Economy in Recession? More Liberal Lies?

Originally posted by jetxnet
MybigUnit, while your explanation had some merit, it still avoids what you were asked, and that is simply to disprove America's current growth.

Higher Gas and Food - it is a GLOBAL problem. It's not just America, in fact most countries are paying more for Gas than the US - that goes for food too.

The US is still growing despite the high Gas prices and food cost relative to a Global energy crisis of supply and demand, which is now coming down again.

I did answer the question. I have shown several ways our country is going down. I dont use the GDP for growth. The government does I dont. Growth to me is not how much we consume. Growth to me is real disposable income, real savings, paying down or keeping at bay the national debt, keeping big government spending low, keeping inflation low, keeping unemployment low, (and not I dont believe we only have 5.5% unemployment) these are my idea of growth. We have not seen this in the past 8 years Im sorry. If you use the government GDP to measure growth then yes we have grown. I dont and most real investors and bankers dont use those numbers either. In fact if you want CNBC the day the GDP came out several investors shrugged it off as yeah right.

Originally posted by mybigunit

I did answer the question. I have shown several ways our country is going down. I dont use the GDP for growth. The government does I dont. Growth to me is not how much we consume. Growth to me is real disposable income,

You mean real disposable income like this?




Cool how you pretty much admit that in order to make the "recession" theory true you need to make up your own criteria for how the country is "going down," and even then the data contradicts your claims.

reply to post by jamie83


To bad your reading the chart wrong. The savings rate was as high as 9% in the Clinton regime and it was as high as what 3% in the bush regime. Its showing savings going DOWN. Look at the left side of the graph. In my post above to Jetnext I answered the growth question and wont retype it all.

technically we're not, but does that mean our economy is healthy. im confused jaime, maybe you can answer my previous questions to help me get the bigger picture without which surely your graphs cannot be put into proper perspective. help.

reply to post by jamie83


No I mean like this
(click the image for full image)
I get mine from the census bureau and not the FED.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 1-9-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by wutone

 

This is a Republican thing. Now it didnt used to be this way. This is a new thing the Republicans do so they can stay popular.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by mybigunit]

Can you point where I didn't blame the Republicans for borrowing to feed their spending?

BTW Clinton helped repeal Glass-Steagall. The budget surplus in the 90's was due to the people who approved the budgets and spending, the republican congress. There was also the help of a booming dot-com industry.

Don't blame the Republicans only. The democrats have controlled congress during the Reagan years, some Clinton years, and some Bush years.

In fact, Clinton had higher deficits, in percentage to the GDP, than this president, during the years when he had a democrat congress, and that was during years of peace. So the Democrats aren't smelling like roses in this whole mess.

you know, i'm almost positive that most americans are feeling the effects directly and don't need one side or the other telling them what is happening to them. this is so far beyond any particular set of lies by people who follow a political dogma espousing an economic dogma that it's not even funny anymore. in fact, topics like this that take a very serious economic reality and then try to spin it into some sort of political statement or game sicken me.

reply to post by wutone


Nope not saying they are. Like ive said 1000% its ALL of them. Democrats and Republicans are ALL robbing us blind. Im just pointing out to the sheeple above who think that all is well out there and to trust the government and there is no story here. These are the people I am arguing with.

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jamie83

 

To bad your reading the chart wrong. The savings rate was as high as 9% in the Clinton regime and it was as high as what 3% in the bush regime. Its showing savings going DOWN. Look at the left side of the graph. In my post above to Jetnext I answered the growth question and wont retype it all.

No, I'm not reading the graph wrong at all. The savings RATE is going down, but it is still a positive number. This means people are still accumulating money in savings, but at a slower rate of increase.

This is one of those areas where the Democrats continually seem challenged. A slower RATE of increase is still an increase.

In fact, Clinton had higher deficits, in percentage to the GDP, than this president, during the years when he had a democrat congress, and that was during years of peace. So the Democrats aren't smelling like roses in this whole mess.

Not at all and don't forget 9/11 caused nearly 1 Trillion$ in damage while the Code Red attack worm from China two weeks before 9/11 caused nearly $800 Billion in business downtime and losses. Those two incidents alone caused an economic 1-2 punch of nearly 1.8 Trillion$ worth of damages to the US economy.

We're lucky we even rebounded from that.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by jetxnet]

Growth unadjusted for inflation is only growth for the banking system. Growth overcome by inflation (which we currently have) is, as i said, still growth for the banking system, but it brings the average citizen to poverty.

As for if the Fed says there is inflation or not on their website, browse Youtube a bit...wasn't but a couple months ago where I watched one video where Bernake both admitted that the use of inflation by the Fed is taxation (illegal taxation,) and also that inflation has gotten out of control and is responsible for the rise in commodity prices, by and large.

If you want an easy indicator of our money problems, compare exchange rates from 2000 to exchange rates today. Compare the % of loss vs the % rise (avg) in commodities. Draw some obvious conclusions. Compare % of loss to dollars "borrowed" from the Fed. Draw some more obvious conclusions.

Im not going to post it all here for you, because you obviously need to go through the steps yourself to truly understand what is happening. I don't care if you agree with my solution, but I do care that you be honest with yourself about the bare facts.

Learn some history, and you'll see that none of what we face right now is new. Reagan used the "war on terror" that Bush has resurrected. The 70's saw large environmental scams, like the man-made global warming scam of today, and also saw market manipulation to cause fuel shortages and price spikes, as well as the institution of insanely prohibitive standards to prohibit the construction of new refineries, which is part of the "energy crisis" today. The same techniques used in the past are being used again today. Learn, understand, and decide what matters most to you in life.

We don't need politicians who dictate morality based on their religions, be they Christian morals or Naturalist/Environmentalist morals. We don't need governments who try to run and regulate every market. We don't need a banking system that can steal from us at will. We need freedom; freedom to make our own decisions, and to suffer or prosper accordingly. Most of all, we need a solid currency, so the everyday man is not robbed his entire life by inflation. When you give an organization the power of inflation, it's like selling your labor to another, getting paid, and then having that person come to your home, beat you to the floor, beat your family to the floor, and take back your hard earned wages. Why should ANYONE want to allow that?

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jamie83

 

No I mean like this
(click the image for full image)
I get mine from the census bureau and not the FED.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 1-9-2008 by mybigunit]

Sorry, I must be missing your point here. The graph shows household income increasing.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jamie83

 

To bad your reading the chart wrong. The savings rate was as high as 9% in the Clinton regime and it was as high as what 3% in the bush regime. Its showing savings going DOWN. Look at the left side of the graph. In my post above to Jetnext I answered the growth question and wont retype it all.

No, I'm not reading the graph wrong at all. The savings RATE is going down, but it is still a positive number. This means people are still accumulating money in savings, but at a slower rate of increase.

This is one of those areas where the Democrats continually seem challenged. A slower RATE of increase is still an increase.

But its still going down. Its 2 here and Im off to bed but will continue this tomorrow. All charts aside and I have more and will post them when you have the FDIC, the banking industry, the auto industry, the airline industry, the housing industry, and a few others looking for bailouts and other forms of government welfare checks then that says something to me that any charts you or I can throw at eachother. In a non recessionary economy this wouldnt be the issue would it? If this was just a housing problem then all of the other sectors need not worry right? But yet they want me to pay to bail them out. This isnt a democrat or republican thing with me like it is you. I feel they ALL are robbing us blind. Its people like you who buy into the rhetoric that there is a difference between the 2. The fact is ALL of them put us in this crappy position.

reply to post by jamie83


From 2000 to 2005 income went down. 2006 and 2007 are not on that chart. I would expect a small bump for 06 and a continued decline in 07 and to current.

Originally posted by mybigunit
But its still going down.

The rate of increase is slowing. It's like if you were putting $10 savings in the bank everyday, and now you're putting $2 savings in the bank everyday. Your bank account is still growing!

A recession is defined as when the economy is SHRINKING, not when the growth is slowing down. By no measure is the economy shrinking. The economy is growing at a slower rate than before.

And this subject IS a Republican/Democratic issue because it's about how it's only the Democrats who are consistently trying to mislead people about the economy being in a recession so they can score political points.

Sure, there are certain areas of the economy that are doing worse than others, but that's just the nature of the business cycle. Look at the graphs dating back to 1900. Business runs in cycles. We may be in a down cycle 6 months from now, or 6 years from now. It will happen.

But the point is that NOW the economy is still growing, albeit at a slower rate. We are NOT in a recession, let alone the worst recession in U.S. history.

according to one analyst, the growth numbers are a statistical anomaly, since net exports contributed significantly to the numbers. actually, imports decreased leading to a positive number for net exports. so consumers spent less and gdp went up.

Source

reply to post by jamie83


Oh, come on now. You know very well that said increase is swallowed many times over by inflation. Adjust that for inflation, then see where it stands.

The GDP isn't rocket science. It is simply a pulse to the heartbeat of the economy. If the GDP is up - it means America made more money. If it is down- it means America has a negative growth rate.

The GDP is determined by consumers around the world purchasing American goods and serivices. These goods and services span all vertical markets.



[edit on 1-9-2008 by jetxnet]

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by jamie83

 

From 2000 to 2005 income went down. 2006 and 2007 are not on that chart. I would expect a small bump for 06 and a continued decline in 07 and to current.

First of all, the chart you posted is median income. Do you understand what median income means?

Median income is the income at which an equal number of people have incomes above and below the median. That is why this is data from the census bureau and not the Federal Reserve. Median income really doesn't tell much on it's own.

For example, people retiring will drop the median income. An influx of college grads will drop the median income.

In any case, it's really a lame effort on your part if you're trying to use a dip in median income to prove there's a recession, especially when you can't even provide the data after 2005.

Here is the chart of Real Disposable Income:



This chart shows the rate of change of disposable income.

Notice that disposable income is growing faster right now than it ever did during the Clinton administration, which Democrats hail as some sort of golden era of the economy.

reply to post by jamie83


But who's disposable income is growing, and what percentage of the population do they make up? There is a difference in what is good for the elite and the banks and what is good for the average citizen. Not that the Clinton years were good exactly, either. But that's my whole point.