Your Bloody Soap Box · Public discussion

Europe : Recession Over ?

Started by limerickman · · Last activity · 22 posts · 8,507 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Your Bloody Soap Box
Published
13 August 2009
Last activity
18 August 2009
Original author
limerickman
Posts
22
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
8,507
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 22
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Looks like good economic news for Europe

    France and Germany return to growth
    By Gerrit Wiesmann in Frankfurt
    Published: August 13 2009 09:07 | Last updated: August 13 2009 11:27

    An unexpected rebound in French and German growth helped push the eurozone to the brink of economic recovery in the second quarter, delivering a further signal that the worst of the global crisis may be coming to an end in Europe.

    Gross domestic product in the 16-nation currency bloc fell 0.1 per cent in April, May and June, the European statistics office said on Thursday, cheering economists who had expected a decline of 0.5 per cent after a drop of 2.5 per cent in the first quarter of the year.

    “The overall story is that the eurozone economy has been pulled out of recession by a combination of the revival in the global economy and government fiscal stimulus,” said Nick Kounis, an economist at Fortis Bank in Amsterdam.

    Many economists said they expected the eurozone to swing back to growth in the second half of the year, although they also warned that unemployment, fragile bank lending and an end to stimulus spending still may challenge European economies.
    “Several headwinds are still present in the economy,” said Clemente de Lucia at BNP Paribas in Paris, warning that joblessness could hit consumer spending, and bank write-downs may rein in lending to industry in the coming months.

    Component figures released by national statistical offices over the past days showed that most economies shrank at a slower rate in the second quarter than earlier in the year, with Germany and France reporting a surprise return to growth.

    Robust consumer and public spending - buoyed by large government stimulus programmes - helped both economies grow 0.3 per cent in April, May and June, according to data released by both countries’ statistical offices today.
    The trends surprised economists.
    They had been expecting both economies to contract again – by 0.3 per cent - after German GDP plummeted 3.5 per cent and French GDP shrank by 1.3 per cent in the first quarter.
    “This is the pleasant surprise of the summer for both France and Germany,” said Marc Touati at Global Equities in Paris, although he warned risks to growth remained as stimulus spending ended and the euro remained strong.

    The export-led Germany economy suffered a precipitous fall after financial crisis triggered global recession last year. But signs have mounted recently that a resurgence of foreign demand could quickly stabilise the economy again.
    Christian Dreger at the DIW Economic Research Institute in Berlin said German industry appeared to have come through the worst of the crisis as the global economy recovered. “It looks like the recession’s over,” he said.

    While Greece and Portugal grew 0.3 per cent in the second quarter, the Austrian and Belgian economies shrank 0.4 per cent, Italy’s 0.5 per cent, and the Dutch economy by 0.9 percent. Although the economies shrank, the rates were slower than in the first quarter.

  2. Good luck! Here in the US we have a real wingnut in the White House who thinks that the best way to restore our economy is to run the country deeper in debt. I just hope that he doesn't drag the rest of the world down as he finishes up wrecking our economy. While he was campaining, he said that he was going to redistribute the wealth. Well he did. Instead of having the rich, middle class, and poor......now we only have the poor. The rich moved away and the middle class have been taxed into poverty.

  3. kdelong said:

    Good luck! Here in the US we have a real wingnut in the White House who thinks that the best way to restore our economy is to run the country deeper in debt. I just hope that he doesn't drag the rest of the world down as he finishes up wrecking our economy. While he was campaining, he said that he was going to redistribute the wealth. Well he did. Instead of having the rich, middle class, and poor......now we only have the poor. The rich moved away and the middle class have been taxed into poverty.

    LOL! Where's ol' George W. when you need 'em, eh? He'd sure get you out of your mess - and quick like...LOL!

  4. tonyzackery said:

    LOL! Where's ol' George W. when you need 'em, eh? He'd sure get you out of your mess - and quick like...LOL!

    So you liked "W"? I was glad that his term was up. No, he would have bunged it up just as bad as Wingnut. I was hoping that Ron Paul would get a chance. Oh well, Wingnut will only last four years at the rate that he is going, and then maybe the American people will have the sense to elect non-Republicans and non-Democrats into office. It probably won't happen, but we can still hope.

  5. kdelong said:

    So you liked "W"? I was glad that his term was up. No, he would have bunged it up just as bad as Wingnut. I was hoping that Ron Paul would get a chance. Oh well, Wingnut will only last four years at the rate that he is going, and then maybe the American people will have the sense to elect non-Republicans and non-Democrats into office. It probably won't happen, but we can still hope.

    LOL! You obviously missed the boat early on while the rest of America endured 8 years of ol' George W. LOL! Who do you really think sunk the US into this quagmire? I presume you'd probably say Clinton...🙄

  6. limerickman said:

    Looks like good economic news for Europe

    I don't care much for economics 😉 I wouldn't be smiling until they grow through productivity increases, economies growing on the back of gov stimulus spending is hardly sustainable growth.

    BIS recently said something along the lines of "stimulus packages may provide no more than a temporary boost to growth, and likely followed by an extended period of economic stagnation."

    Easy credit caused the problem, throwing more around obviously isn't going to fix it.

  7. tonyzackery said:

    LOL! You obviously missed the boat early on while the rest of America endured 8 years of ol' George W. LOL! Who do you really think sunk the US into this quagmire? I presume you'd probably say Clinton...🙄

    You could say almost everyone is a co conspirator 😉

  8. kdelong said:

    Good luck! Here in the US we have a real wingnut in the White House who thinks that the best way to restore our economy is to run the country deeper in debt. I just hope that he doesn't drag the rest of the world down as he finishes up wrecking our economy. While he was campaining, he said that he was going to redistribute the wealth. Well he did. Instead of having the rich, middle class, and poor......now we only have the poor. The rich moved away and the middle class have been taxed into poverty.

    [ame="[MEDIA=youtube]AHcxzBwjYHg[/MEDIA]]YouTube - Obama says [censored] You[/ame]

  9. Clinton's fault...... W's fault......Obama will deliver us....
    Translation = We are screwed!

  10. jhuskey said:

    Clinton's fault...... W's fault......Obama will deliver us....
    Translation = We are screwed!

    Incredible. The number of "Chicken Littles" that have been hatched now that there has been change in the White House...incredible...Very predictable, however, considering how change affects many people...still incredible though...

  11. tonyzackery said:

    Incredible. The number of "Chicken Littles" that have been hatched now that there has been change in the White House...incredible...Very predictable, however, considering how change affects many people...still incredible though...

    We been screwed for years and just because you like the present administration ,for whatever reason, don't make everything rosey.
    I hope he does a hell of a job but so far I don't see anything that will help me live a better life.

  12. jhuskey said:

    We been screwed for years and just because you like the present administration ,for whatever reason, don't make everything rosey.
    I hope he does a hell of a job but so far I don't see anything that will help me live a better life.

    So you've been screwed for years? That's not the sentiment I read in your previous entry. It's clearly an indication that you're now screwed only because Obama's in office to attempt to clean up the mess left by the previous executive.

    Whether I like him or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that so many of you "Chicken Littles" will not even give the guy a fair shot at being successful because of the obvious reason that needs no mention...

    I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer...I'm done.

  13. tonyzackery said:

    So you've been screwed for years? That's not the sentiment I read in your previous entry. It's clearly an indication that you're now screwed only because Obama's in office to attempt to clean up the mess left by the previous executive.

    Whether I like him or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that so many of you "Chicken Littles" will not even give the guy a fair shot at being successful because of the obvious reason that needs no mention...

    I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer...I'm done.

    You only read into my post what you you wanted to read into it. I'll give anyone a fair shot I just don't see any logic in what he is doing, I see the same special favors to special interest only the name have changed but I agree to be done also and we can comment say... next July. That will give everyone better picture of what is going on.

  14. In fairness to President Obama, he's been handed a basketcase economy by that turd Bush.

    A pattern of economic mismanagement seems to be evident when it comes to the Republicans.

    Clinton inherited a basketcase from George Bush snr - and he succeeded in turning it all around.
    Handing over an economy is superb shape, Turd Bush made a complete bollox of the economy which President Obama has to try to clear up.
    I wish him well.

    Although I do take Wolfix point made here years ago, a Dem President with a Republican Congress or vice versa, might be a possible reason for past solutions.

  15. limerickman said:

    In fairness to President Obama, he's been handed a basketcase economy by that turd Bush.

    A pattern of economic mismanagement seems to be evident when it comes to the Republicans.

    Clinton inherited a basketcase from George Bush snr - and he succeeded in turning it all around.
    Handing over an economy is superb shape, Turd Bush made a complete bollox of the economy which President Obama has to try to clear up.
    I wish him well.

    Although I do take Wolfix point made here years ago, a Dem President with a Republican Congress or vice versa, might be a possible reason for past solutions.

    Regardless of what most people think, here in the US it is Congress that is responsible for what spending takes place or does not take place (hence, the economy). The President only signs the bills he agrees with and vetoes the bills he opposes. Congress can still over ride the veto with enough votes though. What has really screwed things up are the damned "earmarks". This is additional funding for pet projects that are added to the bill and are not debated at all. They pass if the bill passes and fail if the bill fails. If you want to fund a questionable project, you only need to attach it as an earmark to a popular bill and it will be funded. The President could veto it to kill the earmark but then would be accused of being against the popular part of the bill, not the earmark. This is why Bush pushed for the Line Item Veto, so he could kill earmarks without losing a good bill. The Democratic Congress would not pass it, mostly because they were doing everything that they could to torpedoe Bush's Republican Presidency. Obama promised in his campaign speeches that he would not approve any bill that had earmarks in it, however he approved his $800,000,000,000 (rounded off) stimulus plan which had 9,000 earmarks in it! He also promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8% if the stimulus plan was approved. It is nearly 10% now. It is clear to me that we have another liar in the White House and it is time to clean house by not electing any Democrats or Republicans but only independent or third party candidates. It is the fighting between the elephant and the jackass that is bringing our country down. As for Clinton turning the economy around, it looked good on paper but they badly cooked the books (re: Enron). The Clinton term is partly to blame for the mess we are in. A lot of the policies that were passed during his time in office came to fruition during "W"s presidency. Old "W" just made them worse.

  16. jhuskey said:

    You only read into my post what you you wanted to read into it. I'll give anyone a fair shot I just don't see any logic in what he is doing, I see the same special favors to special interest only the name have changed but I agree to be done also and we can comment say... next July. That will give everyone better picture of what is going on.

    At least TZ read your post. He responed to mine but I doubt that he read it. He thinks that I am some sort of rabid Bush supporter and he couldn't be more wrong. I too, am willing to support any one who earns my support, be they black, white, or any color of the rainbow. Race does not matter. What matters is if he can do the job and BO has not proved himself capable of that yet. I'll support him if his performance improves, but a lot of that depends upon Congress. Shouldn't be a problem though because the Dems have a huge majority, but many of them are worried where they will be after their next campaign.

  17. kdelong said:

    Regardless of what most people think, here in the US it is Congress that is responsible for what spending takes place or does not take place (hence, the economy). The President only signs the bills he agrees with and vetoes the bills he opposes. Congress can still over ride the veto with enough votes though. What has really screwed things up are the damned "earmarks". This is additional funding for pet projects that are added to the bill and are not debated at all. They pass if the bill passes and fail if the bill fails. If you want to fund a questionable project, you only need to attach it as an earmark to a popular bill and it will be funded. The President could veto it to kill the earmark but then would be accused of being against the popular part of the bill, not the earmark. This is why Bush pushed for the Line Item Veto, so he could kill earmarks without losing a good bill..

    And who controlled Congress between 2000 - 2006?

    kdelong said:

    The Democratic Congress would not pass it, mostly because they were doing everything that they could to torpedoe Bush's Republican Presidency. Obama promised in his campaign speeches that he would not approve any bill that had earmarks in it, however he approved his $800,000,000,000 (rounded off) stimulus plan which had 9,000 earmarks in it! He also promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8% if the stimulus plan was approved. It is nearly 10% now. It is clear to me that we have another liar in the White House and it is time to clean house by not electing any Democrats or Republicans but only independent or third party candidates. .

    Hold on a second here : what else could President Obama do?
    Your economy virtually imploded between Aug 2007 and Dec 2008.
    AIG was bankrupt, Bearn Stearns, Lehmans, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac..........the list goes on, were all imploded during that time scale.
    The ripples from those implosions started to move out in to the general economy.

    Underpining all of this, resulted from the absolutely reckless stewardship of the fundamentals by the likes of Greenspam etc.
    His deliberate policy of opposing regulation in the financial markets, his dleiberate and willfull decision to artificially depreciate the dollar - have been proven to be disasterous for your economy.

    I might add that Henry Paulson also advocated a large stimulus package to Obama's predecessor.

    kdelong said:

    As for Clinton turning the economy around, it looked good on paper but they badly cooked the books (re: Enron). The Clinton term is partly to blame for the mess we are in. A lot of the policies that were passed during his time in office came to fruition during "W"s presidency. Old "W" just made them worse.

    I think that is slightly unfair to Clinton : Clinton handed over to Bush an economy which had a trade surplus, a balance of payments surplus, an historic low unemployment rate, a budget surplus.
    None of which had anything to do with Enron.

    For the record, I advocate European model - as a European.

  18. You Americans should come home to Europe😄

  19. limerickman said:

    And who controlled Congress between 2000 - 2006?

    Hold on a second here : what else could President Obama do?
    Your economy virtually imploded between Aug 2007 and Dec 2008.
    AIG was bankrupt, Bearn Stearns, Lehmans, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac..........the list goes on, were all imploded during that time scale.
    The ripples from those implosions started to move out in to the general economy.

    Underpining all of this, resulted from the absolutely reckless stewardship of the fundamentals by the likes of Greenspam etc.
    His deliberate policy of opposing regulation in the financial markets, his dleiberate and willfull decision to artificially depreciate the dollar - have been proven to be disasterous for your economy.

    I might add that Henry Paulson also advocated a large stimulus package to Obama's predecessor.

    I think that is slightly unfair to Clinton : Clinton handed over to Bush an economy which had a trade surplus, a balance of payments surplus, an historic low unemployment rate, a budget surplus.
    None of which had anything to do with Enron.

    Dammit, Lim, you should know better than bring a few facts to a fiction party!😄

  20. This is a really good read if your into chart p0rn 🙂

    Nathan's Economic Edge: The Week in Charts – Buckle the Heck Up!

    regards

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.