Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-24-2013, 02:50 PM
  #3641  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default




Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 02:55 PM
  #3642  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Scrappy Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Post

Originally Posted by cordycord
Scrappy NEEDS charts.
Mostly, I need to read the primary source material, since Zero Hedge usually just cuts out graphs from other peoples' work and half the time leaves out the legends and footnotes. For example, which recoveries does that include?

St. Louis Federal Reserve report

Answer: the previous 10 recoveries. Which 10 are those? Well, you need to go to the NBER site to see. They include:
  • 2009
  • 2001
  • 1991
  • 1982
  • 1980
  • 1975
  • 1970
  • 1961
  • 1958
  • 1954

Why is that important? Because the title of the ZH post is "Worst. Recovery. EVER." However, it should be something more like "worst recovery as measured by real GDP since 1954." Not as catchy, I agree.


Now, I do like charts and the data they represent...



If anything, I am surprised at the level of private domestic investment. I'm not surprised by the personal consumption expenditures. People trying to shed debt are not going to ramp up their consumption.

What doesn't fit in to most peoples' narrative is the second chart down on the right column.


How do you use math to prove the real unemployment rate when the government disappears 8 1/2 MILLION people from the labor pool?
You don't use the unemployment rate? Or you use the broader U-6 measure? As stated repeatedly, I prefer the employment-population ratio.


Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Scrappy Jack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:28 PM
  #3643  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Default

Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
You don't use the unemployment rate? Or you use the broader U-6 measure? As stated repeatedly, I prefer the employment-population ratio.

Could it be, and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, that the data shown in the chart above reflects a perfectly reasonable correction in the domestic employment landscape?

In other words, what happens when you give context to that data by expanding the time scale outwards to include a larger sample?



It would appear that between 1948 and 1984, the E:P ratio moved back and forth across a relatively narrow range. Given that this period includes both the "golden age" period of the 1950s and early 1960s, as well as the "shitty" period of the late 1970s, we might consider a ratio in the range of 55-60% to constitute "normal".

Between 1983 and 2000, the ratio grew dramatically. This might reflect the fact that the overall demographic in the US was changing during this time, with many women of the baby-boom generation entering the workforce for the first time, as well as a higher ratio of adults of working age to adults of normal retirement age.

Now, the baby boomers are starting to retire in large numbers. At the same time, the fact that they tended to produce fewer children per couple than their parents means that fewer new adults are entering the workforce to take their place. The ratio of people of retirement age to people of "traditional" working age is rising.

And then, of course, you have the concept of "surplus labor." During the 1990s in particular, we saw a dramatic upswing in the creation of entirely new job categories which, if we're totally honest with ourselves, didn't really contribute much to the overall economy. You can only have so many people employed as "canine dietary consultants" and "corporate image specialists" before your economy starts to look like something Douglas Adams would have written about.

Last edited by Joe Perez; 01-24-2013 at 10:29 PM.
Joe Perez is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:33 PM
  #3644  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default

correction as is in: the point in which you make too much money?
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:39 PM
  #3645  
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Default

Originally Posted by Braineack
correction as is in: the point in which you make too much money?
No, see the major edits I made to the above, to clarify the theory.
Joe Perez is online now  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:40 PM
  #3646  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default

way to ruin my pun.
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:57 PM
  #3647  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Scrappy Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Talking

Originally Posted by Joe Perez
Could it be, and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, that the data shown in the chart above reflects a perfectly reasonable correction in the domestic employment landscape?

In other words, what happens when you give context to that data by expanding the time scale outwards to include a larger sample?

with your objective nuanced analysis and actually taking the time to go to the primary data source! George W. Obama and all the neo-coniberals have ruined this country with their wars and guns and religion and athiesm and taxes and spending!
Scrappy Jack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 04:02 PM
  #3648  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
Default second chart on the right

Doesn't the second chart on the right say, "We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem."?

Of course you'd get push-back from the Prez on that one.
cordycord is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 05:13 PM
  #3649  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Scrappy Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Question

Originally Posted by cordycord
Doesn't the second chart on the right say, "We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem."?

Of course you'd get push-back from the Prez on that one.
Which one are you referring to? The "Real Personal Consumption Expenditures" or the "Real Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment" or a different one?
Scrappy Jack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:35 PM
  #3650  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
Default This is what happens when you cut spending...

Althouse: "Wisconsin budget surplus projected to grow to $484 million."

Walker cut spending, stopped out of control benefits, and didn't raise taxes.

Obama is taking the "balanced approach", where he taxes the business owners, spends more and kicks the can down the road. California agrees with Obama, and any business that can is moving to Texas, Nevada or Arizona, in that order.
cordycord is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:39 PM
  #3651  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default

ca is "projected" to make a surplus too, after raising taxes...

lets see how the laffer curve treats them before we hold judgement.
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:45 PM
  #3652  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
Default California's "balanced" budget

Originally Posted by Braineack
ca is "projected" to make a surplus too, after raising taxes...

lets see how the laffer curve treats them before we hold judgement.
California has a balanced budget requirement, and it hasn't happened in years. The smoke and mirrors is ridiculous--we miss our budget by more than the entire budget of nearly every other state.

Can you imagine competing on the world stage with your own 'cap and tax' scheme, or adding a 'high speed rail' that has tripled in price, lost speed & estimated passengers (raising ticket prices), and goes from nowhere to nowhere?

At least Hollywood gets special tax exemptions, because we all know they need the money to protect against the media attack on all the gun violence in movies, post-Newtown. Oh wait, that was in a parallel universe.
cordycord is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 02:22 PM
  #3653  
Elite Member
iTrader: (14)
 
GeneSplicer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 2,101
Total Cats: 180
Default

Piece of ****? At least the fly thinks so... me too.


Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
GeneSplicer is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 02:40 PM
  #3654  
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
Default

Originally Posted by GeneSplicer
Piece of ****? At least the fly thinks so... me too.

Libs still can't figure it out. Flys just know.
cordycord is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 03:00 PM
  #3655  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default


Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 05:26 PM
  #3656  
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (19)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,667
Total Cats: 337
Default

Originally Posted by Braineack
I saw one of those on a urinal today, or wait, was it here?
olderguy is offline  
Old 01-27-2013, 09:39 PM
  #3657  
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Default

Originally Posted by GeneSplicer
Just like back home in Kenya...
sixshooter is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 10:15 AM
  #3658  
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Default

just some reads:

Barack Obama: 'I go shooting all the time' - Telegraph

Government Officials Can Still Own Assault Weapons Under Feinstein Bill

CBS Runs Segment Called 'Let's Give Up On The Constitution'

Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas | WashingtonExaminer.com

Welfare payments to be slashed ¥74 billion to root out the comfortably poor | The Japan Times
Braineack is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 10:56 AM
  #3659  
Junior Member
 
MD323's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SFL
Posts: 369
Total Cats: 3
Default


Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
MD323 is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 11:16 AM
  #3660  
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,568
Total Cats: 217
Default

This article blows my mind. I have heard this argument before and not once has anyone come up with a satisfactory replacement. It is almost always brought up by someone who wants to limit something protected by the constitution. The sad part is I hear this more and more and much of it is from my own generating who's political positions I find atrocious.
Ryan_G is offline  


Quick Reply: The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 PM.