[tie]

stupendousman, first of all, it is very likely that we are in a recession now. If not, then there is an excellent chance that we will be in the next few months. Secondly, presidential elections are a time for summing things up. Summing up the last eight years, the economy has only gotten worse, and so that is what is being reported.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, first of all, it is very likely that we are in a recession now.

The economic indicators all say that isn't true. It is LIKELY that Democrats want us to be in a recession, because otherwise they'd have little to bitch about.

If not, then there is an excellent chance that we will be in the next few months.

Based on what? Not the numbers? Does the economy swing based entirely on the middle class having to pay more for gas? Just because the media and Democrats have been saying for months that we are in a recession, despite us NOT being in a recession? Is that how it works?

Secondly, presidential elections are a time for summing things up. Summing up the last eight years, the economy has only gotten worse, and so that is what is being reported.

Things have went up and down. Bush inherited a recession and despite that and 9/11, we have an economy that is growing at an average rate. If you want to call that "worse" than an actual recession, then I think that's not an entirely honest evaluation based on the facts. But, I really don't expect much more from the Democrats in an election year.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The economic indicators all say that isn't true. It is LIKELY that Democrats want us to be in a recession, because otherwise they'd have little to bitch about.



Based on what? Not the numbers? Does the economy swing based entirely on the middle class having to pay more for gas? Just because the media and Democrats have been saying for months that we are in a recession, despite us NOT being in a recession? Is that how it works?




Things have went up and down. Bush inherited a recession and despite that and 9/11, we have an economy that is growing at an average rate. If you want to call that "worse" than an actual recession, then I think that's not an entirely honest evaluation based on the facts. But, I really don't expect much more from the Democrats in an election year.

The economic indicators don't mean squat; they're just a bunch statistics used to argue a point. Once again, look at the underlying fundamentals, and you'll see we're headed for trouble. Our economy has grown in the last several decades primarily by moving money around, and China is poised to overtake the U. S. as the world's largest manufacturer shortly. We are getting to the point where we will have little the world wants anymore, which some of you can't seem to understand. If the citizens of country X can buy products more cheaply from China and other countries than the U. S., what are we going to make money from, selling them air? We've developed an economy with little in the form of an underlying base, and a few have gotten rich moving money around, which skews the statistics and doesn't show the true picture. We're going to find out relatively shortly how valuable we think we are to the rest of the world, and it isn't going to be pretty. (Cue CRASH HARDDRIVE)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Part. Yes. Post 1994. That still doesn't explain how when we were in a recession, everything was good, but now when we are not in a recession, everything is bad. Up is down. Right is left.

I don't know what you are talking about, unless you are projecting some of your general disdain and emotional bias of the left on me? All I'm saying is that this administration has been abysmal at budgeting and spending within their means while under Clinton we had a very rare balanced budget and surplus - two things which I think would be hard to objectively say that the Clinton administration was anything but bad when it came to running their economy.

I've heard justifications about how we were in an economic technological boom during the 90s, but all that means is that there was a bigger piece of pie (GDP), as Warren Buffet would put it. It would have still been quite possible to overspend, but he didn't, unlike this president. All this president has done is whine about earmarks while not exercising his veto power, start an unnecessary, expensive war, and did nothing about controlling Medicare/Medicaid costs and spending. To his credit he tried to do something about social security, although when his party ran into a roadblock these attempts were basically shut down (although in his defense, a Democrat could have tried to reinvigorate this debate with counter proposals).

All in all this current administration has done nothing to prove that the Republican way of thinking amounts to a better, stronger, or healthier economy. Honestly, I think that philosophy comes second to actually having competent leadership and advisers in place, and the ability to restrain from overspending - i.e. this is not a partisan issue.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Things have went up and down. Bush inherited a recession and despite that and 9/11, we have an economy that is growing at an average rate. If you want to call that "worse" than an actual recession, then I think that's not an entirely honest evaluation based on the facts. But, I really don't expect much more from the Democrats in an election year.

Wake up dude. "Growth" + astounding, if not record debt. Do the math.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The economic indicators don't mean squat; they're just a bunch statistics used to argue a point.

THIS is why the argument isn't worth getting into. People with an agenda want words to mean what will be politically expedient for them, despite the underlying facts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the intellectual dishonesty that is prevalent during campaigns where Republicans are "in charge" and where the Democrats insist that the economy is the worse since the depression. Especially when the claimed indicators are things like the price of oil (caused due to Democrats refusing to ad supply) and traditionally Democrat economic bastions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (who have given Obama a greater percentage of donations considering the amount of time he's been in office than ANY OTHER person in Congress) going bust.

Up is down. Right is left.

Bush inherited a recession and had to invest heavily post 9/11 and we still haven't hit a recession. Democrats can keep hoping though...hope that times are worse than they are.

Sad.

[OldManMac]

As usual, all you, and several others, want to do is politicize this. If you'd been paying attention, and not cherry picked out of my statements, you'd have noticed that I said this has been coming for several decades. But you want to turn it into a Democrats vs. Republicans thing (which I've also pointed out here recently are indistinguishable), to buttress your views. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Sad is correct, and denial is indeed a powerful motivator.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The economic indicators all say that isn't true. It is LIKELY that Democrats want us to be in a recession, because otherwise they'd have little to bitch about.

Based on unemployment (U-3): the current employment situation (6.1%) is just about as bad as it was at the height of Bush's first recession (6.3%), and the current numbers include automatic seasonal adjustments, e.g., for construction workers, that are sure to be revised downward given the state of the construction industry. U-6 (Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers) is now at 10.7% versus 10.3% at its highest in the last recession. (link)

U-6:

(This image might not work for long, I don't know for how long they cache their graphics.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Based on what? Not the numbers? Does the economy swing based entirely on the middle class having to pay more for gas? Just because the media and Democrats have been saying for months that we are in a recession, despite us NOT being in a recession? Is that how it works?

I think we are already in a recession, but perhaps it is a borderline call. The Fed thinks things will get worse, though, so I think the call will get easier:

Originally Posted by FOMC minutes, August 5, 2008

...In the forecast prepared for the meeting, the staff marked down its forecast of real GDP growth in the second half of 2008 and in 2009. Although the increase in real GDP in the second quarter was a bit faster than anticipated at the time of the June meeting, the labor market continued to weaken significantly, financial conditions remained unfavorable, consumer and business confidence was downbeat, and manufacturing activity was contracting. All told, the staff continued to expect that real GDP would rise at less than its potential rate through the first half of next year. Nonetheless, real GDP growth was anticipated to return to its potential rate in the second half of 2009 as housing activity leveled out and financial conditions became less restrictive. Core PCE price inflation was expected to pick up somewhat in the second half of this year, mostly as a result of the upward pressures from this year's run-ups in prices of energy and imports. Core inflation was then expected to edge down in 2009 as the impetus from prior increases in the prices of imports, energy, and other commodities abated and the margin of slack in resource use widened.

In their discussion of the economic situation and outlook, many FOMC participants noted that recent developments suggested that economic activity was likely to remain damped for several quarters. Although economic growth in the second quarter had apparently been boosted by fiscal stimulus, resilience in consumption spending even before tax rebates were distributed, and robust gains in exports, recent indicators pointed to a near-term deceleration in household spending and to softer export demand. Moreover, increasing concerns about financial institutions had contributed to a widening of some risk spreads and a further tightening of credit to households and businesses. Growth in overall economic activity was generally expected to be weak during the remainder of 2008 before recovering modestly next year, and nearly all meeting participants saw continuing downside risks to growth. Recent readings on inflation had been high, but growth in unit labor costs had remained subdued and commodity prices had declined of late. Accordingly, most participants anticipated that inflation would moderate in coming quarters. However, participants also expressed significant concerns about the upside risks to inflation, particularly the risk that longer-term inflation expectations could become unmoored....

Things have went up and down. Bush inherited a recession and despite that and 9/11, we have an economy that is growing at an average rate. If you want to call that "worse" than an actual recession, then I think that's not an entirely honest evaluation based on the facts. But, I really don't expect much more from the Democrats in an election year.

Median real incomes are still lower than they were before the last recession. Low incomes, high unemployment, high inflation, and Fed predictions that things will only get worse---that's my data. A lot of this data (inflation, unemployment, incomes for most Americans) is worse now than it was in the last recession. So based on the numbers, I'd say it is worse than an actual recession, yes. I can understand your hangup that the NBER hasn't yet officially declared a recession, but we won't know about that for a while.

Originally Posted by OldManMac

The economic indicators don't mean squat; they're just a bunch statistics used to argue a point.

Nonsense.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nonsense.

No, what I stated that the economic indicators don't mean much, is not nonsense. We can have full employment, and a certain growth rate, but if the vast majority of people are working for less than they were previously, relative to inflation, and the actual wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, proclaiming that everybody's working and the economy is growing means nothing, except to a very select few. This is exactly what's happening here, and elsewhere. Every time somebody attempt to buttress their argument that there is no recession, they always trot out the relatively low unemployment rate and economic growth figures, without bothering to point out that, just because people are working, doesn't mean they're advancing. The majority of Americans make $50K and under annually, and that's remained fairly consistent for years. If you make $50K ten years ago, and you're making $50K today, there is a huge disparity in what that same amount of money can buy. Your employer is more likely to curtail or eliminate benefits, your childrens' education is going to be of a lower quality, your health care is going to be a greater concern, your food costs are much higher, as pertains to a percentage of your income, and you just plain have little money for saving. If you're a multimillionaire, you're going to have better health coverage, your children are going to be educated in schools with modern textbooks and computers, and you'll have money left to invest. It's no secret that the disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us is continually widening, so simply spewing out some economic indicator numbers doesn't tell the whole story, and it's intellectually dishonest to be pretend that it does.

[Dual Porpoise]

Oldmanmac is quite correct that the economic indicators commonly used (GDP etc) do not indicate the well being of most people very well.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, what I stated that the economic indicators don't mean much, is not nonsense. We can have full employment, and a certain growth rate, but if the vast majority of people are working for less than they were previously, relative to inflation, and the actual wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, proclaiming that everybody's working and the economy is growing means nothing, except to a very select few. This is exactly what's happening here, and elsewhere. Every time somebody attempt to buttress their argument that there is no recession, they always trot out the relatively low unemployment rate and economic growth figures, without bothering to point out that, just because people are working, doesn't mean they're advancing. The majority of Americans make $50K and under annually, and that's remained fairly consistent for years. If you make $50K ten years ago, and you're making $50K today, there is a huge disparity in what that same amount of money can buy. Your employer is more likely to curtail or eliminate benefits, your childrens' education is going to be of a lower quality, your health care is going to be a greater concern, your food costs are much higher, as pertains to a percentage of your income, and you just plain have little money for saving. If you're a multimillionaire, you're going to have better health coverage, your children are going to be educated in schools with modern textbooks and computers, and you'll have money left to invest. It's no secret that the disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us is continually widening, so simply spewing out some economic indicator numbers doesn't tell the whole story, and it's intellectually dishonest to be pretend that it does.

Amen and Hallelujah!

[tie]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, what I stated that the economic indicators don't mean much, is not nonsense. We can have full employment, and a certain growth rate, but if the vast majority of people are working for less than they were previously, relative to inflation, and the actual wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, proclaiming that everybody's working and the economy is growing means nothing, except to a very select few.

I quoted median incomes exactly for the reason you are saying, to avoid biasing the number based on growing inequality. (Unemployment is actually fairly high right now, U-6 at over 10%, higher than in the last recession, as I said.) So there are statistics that reveal exactly the effects you are pointing out. If you were just saying that some of the more common statistics (U-3 for unemployment, real GDP not even per capita) don't mean much, then I think we can agree to some extent.

[OldManMac]

Just another sign that there is no recession.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_print

And another; everything's fine folks. (Don't bother reading the part about raising the debt ceiling to pay for it; that's not our immediate concern, as we'll leave that to our children's children's grandchildren to worry about, so we can keep living high on the hog).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/busi...=1&oref=slogin

[OldManMac]

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is decidedly conservative leaning, is lambasting McCain for his non-solutions to the economy. Funny stuff. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kewers-mccain/

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is decidedly conservative leaning, is lambasting McCain for his non-solutions to the economy. Funny stuff. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kewers-mccain/

...and what are Obama's solutions for economy? Oh yeah...he doesn't have any and has admitted it. He won't tell us until well after the election. What he does plan he has already stated would probably bad for a fragile economy and he might not be able to go through with it.

[besson3c]

I would be impressed if you could find a video or transcript of Obama saying "I have no solutions for the economy".

[tie]

Obama has consistently called for more regulation. McCain has consistently called for less regulation, until last week when he flip-flopped again. Now he says he wants more regulation, but in fact he'll just convene a commission to tell us what to do four years from now. This kind of wishy-washy inconsistency---together with pandering speeches vaguely decrying executive greed (while Fiorina sits at his side) isn't going to work. But unfortunately for McCain, I don't think he can flip-flop again without seeming even more disengaged. Maybe he is trying to count his houses and doesn't have time for the economy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would be impressed if you could find a video or transcript of Obama saying "I have no solutions for the economy".

I didn't put those words in quotation marks. He "punted" by saying that the issue was complex and he wasn't going to put together a hasty plan. It's essentially the same thing Harry Reid said when he admitted that he didn't have much of a clue how to proceed either.

He has however admitted that his tax plan would be bad for a fragile economy, and that he's rethought things and might not be able to implement it.

[besson3c]

From FactCheck:

The Statement: At a town hall meeting Monday, September 22, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain hit his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, on the financial crisis. “Sen. Obama has declined to put forth a plan of his own,” McCain said. “In a time of crisis, when leadership is needed, Sen. Obama has simply not provided it.”

The Facts: Obama has said several times since the recent Wall Street meltdown that, in meeting with top economists, he was encouraged to not roll out a specific plan for fear of overly politicizing work of the Congress on a government bailout of financial firms. He has, however, offered ideas for the plan — including limiting pay for executives of businesses that are bailed out by the government and making sure the effort includes a specific plan for the money to be repaid.

“In the coming days, I’ll work closely to examine the details of the Treasury and the Fed proposal, and, as I do, I’ll work to ensure that it provides an effective emergency response by including four basic principles that my economic advisers and I just discussed this morning,” Obama said at a Friday September 19 news conference.

Later on September 22, Obama gave a speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in which he laid out a basic, six-point plan for overseeing Wall Street that included cracking down on market manipulation and expanded oversight of businesses that borrow money from the government.

And McCain’s own campaign seems to have taken a similar stance against rolling out a detailed plan. On Tuesday, September 16, McCain senior adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said, “I don’t think it’s at this moment imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be.” Asked when the time for a specific proposal would come, Holtz-Eakin responded: “I think the moment when we write down a specific plan is the moment we send legislation from a McCain administration to Congress.”

In a conference call less than two hours after McCain’s statement, his top advisers said it was premature to say whether McCain supports a congressional bailout plan because the details of that plan have not been finalized.

Verdict: Misleading. Obama has voiced specific ideas about the bailout plan
and McCain’s campaign has taken a “wait and see ” stance similar to Obama’s.

[Chuckit]

I don't think inconsistency is necessarily bad — on Obama's part or McCain's. No single course of action is appropriate in every case. For example, I generally think less government is better government, but there's a point of diminishing returns where having even less government starts to become harmful and self-defeating.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

From FactCheck:

First, I really don't consider "FactCheck" a very credible source. They take positions and opinions that seem to ignore the facts when they can engage in a political "gotcha".

Second, the following statement supports my claim:

"Obama has said several times since the recent Wall Street meltdown that, in meeting with top economists, he was encouraged to not roll out a specific plan for fear of overly politicizing work of the Congress on a government bailout of financial firms."

He's refusing to give a plan. He's "punting" until he sees how the administration and regulators handle it. It could be because of what he says, it could be so he doesn't have to have his own ideas shot down by economists. He'll give vague ideas that are non-specific and non-controversial, but he'll put off saying what should be done NOW.

McCain had a plan back when Freddie Mac started it's downward spiral, but it was shot down along party lines several years ago:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Had we followed McCain's plan, we probably would never be where we are now.

[besson3c]

Hehe...

The Facts: Obama has said several times since the recent Wall Street meltdown that, in meeting with top economists, he was encouraged to not roll out a specific plan for fear of overly politicizing work of the Congress on a government bailout of financial firms.

And McCain’s own campaign seems to have taken a similar stance against rolling out a detailed plan. On Tuesday, September 16, McCain senior adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said, “I don’t think it’s at this moment imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be.” Asked when the time for a specific proposal would come, Holtz-Eakin responded: “I think the moment when we write down a specific plan is the moment we send legislation from a McCain administration to Congress.”

You:

First, I really don't consider "FactCheck" a very credible source. They take positions and opinions that seem to ignore the facts when they can engage in a political "gotcha".

End of the article you quoted:

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.

I guess only info from McCain's advisers can be considered not a political gotcha, and this from the king of scoring political points here in this lounge?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't think inconsistency is necessarily bad — on Obama's part or McCain's. No single course of action is appropriate in every case. For example, I generally think less government is better government, but there's a point of diminishing returns where having even less government starts to become harmful and self-defeating.

I feel exactly the same way, and that's what I've been trying to get across for a while... You said it better than I have though

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess only info from McCain's advisers can be considered not a political gotcha, and this from the king of scoring political points here in this lounge?

No, not at all. Though, I'm pretty sure McCain's advisors don't claim to be impartial and the article in question makes it clear who it is that the author has worked for. Factcheck.org on the other hand stakes their reputation on having a non-partisan analysis based on the facts. When they give less than that, they hurt their credibility.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, not at all. Though, I'm pretty sure McCain's advisors don't claim to be impartial and the article in question makes it clear who it is that the author has worked for. Factcheck.org on the other hand stakes their reputation on having a non-partisan analysis based on the facts. When they give less than that, they hurt their credibility.

So what is the debate now, the credibility of FactCheck, or the subject matter?

If you are so acutely aware of your own bias, why does it seem like an impossible task to get you to reexamine your bias and discuss these sorts of things without things getting so emotional and competitively partisan?

[olePigeon]

So are we in a recession yet?

[tie]

U-6 is up to 11% seasonably adjusted.

[tie]

Originally Posted by tie

stupendousman, first of all, it is very likely that we are in a recession now. If not, then there is an excellent chance that we will be in the next few months.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The economic indicators all say that isn't true. It is LIKELY that Democrats want us to be in a recession, because otherwise they'd have little to bitch about.

The recession officially started in Dec 2007. (The reason I like arguing with you, stupendousman, is that you are always wrong. )

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/business/02markets.html?hp] (the reason i like arguing with you, stupendousman, is that you are always wrong. )

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Despite the liberal press's bandying about of the word "recession" non stop in this election cycle, the US economy has not actually experienced another recession since the dot-com crash, even by a loose definition of the word. And yet, liberal op-eds penned by journalists with no formal economic training continue to warn of some looming Great Depression II.

In the quarter before last, US GDP growth was almost exactly average, and now it is at 3.3%, almost twice the average rate of growth for the US. So why do I constantly hear the word recession on the lips of liberals? Could it be because their party benefits from this distortion of economic fact?

I love it when the know-it-alls are proven to know nothing! Classic right wingnuts!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Despite the liberal press's bandying about of the word "recession" non stop in this election cycle, the US economy has not actually experienced another recession since the dot-com crash, even by a loose definition of the word.

Uhm, you *are* aware that the dot-com crash had only *ONE* quarter of GDP decline, so even there it would have been only a recession by a "a loose definition of the word".

Compared to 2001, we are going into a depression.

-t

[Hawkeye_a]

Many analysts seem to this current depression is going to be a big one. It is my humble opinion that we are already past the half way point and the turn around will be noticeable 3-4 months into Obama's presidency(April-June ish). Usually a change in administration/ruling party causes a certain level of uncertainty, but after the transition, things start improving.

Here's hoping anyway.

Cheers

[turtle777]

I don't know of a single argument or reason why it should get better anytime soon.

And no, Obama alone is not a good enough reason. Heck, he can't even walk on water.

-t