Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite elaborate and expensive programs, and despite pumping nearly $4 trillion into the economy over the past 2 years, the recession and subsequent "recovery" looks no different from those of the past. In fact, the current recovery is incredibly weak when we take into account just how severe the recession was. Following the early 80s recession (the last "big one"), growth was above average (>3%) for 39 months. For 18 months growth was double and triple the average rate, reaching as high as 9.3% at one point, and in the 7% and 8% ranges throughout 1983 and part of 1984. At one point the economy added 1.1 million jobs in a single month, which was phenomenal 30 years ago.
That being said, we have pretty much created ballooning deficits and added a significant amount to the debt with nothing to show for it. We still have below average growth, persistent unemployment, and a stagnant housing market.
Tomorrow is the next GDP release, so we will have to wait and see if anything changes.. The unemployment rate will never come down if growth continues to be below average.
"The study was very interesting...if only more people would read it..."
My previous post was an aggregious error, instead of stating, "if only more people would read it..." should have read, if only more people could read.
So, let's review the astute ecommic criticism of the unread report:
SourD; "Nothing was prevented, just delayed."
summers73; "Delayed the inevitable, that's all."
Antarez; "Bush and Obama = Dumb and Dumber. Only time will tell, Just when you thought no one coud be worse than Bush, a new and improved Idiot Obama arrives."
Frankly I found the analysis of CPP will ultimately bring a profit of $24 billion out of an initial outlay of 205 billion. Oh, you missed that astute observation from our economically savy friends... not surprising since they demonstrate time and again that the depth of their economic knowledge is based upon talking points for whatever right wing screed they can Google.
Despite elaborate and expensive programs, and despite pumping nearly $4 trillion into the economy over the past 2 years, the recession and subsequent "recovery" looks no different from those of the past.
The only reason that you can compare this recession with previous post Depression recessions is because of the elaborate and expensive programs that you deride. The whole point of the study and its findings is without those "elaborate and expensive programs" you would be left with comparing the 2009 recession with the 1939 Depression.
The only reason that you can compare this recession with previous post Depression recessions is because of the elaborate and expensive programs that you deride. The whole point of the study and its findings is without those "elaborate and expensive programs" you would be left with comparing the 2009 recession with the 1939 Depression.
If he'd bothered to read the report he would have known that.
I don't need to read the report to know (but will before I post again) there will never be another Bill Gates. If it hadn't been for him and the jobs he created along with the dot com growth, world wide economy would have bottomed out in the 9th ending of the 80's.
He didn't do it alone though, everyone jumped on the computer band wagon and many were paid more than their value of their job. Sometimes bliss can be good. In this case bliss created an employees market. One in which I enjoyed, but it died 2001. Still in morning after all these years....
~ bell ~
Following the early 80s recession (the last "big one"), growth was above average (>3%) for 39 months. For 18 months growth was double and triple the average rate, reaching as high as 9.3% at one point, and in the 7% and 8% ranges throughout 1983 and part of 1984. At one point the economy added 1.1 million jobs in a single month, which was phenomenal 30 years ago.
While that is true, it's also true that NONE of that happened overnight. In fact, during THAT recession, not only did the unemployment rate get HIGHER than during THIS recession, but the unemployment rate remained at over 10% for 10 straight months (more than 3 times as long as during THIS recession). Getting the UE rate back down takes time. It's as simple as that.
The only reason that you can compare this recession with previous post Depression recessions is because of the elaborate and expensive programs that you deride. The whole point of the study and its findings is without those "elaborate and expensive programs" you would be left with comparing the 2009 recession with the 1939 Depression.
Exactly RIGHT!
Things COULD have and likely WOULD have been a WHOLE LOT WORSE.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did Bush and Obama prevent another depression
