Is This The 1970s All Over?

[Moonglow]

A wounded animal(our economy) does not just jump back up after the owners(rich people) have rode it until it collapses.

 

[The Rabbi]

A wounded animal(our economy) does not just jump back up after the owners(rich people) have rode it until it collapses.

Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about? Growth after recessions is typically higher than average.

 

[Moonglow]

not the way corporations have been acting the last 10 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

not the way corporations have been acting the last 10 years.

Wrong.

Note that after the last recession in 2001 growth got to about 6%. It hasn't been over 3% since Obama took office.

 

[Toro]

Over the past three years, CPI has on average risen by 2.3%. It's actually decelerating.

So if we are going to have stagflation, inflation needs to hold up its end of the bargain.

 

[The Rabbi]

Over the past three years, CPI has on average risen by 2.3%. It's actually decelerating.

So if we are going to have stagflation, inflation needs to hold up its end of the bargain.

That was the point of the stagflation article: when the velocity of money begins to rise you will see higher CPI numbers.

 

[Toro]

Velocity may not rise.

 

[AgentSparky]

Those saying that there is no inflation right now obviously don't grocery shop much.

That's because most Obama supporters are probably on foodstamps.

 

[The Rabbi]

Velocity may not rise.

Again, from the posted article. Consumers are ending their deleveraging. When they start to borrow again velocity will increase.

 

[Toro]

I can't see the article. Can you repost?

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't see the article. Can you repost?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/308997-as-i-predicted-stagflation-here-we-come.html

 

[Toro]

Thanks.

I don't know if he's right or not. All I'm saying is that velocity may not rise.

 

[rightwinger]

not the way corporations have been acting the last 10 years.

Wrong.

Note that after the last recession in 2001 growth got to about 6%. It hasn't been over 3% since Obama took office.

Note that after the 2001 recession the economy grew 6%
After Obama took office, it grew 13%

It's your graph pal

 

[The Rabbi]

not the way corporations have been acting the last 10 years.

Wrong.

Note that after the last recession in 2001 growth got to about 6%. It hasn't been over 3% since Obama took office.

Note that after the 2001 recession the economy grew 6%
After Obama took office, it grew 13%

It's your graph pal

Another liberal who cannot read a graph.
Growth under Obama has not exceeded 3%.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong.

Note that after the last recession in 2001 growth got to about 6%. It hasn't been over 3% since Obama took office.

Note that after the 2001 recession the economy grew 6%
After Obama took office, it grew 13%

It's your graph pal

Another liberal who cannot read a graph.
Growth under Obama has not exceeded 3%.

I never realized just how bad conservatives are at math

Negative numbers are such an extreme concept. Negative 8 percent growth to positive 5 percent growth is an increase of 13 percent

 

[Toro]

Note that after the 2001 recession the economy grew 6%
After Obama took office, it grew 13%

It's your graph pal

Another liberal who cannot read a graph.
Growth under Obama has not exceeded 3%.

I never realized just how bad conservatives are at math

Negative numbers are such an extreme concept. Negative 8 percent growth to positive 5 percent growth is an increase of 13 percent

Growth was never 13%. 8% is 8% and -5% is -5%. You don't add or subtract those numbers.

Also, we never grew by 6% per year under Bush. Those are quarter to quarter numbers annualized.

Year over year growth has risen by over 3% under Obama, particularly in the first and third quarters of 2012.

 

[rightwinger]

Another liberal who cannot read a graph.
Growth under Obama has not exceeded 3%.

I never realized just how bad conservatives are at math

Negative numbers are such an extreme concept. Negative 8 percent growth to positive 5 percent growth is an increase of 13 percent

Growth was never 13%. 8% is 8% and -5% is -5%. You don't add or subtract those numbers.

Also, we never grew by 6% per year under Bush. Those are quarter to quarter numbers annualized.

Year over year growth has risen by over 3% under Obama, particularly in the first and third quarters of 2012.

So lets get this straight

-8% growth is the same performance as 0% growth
If you move from negative 8% growth to five percent growth you have not increased 13%

No wonder economists have fucked up this country. How does an economist characterize the act of moving from a period of negative growth to positive growth?

 

[editec]

Do you know what stagflation is? Here's a hint: the "flation" part refers to inflation. During the Carter years (starting with his first full month in office), no single month ever had an inflation rate lower than 5.91%. The inflation rate climbed virtually on a monthly basis until it was in the double digits.

Today, inflation is very, very low (it was negative last year).

The top marginal tax rate is half of what it was in throughout the 1970s (70%). If EGTRRA expires, it would still be under 40%.

Yup.

And please note how Rabbi claims to be an expert in all things financial, and economics, too.

Yet he made the claim that todays macro economic circumstance is similar to that under carter? Does he not know what the prime rate was during the carter years?

January 12, 1976 7.00
January 21, 1976 6.75
June 1, 1976 7.00
June 10, 1976 7.25
August 3, 1976 7.00
September 24, 1976 6.75
November 1, 1976 6.50
November 24, 1976 6.25
May 13, 1977 6.50
May 31, 1977 6.75
August 22, 1977 7.00
September 16, 1977 7.25
October 7, 1977 7.50
October 24, 1977 7.75
January 10, 1978 8.00
May 5, 1978 8.25
May 26, 1978 8.50
June 16, 1978 8.75
July 30, 1978 9.00
August 31, 1978 9.25
September 15, 1978 9.50
September 28, 1978 9.75
October 13, 1978 10.00
October 27, 1978 10.25
November 1, 1978 10.50
November 6, 1978 10.75
November 17, 1978 11.00
November 24, 1978 11.50
December 26, 1978 11.75
June 19, 1979 11.50
July 27, 1979 11.75
August 16, 1979 12.00
August 28, 1979 12.25
September 7, 1979 12.75
September 14, 1979 13.00
September 21, 1979 13.25
September 28, 1979 13.50
October 9, 1979 14.00
October 23, 1979 15.00
November 1, 1979 15.25
November 9, 1979 15.50
November 16, 1979 14.75
November 30, 1979 15.50
December 7, 1979 15.25
February 19, 1980 15.75
February 22, 1980 16.50
February 29, 1980 16.75
March 4, 1980 17.25
March 7, 1980 17.75
March 14, 1980 18.50
March 19, 1980 19.00
March 28, 1980 19.50
April 2, 1980 20.00
April 18, 1980 19.50
May 1, 1980 18.50
May 7, 1980 17.50
May 16, 1980 16.50
May 23, 1980 14.50
May 30, 1980 14.00
June 6, 1980 13.00
June 13, 1980 12.50
June 17, 1980 12.00
July 7, 1980 11.50
July 25, 1980 11.00
August 22, 1980 11.25
August 27, 1980 11.50
September 8, 1980 12.00
September 12, 1980 12.25
September 19, 1980 12.50
September 26, 1980 13.00
October 1, 1980 13.50
October 17, 1980 14.00
October 29, 1980 14.50
November 6, 1980 15.50
November 17, 1980 16.25
November 21, 1980 17.00
November 26, 1980 17.75
December 2, 1980 18.50
December 5, 1980 19.00
December 10, 1980 20.00
December 16, 1980 21.00
December 19, 1980
21.50
(U.S. Prime Rate record high)
(BACK TO TOP | CURRENT PRIME RATE)

January 2, 1981 20.50
January 9, 1981 20.00

The man calling himself Rabbi is a genuine fraud.

 

[The Rabbi]

Note that after the 2001 recession the economy grew 6%
After Obama took office, it grew 13%

It's your graph pal

Another liberal who cannot read a graph.
Growth under Obama has not exceeded 3%.

I never realized just how bad conservatives are at math

Negative numbers are such an extreme concept. Negative 8 percent growth to positive 5 percent growth is an increase of 13 percent

W@ow. Aren't you at all embarrassed? The chart shows the change in GDP quarter to quarter. There is no change in GDP that exceeds about 3% under Obama.
You can now go kill yourself out of shame.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never realized just how bad conservatives are at math

Negative numbers are such an extreme concept. Negative 8 percent growth to positive 5 percent growth is an increase of 13 percent

Growth was never 13%. 8% is 8% and -5% is -5%. You don't add or subtract those numbers.

Also, we never grew by 6% per year under Bush. Those are quarter to quarter numbers annualized.

Year over year growth has risen by over 3% under Obama, particularly in the first and third quarters of 2012.

So lets get this straight

-8% growth is the same performance as 0% growth
If you move from negative 8% growth to five percent growth you have not increased 13%

No wonder economists have fucked up this country. How does an economist characterize the act of moving from a period of negative growth to positive growth?

You really don't get it, do you? No wonder you voted for Obama.