So, as a country, we would be spending more on health care as a result of the proposed HCR ?
Isnt that how one should interpret it... the new policies will cost more (because they provide more coverage); therefore the sum of all those new policies will be more than the sum of all policies without HCR.
if we lose the house, or even if we lose the house AND the senate. That would just be like 1994-2000.
On the other hand, the sky could fall on our heads if we head back into a double dip. Or, if we move sideways for several years (which is likely to happen). That is the scenario that worries me ~ who controls Congress is a sideshow by comparison
Now factor in the rate of information flow, resulting in an overreaction by the producer... slashing the production more than the decrease in sales... and you have shrinking inventories. Inventories can shrink even when demand is decreasing!!
Think about it for a day (or a week, in your case), and you will get it (I hope). And if you dont, then I cant help you anymore...sorry!!
and beyond the headlines. Krugman specifically states
Such blips are often, in part, statistical illusions. But even more important, they’re usually caused by an “inventory bounce.” When the economy slumps, companies typically find themselves with large stocks of unsold goods. To work off their excess inventories, they slash production; once the excess has been disposed of, they raise production again, which shows up as a burst of growth in G.D.P. Unfortunately, growth caused by an inventory bounce is a one-shot affair unless underlying sources of demand, such as consumer spending and long-term investment, pick up.
I do not know how to explain this to you. Perhaps you are hugely motivated to not understand this.
An inventory bounce happens when inventories have been slashed to very low levels. Recovery happens when sales have bottomed out. The two are not the same events. There can be several inventory bounces before sales bottom out. As an example, sales can go down to 99% of previous value, and cause an inventory bounce. It can go down a further 1%, and cause another inventory bounce. Given a slow enough rate of sales decline, and a slow enough rate at which information trickles up from the retailers to the producers, you will see several inventory bounces. The rate at which they occur is governed by the rate at which information flows, and the rate at which humans make decisions.
And like I said, if you can prove that an inventory bounce = recovery, then you should go collect your Nobel !!
I was puzzled by your claims of what an inventory bounce is, because it is without any links. So I did a search, and it turns out you are quoting the first line a <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventory_bounce> wikipedia page on the inventory bounce </a> that does not meet wikipedia's quality standards (and also happens to be an orphan).
In any case, the line you quoted isnt accurate; and (more substantially) also happens to be incomplete. As per the last line of the same wiki page:
We care about it because if GDP recovers is only an inventory bounce, the recovery of GDP might not be sustained, which means that economy might not have truly recovered from the recession.
An inventory bounce (as described more accurately <a href=http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/inventory-cycle-and-gdp.html> here </a> and whose significance is discussed <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/opinion/04krugman.html> here </a>) happens when companies are rebuilding inventories that have dwindled because of a phase lag between dwindling sales and the companies initial response.
An inventory bounce does not have to (and almost never does) coincide with a bottoming out of the sales itself. Recovery happens when sales have bottomed out.
But I am not impressed by the selective cherry picking of facts to make it out to be something that it is not. Case in point: the 6% growth seen in the last quarter is not just "not sustainable", but a clear case of an inventory bounce that is always seen at around this time of the business cycle. Pointing to that number, and claiming that to be an effect of the stimulus, even with the caveat that it cannot be sustained, is misleading at best; and downright dangerous if the person shelling out that argument believes in it himself/herself.
A clear case can be made that the stimulus was needed, and had a beneficial effect. But an equally clear case can be made (and was made at the time) that the WH badly underestimated the size of the required stimulus (with the ARRA chart projections vs actual numbers, for instance) and the resultant effect on the economy has been substantially less than what it had forecast.