Economy finally back in gear
Government says GDP grew 3.5% in third quarter, ending a year-long string of declines and coming in better than forecasts.
Last Updated: October 29, 2009: 12:46 PM ET



Last quarter, the economy grew by the largest amount since the summer of 2007, but there are signs that things are still getting worse.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate in the third quarter, ending a string of declines over four quarters that resulted in the most severe slide since the Great Depression. But some economists raised doubts about how long such strong growth can last.

The increase in GDP, reported by the government Thursday morning, was slightly better than expectations. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast 3.2% growth in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity. The economy shrank at a 0.7% rate in the second quarter.

The positive GDP report is one more sign that the economy has likely pulled out of the deep recession that started in December 2007.

The reading by itself doesn't mark an end to the recession; the economy actually grew in the second quarter of 2008. (The National Bureau of Economic Research, which officially dates the beginning and end of recessions, is not expected to declare that the current recession has ended until sometime in 2010.)

How stocks are reacting
But the stronger-than-expected growth is likely to lead more economists to declare that the economy hit bottom earlier this year and turned higher at some point in the summer.

Businesses continued to reduce inventories, but by a much slower pace than in the past. That helped to lift the overall GDP growth rate by nearly a full percentage point.

The slashing of production in jobs in the face of weak demand has been one of the strongest drags on the economy during the past four quarters.

Robert Brusca, an economist with FAO Economics said that the fact that businesses are still cutting inventories "tells us that the economy has not yet turned any corner very sharply."

But Bill Hampel, chief economist of the Credit Union National Association, said it's encouraging that the economy was able to grow at all without businesses actually rebuilding inventory. He said that is a positive sign of growth yet to come.

"The inventories still need to be replenished, and when they are, it will give us an even bigger lift," he said. "I don't think this report is a sign of a booming economy, but it does seem to be setting down roots that will be sustainable."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

Tentative good news.

Creative is "the devil's advocate." (By his own admission.)

That's certainly a personal opinion.

The universe is clearly orderly enough to have consistent and dependable laws of physics, mathematics, and to have formed countless stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems in ways that are so predicable we can even model them.

Where's the evidence for happenstance? There is none. If the universe had been happenstance it would be totally chaotic with no dependable laws of physics, mathematics, and even biology that can evolve into living conscious beings.

Clearly this universe was designed. There can be no question about that whatsoever.

Not only is there absolutely no evidence for happenstance, but like Jeanniebean said, the evidence for design is everywhere we look without fail, from the furthest reaches of the cosmos to the tiniest quantum world, all we see is very well-organized structure.

If that's not evidence for design then what would be evidence?

Clearly this universe was designed very meticulously. It's obviously not happenstance. There is no evidence for happenstance anywhere.

If you put metal parts in a box and shake it----How long will it take to become a watch??? answer never---You need a disigner--sorry lady--you are wrong.

Creative is no lady.

Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer?

Poor is anyone who lives from paycheck to paycheck for one example. There are lots of definitions. If you have to decide between your phone and food you are poor. If you have to decide what to eat for the night based on what is on sale at the grocery store you are poor. If you have ten buck in your pocket to last two weeks you are poor. Etc...

Nards?

Define poor? Did I miss something?

They have to be the exception and not the rule because when people have called me from payphones and I call it back it will not go through it says it is disconnected.

You can't see the forest for the trees. No evidence of a designer? Its everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There is no where the evidence is not.

I even design my whole life. You are a designer too. Thoughts are the designer. We live in a thought designed universe.

Oh please woman. Dont defend the people that dont want to help themselves. I can also guarantee you that most with the phone do not use it for jobs but more for calling up theie friends or "certain" people for more public assistance ;)

Now my own conclusion about the video are this:

There are two main points

1) Evolution is the cause of the potential for violence
2) Religion is the most dangerous factor in the precipitation of violence.

First off, #1 one simply sweeps aside any and all considerations of everything having anything to do with spiritual concerns. It effectively denies the existence of anything spiritual at all. (Or at the very least, it denies that anything spiritual can have any effect on human behavior.)

And then #2 proceeds to generalize “Religion” as a group phenomenon, which by its very nature is not true. All religious have at there core, a very personal significance. They are never oriented toward a group. They are always oriented toward individuals. “Churches” and “Political Parties” are group phenomena, but Religion is not – at least no more than “personal beliefs” are a group phenomenon.

So personally, I see #1 as a denial and #2 as a misrepresentation, the combination of which leads to a false conclusion.

The curious thing is seems to be trying to place Religion outside the confines of evolution – as if it were caused by something other than evolution. Which to me is the most flagrant of all contradictions.

But then, it is given from the viewpoint of a psychiapriest, whose entire reason for being are based on the concept of mind control in the truest sense of the word – so I’m really not surprised.

Just stirring things up a little.


Edited to add:
So in light of the title of this thread, yes, I consider this something disturbing that we all should know.

One of the only places that, still, have pay phones are prison