Or maybe worse the start of a depression? Gasoline prices have hit $4 a gallon is some parts of the country. Meaning the cost to drive the average car 250 miles a week costs about $25 more than one year ago. That's $100 a month out of household income plus the extra cost for groceries and consumer goods. This will not be good for the US economy. Add a crippling national debt that the gubment thinks isn't large enough and it could be big trouble for the US. It will only take one failed debt issue on the bond market to drive the interest on the national debt to double or triple. All this leads to inflation and higher interest rates on top of a TRUE unemployment rate more like 10%.
(03-05-2011 08:32 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: [ -> ]Or maybe worse the start of a depression? Gasoline prices have hit $4 a gallon is some parts of the country. Meaning the cost to drive the average car 250 miles a week costs about $25 more than one year ago. That's $100 a month out of household income plus the extra cost for groceries and consumer goods. This will not be good for the US economy. Add a crippling national debt that the gubment thinks isn't large enough and it could be big trouble for the US. It will only take one failed debt issue on the bond market to drive the interest on the national debt to double or triple. All this leads to inflation and higher interest rates on top of a TRUE unemployment rate more like 10%.
Higher gasoline prices will certainly take disposable income out of the economy and will also ripple through the economy in the form of inflation. We have some momentum now but this will no doubt slow the recovery if fuel prices remain high for an extended period. Herd Fan I think your "real unemployment rate" may be a tad low and closer to 12% to 14%. We have a long way to go at any rate.
It's not the start of another, it's the same one. We never got out of the first one.
The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
(03-05-2011 09:13 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
You are correct, the short term growth in GDP technically signifies the end of the recession. The reality though, is that this is just a period of illusory growth(albeit weak growth) until the markets once again take control.
And I think that you're both vastly underestimating the real unemployment. According the BLS February Job report, the job participation rate is at it's lowest rate since
1982. Take into account the fact that a smaller percentage of married women with children were in the workforce in 1982, and that number is even more staggering.
(03-05-2011 09:13 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
(03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 09:13 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
(03-05-2011 12:12 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 09:13 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
It's foolish to use numbers when you know they may be false. Again I ask, name any statistic that the gov't accurately predicts or records. I used to trust the CBO numbers, but after how ObamaCare was passed, never again.
I've heard your crush is on the tranny Maddow.
(03-05-2011 09:00 AM)Jugnaut Wrote: [ -> ]It's not the start of another, it's the same one. We never got out of the first one.
So starteth the double dip...
(03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a
government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
(03-05-2011 12:53 PM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
bingo
(03-05-2011 12:53 PM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
You are right, until
THE PEOPLE see some fiscal sanity from one party or the other, we have to keep voting the elitists out. If we can avert bankruptcy til then.
(03-05-2011 12:53 PM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
I couldn't agree more that
both parties are the same and preach that on this board quite often. I am merely saying we don't have any more reliable facts or figures better than the ones from the CBO, NASA, NOAA and others except for people with agendas pulling numbers out of their hats. I am willing to go with the best available information source but I don't think Newsmax or Worldnet Daily are the sources I would cite.
(03-05-2011 01:07 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:53 PM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
I couldn't agree more that both parties are the same and preach that on this board quite often. I am merely saying we don't have any more reliable facts or figures better than the ones from the CBO, NASA, NOAA and others except for people with agendas pulling numbers out of their hats. I am willing to go with the best available information source but I don't think Newsmax or Worldnet Daily are the sources I would cite.
PeaWee, by not keeping an open mind to the reporting of WND or Newsmax. you show yourself to be a partisan hack. What specific fact can you point to that makes their points so egregious? I'll always consider you short on facts, making you a Professional Troll, until you use specifics. Meanwhile, while I won't hold my breath, you will continue trolling.
(03-05-2011 01:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]If we can avert bankruptcy til then.
Fat chance.
(03-05-2011 01:07 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I am merely saying we don't have any more reliable facts or figures better than the ones from the CBO, NASA, NOAA and others except for people with agendas pulling numbers out of their hats. I am willing to go with the best available information source but I don't think Newsmax or Worldnet Daily are the sources I would cite.
Believe it or not,
the government isn't always honest or trustworthy. You would assume that politicians and central bankers knew what the hell they were doing, but more often than not, they don't.
While I agree that you should judge all data carefully, merely denying data because it isn't from the government seems silly. What's the difference between only believing one source of data from a private entity compared to only believing data from the government? Do you believe that the government doesn't have an agenda?
Do you see where your logic is failing?
I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
(03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
do you exercise that right often?
(03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with quasi science from biased sources like Government and University studies
FIFY.
(03-05-2011 03:49 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
do you exercise that right often?
I've been married for over 30 years... you better believe I do
(03-05-2011 12:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:12 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 09:13 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]The recovery may be small but the GDP growth defines recession and this one has been technically over for several months. I am not saying the economy is good or that it doesn't feel like recession on those points I am with you 100%
The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
It's foolish to use numbers when you know they may be false. Again I ask, name any statistic that the gov't accurately predicts or records. I used to trust the CBO numbers, but after how ObamaCare was passed, never again. I've heard your crush is on the tranny Maddow.
You really should have put an * in where I bolded the words. It should be:
* Unless it is an outcome that I agree with