You sound so bitter. Why did you enlist if you’re against the military so bitterly? Nobody forced you did they?

DebraChicago on October 26, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Actually I argued that spending on military devices being counted in GDP growth should be counted in the GDP. I am bitter about the wealth transfer spending. You seem pretty stupid, does someone else help you get your Internets working so you can misread what other people write?

Well, that makes it sound reasonable!
I understand how government spending is included in GDP, making war machines is an increase in wealth for the nation as a whole. Although I would like to see numbers that take out of consideration government transfer payments that end up being spent.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM

You sound so bitter. Why did you enlist if you’re against the military so bitterly? Nobody forced you did they?

Dasher on October 26, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Well, that makes it sound reasonable!
I understand how government spending is included in GDP, making war machines is an increase in wealth for the nation as a whole. Although I would like to see numbers that take out of consideration government transfer payments that end up being spent.

The government spiked 3rd quarter spending (at the expense of 2nd quarter spending?) and all that they could manage is 2.0% GDP growth? Pathetic.

besser tot als rot on October 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

In a $15 trillion economy 2 percent is $300 billion in a year. For the quarter that would be $75 billion. In the 3rd Qtr our US debt grew by $209 billion. So to get $75 billion in GDP growth the government had to go into debt by additional $209 billion. Netting 35¢ per dollar of new debt.

Now, when people make transactions in a free market, both parties will benefit — or they’d balk at the deal and it wouldn’t happen. So it makes sense that private consumption and investment would be included. It also makes sense to include net exports, as those are also free market transactions.

And in the normal course of things, it might make sense to include government expenditures, as fire protection, roads, defense and such all increase public prosperity. But because government expenditures are coerced, there is no guarantee that government spending is limited to transactions where value is produced.

Just using the formula, 100 Solyndras would be $50B in GDP. The EPA is $9B in GDP — can we really say that its positive effects are anywhere near that? The Department of Education counts as another $45B that serves mainly to fuel inflation in higher education costs. Bank and car maker bailouts are also counted as GDP. Another billion went to the Libya campaign, which seems to have made America less safe in the region.

Unfortunately, there’s no good way to merely include “good government” and exclude cronyism, waste, counterproductivity, and bad ideas. But with the G term making up 20% of the total GDP (3059.8/15075.7 in Q3), the misstatement caused by characterizing all government spending as beneficial is significant.

BTW this 2% will be revised down to 1.7% and then finally settle at 1.4%. Count on it.

On November 7th it will be revised down to 1.5% and blamed on President-elect Romney.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

..were I Romney, I would take all of the blame and downgrading — particularly the latter — I could get. Move them starting blocks back as far as you can go because the recovery that’s coming from common sense, head-out-of-our-asses policies and programs will make the difference much starker.

Day will come when a mention of Obama and his incompetence will cause people to expectorate on the sidewalk.

Are you willfully ignorant, or simply a prevaricating piece of sh1t?

Midas on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

He’s a mostly ignorant troll who thinks he sounds informed if he repeats things he read in a Krugman column like “balance sheet recession.”

Crap like “balance sheet recession” is really nothing more than a poor justification for increased government regulation and spending. Unfortunately, every time we’ve tried it (FDR, Carter, Obama) we’ve seen nothing but continued economic problems. But the left continues to push it despite the fact that math crushes their ideology every time…

PetecminMd on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Keynesian economics is an irresistible drug for leftists. I mean, what do you expect to happen if you suggest to a big-government type that they can improve the economy by spending more government money?

It’s not that root of the Keynesian theory is completely wrong, but in practice it always gets simplified to “spend more money and get prosperity.” So in practice Keynesian economics fails every time it’s tried.

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Whatever. Gummyandpokeme said no such thing would happen, therefore it did not. You bigot.

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Tomorrow will be fun, because I hear Obama is gaining 10 points in the Gallup Poll!!

/Gumby

It’s sad how liberals conflate Wall Street with the economy. Two percent growth isn’t very good, slick. It’s not nearly good enough.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

George Bush Sr. had 4.5% Q3 GDP growth in 1992.

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

And that was the worst economy in 50 years!!!

I mean, Clinton wouldn’t lie. Would he?

The Obama’s say, “What recession? Let them eat cake!”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/spending-on-white-house-dinners-soars-under-obama/article/2511758#.UIqtR4ZQRxW

Perhaps. But I doubt it. People were talking about the so-called “Highway of Death” for years after fact, as if the animals that we were bombed on that stretch of road didn’t have it coming. All I’m saying is that it’s not as cut and dried as you seem to suggest. For my part, I don’t like the idea of taking and holding ground, because it gives our enemies–foreign and domestic–a nice big set of targets to shoot at.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 11:26 AM

So you are arguing that you do not support the steps required to win a war and at the same time telling me how wrong my positions are.

You are right, I am not a great war general, just a simple E-5 when I left the Marines. Of course, that said, I am capable of reading different scenarios written by Great War Generals and decide which of their actions would have been better or worse. We had these discussions at the time of the First Gulf War and since. We had these arguments in the lead up to the Second Iraq War, during the War, and now after.

The fact that government spending is included in gdp at all is a farce.

Gosh, if we just borrow and spend 20 trillion dollars we would have 100% GDP growth!

Professor_Chaos on October 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

You think it’s bad here just imagine the intricately and precariously balanced house of cards that socialist nations claim is their GDP.

No one who understands economics will argue that a 2.0% quarter shows an improving economy, especially not when that number relied on federal government spending increases. Instead, people will focus on the fact that we’re nowhere near a rate of growth that will even allow job creation to keep up with population growth, let alone put the unemployed back to work. In fact, we’re close to net job loss level numbers — and I suspect that the second iteration of Q3 GDP due in a month may drop the number a bit lower than we’re seeing today.

Ed Morrisey

Ed, wrong. The rate of inflation is 1.75% over the same period. If you’re arguing that .25 % is growth, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. The jobs growth number is mostly government jobs/spending.

OT: Obama said no to more bengazi security.

wargamer6 on October 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Wow. That should just about do it for the Obama Administration. And it looks like Hillary is the only one that is going to come out of this with her reputation (such as it is) intact.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

It’a also interesting that you mention Carter, when in fact Reagan passed a much larger stimulus, as if active fiscal policy has always been a partisan issue.

Presidents don’t pass things. Congress does. Presidents sign into law or veto what Congress passes. Just for clarification….

Things got tough because Bush went in light under Rumsfeld’s advice. Shock and Awe. The problem is that the shock and the Awe did not last long. The final outcome was never specified. Victory, we will know it when we see it is not a policy for keeping public support. Public Support can be kept if we tell them what the goals are, and then accomplish those goals, one at a time.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Perhaps. But I doubt it. People were talking about the so-called “Highway of Death” for years after fact, as if the animals that we were bombed on that stretch of road didn’t have it coming. All I’m saying is that it’s not as cut and dried as you seem to suggest. For my part, I don’t like the idea of taking and holding ground, because it gives our enemies–foreign and domestic–a nice big set of targets to shoot at.