Second quarter 2018 U.S. growth rate estimate, 3.7%

[Shaul]

The estimates for the U.S. second quarter 2018 economic growth rate is 3.7%. One Federal Reserve Office puts the estimate at 4.8%.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4179420-u-s-gdp-growth-q2-still-track-rebound

 

[PureX]

The estimates for the U.S. second quarter 2018 economic growth rate is 3.7%. One Federal Reserve Office puts the estimate at 4.8%.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4179420-u-s-gdp-growth-q2-still-track-rebound

And all of it will go to the richest 1% of the population.

 

[Sunstone]

Good news/bad news. In the good news category, the growth might be sufficient to head off the recession being predicted by most leading economists surveyed to hit us by 2020. In the bad news category, the growth combined with low unemployment might fuel inflation, causing the Fed to raise interest rates and thus reduce the risk of inflation at the cost of increasing unemployment.

Most people will not recall by now that way back in 2008 following the stimulus package passed by congress to alleviate the Great Recession, several notable economists, including the well known Paul Krugman, predicted that the package was so much less than what was needed for a quick recovery it would take a decade for the economy to really heat up again.

Turns out they were right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The estimates for the U.S. second quarter 2018 economic growth rate is 3.7%. One Federal Reserve Office puts the estimate at 4.8%.

And what was the economic growth rate under pharaoh?

Perhaps because I'm Jewish I find your particular kid of obsequious cheerleading more than tasteless. Is this truly your image of tikkun olam - repairing the world one corporate bonus at a time?

 

[Shaul]

Good news/bad news. In the good news category, the growth might be sufficient to head off the recession being predicted by most leading economists surveyed to hit us by 2020. In the bad news category, the growth combined with low unemployment might fuel inflation, causing the Fed to raise interest rates and thus reduce the risk of inflation at the cost of increasing unemployment.

Most people will not recall by now that way back in 2008 following the stimulus package passed by congress to alleviate the Great Recession, several notable economists, including the well known Paul Krugman, predicted that the package was so much less than what was needed for a quick recovery it would take a decade for the economy to really heat up again.

Turns out they were right.

Economic predictions from economists for two years from now should really be taken with a grain of salt.

Paul Krugman, notwithstanding his Nobel prize, has been off the mark in recent years. IMHO his opinion shouldn’t carry much weight.

The Obama stimulus package was of highly dubious effect. In my opinion it was more about giving Obama a pretext to go on a spending spree and didn’t do much to stimulate the economy at all.

 

[Shaul]

And what was the economic growth rate under pharaoh?

Perhaps because I'm Jewish I find your particular kid of obsequious cheerleading more than tasteless. Is this truly your image of tikkun olam - repairing the world one corporate bonus at a time?

You call it cheerleading, I call it simply publishing information that some might find useful. If the economy were doing bad, I would post about that too. The Torah says that we shouldn’t give favor to either the rich nor the poor. I hardly think that economic growth hurts the poor.

As far as tikkun olam, economics is tangential to it. Tikkun olam involves aligning this world with the will of HaShem. That isn’t specific to economics. But then again, if we do align our work with Torah a robust economy would also follow since Torah principles would lead to a Just and strong economy.

Did you really compare President Trump to pharaoh? Really? LOL

 

[Sunstone]

The Obama stimulus package was of highly dubious effect. In my opinion it was more about giving Obama a pretext to go on a spending spree and didn’t do much to stimulate the economy at all.

Obama had nothing to do with the stimulus package, and pointedly declined Bush's offer to join him in passing it. It was wholly passed under Bush. Check it out.

 

[BSM1]

Obama had nothing to do with the stimulus package, and pointedly declined Bush's offer to join him in passing it. It was wholly passed under Bush. Check it out.

But as you can plainly see sitting Presidents can undo most of what a previous President has done with the simple stroke of a pen, Obama doesn't get a pass on this one. He owned the House and Senate for the first two years of his Presidency. If he understood what he was doing he would had more economical success. BTW, I heard this morning that Obama's GDP post-recession only reached 2.1 per cent. Historically most p-r GDP's were around 4 per cent or better. I think most people cannot get over the shock of actually seeing a President put people back to work.

 

[metis]

The Obama stimulus package was of highly dubious effect. In my opinion it was more about giving Obama a pretext to go on a spending spree and didn’t do much to stimulate the economy at all.

You've gotta be kidding, right? Tell us you were just joking, please.

 

[metis]

The Torah says that we shouldn’t give favor to either the rich nor the poor.

As far as tikkun olam, economics is tangential to it. Tikkun olam involves aligning this world with the will of HaShem.

Even though Torah doesn't give "favor" to either, the point you avoid is that it does mandate provisions to help the poor and widows through not only through the Laws dealing with taxation but also through charity. To hurt the poor and many of the elderly as the massive cuts in Medicaid will do, is unethical by Torah standards.

And then there is the fact that more and more people will lose their health insurance on top of that, which is indeed a life & death issue.

 

[David1967]

Good news/bad news. In the good news category, the growth might be sufficient to head off the recession being predicted by most leading economists surveyed to hit us by 2020. In the bad news category, the growth combined with low unemployment might fuel inflation, causing the Fed to raise interest rates and thus reduce the risk of inflation at the cost of increasing unemployment.

Most people will not recall by now that way back in 2008 following the stimulus package passed by congress to alleviate the Great Recession, several notable economists, including the well known Paul Krugman, predicted that the package was so much less than what was needed for a quick recovery it would take a decade for the economy to really heat up again.

Turns out they were right.

I do appreciate your unbiased statement on this. It is a refreshing change next to the strictly partisan "its only good when my political party is in charge" mentality so prevalent in news and opinion. I have noticed these last couple years more customers have extra money to put back into the local economy. At the same time I am concerned about the Fed raising interest rates.

 

[Underhill]

Economic predictions from economists for two years from now should really be taken with a grain of salt.

Paul Krugman, notwithstanding his Nobel prize, has been off the mark in recent years. IMHO his opinion shouldn’t carry much weight.

The Obama stimulus package was of highly dubious effect. In my opinion it was more about giving Obama a pretext to go on a spending spree and didn’t do much to stimulate the economy at all.

The stimulus program needed to be bigger. The problem is, and will continue to be, that we cannot afford the kinds of stimulus programs done historically to pull us out of recession because of our excessive debt load.

 

[Shaul]

Obama had nothing to do with the stimulus package, and pointedly declined Bush's offer to join him in passing it. It was wholly passed under Bush. Check it out.

Nice try. The stimulus package was introduced by Democrats (who were titularly headed by Obama) in Congress during Bush’s lame duck period at Obama’s request and direction. Then it was Obama that signed it in law after he took office. Those hints cremate the ersatz stimulus package Obama’s. Its introduction date during Bush’s lame duck period doesn’t make it Bush’s and doesn’t mean it wasn’t Obama’s. It was Obama’s. To write that “Obama had nothing to do with” it is hilarious! It was definitely his creature.

 

[Shaul]

The stimulus program needed to be bigger. The problem is, and will continue to be, that we cannot afford the kinds of stimulus programs done historically to pull us out of recession because of our excessive debt load.

Trying a “bigger” portion of something that has no evidence of working is bizarre.

You can’t “spend” your way to prosperity. The Keynesian model doesn’t work, as evidenced by the record of its previous failed attempts. Believing that it will work the next time when we “do it right this time” is misplaced. They thought they were “doing it right” with the previous attempts too. (Are you conceding that Obama’s stimulus package didn’t “do it right”, BTW?)

You do realize that any proposed stimulus package must be financed by debt too, right?

 

[Underhill]

Nice try. The stimulus package was introduced by Democrats (who were titularly headed by Obama) in Congress during Bush’s lame duck period at Obama’s request and direction. Then it was Obama that signed it in law after he took office. Those hints cremate the ersatz stimulus package Obama’s. Its introduction date during Bush’s lame duck period doesn’t make it Bush’s and doesn’t mean it wasn’t Obama’s. It was Obama’s. To write that “Obama had nothing to do with” it is hilarious! It was definitely his creature.

And it really doesn't matter as Obama was ham-stringed by almost 4 decades of deficit spending.

 

[Underhill]

Trying a “bigger” portion of something that has no evidence of working is bizarre.

You can’t “spend” your way to prosperity. The Keynesian model doesn’t work, as evidenced by the record of its previous failed attempts. Believing that it will work the next time when we “do it right this time” is misplaced. They thought they were “doing it right” with the previous attempts too. (Are you conceding that Obama’s stimulus package didn’t “do it right”, BTW?)

You do realize that any proposed stimulus package must be financed by debt too, right?

Really? (sarcasm)

You are dead wrong on all counts. First, we have a long history of stimulus working for every recession since the 50's. It wasn't all called stimulus but it was increased spending by the government to get money flowing and people working. Second, the problem with the debt is not stimulus and spending our way out of a bad economy. Keynes did not propose indefinite deficit spending but short term debt that we pay off as the economy improves. The problem is that since Reagan, we have had virtually non stop deficits, regardless of the economic condition of the country.

Keynes was pretty much spot on if you read what he actually said and not the bastardization of his teachings that the economy has become.

 

[Shaul]

Even though Torah doesn't give "favor" to either, the point you avoid is that it does mandate provisions to help the poor and widows through not only through the Laws dealing with taxation but also through charity. To hurt the poor and many of the elderly as the massive cuts in Medicaid will do, is unethical by Torah standards.

And then there is the fact that more and more people will lose their health insurance on top of that, which is indeed a life & death issue.

I don’t “avoid” any such thing. Aid for the “widows and orphans” is supposed to come from us, not the government. It is our privilege to help the poor and needy. There is no evidence that reducing the size of government hurts the poor, just the opposite. Yes, the populous must replace any assistance previously provided by reduced programs. But a reduced government means the people will have the resources to do so and do it cheaper. There was a time before massive government programs. There is no divine mandate for them. There is a divine mandate for individuals.

 

[Shaul]

Really? (sarcasm)

You are dead wrong on all counts. First, we have a long history of stimulus working for every recession since the 50's. It wasn't all called stimulus but it was increased spending by the government to get money flowing and people working. Second, the problem with the debt is not stimulus and spending our way out of a bad economy. Keynes did not propose indefinite deficit spending but short term debt that we pay off as the economy improves. The problem is that since Reagan, we have had virtually non stop deficits, regardless of the economic condition of the country.

Keynes was pretty much spot on if you read what he actually said and not the bastardization of his teachings that the economy has become.

Simply put, there is no such history of it working as you think there is.

 

[Underhill]

Simply put, there is no such history of it working as you think there is.

Of course there is. It has been researched extensively. It is hard to measure the impact precisely, and there are many variables at play. But we have plenty of evidence that it does work.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...cessions.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1y8jWh-IarkoNn3tong6kG

 

[metis]

I don’t “avoid” any such thing. Aid for the “widows and orphans” is supposed to come from us, not the government. It is our privilege to help the poor and needy. There is no evidence that reducing the size of government hurts the poor, just the opposite. .

False on both counts. First of all, in regards to Torah, this is what we see:

1. Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22) (negative) (CCI6).
2. To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) (CCI1).
3. Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9) (negative) (CCI7).
4. To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9) (affirmative) (CCI2).
5. Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10) (negative) (CCI8).
6. To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21) (affirmative) (CCI3).
7. Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10) (negative) (CCI9).
8. To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10) (affirmative) (CCI4).
9. Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20) (negative) (CC10).
10. To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20) (affirmative) (CCI5).
11. Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7) (CCN62). See Tzedakah: Charity.
12. To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11) (CCA38). See Tzedakah: Charity.

Note that charity is only the last two items, and the irony is that even those are mandated but have no fixed amount. All others are mandated through Law, therefore are forms of taxation. The concept that eretz Israel depended on charity alone is simply bogus.

As far as the idea of reducing the government doesn't hurt the poor, depending on how that is done, can very much hurt the poor as well.

If one studies history, they would know that the ills of unbridled capitalism caused so many problems that no country in the world today uses it. And it's simply unethical by Torah standards to elevate any political/economic system above the people that these are supposed to serve, and Israel was the first known country in world history to mandate help for all in need, which also involved formulating various forms of taxation as I quoted above.

In our history, such mandates were so thorough that a common accusation against us was "Scratch a Jew and what you see is a socialist". The idea of leaving charity alone to help the poor is simply not in any way "Judaism".