View Full Version : Recession and other terrorist myths

Recession and other terrorist myths

Steve

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1053462,00.html

March 28, 2004

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Recession and other terrorist myths By David Smith, The
Sunday Times

There is evidence, on the other hand, that attacks are
becoming more deadly. Deaths in the three years 2000, 2001
and 2002 matched those in the previous
14. Whereas in the past terrorists often preferred to
destroy the symbols of western prosperity and power, for
example by blowing up empty airliners, now they glory in
the taking of human life, usually without warning.

...Neither is true. America¹s recession began a year before
the terrorist attacks, in the third quarter of 2000***. The
third quarter of 2001 was, perhaps surprisingly, the last
one in which the US economy shrank. America embarked on
growth in the fourth quarter of 2001, when the 9/11
shockwaves were compounded by a justified panic over
anthrax. Britain grew through the attacks, our gross
domestic product rising by 0.3% and 0.4% respectively in the
third and fourth quarters of 2001.

Another tidbit of info the fatman Moore neglected to
say.......

patch70

And another desperate grasp to suppress the truth by you and your mates.

Robert Chung

Steve wrote:
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-
> 1053462,00.html
>
> America¹s recession began a year before the terrorist
> attacks, in the third quarter of 2000***.

> Another tidbit of info the fatman Moore neglected to
> say.......

http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html

Steve

On 6/28/04 12:02 AM, in article 2k9u50F19glrpU1@uni-berlin.de, "Robert
Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-
>> 1053462,00.html
>>
>> America¹s recession began a year before the terrorist
>> attacks, in the third quarter of 2000***.
>
>> Another tidbit of info the fatman Moore neglected to
>> say.......
>
> http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html
>
>
Consider these factors: (1) While a recession officially
began less than two months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated ‹
itself a jarring welcome ‹ there is ample evidence
suggesting that the recession probably began in 2000, when,
for example, U.S. total output actually declined during the
third quarter.
(2) A stock-market collapse, which had begun in March 2000,
was ongoing during and after the change in
administrations. (3) A corporate-governance scandal,
whose seeds were indisputably planted during the second
Clinton-Gore administration, was about to explode on Mr.
Bush's watch. (4) The September 11 terrorist attacks
decimated consumer and business confidence, neither of
which was helped by the unavoidable geopolitical
uncertainties that followed September 11.

Steve

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader
> does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3171226497_21057489 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-
1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

On 6/28/04 12:02 AM, in article 2k9u50F19glrpU1@uni-
berlin.de, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-
>> 1053462,00.html
>>
>> America¹s recession began a year before the terrorist
>> attacks, in the third quarter of 2000***.
>
>> Another tidbit of info the fatman Moore neglected to
>> say.......
>
> http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html
>
>
ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking
While Clinton Was In Office.* "America went into recession
long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th.* ...
The new figures suggest ... that the economy grew more
slowly in ... 2000 than was previously thought:* GDP rose
by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)."* ("Unwelcome Numbers," The
Economist, 8/3/02)

Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton's
Watch.* According to the Council of Economic Advisors, "it
was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming
into 2001."

The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)

Congress' Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic
Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000.* "By mid-year 2000 ...
signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it
became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A
number of key economic and financial indicators provided
evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future
growth could weaken.* A brief summary of important elements
of this evidence, for example, would include the following:

Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth
rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0
percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively,
before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of
2001. Key components of GDP such as real consumption
expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth
moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains
lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then
deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally
corroborated these developments.

Gross private investment also contributed significantly to
this general slowdown with most key investment categories
registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and
advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and
parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-
year basis).

The index of leading indicators trended down after
January 2000.

Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year.
Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged
about 256,000 per month for the 2
1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month
after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased
after mid-year.

The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly
since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity
utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers
index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have
all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.

Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year
2000 as well.

In short, there can be little doubt that a significant
economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000
in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration."
("Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment," United
States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph
Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure.*
"It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton
Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by
President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly
sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely
with its taking charge.* But ... the economy was slipping
into recession even before Bush took office, and the
corporate scandals that are rocking America began much
earlier."* (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The
Atlantic Monthly,
1/1)

Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That Bush
Administration Is Responsible For Recession.* Stiglitz noted
that during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for
some of the problems we are now experiencing was being
laid.* Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken
further than it should have been; and corporate greed was
pandered to ...."* (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties,"
The Atlantic Monthly,
1/2)

Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The
Economy.* "Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is
proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated
the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000
election.* Did the federal government join Enron and
WorldCom in cooking the books?* ... Most startling, the
Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing
through most of the election year, while in fact it was
declining." (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, "Sunny Clinton Forecast
Leaves Cloud Over Bush," Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)

Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To
Recession.* "A plunge in investment that began in the last
half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets, was
an important force in the recession."* (Council Of Economic
Advisers, "Strengthening America's Economy:* The President's
Jobs And Growth Proposals," 1/7/03)

--B_3171226497_21057489 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-
1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN
UNDER CLINTON</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> On 6/=
2/04 12:02 AM, in article 2k9u50F19glrpU1@uni-berlin.de,
"Robert Chung= " <me2@privacy.net>
wrote: > Steve
wrote: >> <a
href=3D"http://business.timesonline.= (http://business.timesonline.=/)
co.uk/article/0,,8209-
1053462,00.html">http://business.timesonline.co.uk/art=
icle/,,8209-1053462,00.html</a> >> >>
America’s recession began a year before the 
>> terrorist attacks, in the third quarter of
2000***. > 
>> Another tidbit
of info the fatman Moo= re neglected to say....... 
> > <a href=-
3D"http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html">http://ww- (http://ww-/)
w.nber.org= /cycles/july2003.html</a> > 
> ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN
UNDER CLINTON Economic Statistics Confirm U.S.
Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton Was In= Office.=A0
"America went into recession long before the
terrorist attack= s of September 11th.=A0 ... The new
figures suggest ... that the economy grew = more slowly
in ... 2000 than was previously thought:=A0 GDP rose by
3.8% (comp= ared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and
an initial figure of 5%)."=A0 = ("Unwelcome
Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02) Market
Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton's
Watch.=A0 According = to the Council of Economic
Advisors, "it was widely recognized that the=
economy was weak coming into 2001." The
NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000; The S&P
500 peaked on March 24, 2000; The Dow Jones
peaked on January 14, 2000; Manufacturing
employment started falling in August 2000; 
Industrial production started falling in July 2000;
and Manufacturing trade and sales started
falling in April 2000.   (Council Of
Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02) 
Congress' Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of
Economic Slowdown Were App= arent In Mid 2000.=A0
"By mid-year 2000 ... signs of an economic
slowdown= began to proliferate; it became apparent that
an economic slowdown was unde= rway. A number of key
economic and financial indicators provided evidence of=
such slower growth and suggested that future growth
could weaken.=A0 A brief = summary of important
elements of this evidence, for example, would include
t= he following: Real GDP slowed from a robust
5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the sec= ond
quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the
third and fourth q= uarters, respectively, before
rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quart= er of
2001. Key components of GDP such as real
consumption expenditures slowed after mi= d-year as
real income growth moderated, stock market values fell,
employment= gains lessened, and consumer confidence
stalled and then deteriorated. Move= ments in retail
sales generally corroborated these developments. 
 Gross private investment also contributed
significantly to this general slo= wdown with most key
investment categories registering actual declines by
the= fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital
goods (ex-aircraft and p= arts) orders falling sharply
after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis). 
The index of leading indicators trended down after
January 2000. Employment advances slowed
dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-= farm
payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month
for the 2 1/2 y= ears prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000
per month after mid-year 2000. The av= erage workweek
also decreased after mid-year. The
manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly
since mid-year 200= . Industrial production, capacity
utilization, the Natural Association of P= urchasing
Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and
workweek h= ave all registered significant declines
since mid-year 2000. Financial equity markets
began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.<=
BR>
 In short, there can be little doubt that a significant
economic slowdown or= retrenchment began about mid-year 2000
in the last quarters of the Clinton = Administration."
("Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,=
" United States Congress Joint Economic Committee,
7/01) Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic
Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said R= ecession Started During
Clinton's Tenure.=A0 "It would be nice for us vet=
erans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame
mismanagement b= y President George W. Bush's economic team
for this seemingly sudden turnaro= und in the economy, which
coincided so closely with its taking charge.=A0 But = ...
the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush
took office, an= d the corporate scandals that are rocking
America began much earlier."=A0= (Joseph Stiglitz,
"The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 1=
/02) Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That
Bush Administration Is Responsib= le For Recession.=A0
Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration &qu=
ot;the groundwork for some of the problems we are now
experiencing was being= laid.=A0 Accounting standards
slipped; deregulation was taken further than it= should have
been; and corporate greed was pandered to ...."=A0
(Joseph S= tiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The
Atlantic Monthly, 10/02) Clinton Administration
Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The Economy.=A0 &quo=
t;Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that
the Clinton admini= stration grossly overestimated the
strength of the economy leading up to the= 2000 election.=A0
Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooki=
ng the books?=A0 ... Most startling, the Commerce Department
in 2000 showed th= e economy on an upswing through most of
the election year, while in fact it = was declining."
(Robert Novak, Op-Ed, "Sunny Clinton Forecast Leav= es
Cloud Over Bush," Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02) 
Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To
Recession.=A0 "= A plunge in investment that began in
the last half of 2000, along with the d= eclines in equity
markets, was an important force in the recession."=A0
(= Council Of Economic Advisers, "Strengthening
America's Economy:=A0 The Pr= esident's Jobs And Growth
Proposals," 1/7/03) 
</BODY> </HTML>

--B_3171226497_21057489--

Richard Adams

Steve wrote:

(more stuff)

Hey, Steve, care to venture a guess as to who's got the best
chances for the TdF classifications?

If you've just plopped your ass in rbr to discuss politics,
how about moving on.

Gary

This does not belong in the racing forum. Please take
political threads someplace else. I hate to see this forum
go the way of others and become a place for political
discussions. Good grief! The tour starts in a matter of
days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve wrote:

> On 6/28/04 12:02 AM, in article 2k9u50F19glrpU1@uni-
> berlin.de, "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-
>> > 1053462,00.html
>> >
>> > America’s recession began a year before the terrorist
>> > attacks, in the third quarter of 2000***.
>>
>> > Another tidbit of info the fatman Moore neglected to
>> > say.......
>>
>> http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html
>>
>>
> ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
>
> Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking
> While Clinton Was In Office. "America went into recession
> long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. ...
> The new figures suggest ... that the economy grew more
> slowly in ... 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose
> by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
> initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The
> Economist, 8/3/02)
>
> Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton's
> Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, "it
> was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming
> into 2001."
>
> The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
>
> The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
>
> The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
>
> Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
>
> Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
>
> Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in
> April 2000.
>
> (Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)
>
> Congress' Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic
> Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. "By mid-year 2000 ...
> signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it
> became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A
> number of key economic and financial indicators provided
> evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future
> growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements
> of this evidence, for example, would include the
> following:
>
> Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized
> growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent
> and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters,
> respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the
> first quarter of 2001. Key components of GDP such as real
> consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real
> income growth moderated, stock market values fell,
> employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled
> and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally
> corroborated these developments.
>
> Gross private investment also contributed significantly to
> this general slowdown with most key investment categories
> registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and
> advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and
> parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-
> year basis).
>
> The index of leading indicators trended down after
> January 2000.
>
> Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year.
> Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged
> about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-
> year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The
> average workweek also decreased after mid-year.
>
> The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly
> since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity
> utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing
> Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and
> workweek have all registered significant declines since
> mid-year 2000.
>
> Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-
> year 2000 as well.
>
> In short, there can be little doubt that a significant
> economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year
> 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration."
> ("Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment," United
> States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)
>
> Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph
> Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure.
> "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton
> Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by
> President George W. Bush's economic team for this
> seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which
> coincided so closely with its taking charge. But ... the
> economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took
> office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking
> America began much earlier." (Joseph Stiglitz, "The
> Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
>
> Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That Bush
> Administration Is Responsible For Recession. Stiglitz
> noted that during the Clinton Administration "the
> groundwork for some of the problems we are now
> experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards
> slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should
> have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ...."
> (Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic
> Monthly, 10/02)
>
> Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength
> Of The Economy. "Hidden in the morass of statistics,
> there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly
> overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to
> the 2000 election. Did the federal government join
> Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books? ... Most
> startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the
> economy on an upswing through most of the election
> year, while in fact it was declining." (Robert Novak,
> Op-Ed, "Sunny Clinton Forecast Leaves Cloud Over Bush,"
> Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)
>
> Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To
> Recession. "A plunge in investment that began in the last
> half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets,
> was an important force in the recession." (Council Of
> Economic Advisers, "Strengthening America's Economy: The
> President's Jobs And Growth Proposals," 1/7/03)

Bob Schwartz

> fatman Moore

Sheesh!

Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com

Evan Evans

Our economic climate as of the last 10 years or so has been
based on one thing Y2K. The up turn in the econ. started in
prep for Y2k & the down turn started after. It will take a
new revolution to create a new huge high. If alternative
fuel cars could come into favor we could see another boom.