Federal Budget Deficit Swells, amid record revenues

Dungheap said:
No, SF, I'm not playing semantic games with you. The recession was not declared in March of 2001, it began in March of 2001. Once again, from the link:



And yes, stating that Bush inherited a less than stellar economy is much preferable to the claim that Bush "inherited a recession" simply because the former is arguably true while the latter is demonstrably false.

Facts matter.
Click to expand...

Fine. Play your games. No recessionary time in 2000. We cannot have Clowntoon get any blame for a recession. So we will play by this lagging definition.

Those three quarters of negative GDP growth... yeah... that was part of an "expansion" for the economy. Good call. Makes perfect sense now. Facts... yes, they do matter.
 
Cypress said:
Ummm, you're arguing with a guy who disputes the conclusions on climate change from the IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and NASA.
Click to expand...

Since you brought it up again.... I am assuming you will answer the following this time .... right Gumby?

show me any one scientist that would dispute anything I have stated....

Or to make it easier for you... tell me which of these that I disagree with them on....

1) Global warming has occured over the past 50 years.

2) The period in the 90's saw a dramatic increase to record temperatures.

3) From 1998-2007 we saw the warmest decade on record as those record temperatures were maintained.

4) 2005 was the warmest year on record druing that warmest decade on record.

There... are you still with me? Good.

Now.... find one that will disagree that average global temperatures in 1998 and 2007 were the same.

Nope... can't do that either can you?

Again moron... and do pay attention this time.... admitting that the average global temperature for the past decade had a net zero change does not mean man did not contribute to warming any more. It could very well be that a naturaly phenomenon offset man's warming effect for that time.

But I know... you will ignore the above once again so that you can continue with your idiotic little bullshit. Won't you Gumby.
 
Superfreak said:
Fine. Play your games. No recessionary time in 2000. We cannot have Clowntoon get any blame for a recession. So we will play by this lagging definition.

Those three quarters of negative GDP growth... yeah... that was part of an "expansion" for the economy. Good call. Makes perfect sense now. Facts... yes, they do matter.
Click to expand...


SF - You would be well-advised to acknowledge that there are people with expertise is certain fields that know a thing or two more about their area of expertise than you do. Now, I'm not saying that the experts are always right, but I'd venture a bet that they aren't always wrong as you like to think.
 
Dungheap said:
SF - You would be well-advised to acknowledge that there are people with expertise is certain fields that know a thing or two more about their area of expertise than you do. Now, I'm not saying that the experts are always right, but I'd venture a bet that they aren't always wrong as you like to think.
Click to expand...
Your experts changed their reporting values in 2003 and showed that the last Q of 2000 would be a recession by their new standards. They thought about re-reporting with the new values but decided against taking that "rare" step.

The reality is, your own experts that you used, NBER, if they were reporting it with the values they use now would report that the recession began in the last quarter of 2000. If you read that story I linked to earlier you would know this.
 
Damocles said:
Stagflation is:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stagflation.asp

condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment - a time of stagnation - accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation.

What Desh is speaking of is when the economy shrinks at the same time, not remains stagnant.
Click to expand...

"Stagflation occurs when the economy isn't growing but prices are, which is not a good situation for a country to be in"

Same site. Better definition. It is a time when the economy isn't growing coupled with inflation. As mentioned, it is usually accompanied by high unemployment.
 
The recession happened because the Y2K bug was blown out of proportion. Tech jobs began to become more scarce in 2000. I don't need some damn graph to tell me that either or some expert to tell me. It's the way things happened. We got a huge tech boom in the 90's because of the Internet and then also the Y2K bug. We can point at a president and blame this one or that, but the reality was that the Y2K bug had a lot to do with it.
 
DigitalDave said:
The recession happened because the Y2K bug was blown out of proportion. Tech jobs began to become more scarce in 2000. I don't need some damn graph to tell me that either or some expert to tell me. It's the way things happened. We got a huge tech boom in the 90's because of the Internet and then also the Y2K bug. We can point at a president and blame this one or that, but the reality was that the Y2K bug had a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

I agree, that was the lead... whether Y2K bug was overblown or not is debatable... ( I do agree that it was) ... but because of all the tech upgrades during the late 80's and throughout the 1990's it could be argued that it was made insignificant because of that.

But back to your point... once we passed Y2K, the tech spending slowed dramatically as everyone and their brother had upgraded their tech. The layoffs began. The dot.coms were suddenly held accountable for actual earnings... so many of them blew up. The telecoms had built out broadband infrastructure faster than it was needed, so they hit a lull. (not to mention the fraud that was going on).

You are also correct. There is little any politician could have done to prevent that downturn. (though Greenspan increasing rates in June of 2000 probably didn't help matters too much) It was part of the business cycle.
 
This one is not part of the business cycle. It was caused by not policing an indiustry gone amuck.
 
Superfreak said:
I would not have a problem if it was picked up and used to describe what we are about to go into. (barring some corrective measures being taken)
Click to expand...
The thing of it is, if the FED is doing their job "shrinkflation" will happen every recession as they will create inflation as the economy goes down in order to increase loanable dollars.
 
Damocles said:
The thing of it is, if the FED is doing their job "shrinkflation" will happen every recession as they will create inflation as the economy goes down in order to increase loanable dollars.
Click to expand...

True... it should be defined as high inflation coupled with decrease in economic growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top