U.S. Economy Unexpectedly Contracts in Fourth Quarter

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#2 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -
thanks alot, government spending cuts....
#3 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

thanks alot, government spending cuts....comp_atkins
Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

#4 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
It's Bush's fault.
#5 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
It's Bush's fault.DaBrainz
Either that or global warming.
#6 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]thanks alot, government spending cuts....KC_Hokie

Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

yup. and how important govt spending actually is to the economy...

#7 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]It's Bush's fault.KC_Hokie
Either that or global warming.

Nah the economy is just racist.
#8 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6248 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]thanks alot, government spending cuts....comp_atkins

Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

yup. and how important govt spending actually is to the economy...

We shouldn't even be in that position.

The govt should not be the economy.

The economy should be the economy.

#9 Posted by _BlueDuck_ (11986 posts) -

mV6adpD.gif

Way to go

#10 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -
We need to sell more guns to make up the difference.
#11 Posted by Serraph105 (27822 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]thanks alot, government spending cuts....KC_Hokie

Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts? Edit oh and I certainly remember people predicting that spending cuts would hurt the economy in the short term.
#12 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

ZombieKiller7

yup. and how important govt spending actually is to the economy...

We shouldn't even be in that position.

The govt should not be the economy.

The economy should be the economy.

maybe so, but that is not the situation we're currently in.
#13 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]thanks alot, government spending cuts....Serraph105

Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts?

Shows how artificial government spending is. Pretty sad once the borrowing and printing slowed slightly the GDP went down.
#14 Posted by Wasdie (49628 posts) -

So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts? Edit oh and I certainly remember people predicting that spending cuts would hurt the economy in the short term. Serraph105

A small reduction in GDP growth dues to cuts in direct government spending is much better than continually adding to a massive deficit.

You have to waneyourself off of government spending though. Cutting it all at once would end up devastating the economy. This is why it was so important to find a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. Where government spending would drop radically and taxes would increase. It would be a doubly whammy blow to the economy. Add the mass paranoia caused by our major media and the subsequent fluctuations of the stock market that ripple throughout all investments, and it would cause a massive collapse overnight.

#15 Posted by Serraph105 (27822 posts) -

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts? Edit oh and I certainly remember people predicting that spending cuts would hurt the economy in the short term. Wasdie

A small reduction in GDP growth dues to cuts in direct government spending is much better than continually adding to a massive deficit.

I'm honestly not trying to be a d!ck with this question, but are you arguing that this reduction in the economy is a good thing? Sincere question.
#16 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts? Edit oh and I certainly remember people predicting that spending cuts would hurt the economy in the short term. Serraph105

A small reduction in GDP growth dues to cuts in direct government spending is much better than continually adding to a massive deficit.

I'm honestly not trying to be a d!ck with this question, but are you arguing that this reduction in the economy is a good thing? Sincere question.

If the government money that was propping up the 'recovery' was borrowed and printed....and that slowed....yea that's a good thing.

Like putting a band-aid on a wound that needs stitches.

#17 Posted by _BlueDuck_ (11986 posts) -

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Pretty sad in the 4th quarter, which includes the holidays, a slight decrease in government activity caused a GDP reduction.

No one expected that. Shows how weak the recovery is.

KC_Hokie

So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts?

Shows how artificial government spending is. Pretty sad once the borrowing and printing slowed slightly the GDP went down.

Of course it did. The US government is not "the economy", rather, it's the largest customer in the economy. So yes, if you want the economy's largest customer to stop participating in the economy, your GDP is going to suffer (and thus employment along with it).

#18 Posted by Wasdie (49628 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts? Edit oh and I certainly remember people predicting that spending cuts would hurt the economy in the short term. Serraph105

A small reduction in GDP growth dues to cuts in direct government spending is much better than continually adding to a massive deficit.

I'm honestly not trying to be a d!ck with this question, but are you arguing that this reduction in the economy is a good thing? Sincere question.

No drop in the economy is a good thing, but continuing to add trillions onto a deficit is even worse. Lesser of two evils really.

You cannot keep deficit spending just to keep the GPD increasing. That will backfire and eventually everybody will be screwed over because of it. We may already be passed the point of no return with us screwing ourselves over. Our deficit is massive and continues to skyrocket.

Spending only should be a short-term solution, and when the economy starts to recover, you're supposed to stop the spending and even raise taxes a little where appropriate. Or at the very least, drop spending to a point where you're making surplus tax revenue off of your existing taxes.

#19 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] So.......a reduction in government spending caused this? Remind me again who was pushing hard for spending cuts?_BlueDuck_

Shows how artificial government spending is. Pretty sad once the borrowing and printing slowed slightly the GDP went down.

Of course it did. The US government is not "the economy", rather, it's the largest customer in the economy. So yes, if you want the economy's largest customer to stop participating in the economy, your GDP is going to suffer (and thus employment along with it).

Government spending is at near record highs as a percentage of GDP. That money is primarily borrowed or printed out of thin air.

Again, totally artificial.

#20 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -
this is why the stupidity of our elected leaders is mind boggling. on the one hand they're screaming about cutting spending and on the other and they're screaming about things being "job killing" and how they have to be avoided. cutting spending is job killing..
#21 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

this is why the stupidity of our elected leaders is mind boggling. on the one hand they're screaming about cutting spending and on the other and they're screaming about things being "job killing" and how they have to be avoided. cutting spending is job killing.. comp_atkins
Government spending isn't growth and doesn't grow wealth.

It's completely artificial, borrowed and printed out of thin air. The second that tap got turned down the GDP slowed. And that's because government spending is far too high as a percentage of GDP.

#22 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

Impeach Obama.

#23 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]this is why the stupidity of our elected leaders is mind boggling. on the one hand they're screaming about cutting spending and on the other and they're screaming about things being "job killing" and how they have to be avoided. cutting spending is job killing.. KC_Hokie

Government spending isn't growth and doesn't grow wealth.

It's completely artificial, borrowed and printed out of thin air. The second that tap got turned down the GDP slowed. And that's because government spending is far too high as a percentage of GDP.

i'm not disagreeing.. i'm saying the same idiots that are screaming to cut spending are screaming we can't be job killing..... you can't be both. maybe i'm missing the subtlety.. maybe they really mean "cut the spending i don't care about and don't kill the jobs i do care about"..
#24 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -
#25 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]this is why the stupidity of our elected leaders is mind boggling. on the one hand they're screaming about cutting spending and on the other and they're screaming about things being "job killing" and how they have to be avoided. cutting spending is job killing.. comp_atkins

Government spending isn't growth and doesn't grow wealth.

It's completely artificial, borrowed and printed out of thin air. The second that tap got turned down the GDP slowed. And that's because government spending is far too high as a percentage of GDP.

i'm not disagreeing.. i'm saying the same idiots that are screaming to cut spending are screaming we can't be job killing..... you can't be both. maybe i'm missing the subtlety.. maybe they really mean "cut the spending i don't care about and don't kill the jobs i do care about"..

I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid.
#26 Posted by Aljosa23 (24747 posts) -

Mitt Romney is the new US President.

#27 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Government spending isn't growth and doesn't grow wealth.

It's completely artificial, borrowed and printed out of thin air. The second that tap got turned down the GDP slowed. And that's because government spending is far too high as a percentage of GDP.

KC_Hokie

i'm not disagreeing.. i'm saying the same idiots that are screaming to cut spending are screaming we can't be job killing..... you can't be both. maybe i'm missing the subtlety.. maybe they really mean "cut the spending i don't care about and don't kill the jobs i do care about"..

I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid.

who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

#28 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] i'm not disagreeing.. i'm saying the same idiots that are screaming to cut spending are screaming we can't be job killing..... you can't be both. maybe i'm missing the subtlety.. maybe they really mean "cut the spending i don't care about and don't kill the jobs i do care about".. comp_atkins

I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid.

who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

#29 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid. KC_Hokie

who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

Didn't you promise to leave this site if obama won the election?

#30 Posted by sSubZerOo (43075 posts) -
#31 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

One data point makes the trend. Hokie is king of this.

#32 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

One data point makes the trend. Hokie is king of this.

jimkabrhel
Data comes from the Department of Commerce.
#33 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
It's not real growth just a band-aid. KC_Hokie
By that same logic this isn't a real contraction. You can't have it both ways.
#34 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid. KC_Hokie

who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

Your knowledge of economics is on par with your polling analysis
#35 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I think people are saying cut the spending and artificial jobs that come with that spending. It's not real growth just a band-aid. KC_Hokie

who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

i don't think funding for government programs is broken down by % of funding based on tax revenue vs. funding which was borrowed. and even if it were, then there would have to be a method to determine which programs are funded by tax revenue and which are funded via borrowing. so again, who arbitrates that?
#36 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] It's not real growth just a band-aid. -Sun_Tzu-
By that same logic this isn't a real contraction. You can't have it both ways.

It's a real contraction based on GDP. GDP is a flawed measurement since GNP is more accurate. Governments love to use GDP because it includes various levels of government spending which makes growth appear better than it was.

It's artificial government spending, printing and borrowing either way with GDP.

#37 Posted by KingKinect (540 posts) -

I'm no economic expert but won't banning guns and granting amnesty be fixing this soon anyway? No need to be alarmist it's only the GDP. It's not as if we are talking about the entire economy here just the GDP.

#38 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] who is the arbiter of an "artificial job"? if it allows a person to shelter and feed their family, to them that job is pretty damn real.

comp_atkins

If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

i don't think funding for government programs is broken down by % of funding based on tax revenue vs. funding which was borrowed. and even if it were, then there would have to be a method to determine which programs are funded by tax revenue and which are funded via borrowing. so again, who arbitrates that?

Doesn't really matter where the money came from since we never had it. It's borrowed or printed out of thin air.
#39 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

I'm no economic expert but won't banning guns and granting amnesty be fixing this soon anyway? No need to be alarmist it's only the GDP. It's not as if we are talking about the entire economy here just the GDP.

KingKinect
Not sure what you mean by 'entire economy' but the GDP is what is used to determine a country's entire economy. The stock market is a measure of the private economy (which is growing by the way like it always does after recessions).
#40 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] It's not real growth just a band-aid. KC_Hokie

By that same logic this isn't a real contraction. You can't have it both ways.

It's a real contraction based on GDP. GDP is a flawed measurement since GNP is more accurate. Governments love to use GDP because it includes various levels of government spending which makes growth appear better than it was.

It's artificial government spending, printing and borrowing either way with GDP.

lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

#41 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
The stock market is a measure of the private economy (which is growing by the way like it always does after recessions).KC_Hokie
LOL
#42 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

For reference, since looking at a single data point is never much use.

united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq

#43 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] By that same logic this isn't a real contraction. You can't have it both ways. -Sun_Tzu-

It's a real contraction based on GDP. GDP is a flawed measurement since GNP is more accurate. Governments love to use GDP because it includes various levels of government spending which makes growth appear better than it was.

It's artificial government spending, printing and borrowing either way with GDP.

lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

When government spending is such a high percentage of the economy and that money is borrowed or printed out of thin air...that's totally artificial regardless of whether GDP goes up or down. It's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian economic theory....what happens when you have to level off that government spending? If your private sector isn't strong or a high enough percentage of the economy your GDP drops.
#44 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

For reference, since looking at a single data point is never much use.jimkabrhel

Yea....it was the Department of Commerce that provided that data. And it was totally unexpected for the GDP to drop DURING the holiday quarter. Almost never happens.

#45 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's a real contraction based on GDP. GDP is a flawed measurement since GNP is more accurate. Governments love to use GDP because it includes various levels of government spending which makes growth appear better than it was.

It's artificial government spending, printing and borrowing either way with GDP.

KC_Hokie

lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

When government spending is such a high percentage of the economy and that money is borrowed or printed out of thin air...that's totally artificial regardless of whether GDP goes up or down. It's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian economic theory....what happens when you have to level off that government spending? If your private sector isn't strong or a high enough percentage of the economy your GDP drops.

Didnt you promise to leave the site if obama won the election?

#46 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The stock market is a measure of the private economy (which is growing by the way like it always does after recessions).-Sun_Tzu-
LOL

What's incorrect about that statement?
#47 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

tenaka2

When government spending is such a high percentage of the economy and that money is borrowed or printed out of thin air...that's totally artificial regardless of whether GDP goes up or down. It's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian economic theory....what happens when you have to level off that government spending? If your private sector isn't strong or a high enough percentage of the economy your GDP drops.

Didnt you promise to leave the site if obama won the election?

I did for several weeks. Guy I made bet with said it was over.
#48 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's a real contraction based on GDP. GDP is a flawed measurement since GNP is more accurate. Governments love to use GDP because it includes various levels of government spending which makes growth appear better than it was.

It's artificial government spending, printing and borrowing either way with GDP.

KC_Hokie

lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

When government spending is such a high percentage of the economy and that money is borrowed or printed out of thin air...that's totally artificial regardless of whether GDP goes up or down. It's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian economic theory....what happens when you have to level off that government spending? If your private sector isn't strong or a high enough percentage of the economy your GDP drops.

Don't implement austerity when the economy is weak and you won't have any problems. We don't need to level off government spending right now.
#49 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] If the funding for that job is borrowed and/or printed out of thin air it's an artificial job. The source of the funding is artificial.

And the number of new federal jobs under Obama has grown significantly.

KC_Hokie
i don't think funding for government programs is broken down by % of funding based on tax revenue vs. funding which was borrowed. and even if it were, then there would have to be a method to determine which programs are funded by tax revenue and which are funded via borrowing. so again, who arbitrates that?

Doesn't really matter where the money came from since we never had it. It's borrowed or printed out of thin air.

what are you talking about?
#50 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] lol

so when GDP grows that's fake because "artificial" money was put into the economy

and when GDP contracts that's real beause this same "artificial" money was taken out of the economy

it might be easier to just accept keynesian economics, that way you won't have to subject your feeble little brain to such tortured logic

-Sun_Tzu-

When government spending is such a high percentage of the economy and that money is borrowed or printed out of thin air...that's totally artificial regardless of whether GDP goes up or down. It's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian economic theory....what happens when you have to level off that government spending? If your private sector isn't strong or a high enough percentage of the economy your GDP drops.

Don't implement austerity when the economy is weak and you won't have any problems. We don't need to level off government spending right now.

We can't afford the level of government spending. The vast majority of that money is either borrowed or printed out of thin air. Our debt is already out of control from money we've already spent and are now having to pay interest on.

That's the ultimate flaw of the Keynesian model. Only works ok when you're not in debt and other currencies are weak. The second one of those goes out of wack you are screwed and the model fails.