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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12538)	11/8/2003 9:16:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 17683

George Bush is responsible for putting the entire world economy in a sort of fear inspired lock for about a year and a half starting in Spring 2002, based on his incessant warmongering especially in and around Asian countries which are huge customers of US goods- and in so doing he prolonged the recession in the US economy for months on end, which caused US companies to impose significant cuts in their workforces and infrastructure which will take years to rebuild. OK. I want you to explain this phenomenon to me: 2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 2001 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 2002 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 2003 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.1 You should recognize those numbers; unemployment rates. You've seen them before. Notice where the minimum is? APRIL 2000! Who was President then? Bill Clinton. George Bush would not be nominated until August 2000. The election would not occur until November 2000. George Bush would not take office until January 2001. 911 was Septmeber 2001. The Iraq war was March 2003. So why did unemployment start rising in April 2000? I guess your polemic clears GWB of these charges: During the last few months of every year companies hand out an increasing number of pink slips in an effort to trim costs and meet budget and profit goals. Still, don't expect the job market to recover come January. "With factors like technology, outsourcing and consolidation working against job creation, any job-market rebound we see in the near future will be relatively small" I'll comment on the rest later.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12538)	11/9/2003 2:40:39 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 17683

This may need some explaining. George Bush is responsible for putting the entire world economy in a sort of fear inspired lock for about a year and a half starting in Spring 2002, based on his incessant warmongering especially in and around Asian countries which are huge customers of US goods- and in so doing he prolonged the recession in the US economy for months on end The 2003 numbers below are for Jan-Aug. To get a reasonable guess at the total 2003 number, I multiplied by 1.5. This is the "2003-extrapolated" number. US Exports to China (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 13.1 16.2 19.2 22.0 16.809 25.21 census.gov Exports to Japan (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 57.47 64.92 57.45 51.45 34.51 51.77 census.gov About 80% of the way down this esri.go.jp you will see a graph labelled "Real GDP Japan". Notice the drop in GDP starting in 2001. Do you think the Japanese ruined their own economy just to punish us? US Exports to Indonesia (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 2.038 2.402 2.521 2.555 1.643 2.464 census.gov US Exports To Malaysia (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 9.060 10.94 9.358 10.34 6.934 10.41 census.gov US Exports To Phillippines (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 7.222 8.799 7.660 7.270 5.410 8.1 census.gov US Exports To Taiwan (US$ billions) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (to Sept) 2003-extrapolated 19.13 24.41 18.12 18.38 10.97 16.45 census.gov Taiwan GDP - real growth rate -2.2% (2001 est.) greekorthodoxchurch.org And, again, the dip in purchase of US products can be explained by a dipping economy. There seems to be a problem with your theory. It didn't happen.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12538)	11/9/2003 4:07:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 17683

Additionally, George Bush is responsible for spending a sum of approximately 500 billion dollars in less than a 3 year period, an amazing feat by any measure, taking a healthy surplus US treasury and driving it into the biggest deficit budget EVER (again what is so amazing about this is the 3 year period involved) Millions of US Dollars Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit S or D as % of Receipts 1992 1,091,279 1,381,655 -290,376 -27 1993 1,154,401 1,409,489 -255,087 -22 1994 1,258,627 1,461,877 -203,250 -16 1995 1,351,830 1,515,802 -163,972 -12 1996 1,453,062 1,560,535 -107,47 -7 1997 1,579,292 1,601,250 -21,958 -1 1998 1,721,798 1,652,585 69,213 4 1999 1,827,454 1,701,891 125,563 7 2000 2,025,218 1,788,773 236,445 12 2001 1,991,194 1,863,895 127,299 6 2002 1,853,173 2,010,975 -157,802 -9 2003 estimate 1,836,218 2,140,377 -304,159 -17 I presume that by "500 billion dollars" you are referring to the cumulative deficit over 3 years. Yeah, that looks about right. As a percentage of federal receipts, though, these are HARDLY records. Actually, the record appears to be 1943, when the federal deficit was 227% of receipts. And let me point out that in the TWO-YEAR periods 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, Bill Clinton exceeded a $500B cumulative deficit. On about 2/3 the GDP. Pretty amazing feat, yes. And GWB's 2003 "biggest deficit budget EVER" will be about 3% of GDP, given an $11T GDP this year. Bill Clinton hit 4.6% in 1992. And in 1943 it was 27.5% of GDP.