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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (511339)	12/17/2003 11:00:06 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 769667

the point is Victor that this economy was practically on autopilot when Bush took over If it was on autopilot, the autopilot had been instructed to descend: story.news.yahoo.com Revised GDP Numbers Show Decline in 2000 Thu Dec 11,12:52 AM ET By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON - The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) said that the GDP (news - web sites) — the value of the country's total output of goods and services — shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. Previously, the government had said GDP was rising at a weak annual rate of 0.6 percent during that quarter. The GDP returned to positive territory in the October-December quarter of 2000, rising at an annual rate of 2.1 percent, before slipping back into negative territory in the first quarter of 2001. The first, second and third quarters of 2001 all experienced falling GDP as the country slogged through its first recession since 1990-91. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of when recessions begin and end, has determined that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November of that year. It is not expected to change those dates based on the revised GDP data because the NBER relies on monthly data, rather than quarterly statistics, to better pinpoint when recessions begin and end. Economists also generally believe that GDP must contract for two consecutive quarters for a period of economic weakness to be called a recession. Still, the GDP revisions are certain to be used by Republicans to bolster their contention that President Bush (news - web sites) inherited a recession when he took office in January 2001, even though the downturn did not officially begin until two months after he took office. Even before the revisions, the GDP data showed that the economy hit a brick wall in the summer of 2000 with growth slowing to a near standstill, reflecting the impact of the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000. "It is not surprising that the bursting of the biggest financial bubble in several generations would lead to a collapse of new investment and a period of painful economic readjustment," said Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., and vice chairman of Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The third quarter 2000 revision to the GDP was the most striking of scores of GDP revisions released by the Commerce Department as part of the agency's latest updating of GDP statistics, something the government does every four or five years based on more comprehensive economic data becoming available and also revisions in the methodology used to compile the GDP. The last such revision occurred in 1999. As part of the methodology changes, the government changed the way it computed the impact of large insurance losses caused by disasters such as earthquakes (news - web sites) and hurricanes to smooth out their effect on the GDP. It also modified the way it treated interest earned by banks on deposits. Using these new ways of compiling various components of the GDP, the department revised the data going back to 1929. However, the various changes made only small differences, usually 0.3 percentage point or less, in any one year. For 2002, GDP growth is now listed at 2.2 percent, down from the previously reported 2.4 percent. Growth in 2001 is now put at 0.5 percent, an upward revision from the 0.3 percent previous estimate. For the period from 1992 through 2002, the average annual GDP growth rate remained 3.2 percent although the composition of growth changed slightly. Under the new data, consumer spending and housing construction increased a little more than previously estimated and U.S. exports and government spending increased a little less. During the last recession, U.S. output fell by 0.5 percent, slightly less than the 0.6 percent previously estimated, still making the 2001 recession one of the mildest on record in terms of lost output. "There is no major rewriting of economic history," said Steven Landefeld, head of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. "There are no significant changes to trend growth and the last recession is still mild relative to past recessions." On the Net: Bureau of Economic Analysis: bea.gov

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (511339)	12/17/2003 10:34:03 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<< this economy was practically on autopilot when Bush took over, >> Actually no it wasn't Lizzie. The economy is never on autopilot. What was happening in the fall of 1999 is that bankers and VC's were starting to realize that all the money they were pumping into the high tech sectors was starting to return a negative return. High tech was returning high losses. So the money guys turned off the spigot. And this was the begining of the end, along with the huge vol of ipo-unlocked shares from the bubble dotcoms that were hitting the market from insiders throughout 1999, and the revelations that Enron and WCOM and Tyco were all just hollow frauds of the go-go 90s, and all the invesmtent banking and sl valley fraud that was so much the hallmark of the go-go 90s greed era .. << all he had to do was steer us through the 911 incident, which was a challenge admittedly, >> Yeah, that's all ! LOL ! I gotta love your sense of perspective !!! If you really had any sense of the economy, you'd realize that Clinton's championing of NAFTA, and its 1993 enactment with Clinton leading the effort, was the begining of the offshoring movement. But you don't.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (511339)	12/18/2003 2:23:51 AM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

<< << this economy was practically on autopilot when Bush took over, >> Heck no. I remember telling my wife that the one good thing about Gore being elected would be that he would be the one to take the blame for the huge crash in the economy that was obviously taking place. In early 2000 the market was heading down and going down hard. The bubble had popped and it was obvious what was happening. The bigger the bubble, the greater the collapse. It was clear that the collapse was underway before Bush took office. Dave

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (511339)	12/18/2003 8:13:33 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

now, Lizzie, it may have been on auto pilot but it was heading down with no fuel in engines. 911 did make it worse but 911 or not back in 98-99 many economists were convinced that we are heading for disaster. I was convinced of that even earlier than that and stated so on this board. In fact, I think it is not as bad as it could have been ......

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (511339)	12/18/2003 8:41:50 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Deep recession when Bush took over. Naz down 60% from nine months earlier. Clinton depression.