₦airaland Forum

A few minutes ago, it was clearly not true any such predictions were made in January/February 2009. Then, he rests his case on an article predicting Q3 growth even though he insists there will be no growth till next year.

There were predictions in January/February '09 of a return to growth. Some attributed the return to a variety of causes, one of each was the anticipated stimulus package. However, the Q3 growth we're experiencing is not as result of the stimulus package because it has been too slow in its implementation to create any impact already. Fairly simple argumnent for any lucid mind to grasp.

It's a bit late in London but I thought I make out time to refute David's implicit suggestion that he is aware of every economists' predictions made this year.

The predictions in January '09 that the recession will end in Q3 sparked heated debates in some of the econo blogs: Here is one article from the NYT:

If the dominoes fall the right way, the economy should bottom out and start growing again in small steps by July, according to the December survey of 50 professional forecasters by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Investors seemed to be in a similarly optimistic mood on Friday, bidding up stocks by about 3 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss This is dated 05 January '09. If you want more, I can get you loads more such early predictions.

I'm sure some people find it hard to believe that Obama is not responsible for some of the positive things happening but the truth is more complex than some of the propaganda people are being fed.

davidylan:
That's real funny because that is clearly not true.

Of course, you are aware of all the predictions ever made by every single economist. Your knowledge is staggering!

Even now that the economy is turning we arent likely to have positive GDP until next yr.

I will save this funny statement for posterity. I hope you know that positive GDP growth means that Q3 only has to grow vis-a-vis Q2.

To say the stimulus has not worked even though less than 15% of it has been spent so far is just trying to be dishonest.

The answer is in your statement. The stimulus is $750bn. The US economy is $14 trillion. You think $112bn(15% and less than 1% of GDP) turned around a $14 trillion economy? A quintessential Obamabot.

davidylan:
this is odd . . . by all forecasts the recession was not expected to end until late 2010 if the Fed did nothing. They had been pumping cash into the economy since Bush, the interest rates where already zero. why didnt it turn around before it go this bad?

As early as late January/early February, some economists were predicting positive GDP numbers in Q3. That argument was used during the stimulus debate to state that Obama the fiscal stimulus was unnecesary as the economy was bound to turn around.

The Fed is not an extension of the Obama administration and QE only started in March, not during the Bush era.

davidylan:
This just cost you any credibility you had on this issue. I laugh in greek . . . the economy is now turning OF ITS OWN ACCORD? Even the WSJ (as conservative as it is) did not make such a blunder. They had a piece on it 2 weeks ago, go read it.

Can you explain how the recent turn around came about. I'm always happy to be educated.

Let me give you my own view. QE pumped lots of cash into the system and companies after having destocked inventories drastically have to restock. That's what turns the economy around. I'm sure you believe that Obama waved some magic wand which turned the economy around

chic2pimp:
The United Kingdom definitely has the best and fairest news channel. The BBC is totally unbiased.

That's BS. The BBC is full of leftist claptrap. Actually, SkyNews fits the bill as fair.

davidylan:
Its much easier to criticise from our armchairs than to proffer solutions. You say Obama shld have sat still until the business cycle turned . . . that would have been when? 2010 when the democrats would have lost their majority hold in congress for doing exactly what you advocate?

Now! The economy is turning around now and it's not because of anything Obama has done. Do you think it's ''Cash for Clunkers'' or the fiscal stimulus bill that is causing the recent turn around?

Anything Obama is doing adds nothing but debt. I know politicians must be seen to be 'doing something' but it's outrageous for politicians to be endangering their country's economic well being so that they can be re-elected.

davidylan:
Here's the problem though . . . that was PRECISELY what the teabaggers were protesting AGAINST!

That's a different thing to reaching for the lazy explanation of attributing opposition to Obama as simply the product of racial prejudice. The fiscal outlook for the US is dire, the views of what causes this dire outlook may differ but it is perfectly understandable why people will protest about inevitable tax rises due to the massive deficits. In essence, the protesters are right for the wrong reasons.

Of course, if Obama does nothing, Glen Beck and Hannity will be the first to condemn him as a traitor but Obama's/Democrat's political expediency is no reason to load up the US with more debt.

davidylan:
they've been trying to moot the tax hike possibility lately and i believe they will need to do this if they must avoid a ballooning deficit. But doing nothing IMO is much worse than spending. There was no knowing when the recession would bottom out.

The only thing I agree with the President doing is bailing out the financial industry because the industry is the cornerstone of the economy. Beyond that, the President should do nothing more.

The economy has a business cycle. It's not a command economy. All Americans must do is batten down the hatches until the business cycle turns. The Fed is already pumping trillions into the economy through QE. Any other thing Obama does makes things worse in the long term.

davidylan:
in short he shld do nothing?

Precisely.

davidylan:
4Play YOU"RE PATENTLY LYING HERE.

The tax protest was about the economy? What economy? They were protesting taxes in March when most of them got reduced taxes?

For God's sake, if you are going to incur deficits that eventually top 100% GDP, taxes will have to go up irrespective of current tax policies. This is such a simple concept that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

There is no point giving me a tax cut now when I have to pay for it in the future. How do you pay for national debt at 100% GDP,do you think money will fall from the skies?

davidylan:
i doubt you know what you're talking about either. Bush didnt incurr $3tr, what he did was hide the cost of the wars from the books so everything looked manageable. Now that Obama has placed everything in the open everyone is crying?

This is a bloody joke. Let be more accurate. Bush accumulated + $4 trillion but while you can 'hide' the cost from the budget, you can't hide it from the national debt. That's just hogwash.

He hastnt presented a yrly budget yet and everyone is already crying about deficit? WHAT SHLD HE HAVE DONE? Raised taxes or folded his hands and watched the economy implode to avoid a deficit? Its not like Bush left him a surplus and he's recklessly spending it all. He inherited a deficit and WORSE a tanking economy and 2 horribly expensive wars . . . i guess you all expect him to fight the war and generate a surplus no?

Obama has not announced his spending plans yet? Where you sleeping when the administration projected $9trillion in extra debt?

Tell you what he should do. Don't spend like a drunken sailor.

Who watches a documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter? Might as well watch a documentary made by Sean Hannity for 'insight' into leftist thinking. Blithering idiot.

The tax protest is about the economy, no doubt heightened by partisanship, but well grounded in genuine fears. Only a simpleton believes that criticisms of Obama must necessarily be race motivated.

davidylan:
I'm not sure what 4Play is commenting on.  If these people are merely angry at the fiscal outlook for America then they must have been sound asleep all through Bush's reign.

You don't know what you're talking about. The US is to incur at least $9 trillion extra debt under Obama and you're still talking of the + $3 trillion incurred by Bush.

@Pres elect.

You're quite thick. Your incoherent ramblings will make sense if everyone of Obama's critics were uniform.

I obviously spoke too soon about Fabregas' potential.

What a fantastic day!

PapaBrowne:
Yes, you are right. But you would also reckon that with oil prices at a constant upward run, nobody envisaged a sudden drop to $35 in a space of just 6 weeks.

Firstly, the oil price did not fall from peak to trough in 6 weeks. That being said, to claim that nobody anticipated that the economic meltdown at the time will lead to a precipitous fall in the price of oil is absurd.

There have been major repercussions for many of the senior management of the Western banks that were culpable for the financial crisis. There is no reason why their Nigerian counterparts should escape unscathed.

People on each side of the political divide are by definition hypocrites. During the Bush era, Obama and other Democrats never failed to express concerns about ballooning deficits, until they got into power and made projections that will make the Bush deficits look like child's play. That still doesn't mean that there is something nefarious at work when they make such criticisms.

Will the protesters been as passionate about the deficits if Obama was a Republican? No. Is it evidence that they are a bunch of racists? Absolutely not. People's minds are more focused by flaws they perceive in the policies of parties they don't support, however, to jump to a conclusion that it is all down to racism is the height of absurdity.

Ultimately, the fiscal outlook of the US will drive even the least partisan to anger. The alternative is to stop the spending binge by the Fed Govt. The monetary stimulus by the Fed Reserve is enough to revive and put the economy on a sustainable growth path in the long term.

PapaBrowne:
We cannot just celebrate the fall of these bankers merely because Sanusi has pronounced them guilty.We should assess the whole issue based on facts.
If loans were given to oil companies and stock broking firms when those were the best performing industries in the country, why should it be a bad thing? Oil price was at an all time high peaking at $147 per barrel, while our stock market was the fastest growing in the world!
Punishing these bankers for giving loans to industries that were high performers is an anomaly!

Any person with half a brain knows that oil prices and the stock market fluctuate, therefore, doling out loans like the boom will never end is an astonishing case of mismanagement.

Oil price and the stock markets do regularly crash, any bank management that has not protected itself from the possibility of such a crash deserve to be probed.

She's pretty, at least, compared to the wowo girls on this forum.

“Many of those that are Muslims have their trusted aides bring their ‘sahur’ meals to them while those that are not observing the Ramadan are turning to prayer warriors. [b]Cecilia Ibru seems the most serious as she is always seen clutching her bible and anointing oil. [/b]She has also been playing hosts to some pastors and prayer warriors who visit her to pray for her.”

One of such pastor is said to lead a flourishing church in Ogudu area of Lagos.

You have to love this bit, Nigerian religiosity is just hilarious.

MrCrackles:
Hahaha. . . .
When are they going to find oil in my backyard?

Oil dey Peckham?

chic2pimp:
Ac Milan's problems did not start when Leo was given the job. The average age of the milan's squad is nothing short of scandalous. Observers have known and appointed out milan's need of fresh legs but Belusconi refuses to listen. The guy is a multi billionaire for f**k so I don't money is the issue. My guess would be he has fallen out of love with football. He should do the right thing and sell up to the highest bidder.

The squad is ageing but don't tell me that alone explains the appalling results Milan have had from the pre-season friendlies right up to the game against Inter, the Siena game being an exception. Arguably, they are in a better shape, with Nesta, Borrielo, Huntelaar and Thiago Silva available. Yet, Leonardo is making a mess of things. This squad should easily finish in the top 4 but I have a strong feeling that they will struggle with Leonardo at the helm.

Don't know about you, but 267bn barrels doesn't compare with a potential find of 6bn barrels. I think facts are a better metric than statements reported in the media.

@Blackspade

It's not even close:

Kampala - Uganda's recently discovered oil reserves now stand at two billion barrels but may exceed six billion barrels as exploration continues, a government newspaper reported Friday. International firms have invested millions of dollars in the East African country, where they began exploration activities in the western and north-western region early this decade.

[url]http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/283186,report-ugandas-oil-reserves-could-reach-six-billion-barrels.html[/url]

If you accept the upper estimate of 6 billion barrels, that's not even close to Nigeria's level of 40bn barrels, never mind Saudi Arabia's 267bn barrels.

They are significant oil finds but not such as to distort the economy and create an over reliance on oil.

The kind of drivel you 2 are spouting, it's embarrassing.  Cries of racism is the refuge of the clueless.

Obama's spending policies are unsustainable without either massive across the board tax hikes, as even the NY Times' editorial acknowledges recently, or an economic meltdown. One can always point to loopy critics to de-legitimise genuine concerns about the the direction of economic policy but such critics exist on both sides, remember the percentage of Democrats who thought Bush had something to do with 9-11? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance.

If your spending plans mean that you are going to incur debts at almost 3 times the rate Bush incurred them, do you expect some people not to go ballistics about their future tax bill?

It's probably an importation outlet disguised as a 'factory'.

Apart from Alex, who else have Chelsea got to make a decent pairing? Evans and Brown pairing is a nightmare. Utd were lucky that Vidic and Rio rarely got injured simultaneously for long. In most of the games Evans played, he had Vidic with him.

Anybody watched last week's Juve vs Roma game? As ''an anybody but Inter'' person, I would love Juve to win the title. They're the only team with a decent chance of upstaging Inter.

Leonardo is clearly not up to the task at Milan. See the amateurish way he handled Gattuso's injury against Inter, I stopped watching after he was red carded.

For Roma . . . . you can't win anything with Ranieri as your manager.

Djourou, Gallas, Vermaelen, Senderos and Silvestre is a fairly decent collection of centre-halfs for one team. I can't think of any the top 4 that can replace their pairing with like for like quality.

Liverppol can field Agger, Utd Brown and Chelsea Alex, but beyond that, they will all struggle.

The Amaka evokes comparisons with Medusa for me.