- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 3rd quarter GDP second estimate bumped up from 3.0% to 3.3%
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:54 am to Yak
Posted on 11/29/17 at 9:54 am to Yak
quote:
Recovery from what?
Recovery from the anemic 1.5% GDP growth rate during the 8 years of Obama. This country has no shot of paying its bills if we are only growing at 1.5% per year. 3% growth is a must. The math of reducing the deficit is easier.
1
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:01 am to Radiojones
quote:
Won't be long until the Dems start talking about how the average person is being left behind in the Reagan I mean Trump recovery. Same exact shite as the 80s.
Bingo, they'll find some outliers and push them to the forefront and tell us the recovery left these unfortunate people behind.
They'll tell us its better for everyone to creep forward in a malaise than for many to jump forward with a few left behind.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:07 am to frogtown
quote:
3% growth is a must
Growth above 3% is a sign of an economy heading towards instability. Ideal growth rate for our economy is between 2-3%, a number we’ve hit multiple times under Obama and, fortunately, it looks like we will be between 2-3% for 2017 too.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:08 am to Yak
quote:
Recovery from what?
Poor economic growth from 2008 to 2016.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:08 am to VOLhalla
quote:
Ideal growth rate for our economy is between 2-3%,
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:09 am to LSURussian
Volsoyboi is all in still for her.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:10 am to LSURussian
Sorry you’re ignorant of macroeconomics
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:10 am to VOLhalla
quote:
Growth above 3% is a sign of an economy heading towards instability.
What is economic instability? Can you provide an example?
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:11 am to VOLhalla
quote:I've taught macroeconomics. Your "ideal" is just silly.
Sorry you’re ignorant of macroeconomics
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:13 am to GumboPot
All thanks to Our President! Greatest Jobs President that God ever created! 
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:16 am to VOLhalla
quote:Well unlike LSURussian, who seems to be quite knowledgeable in business, finance, and economics, I am pretty ignorant of macroeconomics.
Sorry you’re ignorant of macroeconomics
So please explain why 2 to 3 percent growth would be “ideal.” I get 2 to 3 percent may be “practical,” and therefore not a negative necessarily, but I don’t get why it would be “ideal.”
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:17 am to GumboPot
quote:Roger that, carry on
Poor economic growth from 2008 to 2016.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:17 am to GumboPot
Too high of GDP growth and you’re, at least, looking at serious concerns over inflation. A huge advanced economy like the US’s shouldn’t burn too hot. Steady growth is ideal.
I really dislike Trump but I won’t criticize him when 2017’s GDP growth is in the high 2s. This 3% growth standard is moronic.
I really dislike Trump but I won’t criticize him when 2017’s GDP growth is in the high 2s. This 3% growth standard is moronic.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:18 am to buckeye_vol
2% is not ideal growth, that is way below historical average
There is no such thing as "ideal" growth. If we could get 10% growth without inflation, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
There is no such thing as "ideal" growth. If we could get 10% growth without inflation, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:19 am to VOLhalla
quote:
This 3% growth standard is moronic.
3% is basically what the US has averaged since economists have been tracking GDP. Furthermore, moronic is a poor term used to describe a data point.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:20 am to VOLhalla
Inflation and GDP growth are not inherently connected, dude. You are assuming the economic growth does not involve increases in supply of goods and resources
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:20 am to LSURussian
So you taught economics to some high school kids and you think you know more than world renowned economists? I certainly don’t have a PhD in economics but I’ve read plenty of people who do that say that the ideal growth rate for an economy like ours is between 2-3%
I’ll trust them over some random poster on tigerdroppings
I’ll trust them over some random poster on tigerdroppings
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:22 am to VOLhalla
You are wrong that historical average is 2%
The 40,50s, 80, and 90s were all higher than that
Was there inflation? Nope
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
The 40,50s, 80, and 90s were all higher than that
Was there inflation? Nope
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:22 am to GumboPot
I’m not attacking a data point, I’m attacking an arbitrary standard
Posted on 11/29/17 at 10:23 am to VOLhalla
quote:
So you taught economics to some high school kids and you think you know more than world renowned economists? I certainly don’t have a PhD in economics but I’ve read plenty of people who do that say that the ideal growth rate for an economy like ours is between 2-3%
If the economic policies that you propose can only get you 2-3% then it makes sense that your definition of ideal growth is 2-3%.
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News