Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Join the Slickdeals Special Olympics World Games Fundraising Team Support the World Games
Forum Thread

U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Contracts in Fourth Quarter

Radeck 247 January 30, 2013 at 09:48 AM
GDP -0.1%.

I guess now that the election is over and his highness is back in office, all the monopoly money games and fraud that the FED and the Treasury Department were up to, and all the data manipulation and tricks by the statisticians in the administration, are no longer necessary. And neither are the games with the unemployment numbers and the use of data sets never used before in order to get unemployment below 8% for the election, and let's not forget how California conveniently missed the deadline to turn in their data, where the person in charge of doing so is an Obama supporter and contributor.

so it is now safe to let the public know the REAL performance of the economy.

There you go...we are doing what europe does, so now we are getting the results that europe has.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...TopStories
Quote :
U.S. economic momentum screeched to a halt in the final months of 2012, as lawmakers' struggle to reach a deal on tax increases and budget cuts likely led businesses to pare inventories and the government to cut spending.

The nation's gross domestic product shrank for the first time in 3 1/2 years during the fourth quarter, declining at an annual rate of 0.1% between October and December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

It was the first time the broad measure of all goods and services produced by the economy contracted since the recovery from the financial crisis began. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected 1.0% annualized growth.

207 Comments

2 3 4 5 6

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#46
Quote from Radeck View Post :
No, just a convenient excuse, rather than admit that Obama's economic policies are a dismal failure....there is no way whatsoever that the miniscule defense cuts (in comparison to the economy at alrge) can wipe out 3% points in GDP growth....ditto for Sandy....it's just spin, hoping to pull the blinds over the eyes of as many low-information voters as possible.
I would be interested to see your evidence that proves that these factors absolutely cannot slow the economy (GDP) to that extent.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Permanently Banned
462 Reputation
#47
Quote from Krazen1211 View Post :
Why would capitalism provide many jobs when your fellow is just waiting there to punish them to pay for your trillion dollar social programs that are the primary cause of the deficit?
You've got it backwards. It was a failure of capitalism which destroyed a million jobs, that got "my fellow" elected. And of course, McCain's failure to recognize what was happening.

"The fuandamentals of the economy are strong." J. McCain 2008

as the economy was collapsing.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L11: My Level Goes to 11
21 Reputation
#48
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
You've got it backwards. It was a failure of capitalism which destroyed a million jobs, that got "my fellow" elected. And of course, McCain's failure to recognize what was happening.

"The fuandamentals of the economy are strong." J. McCain 2008

as the economy was collapsing.
All that federally backed capitalism related to mortgages and pressure to increase home ownership.

This kind of crisis is usually related to a combination of corporate greed and the unintended consequences of government "good will".

Speaking of which, I predict the government monopoly on student loans is going to result in skyrocketing tuition, followed by insane default rates, followed by some sort of financial crisis based on student loan debt swaps.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Permanently Banned
462 Reputation
#49
Quote from DJPlayer View Post :
see you just adding a non mathematical term into the your sentence.. In mathematics there is no "slight", there is negative and positive.
I guess I should have used infinitesimal [wikipedia.org], instead. LMAO

Quote :
A mathematical implementation of both the law of continuity and infinitesimals was achieved by Abraham Robinson in 1961
Quote :
I will clarify, virtually any time the GDP went negative was during a recession (and that's since GDP was measured). Look at the chart.. consecutive makes no difference.
So your reference of "Q to Q" was superfluous.....

Quote :
You may find one or possibly two instances in the 75 years of GDP going negative not during a recession (I don't care to scan the figures again).

I'ts not about consecutive negative growth.. it's about going negative. Remember the negative represent a period of 3 months.. not a second, minute, day, week or even month.
Quote :
Definition

A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4086...z2JZyS0FZb
There were 15 instances in your posted data where the GDP went negative and it was not a recession (only one quarter). Including last quarter.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Permanently Banned
462 Reputation
#50
Quote from homers View Post :
Wrong. Due to gov't intervention and policies that prevent true capitalism from working.
After 8 years of Republican leadership? I doubt that... LMAO
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#51
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Good. And I agree.

Next question. Do you realize that cuts in government spending will directly affect our GDP numbers? For example, if we didn't take the "haircut", we would have had positive growth.

The point is, you can't scream for cuts and then bitch about a low GDP number after you get those cuts.
When did I complain about the low GDP number?


What we need is private sector growth, not phantom nonsense from your guy borrowing $1 trillion a year to pay for your party's nonsensical social programs at the expense of future growth.

But your guy wants to borrow $9 trillion during his Presidency and then get out of town.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#52
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
You've got it backwards. It was a failure of capitalism which destroyed a million jobs, that got "my fellow" elected. And of course, McCain's failure to recognize what was happening.

"The fuandamentals of the economy are strong." J. McCain 2008

as the economy was collapsing.

Capitalism created 22 million jobs during the past Democrat's presidency, when people weren't so stupid as to borrow $300 billion a year to pay for some ideologue's dumb idea of providing $300 billion of health care to lazy people rather than serving hard working Americans.

The result of course was 4% growth then and 0% now, despite the massive growth of your spending for your programs for your party's voters.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#53
Quote from Radeck View Post :
oh, and since the economy is going gangbusters, Obama decided to shut down his "Jobs Council" [usnews.com], which was a farce to begin with (and he hasn't met with them in almost a year, since feb 2012), but yet another nail in the coffin of the Obama lie about jobs being the "first thing he thinks about when he wakes up and the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep".

funny how the "Council" stayed active until just after the election, no? how convenient.
He doesn't want jobs. What he wants is to borrow $30 billion a year and pay off nonworking people to vote for his party.

He just did precisely that not even a month ago, when 'temporary' unemployment extensions reached their 6th year of existence.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Permanently Banned
462 Reputation
#54
Quote from Krazen1211 View Post :
Capitalism created 22 million jobs during the past Democrat's presidency, when people weren't so stupid as to borrow $300 billion a year to pay for some ideologue's dumb idea of providing $300 billion of health care to lazy people rather than serving hard working Americans.
You're talking about "lazy" retirees like my parents, right?

People who worked very hard for 50 years before their companies induced them to retire.

Quote :
The result of course was 4% growth then and 0% now, despite the massive growth of your spending for your programs for your party's voters.
Point is, if capitalism had provided what people need, they'd not have voted for "my fellow."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#55
Quote from DJPlayer View Post :
you're discussing the 2006 DoD cuts.. when that took effect did the GDP go negative? The answer is on my post in the previous page which shows every Quarter since GDP was measured..
Read the article i posted earlier--there were Defense cuts that were one time hits to GDP that had a dramatically impact on our 4Q numbers. I think they were in anticipation of/preparation for the sequestration cuts. He said the haircuts to defense budget TO 2006 levels and i thought we were talking about the current hit on our GDP numbers.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
622 Reputation
#56
Quote from redass View Post :
You should be asking if it had any effect on the GDP, not whether it caused it to go negative.
I spend $1 less in groceries per week. That had a negative effect on GDP. So does your Yes or No question really make a difference? Or is the degree, which you'd have to know all variables to compute.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#57
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
You're talking about "lazy" retirees like my parents, right?

People who worked very hard for 50 years before their companies induced them to retire.



Point is, if capitalism had provided what people need, they'd not have voted for "my fellow."

If your parents are anything like the average Medicare couple, they paid roughly $100k in taxes for $300k in benefits. Who is going to pay their freeloaded $200k? You?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#58
Quote from Krazen1211 View Post :
When did I complain about the low GDP number?
You regularly knock him for it (whether directly or indirectly). Just earlier in this thread you gave him shit for it.

And then there is:

Quote :
Post #52458126 added 08-14-2012 05:29 PM by Krazen1211 in The Podium

... he gave is on youtube. Yes, of course. Namely, people notice that this President has presided over record poverty, record low gdp growth, and record income loss for the middle class. None of that makes them very happy. Maybe it makes you happy.
Quote :
Post #51549888 added 07-10-2012 02:03 PM by Krazen1211 in The Podium

... tax cut legislation. The problem is he personally is toxic to the US economy and so he doesn't get the economic growth that President Bush obtained. Clinton's deregulation was fantastic at growing the economy, unlike Barack Obama's disastrous record. The ...
Quote :
Post #51527564 added 07-09-2012 03:25 PM by Krazen1211 in The Podium

... suggest reading this. Reagan of course benefited from massive economic growth in 1984 that led to a new morning in america. Contrast that to obama's disastrous record of poor growth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...tion,_1984
Quote :
Post #51412370 added 07-03-2012 07:49 PM by Krazen1211 in The Podium

... not know what a hyperlink is? The disaster is not 1 quarter of economic contraction out of 32. It is rather sustained, constant slow growth for 13 quarters. As a result, George W. Bush grew the economy far more than Barack Obama. You don't like facts, so ...
So lets not pretend you haven't given Obama shit for low/slow growth. All while ignoring the headwinds caused by a deep debt-induced recession that dramatcially hit the low and middle classes who have been deleveraging rather than spending (which constitutes 70% of our GDP numbers)

Quote :
What we need is private sector growth, not phantom nonsense from your guy borrowing $1 trillion a year to pay for your party's nonsensical social programs at the expense of future growth.
And that is why you need to READ the details on behind the GDP numbers. Here are the cliffs notes from the article i linked to:

-Consumer spending rose 2.2 percent and savings grew to 4.7 percent from 2.6 percent in the previous quarter. Residential construction surged 15.3 percent, leading housing to be a plus for GDP for the first time in nearly eight years.

-If anything you've got to feel pretty good that the private sector was close to 3 percent despite Sandy," Paulsen said. "You've got to be impressed with the equipment spending, software spending, residential spending, big-ticket, autos, consumption - overall, there are just some good parts of this thing.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
622 Reputation
#59
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Read the article i posted earlier--there were Defense cuts that were one time hits to GDP that had a dramatically impact on our 4Q numbers. I think they were in anticipation of/preparation for the sequestration cuts. He said the haircuts to defense budget TO 2006 levels and i thought we were talking about the current hit on our GDP numbers.
thus haircuts in 2006 would also have an equivalent effect on GDP..

but keep in mind today's news: Jobless Claims in U.S. Rose 38,000 Last Week to 368,000

now an increase is typical after X-Mas.. but this is greater than average.

also GDP as being affected by decreased exports and sluggish company income (of course along with Government spending).
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#60
Quote from DJPlayer View Post :
I spend $1 less in groceries per week. That had a negative effect on GDP. So does your Yes or No question really make a difference? Or is the degree, which you'd have to know all variables to compute.
It is the most certainly the degree to which GDP is changed that matters. Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I said. My point was that the question you asked is ignoring the degree to which cuts have an effect. "you're discussing the 2006 DoD cuts.. when that took effect did the GDP go negative? The answer is on my post in the previous page which shows every Quarter since GDP was measured.."

The negative or positive GDP growth is not solely determined by the cuts, so asking if previous cuts also resulted in a negative GDP growth is not really a good question if you haven't broken down the GDP into it's components (which you did not).
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 4 of 14
2 3 4 5 6
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)