economy grows!

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog said:
It's estimated that with this program, it cost us hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2 saved (although estimates vary widely, from around $175 to as much as $500). Considering that carbon emissions trade for around $20 per ton on the European Climate Exchange, that's a horribly inefficient way to save energy.


If anything, it hurts the poor. Poor people don't generally buy brand new cars. They buy used cars, but the program required the old cars to be destroyed. Otherwise, they eventually would have gone into the used car market. That lowers the future supply of used cars which pushes the prices up which is burdensome for the poor.


I don't get it. Are they supposed to ramp up production based on a short-lived surge of sales? What happens when the sales numbers crash after the party's over, just as they did in September? How is that supposed to help them?
Click to expand...

When I lived in NM I see all the time clunker cars getting towed on their way over to Mexico where the people there will fix them up and sell them for a tidy profit. I bet they were just shaking their heads with the C4Cs idiocy.
 
GDP = around 13trillion for USA.

It grew 3.5% because the feds printed money out of thin air.

When the feds do that, gold prices go up because we have "more money" in circulation to buy gold, so...

Gotta understand the weave to profit big. =D
 
GDP is based on three things.

Consumer spending
Investment of businesses
Government spending

The first two didn't occur while the last saw massive govt spending (while going into debt at the same time) is what produced the 3.5% change (not to mention other accounting creativity in the process, too).
 
kokonut said:
GDP is based on three things.

Consumer spending
Investment of businesses
Government spending

The first two didn't occur while the last saw massive govt spending (while going into debt at the same time) is what produced the 3.5% change (not to mention other accounting creativity in the process, too).
Click to expand...

Exactly, the first two did not occur because the federal reserve printed up money from thin air.
 
netrox said:
Sorry, Kokonut, seems like Obama's Stimulus is working!

Government says GDP grew 3.5% in third quarter, ending a year-long string of declines and coming in better than forecasts.

A rebuilding of inventories by businesses that had slashed production and jobs over the past year was a major contributor to the growth in the third quarter. So was a rebound in auto sales, which were helped by the government's Cash for Clunkers program. The economic stimulus package, with public works projects and aid to state and federal governments, also boosted growth.

GDP up 3.5% in third quarter, topping expectations - Oct. 29, 2009
Click to expand...

GDP revised downward substantially.

Economic Growth Revised Down in 3rd Quarter - FOXNews.com

Cash for clunker didn't really help nor was deemed as "successful" either in helping the economy.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI1YTExNWJkMzA0MzU5YmM0MzU1NWQ4Y2JlOTRmMDE=

Remember, GDP = CIG (consumption, investment, and government spending). There were no increase in consumption by consumers, no increase in investments but mostly it was all govt spending that made the difference...albeit a lot less from the touted 3.5%.
 
And cue the downward spiral.

The more negative news... the less likely people are going to spend... and so on... and so on...
 
And the GDP figure is revised downward once more! LOL.

Today, Commerce backtracked even further. The annualized growth number for Q3 turns out to have been 2.2%, a revision of over a third from its original estimate two months ago:

The U.S. economy grew at a much slower pace than initially thought in the third quarter, restrained by weak business investment and a slightly more aggressive liquidation of inventories, according to data on Tuesday.

The Commerce Department’s final estimate showed gross domestic product grew at a 2.2 percent annual rate instead of the 2.8 percent pace it reported last month. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast the report to show GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, unrevised at a 2.8 percent growth rate in the third quarter. …

Growth was boosted by government stimulus programs, including the popular cash for clunkers and tax credit for first-time home buyers, and debate continues to rage over the sustainability of the recovery once government support wanes.
Click to expand...
Home sales surge, boosting recovery hopes - TODAY Technology & Money

This third-quarter "growth" is rather more anemic than all the hoopla by the Obama administration was trying to portray. What's interesting or rather troubling is that this is another revision and a sign that Commerce's own ability to analyze economic conditions is quite poor, especially overshooting it by 37% from 3.5 down to 2.2%. A sign of incompetency which is the hallmark of the Obama administration. Unless, of course, the people in Commerce who did the numbers somehow got pressured into making a false statement in presenting encouraging numbers then that's something else to consider as well.
 
Last edited:
do cars have to be the reason for economy growth? Being Green is the hype. Don't buy this or that because more trees are being cut down. Or it contain chemicals or cause cancer or it is bad for your health.

One thing I do know is that you can't go wrong in fashion. People love shopping for clothes (unless that cause global warming too). Anyway, I wouldn't expect the economy go up without the global warmist fussing at us for something.
 
Actually, you would think "going green" would ENCOURAGE people to spend. Don't buy that, it's not good-- buy THIS-- it's better.

I would just chalk it up to the same reasons for the previous recessions-- people are afraid to spend and would rather save for a rainy day.
 
no, people don't want to fill up landfil. I thought I was being green by using the product I brought as LONG as I can. and buy second handed items (thiftstores)

If it works, why buy a new one?
 
I was referring to solar panels, organic food, organic soap, organic shampoo, hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, biodegradable cleaners like GreenWorks and so on. Things people buy on a daily basis that are for short-term usages that are targetted toward the "green trend." You would think those products would encourage people to spend.

Reusing, recycle, second-hand are concepts that have been in practice long before the "green" thing hit the markets.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
do cars have to be the reason for economy growth? Being Green is the hype. Don't buy this or that because more trees are being cut down. Or it contain chemicals or cause cancer or it is bad for your health.

One thing I do know is that you can't go wrong in fashion. People love shopping for clothes (unless that cause global warming too). Anyway, I wouldn't expect the economy go up without the global warmist fussing at us for something.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that clothing also has an effect. There are some things in the fabric that requires petroleum. which comes from oil. Oil is a major part of our ecomony too. Gas prices are so high, that if they go any higher people will probably resort to car pooling more or riding bikes or walking to places.
 
Another thing: Both my boyfriend and I are unemployed so we had to seriously cut back on a LOT of things. Trips out of town, food ( lots of ramen noodles -gags-) shut off my cell phone service, sell the car, thrift shop, coupons, bargain shopping, sales.


If every family were to do this, sales would be low all around everywhere. Right?

As it is a lot of people are already having to resort to doing this just to make ends meet. I would think that it would effect the economy's slow rise back to the way it was.
 
DGirl101 said:
Another thing: Both my boyfriend and I are unemployed so we had to seriously cut back on a LOT of things. Trips out of town, food ( lots of ramen noodles -gags-) shut off my cell phone service, sell the car, thrift shop, coupons, bargain shopping, sales.


If every family were to do this, sales would be low all around everywhere. Right?

As it is a lot of people are already having to resort to doing this just to make ends meet. I would think that it would effect the economy's slow rise back to the way it was.
Click to expand...

My neighbor next door had to do just that. And she doesn't have a car now and where I live the bus only comes 4 times a day.
 
souggy said:
I was referring to solar panels, organic food, organic soap, organic shampoo, hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, biodegradable cleaners like GreenWorks and so on. Things people buy on a daily basis that are for short-term usages that are targetted toward the "green trend." You would think those products would encourage people to spend.

Reusing, recycle, second-hand are concepts that have been in practice long before the "green" thing hit the markets.
Click to expand...

I can't buy everything organic, allergy reaction (eczema)

I would buy those things if they were cheap... installing solar panels seem like alot of work. wouldn't it cause more people to lose their job if people weren't buying electricity? I guess it doesn't really matter as new jobs always pop up, but none of them are popping up especially Green jobs.
 
The problem is that "going green" isn't always cheap. People will buy a used car for several thousand dollars than to buy a new hybrid that cost 3x as much and realize a savings right off the bat for a used car. Going green will take a few more decades until it becomes fully mainstreamed into the conscience of American consumers and fully integrated into our society and economy. Maybe not fully integrated but could come close. Average length of time on car ownership is about 10 years. There are millions of new gasoline/diesel powered cars to be sold in 2010 and it'll be awhile until we see no gasoline/diesel only powered vehicles on the market when we'll have alternative versions.
 
Green "stuff" here is cheaper than its non-green counterparts.

It pays to live in a "Green" town.
 
posts from hell said:
Green "stuff" here is cheaper than its non-green counterparts.

It pays to live in a "Green" town.
Click to expand...

-a significantly-reduced cancer rate equals less spending on medical expense
-significant reduction on spending to repair environmental damage to our water, air, and ground
-significant property value
-less pollution leads to better health leads to better economic production

:cool2:
 
kokonut said:
Some examples would be nice to see.
Click to expand...

He lives in Colorado... Boulder to be exact.

It's the same story here... being a vegetarian is expensive in my hometown, but here in Victoria it's cheaper than any other lifestyle. Why? A large part of the population is vegetarian and there's a huge demand for it.

Same thing here... I noticed certain "green" products are cheaper than my hometown in Alberta.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top