Skip to comments.
The staying power of an odd recession
Financial Times ^
| April 20 2003 19:24
| By Robert Reich
Posted on 04/20/2003 6:20:30 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: DeaconBenjamin
"the US economy continues to lose jobs at a remarkable rate. The last two monthly job reports, for February and March, show a combined loss of almost half a million jobs. So far, this recession has spawned the longest continuous decline in jobs in half a century."
It's not the recession causing the decline in jobs.
It's politics.
It's not the decline of jobs causing the recession.
It's politics.
Polititians have made it too difficult and costly for American businesses to conduct business in the several states.
Just my own opinion
21
posted on
04/20/2003 7:59:01 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: A. Pole
Yea, I was wondering the same thing when I read that...as I recall it seemed that was the beginning of the end.
That and the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Our gov't likes to punish success.
To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
There have been no quarters of negative growth under Bush Two.This statement is false on its face. The first three quarters of 2001 were all characterized by negative GDP.
23
posted on
04/20/2003 8:13:46 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
Make that "negative 'growth' GDP"...
24
posted on
04/20/2003 8:19:47 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: A. Pole
Right they hiked rates 6 times in 18 months. In addition, Clinton cooked the books which hid the fact the economy was slipping in 1999 and into 2000.
To: AntiGuv; Hillary'sMoralVoid; All
For easy reference from the Bureau of Economic Analysis - National Income and Product Accounts Tables
Table 1.2. Real Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of chained (1996) dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Line |
|
1999 I |
1999 II |
1999 III |
1999 IV |
2000 I |
2000 II |
2000 III |
2000 IV |
2001 I |
2001 II |
2001 III |
2001 IV |
2002 I |
2002 II |
2002 III |
2002 IV |
1 |
Real GDP |
8,733.2 |
8,775.5 |
8,886.9 |
9,040.1 |
9,097.4 |
9,205.7 |
9,218.7 |
9,243.8 |
9,229.9 |
9,193.1 |
9,186.4 |
9,248.8 |
9,363.2 |
9,392.4 |
9,485.6 |
9,518.2 |
Caution on the use of chained-dollar NIPA estimates
To: caltrop
Bush, in addition to being a third rate President, was Reagan's biggest mistake.
Well ... I don't know if it was his biggest mistake.
I would agree he was a lackluster President and a substantial mistake of Reagan's, but for one thing.
If GHWB hadn't been #41, good chance GWB wouldn't have been #43. We went through Klintoon hell to get here, but we got a good man in the White House now.
To: ThePythonicCow
While I agree almost anybody looks good compared to Clinton, I can't get too excited by either Bush. Unlike Reagan, neither Bush has been able to figure out that government's the problem, not the solution.
28
posted on
04/21/2003 2:15:58 PM PDT
by
caltrop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson