Why I'm voting Yes
07-04-2018 | 11:09 PM
#81
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
It's already beginning to affect the airline sector.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ays-2018-07-03
"The possibility that the current trade dispute between the U.S. and its global partners could become something bigger is problematic for the industry’s top line given how closely correlated it is to imports and exports of goods and services,” Linenberg wrote in a note to clients. “Furthermore, the growing trade dispute may cause U.S. companies to reconsider their [capital expenditure] and employment plans, which would adversely impact corporate travel.”
Trump is clueless and vindictive. If he expands this trade war into the auto sector: Brace for impact.
I'm voting Yes. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. But that is just my opinion and everyone should weigh the pros and cons of everything and make their own informed decision.
-Sun Tzu
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ays-2018-07-03
"The possibility that the current trade dispute between the U.S. and its global partners could become something bigger is problematic for the industry’s top line given how closely correlated it is to imports and exports of goods and services,” Linenberg wrote in a note to clients. “Furthermore, the growing trade dispute may cause U.S. companies to reconsider their [capital expenditure] and employment plans, which would adversely impact corporate travel.”
Trump is clueless and vindictive. If he expands this trade war into the auto sector: Brace for impact.
I'm voting Yes. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. But that is just my opinion and everyone should weigh the pros and cons of everything and make their own informed decision.
-Sun Tzu
07-05-2018 | 03:36 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm
07-05-2018 | 06:18 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
At what 'data' are you looking? You must be looking at quarterly numbers that vary seasonally because no annual forecasts have the US GDP > 3% even with the exploding debt to GDP ratio.
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm
07-05-2018 | 10:22 AM
#86
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
At what 'data' are you looking? You must be looking at quarterly numbers that vary seasonally because no annual forecasts have the US GDP > 3% even with the exploding debt to GDP ratio.
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm
The Federal reserve bank in Atlanta is forecasting 5.7% growth.
07-05-2018 | 11:26 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
First, the Atlanta Fed was forecasting 5.4% not 5.7% and it is not an annual rate, but for for Q1 2018. Guess what? That was last quarter and the it turned out to be 2.2%. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/seco...-2018-gdp.html
Your article was from February, and if you had actually read it you would have seen that the prediction was a complete outlier.
So, much like Trump you don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story. That is otherwise known as complete and utter BS, but nice try.
Your article was from February, and if you had actually read it you would have seen that the prediction was a complete outlier.
So, much like Trump you don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story. That is otherwise known as complete and utter BS, but nice try.
07-05-2018 | 11:28 AM
#90
Banned
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
It’s not minimums wage responsibility to feed a family of four. If people applied themselves they wouldn’t have to have a minimum wage job when they had a family of four. I don’t mind supplementing people who have the family of four and have a minimum wage job. At least they are trying to work for a living and not relying on the government.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
