GDP Would Have Been 15% Lower Had McCain Been Elected

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Toro, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,786
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,123
    I highly doubt this but its fun to post nonetheless...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24iht-edsamuelson.html?_r=1
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    As a registered Democrat, I suppose this should make me smile.

    Being a realist, I know this is political tripe. Bush started an effort to add to employment and that was continued by Obma with the stimulus bill enforcement. The only problem is that outside of the ineffective stimulus package, Bernanke and Geitner are just solving the GDP problem. They have managed to manipulate GDP up in corruption with the Banks who are indebted to this corrupt administration, and are now claiming a victory.

    Yep, they have beaten GDP. Now they just have to solve the Depression Problem.
     
  3. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    At first glance, I was quite surprised that a MIT professor would make such hyper-partisan speculation.

    Surprised until I noticed this was the New York Times...
     
  4. FactFinder
    Offline

    FactFinder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,641
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +237
    For this Independent it is a fresh breeze to hear a realistic, pragmatic statement from a Dem.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    I don't know how they could calculate it realistically, so I wouldn't take it to heart. But my question is why would it matter if one artificial GDP number is less than another artificial GDP number?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. eagleseven
    Offline

    eagleseven Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,518
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    OH
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    Actually, upon second thought, I agree with the OP.

    Why?

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

    Obama has increased government spending by more than 15%...dramatically increasing the "government spending" portion of the GDP. If McCain chose an anti-debt fiscal plan, government spending would decrease, and so would GDP. It's simple mathematics.

    Of course, Obama's government-spending spike in GDP has produced little in the way of real economic growth, but it pads the numbers. Padding the numbers seems to be the only thing this Administration has achieved...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,623
    Thanks Received:
    4,860
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,535
    I didn't even read the article, I automatically assumed it had something to do with how much less McCain would have apparently spent...according to his campaign rhetoric.

    I like Kevin's response though.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Eagleseven is exactly right.
    I don't know what McCain would have done. I doubt anybody actually does.
    The right course of course was to backstop the banks and let the other institutions go under in an orderly bankruptcy. The recession would have been more severe initially but we would have been done with it much faster. The resulting growth from resources freed up for more efficient use would have powered an unprecedented surge in GDP (the healthy kind) down the road.
    As it is, we are faced with anemic growth and stagnant industries for the foreseeable future. That future also includes stagflation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,955
    Thanks Received:
    15,716
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,087
    Of all your posts, this may be the most fun of all those that you "saved or created."
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,955
    Thanks Received:
    15,716
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,087
    You are so right.

    Sometimes the NYTimes should be corrected, as in

    “make the poor and middle classes subsidize the ultra rich”


    Comparing the income changes of various groups from a) 1996-2005 and b)1987- 1996
    Poor +109% +81%
    Middle Class +26% +9%
    Rich +9% -2%
    SuperRich -23% -24%
    UltraSuperRich -65% n/a
    (http://treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
     

Share This Page