1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

THE RECESSION OF 2008: Live team coverage

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Football_Bat, Jan 4, 2008.

  1. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    And away we go ....

    Unemployment spikes to 5%:

    The stage is set for '70s-style stagflation:

    Our brethren are losing jobs left and right, individually or otherwise:

    But Britney's in the nuthouse, so never fucking mind.
  2. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    GDP increased 4.9 last quarter and 3.8 the previous quarter. We aren't quite headed for a recession yet, sir.
  3. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    The thing that bugs me about GDP is that it counts EVERYTHING.

    Which means it includes debt.

    Spend $800 billion in Iraq with no means of paying for it . . . good for GDP.

    Carry a $15,000 balance on your credit card . . . good for GDP.

    Purchase a $55,000 BMW that you can't afford . . . good for GDP.


    It's an old article, but the principles still apply. Maybe even moreso since debt was not as much of a problem back in 1999.
  4. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Would the Iraq spending be included?

    I thought the only military spending included in GDP was the military-industrial complex, etc.
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Good question. Do not rightly know.

    But whenever the defense budget is addressed as being too high, someone else will point out that it's "only" x.x% of GDP (which is usually a reasonably low number, compared with history).

    That makes it sound like GDP includes it. But I do not know for sure.
  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Time for the "D" word.

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  7. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    If you peek out the window, that black helicopter will swoop down upon you.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  8. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Catchy thread title. I think you are right about stagflation. I think more startling than rising unemployment is the under employment and low wages. Also, real estate used to be a great place to park your money during a recession -- not any more. It'll be interesting.
  9. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    As the Chinese have long loved to say, "May you live in interesting times."

    They don't smile, when they say it.
  10. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    The unemployment rate during Clinton's first four years:

    1993 6.91%
    1994 6.10%
    1995 5.59%
    1996 5.41%

    But all the reporting back then was about how great times were.

    Now, as the unemployment rate creeps toward 5% coming off a quarter where the GDP growth was 4.9%, (it averaged 3.5% in the Clinton years) a depression is obviously coming.

    Ridiculous. Actually, a very simple way to avoid a depression would be to start selling tin foil hats to all those suffering from BDS about now.
  11. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    You just shot yourself in the foot on this one.

    Look at the TREND. It was 7.5% when he was elected in 1992 . . . 5.5% four years later . . . and 3.9% four years after that.

    There is only one way to accomplish that: massive job creation. I will never forget the job report from February 1996: 700,000 jobs created in one month.

    So, with 22 million jobs created . . . and the stock market going up 300 percent . . . and inflation and interest rates held in check . . . and a balanced budget . . . and the number of people on welfare declining . . .

    . . . yes, the reporting on the economy was generally positive.
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Clinton won on the lie of "worst economy in 50 years when in actuality 1992 was a year of growth after a recession in 1991 -- which was before anyone had even heard of Clinton. And it was a recession caused by Bush I's breaking of the no-new-taxes pledge.

    Bush II, on the other hand, inherited a recession that was then greatly exacerbated by 9/11. Then from late 2002 on we had great growth and falling unemployment. That "trend" was always ignored.

    A ton of reporting on the "bad" economy in 1992. Absolutely no reporting on the bad economy of 2000.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page