On 7 Mar 2006 at 14:00, Greg Sevart wrote: > You used the word dismal, not me. To me, dismal implies a pretty > extreme state.
Again, bankruptcies are at the highest level in history, home foreclosures are at the highest level in history, federal budget deficits are at the highest level in history, Poverty has increased each and every year over the last five years, the number of uninsured has increased each and every year over the last five years, Long-term Unemployment is at the highest level in thirty years, and there are millions fewer workers in the national workforce now than there were in 2000. If that is not dismal, by definition, then I don't know what is. > Long-term unemployment decreased as of the most recently reported > figures, labor force participation is up (though down, for obvious > reasons, since Katrina) year-over-year, unemployment in general is down > to 4.7% (from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003), and GDP has been > positive for the last 17 quarters. How can unemployment be down if there are fewer workers in the national workforce than five years ago ? Once the unemployment benefits of jobless workers expire, they are no longer counted as unemployed. The Unemployment Rate has declined because there are fewer jobless workers being counted, not because jobless workers have returned to work. The GDP numbers are reflecting military spending, not private-sector growth. > Are all indicators pretty? No. But things aren't as bad now as they > were a couple years ago. They're worse. > The NBER did NOT say that 9/11 deepened the recession. >From YOUR quote: "The attacks clearly deepened the contraction" SHEEZ. > They stated that 9/11 could be why what could have been a minor > contraction fell into a recession in the first place. It wasn't minor. > The NBER's comments do not invalidate my original comment, though I > clearly spoke with more absolution than I should have. Really ? Ya think ? Do you want me to add "Dude" ? > > However, as was explained by Erika Miller, a correspondent for > > Nightly Business Report, on February 28th, 2001: > > > > "GDP rose at a 1.4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Another > > factor was strong government spending, the result of the war in > > Afghanistan and counter-terrorism efforts. It's interesting to note > > that without the government's increase, GDP would have been > > negative..." > > It is money going in to the economy. Is it somehow invalidated by the > fact that it came from the government? It's not the private-sector economy. It is, by definition, Socialism. If that's what you favor, fine. Vince
