Where is the US economy headed?

The Senate confirmed Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve by a vote of 70-30.

@realjohnboy,

Almost a foregone conclusion confirmed.

@cicerone imposter,

Perhaps, C.I. There was quite a bit of opposition - perhaps it was posturing. But President Obama was concerned enough to have to do some arm twisting.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

70-30 looks like a pretty good margin to me - especially in these days in Washington DC.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

70-30 was the narrowest margin for appointment in the history of the Fed. Uncertainty about the outcome unsettled markets for the last week or so...along with other issues. Rough couple of weeks in our and other markets.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I didn't know that the appointment of the chairman of the federal reserve was the cause of the upheaval in the stock market; I thought it was the drop in housing construction, and the increase in delinquency on mortgages of higher priced homes.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, Statistics that you cut and paste have very little meaning without the global perspective of the cause and effects for them; in simple English, what happened before and after those statistics. You're one of the dumbest posters on a2k.

OK, what do you, cice, think are the relevant causes and effects of those statistics I have posted?

I think my comments included along with those statistics make the relevant causes and effects of those statistics self-evident to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

Quote:

OK, what do you, cice, think are the relevant causes and effects of those statistics I have posted?

Try to find some answers. They are obvious to people who understand cause and effect. Evidently they didn't teach you about that in school.

Your so-called explanations only describe static numbers compared to each other that have very little real meaning.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It was "a" cause, CI. Markets, as you well know, hate uncertainty. The possibility of Bernanke not winning approval was a factor at the end of last week, particularly in the foreign markets.
I can no longer source articles stating that. But it is true, and I hope that my reputation for honest reporting here counts for something.
You are right about new concerns (housing starts, mortgage delinquencies). As well, we may see potential deflation in Japan at the same time as the real estate bubble is about to burst in China. Not good, if they happen.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Your posts are credible with me, so don't worry about that! I read a lot, but that doesn't mean my retention is 100% reliable. Also, it's good to see other opinions posted to increase knowledge on subjects that has various reasons that explains the swings in the market.

0 Replies

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/01/economy_grows_at_fastest_pace_in_6_years.php?ref=fpblg

Quote:

Economy Grows At Fastest Pace In 6 Years

Economy soars 5.7 percent in Q4, fastest in 6 years

REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report Business News

Jan 29, 2010 08:39 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The economy grew at a faster-than-expected 5.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter, the quickest pace in more than six years, as businesses reduced inventories less aggressively, the Commerce Department said on Friday.

The first estimate put fourth-quarter gross domestic product growth at its fastest pace since the third quarter of 2003. The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, growing at a 4.6 percent rate in October-December period.

Growth was boosted a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation, a factor that could mask the strength of the economic recovery from the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

But even stripping out inventories, the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent, accelerating from the 1.5 percent increase in the third quarter, reflecting relatively strong performance from other segments of the economy.

Somehow, this doesn't mesh with the gloom-and-doom predictions the Republicans have been putting forth!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cice, I asked you what do you, cice, think are the relevant causes and effects of those statistics I have posted?

You answered:

Quote:

Try to find some answers. They are obvious to people who understand cause and effect. Evidently they didn't teach you about that in school.

Your so-called explanations only describe static numbers compared to each other that have very little real meaning.

Your response to my question demonstrates that either YOU do not understand "cause and effect," or YOU do not wish to acknowledge THAT "cause and effect" that contradicts your preconceived beliefs.

Furthermore, describing a posted history of total USA jobs, federal receipts, outlays, and receipts minus outlays as "only static numbers," when they at the very least constitute a demonstration of change over time, is absurd.

All the numbers I have posted OBVIOUSLY support the following conclusions regarding, non-static, changes:
1. Federal Receipts annually increased 1984 through 2009, except for the years 2001 through 2004;
2. Maximum income tax rates were below Carter's 70% at 50%, 1982 through 1986, and were below 40%, 1987 through 2009;
3. Federal Outlays annually increased in the years 1980 through 2009;
4. Federal Outlays exceeded Federal Receipts in the years 1980 through 2009, except for the years 1998 through 2001;
5. Total US employment annually increased in the years 1980 through 2007, except for the years 1982, 1991, and 2002;
6. Total US employment decreased in 2008 by almost 3 million jobs, and further decreased in 2009 by more than 5 million jobs.

From the preceding we can safely conclude:
1. Decreasing federal income tax rates DOES NOT ALWAYS result in lower Federal Receipts;
2. Federal Receipts infrequently exceeded Federal outlays in the years 1980 through 2009;
3. Total US employment infrequently decreased in the years 1980 through 2007;
4. The unusual losses of almost 3 million jobs in 2008, and more than 5 million jobs in 2009 were caused by failures of BOTH the Bush and Obama administrations to stop or reduce programs that were severely damaging the USA economy.

I opine that profligate irresponsible lending fostered by CRA, Fannie, Freddie, TARP, and Stimulus greatly reduced the funds available to invest in maintaining and growing the USA economy. I further opine this resulted in the approximately 8 million jobs lost in the two years, 2008 and 2009.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

1. Decreasing federal income tax rates DOES NOT ALWAYS result in lower Federal Receipts;

Yes it does. You don't understand what you are talking about at all. The tax receipts would have risen with or without the tax cuts; the tax cuts don't drive the receipts to grow higher, they drive them down and then they continue to grow as normal.

Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich in 2001 - and we saw three years of lower receipts as a consequence of this.

Do I need to post explanations from Conservative economists for you again? This would be something like the third time that I use pundits from your own side of the fence to prove you wrong on this point. Or do you even care if you are wrong?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Economy Grows At Fastest Pace In 6 Years
Economy soars 5.7 percent in Q4, fastest in 6 years
REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report Business News
Jan 29, 2010 08:39 EST

Somehow, this doesn't mesh with the gloom-and-doom predictions the Republicans have been putting forth!

This Reuter's stuff is inconsistent with the more than one million jobs lost in "Q4" of 2009. Until total USA jobs stop decreasing, "the gloom-and-doom predictions the Republicans have been putting forth" IS justified.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Economy Grows At Fastest Pace In 6 Years
Economy soars 5.7 percent in Q4, fastest in 6 years
REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report Business News
Jan 29, 2010 08:39 EST

Somehow, this doesn't mesh with the gloom-and-doom predictions the Republicans have been putting forth!

This Reuter's stuff is inconsistent with the more than one million jobs lost in "Q4" of 2009. Until total USA jobs stop decreasing, "the gloom-and-doom predictions the Republicans have been putting forth" IS justified.

Nope. It is not justified, because employment is a LAGGING indicator; employment does not precede economic recovery, the opposite is true.

I'll just add this to the pile of economic topics that you know very little about.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... the tax cuts don't drive the receipts to grow higher, they drive them down and then they continue to grow as normal.

That's ludicrous! Receipts increased each and every year 1983 through 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

Income taxes rates were reduced and increased during that period, after being reduced both below the minimum tax rate of 14% and below the maximum rate of 70% in 1982. After the maximum tax rate was reduced below 40% in 1986, it was never increased to as high as 40%.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich in 2001 - and we saw three years of lower receipts as a consequence of this.

FALSE! Clinton passed the tax cut in 2001 that was only for the rich. Bush passed his first tax cut in 2002 that was for both the rich and the not rich. In 2003 Bush passed a tax cut for the rich in 2003.

What actually happened to total USA employment? It began to increase after 2002.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
2001..................... 215,092,000………………136,933,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2002...................... 217,570,000...............136,485,000
2003..................... 221,168,000...............137,730,006
2004..................... 223,357,000...............139,252,000
2005..................... 226,082,000………….....141,730,000
2006...................... 228,815,000……..........144,427,000
2007..................... 231,867,000...............146,047,000
2008..................... 233,788,000...............145,362,000
2009..................... 235,810,000...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 - ?]

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn" wrote:

employment does not precede economic recovery, the opposite is true.

REAL economic recovery does not begin to occur until employment begins to increase! The beginning of increases in business revenues does precede increases in employment, but the beginning of increases of revenue is not the REAL beginning of economic recovery.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

FALSE! Clinton passed the tax cut in 2001 that was only for the rich. Bush passed his first tax cut in 2002 that was for both the rich and the not rich. In 2003 Bush passed a tax cut for the rich in 2003.

How can you possibly be so ignorant of modern history? Clinton wasn't even in OFFICE in 2001, except for about what 20 days? He certainly didn't sign a giant tax cut for the rich in 2001.

Quote:

President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).

Jesus Christ, Ican. If you can't even keep up with events of a decade ago, why would anyone bother discussing stuff with you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn" wrote:
employment does not precede economic recovery, the opposite is true.

REAL economic recovery does not begin to occur until employment begins to increase! The beginning of increases in business revenues does precede increases in employment, but the beginning of increases of revenue is not the REAL beginning of economic recovery.

This is you changing definitions to try and salvage a failed argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Not only that, but he manages to make a statement any 12-year old would understand. His maturity is below that age!

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know