Where is the US economy headed?

You're switching gears here from past performance to future performance. I'm not going to play your game.

rjb, That's a good way to explain how we measure economic output in a nutshell; they are only best estimates by looking at total payroll for the employment stats, and consumer and commercial spending for all the products and services produced plus savings to measure GDP. They refine their numbers through the measurement of the circulation of money, and try to gauge the inflation rate by counting a "basket" of goods. Many people were confused about the inflation rate, because the cost of energy increased dramatically, but was not reflected in the inflation rate.

But the tools to measure both employment/unemployment, GDP, and inflation have been improved dramatically since 50-years ago, because of our ability to use computers and statistical analysis.

We still do not have good tools to measure future economic activity for various reasons including the effect of the world economy on our own, and the effects of high deficits on future economic activity.

During WWII, our deficits exceeded our GDP, but we were able to surmount that handicap to build the richest country in the world.

Future economic activity depends on the education of our society and other factors such as the cost of energy, supply of natural resources, and our environment. It also depends on how long foreign countries continue to buy our bonds, and the strength of our economy vs the world economy.

If there are tools to measure future economic activity, the purchase of stock would be more straight forward. Anyone with such a tool can become the richest person on this planet.

Finally, economics is not science; it's art.

The post referred to was written in the cold stoned sober light of day.



It considers digging holes and filling them up again as neutral. If the GDP has a component in it for both there is hardly a limit to how large it might become. Having the Olympic Games or the NFL or a TV station is digging holes. You know how they are filled I presume. They might be said to be economically negative because they sideline large numbers of people on their sofas who could be usefully employed doing something else.

Such severities of a scientific nature are presumably similar to the scientific severities which the scientifics on the evolution threads will have to bring to bear when they win the argument and teach only science in schools as a result of their critical thinking and logical rationalities which they are so eager to promote.

In fact one might say, I would say, that the two paragraphs of glop which was to be read to Dover students at the beginning of the first class of the year was hole digging and the subsequent festivities was the filling up of them.

Such is life. Economics concerns the necessities. Anything psychological is "treatment in the community": a phrase Mrs Thatcher famously deployed.

I presume that the Luddites thought such a fate was demeaning and undignified.

There's more to meds than meds.

Not all of us make fun of it, perhaps you do? After all, how many poor people provide jobs or run businesses?

Taxcuts for businesses help cut their expenses. Taxes are an expense, just as energy, labor, and other things, so cutting taxes on businesses increases their ability to compete.


Most of the money is down the drain, and will have no lasting effect, when its spent, its over, and things will return to usual, and nothing was accomplished to fix the underlying foundational or systemic problems. Trickle up does not work, as when the money is gone, its gone. Sort of like giving a loan to your brother in law to buy a car. He either will get drunk instead and not buy the car or he will buy a piece of junk that he can't insure, then have it repossessed a few weeks down the road. Don't plan on ever seeing the money again. You are better off giving the money to your rich uncle, at least he will hire you to maybe do a little work around the place, or buy something from you down the road.

If anyone wants to know how well trickle up works, go to Cuba or North Korea. Or study Stalins rule where a few million people starved to death.

How exactly does those two countries have any relationship to the US?
Clue: Stalin is dead.

They have a relationship to what we are currently battling in politics. Obama thinks profits are bad, and he wants to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the lower incomed, so that the wealth will trickle up. He believes government is the ultimate arbitor of economic fairness, social justice, and equality of outcome. Just pointing out that when this is taken to its logical conclusion, it does not work, for a few obvious reasons.

okie, Where do you get the notion that Obama believes "profit is bad?" Are you nuts?

According to the WSJ, consumer confidence is up, and more companies are saying they will be increasing jobs this year. Good news, but I'm still a skeptic.

I think Bernanke has lost his mind.

JPB, I agree; Bernanke doesn't know what he's talking about. Consumer spending makes up 75% of our economy, and thousands are still losing their jobs every day. Until that reverses, our economy will remain in poo poo land.

That appears to be a possibility, or I think he may simply be incompetent.

Actually, I think he's probably continuing the smoke screen so that folks start emptying the piggy banks and start buying their way out of the recession. There's one big problem with that.... folks aren't nearly as dumb/naive as they used to be in listening to the Fed. Savings rates continue to climb, debt continues to fall, and we've got two layers of additional housing bubbles to get through over the next two years.

Actually, there is something I don't know exactly, is Bernanke an Obama supporter, or is he simply looking out after his own skin?

I have no idea of his political bent -- I would have thought him a Bush supporter from reading his bio, but I really have no idea.

Ron Paul and A. Huffington discuss/agree on the state of the economy and the problem with the Fed. (short commercial first)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#32855960

I'm not sure why political bent has any bearing in how he leads the federal reserve.

It shouldn't, but Greenspan's libertarian bent certainly had a bearing on his tenure.

Libertarian is too confusing to even contemplate for Bernanke. Since GW Bush had a democrat in his administration, and Obama has a republican in his, libertarian can also be defined into some extremes that can be considered conservative or liberal. If we're talking about lazzise faire, they are usually defined as capitalism without government intrusion, but we all know that doesn't work or apply in reality.

Tell that to Alan Greenspan!