|
Since we are almost in a recession | by imrambi | 2008-03-20 11:48:51 |
|
It's not a recession, it's just prices going up | by murphoid | 2008-03-20 12:05:36 |
|
Keep telling yourself that. (n/t) | by Didactylos | 2008-03-20 12:08:29 |
|
Where's the contraction of the US economy? | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 12:20:36 |
| What areas is it expanding in though? |
by subbywan |
2008-03-20 12:44:52 |
What i'm seeing is the Govt basically screwing the country by artificially growing the economy (ie, dumping billions to shore up housing and credit market). It's also artificial in that groups like Bank of America buy up the sub-prime mortgage companies that are floundering, then use that loss as a tax-write off. This leads to an incorrect vision of the real state of affairs.
On the surface, this looks good, for the reasons stated above -- Companies that should be posting losses aren't, for example -- but it doesn't actually fix the problem. It merely digs a bigger hole, so when the collapse DOES occur, it's all the nastier.
Personally, I'm thinking they're doing it, so when it breaks, it's the next presidents problem, and not Bush's.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Expansion is irrelevant for a discussion | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 12:48:10 |
|
Um, how is expansion irrelevant? | by merlin | 2008-03-20 12:49:23 |
|
in general, because expansion is evidence | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 12:52:39 |
|
Exactly. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 12:59:19 |
|
No, but you CAN have lying about the expansion. | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 13:00:25 |
|
A detailed post for that is | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 13:09:05 |
|
already replied (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 13:17:03 |
|
ditto. ;) (n/t) | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 13:20:38 |
|
It may be relevant. | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 12:51:45 |
|
In that case, yes. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 13:07:49 |
|
Therein lies the trouble. | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 13:16:43 |
|
Of course. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 13:20:08 |
|
It all depends on where they get their source data | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 13:22:46 |
|
Could just mean, that everybody uses the same | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 13:40:58 |
|
Yeah, but they're also French :P | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 13:46:00 |
|
As if the French loved the States. :P | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 14:06:28 |
|
The US is seen as a entity in and of itself | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 14:10:18 |
|
Elaborate, please, with short words, if you can. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 14:12:42 |
|
Economically, the EU operates as a whole | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 14:23:41 |
|
This is not quite true, I think. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 14:35:56 |
|
The member states can be very diverse, but | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 14:46:08 |
|
Of course the US can do so. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 14:49:14 |
|
Even national security is tempered | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 15:03:04 |
|
Not all EU members are Schengen members. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 15:07:42 |
|
Yes, but the analogy holds. | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 15:09:31 |
|
My point: | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 15:21:46 |
|
yes, you're talking past me :P | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 15:32:36 |
|
Well, I said that my perspective can be skewed. | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 15:36:15 |
|
Actually, there are some aspects the US would do | by subbywan | 2008-03-20 15:38:49 |
|
Works both ways. (n/t) | by CynicalRyan | 2008-03-20 15:52:04 |
