Economists: Recession to end in 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still don't understand about what you are talking.

I'm studied in economy and have alot of research about how economy works, signal of recession require negative growth in GDP but in 2003 until 2007, economy was in good shape, beside of oil crisis and real estate situation, such as mortgage subprime but it's still not good as in 90's.

If the economy had been in such good shape, it would not have spiraled down the way it did. The oil crisis was definately a precipitating factor (there is a reason it was called a crisis), and the housing market bottomed out.
 
I still don't understand about what you are talking.

I'm studied in economy and have alot of research about how economy works, signal of recession require negative growth in GDP but in 2003 until 2007, economy was in good shape, beside of oil crisis and real estate situation, such as mortgage subprime but it's still not good as in 90's.

Then apparently the research you're reading isn't accurate because as Jillio said, the polls indicated prior to the election how dissatisfied Americans were with the current state of our economy.
 
By the way, if you're going to give credit to Bush for a short period of time in which the economy was "good," please do the same with Clinton instead of criticizing him for actions that had nothing to do with how strong the economy was under his Presidency.
 
Then apparently the research you're reading isn't accurate because as Jillio said, the polls indicated prior to the election how dissatisfied Americans were with the current state of our economy.

You misunderstood my post, I'm not talking about Iraq war.

I'm going to explain again, I'm studied in economic and have alot of research about how market works, it has nothing with war situation.

I know about economy has been number 1 as most concern because previous government, such as Bush admin and congresses has been blamed for mismanage of economy, for example like loosen of regulation for businesses, bank and mortgage.
 
Number of foreclosures soared in 2007

LOS ANGELES - The number of U.S. homes that slipped into some stage of foreclosure in 2007 was 79 percent higher than in the previous year, a real estate tracking company said Tuesday. Many homeowners started to fall behind on mortgage payments in the last three months, setting the stage for more foreclosures this year.

About 1.3 million homes received foreclosure-related warnings last year, up from 717,522 in 2006, Irvine-based RealtyTrac Inc. said. Foreclosure filings rose 75 percent from the previous year to 2.2 million.

More than 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some phase of the foreclosure process last year, up from about half a percent in 2006, RealtyTrac said.

Number of foreclosures soared in 2007 - Mortgage Mess- msnbc.com
 
You misunderstood my post, I'm not talking about Iraq war.

I'm going to explain again, I'm studied in economic and have alot of research about how market works, it has nothing with war situation.

I know about economy has been number 1 as most concern because previous government, such as Bush admin and congresses has been blamed for mismanage of economy, for example like loosen of regulation for businesses and mortgage.

You're contradicting yourself. You just said that the recession we are in was partially due to the Iraq war. <confused>
 
By the way, if you're going to give credit to Bush for a short period of time in which the economy was "good," please do the same with Clinton instead of criticizing him for actions that had nothing to do with how strong the economy was under his Presidency.

I have nothing to against on Clinton, except for some thing that's not related with topic and economy was in great shape during Clinton admin.

I don't blame on Clinton admin alone for 2001 recession but it has caused by many factors, same with Bush admin for late 2000's recession.
 
The Bush Adminstration should be blamed for the poor state of our economy. After all, it happened under his Presidency did it not?
 
You misunderstood my post, I'm not talking about Iraq war.

I'm going to explain again, I'm studied in economic and have alot of research about how market works, it has nothing with war situation.

I know about economy has been number 1 as most concern because previous government, such as Bush admin and congresses has been blamed for mismanage of economy, for example like loosen of regulation for businesses, bank and mortgage.

I'm confused. Are you saying the the Iraq War has not had a negative impact on the economy?
 
You're contradicting yourself. You just said that the recession we are in was partially due to the Iraq war. <confused>

That's point about I was studied in economic is separate with situation about Iraq war, it's just like part of education and learn about new thing.

For recession, if massive government spending has involve with Iraq war then it could be true if you say so.
 
The Bush Adminstration should be blamed for the poor state of our economy. After all, it happened under his Presidency did it not?

If you believe so then it's fine.

Just let agree to disagree.
 
That's point about I was studied in economic is separate with situation about Iraq war, it's just like part of education and learn about new thing.

For recession, if massive government spending has involve with Iraq war then it could be true if you say so.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Would you mind clarifying?
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on Monday.

The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845 billion directly.

"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.

Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war, health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs,
which the book details.

To illustrate how the money could be spent elsewhere, Bilmes cited the annual U.S. budget for autism research -- $108 million -- which is spent every four hours in Iraq. A trillion dollars could have hired 15 million additional public school teachers for a year or provided 43 million students with four-year scholarships to public universities, the book says.

Stiglitz and Bilmes say they were excessively conservative in calculating the $3 trillion figure, overcompensating for their bias in having opposed the war.

'FLOODING THE ECONOMY'

Asked if the war has contributed to the U.S. slowdown, Stiglitz said, "Very much so."

"To offset that depressing effect, the Fed has flooded the economy with liquidity and the regulators looked the other way when very imprudent lending was going up," Stiglitz said. "We were living on borrowed money and borrowed time and eventually a day of reckoning had to come, and it has now come."

The war has also altered how the United States has reacted to its current economic troubles, he said.

"When America's financial institutions had a problem, they had to turn to the sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East for recapitalization, for the bailout," he said.

"The reason was obvious. The war had led to high oil prices. The war had meant that America had to borrow more money. There weren't sources of liquid funds in the United States. The sources of the liquid funds were in the Middle East," he said.


Iraq war hits U.S. economy: Nobel winner | Reuters
 
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Would you mind clarifying?

I had tried to explain again, ugh.

I'm studied in economic and have lot of research about how market works, I was just expressed about myself and just part of learn about new thing.
 
No problem.

Thanks, there's many different opinion about how bad economy cause, there's alot of agree and disagree.

I don't blame on Obama admin for poor economy because it has nothing with Obama and Obama has work so hard to challenge with poor economy.
 
I had tried to explain again, ugh.

I'm studied in economic and have lot of research about how market works, I was just expressed about myself and just part of learn about new thing.

I've studied the economy and how it works myself ever since 7th grade yet that doesn't mean I fail to acknowledge the reality of what is in front of me. (i.e. a poor economy due to the Bush Administration)
 
Thanks, there's many different opinion about how bad economy cause, there's alot of agree and disagree.

I don't blame on Obama admin for poor economy because it has nothing with Obama.

You're welcome. :)
 
I've studied the economy and how it works myself ever since 7th grade yet that doesn't mean I fail to acknowledge the reality of what is in front of me. (i.e. a poor economy due to the Bush Administration)

I don't say you are fail to acknowledge but you just entitled your opinion about situation with economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top