It is interesting that, in spite of huge setbacks, the economy continues to exceed expectations. So what is going on here? Is it a fluke? Is the Government lying ot us?

Or could it just be that Supply-Side tax cut just might have a more beneficial effect than the Left AND Paul Krugman actually think? Me,........I'll go with the positive effects of low taxes, as expressed by the Laffer Curve.

Perhaps Grizzly can give us a grunt of two, ask for more links, and then provide one or two of his own, that will allow him to commit as little as possible to the discussion.


Stocks soar on GDP growth; Dow up 102

Stocks rallied sharply Friday, with the Dow Jones industrials climbing 102 points, as investors took comfort in new data showing better-than-anticipated economic growth last quarter despite the destruction caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The Commerce Department said economic activity expanded 3.8 percent in the July-September quarter, besting economists' forecast for 3.6 percent growth and soothing a market anxious for signs of the economy's direction amid fears of a downturn. The gross domestic product growth also outpaced a 3.3 percent rise for the April-June period.

"It basically drove home the point that the economy was healthy before the hurricanes and indeed may have remained healthy afterward as well," said Doug Porter, a senior economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns, who noted gains in spending and business investment among upswings in nearly every GDP component in the report.

You would think given all the spin doctors, talking head and MSM sound bites with all the storms and high oil and all that it, the economy would not be so robust hey!

Though the numbers lean backward a tad, they are far from MSM spin and pollsters revealation huh?

THA T
IS
ALL!

Yes, its just amazing to know that even during hard times people have to purchase goods and services, and unfortunately a lot of this can't be helped because they do not have the cash on them to pay now.

"Oh, Steve we need new school clothes for the kids!"
"We will just put it on the credit card dear!"
"But look how much we owe on the card."
"Darn it! We will figure that out later!"
"OK! But don't forget that we still owe the doctor!"

Spend! Spend! Spend! Spend! Yeah, its a great economy when you do not own a pot to urinate in and a window to throw it out of!


Read on!

Note: Looking for no rebuttal and all name calling from John and all of his Republican buddies! Ho Hum! Let the usual festivities begin!

Poor Griz, you throw up such "lame" excuses and expect us to give you the ususal "knee jerk" reaction. You are so predictable.

and the link you provide. You should be ashamed of yourself, believing something so intellectually lazy from the writers.

You are assuming, along with them, that progress is only good, when it is 100% good. In other words, absolutes. If that be the case, then NOTHING is considered progress and good.

And note the people who wrote this intellectually vacuous article.



Redefining Progress? Is that another phrase for "Revisionism"? If the current language does not fit our desires, then let's change it to suit. Just as the ACLU. If we do not approve of society as we would like, then let's change it, by all means.

Griz, the more you wiggle and squirm, the more you are stuck in your own "tarbaby". I am not suggesting that you simply shut up, but one form of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over, getting the same result, but always expecting different results. I would finally give up and leave. However, suit yourself. We always need something to show others as an example of what NOT to become. You are your own worst enemy.

BTY Griz, are you paying on a mortgage? Do you have any credit cards that are not paid up each month? Because, if you do, you are living down to the very tenents that those sterling authors are railing about.

I wonder if they have a mortgage. Are they perhaps a bit overweight? I wonder. Surely, they would not be anything like that which they complain about, now would they?

Would they Griz? If you were the true Christian that you have claimed, then you would know that the Old and New Testiament has much to say about hypocrites.

The GDP Myth Why "growth" isn't always a good thing

March 1999 - Volume 31 Issue 3

“The President's State of the Union Address was a case in point.”(Speaking of and about President Clinton whose only claim to fame for 8 years was a robust economy principled in the policies of the previous Republican administration and carried for in unquestionable results of the “Contract with America” policies that lead to great growth, increased government revenues, lesser spending and a lessening debt and the Governmental deficits for that era.

All of which began a progressive decline in 2000 and culminated into, next the Market crash of 1932, as one of the worst economic impacting events in American History September 11, 2001.

The authors, in this first part of the article, follow up with the same anti-growth anti-globalization rhetoric exampled through out the piece.

"We can't know whether an "expansion" is good or not unless we know what it includes.”

An opine of constipated conjecture predicated on a dogma embedded within the mindset of these types, that human Growth and the economics that go hand and hand with are not essential nor a positive but a negative endeavor.

It leaves unanswered as to who has the right to decide if the next generation of either the haves or have not is not equally entitled to what it wants to accomplish in fulfilling their own desires of personal microeconomic growth that transforms in its totality, to local, State, national and then international macroeconomics of that generation.

The next diatribe of conjectured opine in the article retorts as if in absolute truism. “Cut through the boosterism and hysterics, and growth means simply "spending more money." It makes no difference where the money goes, and why. As long as the people spend more of it, the economy is said to "grow."

The authors leave conveniently out the impacting consquences of that ideal in the human environments, where mankind is a growth machine, and where that human groeth is the engine of the economy of expansion. It is not a extravgance but is necessary. If the author theories are relevant and substantial someone decides who gets a lessening supply of goods and services and who does not. Something author assume is a positive proposition that is not.



This graph
(based on data from the UN Long-Range World Population Projections, 1991)

gives 5 estimates of the growth of the world population from now until 2150, assuming that TFRs decline from the 1991 value of 3.4 to the values shown. A consensus?T

The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that: ·

The world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century reaching a peak of some 9 billion (up from today's 6.5 billion) and then perhaps declining in the waning years of this century.

The last 70 years of the 20th century saw the biggest increase in the world's population in human history.
The following table shows when each billion milestone was met:·

1 billion reached in 1802.

2 billion reached in 1927.

3 billion reached in 1961.

4 billion reached in 1974.

5 billion reached in 1987.

6 billion reached in 1999.

6.5 Billion Oct 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2119rank.html

This is the necessity of economic expansion and that spending Griz and the author are so abhorrent to. Yet to which we all are interpendently interactively desirous of. The requirement to create the jobs for expaneding population, the world over, that feeds poor nations and rich nations with the very economies of necessary for its generation.

Again more ideals of unfounded principles that have severe consequences, the narrow mindedness of the theory leaves unwitting and unfulfilled as to consquences and any solution.

Like ideal of Peace and a lack of war or demise of the evil and badness within man, for those adopted as their mantra of life, an always desirable, but seldom concievable as to practical ways or methods of providing real solutions that have any reasonable expected outcomes of possibility in the current era we live in.

China Tried punishment with their one baby, only policy left undefined and unattended a cultural phenomena whereby in most subcultures of China, a male child is more desirable than a female. Thusly females were aborted at extremely high rates leaving China with an over abundance of males and a still rapidly out of control population.

This sequence of events is significant mainly for this reason -- the one-child policy wasn’t adopted by China until 1979, yet China’s huge fertility drop occurred between 1970 and 1979 when live births fell from 34 per 1,000 people to 18 per 1,000 people. Since the introduction of the one-child policy in 1979, there has been no large drop in fertility and in fact China experienced a slight increase fluctuating around 21 births per 1,000 people in the 1980s

(Tien, et al 1992, pp.6-8). As Tien, et al put it, the impact of the one-child policy has been minimal:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Populati...fic/1246731.stm

Thusly without the spending of the west’s and other consumers, the issues the authors leave void, unanswered and unattended in this anti-growth diatribe convenently voild of solution and consequencial outcomes, leaves one wondering of the consquences and outcomes if that view where creditable in the real world.

For example how would it effect countries like China and India and or many other nations with rapidly expanding populations? Would a retreat in consumption and economic expansion leave them unaffected by this absolute fallacious idioms that are expressed by the authors and the poster?

Does it, consumption and spending, not follow with the creation of desperately needed jobs of economic expansion for all countries and their people’s needs in rapidly growing population.

On the most significant order of impact if you want to stop spending and expansion, the diatrube a solution for the population explosion of himans first and foremost then the others may have a chance to follow maybe!!!

So you see spending and economic expansion can be viewed equally, as not evil and or undesirable as the authors and posters would surmise, but as yet another form of the rich helping the poor, as it offers opportunities that would go unfulfilled, if these authored purveyors of a narrowly assumed constipation of realities impact and most of all of their void of understanding of consquences and solution presents.

THA T
IS
ALL!

Redefining Progress! Give me a break! Great spin, John.

Anyways, what you and trader do not understand is, the bills that come at people --or at leat most people -- excedes the actual cash that they have in their pockets at any given time.

It just goes to show you who benefits from this, the-economy-is-doing-ok-because-the-GDP-is-doing-great-thing. And this sure would not be the working man.

It sure is a bad thing to not own a pot to urinate in and a window to throw it out of.

Oh well! Good luck on saving money to purchase that house that people rent from the bank; saving for young childrens education; saving for peoples retirement!

I wonder if the people, and our government, will ever catch up to debt?

Too bad USA will default on is loans. China can destroy USA without even sending one missile across because of the loans it has with that country alone, not including Japan and others.

Exxon is doing well, forget the fact that the USA auto industry is about to tank.

booollaaaaalooooguh booooollllaaaalooooooguh

###### Gizzard. Great post. Couldn't agree with you more. And I'm pissed with this economy. If things were being run right I would be making 7 figures, have 3 Hummers in a 4 car garage and have a plasma TV in every room. AND only be working 25 hours a week. I guess people like JohnL and ustrader are living in some dreamland. If only Kerry had won...................................

????? How would they destroy us? If we were to default, it might destroy Chinas economy. Presumably, no one would want to buy new bonds so we would need to cut back by 3% next year. Easily done since we wouldnt be paying any interest on those old bonds.
English lit. right? MARK

Liberal Larry AKA the land oz.


A dog is smart enough, though obvious you and the president of Iran are not, to know that if it bites the hand that feeds it ithe outcome is not pleasant in outcome.

It is, in doing that, a dog but doomed to be but a scavenger for mere survival and or and a predictor of its own death.

Preliminary estimates show that China's gross domestic product (GDP) totaled 10.63 trillion yuan (1.3 trillion US dollars)



To whom is the more dependent and most at risk should be your inquiry of inanity hey!

First all oz, if you knew anything about Finance that would be a miracle.

If the tumblers fail, you, no matter who you are, will be directly effected in world recession that would follow. It will not be an isolated act exclusively demurred to the United States and no one else. H e l l you feed your family off the United States and 8 out of 10 Canukes are directly or indirectly making a living off the very existence of the USA nimrod…

Likewise, there is a theory of economics that has become more and more relevant in this world of interdependent globalization, call the “to big to allow to fail syndrome.”

A Bond holder who would act to cash bonds on the USA, is one, first and foremost, subject the demeanor of the bond issuers ability and willingness to pay. Particularly if that act would put the issuer in jeopardy of surviving the impact of such actions. They could end up the zero if they impact to far.

Furthermore, this action would not occur in a Financial vacuum. A bankrupt USA will thunder world wide, leaving no one untouched, like the largest economic tsunami the world could ever imagined.

Bond holders currencies and economies world wide would end up with nothing or painfully diminished as a nation. You would be without job. Canada would crumble into dust as its vastly largest trading partner sinks. You would be lucky to be able to feed yourself much less you family hey mate! Hey mate Ford mat send you packing soon anyway like they and VW, GM have done in Europe Hey!

Now I Know you and the President of Iran are that stupid and maybe a few others of the area are as well.

But the intelligent understanding of international trade is a knowledge of its translucently interdependence among the nations of the world. Where one feeds the other so that with the one hand, a nation, like china, sells to the USA, obtain its currency, increase its employment, resources and importantly infrastructure that translate into a better standard of living for its people and with the other, a Nation, like China, buys either services, products and or bonds or if not so incline, reflects upon themselves, an imbalance of unfairness. A cause of action not conducive for anyone to trade with them.

If your hope for this continuing masturbating desire for the demise of USA were fulfilled. The world, as you know it, would not go untouched and or suffer as much or more than those you wish to destroy.

But again Stupidity has been a hallmark so far. Hey mate!

Table 1: China's (Trade Balance )with the World($ billion)
Note: PRC exports reported on a FOB basis; imports on a CIF basisSource: PRC General Administration of Customs, China's Customs Statistics

1999-29.2

2000-24.1

2001-22.5

2002-30.4

2003-25.5

2004-20.8

Table 4: China's Top Trade Partners Jan.-Nov. 2004($ Billion)
Source: PRC General Administration of Customs, China's Customs Statistics
United States-- 152.6 (22.1%)

Japan-- 151.5 (21.9%)

Hong Kong-- 99.9 (13.45%) * (40% of which goes to USA)

South Korea-- 81.4l

Taiwan—70.9 (10.26%)

Germany--48.9

Singapore—23.9

Malaysia—23.8

Russia—19.3

Netherlands—19.0

Total –691.2

China's Trade with the United States ($ billion)
Source: US International Trade Commission, US Department of Commerce

1999—74.7

2000-91.3

2001-90.2

2002-111.4

2003-134.9

2004-160.3





Just what is p i s sing you off about the economy? That kidney stone of self induced creation you pain and pine about?

If you are not getting 7 figure income and all the other stuff you obviously see as dream material.

Whose fault is that, someone else, no doubt, could not be any obvious reflection on your abilities and or capabilities could it. Failure is always some else fault!

Right got be hey!

I mean, really if you could not succeed in the economy of the last 13 years, 8 with Clinton and the Contract for America Republicans, the high water mark of economic prosperity, you never would have, could and will be able to, ever.

We have never had more billionaires and or millionaires in numbers and wealth created in that 13 years in our history. We have never had more private employers hiring more workers than during this 13 years. We have never had more people owning their homes than in this 13 years. Nor have we ever had more wealth generation than in the last 13 years. One in the stock market of the last 13 years that was astutely aware and conservative in their risk averting demeanor could have made a bundle as some of us did in these 13 years.

You look to the outside for achievements as to what can only be achieved by what is on the inside of you.

Or, you have unreasonable and unattainable goals that your realty would clearly dictate where not feasible nor practical as economic outcomes for you.

Over expectation of outcome and achievement are even worst that under expectation of the likewise.

Do not look to others for your lack of achievement and outcome, for its lack, is self evident in you, the choices you have made, and who you are, as much, if not more, than as anything else at all.

I have been disabled 50% more in years than I was able. I worked very hard and retired at 45 exclusive of any disability income. I am mixed but legally a minority, came from the undisputed poorest region in America, Appalachia. I know unadulterated poverty and lack of opportunity as good as anyone I surmise. I have seen many more disadvantaged than I climb to the high hills of their desires. Not by seeking others to offer the ladder to do so. But in their building the ladder step by step with the sweat and fortitude born of focused desire and unbridled determination.

So don’t whine to me you can not get ahead cause BIG BROTHER is holding you back. That is a pathetic lame excuse that is nothing more than your fault derived from the decision you have or have not made.

Opportunity is nothing but a strong character, focused desire and unwavering determination to adapt and overcome any and all obstacles in your way.


THA T
IS
ALL!

May I use that for my sig?

It is a free world, oops my bad, a free country I live in and I hope you do to.

I would add, for effect, --non-english speaking stupid, ignorant, moron, though, as it gives it flavor, like tabsoco sauce hey!


THA T
IS
ALL!

Thanks trader. BTW, I'm on your side. My post was a satirical FU to Gizzard.

Roger that! not paying attention as I should, dream state and the drugs you know...

THA T
IS
ALL!

Well, you're the expert on revisioinism, Mr. "Classic Liberal," who calls liberals fascists.
What a hypocrite.

Not without destroying China as well.

And that, kiddies, is called Globalization.

Its not sustainable. What fool will continue to give loans knowing it will never be paid back. In the mafia world (which is how gov't work), the loaner will break the arms of the guy in debt. China can withstand a severe economic down turn, USA on the other hand, cannot.

Of course not, you dunce! But you ARE the leading contender for "Village Idiot" here, along with the "Orosbu pitchi".

You really don't get out of your play pen much huh Ozmoses??? You have idea how much and how often this has been exclaimed over the last 60 Years.

A house card it may be but on top of the stack is much of the world who will tumble as much if not more so into the falling satck of cards should it come down.

You and all around will face a particularly hard and tramatic fall indeed if it comes to pass. Again one hand feeds the other as does the egg and and chicken in recycling evolution.

An egg is an egg until it becomes a chicken. Then it is yet but a part of an egg, the laying and hatching part, yet a part nevertheless. Hey! My assembly line Kanuke pretender..


As of October 2005, the total government debt is approximately $8.0 trillion, i.e. $8,000,000,000,000.

Two main categories:

debt held by the public:

Intragovernmental holdings.

Intragovernmental debt includes money for government trust funds, such as pension plans and the debt for social security which is about $1.7 trillion as of May 2005. Overall, intragovernmental holdings account for over $3.1 trillion or [B](38.75%) of the total debt at this time.[/B]

The remaining $4.6 trillion (61.25%) or so has been purchased by the public, including foreign entities.

At the end of 2004, foreign holdings of Treasury debt were $1,886 billion or (23.58%).oreign central banks owned 64% or $1.2070 Trillion percent of the Federal debt held by foreign sources.

The country holding by far the most debt is Japan which held $679 billion or 36% at the end of March, 2005.

In recent years the People's Republic of China has also become a major holder of Treasury debt, holding $223.5 billion or 11.8% at the end of March 2005 [2]

Table 16–1. TRENDS IN FEDERAL DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC
(Dollar amounts in billions)

Year ............................... $ amt....% GDP..Revenues
1946 ............................... 241.9.... 1.8......
1950 ............................... 219.0.... 1.8
1955 ............................... 226.6.... 1.3
1960 ............................... 236.8.... 1.5
1965 ............................... 260.8.... 1.4
1970 ............................... 283.2.... 1.5
1975 ............................... 394.7.... 1.6
1980 ............................... 711.9.... 2.3
1985 ............................... 1,507.3....3.7
1986 ............................... 1,740.6....3.6
1987 ............................... 1,889.8....3.5
1988 ............................... 2,051.6....3.4
1989 ............................... 2,190.7....3.5
1990 ............................... 2,411.6....3.5
1991 ............................... 2,689.0....3.6
1992 ............................... 2,999.7....3.4
1993 ............................... 3,248.4....3.2
1994 ............................... 3,433.1....3.0
1995 ............................... 3,604.4....3.3......1,376
1996 ............................... 3,734.1....3.2......1,487
1997 ............................... 3,772.3....3.1......1,623
1998 ............................... 3,721.1....2.9......1,769
1999 ............................... 3,632.4....2.6......1,904
2000 ............................... 3,409.8....2.4......2,097
2001 ............................... 3,319.6....2.1......2,129
2002 ............................... 3,540.4....1.7......2,017
2003 ............................... 3,913.4....1.5......1,953
2004 ............................... 4,295.5....1.5......2,019
2005 estimate ................ 4,721.2.... 1.5......2,370

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/compliancestat...d=97168,00.html

The buildup and involvement in World War II brought the debt up another order of magnitude from $43 billion in 1940 to $260 billion following the war. After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to skyrocket:

* 1981 $1 trillion
* 1986 $2 trillion
* 1990 $3 trillion
* 1992 $4 trillion
* 1996 $5 trillion
* 2002 $6 trillion
* 2004 $7 trillion
* 2005 $8 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

THA T
IS
ALL!

Isn't Wikipedia great!!!

You got a point here Cashew. Other then the one on the top of your hat.

Se! We! It is A source, when it is accurate and not misleading though it usually places a disclaimers on controversial posts and links there and often has them.





THA T
IS
ALL!