RUH-ROH, ECONOMY …
The U.S. economy shrunk by a whopping 2.9 percent during the first quarter of 2014, according to revised figures released this week by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
That shrinkage is nearly three times as large as the most recent estimate, which revealed a one percent contraction …
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s the worst gross domestic product (GDP) reading since the first quarter of 2009 – when the Great Recession was announcing its presence with authority. It also makes it all but impossible for the economy to achieve the 2-3 percent annual growth central planners were projecting for 2014. Hell … at this point 1.5 percent annual growth is looking optimistic.
Wall Street was undeterred, though … stocks climbed in response to the news and the bailout recipients toasted better times to come.
“We caution against reading too much into the weakness, as it is clear that special factors during the quarter distorted growth,” Bank of America’s Ethan Harris said, adding that “the severe winter weather weighed heavily on consumption, fixed investment and trade.”
That’s true … (just don’t tell the global warming Nazis).
But even if Bank of America’s projection of four percent growth in the second quarter (a.k.a. the “pent-up demand” theory) is accurate, the economy is still not expanding fast enough to accommodate all the people who need jobs.
Which is the real problem …
Without a steady increase in jobs (to keep track of population growth and employ all those who have lost jobs during the downturn), the consumer economy will never recover. In fact, the BEA specifically singled out a “smaller than previously estimated” increase in personal consumption expenditures as one of the main contributing factors in the latest downward GDP revision.
Oh, it’s also worth noting that every other GDP reading this bad has been equated with an economic recession … which is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction.
What does global warming nazis even mean? It is one of the weirder insults that right wing commies have come up with
don’t get that either. maybe he means the nazis were eventually vindicated after enduring years of conservative criticism?
maybe he means the nazis were eventually vindicated after enduring years of conservative criticism?
…or maybe he meant that the NAZIs were a bunch of power hungry bastards who used questionable scientific theories to almost destroy civilization?
You’re an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeediot, babe…..
(Not you, idiotwind…you’ve just got that song stuck in TBG’s head….again.)
They have to compare people that disagree with them to something that they view as horrific, such as Communists or Nazis.
Remember, there’s no scientific proof that
radium paint is extremely hazardous to your health cigarettes cause lung cancer vaccines do not actually cause autismCO2 emissions cause climate issues, and rest assured some industry-paid clod with his own vested interest in lying to you will show you a “study” that proves everything is A-OK!
Science skepticism is cool, kids!
Climate Issues, I like it! You may be on to something there, climate issues, like the “climate is bound to change” (just as it has throughout geologic history…)
hey! its just ‘teaching the controversy’. kids need to know that there are actually 2 completely true explanations to every profitable dilemma.
“Well, sir, I know your doctor says that tons of peer reviewed research shows this expensive medicine we don’t want to have to pay for will cure your cancer, but I have a study right here from a group we pay that says it actually gives you ultracancer! Clearly the science isn’t settled, right? You don’t want ultracancer, right?”
This is the same science that warned of the coming ice age in the 1970s.
if the market went up on this news, then the free market says this is good news. are you a free market ideologue or aren’t you? make up your fucking mind.
Bad economic news is always good for the markets. It means the Fed will continue dropping free cash on Wall Street.
The consumer economy is dead because the the middle class is broke. The Republican’s three decade long war to increase the middle class’ share of the tax burden while simultaneously cutting programs that benefit them; all so the country can afford corporate welfare and tax cuts for top 3%, has succeeding in exhausting their wealth. The middle class has no money to spend, so no consumption. That is not going to change until we have a government that is working to improve the lot of the average American, instead of working for Corporations and super wealthy donors.
So taxing the rich fixes everything?
Funny thing about increasing taxes on the rich — they just leave. They can, they’re rich! Then guess what that does to the poor sods left behind. (See Detroit.)
No they won’t. I say give it a shot and lets see. Because the so called conservatives always over estimate what they pay in tax and underestimate the benefits they receive from government. The rich in this country benefit far more from government than the poor. There is no place they can go where they have it better than here.
And if they leave the country that made them rich, I say good riddance, we will get by without you, and we will survive and probably do better. The US would be far better off if the Koch Brothers left the country, but I am betting if we move the tax rate back to where it was under Clinton when the economy was booming, and we were paying off the deficit they will stay right were they are.
“they just leave”
Tom’s an idiot. That’s EXACTLY what I’m ready to do if anything gets squirrely here. I’ve got the means and I have no problem taking an extended vacation while those screaming “eat the rich” suffer for their stupidity.
Don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out. Ingreat. What will we all do without you? I guess we will just have to suffer through. Just promise you want be back.
Perfect. Not only do you miss the point, but you do so in a manner that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you are an idiot.
Everyone who lives in this country should be grateful this country offers them all the opportunities it does to become wealthy. I am. I am not a member of the super rich, but I am well off. You could never have made as much in another country as you made in this country. If you are not appreciative, so be it. Try living in some other country and you will see. Of course you will be fine because you will take all the money you earned here and live on that.
You are simply demonstrating your own sociopathic tendencies. So if you can’t keep increasing your own profits at a cost to everyone else, you’ll leave?
When a company turns a profit good enough to pay bonuses to management, is it reasonable to expect employees to receive a raise? What about when management gets a bonus and employee benefits are slashed? Ever wonder why corporate espionage is so successful? Screw employees, and they WILL find a way to screw the company. Something as small as theft by employees to selling company secrets, it comes from how companies treat employees. Does management acknowledge it? No, why should they? It isn’t the ’50s or ’60s anymore. They no longer consider loyal employees a resource. Just look at what happened to retiring from companies, or even longevity.
And we should eliminate the tax breaks companies get for off-shoring. You shouldn’t be able to claim to be a US company if everything is overseas.
You’re the kind of guy who would burn to death in a car because I couldn’t get to you safely (have to watch out for myself just like you).
No one said taxing the rich will fix everything. Taxing the Middle Class more and the rich less makes things worse. The tax rate on the richest americans is at a 50 year low, while the overall wealth of the richest americans is at almost a century high. On the other side, the overall tax rate on the average American i.e. the Middle Class has gone up and benefits designed to help them prepare for when they are too old and too sick to work are under constant attack. They have no more to give.
Cutting taxes on the rich does not fix everything either. But you guys can’t see anything except what you are told by Fox.
If rich folks aren’t hiring, how does taking away their money help?
That is such a cliche. Rich people do not create jobs. They invest money in the stock market. Corporations and entrepreneurs that produce goods and sell services create the jobs; and they will only create those jobs if there is someone to buy the goods or services they produce. Therefore it is the consumer, i.e. the Middle Class, that creates the jobs by buying goods people produce. As long as they can buy, people will produce and jobs will be created. Kill the middle class and you kill they country. You are seeing that happen right now, by your trickle down BS that has never worked
your trickle down BS…
If by “trickle down BS” you mean “politically-correct welfare/warfare state”, you are absolutely correct.
Buy trickle down BS, I mean the theory that making the rich richer is the road to national prosperity. That we can pay the deficit by cutting taxes on rich people, increasing taxes on everyone else,and gutting programs designed to provide income security in old age for the middle class.
If by “trickle down BS” you mean “politically-correct CORPORATE welfare/warfare state”, you are absolutely correct.
There, fixed it for ya.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but the entrepreneurs and the investors funding the startups that create jobs are all rich folks. They won’t be able to create more jobs if you take more of their money away from them.
Boy have you drunk the Koch Brothers, Fox News coolaid. Why don’t we just eliminate all taxes on the top 3% and in return they will supply unlimited jobs. Maybe they will let us mow their lawns.
Entrepreneurs are not all rich, most are small business owners. 90% of small business owners make less than $250k a year. These are the people whose share of the taxes are going up. These are the primary startup job creators.
The other job creators are large corporations. These companies produce and sell goods and sell services. To make money they need people who can buy those goods and services. They need a vibrant middle class.
As for financing start ups. I call BS. The top 3% of this country are richer than they have ever been. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of stock in companies who are in turn sitting on trillions of dollars in cash they do not know what to do with. Increasing taxes on the wealthy to where they were under Clinton, will not reduce the money available for investment. The world is awash in money awaiting profitable investments. If we concentrate on increasing the wealth of the middle class all will benefit, rich, middle class and poor. The proper economic model was never trickle down, it was always trickle up. A vibrant middle class spends money. Money chasing goods produces profit. Profit draws investment.
So how do we increase the wealth of the middle class. We build world class infrastructure, we make our people the most educated people on the planet by providing world class education, we provide world class health care, and we provide adequate economic security against poverty in old age to enable the middle class to take economic risk. To start small businesses and invest in stocks and bonds. Finally we pay down the deficit. The countries who are consistently rated the best countries for business and whose people are the happiest follow this model. And guess what; everyone wants to invest there, despite their higher taxes.
Nice to see another sane commenter on this site. It’s a small club. You are right! Most jobs are created by small and medium size business.
” It’s a small club.”
He’s got 11 thumbs up. So it’s bigger than my club…using your criteria maybe I’m the sane one.
Da Plane! Da Plane!
The top 3% in this country generally don’t pay taxes because they’ve placed their wealth in tax-deferred and tax-free investment arrangements. I’m nowhere near the top 3% but even the majority of my wealth is compounding completely tax-free. So you can raise taxes all you want — it’s not going to effect me and it certainly isn’t going to effect to the top 3%.
The only thing a tax increase does is make it harder for the startups and the small business owners who derive their wealth from earned income and product sales. Those are the folks who can’t keep their wealth protected in tax-deferred or tax-free investment vehicles. In order for them to build their businesses they have to have access to liquid capital which by its very nature cannot sit in tax-sheltered accounts.
In effect, raising taxes assures that the wealth of the top 3% will STAY in their tax-sheltered accounts, out of the hands of the up-and-comers who desperately need access to that wealth to build and expand their businesses.
You want to build the wealth of the middle class? Why not bring the entry cost of starting a new business down? How do you do that? (Oh, you’re going to LOVE this!) Eliminate the minimum wage and remove government regulatory burdens that make starting a business too costly for the middle class.
No need to rage against this post. I’ve already unsubscribed to the notifications of this article. Just kick back and enjoy your lowest workforce participation rate since Carter and your negative GDP. I’ll sit here by the pool and watch my wealth continue to compound tax-free.
Of course increasing the tax will only effect small business owners if you target them, the way we have been doing for the past 30 years in order to lower taxes on the top 3%. For example moving to a sales tax and cutting income tax shifts more tax to those people.
Of course we now turn to the regulations that make it so expensive. Why doesn’t anyone identify those regulations so we can address them. Its always those regulations. You know the ones I am talking about.
As for the minimum wage, I have no strong feelings about that. I haven’t hired in employee at minimum wage in 20 years. I guess if you want to start a diner that might make it cheaper. But wait staff are already paid well below minimum wage in anticipation of tips. If you are hiring college grads you don’t pay minimum wage. If you want to start a call center, you are never going to be able to pay as little in the US as you do in India. All these clichés from the Fox school of business. You seem stuck in the 2000s.
Oh, and you will get no argument from me that the tax sheltered investments need to go away. The wealthy are not currently paying their fair share of the tax burden. Mitt Romney pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
Don’t whine about quality of service when your house gets robbed…. cops aren’t paid enough to guarantee quality of service that you might expect. And don’t complain about them not caring. You don’t. And it isn’t worth it to them to get injured because then they lose the ability to support their families (Nikki dear cut disability benefits for them).
What is the moral difference between using economic power as a weapon to increase wealth and using a pistol? Seriously?
And the employees who DIDN’T get the five million dollar bonus (revenues weren’t good enough for even a COLA for them) are the ones buying the products. Or not buying the products because they can’t afford them. But not a problem, the rich folks seem to be getting richer.
Once upon a time, you could work hard and save enough money to start your own business. Now? You’re lucky to make enough to pay your bills. Possibly a way to kill competition?
Seriously, why haven’t wages for employees kept up with rate of profits, or maybe increases in management compensation?
God you’re economically stupid!!… “Rich people do not create jobs. They invest money in the stock market. Corporations and entrepreneurs that produce goods and sell services create jobs” There’s so much illogical and wrong with this statement economically that I’m not going to even bother… seriously, either take an Econ 101 and 102 course, or, just STFU.
Another Kochsucker I see. Go back to watching Beck, Rush and Fox. They will make you rich and then you can create jobs. You are truly a clueless fool. Maybe you should take some 501 level economics classes instead of getting your degree from FU. Sorry that’s Fox University.
Anytime you want to debate economics with me, bring it, and let’s cut this anonymous charade BS. Bring your econometrics, I’ll bring mine, and may the best person win. In the meantime, two points.. (1) I don’t buy into Fox neocon economics, and (2) I hope that you’ll do a better job debating than defending an obvious economic idiot, as you’ve done above. Anyone that doesn’t see the relationship between capital formation (stock markets, investment banks, etc) and job formation doesn’t have a great grasp of the economic factors of production. Yes, it is true that local economies don’t rely as heavily on Wall Street type capital requirements – which personally, I think is great. Nevertheless, rest assured that the local shop owners in a local economy are still the wealthiest people in the village.. as they should be since they are risking their own labor, land, and capital,
The stock market is at record highs and corporate profits are at all time highs as well. If your theory is correct why is the economy lagging?
Because the crony capitalism and political pandering – shown in both in US fiscal and monetary policies – that has artificially propped up this economy for so many years (and yep, way before Obama) through massive debt/cheap money is running out of options.
Ummm…. crony capitalism requires…. oh, yeah, businessmen out to increase their own weath at the cost of everyone else. Denying the importance of the market (customers who might also be underpaid employees) doesn’t help the situation.
Yea, I mean everyone bitching should be making out in the stock market, right? If they aren’t, what the fuck is wrong with them?
And they are able to even HAVE the shop because other people risk their LIVES to keep them safe (and the shop owners thank them by demanding cuts in wages and benefits to reduce taxes while increasing prices to increase profits). Let’s see how successful your shop is in a TRULY unregulated society (fires, robberies, ticked-off customers who come back with a pistol). What do I mean by bringing all this up? That there is more to a functioning economy than just the business.
He really is a fucking idiot, I wish he would debate you, but he won’t, because it is obvious he hasn’t any idea what he is talking about.
Actually, He’s got a lot right. Doesn’t matter HOW much supply you have, or how reasonable the price. If people don’t have the means to purchase, then there is no demand. Econ 101. No demand means no sales, and no sales means no production and no jobs.
Funny how rich folk like to try and take fairly simple concepts, throw out the logic while churching up the language, then tell everyone else how they aren’t smart enough to understand. Calling a common cold nasopharyngitis doesn’t change how it makes you feel, or how you treat it.
Please refer to me by my proper title,
Nope. They move everything overseas to maximize profits while blaming the middle class here for everything that goes wrong. Kill the tax benefits corporations receive for being an “American” company simply because they have an office here while the majority of their jobs are overseas.
Why do profits have to increase constantly? years back, consistency in profit was the mark of a solid business -now, management doesn’t worry about being solid, just about increasing profits a few percent to jack up that bonus. It isn’t about the COMPANY anymore, but rather about MANAGEMENT’S BONUSES. That is the real reason our economy tanked…. sociopaths in charge of corporations with no real consequence for actions either illegal or only morally repugnant.
Bad winter, huh? How do you explain Canada’s 2.5% growth in GDP during the same period?
oil. plus canucks don’t stay home just cause its cold out.
Canada has a home field advantage, it’s always winter up there.
Just kidding. I’m glad their socialist health care doesn’t seem to be affecting their GDP, though. :)
And they all come here to get the treatment unavailable to them at home…
absolutely true. 35 million canadians routinely come to the most expensive place in the world to see a doctor instead of seeing one for free. completely predictable human behavior.
Believe what you want.
Most of the research says it is less than even 1% – they say a “tiny sliver” . . .
Or maybe these links . . .
Let’s say it’s 1%, that’s 300,000 border crossings for health care. I wonder how many ‘Mericans go to Canada? Wanna bet it’s less than .01%?
Most of these people commenting haven’t even been to Canada, let alone live there for any time, or they’d realize that medical trips across the border in the border provinces are fairly common by Canadians.
I regularly enjoy an adult beverage with expat Canadian nurses. Appointments must be made for everything and the waits are usually substantial. Both indicate that it isn’t a quality issue but rather an availability issue, there simply isn’t enough resources to go around. The stats bear out that while quality is high, access is an issue.
I have family members that are in the healthcare industry in Canada….aunts & cousins. They all come here to be seen. My aunt, a retired nurse who was in the CHA for 35+ years is one of the strongest opponents to Obamacare that I have met, because she knows what it will lead to.
And here is anti-proof, my brother in law’s mother moved here fifty years ago. All of her family lives in Canada. They don’t come to the US for health care and they are shocked as to how much we pay for health insurance in this country. They would never trade their health system for ours. And by the way every poll done shows Canadians are happier with their health care than Americans are with theirs.
Also, before Bush pushed through Medicare part D, i.e. socialized prescription drug insurance, more Americans went to Canada for a portion of their health care than Canadians came to the US for their health care.
Ask them if the average Canadian would be willing to give up their current health care and pay what Americans do for their health care. Immediate service comes at a pretty high cost. Of course people with government health insurance, would not understand. They already have socialized medicine.
I have “gubamint” health care when I’m deployed, the rest of the time I stroke a check to cover my health care needs. When you have the option of getting it for free most of the time and then slipping across the border to get a service you can’t get at home, I’d suppose most people would go with the free option.
Before Medicare Part D, i.e. socialized prescription drug insurance, way more than 300,000 Americans were going to Canada for a portion of their health care every year.
Buying your drugs from the cheapest vendor does not equal getting your healthcare in a foreign country – just ask T-Rav… Seriously Jan, you raise a good though of the mark point.
Going to Canada to get your drugs because the Canadian Health Care system keeps the cost of drugs low is going to Canada for part of your health care.
Health care for most Americans is composed of three components; hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceuticals. For most Americans pharmaceutical cost is the largest of the three in most years. Before Medicare Part D many Senior Citizens had to choose between drugs and food every month. These people went to Canada because the Canadian health care system allowed them to get their drugs at less cost thus allowing them to spend more on food. I.E. they went to Canada for health care.
The reason we have Medicare part D today is because Big Pharma pressured Bush to end the flow of Americans across the Canadian border to obtain a their prescription drugs. There is absolutely no difference between crossing the border to buy pharmaceuticals and crossing the border to by a knee replacement.
As typical you simply do not want to admit that a socialized medical care program has made life better for most Americans.
“…As typical you simply do not want to admit that a socialized medical care program has made life better for most Americans….
Because – it hasn’t. The only truly socialized medicine in the US is the Indian Health Service and the VA – both programs are disasters. No one in the US “went to Canada” to get health care, they ordered their drugs online because they were cheaper.
Those of us with actual experience in health care insurance actually see a big difference in ordering pharmaceuticals and having knees replaced but go ahead with your pie in the sky ideas.
You said, “No one in the US “went to Canada” to get health care, they ordered their drugs online because they were cheaper.”
Again you are totally wrong!!! Very few seniors were ordering on line in the late 90s and early 2000s. They were taking trips to Canada to pick up prescription drugs. Companies in Seattle, Chicago, and New York were actually organizing weekly bus trips into Canada for seniors to pick up prescription drugs. Others were sending children over the border to pick up drugs. It got so bad at one point several major pharmaceutical companies threatened to stop shipping drugs to Canada pharmacies pharmacies unless they stopped selling to Americans.
So yes more than 366000 people a year were physically crossing the US Canadian border to obtain health care. But go on with your pie in the sky ideas of the utopia of living under the American system of high cost health care with mediocre results.
You said “Those of us with actual experience in health care insurance actually see a big difference in ordering pharmaceuticals and having knees replaced but go ahead with your pie in the sky ideas.”
Of course you do. Because it punches a hole in your assertion, Canadians need to come to the US for health care but Americans don’t need to go to Canada for health care. I actually have quite a bit of experience in health insurance and health care. And I understand what socialized health insurance is. There is no differences here because they are both the same thing. In both cases, someone in need of health care is going to another country to obtain care they cannot obtain in their own country.
Who said a freaking thing about seniors? People going across the border to buy drugs does not equate to seeking “healthcare” across the border.
Of course it does. Getting proper medication is as much a part of health care as seeing doctors. You say the reason people come to the US from Canada for health care is because the Canadian health care system does not provide adequate access to doctors, a part of their health care. I say the reason people were going to Canada to buy drugs, and still do is because the US health care system does not provide adequate access to medication for anyone without prescription drug coverage. For seniors we plugged that hole with Medicare part D. Socialized health insurance to supplement Medicare A & B, Hospitals and Doctors.
Your point was the US health care system is better, as evidenced by the fact some Canadians cross the boarder to get a portion of their health care faster than they can get it in Canada. My argument is that the US system has the same deficits as the Canadian system, just in a different area; and that people have in fact had to cross the border to get health care they could not get in this country. Drugs are part of health care, just like Doctors and Hospitals. In fact it is a bigger part than Doctors.
Oh, and the reason we are talking bout seniors is because those crossing from both sides are largely senior citizens. In Canada access to a doctor or Hospital for people who are sick or people who need life sustaining treatment is not slow. It does take longer to see a doctor for a physical or for things the system has deemed lower priority. For example knee replacements, hip replacements, etc. Plastic surgery is also far more available in the US. Most of the people who need these things are senior citizens. Very few Canadians under 50 come to the US for health care. The number is in fact miniscule.
Is the Canadian System perfect, no. Is it worse than the US System? There is no evidence to support that assertion. Canadians live longer than Americans and are healthier than Americans. They also have a lower infant mortality rate. Canadians like their health care system better than Americans like their health care system. The vast majority of Canadians would not exchange their system for ours. We pay a ton more than Canadians do for health care of all types. I.E. Doctors, Hospitals and Prescription Drugs.
Hmm, based on what Jan just said, do conservatives lie or just make stuff up as they go along?.
SC, we can play dueling links but stay away from AARP, they’re so biased as to be unbelievable on any issue.
You got that right just look at the VA,
And expensive doesn’t do any good if you die because you can’t afford it. Impasse?
And your source for that information is??
Sarcasm Sailor, sarcasm…
“And they all come here to get the treatment unavailable to them at home…”
Those DAMN Canadians – I cannot even get an appointment with my doctor as she is booked for months with those DAMN Canadians! LOL
North Dakota’s economy was rocking through those brutal winter months too. I’m sure it has nothing to do with their fracking boom.
Health care would be better off if it were regulated the way we regulate utilities. As it is, everyone involved is trying to be an instant millionaire. When asked about why they are charging almost 100K for medication to cure hepatitis, the drug company said that it was because it was what the market would bear -meaning that people would go into debt to purchase a drug to keep them alive. How many people will die for higher profit? Recouping costs, production, and a reasonable profit is far, but too much can be as bad as not enough.
Well the canucks are just so use to bad weather.;)
We just need to print more money to stimulate things.
Yeah. That always works.
We just need to print more money to stimulate things.
Some of Tom’s Level 501 ECON, right there!
Did I also mention that we need more government spending to get us out of the liquidity trap?
I have all the answers my friend. I parrot back the Chicago school with perfection and we all know they are the only ones worth quoting.
After I repeat the Chicago truth enough, I’ll eventually get some type of government paid for job as a professional apologist for the Fed. It’ll buy me a nice house and select wines on the weekends.
All I have to do is repeat things they like, just like most of my colleagues, who also happened to be employed in some way or another by the government.
It is not there ?
Bank of America’s projection of four percent growth in the second quarter (a.k.a. the “pent-up demand” theory) is accurate,…
Wonder how much BofA paid the folks that came up with that prediction?
Here is a FREE forecast from TBG:
“4% GDP growth…. bwahahahahahaha. They’d have to resurrect Ken Lay and his pals to make it look like 2%. Will probably go down. Blame will be put on “instability in the Middle East.”
Place your wagers.
Print More Money!!!
So Obama LIED about it…imagine that???…LMAO…
Can’t wait to read what his ignorant minions say as an excuse….Hahahaha…
Hmmm. Well, corporations buy politicians, Obama is paid for, YES, they will lie, and use it to increase corporate profits.