...who have been saying "You don't even know what a recession is! We're not in a recession!" - suck on it.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- For all you neocons
For all you neoconsFollow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
But...the Magic 8-ball never lies to me...
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
This is probably all Obama's fault.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I just keep wondering when all that change that was promised will be coming. There was this big countdown to change and...
/fizzle
...nothing. WTF? We were promised momentous and enormous change and here we are three weeks in and everything is the same as it has been for the past eight years. Gimme my change!
Totem
/fizzle
...nothing. WTF? We were promised momentous and enormous change and here we are three weeks in and everything is the same as it has been for the past eight years. Gimme my change!
Totem
Totem wrote:
Gimme my change!
Seriously though. January 20. Nothing can happen til then, trigger.
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Totem wrote:
Gimme my change!
Seriously though. January 20. Nothing can happen til then, trigger.
Yeah, b/c Totem is incapable of self-deprecating humor.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Totem wrote:
I just keep wondering when all that change that was promised will be coming.
but I wanted to give you a head start and blaming Obama. Although, technically, you should still be blaming Clinton for another couple months yet.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Commander Annabella wrote:
Yeah, b/c Totem is incapable of self-deprecating humor.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
I BE AN RETARDED
Edited, Dec 1st 2008 1:34pm by Tzemesce
For what its worth, George Bush said he's sorry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28000264/
But still thinks the answer is to flood the banks with fake currency and then make the taxpayers pay for it.
The dollar is going to quickly become worth less, so gold looks to be a good investment for all you money-grubbing types.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28000264/
But still thinks the answer is to flood the banks with fake currency and then make the taxpayers pay for it.
The dollar is going to quickly become worth less, so gold looks to be a good investment for all you money-grubbing types.
Lol... I love this bit from the article:
Um... Like virtually every single economist? The most common definition involves two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Heck. Even the NBER defines it as "three consecutive quarters of falling GDP", which allows them to declare a recession while the economy is still growing, but just not as much as it was before.
What sort of whackjob did they find to write this article? Seems desperate to use the most loose definition of "recession" around to place the start as far back into Bush's administration as possible. Um... Whatever.
I think what's more important then when is "why". Rather then running around trying to point fingers based on who was doing what at which time and attempting to slide the dates around to make one side look "good" or "bad", why don't we look at the actual problem, figure out what caused it, where it's going, and make some useful suggestions? Just a thought...
Quote:
Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining. That has yet to take place during this recession.
Um... Like virtually every single economist? The most common definition involves two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Heck. Even the NBER defines it as "three consecutive quarters of falling GDP", which allows them to declare a recession while the economy is still growing, but just not as much as it was before.
What sort of whackjob did they find to write this article? Seems desperate to use the most loose definition of "recession" around to place the start as far back into Bush's administration as possible. Um... Whatever.
I think what's more important then when is "why". Rather then running around trying to point fingers based on who was doing what at which time and attempting to slide the dates around to make one side look "good" or "bad", why don't we look at the actual problem, figure out what caused it, where it's going, and make some useful suggestions? Just a thought...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Um... Like virtually every single economist?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Like virtually every single economist?
Clearly blinded by their education and exposure to the subject matter. What they need is an outsider who can think critically and has no background knowledge that will bias him.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Nexa wrote:
Clearly blinded by their education and exposure to the subject matter. What they need is an outsider who can think critically and has no background knowledge that will bias him.
Nexa
Nexa
Shame you cannot hire from outside your own country. Is it allowed for you to consult external agencies for that truly global feel?
I knew gbaji would argue with the people who actually get to make the call. 
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Um... Like virtually every single economist?
No, I'm pretty sure virtually every singly economist will accept the declaration of the body established solely to determine when recession occurs.
I think what's more important then when is "why". Rather then running around trying to point fingers based on who was doing what at which time and attempting to slide the dates around to make one side look "good" or "bad", why don't we look at the actual problem, figure out what caused it, where it's going, and make some useful suggestions? Just a thought...
Morons like you being easily suckered into believing policies that do nothing but cost you money and opportunity somehow help you. It's a big problem. You killing yourself would go a long way towards things getting better in the future. You want solutions? I've got solutions.
Edited, Dec 1st 2008 6:08pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Samira wrote:
I knew gbaji would argue with the people who actually get to make the call.
I was actually arguing with the guy who wrote the article, and his backhanded dismissal of one of the most commonly used yardsticks to measure recession as "erroneous" as though that merits no further comment. Oh yes! Let's ignore that this recession doesn't meet the same criteria as others, and treat it as though it is the same...
It was the cavalier tossing out of the differences between this and historical downturns/recessions that was just amusing to me. I actually thought I was reading an Onion article for a while and had to double check the URL just to be sure. It just came off as strangely written to me.
And it was doubly strange given that I did a quick look for definitions of the word "recession" and only found two: One is the standard "two successive quarters of negative GDP growth", and the other was the NBER's "three successive quarters of GDP downturn" (I'm paraphrasing, but basically it doesn't have to be negative but just lower than before, but they add a third quarter to the time). The articles insistence that GDP just isn't that important seems to be a new invention (or re-invention) of the methods used to determine whether an economy is in recession. It just smacked of revisionism to me is all...
Um... And I'm not the only person questioning the NBER's declaration. The most interesting part comes at the bottom:
Quote:
With debate over whether the US economy is in recession or not currently at a fever pitch, Ed Leamer, an economist at the University of California in Los Angeles, has picked a timely moment to publish his own theory on how to interpret official statistics to determine whether the US really is in an NBER-sanctioned recession.
Sifting through the entrails of past pronouncements from the NBER's wise men in much the same way as others pore over smoke signals which emanate from the Fed, Leamer created an algorithm that successfully predicted all 10 post-1945 US recessions.
To fit with the historical data and NBER determinations, the algorithm required a recession to include a contraction of industrial production at a rate of 6 per cent, annualised, over a six-month period; a decline in civilian payrolls at a rate of 1 per cent, annualised, over a six-month period; and an increase in the unemployment rate of at least 0.8 percentage points over a six-month period.
How does the recent data on the US economy measure up?
Well, to be blunt, Leamer's analysis suggests that at least according to the NBER's historical standards, the US is currently nowhere near recession. It would require a substantial fall in US manufacturing output (currently buoyed by exports driven by what until recently was a far more competitive exchange rate) and further job losses to even be in the ballpark.
Sifting through the entrails of past pronouncements from the NBER's wise men in much the same way as others pore over smoke signals which emanate from the Fed, Leamer created an algorithm that successfully predicted all 10 post-1945 US recessions.
To fit with the historical data and NBER determinations, the algorithm required a recession to include a contraction of industrial production at a rate of 6 per cent, annualised, over a six-month period; a decline in civilian payrolls at a rate of 1 per cent, annualised, over a six-month period; and an increase in the unemployment rate of at least 0.8 percentage points over a six-month period.
How does the recent data on the US economy measure up?
Well, to be blunt, Leamer's analysis suggests that at least according to the NBER's historical standards, the US is currently nowhere near recession. It would require a substantial fall in US manufacturing output (currently buoyed by exports driven by what until recently was a far more competitive exchange rate) and further job losses to even be in the ballpark.
Funny huh?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Well, to be blunt, Leamer's analysis suggests that at least according to the NBER's historical standards, the US is currently nowhere near recession. It would require a substantial fall in US manufacturing output (currently buoyed by exports driven by what until recently was a far more competitive exchange rate) and further job losses to even be in the ballpark.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081201191102.3uw0pjyd&show_article=1
Quote:
US manufacturing slumped to a 26-year low in November, highlighting the abrupt downturn in the world's biggest economy, a survey showed Monday.
More job losses on the way...
gbaji wrote:
Funny huh?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Funny huh?
Because that's what it looks like. :-)
No, gbaji quoted from a column written by an Australian businessman (Stephen Ellis) as evidence that not everyone agrees with the NBER definition.
Admittably, Ellis cribbed from Leamer's work to support his own argument but the column itself was Ellis's.
Admittably, Ellis cribbed from Leamer's work to support his own argument but the column itself was Ellis's.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Trying to argue that we're not really in a recession is a bit like having the Captain of the Titanic screaming that the iceberg was really just a giant stalacmite. When your economy is in freefall, when you need the federal government to pump oceans of dollars into the financial system in order to prevent it from crumbling before our very eyes, surely this is akin to pissing against a tornado, no?
Quote:
two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
This IS the technical definition of a Recession in Australia.
There is also a political and economic sort of differentiation between a technical Recession, which can't and won't be denied to exist by the government, and a more fuzzy "economic downturn" which is is usually more hotly debated to exist, and has less emergency measures used on it.
I have to add that the present Global Financial Crisis (known as the GFC to the Aussie gov.) was immediately taken extremely seriously by the outgoing Howard government and the incoming Rudd government, and emergency language and measurements have been put in place, and continue to be put in place, well before the expected technical Recession has actually occurred here yet.
Rudd is pouring great quantities of extra government money into Education, Health, and infrastructure projects, much beyond what he promised in the Election, and has opened up the possibility of the government going into deficit for the first time in a decade, depending on how tax income plays out over the next few years. This is hopefully to responsibly open up more jobs in the public sector while the private sector contracts.
Everyone is hoping that large and early intervention will stop any likely Recession from extending out into a Depression. Sorry, would have to look up the technical definition of a Depressioin in Australia. We haven't had one in my lifetime.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2008 7:50am by Aripyanfar
Aripyanfar wrote:
Rudd is pouring great quantities of extra government money into Education, Health, and infrastructure projects, much beyond what he promised in the Election, and has opened up the possibility of the government going into deficit for the first time in a decade, depending on how tax income plays out over the next few years. This is hopefully to responsibly open up more jobs in the public sector while the private sector contracts.
Pfft, you're doing it wrong. You should be pouring that money into the capitalist machine. do you really think that a happy, healthy, well-educated populace will help make things better?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I was actually arguing with the guy who wrote the article
This is a FANTASTIC idea for you! Arguing only with people in absentia! Ideal, man. This way you can quietly mumble "so there!" and return to pouring gravy into the pair of your grandmother's panties you're wearing or whatever it is you do in your spare time, without the annoyance of people repeatedly demonstrating you to be conclusively wrong with near unerring predictability.
Good show, old bean.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
Well, to be blunt, Leamer's analysis suggests that at least according to the NBER's historical standards, the US is currently nowhere near recession. It would require a substantial fall in US manufacturing output (currently buoyed by exports driven by what until recently was a far more competitive exchange rate) and further job losses to even be in the ballpark.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081201191102.3uw0pjyd&show_article=1
Quote:
US manufacturing slumped to a 26-year low in November, highlighting the abrupt downturn in the world's biggest economy, a survey showed Monday.
More job losses on the way...
The point being that NBER is declaring a recession (which is done after the fact by looking at trends over the past couple years), but the trends over the past couple years doesn't match the trends that they've used at any time in the past to declare a recession. So if "recession" means purely that the folks at NBER decided to call it a recession, then so be it. But let's be clear that we're essentially using a meaningless and circular definition.
People associate specific assumptions with the word "Recession" when applied to an economy exactly because there are specific measurable economic factors at work. If you toss out the measurements, and just label something a Recession anyway, should the same assumptions about what's going on apply?
If I don't like spinach but love green beans, and you label my green beans "spinach" and put them on a plate in front of me, should I refuse to eat them because I don't like spinach? That's sorta whats going on here...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 202
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (202)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- For all you neocons
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC