Friday, October 27, 2006
Bush recession looms
Nouriel Roubini won a pair of brass-plated cojones for predicting 3Q GDP growth would be 1.5%. At 1.6%, he was almost dead on. So maybe people should listen to what he is saying about the future:
What do these Q3 growth figures imply for Q4 and 2007 GDP growth? Expect today the usual spin with the soft-landing optimists – who were altogether wrong on Q2 growth and even more wrong on Q3 growth – having already started to spin the fairy tale of a Q4 rebound. This Q4 rebound has, so far, no base or data behind it: residential investment will be falling at a faster rate in Q4 than in Q3 given recent data on building permits and housing starts; non-residential investment that was, until now, growing very fast will sharply decelerate in Q4 and much more in 2007:.... I thus keep my forecast that Q4 growth will be between 0% and 1% and that the economy will enter into an outright recession by Q1 of 2007 or, at the latest, Q2.
As for me, I predict the economy will enter a recession as soon as Bushco quits pumping pork in an attempt to buy the election.
Comments:
<< Home
Haven't you said that the economy is only doing well for rich people? Strange how you are predicting a recession as if you hadn't been saying that the economy of 99% of America's people wasn't already in one. So if the numbers are bad, it's bad. If they're good, it's bad. So exactly how is America doing economically?
# posted by 
: 10/27/2006 05:11:00 PM
: 10/27/2006 05:11:00 PM
Did you actually read Charles' post, Arlington? Or have your RNC-talking-points sand castle constructs evolved to the point where real-world input and facts are unwelcome?
Charles made a cogent post; your response was to spew a word salad. Typical.
Charles made a cogent post; your response was to spew a word salad. Typical.
Anonymous, we really try with right-wingers. You make it hard with this attitude that you can take a statement by a well-known economist/investment analyst and say, basically, that you don't like it.
Who ^%$#ing cares what some anonymous blabberer likes/doesn't like?
Here are the facts:
1. For thirty years, incomes have only been going up for the top 20% of American families.
2. Most families in the middle avoided having their incomes go down by having the wife work. So, two people are working to get the salary that one used to earn.
3. GDP has nothing directly to do with any particular person's income. In theory, it could go up with no one getting more income. However, when GDP is falling, in practice someone has to take a salary cut, often by losing a job. Falling GDP is called a recession.
For most people, the economy has stunk.
Now, it will stink a little worse.
Who ^%$#ing cares what some anonymous blabberer likes/doesn't like?
Here are the facts:
1. For thirty years, incomes have only been going up for the top 20% of American families.
2. Most families in the middle avoided having their incomes go down by having the wife work. So, two people are working to get the salary that one used to earn.
3. GDP has nothing directly to do with any particular person's income. In theory, it could go up with no one getting more income. However, when GDP is falling, in practice someone has to take a salary cut, often by losing a job. Falling GDP is called a recession.
For most people, the economy has stunk.
Now, it will stink a little worse.
i dont know from where the right wing assumption has come... but anyone who has a question for you probably gets a nice right wing labell stuck to them. label away if it makes you feel better.
1. how have you computed this income stat? i hear that microwaves are cheaper and much better and people have a lot more of them today than in 1976. i hope you included that in your goofy "fact".
2. "the wife"? and you think i'm a right winger... in any case, you can't measure income nominally. especially when we have better and cheaper microwaves. your probably anti wal-mart, too. but if the price of microwaves goes down, everyone is now "richer" even if nobody's income goes up.
3. i agree that gdp has nothing to do with how people live or how they're "doing". falling gdp is called a recession. luckily, like you said, it has nothing directly to do with any one income. so why mention it?
and who are the most people? tell me why it's bad. tell me why people were better off 30 years ago.
1. how have you computed this income stat? i hear that microwaves are cheaper and much better and people have a lot more of them today than in 1976. i hope you included that in your goofy "fact".
2. "the wife"? and you think i'm a right winger... in any case, you can't measure income nominally. especially when we have better and cheaper microwaves. your probably anti wal-mart, too. but if the price of microwaves goes down, everyone is now "richer" even if nobody's income goes up.
3. i agree that gdp has nothing to do with how people live or how they're "doing". falling gdp is called a recession. luckily, like you said, it has nothing directly to do with any one income. so why mention it?
and who are the most people? tell me why it's bad. tell me why people were better off 30 years ago.
# posted by : 10/28/2006 09:39:00 PM
: 10/28/2006 09:39:00 PM
Let's parse Cowardly Anonymous Right-Winger's statements one by one here:
i dont know from where the right wing assumption has come...
Because you do nothing but mindlessly spew right-wing talking points you got from FOX News or Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt or whichever neo-fascist jackbooted media thug holds your brain hostage.
1. how have you computed this income stat? i hear that microwaves are cheaper and much better and people have a lot more of them today than in 1976. i hope you included that in your goofy "fact".
Let's assume that you really aren't a totally brainwashed right-winger and you are indeed open to absorbing facts in context. Here's a link for you that explains both US and worldwide income disparities between rich and poor and how they've grown over the years. Here's another link that shows the extreme disparity between what a US worker gets and what the CEO gets. This disparity is bigger than in any other developed nation. Much bigger.
Oh, and here's an excerpt from a Paul Krugman column in which he mentions the very stat Charles cites.
2. "the wife"? and you think i'm a right winger...
Okay, this spewage of yours makes no sense at all, except as a way for you to distract attention from Charles' point that the two-income (or more, depending on the jobs they hold) family, once a rarity, is now not only the norm, but a necessity. Many if not most middle-class Americans thirty years could send their kids to college and still live nearly debt-free on one income. Nowadays, most families have a husband a wife who work outside the home, and they still rack up thousands of dollars in credit-card debts alone.
in any case, you can't measure income nominally. especially when we have better and cheaper microwaves. your probably anti wal-mart, too. but if the price of microwaves goes down, everyone is now "richer" even if nobody's income goes up.
1) Where are those Wal-Mart microwaves made? Not in the US.
2) Where is the salary money made by the microwave factory workers spent? Not in the US.
The jobs that used to pay living wages to Americans have been shipped overseas, so people like the Waltons of Wal-Mart can pad their own already-obscenely-huge treasure chests. Meanwhile, those people that Wal-Mart deigns to employ in the US are paid starvation wages.
3. i agree that gdp has nothing to do with how people live or how they're "doing". falling gdp is called a recession. luckily, like you said, it has nothing directly to do with any one income. so why mention it?
and who are the most people? tell me why it's bad. tell me why people were better off 30 years ago.
See above. If you dare. (Which you won't.)
i dont know from where the right wing assumption has come...
Because you do nothing but mindlessly spew right-wing talking points you got from FOX News or Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt or whichever neo-fascist jackbooted media thug holds your brain hostage.
1. how have you computed this income stat? i hear that microwaves are cheaper and much better and people have a lot more of them today than in 1976. i hope you included that in your goofy "fact".
Let's assume that you really aren't a totally brainwashed right-winger and you are indeed open to absorbing facts in context. Here's a link for you that explains both US and worldwide income disparities between rich and poor and how they've grown over the years. Here's another link that shows the extreme disparity between what a US worker gets and what the CEO gets. This disparity is bigger than in any other developed nation. Much bigger.
Oh, and here's an excerpt from a Paul Krugman column in which he mentions the very stat Charles cites.
2. "the wife"? and you think i'm a right winger...
Okay, this spewage of yours makes no sense at all, except as a way for you to distract attention from Charles' point that the two-income (or more, depending on the jobs they hold) family, once a rarity, is now not only the norm, but a necessity. Many if not most middle-class Americans thirty years could send their kids to college and still live nearly debt-free on one income. Nowadays, most families have a husband a wife who work outside the home, and they still rack up thousands of dollars in credit-card debts alone.
in any case, you can't measure income nominally. especially when we have better and cheaper microwaves. your probably anti wal-mart, too. but if the price of microwaves goes down, everyone is now "richer" even if nobody's income goes up.
1) Where are those Wal-Mart microwaves made? Not in the US.
2) Where is the salary money made by the microwave factory workers spent? Not in the US.
The jobs that used to pay living wages to Americans have been shipped overseas, so people like the Waltons of Wal-Mart can pad their own already-obscenely-huge treasure chests. Meanwhile, those people that Wal-Mart deigns to employ in the US are paid starvation wages.
3. i agree that gdp has nothing to do with how people live or how they're "doing". falling gdp is called a recession. luckily, like you said, it has nothing directly to do with any one income. so why mention it?
and who are the most people? tell me why it's bad. tell me why people were better off 30 years ago.
See above. If you dare. (Which you won't.)
Your problem, Anonymous, is that (metaphorically) you want me to explain calculus to you before you understand algebra or even basic arithmetic.
You're not even able to quote back accurately what I said. I said that theoretically there's no connection between GDP and personal income-- but that practically, there is a connection. This you misquoted as "gdp has nothing to do with how people live." It has lots to do with how people live, since it is the size of the economic pie that we slice.
If you can't follow a basic point like that, how likely is it that you can follow the complicated issues involved in describing the standard of living?
The central point is that you seem to imagine that economists have not addressed the issue of quality.
They have.
In gory detail.
Dating back at least three decades.
Yes, we do have microwave ovens. They are nice gadgets. But we used to have stay-at-home Moms who gave children a far richer childhood experience than the latchkey kids of today get. Fair measures have to be developed to quantify quality changes up and down and so there are differences of opinion and ::gasp:: complexity. See, for example here or here
The latter resource makes it clear that BLS is doing its best to incorporate quality issues already.
But most independent economists see the middle class doing very badly, trading longer hours at lower pay for less comprehensive benefits, less job security. Measures of economic welfare generally show a peak ca. 1974 and continued decline.
Here's The Economist, describing basic statistics comparing Europe and the US: From a position of surplus before 2000, the structural budget deficit (including state and local governments) now stands at almost 5% of GDP, three times as big as that in the euro area. America has a current-account deficit of 5% of GDP, while the euro area has a small surplus. American households now save less than 2% of their disposable income; the saving rate in the euro area stands at a comfortable 12%. Total household debt in America amounts to 84% of GDP, compared with only 50% in the euro zone.
If Americans are doing so much better, why are they so deep in debt? Why can't they export anything the world wants to buy? Why do Europeans get generous vacations, a full family life, job security, and other essential features of the good life?
Somehow I doubt any of this means anything to you, but such is the problem of explaining calculus to someone who is still checking on fingers and toes.
You're not even able to quote back accurately what I said. I said that theoretically there's no connection between GDP and personal income-- but that practically, there is a connection. This you misquoted as "gdp has nothing to do with how people live." It has lots to do with how people live, since it is the size of the economic pie that we slice.
If you can't follow a basic point like that, how likely is it that you can follow the complicated issues involved in describing the standard of living?
The central point is that you seem to imagine that economists have not addressed the issue of quality.
They have.
In gory detail.
Dating back at least three decades.
Yes, we do have microwave ovens. They are nice gadgets. But we used to have stay-at-home Moms who gave children a far richer childhood experience than the latchkey kids of today get. Fair measures have to be developed to quantify quality changes up and down and so there are differences of opinion and ::gasp:: complexity. See, for example here or here
The latter resource makes it clear that BLS is doing its best to incorporate quality issues already.
But most independent economists see the middle class doing very badly, trading longer hours at lower pay for less comprehensive benefits, less job security. Measures of economic welfare generally show a peak ca. 1974 and continued decline.
Here's The Economist, describing basic statistics comparing Europe and the US: From a position of surplus before 2000, the structural budget deficit (including state and local governments) now stands at almost 5% of GDP, three times as big as that in the euro area. America has a current-account deficit of 5% of GDP, while the euro area has a small surplus. American households now save less than 2% of their disposable income; the saving rate in the euro area stands at a comfortable 12%. Total household debt in America amounts to 84% of GDP, compared with only 50% in the euro zone.
If Americans are doing so much better, why are they so deep in debt? Why can't they export anything the world wants to buy? Why do Europeans get generous vacations, a full family life, job security, and other essential features of the good life?
Somehow I doubt any of this means anything to you, but such is the problem of explaining calculus to someone who is still checking on fingers and toes.
I'll tell you why people were better off thirty years ago than they are today:
They were better-paid.
Post a Comment
They were better-paid.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
