Dear Toppy: GDP growth -0.1%

Minus one for inventories
Minus one for gov spending
We'll grow at 2.5 this year as the consumer and housing are fine
 
The Dude said:
I think the recovery will be muted; we have large swaths that stayed abandoned after Katrina.
Click to expand...

There is a difference I think between the two in that many of the relocated New Orleans residents decided to stay in their new locations. You are not going to tend to see that on the East Coast.
 
Superfreak said:
We should keep on with trillion dollar deficits so that we can fuck over future generations with our greed.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about trillion dollar deficits to keep on. In fact, with the recent revenue deal trillion dollar deficits are already a things of the past, unless, of course, we follow your advice and go into another recession.

That's the weird thing about what you would like to do. In the end, we'll have a recession and come out of it with substantially more debt than we save with spending cuts. It's foolish.
 
Dungheap said:
No one is talking about trillion dollar deficits to keep on. In fact, with the recent revenue deal trillion dollar deficits are already a things of the past, unless, of course, we follow your advice and go into another recession.

That's the weird thing about what you would like to do. In the end, we'll have a recession and come out of it with substantially more debt than we save with spending cuts. It's foolish.
Click to expand...

LOL... except that as currently projected we are set to run $600B+ deficits every year for the next four. Despite massive gains in projected revenue over that time frame.

Wrong again on the spending cuts. You continually think that if the government stops or slows spending that corporations and consumers will do the same. The driving force behind the slow corp spending is the government over spending. Everyone, with maybe the exception of you, understands that the continued massive deficits are going to result in higher taxation. Because, like you, the government can't stop spending.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... except that as currently projected we are set to run $600B+ deficits every year for the next four. Despite massive gains in projected revenue over that time frame.
Click to expand...

That's from April 2012 so I'm not sure what the assumptions underlying that report are, but it confirms that your nonsense about trillion dollar deficits are nopnsensial. Good enough for me.


Superfreak said:
Wrong again on the spending cuts. You continually think that if the government stops or slows spending that corporations and consumers will do the same. The driving force behind the slow corp spending is the government over spending. Everyone, with maybe the exception of you, understands that the continued massive deficits are going to result in higher taxation. Because, like you, the government can't stop spending.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that lower government spending will result in lower corporate and consumer spending. Lower government spending will mean lower aggregate demand for goods and services and slower economic growth. In an environment when aggregate demand is already lower than what is necessary to lead to full employment and consumer and business spending aren't all that high to begin with, I don't think it's a good idea to lower aggregate demand by cutting government spending. We'll just end up with another recession, higher unemployment, more debt and higher deficits.

I understand that higher spending now will slow economic growth in the future, but I'd like to address the problems we have now now and problems that may arise in the future in the future.
 
Dungheap said:
That's from April 2012 so I'm not sure what the assumptions underlying that report are, but it confirms that your nonsense about trillion dollar deficits are nopnsensial. Good enough for me.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so $600B+ deficits are ok for you? Funny, because $450B was outrageous to you when Bush was in office. You just can't help your giddiness at fucking over future generations with more of your debt.


No, I don't think that lower government spending will result in lower corporate and consumer spending. Lower government spending will mean lower aggregate demand for goods and services and slower economic growth.
Click to expand...

No, that is not necessarily true. If it were, then we would never be able to reduce spending. A fiscally responsible government means we don't have to worry about an ever impending debt caused implosion or higher taxes as a result of profligate spending. It allows for consumers and corporations to free up cash.

In an environment when aggregate demand is already lower than what is necessary to lead to full employment and consumer and business spending aren't all that high to begin with, I don't think it's a good idea to lower aggregate demand by cutting government spending. We'll just end up with another recession, higher unemployment, more debt and higher deficits.
Click to expand...

And therein lies your problem... you just can't stop and look at the long term picture. Government spending is the problem, not the solution. Yes, it will likely result in a short term recession. Just as it we saw happen in the early 80's. Short term pain for long term solutions. You way is short term solutions in order to avoid any additional pain, which in turn will lead to long term catastrophe.

I understand that higher spending now will slow economic growth in the future, but I'd like to address the problems we have now now and problems that may arise in the future in the future.
Click to expand...

Well gee, that is nice of you. The problem is that your addressing the problems of today are creating an ever bigger problem in the future. You want the easy way out now and are willing to let others in the future deal with our bigger long term problems.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so $600B+ deficits are ok for you? Funny, because $450B was outrageous to you when Bush was in office. You just can't help your giddiness at fucking over future generations with more of your debt.
Click to expand...

(1) Quote me.

(2) Your all time favorite president presided over deficts that averaged in excess of 4% of GDP. Current projections have deficits coming in below that average. I'm OK with that. You were, too.

(3) Enough with the future generations nonsense. The policies that you want to implement just lead to more debt, not less.


Superfreak said:
No, that is not necessarily true. If it were, then we would never be able to reduce spending. A fiscally responsible government means we don't have to worry about an ever impending debt caused implosion or higher taxes as a result of profligate spending. It allows for consumers and corporations to free up cash.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is true and no, it doesn't mean we would never be able to reduce spending. It means we can never reduce spending without having a negative impact on aggregate demand. Times when aggregate demand is sufficient to tap all of the potential output of the U.S. economy and leads to full employment is the time to reduce spending, not like now when the output gap still remains huge and unemployment is still persistently high.


Superfreak said:
And therein lies your problem... you just can't stop and look at the long term picture. Government spending is the problem, not the solution. Yes, it will likely result in a short term recession. Just as it we saw happen in the early 80's. Short term pain for long term solutions. You way is short term solutions in order to avoid any additional pain, which in turn will lead to long term catastrophe.
Click to expand...

The 1980s recession was not the result of reduced government spending. Stop citing to it as an example of what should happen now. The two stituations are not remotely similar.


Superfreak said:
Well gee, that is nice of you. The problem is that your addressing the problems of today are creating an ever bigger problem in the future. You want the easy way out now and are willing to let others in the future deal with our bigger long term problems.
Click to expand...

The problem with your approach is that it neither solves todays problems nor lessens tomorrows problems. It makes both worse. Cutting government spending will lead to a recession, higher unemployment, lower revenues, higher spending (automatic stabilizers), bigger deficits and more debt.
 
Supercandy is so excited, hes been calling for an Obama recession for four years now and once... so far... we have a very slight contraction. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
Jarod said:
Supercandy is so excited, hes been calling for an Obama recession for four years now and once... so far... we have a very slight contraction. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the type of economy SF wants. I don't know if he thinks the report is a bad thing or not, but he should be celebrating it.

Hooray for low government spending and economic contraction!
 
I just bought a new car, I'm excited! I pick it up tomorrow. So I am doing my part!

The economy is going to be picking up steam over the next quarter btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top