PLEASE Support Free Republic Today!
Posted on 07/31/2013 12:00:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
In the 21st century, during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. economy has not shown the ability to grow that it did in the last two decades of the 20th century, according to data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
In fact, real average annual economic growth has been nearly cut in half so far this century compared to the last two decades of the last century; and specifically during President Obama’s time in office it has dropped to an average of just over 1 percent. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
What am I missing? The Fed pumps $85 billion per month into the economy. That extends out to about a $1 trillion per year. The country runs a deficit of about $1 trillion annually (maybe a little less this year). So let's say, we are talking about ‘stimulus’ to the tune of $1.75 trillion. GDP growth, as reported today ran about 1.7% in the second quarter, couple with a revised 1.1% for the first quarter. So lets say 1.4% growth for the year. 1.4% of total GDP of 15.8 trillion GDP works out to about $220 billion. Stimulate with $1.75 trillion, get growth of $220 billion. What does this say about the underlying, non-stimulated economy?
Buy air bladder stock.. the sea levels are rising yaknow..
Too much air blather on the liberal media. The market is saturated . . .
Well, you are double-counting, for one thing. The Fed is buying U.S. debt from Congress’ budget.
The Fed money isn’t going in to the economy at all. That’s just the bookkeeping trick for the printing of the money for the federal budget deficit.
...and of that federal budget, a third or more is interest on prior debt.
So instead of your double-counted $2 trillion, we are “only” talking about $660 Billion ($1 Trillion budget debt - $340 Billion interest on old debt). I didn’t bother looking up the interest figure. Might be more, might be less.
...and of that $660 Billion, a couple hundred billion was paid to foreign entities as part of our Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/Libya/Yemen/Sudan/Somalia war efforts where locals provide basic things like water and gasoline and contractor help.
Leaving about $300 Billion in new money left in the U.S.
...which starts to get mighty close to the 1.7% GDP growth for the 2nd Quarter of 2013.
*If you don’t count the private credit that the new money printing killed.
Once you count that loss, you are left with oilfield fracking, hyper-farming, and Web 3.0 propping up the U.S. economy.
WOOT! That’s ten times better than under Bush!
Sincerely,
Low info voter
So, compared to population growth, there is virtually NO economic growth in the US since the year 2000, the country has gone hopelessly in debt and its future obligations keep increasing.
How is it even possible to justify not sending home the illegals with these statistics? In these years they've flooded the US, there's been virtually no economic growth and federal debt has grown exponentially.
But this is good, right? (Cue Normalcy Bias)
This stuff just keeps turning over in my head. I know that the Fed DOES buy U.S. debt in the form of Treasury securities. They do this to keep interest rates low because other buyers of the debt are starting to balk at debt at such low interest rates. BUT, with QE3, they are also buying mortgage backed securities which is NOT government debt. The purchases take these loans out of the hands of the financial institutions, and replace them with cash. Cash created out of thin air. These institutions are supposed to re-circulate the money in the economy to spur growth, but more often than not, they put it into the stock market, as this seems to be the hot commodity nowadays. It is an attempt at economic stimulation, and it is having mixed results (if one were to be charitable).
Most of the economic drag is from increased transaction costs and operational costs in manhours and money from things like over-regulation, taxation, and tort. Reduce any of that and the economy will improve.
Other areas of economic drag are from the reduction in available private credit (which takes a hit with every borrowed federal Dollar) and energy+labor costs...which oilfield fracking helps ease.
Any serious leader could easily goose the U.S. economy by improving energy costs (e.g. increasing federal leases, offshore, fracking, pipelines), reducing government borrowing, encouraging more private credit lending, reducing the overall regulatory burden, reducing tort liability, and/or reducing the overall taxation burden.
That’s how you grow an economy from “the Middle Out”, dontcha know? /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.