[rangerone314]

Thoughts on Congressional Budget Office estimate that we wont pull out of economic quagmire until 2015, and then with a growth rate of only 2.3%.

With the Federal debt probably being unserviceable, and peak oil will probably have already happened with a forecasted production
decline of 5% or so per year, will 2015 be too late to do anything?

[cipi604]

good luck! you need it

[perdition79]

Thoughts on Congressional Budget Office estimate that we wont pull out of economic quagmire until 2015, and then with a growth rate of only 2.3%.

With the Federal debt probably being unserviceable, and peak oil will probably have already happened with a forecasted production
decline of 5% or so per year, will 2015 be too late to do anything?

It was too late to do anything in 2005. Exponential decay is a killer. This game is over.

[biofuel13]

How about a link to the Congressional Budget Office report that you are referring to??

I can't exactly share my thoughts on something when you haven't given the information to peruse...

[Ache]

How about a link to the Congressional Budget Office report that you are referring to??

I can't exactly share my thoughts on something when you haven't given the information to peruse...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analyst-pre ... -2015.html

[copious.abundance]

How about a link to the Congressional Budget Office report that you are referring to??

I can't exactly share my thoughts on something when you haven't given the information to peruse...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analyst-pre ... -2015.html

Not only is that not a link to the Congressional Budget Office, the term "Congressional Budget Office" does not even appear in the article.

[Sixstrings]

Not only is that not a link to the Congressional Budget Office, the term "Congressional Budget Office" does not even appear in the article.

I second that. There is a big difference between a CBO report reference and commentary on Prison Planet.

[copious.abundance]

But just because some people here are really dumb and I'm bored and like to prove people wrong who make up things or have no idea what they're talking about, here's what the CBO's latest economic forecast (released on Jan. 8 ) actually has to say on the matter:

--> The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 <--
Go to page 5:

CBO’s Economic Projections for Calendar Years 2009 to 2019

[...]

Fourth Quarter to Fourth Quarter (Percentage change)
Real GDP
Estimated 2008: -0.4
Forecast 2009: -1.5
Forecast 2010: 3.0
Projected Annual Average 2011-2014: 4.0
Projected Annual Average: 2.3

[Snowrunner]

"Recovery time" is a funny term anyway.

If you look at how long it took for Wallstreet for example to regain all the losses (inflation adjusted) it was 30+ years from bottom to "level".

As it seems we are getting hammered much harder this time around the term: "Game Over" is probably appropriate.

[shady28]

"Recovery time" is a funny term anyway.

If you look at how long it took for Wallstreet for example to regain all the losses (inflation adjusted) it was 30+ years from bottom to "level".

As it seems we are getting hammered much harder this time around the term: "Game Over" is probably appropriate.

You're talking about the stock market decline from 1929-1932, not beating its 1929 highs until 1957 or so?

If you're looking at it that way, this started in Jan 2000. We have not made a new high in real dollars (inflation adjusted) since then. So, we are technically 9 years into this.

Just 21 more years to go.

[bratticus]

$1.2 trillion dollar deficit: Obama's hands are tied

BloggingStocks
by Connie Madon
Posted Jan 10th 2009

How would you like stepping into the presidency with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and with the country clamoring for dramatic change to get the economy back on track?

Barack Obama has had to scale back his stimulus program to $775 billion dollars over two years. Some analysts are saying that this will not be enough.

The Congressional Budget Office said that the budget deficit would shatter the previous post-World War II record. Without the stimulus, the deficit would be 8.3% of GDP and with the stimulus it will be 10% of GDP. CBO estimates that revenues will fall by 6.6% and government spending will rise by 17%.

Without a stimulus package, it is estimated that the economy would shrink by 2.2%, unemployment would reach 9.2% in 2010, and house prices would fall another 14%. The economy would not return to normal until 2015!

... snip ...

[bratticus]

But just because some people here are really dumb and I'm bored and like to prove people wrong who make up things or have no idea what they're talking about, here's what the CBO's latest economic forecast (released on Jan. 8 ) actually has to say on the matter:

--> The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 <--
Go to page 5:

CBO’s Economic Projections for Calendar Years 2009 to 2019

[...]

Fourth Quarter to Fourth Quarter (Percentage change)
Real GDP
Estimated 2008: -0.4
Forecast 2009: -1.5
Forecast 2010: 3.0
Projected Annual Average 2011-2014: 4.0
Projected Annual Average: 2.3

I totally don't get how the GDP will get better while unemployment is getting worse.

Unemployment rate /// Real GDP
Estimated 2008: 5.7% /// -0.4%
Forecast 2009: 8.3% /// -1.5%
Forecast 2010: 9.0% /// 3.0%

How does that work?

[the48thronin]

I totally don't get how the GDP will get better while unemployment is getting worse.

Unemployment rate /// Real GDP
Estimated 2008: 5.7% /// -0.4%
Forecast 2009: 8.3% /// -1.5%
Forecast 2010: 9.0% /// 3.0%

How does that work?

Two different models, BUT having said that.. if many of the unemployed come from the lower paid sector, while the masters of the universe continue to demand humongeous raises to prevent their leaving the floundering companies they have led so well ( 'Scuse my rant, back to the subject), If most of the unemployed receive at least 52 weeks of unemployment or if the government intervenes with some feel good retraining program to provide the missing income...VOILA`.

Just a passing thought.

[bratticus]

If most of the unemployed receive at least 52 weeks of unemployment or if the government intervenes with some feel good retraining program to provide the missing income...VOILA`.

Oh, I can see how that would bring the real GDP up 4.5% in a year.

[Chuckmak]

Prison Planet? UGH.

[Jotapay]

Prison Planet? UGH.

Alex is on a roll like a run-away train this week. He is in top form, LOL, like a bull on PCP in a china shop.

He is talking to Ron Paul atm.

[bratticus]

Two different models...

So are they both true?

[the48thronin]

Two different models...

So are they both true?

If you factor in the amount of TRUE any number given by governmental agencies is.

Inflation will never look to the actual retail buyer as it models out after variable "volitiles" are removed by the government models.

Unemployment has been tinkered with so often no one I know accepts the government number as anything but the latest propaganda from the in house numbers twisters.

Ronald Reagan needed instant better numbers so he added the entire U S Military in to the mix. ( they all were employed LOL).

Jimmey Carter needed better numbers so he decided anyone not filing for government checks was not unemployed. The official number means nothing as even the IRS admits the off the books ( in mexico they call it casual employment) payroll is somewhere between 20 and 30% of low wage earners.

Getting back to the question that started this;

I totally don't get how the GDP will get better while unemployment is getting worse.

Unemployment rate /// Real GDP
Estimated 2008: 5.7% /// -0.4%
Forecast 2009: 8.3% /// -1.5%
Forecast 2010: 9.0% /// 3.0%

How does that work?

I thought I was clear enough, but can try again.

Spending is not employment. If the government spends millions and millions bailing out industries, those sales ( when the industry spends the bailout) and the resultant sales of products produced need not creat JOBS for those unemployed. The multiple levels of oversight the government will establish over those programs that do creat some jobs will eat massivly more money than those jobs will pay. The end result will be money changing hands which will reflect into the GDP models, but not necessarily into the unemployment counting.


Yes Virginia when you are the government .... there is a Santa Claus for all your contributers and political friends...

[copious.abundance]

But just because some people here are really dumb and I'm bored and like to prove people wrong who make up things or have no idea what they're talking about, here's what the CBO's latest economic forecast (released on Jan. 8 ) actually has to say on the matter:

--> The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 <--
Go to page 5:

CBO’s Economic Projections for Calendar Years 2009 to 2019

[...]

Fourth Quarter to Fourth Quarter (Percentage change)
Real GDP
Estimated 2008: -0.4
Forecast 2009: -1.5
Forecast 2010: 3.0
Projected Annual Average 2011-2014: 4.0
Projected Annual Average: 2.3

I totally don't get how the GDP will get better while unemployment is getting worse.

Unemployment rate /// Real GDP
Estimated 2008: 5.7% /// -0.4%
Forecast 2009: 8.3% /// -1.5%
Forecast 2010: 9.0% /// 3.0%

How does that work?

Employment is usually a lagging indicator. It usually takes a while for companies to lay off and re-hire employees as the economy gets bad and then good again. A great example of this was in ~2003, when GDP had a couple of really strong quarters while employment levels continued to drop.

[bratticus]

Spending is not employment. If the government spends millions and millions bailing out industries, those sales (when the industry spends the bailout) and the resultant sales of products produced need not create JOBS for those unemployed.

How can things be sold when no one is employed?

Isn't the car industry suffering from a downturn in solvent consumers?