Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pat Buchanan Is An Economic Dullard

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:33 PM
Original message
Pat Buchanan Is An Economic Dullard
Edited on Thu Oct-30-03 06:34 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
He's rattling on about the 7.2% quarterly GDP growth....

Fine enough....

Then he's touting the fact that durable goods are a major part of the increase and that bodes well for future economic growth...

If that is the case this robust growth will be short lived....


Durable goods are called durable because they last a long time... If consumers blow their wad on washing machines, big screen televisions, and cars they won't be buying anymore of these items anytime soon...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Flip Side
What I heard though is that inventories were drawn down substantially. That would indicate the need for greater production even if demand does not continue at the same pace as last quarter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. If inventories Are Being Dramatically Drawn Down
Companies will have to hire more people to replace the inventory with new inventory or get their current workers to be more productive....

But that's not what Pat Buchanan said....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. They must be whipping thier credit cards out
Which is just what the economy needs. More consumer debt (I'm being sarcastic). I really don"t see alot of money being handed out when there are no jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who was the idiot who said people were leaving California
because of the liberals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrJones Donating Member (571 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Isabel?
I'm wondering how much of this is a one-time spike because of damage from hurricane Isabel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. One Quarter Of 7.2% GDP Growth Is Not A Trend....
the future will tell if this recovery sticks....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm guilty. I spent like a drunken sailor during Q3....
Now I'm broke. Q4 won't get any help from me. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeahMira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm surprised...
... that you put "economic" in your subject line. You didn't need to! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. Consumer confidence is the key.
IF consumers now feel confident to spend on large ticket items, then it *could* indicate higher spending levels on many other products. IF inventories are thus drawn down, AND if producers expect the spending increase to continue for a significant period, THEN production would increase, and after current workers have been put to longer work weeks, earnring overtime, etc. Finally, if producers think that they need NEW employees, they might hire more people.

But hiring new employees is far more costly than increasing the hours or existing workers, because the cost of benefits packages comes into play. I doubt the economy is to that point, yet. Employment is what we call a 'lag variable'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Right
Hiring part timers is less costly....


You don't have to pay benefits....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC