|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 27, 2010 5:55:28 GMT -8
Consumption is by far the largest GDP component, totaling roughly 2/3rds of GDP. If the government is giving out money to get people to consume, the Government can buy positive GDP. We have done so for almost a year now. What happens when the government stops those liberal spending programs?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 27, 2010 5:58:30 GMT -8
"Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the the broadest measure of economic activity. Annualized quarterly percent changes in GDP reflect the growth rate of total economic output. The figures can be quite volatile from quarter to quarter. Inventory and net export swings in particular can produce significant volatility in GDP. The final sales figure, which excludes inventories, can sometimes be helpful in identifying underlying growth trends as inventories represent unsold goods, and a large inventory increase will boost GDP but might be indicative of weakness rather than strength. The broad components of GDP are: consumption, investment, net exports, government purchases, and inventories."
See also that government purchases are part of the artificial GDP equation. The government has been buying a lot of stuff. So what happens if the government stops or slows down the buying?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2010 10:40:20 GMT -8
Well, we have seen what happened to car sales (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11498335) and housing sales (http://www.e-wisdom.com/news/loans/mortgage/single-family-home-sales-hit-lowest-level-since-1995-19930796/) once the govt. programs designed to help those sectors ended. This is especially true in the housing market, where sales collapsed after the incentives ended this past Spring.
For some reason, the Dems are in love with these "Well, we have to do something" programs that have only a momentary effect on the economy. As I have said before, they have learned nothing about economics since 1930.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztectom***** on Aug 27, 2010 14:32:38 GMT -8
no it is official on a moving chain
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 28, 2010 6:46:49 GMT -8
no it is official on a moving chain I did not understand that. For some of us old farts, you have to occasionally explain. This I know, we need my Water to the West program. I am going to start pushing it on a national scale in the coming months. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 28, 2010 9:54:54 GMT -8
Well, we have seen what happened to car sales (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11498335) and housing sales (http://www.e-wisdom.com/news/loans/mortgage/single-family-home-sales-hit-lowest-level-since-1995-19930796/) once the govt. programs designed to help those sectors ended. This is especially true in the housing market, where sales collapsed after the incentives ended this past Spring. For some reason, the Dems are in love with these "Well, we have to do something" programs that have only a momentary effect on the economy. As I have said before, they have learned nothing about economics since 1930. AzWm Since they haven't learned, what have others learned about economics since then? |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 24, 2010 8:00:06 GMT -8
Well, we have seen what happened to car sales (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11498335) and housing sales (http://www.e-wisdom.com/news/loans/mortgage/single-family-home-sales-hit-lowest-level-since-1995-19930796/) once the govt. programs designed to help those sectors ended. This is especially true in the housing market, where sales collapsed after the incentives ended this past Spring. For some reason, the Dems are in love with these "Well, we have to do something" programs that have only a momentary effect on the economy. As I have said before, they have learned nothing about economics since 1930. AzWm Since they haven't learned, what have others learned about economics since then? The reality is that there is no "Learning" from economics. All there is is Theory. Theory is substantiated in some cases and refuted in others. That is the reason why there are totally different "schools" of economic theory. As =bob likes to point out about the academic community when it borders on "almost" science, they all accuse the others of being nuts. Could it be that all economists are crazy? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 24, 2010 10:38:58 GMT -8
To artificially spur sales just steals from future sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 24, 2010 15:59:01 GMT -8
To artificially spur sales just steals from future sales. But then, win, what would you do in the Future? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 26, 2010 7:19:05 GMT -8
To artificially spur sales just steals from future sales. But then, win, what would you do in the Future? When you give an incentive to make a purchase now that you were going to make anyway, you not only steal from the future, but you also increase the cost to taxpayers to make happen early what was going to happen anyway. If getting money moving is the object, get government out of the way and let money flow in a natural unimpeded manner without the inefficiency and cost added by bureaucratic intervention. |
|
