U.S. Economy Shrinks in 4th Qtr

[Ben Kenobi]

One quarter's data (which will no doubt be adjusted one way or another as happens with other month) does not make for economic performance.

How about the 'longest postwar recovery?'.

[PLATO]

Most likely because the data is not in yet to quantify the effects. If Sandy didn't have an effect on GDP, it would be the first major storm to hit the US which did not do so.

True, but you miss the point. As I had shown in earlier posts, it is quite possible to still have economic growth when a major natural disaster hits. Certainly Sandy had some impact. Equally certain to me is that Sandy is not the reason for overall weakness in the economy...nor, at this point, the policies of any previous administrations. It is time that the President. now into his second term, take some ownership in the countries economic performance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The decrease in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from
private inventory investment

Its a one quarter phenomena, and in large part explained by folk dumping in 2012 before tax rates increase. But this should be kept an eye on in upcoming quarters.

[Kidlicious]

True, but you miss the point. As I had shown in earlier posts, it is quite possible to still have economic growth when a major natural disaster hits. Certainly Sandy had some impact. Equally certain to me is that Sandy is not the reason for overall weakness in the economy...nor, at this point, the policies of any previous administrations. It is time that the President. now into his second term, take some ownership in the countries economic performance.

You don't really know how politics works. But it's not his fault anyway.

[PLATO]

You don't really know how politics works. But it's not his fault anyway.

Actually you don't know how politics works and it is his fault. Nor do you know how government works apparently. But thanks for the informative and well documented comment all the same.

[DinoDoc]

No, I was abusing Ben. Not praising market types and economists in the least. I'd rather have a broken watch than an economist. At least I know the watch will be right twice a day.

I'm just curious. Obama has been tinkering with the economy for a while now and the best we've been able to manage is anemic growth (when the recovery from a recession has typically been much faster) for a recession that ended 6 months after he came into office. At what point do partisans such as yourself start accepting the premise that it might be the economic policies of this administration that might be to blame rather than external forces like ATM's, airport kiosks, the Arab Spring, or the existance of political opposition in the House for the piss poor economic record of this administration?

[Kidlicious]

The same can be said about cheap imports. Globalization was suppose to make us all rich a long time ago.

[MichaeltheGreat]

True, but you miss the point. As I had shown in earlier posts, it is quite possible to still have economic growth when a major natural disaster hits. Certainly Sandy had some impact. Equally certain to me is that Sandy is not the reason for overall weakness in the economy...nor, at this point, the policies of any previous administrations. It is time that the President. now into his second term, take some ownership in the countries economic performance.

It's definitely not the only reason, or the largest. It probably had enough of a short term effect that a low positive rate became a low negative rate. Policies of previous administrations still have an impact. And I'd say that if the order of Bush and Obama were reversed - the hit on the housing market was large enough that it will take years to sort out in many markets, but that's not really a result of any administration's policies.

I think the notion of assigning current economic patterns to particular presidents is fun, but not really much more than partisan drivel. Clinton didn't deserve as much credit as hets in some quarters, as the Clinton era economy was partly a result of the dot com bubble, and things like Enron's implosion (which was well on its way in the Clinton era) didn't finally hit until Bush junior. At the same time, I think Bush Sr. took too much blame for a generally inevitable recession after a big run up during the Reagan years and first couple of years of Bush's term.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm just curious. Obama has been tinkering with the economy for a while now and the best we've been able to manage is anemic growth (when the recovery from a recession has typically been much faster) for a recession that ended 6 months after he came into office. At what point do partisans such as yourself start accepting the premise that it might be the economic policies of this administration that might be to blame rather than external forces like ATM's, airport kiosks, the Arab Spring, or the existance of political opposition in the House for the piss poor economic record of this administration?

Partisan, shmartisan. Blaming any given administration's economic policies is a partisan game. Is Obama running Europe, too? As I posted above, I think Clinton got too much praise (in his partisan quarters), and Bush Sr. too much condemnation (from the electorate). I'm not an Obama partisan (in fact I campaigned for Hillary in the 2008 primaries) as much as I am a believer that no President - certainly not McCain or Romney) would have had some magic policy bullets that suddenly make everything better, given the drag in the global economy, real estate bubbles, and crap like AIG, Goldman, etc. IMO, you could dig up Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, whoever is your example of a GOP President with brilliant economic policy, and I don't think it would have made a whole lot of difference.

I also agreed with Dubya on partial privatization of social security, and agree with the need to rein in the deficit, but think that Ryan's plan does it too fast (since spending cuts act as reverse stimulus) and I disagree with his Medicare block grant mechanism as just political gamesmanship.

[Ben Kenobi]

(since spending cuts act as reverse stimulus)

I think we've discoved the problem, Dinodoc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't cut spending if you want to increase growth?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think we've discoved the problem, Dinodoc.

Care to elaborate? It's not like you or DD could discover your asses with both hands if you were cuffed and sat in the back of a police cruiser.

[DinoDoc]

We've added 6 trillion in debt over the course of the Obama administration with very little stimulus effect to show for it. When do you foresee it kicking in?

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't cut spending if you want to increase growth

Cutting government spending would keep more dollars in the private sector. More dollars in the private sector = more growth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Care to elaborate? It's not like you or DD could discover your asses with both hands if you were cuffed and sat in the back of a police cruiser.

The government doesn't produce anything.