PDA

View Full Version : Obama ObamaNomics FAIL: Q2 GDP Comes In At Only 1.3%, Q1 Revised Down To A Scant 0.4%…


HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 10:43 AM
Fail at every level.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy expanded at meager 1.3 percent annual rate in the spring after scarcely growing at all in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Friday.

The combined growth for the first six months of the year was the weakest since the recession ended two years ago. The government revised the January-March figures to show just 0.4 percent growth — down sharply from its previous estimate of 1.9 percent.

“These numbers are extremely bad,” said Nigel Gault, an economist at IHS Global Insight. “The momentum in the economy is clearly very weak.”

The sharp slowdown means the economy will likely grow this year at a weaker pace than last year. Economists don’t expect growth to pick up enough in the second half of the year to lower the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.2 percent last month.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 10:50 AM
Not surprising.

He went out and bought a bunch of jobs. When the stimulus money ran out and he couldn't pay anymore they went away.

For some reason the left doesn't understand that the government doesn't create jobs. If you spend $1,000,000 you'll get 4 jobs for a year. Spend $1,000,000 in the private sector and I'll employ 15 people and, if I run my company properly, I may employ 20, 30, 50 or more people in future years.

The only thing left is to watch Obama blame this contraction (which started 6 months ago) on the debt fight happening now when election time rolls around. That's been job #1 for the Dems -- hitch this s#*t-wagon to the Repeublicans so they own it (despite universally opposing it) with them.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 11:06 AM
The left does not understand economics or how prosperity is created. This includes their opinion leaders like Krugman.


For some reason the left doesn't understand that the government doesn't create jobs.

I'd include some on the right, who think WWII with it's govt created jobs in a command economy, ended the GD.

Donger
07-29-2011, 11:12 AM
I'd include some on the right, who think WWII with it's govt created jobs in a command economy, ended the GD.

And they'd be right.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 11:18 AM
And they'd be right.

Nope.

Command economies displace jobs.

alpha_omega
07-29-2011, 11:19 AM
Wait, isn't this somehow (insert former president's name)'s fault???????

blaise
07-29-2011, 11:23 AM
Wait, isn't this somehow (insert former president's name)'s fault???????

Yes, thank you alpha_omega.

Huff Post link.

Another Huff Post link.

- orange

FD
07-29-2011, 11:29 AM
Well that explains the dismal jobs numbers.

Saul Good
07-29-2011, 11:58 AM
Well that explains the dismal jobs numbers.

Finally an explanation. I had no idea how to explain it until now.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2011, 12:03 PM
Get in line for your Govt. Handout and STFU/Obama

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 12:06 PM
Depressing, depressing, depressing.

I would be almost willing to try anything at this point to get us out of this hole we are in.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 12:37 PM
Depressing, depressing, depressing.

I would be almost willing to try anything at this point to get us out of this hole we are in.

Not pointing fingers (well, I guess I am) but the left (and yes, as BEP points out, some on the right as well) has refused to listen to the many business leaders and economic experts who have been saying for years now that you can't keep heaping taxes, uncertainty, and regulation on business and expect it not to react negatively.

I believe that we're starting to see a) the effects of Obama's policies take root, and b) a refusal of business to "buy-in" to his solutions. None of this is surprising to anyone who questioned the validity of the stimulus or the huge deficit spending binge that Obama and the Dem congress thought would fix the problem.

When the next president is elected (hopefully next year) the sigh of relief and the economic expansion that will come with a real change in course will be stunning IMO. It won't be because of any one policy or even because the new president is skilled -- it will be because the economy if finally thrown free of the weight of Obama's policies.

When you watch that clip where Obama talks about "shovel ready not really being shovel ready" you can hear the disappointment in his voice. It sounds like he really thought it work. Again, say what you want about the guy, but Rush was right when he voiced his desire that Obama fail -- he unfortunately succeeded in much of what he set out to do to "transform" America and the proof is in the (curdled) pudding of this economy...

fan4ever
07-29-2011, 12:39 PM
Depressing, depressing, depressing.

I would be almost willing to try anything at this point to get us out of this hole we are in.

Including how you vote?

fan4ever
07-29-2011, 12:43 PM
Not pointing fingers (well, I guess I am) but the left (and yes, as BEP points out, some on the right as well) has refused to listen to the many business leaders and economic experts who have been saying for years now that you can't keep heaping taxes, uncertainty, and regulation on business and expect it not to react negatively.

I believe that we're starting to see a) the effects of Obama's policies take root, and b) a refusal of business to "buy-in" to his solutions. None of this is surprising to anyone who questioned the validity of the stimulus or the huge deficit spending binge that Obama and the Dem congress thought would fix the problem.

When the next president is elected (hopefully next year) the sigh of relief and the economic expansion that will come with a real change in course will be stunning IMO. It won't be because of any one policy or even because the new president is skilled -- it will be because the economy if finally thrown free of the weight of Obama's policies.

When you watch that clip where Obama talks about "shovel ready not really being shovel ready" you can hear the disappointment in his voice. It sounds like he really thought it work. Again, say what you want about the guy, but Rush was right when he voiced his desire that Obama fail -- he unfortunately succeeded in much of what he set out to do to "transform" America and the proof is in the (curdled) pudding of this economy...

Unlike most presidential cabinets, which usually hover around 50% from the private sector, Obama's is around 27%, not taking into account his many "czars". So you have an administration that's relied heavily on "theory" from a bunch of guys and gals with letters after their names, but not much real life experience.

patteeu
07-29-2011, 12:44 PM
Nope.

Command economies displace jobs.

The broken window fallacy assumes a closed system. But if you break a bunch of windows in Europe while bombing all the European window repair companies to smithereens it can be great for the American window repair business.

I'm not saying that WW II got us out of the GD, but our economy derived some benefits from the war.

patteeu
07-29-2011, 12:48 PM
Depressing, depressing, depressing.

I would be almost willing to try anything at this point to get us out of this hole we are in.

Something tells me that supporting a Republican to defeat Obama in 2012 doesn't make your broadened list of things you'd try.

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 02:55 PM
Not pointing fingers (well, I guess I am) but the left (and yes, as BEP points out, some on the right as well) has refused to listen to the many business leaders and economic experts who have been saying for years now that you can't keep heaping taxes, uncertainty, and regulation on business and expect it not to react negatively.

I believe that we're starting to see a) the effects of Obama's policies take root, and b) a refusal of business to "buy-in" to his solutions. None of this is surprising to anyone who questioned the validity of the stimulus or the huge deficit spending binge that Obama and the Dem congress thought would fix the problem.

When the next president is elected (hopefully next year) the sigh of relief and the economic expansion that will come with a real change in course will be stunning IMO. It won't be because of any one policy or even because the new president is skilled -- it will be because the economy if finally thrown free of the weight of Obama's policies.

When you watch that clip where Obama talks about "shovel ready not really being shovel ready" you can hear the disappointment in his voice. It sounds like he really thought it work. Again, say what you want about the guy, but Rush was right when he voiced his desire that Obama fail -- he unfortunately succeeded in much of what he set out to do to "transform" America and the proof is in the (curdled) pudding of this economy...

You maybe right RL but then when you look at what he has passed I just don't see anything that would stop businesses from hiring with the exception of Obamacare.

Maybe I am missing it but heck the stimulus was 40% tax cuts and they extended the Bush tax cuts again at the end of last year. It seems all he has done is cut taxes and the corporate tax rate is the same now as it was under Bush.

Am I just missing something?

HonestChieffan
07-29-2011, 02:56 PM
You maybe right RL but then when you look at what he has passed I just don't see anything that would stop businesses from hiring with the exception of Obamacare.

Maybe I am missing it but heck the stimulus was 40% tax cuts and they extended the Bush tax cuts again at the end of last year. It seems all he has done is cut taxes and the corporate tax rate is the same now as it was under Bush.

Am I just missing something?


no doubt

patteeu
07-29-2011, 02:57 PM
Am I just missing something?

Literally LOL

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 02:58 PM
Including how you vote?

Something tells me that supporting a Republican to defeat Obama in 2012 doesn't make your broadened list of things you'd try.

Yes. My vote is now officially up for grabs.

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 02:59 PM
no doubt

Literally LOL

Explain to me I honestly want to know.

patteeu
07-29-2011, 02:59 PM
Yes. My vote is now officially up for grabs.

I read your words but I remain confident that you, oldandslow, and Amnorix will find a reason to pull Obama's lever in the end.

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 03:03 PM
I read your words but I remain confident that you, oldandslow, and Amnorix will find a reason to pull Obama's lever in the end.

I have my limits of course. I will never support:

Bachmann
Cain
Santorum
Paul
Palin

patteeu
07-29-2011, 03:04 PM
I have my limits of course. I will never support:

Bachmann
Cain
Santorum
Paul
Palin

I don't think any of those will be obstacles.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 03:05 PM
The broken window fallacy assumes a closed system. But if you break a bunch of windows in Europe while bombing all the European window repair companies to smithereens it can be great for the American window repair business.

I'm not saying that WW II got us out of the GD, but our economy derived some benefits from the war.
Nope. It all depends on the standard one is using.

If you use unemployment stats, as the orthodox but false point-of-view uses, you can't claim that as a REAL statistic to see if an economy has recovered because it's false and misleading because the unemployed were sent off to fight the war. For one, it's a duty to many who volunteer and it's slavery if they're drafted. Then when the men were gone the women took their jobs in a command economy where the govt dictates what needs to be produced for the war. It's all just displacement and private investment and growth has not improved. It's not much different than the make-work projects of Obama except that we were in a legal state of war and that was needed for the war. However, it's also temporary because when the war or public works project is over there are layoffs. This is why Obama's bought jobs did not stimulate or lead to a real recovery. The same is true for WWII because the layoffs were massive when it was over.

None of these jobs created products for consumption by the private sector which lead to an improvement in their standard of living—except for industries that benefit from manufacturing products for the war. It all goes to the war effort aka the govt. Furthermore, people were still poor and many goods were rationed—again for the war effort and govt. That's not the REAL economy which is the creation of wealth and prosperity for those participating it. Just ask a grandmother who lived through it. I asked and the answer I got was the economy was horrible because you couldn't buy much of anything. Investment also dropped significantly during the war.

It's nothing but a camouflaged hole.

As to Keynesians who use the GDP statistic, that includes govt spending which was way up.

A war economy is not a real economy and does not lead to real economic growth. That came after WWII when there were massive govt cuts in spending and a rise in investment.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:12 PM
You maybe right RL but then when you look at what he has passed I just don't see anything that would stop businesses from hiring with the exception of Obamacare.

Maybe I am missing it but heck the stimulus was 40% tax cuts and they extended the Bush tax cuts again at the end of last year. It seems all he has done is cut taxes and the corporate tax rate is the same now as it was under Bush.

Am I just missing something?


Yes.

Tax cuts don't cost anything first of all. Unless you believe that all revenue is the property of the US Government (or you're counting on legislation that hasn't passed).

Secondly, there has been an avalanche of regulation on finance, banking, health care as well as massive deficit spending and economic policy (not all Obama's fault, either, but he hasn't advocated for changing it) that has depressed the value of the dollar and created uncertainty that won't abate until it either starts working (which it won't) or goes away (which won't happen for at least two more years).

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Unlike most presidential cabinets, which usually hover around 50% from the private sector, Obama's is around 27%, not taking into account his many "czars". So you have an administration that's relied heavily on "theory" from a bunch of guys and gals with letters after their names, but not much real life experience.

Yeah, his advisors are mostly academics—the Ivory Tower types that concoct things like socialism which look good on paper but deny the natural laws of economics.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:13 PM
I have my limits of course. I will never support:

Bachmann
Cain
Santorum
Paul
Palin

I will never support any of them either.

KC native
07-29-2011, 03:17 PM
This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone. I've been saying that we have a strong chance for a double dip. I was a little early on the second dip but it appears we're headed back to a slight recession.

That being said after financial crises this is your typical recovery (small sample of occurences but almost all are the same check Reinhardt and Rogoff's paper on the subject).

patteeu
07-29-2011, 03:20 PM
Nope. It all depends on the standard one is using.

If you use unemployment stats, as the orthodox but false point-of-view uses, you can't claim that as a REAL statistic to see if an economy has recovered because it's false and misleading because the unemployed were sent off to fight the war. For one, it's a duty to many who volunteer and it's slavery if they're drafted. Then when the men were gone the women took their jobs in a command economy where the govt dictates what needs to be produced for the war. It's all just displacement and private investment and growth has not improved. It's not much different than the make-work projects of Obama except that we were in a legal state of war and that was needed for the war. However, it's also temporary because when the war or public works project is over there are layoffs. This is why Obama's bought jobs did not stimulate or lead to a real recovery. The same is true for WWII because the layoffs were massive when it was over.

None of these jobs created products for consumption by the private sector which lead to an improvement in their standard of living—except for industries that benefit from manufacturing products for the war. It all goes to the war effort aka the govt. Furthermore, people were still poor and many goods were rationed—again for the war effort and govt. That's not the REAL economy which is the creation of wealth and prosperity for those participating it. Just ask a grandmother who lived through it. I asked and the answer I got was the economy was horrible because you couldn't buy much of anything. Investment also dropped significantly during the war.

It's nothing but a camouflaged hole.

As to Keynesians who use the GDP statistic, that includes govt spending which was way up.

A war economy is not a real economy and does not lead to real economic growth. That came after WWII when there were massive govt cuts in spending and a rise in investment.

Your long response has nothing to do with my post as far as I can tell.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:20 PM
This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone. I've been saying that we have a strong chance for a double dip. I was a little early on the second dip but it appears we're headed back to a slight recession.

That being said after financial crises this is your typical recovery (small sample of occurences but almost all are the same check Reinhardt and Rogoff's paper on the subject).

We never escaped the first one. The government pumped in a couple trillion dollars and that inflated the economy artificially for a few quarters but it wasn't sustainable. Now it is all a matter of Obama coming up with a way to blame it on the GOP, even though it started way before the GOP had a chance to do anything meaningful -- it was baked in and Obama is terrified that the public finally figures it out.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 03:24 PM
Your long response has nothing to do with my post as far as I can tell.

It has something to do with it as you claimed it had benefited us economically. ( Context there was an economic benefit as opposed to winning a war benefit). You missed the connection. I wasn't commenting on the Broken Window fallacy aspect, as I did the day before to Donger, since that applies to Europe more. ( I mean did window manufactures make new windows for Europe or was it done there? I don't know. I thought we loaned money mainly.) It also wasn't just posted for you alone but donger, in one post because I had to leave and didn't have time to elaborate.

dirk digler
07-29-2011, 03:36 PM
Yes.

Tax cuts don't cost anything first of all. Unless you believe that all revenue is the property of the US Government (or you're counting on legislation that hasn't passed).

Secondly, there has been an avalanche of regulation on finance, banking, health care as well as massive deficit spending and economic policy (not all Obama's fault, either, but he hasn't advocated for changing it) that has depressed the value of the dollar and created uncertainty that won't abate until it either starts working (which it won't) or goes away (which won't happen for at least two more years).

I get the uncertainty about ObamaCare or the current debt ceiling debate but if what you are saying is true why when the latest reports of corporate earnings were released companies were making more profit than they have before.

Profits are expected to be 15-20% higher this year compared to last year.

So why aren't they hiring while sitting on $2 trillion dollars worth of cash\profits?

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:42 PM
I get the uncertainty about ObamaCare or the current debt ceiling debate but if what you are saying is true why when the latest reports of corporate earnings were released companies were making more profit than they have before.

Profits are expected to be 15-20% higher this year compared to last year.

So why aren't they hiring while sitting on $2 trillion dollars worth of cash\profits?

Because they don't know what the cost of each hire will be, what additional taxes the government will drop on them, and if there will be less expensive alternatives overseas. It's not complicated -- just because you make a profit doesn't mean you should spend it wastefully.

FD
07-29-2011, 03:54 PM
I get the uncertainty about ObamaCare or the current debt ceiling debate but if what you are saying is true why when the latest reports of corporate earnings were released companies were making more profit than they have before.

Profits are expected to be 15-20% higher this year compared to last year.

So why aren't they hiring while sitting on $2 trillion dollars worth of cash\profits?

Firms wont start investing until its clear that consumer demand is returning. That could be a long time, as consumers have a lot of de-leveraging to do after decades of spending fueled by credit card and housing debt.

vailpass
07-29-2011, 04:05 PM
Firms wont start investing until its clear that consumer demand is returning. That could be a long time, as consumers have a lot of de-leveraging to do after decades of spending fueled by credit card and housing debt.

Business will invest the minute they feel they have a political environment conducive to doing so.

FD
07-29-2011, 04:08 PM
Business will invest the minute they feel they have a political environment conducive to doing so.

I've seen evidence that policy uncertainty can have a small potential effect on economic growth, but you seem to be arguing that the occupant of the White House is by far the most important factor in a corporation's decision to invest or not. What evidence do you have for that?

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 04:28 PM
Firms wont start investing until its clear that consumer demand is returning. That could be a long time, as consumers have a lot of de-leveraging to do after decades of spending fueled by credit card and housing debt.

Very well put...and I don't agree with you often.

KC native
07-29-2011, 04:29 PM
I get the uncertainty about ObamaCare or the current debt ceiling debate but if what you are saying is true why when the latest reports of corporate earnings were released companies were making more profit than they have before.

Profits are expected to be 15-20% higher this year compared to last year.

So why aren't they hiring while sitting on $2 trillion dollars worth of cash\profits?

Don't be fooled by the earnings games. How this shit isn't considered insider info baffles me, but companies work with the top analysts and guide them to what they want their analyst earnings estimates to be so they can announce that they beat them by a penny or some other ridiculously small amount. (apple is one of the worst at this.)

Profits are doing well but companies have been learning that since the economy sucks they can stick it to a reduced workforce because that workforce doesn't have many options.

I know of several places where they aren't replacing people that leave. They just give the people left more work.

KC native
07-29-2011, 04:31 PM
Firms wont start investing until its clear that consumer demand is returning. That could be a long time, as consumers have a lot of de-leveraging to do after decades of spending fueled by credit card and housing debt.

This is unequivocally true.

KC native
07-29-2011, 04:33 PM
Because they don't know what the cost of each hire will be, what additional taxes the government will drop on them, and if there will be less expensive alternatives overseas. It's not complicated -- just because you make a profit doesn't mean you should spend it wastefully.

This is horseshit. Businesses know what the costs of hires are going to be. They also know that the tax system will not be dramatically changing.

KC native
07-29-2011, 04:34 PM
Business will invest the minute they feel they have a political environment conducive to doing so.

You don't much about anything do you cletus?

Stewie
07-29-2011, 04:37 PM
...and gold closed at an all-time high. Go figure.

vailpass
07-29-2011, 05:06 PM
I've seen evidence that policy uncertainty can have a small potential effect on economic growth, but you seem to be arguing that the occupant of the White House is by far the most important factor in a corporation's decision to invest or not. What evidence do you have for that?

I don't speak for the country (lucky thing for the country). The business owners and investors (mostly small, I don't hang with the Buffets) I know are all stockpiling cash and freezing investment/expansion because of the overall socio/political climate. There is so much uncertainty in what our fed. govt. will or won't do, what they will and won't tax, what impact obamacare will or won't have.

vailpass
07-29-2011, 05:07 PM
This is horseshit. Businesses know what the costs of hires are going to be. They also know that the tax system will not be dramatically changing.

You can tell us what the cost of hires is going to be? You know how the tax structure is going to shake out and can accurately pinpoint the cost of obamacare for each individual business?
Seems like you'd be sitting a little higher if that were the case.

Hasty Puddings
12-01-2011, 06:00 PM
the government’s monetary and fiscal authorities are currently engaged in the expropriation of private wealth on a vast scale. Entire classes of investors—especially people who saved during their working years and expected to live on interest earnings on their accumulated capital during their retirement years—are being steadily wiped out. Astonishingly, this de facto robbery is being committed by a government that misses no opportunity to shed crocodile tears over how single-mindedly it seeks to protect the weak and helpless among us.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/11/28/the-government-is-expropriating-private-wealth-at-a-rapid-rate/

whosyou
12-01-2011, 06:25 PM
Wrong thread

Hasty Puddings
12-02-2011, 03:57 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-buys-votes-taxpayer-money-let-me-be-perfectly-clear-sad-hill-news.jpg

Comrade Crapski
05-29-2013, 09:34 AM
The U.S dollar is shrinking as a percentage of the world's currency supply, raising concerns that the greenback is about to see its long run as the world's premier denomination come to an end.

When compared to its peers, the dollar has drifted to a 15-year low, according to the International Monetary Fund, indicating that more countries are willing to use other currencies to do business.

While the American currency still reigns supreme -- it constitutes $3.72 trillion, or 62 percent, of the $6 trillion in allocated foreign exchange holdings by the world's central banks -- the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and what the IMF classifies as "other currencies" such as the Chinese yuan are gaining.

(Read More: Hedge Funds Reap Billions on Yen Bets)

"Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown," Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, said in a note. "But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to 10 years."

Bove uses several metrics to make his point, focusing on the dollar as a percentage of total world money supply.That total has plunged from nearly 90 percent in 1952 to closer to 15 percent now. He also notes that the Chinese yuan, the yen and the euro each have a greater share of that total.

"To the degree that China succeeds in increasing its market share of the world's currency market, the United States is the loser," Bove said. "For years, I have been arguing that the move of the Chinese makes perfect sense from their point-of-view but no sense for the Americans."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100461159