Coming out of a recession is what you're doing. There was a slight recession. It's over now.Pug wrote:
I would agree with that. We're not in a recession, but I do know we aren't close to the peak...
"Recession" = decline in real GDP for two or more successive quarters of a year (aka negative economic growth)Bertster7 wrote:
Coming out of a recession is what you're doing. There was a slight recession. It's over now.Pug wrote:
I would agree with that. We're not in a recession, but I do know we aren't close to the peak...
Link:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm
Download "Tables from new release" in excel. It's on Table 1.
Feel free to point out which two quarters you are referring to...unless you really mean we have been coming out of a recession for over four years....
Of course we shouldnt have funded them, I mean the Soviets werent doing anything. Killing off whole villages isnt anything bad, is it?Turquoise wrote:
Thank you for intentionally twisting my words. Terrorists and terrorism are very real things, but if the goal of America was to eliminate terror, we'd be taking very different measures.usmarine2007 wrote:
It isn't? Wow, I guess when I was in Afghanistan people were not shooting at me, it was some sort of realistic video game.Turquoise wrote:
This isn't really a War on Terror.... It's a war for military accumulation and currency dominance. Terrorists just provide an easy scapegoat to rationalize unrestrained interventionism....
Essentially, Afghanistan was a more valid conflict than most, but the Taliban wouldn't have even been an issue if we had never supported the groups that fought against the Soviets.
Most of the extremism we see in the Middle East today arose from movements we supported against the Soviets. Through our meddling, we inadvertently created our own worst enemies.
Yeah, there are people on welfare because they are to fat to move around, you have to TRY to keep that much weight on.usmarine2007 wrote:
What about what we spend on welfare? All the fat fucks sitting around eating his ice cream not doing shit.thanks_champ wrote:
I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to? Why is the worlds super power so in debt?
Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.
Post 9/11 the US entered a slight recession. So yes, I do mean you've been coming out of a recession for over 4 years (looking at smaller timescales than that is almost pointless - 4 years is not a long time). The stock markets are now peaking again and inflation is low, but the dollar is becoming almost worthless because of the governments overexpenditure.Pug wrote:
"Recession" = decline in real GDP for two or more successive quarters of a year (aka negative economic growth)Bertster7 wrote:
Coming out of a recession is what you're doing. There was a slight recession. It's over now.Pug wrote:
I would agree with that. We're not in a recession, but I do know we aren't close to the peak...
Link:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm
Download "Tables from new release" in excel. It's on Table 1.
Feel free to point out which two quarters you are referring to...unless you really mean we have been coming out of a recession for over four years....
Article from NY Times (quote from page 2).Richard Kogan (a senior economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) wrote:
[A $300 billion deficit is] really bad if you remember that we've recovered from a recession and you think we are at or near full employment.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-13 14:53:31)
Fine, recession or not, we are in a contractionary gap.Pug wrote:
I would agree with that. We're not in a recession, but I do know we aren't close to the peak...
To add here, a surplus caused by increasing taxes would decrease the interest rate, increasing investment and possibly the amount of capital per worker (productivity) reinforcing the increase in tax revenues. As much as a deficit brought on by tax cuts may increase tax revenues, a surplus is refinforced through increased investment as well.jonsimon wrote:
[
Okay, so you're saying Tax cuts create an increase in SRAS, forcing the economy to produce beyond potential real GDP and introducing an expansionary gap. The expansionary gap increases real GDP which means the smaller percentage of GDP the government is collecting is offset by the increase in real GDP. But what happens in the longterm, where the economy must operate at potential real GDP? Unemployment returns to natual levels, and the new contracts negotiated between labor and producers forces inflation upwards. The money the government is collecting falls in both worth and quantity. And, the government is left with a significant deficit AND higher inflation.
Ohhhh....jonsimon wrote:
To add here, a surplus caused by increasing taxes would decrease the interest rate, increasing investment and possibly the amount of capital per worker (productivity) reinforcing the increase in tax revenues. As much as a deficit brought on by tax cuts may increase tax revenues, a surplus is refinforced through increased investment as well.jonsimon wrote:
[
Okay, so you're saying Tax cuts create an increase in SRAS, forcing the economy to produce beyond potential real GDP and introducing an expansionary gap. The expansionary gap increases real GDP which means the smaller percentage of GDP the government is collecting is offset by the increase in real GDP. But what happens in the longterm, where the economy must operate at potential real GDP? Unemployment returns to natual levels, and the new contracts negotiated between labor and producers forces inflation upwards. The money the government is collecting falls in both worth and quantity. And, the government is left with a significant deficit AND higher inflation.
Interest rates. They're going to go up. It's a typical way of stabilising weak currencies. A rise in interest rates will hit American consumers hard (due to high levels of personal debt), which will mean a big hit to the economy. It's a nightmarish downward spiral.
This is probably a question for another thread - but what happens to the "war on terror" if (some would say when) the US economy crashes, and the US can't afford to support its own military?
i love how turkey spends more on it's military than canada.
classic.
classic.
Well, apparently, that's what America thinks when it happens in Africa. We haven't done anything about Darfur.Commie Killer wrote:
Of course we shouldnt have funded them, I mean the Soviets werent doing anything. Killing off whole villages isnt anything bad, is it?Turquoise wrote:
Thank you for intentionally twisting my words. Terrorists and terrorism are very real things, but if the goal of America was to eliminate terror, we'd be taking very different measures.usmarine2007 wrote:
It isn't? Wow, I guess when I was in Afghanistan people were not shooting at me, it was some sort of realistic video game.
Essentially, Afghanistan was a more valid conflict than most, but the Taliban wouldn't have even been an issue if we had never supported the groups that fought against the Soviets.
Most of the extremism we see in the Middle East today arose from movements we supported against the Soviets. Through our meddling, we inadvertently created our own worst enemies.
You're deluding yourself if you think we fought the Soviets for humanitarian reasons....
This all comes back to economics.
The US economy won't crash until we lose the war on terror. Once we lose influence over OPEC, we will be facing a severe depression. And hopefully I won't be here.thanks_champ wrote:
This is probably a question for another thread - but what happens to the "war on terror" if (some would say when) the US economy crashes, and the US can't afford to support its own military?
I dated a stripper named Depression. She was teh hawtness!
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Does losing the war in Iraq = losing the war on terror?jonsimon wrote:
The US economy won't crash until we lose the war on terror.
It could.thanks_champ wrote:
Does losing the war in Iraq = losing the war on terror?jonsimon wrote:
The US economy won't crash until we lose the war on terror.
oust the illegals, tell the welfare workers to get off their asses and pick some damn peachesCommie Killer wrote:
Yeah, there are people on welfare because they are to fat to move around, you have to TRY to keep that much weight on.usmarine2007 wrote:
What about what we spend on welfare? All the fat fucks sitting around eating his ice cream not doing shit.thanks_champ wrote:
I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to? Why is the worlds super power so in debt?
Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.