Georgia on my mind

[Winstonm]

Winston I know you are a wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being.

 

My numbers are from the Economist Magazine(non USA). They run these tables for years and years, every week, see last two pages of magazine.

 

Yes, I am using these "facts" to refute "  USA financials.....to bleak for words"

 

IF you have better facts...OK.....

Mike,

 

I know you are a very bright guy and have a good knowledge of financials - and I would be surprised to learn that you did not know that unless these kinds of comparisons employ similar (or even exact) methodologies any comparison has little significant meaning.

 

I'm not saying the U.S. economic condition is bleak - I just get tired of seeing the "sound byte" type headline numbers thrown about as meaningful.

 

With your knowledge, you should be able to present a better refutation of the claim is what I think. :)

[P_Marlowe]

"The financial situation of Russia was terrible as he

took over, and is not too bad now, they have work

to do, but currently it seems, that they are willing to

try to do the work.

The financial situation of the US was not too bad as

Bush took over, some would even say, it was brilliant.

... currently the financial situation is too bleak to find

words"

 

 

 

Wow too bleak for words......who knew the USA was that bad off. Sure I knew we had problems and lots of room for improvement but too bleak for words? 

 

 

.....GDP2008...IND Production...UNEMPLOYMENT...3MONTH RATES..10YRATES..MKT

usa+1.4...........+.3....................5.5.......................2.2..................4.15.......-12.7

EURO+1.7.........-1.9...................7.2......................2.39.................3.38......-23

SPAIN+1.7.........-7.3..................9.9.....................4.96..................4.95.......-16.1

RUSSIA +7.5.......+.9...................6.2....................11.0.................6.67.......-13.4

 

 

Russia is rich in Natural resouces, Natural resources prices are up alot......If Putin gets the Economic credit for that, OK....:)

Ok, most likely my words were to hard.

 

But, if I recall it: the currently proposed US budget has the

largest deficit since ?

The average dept of the average american household

is how high?

The currenty crisis of the finacial sector is the result of

a stable american financial situation?

 

Regarding "Russia is rich in Natural resources, <thats why

they have money>":

True, but that was not my point argument.

My point was that 8 years ago the situation in the US and

Russia was different, they said the US was headed for zero

dept, and so on, in Russia the situation with regards to

economics and rule was chaos.

 

Now the US has amassed large depts / deficits, the economic

is headed for a long slow down (call it whatvever you want,

but it wont be over in 1 or 2 years), and I not going to point

out that the current administration changed some of the legal

cornerstones in the US, which occurred in Russia as well, just

that the legal system in Russia got strengthend.

The later does not mean that Russia reached the end of this

road, only that they have started to go down this road.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to point out, that Putin did a job stabilizing

and improving the state of the country he was responsible for,

I guess Bush had the same job.

Now, wo did a better job, and how big is the margin of difference?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

"Now, wo did a better job, and how big is the margin of difference?"

 

ok we look at alot of margins...fair enough..

 

 

 

 

you pick which margins and by how much.....:)

 

 

I only claim.....result=less than "super horrilbe...double super horrible for most Americans.

[hrothgar]

Also worth reading

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/1...3264/622/566882

[kenberg]

Hey!

 

Why isn't anyone calling me "a very bright guy" and "wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being"?

 

I can do compassionate.

 

If I can just say a word or two about who gets credit for what. History: Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union and Clinton did not erase the deficits. Possibly these two gentlemen deserve credit, maybe considerable credit, for not screwing up a good opportunity. Current Events: We are powerless to stop the Russians from doing pretty much what they wish in Georgia (the subject of the current post). This has a lot to do with our economic and military strength. Regardless of technical definitions of recessions, I would say our current economic strength is less than I would hope for. And out military is in no position to take on another challenge. Not through their lack of ability, it's just that there are limits to what anyone can do.

 

These are the views of wonderful and bright me.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmnnnn...Russia on the rise....along with the price of oil???? I wonder who the biggest exporter of oil in the world is?

 

Despite the recent repeal of individual liberties and freedoms, the US is still quite a ways ahead of most of the rest of the world (esp. China and Russia) in terms of your options in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

It might be a good time to take a step back.....before McCain/Obama have to choose a Bush Crime Family stooge as their veep.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

If I can just say a word or two about who gets credit for what. History:  Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union and Clinton did not erase the deficits. Possibly these two gentlemen deserve credit, maybe considerable credit, for not screwing up a good opportunity.

<snip>

Not screwing up things is quite often the hardest part

... the Republicans forced Clinton to do some household

consolidations, and Clinton did it, which was the right thing

to do, no matter what the reason.

Clinton failed to reform health care, a major goal he had,

my impression from afar was, that there was also an opportunity

during his time, but I am not 100% sure.

 

Regarding Regan: I think peoples views about Reagan are too rosy,

after Reagan left office the boom he created with high spending

(SDI and othe military garbage) and tax breakes ended.

... and the US economy tanked, the later being a major reason, why

Bush sen. did not get reelected, and of coures as a results of the

tanking economy and the former higfh spending, the US household

needed consolidation.

 

But of course Reagan met with Gorbatschow and the process did end

the cold war, and because he did it, he deserves some praise.

 

Doing the first step is not easy, and if the opportunity is there, you

should use it, see Israel and Palestine (Arafat and Rabin), unfortunately

Rabin got killed and the opportuniy passed away, South Africa

(Mandela and Botha).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[blackshoe]

"military garbage".

 

Tell you what. Let's abolish the military, give up all our weapons, and pray for peace.

 

How long do you think it will be before Chinese is the official language in this country?

 

I give it 50 years, max.

 

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"

    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,

    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

[Echognome]

As you see, negative growth has no bearing on the timing of a recessions start, and Q4 2007 was revised downward from +0.6% to -0.2% (and that's not even the fnal revision).

I'm not all that interested in debating the definition of what a recession is. But by your own statement here, there was a revision of the figures. I will repeat that when Bush made the statement there had been no negative growth (i.e. shrinking) of the economy. He said there was a slowdown. It's certainly a reasonable assertion to say that there's a slowdown and not a recession when there has been no negative growth. So is it fair to hang the guy for stating how things stood when he was asked the question?

 

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I think you're wrong to criticize him on this point.

[Echognome]

As you see, negative growth has no bearing on the timing of a recessions start, and Q4 2007 was revised downward from +0.6% to -0.2% (and that's not even the fnal revision).

 

Quoting and relying on the reported "headline" statistics is a disingineous whitewashing of reality - case in point being the "birth-death" model used to determine employment figures. And that was the point in bringing up this subject - going by headline numbers means little to nothing and proves absolutely nothing.

I also wanted to add a couple of things.

 

1. The NBER is not whom I would consider any official body in terms of statistics for the government. If you want to look at GDP (which is what we use to determine growth), then why not go straight to the source that measures GDP for our country. That is the Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to the BEA, our growth in Q4 2007 was negative if you look at seasonally adjusted chained 2000 dollars. I understand that's a reasonable measure, since it accounts for real growth. So the real growth was -0.2% in Q4 2007. Again, not that Bush could have known that at the time.

 

2. As of this moment, Q4 2007 is the only quarter with negative growth since Q3 2001. Q1 2008 and Q2 2008 are currently at 0.9% and 1.9% growth respectively. I understand that these numbers may be revised. However, is this an indication of recession? I'm asking not as an economist, but as a layperson. You look at the trend:

 

2007 Q1 - 0.1% growth

2007 Q2 - 4.8% growth

2007 Q3 - 4.8% growth

2007 Q4 - (0.2%) shrinkage

2008 Q1 - 0.9% growth

2008 Q2 - 1.9% growth

 

I think a reasonable person looking at those numbers would hardly call it a panic. Compare that to 1974-5 when we had 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth or 2008 Q2 where we had nearly a 8% shrinkage or the end of 1990 where we had two consecutive quarters. You get the idea.

 

3. I was only refuting your bold statement. You compared Bush's quote to "It's not an iceberg, it's only a piece of frozen water." Now you tell me, what is more plausible by the figures. Is it a recession or is it a slowdown?

[jtfanclub]

2. As of this moment, Q4 2007 is the only quarter with negative growth since Q3 2001.  Q1 2008 and Q2 2008 are currently at 0.9% and 1.9% growth respectively.  I understand that these numbers may be revised.  However, is this an indication of recession?  I'm asking not as an economist, but as a layperson.  You look at the trend:

 

2007 Q1 - 0.1% growth

2007 Q2 - 4.8% growth

2007 Q3 - 4.8% growth

2007 Q4 - (0.2%) shrinkage

2008 Q1 - 0.9% growth

2008 Q2 - 1.9% growth

 

I think a reasonable person looking at those numbers would hardly call it a panic.  Compare that to 1974-5 when we had 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth or 2008 Q2 where we had nearly a 8% shrinkage or the end of 1990 where we had two consecutive quarters.  You get the idea.

 

3. I was only refuting your bold statement.  You compared Bush's quote to "It's not an iceberg, it's only a piece of frozen water."  Now you tell me, what is more plausible by the figures.  Is it a recession or is it a slowdown?

It may take a couple of months, but I'd put money on that 1st Q 2008 will be adjusted to negative. The reason that 4th Q 07 was adjusted down so far was because of a serious miscalculation of inflation. That same error was made in the 1st quarter of 2008 (but fixed before the 2nd Q numbers came out).

 

It's a recession. Even if the inflation numbers are fudged to keep 1st Q positive, it's still a recession.

[P_Marlowe]

"military garbage".

 

Tell you what. Let's abolish the military, give up all our weapons, and pray for peace.

 

How long do you think it will be before Chinese is the official language in this country?

 

I give it 50 years, max.

 

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"

    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,

    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

...

 

A german poem by Wilhelm Bush, "Armed Peace",

maybe you like it:

 

Unexpected on a hill met the fox with

the hedgehog once.

"Stop" cried the Fox, "You villain.

Did you not hear the degree of the

Lion King? Did he not say that there

shall be peace everywhere, and that

everyone who does not lay down his

weapons and armors, violates his will

and stands against him?

So in the name of his majesty give me

your hide."

The hedgehog said: "Not so fast, first let

your teeth be broken, than we can speak

further."

And after that, he rolled himself in his thick

hide and stands against the whole world,

armed, but a "Friedensheld" (hero of peace).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am not against self defence, but Reagans

military garbage was not purly for self defence,

besides the technical feasibility was not really given.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I emailed a friend of mine who is a professor in macroeconomics. He says that the "official" determination is made by the NBER (which was good sourcing by Winston) despite the GDP figures coming from the BEA (as I mentioned). He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession. He says that currently the NBER has not classified the downturn at the end of 2007 as a recession, but that he thinks it's just a matter of time.

 

All that being said, if the NBER has not classified it as a recession yet, is it fair to criticize Bush for not doing so either?

 

As an interesting aside, my friend told me he recently went to a conference and Jim Hamilton (a pretty well known econometrician out of UCSD) presented a paper on regional business cycles, and he was showing what happened state by state at the time of the previous recessions. States that typically had a large manufacturing sector typically went into a recession before even the official recession date, whilst others went in a lot later. So there is a lot of regional variability, and that's something else to take into consideration as well.

[jonottawa]

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not? That's just more Repug distraction from the real issues with respect to the economy:

 

Bush inherited huge budget surpluses, virtually nonexistent inflation, miniscule interest rates, miniscule unemployment, rising living standards, reasonably steady rich/poor gap and a strong dollar.

 

8 years of Bush's war crimes, mismanagement, corruption and class warfare (massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich) have led inexorably to huge deficits, rising unemployment, the return of significant inflation, collapsing infrastructure, an energy crisis, falling living standards for most, a massive and growing rich/poor gap and the collapse of the dollar. Oh, and did I mention that the first baby boomers turn 65 in 3 years?

 

8 years ago America was the undisputed superpower of the world. Today, America is in decline and China is in ascendancy. Mostly due to a stolen election 8 years ago. Everyone's talking about this election being the most important election of our lifetimes. Uh, no, you morans, the one in 2000 was. This one's a squabble over deck chairs on the Titanic.

[cherdano]

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not?

Yup. A more interesting figure would be the development of the average household income of of the lowest 20% or 50% of US households. Of course, measured after tax, and with a consumer price index whose weighting reflects the spending of these households.

(I don't know the figures. If anyone knows a source for such figures, say over the last 1 or 5 or 10 or 20 years, that would be great.)

[Winstonm]

All that being said, if the NBER has not classified it as a recession yet, is it fair to criticize Bush for not doing so either?

 

From your posts I've always believed you to be fair-minded. Perhaps you have not seen a video clip of this Bush statement, or perhaps you have and you saw it differently than did I, which is fine.

 

I wasn't really meaning to criticize what Bush said but the smug, aloof, defensive posture he used to semi-shame a reporter who used the word recession in a question.

 

My point is that there is reality, and then there is playing word games. The polls showed that a majority of Americans at that time of Bush's statement believed we were in recession, regardless of what this Commander-in-chief stated.

 

 

Same thing goes for the statistics (IMO) presented in that other thread - and that is the basis for the comparison, not literal deternmination of recession/non-recession.

[Winstonm]

Hey!

 

Why isn't anyone calling me "a very bright guy" and "wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being"?

 

Ken,

 

We feared any mention of your intellect and compassion would reduce ours to such low relative levels that our lives would be meaningless and our remaining years best spent in opium dens trying to forget the shame - (O.K., is he buying that...???)

[Echognome]

From your posts I've always believed you to be fair-minded. Perhaps you have not seen a video clip of this Bush statement, or perhaps you have and you saw it differently than did I, which is fine.

Thanks. Although, it seemed like you were about to say something where the other shoe drops.

 

I haven't seen the video clip, just the written quote. It surprises me not at all that he would seem smug and aloof. That's one thing that always annoyed me about the guy. He always has the look of someone who knows something you don't know and is basking in his privvy to that secret. Well a cross between that and a fraternity guy who just has no interest at all in what you are saying.

 

Note I did give you credit for finding a legitimate source. I still don't think it's fair to criticize Bush for his statement at the time, but certainly I have no opinion on criticizing how he said it.

[Winstonm]

Echo -

 

I am not trying to beat on a dead issue here, but I can be a jerk (hardheaded?) when it comes to factual information - sorry, can't help it. At the same time, if someone shows me where my facts are wrong, I appreciate the help. But then, I am not seeking to prove an agenda, but only interested in what is real.

 

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth. In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

 

Here is a good discussion by Barry Ritholtz, who is CEO of FushionIQ quant and is often on the financial t.v. shows as a guest.

 

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/200...ive-gdp-re.html

[Echognome]

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth. In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

Didn't I mention that point above?

 

He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession.

[Winstonm]

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth.  In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

Didn't I mention that point above?

 

He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession.

I only posted this last time to clarify for posterity the misunderstanding about recessions - it is even repeated by the talking heads on t.v. - the 2 negative quarters being required and that is simply complete hogwash and untrue.

 

I'm tired of only 1/2 stories being told, of doctored headline numbers and political sloganeering.

 

It's not personal - I'm just fed up. Sorry.... :blink:

[Echognome]

I understand. But at the same time, if the agency that determines whether there is a "recession" or not has not yet said it to be a recession and the president basically states the same thing, then it's really nothing to fault. I guess that is my point.

 

I take your point that the "rule of thumb" of two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not as accurate as a full study. However, since we are not involved with the full study, we ultimately have to rely on the work done by the NBER. Since they have not yet declared us to be in a recession, why would we expect the president to say we are. So maybe my analogy of asking whether a banana is purple is wrong. However, it is the case that if we are asked to make a judgment on whether something is X or Y and there's an official body that tells us whether it's X or Y, then I wouldn't criticize someone in authority going along with the official body's determination of whether it's X or Y! A better question might be why the reporter was even asking the president if we were in a recession. If the reporter wanted to know, why wouldn't he ask someone at the NBER? Why would he expect a different answer from the president unless he was testing whether the president even knew what the NBER was stating? In this case, Bush happened to be correct in stating what was coming from the NBER. So isn't it harsh to criticize him for it?

[Lobowolf]

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not? That's just more Repug distraction from the real issues with respect to the economy:

 

Bush inherited huge budget surpluses, virtually nonexistent inflation, miniscule interest rates, miniscule unemployment, rising living standards, reasonably steady rich/poor gap and a strong dollar.

 

8 years of Bush's war crimes, mismanagement, corruption and class warfare (massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich) have led inexorably to huge deficits, rising unemployment, the return of significant inflation, collapsing infrastructure, an energy crisis, falling living standards for most, a massive and growing rich/poor gap and the collapse of the dollar. Oh, and did I mention that the first baby boomers turn 65 in 3 years?

 

8 years ago America was the undisputed superpower of the world. Today, America is in decline and China is in ascendancy. Mostly due to a stolen election 8 years ago. Everyone's talking about this election being the most important election of our lifetimes. Uh, no, you morans, the one in 2000 was. This one's a squabble over deck chairs on the Titanic.

The economic turnaround started prior to January, 2001. It was hardly a sign of economic health that people were willing to pay several hundreds of dollars per share for companies that had no earnings, as long as they had a website. It was nice while it lasted, but it wasn't going to keep up irrespective of who won the 2000 election.

Similarly, unless you seriously posit that something Al Gore would have done would have prevented the 9-11 attacks, a fair share of the 21st-century negative economic conditions in the United States were going to happen one way or the other.

If 4.2% unemployment is miniscule, then 5.7% isn't all that horrible.

What do you think Gore would have done to prevent China's ascendancy or America's decline?

Depending on your thoughts on Global Warming, I could see the position that Gore could have done a lot to make a better country in 20 years, but as for the short term, I could more readily see a worse 2008 economy under Gore, had he committed massive amounts of federal funds (and imposed massive restrictions on businesses...you know, those entities that provide most of the jobs) in response to Global Warming. Particularly as money allocated to the budget stays allocated year to year, and the economy was well overdue for a cyclical contraction regardless of who sat in the White House.

[Winstonm]

I understand.  But at the same time, if the agency that determines whether there is a "recession" or not has not yet said it to be a recession and the president basically states the same thing, then it's really nothing to fault.  I guess that is my point.

 

I take your point that the "rule of thumb" of two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not as accurate as a full study.  However, since we are not involved with the full study, we ultimately have to rely on the work done by the NBER.  Since they have not yet declared us to be in a recession, why would we expect the president to say we are.  So maybe my analogy of asking whether a banana is purple is wrong.  However, it is the case that if we are asked to make a judgment on whether something is X or Y and there's an official body that tells us whether it's X or Y, then I wouldn't criticize someone in authority going along with the official body's determination of whether it's X or Y!  A better question might be why the reporter was even asking the president if we were in a recession.  If the reporter wanted to know, why wouldn't he ask someone at the NBER?  Why would he expect a different answer from the president unless he was testing whether the president even knew what the NBER was stating?  In this case, Bush happened to be correct in stating what was coming from the NBER.  So isn't it harsh to criticize him for it?

No real disagreement here.

 

Again, it gets back to the video of the exchange with Bush - perhaps I should not have used that exchange as it seems few are familiar with what transpired. Basically, a reporter started to ask Bush something along the lines of "Will this recession persist into the second half of the year" and before the poor fellow could get the entire question out Bush interrupted with, "It's not a recession; it's an economic slowdown."

 

Bush (IMO) was not trying for accuracy but simply having a kneejerk reaction to a negative about his "economy". (It's like he thought it is O.K. to have a natural and normal 'slowdown' but allowing it to be called a 'recession' would reflect on his economic policies and therefore on him.)

 

This would be in keeping with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder that a psychiatrist observed might be an explanation for Bush's peronalities and decisions.

 

source: http://www.dlmweb.com/news98.html

[Lobowolf]

Sounds like the kind of knee-jerk reaction one would have to a reporter's question as to whether he's stopped beating his wife, too. Whether or not we're in a recession, and if so, when it started, are open to reasonable dispute; however, the "R-Word" was thrown around long before it was even arguably appropriate, and it was done for political capital. I can't imagine a president in the last 50 years (except maybe Carter) in that position not immediately jumping in as yet another journalist made it a matter of record by the terms of the question that yes, it's a recession.