http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...ADF-41A1-86E8-63FF2C5F1D15}&siteid=mktw&dist=
To paraphrase my "personal hero" it's he economy ....stupid
To paraphrase my "personal hero" it's he economy ....stupid
It's the economy...stupid
- Thread starter langeweile
- Start date
Try to debatte that away..I am sure some smart economic nitwit will find something wrong with that..onthebottom said:
Lang, you should know that the Bush Administration is just practicing old fashion Keynesian economics. Such left wing economic policies will give short term boosts to the economy. Nonetheless, eventually (i) expectations catch up and reduce the expansionary effects and (ii) the bill will have to be paid. Canada has been there and done that. They used to say that PC governments were the tax collectors for liberal governments. It seems that in the modern US it is the democrats that are the tax collectors for the republicans. Despite that, growth was higher in Clinton’s second term (3.7%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 4.4%, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/27/2483806.xls) and without running huge deficits, so if you’re consistent in giving the American president credit, you must really love Clinton. If OTB thinks the current numbers are “awesome” he must have been a VERY strong Clinton supportor (also assuming that he is consistent). I take it the Democratic fund raisers should contact the two of you for donations as I'm sure your not just cheering your hero blindlylangeweile said:
.War & Disasters driving all this...or is that 'Bushienomics'
First sentence of that report:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...ADF-41A1-86E8-63FF2C5F1D15}&siteid=mktw&dist=
"Spending by consumers and the federal government contributed most of the increase in gross domestic product. Exports were weak in the quarter."
Translation:
Wars and natural disasters caused this 'spike' to happen (namely massive DEFICIT SPENDING which of course will cause a spike in the GDP) while business (Exports) were weak......
First sentence of that report:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...ADF-41A1-86E8-63FF2C5F1D15}&siteid=mktw&dist=
"Spending by consumers and the federal government contributed most of the increase in gross domestic product. Exports were weak in the quarter."
Translation:
Wars and natural disasters caused this 'spike' to happen (namely massive DEFICIT SPENDING which of course will cause a spike in the GDP) while business (Exports) were weak......
ONLY when the left is poor. That will swing back, you'll be poor and the left will be rich. Since I'm in the middle, where's all my money that you have, with interest.onthebottom said:
Watch out, Google will drop 300 points when it reaches 400 as it will come to light all their numbers are a lie, based on media mind manipulation BS. How many media idiots knew the Greek letter Pi and explained it in their articles as if they were all mathameticians? Just about all of them. Still worthless crap.
So cash out at 370, may not be enough time to save your money at 400. I will always say it, if google can make that much money, then EVERYONE'S WEBSITE can make that much money!!
Gyaos Baltar
When I want the opinion of an idiot, you will be the first person I ask. I’ve yet to see you make a single post that did not advertise your ignorance. I think that even the Bush lovers on this board must be embarrassed by you.Peeping Tom said:OMG: One of the stupidest comments in the history of the intarweb
speaking of GDP...
The US dollar has had a good run against the Euro, The 10yr is close to a high (bad for adj. rate mortgage crowd)...
Where do you see the US dollar, long bond and Dow going next year?
Lang,langeweile said:
The US dollar has had a good run against the Euro, The 10yr is close to a high (bad for adj. rate mortgage crowd)...
Where do you see the US dollar, long bond and Dow going next year?
That is most interesting. Having a good run against the euro isnt commendatory since it speaks more for the euro than anything else. Everything depends on Bernanke and his ability to play the rate hike / inflation fears game.
My field, at least superficially, doesn't really care. What we care about is the price of gold and right now it reflects a low dollar. So, we can sell at a high price with a lower dollar, or sell at a lower price but get the same result with a higher dollar due to forex. Overlooking the broader macroeconomic package, we are sitting pretty high and safe at this moment. The most devastating event, after the Bre-X scandal, was the British central bank's bankruptcy sale. Trend the price data, and what does one see, after the final chapter, but the "hockey stick" effect in the plot? Although, in this market, I don't think a repeat of that incident would have similar effect.
My field, at least superficially, doesn't really care. What we care about is the price of gold and right now it reflects a low dollar. So, we can sell at a high price with a lower dollar, or sell at a lower price but get the same result with a higher dollar due to forex. Overlooking the broader macroeconomic package, we are sitting pretty high and safe at this moment. The most devastating event, after the Bre-X scandal, was the British central bank's bankruptcy sale. Trend the price data, and what does one see, after the final chapter, but the "hockey stick" effect in the plot? Although, in this market, I don't think a repeat of that incident would have similar effect.
RogerRabbit said:
someone said:
Ah yes, that's why we've had such disappointing economic production since Reagan ran those large deficits
Times were good during the last 5 years of the Clinton presidency, it was called the Internet and the stock market, but hey, who's heard of that..... classic bubble economy actually.
I don't really ascribe the US economic performance to Presidents, the US economy is strong regardless of who sleeps in the White House. In fact, like Wall Street, gridlock in Washington is a good thing IMHE.
LOL
OTB
Yes, Reagan was also pretty left wing when it came to fiscal policy. Unlike Bush there are also positives that you could mention in his defence (the only positive I can think of regarding Bush is that he would be smarter than Peeping Tom). However, you’re the one that is going to be stuck with the future problems so believe what you want.onthebottom said:Ah yes, that's why we've had such disappointing economic production since Reagan ran those large deficits
The real economy and the financial one are connected. However it is hard to credit increases in GDP (part of the real economy) with financial bubbles.onthebottom said:
That was sort of my point.onthebottom said:
I remember living in the U.S. during the Clinton years. One positive with the total focus of congress on Clinton’s sex life was that they didn't have time to screw up anything important.onthebottom said:
If you think cutting taxes, cutting the marginal tax rate and building a huge Navy is left wing then I'd have to agree.someone said:
Some would argue that a housing bubble is funding the current run in consumer spending....... Shallow and stupid sources like, say, The Economist.someone said:
Bit of that now with the Plame case.....someone said:
OTB
I’m using the term to mean non fiscal conservatives. As you likely know, I tend to be very much of a fiscal conservative. I don’t like current governments spending the tax dollars of people who are either too young to vote or who are not even born yet.onthebottom said:
I don’t disagree that the two are related in the short term. However, expansionary Keynesian economic policy is likely a big factor in the housing “bubble” (I don’t want to get into a debate as to whether bubbles exist, enough big names have argued about that for me to stay out of that debate but I suspect they do exist). BTW, although I think that The Economist is likely the best news weekly on the market, in the end it is just a news weeklyonthebottom said:
I’ve often thought that the big constitutional debates Canadian politicians sometimes engage in serve the same purpose.onthebottom said:
