Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (129644)	2/28/2001 12:28:45 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>We had a boom instead. You mean that the Clinton tax increases didn't kill the boom that resumed in March 1991. "Despite the Clinton tax increases" is more accurate - there is little doubt that the Clinton tax increases slowed the economy from what would have been in their absence. The tax burden Clinton left in the highest in peacetime and in light of the lousy economy he left US, there is no reason why the tax burden should not be reduced to turn things around.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (129644)	2/28/2001 12:50:24 PM
From: peter a. pedroli	Respond to of 769667

if you had any idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't be regurgitating the Democratic line. i would be willing to bet you haven't the faintest idea of how this repressive tax got it's start. the 80's was a decade of R&D investment. the 90's was a decade of reward for that investment. the word for the 90's was PRODUCTIVITY. we could have had a CHIMP in the white house and the economy would have performed no differently. the only thing that BILLY did to contribute to the growth during his term was NAFTA, nothing else. one of the greatest public services that GW is going to provide this country and whiners like you is how MACRO economics really works. you are going to get an 8 yrs course in economics and finance courtesy of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, no charge your welcome. Wednesday February 28, 9:43 am Eastern Time Economic Growth Slowest in Over 5 Years By Barbara Hagenbaugh WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew at a weaker pace than previously thought during the last three months of 2000, the government said on Wednesday in a report showing sluggish growth heading into the new year. Gross domestic product, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, grew at a revised annual rate of 1.1 percent during the October-December quarter, the slowest pace in five and a half years, the Commerce Department said. The government initially had estimated that fourth quarter GDP rose 1.4 percent. The revised GDP figure was half of the 2.2 percent recorded in the third quarter, and was the slowest quarterly growth pace since a 0.8 percent gain in the second quarter of 1995, when the economy was coping with overstocked inventories. ``We are in a meaningful slowdown,'' said Robert Dederick, economic consultant to Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. The revision, however, was above estimates from analysts, who had predicted the Commerce Department would alter its GDP figure to a 1.0 percent gain in the fourth quarter. U.S. financial markets shrugged off the report, focusing instead on testimony later in the morning from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. INVENTORY PILE-UP SLOWER Commerce said it cut its fourth quarter growth estimate to reflect the latest data for inventories, exports and imports. Business inventories totaled $59.5 billion annual rate in the fourth quarter, down from $72.5 billion in the third quarter and revised from a previously reported $67.1 billion, the department said. Analysts said the inventory revision suggested manufacturers were keeping up with slowing demand better than previously thought. ``What we saw was that the quarter saw a dramatic slowing in final sales but we did manage to slow the rate of inventory accumulation,'' Dederick said. ``I think some progress was made in correcting the inventory imbalances toward the end of the quarter.'' Exports fell a 6.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, revised from a 4.3 percent decline. Imports fell 0.7 percent during the October-December period, down from a 0.5 percent gain reported last month. Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic growth, rose to a 2.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, revised from a previously reported 2.9 percent gain. The increase in spending was far below the third quarter, when consumption rose 4.5 percent. Spending has been hit by declining consumer confidence, which Greenspan and other U.S. central bankers have highlighted recently as an important factor for keeping the record-long U.S. economic expansion on track. The Conference Board, a business research group, said on Tuesday U.S. consumer confidence slumped in February to its lowest level in more than four and a half years. FOCUS ON THE FED CHIEF With the data for consumer confidence and GDP in hand, Greenspan was giving his assessment of the U.S. economy before a House panel on Wednesday. The powerful Fed chief was expected to largely repeat the same testimony he gave to a Senate panel on Feb. 13. Investors, however, are eager to hear if the Fed is considering cutting interest rates before its next scheduled meeting on March 20 to keep the U.S. economy afloat. Responding to weak economic news, the U.S. central bank cut rates twice by half-a-percentage-point in January, bringing the federal funds rate down to 5.5 percent. The U.S. economy lost steam abruptly in the second half of 2000, after a robust first six months that helped give the country its strongest full-year growth in 16 years. GDP for all of 2000 rose 5 percent, up from a 4.2 percent gain in 1999. But the full-year performance was overshadowed by the steady loss of economic stamina as 2000 drew to a close. Some analysts believe the U.S. economy has lost even more steam thus far in the first quarter of 2001, and a few think it is actually contracting and may tip into recession. The National Association for Business Economics reported Monday that the median estimate from the 34 professional forecasters it surveyed was a 0.6 percent annual rate gain in GDP in the first quarter, followed by 1.9 percent in the second quarter and a further rebound in the second half. ``What's more important is what is going on in the first quarter of the year,'' said Kathleen Camilli, chief economist at Tucker Anthony, a New York-based brokerage firm. Camilli is forecasting a 0.5 percent decline in GDP in the first quarter and a recession in 2001. Recessions are commonly defined as two straight quarters of contraction in growth. The Commerce Department typically revises its quarterly GDP data for two months following its initial estimate. The final estimate for the fourth quarter is due March 29. A first look at first quarter 2001 GDP is due at the end of April.