GDP

[jake]

GDP growth is down to an annualized rate of just 1.5% for 2Q2012.

[eno]

GDP growth is down to an annualized rate of just 1.5% for 2Q2012.

Increasing taxes on the obscenely rich (i.e. Two-Hundred-Fifty-Thousandaires) will spur growth; if the "Pubs" object (because, as we all know, they only care about the aforementioned, obscenely rich) then we'll raise taxes on everyone!

After all, "...if you've got a business, you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen..."

[buzz]

Corporations are people.
Myth Romney declares them as dependents on his income taxes !

[eno]

Corporations and people.
Berate Obummer declares them as subservient to government in his tyrannical tirades!

[markberwyn]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

[jake]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

[markberwyn]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?

[eno]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?

Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!

[markberwyn]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?

Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!

Ah, so tax cuts aren't stimulus. There needs to be some extra stimulus (more tax cuts?) to get the economy humming. Got it.

[markberwyn]

When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?

[eno]

When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?

Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.

How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...

[Boris]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?

Brilliant logic! That 2% cost of living raise I got a decade ago should suffice for the rest of my life; and the fact that my boss threatens to revoke it every six months makes me even happier!

So you think the government should guarantee you a bigger raise?

[markberwyn]

When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?

Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.

How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...

I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?

[Ted]

Trib columnist Gail MarksJarvis on the increase in the GDP:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-biz-0729-gail-20120729,0,2037275.column

                GDP ekes out growth

         Just enough to ease concerns about recession

Gail MarksJarvis
July 29, 2012

   Celebrate mediocrity.

  That's what investors did last week as the gross domestic product numbers released Friday showed just enough growth in the second quarter to calm people worried about recession.

The economy has been growing at a 1.5 percent rate — a pretty disconcerting number. But given that investors feared even slower growth, the GDP report spurred stock buying and lifted the Dow Jones industrial average.

  Now the Dow is up 7 percent for the year. And despite numerous panic attacks about Europe, China and the U.S. since spring, the Standard & Poor's 500 has clawed its way to an impressive 10 percent gain.

Last week began with another fearful period about a financial meltdown in Spain. But fear eased midweek as European Central Bank President Mario Draghi promised that the ECB would do "whatever it takes to preserve the euro." Spanish bond yields starting showing less distress, and stocks in Europe and the U.S. climbed with relief.

Yet, it wasn't simply a new round of promises from Europe that lifted the pressure. Encouragement came from earnings announcements, too, especially those from Boeing and Caterpillar, both based in Illinois. Boeing raised its forecast for deliveries at a time when many large U.S. companies have maneuvered profit increases but struggled to increase sales amid recession in Europe and a slowdown in China.

  Caterpillar, the world's giant producer of construction and mining equipment, provided the message investors have been eager to hear: Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman said in a statement that the current environment doesn't feel like 2008, and he is not anticipating a recession this year.

That's particularly compelling given the fact that in 2007, Caterpillar was one of the first large companies to warn about a recession threat. Caterpillar acknowledged some weakness now but said that China and Europe were working on their problems and that Caterpillar's profits should be better than previously thought.

  Still, there is no question that Europe is sinking deeper into recession, and the impact is spreading. The United Kingdom reported a 0.7 percent contraction in its GDP last week, and IHS Global Insight economist Paul Edelstein called it a "nasty surprise — far deeper than anyone expected." He was also disappointed, he said, that the $1 trillion in financing provided European banks is not prompting banks to lend to businesses.

IHS expects Wednesday's U.S. ISM manufacturing index to show slight improvement over the previous month, but still a contraction in industrial activity. Construction activity is expected to reflect a pickup in single and multifamily building.

Meanwhile, consumers have cut back once again on spending — especially on large purchases like cars. Even Starbucks disappointed investors Friday with lower expectations and acknowledged that selling to consumers in the U.S. and Europe is difficult.

Investors will be watching for insight into causes — beyond weak job growth — as data on personal income and personal consumption is released Tuesday and the unemployment rate is reported Friday. Economists expect unemployment to remain at 8.2 percent.

[jake]

Ted,

Are you really happy with a GDP growth rate of a mere 1.5%? 

[jake]

Why aren't the Bush tax cuts working?

The Bush tax cuts expired some time ago.

Now, under Obamanomics, we are at annualized GDP growth of just 1.5%.

How are these tax cuts different? What caused them to lose their stimulatory power? Low taxes were excellent stimulus then, right? Why are they not excellent stimulus now?

With Obama trying to renew the vast majority of the so called "Bush" tax cuts (on a dollar basis), I am amazed that not a single Dem on this board took up the cause to defend them.

...maybe it has something to do with the label.  Now if Mark called them the Obama tax cuts, which they are now, the Dems would come out of their holes to talk about how much they help. 

[eno]

When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?

Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.

How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...

I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?

That environment was created by a significant reduction in spending (welfare reform and the peace dividend reduction in military spending) and the go-go, growth 90's, which had masses of $$$ flowing into the treasury because the economy was booming. IMO, raising taxes in that environment is a far different proposition than raising them now.

[markberwyn]

When did the Bush tax cuts cease their effectiveness?

Maybe you're right; taxes should be raised as the economy spirals downward.

How much? What is a "fair share"? 40%? 50%? 100%? Please explain how raising taxes on anyone now will help the economy...

I seem to recall a time, not so very long ago, when the country had something called a "surplus." (Must've been some socialist thing.) What were the terrible confiscatory tax rates then that created such an economic environment?

That environment was created by a significant reduction in spending (welfare reform and the peace dividend reduction in military spending) and the go-go, growth 90's, which had masses of $$$ flowing into the treasury because the economy was booming. IMO, raising taxes in that environment is a far different proposition than raising them now.

But the taxes were higher then! How could the economy be "booming" when taxes were higher than they are now?

Sounds like you're advocating for reduced military spending and higher taxes to improve the economy; we may not be so different after all.

[Ted]

U.S. GDP has increased  by an annual average of 2.1% over the last 12 months.  And, given we now live in a global economy, the U.S. is in a lot better shape than Europe is right now.  Europe is dragging down the rest of the world.

[Boris]

"...and the go-go, growth 90's,"

Being in the tech industry, and working for big Mich Ave firms during the "go-go 90s", I firmly believe that what we are seeing now, in terms of unemployment, is a result of companies adopting computer technologies.

During the 90s many companies were born and flourished that brought other companies into the digital age. Once the technologies were in place, with everything from cabling to instruction, companies that once had, say an accounting department of 12 people, now only need two ... to do more work.

Add to that the fact that hiring temp or contract employees is the new norm, and well ... welcome to the new millenium.

The jobs that were lost in late 2008 are not coming back, ever.

Corporate investment, corporate profit and CEO pay are all at the highest levels *ever* in the United States:



So if companies are investing more in their businesses and making more money than ever before, where are all the jobs?

As I've said before, the days of working for a company for 30 years, earning a pension and a gold watch are over. My wife was with the same company for 20 years. Early this year, they fired half (HALF!) of the staff, and then immediately set about replacing those positions with temps and contrators. But its not all down, if you can deal with it.

She's now a self-employed contractor, making much more money that she ever could have as a vested employee, and enjoying it. She's travelling, seeing new people and new work-places all the time ... but it's more work, and takes a lot of hustle.

Younger people with children are at a serious disadvantage in the new economy.