Ben's been a letdown so far. He's been about 2 quarters behind...
I just saw this, and was reading it. Good evidence of the wacky business cycle we had in the 1800s under the gold (and then silver too) standard, with PANICS being the operative word prior to the Great Depression, and RECESSION being the word thereafter. Well, Recession > Panic.
Good read, get the PDF here.
http://www.ihatedebt.com/ALookatDebt/TheHistoryofDebtinAmerica/
Do you think he has done the right move by lowering rates though?
What do you think about the European Central Bank and Jean-Claude Trichet raising the Eurozone's interest rates by a quarter of a point last month?
GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.088 trillion (2007 est.)Is that real or nominal GDP?
GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.088 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $1.286 trillion (2007 est.)
CIA - The World Factbook
The graph is seems to be based on official exchange rate and nominal figures.
That was me and to give you an example US multinationals that manufacture in China and ship to the US count as Chinese exports.It was said around here recently that trade deficit numbers were misleading. Because of American companies doing business abroad? Because American companies shift operations offshore for tax advantage? What would be the numbers corrected for that?
How come when economist x' and/or economic theory y's predictions happen to turn out true in some prediction, it is because of the brilliance of economist x and/or economic theory y, but when economist x and/or economic theory y fail, its because "the world is a complex place" (i.e. they attribute it to randomness)? Seems a bit like chalking up only the losing lottery tickets to randomness, and the winning ticket to the brilliance of the buyer...
How come when economist x' and/or economic theory y's predictions happen to turn out true in some prediction, it is because of the brilliance of economist x and/or economic theory y, but when economist x and/or economic theory y fail, its because "the world is a complex place" (i.e. they attribute it to randomness)? Seems a bit like chalking up only the losing lottery tickets to randomness, and the winning ticket to the brilliance of the buyer...
How come when economist x' and/or economic theory y's predictions happen to turn out true in some prediction, it is because of the brilliance of economist x and/or economic theory y, but when economist x and/or economic theory y fail, its because "the world is a complex place" (i.e. they attribute it to randomness)? Seems a bit like chalking up only the losing lottery tickets to randomness, and the winning ticket to the brilliance of the buyer...