixed Market Economies" are the only Realistic option.

Honestly I put Communist hoping I could get something besides the damn Gavels D:<

But yea, thanks for the debate. Showed your true constitution.

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

Buddha C said:

Balanced budget?

What a joke.

Where can states get additional Credit from?

SURELY not the Federal government :roll:

Click to expand...

LOL !

Whi needs " credit " when you can build a surplus ?

Like Texas, whos currently build on to a 10 Billion dollar surplus.

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

Fenton said:

LOL !

Whi needs " credit " when you can build a surplus ?

Like Texas, whos currently build on to a 10 Billion dollar surplus.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's all materialize vast reserves of oil and ports and questionable fracking policies. :doh

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

Buddha C said:

Yes, let's all materialize vast reserves of oil and ports and questionable fracking policies. :doh

Click to expand...

Hey, get your taxpayer funded check yet? Don't worry, it is the mail.

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

Conservative said:

Hey, get your taxpayer funded check yet? Don't worry, it is the mail.

Click to expand...

You want to stop trolling? Our 'discussion' is Done.