• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. economy contracts for first time since recession

I think a pig is involved here bubba. The best-looking contraction statement really does cause one to rock back on their feet a bit.

 
ocean515 said:
I think a pig is involved here bubba. The best-looking contraction statement really does cause one to rock back on their feet a bit.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that there was another thread on this same subject.
That's the problem with such an extreme level of of user control on threads.
Waaaaaay too many to be able to focus.
 
" 'Best-Looking Contraction in U.S. GDP You'll Ever See' - The claim was quickly seized upon by Democrats, looking to share good news about a contracting economy. "

Its good news that our economy is shrinking? Really?

Shrinking in the 4th quarter....a quarter that includes the Christmas buying season...and thats good news? If thats the good news I really am scared to see the bad news.

WTF are these ass-hats smoking? I always thought that an economy was supposed to grow....silly me.
 
bubbabgone said:
I didn't see that there was another thread on this same subject.
That's the problem with such an extreme level of of user control on threads.
Waaaaaay too many to be able to focus.
Click to expand...

I have hope it will appear less daunting as familiarity grows................
 

There was a lot of good in this report. They mentioned that most of the contraction was due to defense spending. That means federal spending went down.


This is good. We are slowing down Federal Spending. Now they just need to target it correctly, and we can really get things going.

Consumers and businesses are still spending. All and all, not a bad report.
 
Don't you love people who spin statistical garbage. Any good business person knows that the financial performance of a single period has to be tempered by the understanding that fluctuations occur due to period cut-off accounting recognition timing inaccuracies. Example: Q3 strength was attributed to higher than usual defense spending while Q4 weakness is attributed to lower than usual defense spending. Realty is that defense spending was normal throughout the second half. There wasn't a fast feast followed by a fast famine. The defense spending flywheel has much too much inertia to change that fast. What should concern us is that the average of the 13 quarters since the end of recession has been 2.1%, but the average of the last year (4 quarters) has been only 1.27%. In other words the trend is clearly slow declining growth. We seem to be stumbling along without any excitement for an understood common national vision so there is no reason to believe that the flat to slow declining trend will change. This will continue as long as leadership rhetoric pitches doom to justify any and all economic policy alternatives.
 
During Holliday season as well.
 
The problem here is that government spending went way down, putting a strain on the economy. All other sectors of GDP growth were up, except government spending, so yes government is the problem, we're not spending enough.
 
Your Star said:
The problem here is that government spending went way down, putting a strain on the economy. All other sectors of GDP growth were up, except government spending, so yes government is the problem, we're not spending enough.
Click to expand...

The question is whether that part of GDP is actually relevant to the short and long term economy.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The question is whether that part of GDP is actually relevant to the short and long term economy.
Click to expand...

It isn't, and that's why even conservative economists acknowledge the fundamentals are improving and we're set for a strong Q1 in 2013.
 
Your Star said:
The problem here is that government spending went way down, putting a strain on the economy. All other sectors of GDP growth were up, except government spending, so yes government is the problem, we're not spending enough.
Click to expand...

If goverment spending is the main driver behind GDP growth , that is what they call fool's gold.
 
Your Star said:
The problem here is that government spending went way down, putting a
strain on the economy. All other sectors of GDP growth were up, except government spending, so yes government is the problem, we're not spending enough.
Click to expand...

It hasn't worked for the last 4 years. When has spending massive amount of borrowed money been championed as economic growth ?
 
Fenton said:
It hasn't worked for the last 4 years. When has spending massive amount of borrowed money been championed as economic growth ?
Click to expand...

Since the Reagan years.
 
Your Star said:
The problem here is that government spending went way down, putting a strain on the economy. All other sectors of GDP growth were up, except government spending, so yes government is the problem, we're not spending enough.
Click to expand...

A 40 billion dollar reduction over 3 months is a 3% reduction in total federal spending over that span. I don't think that counts as "way down". Private inventory accounted for the same amount during that period.
 
Fenton said:
It hasn't worked for the last 4 years.
Click to expand...
I see you have a crystal ball showing an alternative universe where the economy is doing better with whatever scenario you are imagining.

If the idea is that our govt spending should be decreased, we don't need to imagine how that would play out, just look at the EU.

PS..that "massive spending" was mainly unemployment benefit (which have declined greatly) and the continuing pumping of funds into the banks (which is not declining nor has it caused them to INCREASE their lending....which was the original plan).
 
Samhain said:
A 40 billion dollar reduction over 3 months is a 3% reduction in total federal spending over that span. I don't think that counts as "way down". Private inventory accounted for the same amount during that period.
Click to expand...
Um, I think the point is.....that the decline was enough to cause a NEGATIVE GDP result for that quarter.
 
What you see is what you get, and if you look, what you see is a natural business caution in advance of the election leading to increased sales from inventories, and some serious concern over the fiscal-cliff, especially the potential and strongly negative effects of sequestration. This would include the flip-side of DOD's having stockpiled in Q3 out of existing appropriations in advance of the fiscal-cliff and what they fear may otherwise be reduced funding going forward. FY 2012 was not a good year for DOD to have left a nickel in the till on the assumption that it would still be there in the morning.

Those who foresee a strong 2013-Q1 should meanwhile remember that the sequestration card is still in the deck and that the budget CR runs out on March 27. How much are you willing to put past the nefarious and misguided meddling of House Republicans? Speaking of which, what have GDP numbers done since the House takeover in 2011-Q1?

Meanwhile, the data are always seasonally adjusted and in real terms, so inflation and things like "Christmas season" simply don't enter into the picture at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If it had not declined and remained flat from the previous quarter, we would not have had a negative 4th quarter.
Click to expand...
GDP wouldn't have declined if it had increased either. There aren't any of these cause-and effect lines to be drawn anywhere. GDP goes either up or down as the result of moves or non-moves across a broad array of variables. Millions and millions of data points lie just below those cumulative headings people see and quote. None of them is doing the driving all by itself.
 
ARRA has resulted in little growth, but big debt, which will significantly impact future growth.
I'm no NobelPrize winner [smirk], but I'd say the Keynesian fantasy ( economic growth through Gov't spending) is pretty much dead. *

To sane, grounded people not liberal Dem politicians whose answer to every problem is: " GOVERNMENT!!", as brilliantly captured in this cartoon!


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P5_hA8BLMuY/T-xVVEq96xI/AAAAAAAAIz8/hbkwuRRzZNk/s1600/ObamaGov.jpg
 
And here is Not-A-Cartoon. It briliantly captures something as well...

Quarterly Change in Real GDP at Annual Rates
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…