or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Unexpectedly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unexpectedly - Page 3

post #81 of 235
The facts, which I posted, say otherwise.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #82 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The facts, which I posted, say otherwise.

You didn't post facts. You posted a line graph. A graph explains nothing by itself. The conclusions you infer are not at all supported by the line graph.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 235
What's interesting is that the Gini coefficient, which the left loves to drag out as their index of choice for income inequality, in the US actually increased faster under Clinton than under Reagan and much faster than under Bush. In fact the index shows that income inequality increased more under Clinton than Reagan and Bush combined.

From here (See: "Gini Ratios for Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder"), here are the Gini coefficients:

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412
1983 \t0.414
1984\t0.415
1985 \t0.419
1986\t0.425
1987 \t0.426
1988\t0.426
1989\t0.431 Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428
1991\t0.428
1992 \t0.433
1993 \t0.454 Clinton's first year in office
1994 \t0.456
1995 \t0.450
1996\t0.455
1997\t0.459
1998\t0.456
1999 \t0.458
2000 \t0.462 Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466
2002\t0.462
2003\t0.464
2004 \t0.466
2005\t0.469
2006\t0.470
2007\t0.463
2008\t0.466
2009\t0.468 Obama's first year in office

From 1980-1988 income inequality increased 5.71% (0.023).

From 1992-2000 income inequality increased 6.70% (0.029).

From 2000 - 2008 income inequality increased 0.87% (0.004).

What's more, the total increase for Reagan and Bush (16 years) was 0.027 and for Clinton (8 years) was 0.029.

I'll bet that was unexpected.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What's interesting is that the Gini coefficient, which the left loves to drag out as their index of choice for income inequality, in the US actually increased faster under Clinton than under Reagan and much faster than under Bush. In fact the index shows that income inequality increased more under Clinton than Reagan and Bush combined.

From here (See: "Gini Ratios for Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder"), here are the Gini coefficients:

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412
1983 \t0.414
1984\t0.415
1985 \t0.419
1986\t0.425
1987 \t0.426
1988\t0.426
1989\t0.431 Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428
1991\t0.428
1992 \t0.433
1993 \t0.454 Clinton's first year in office
1994 \t0.456
1995 \t0.450
1996\t0.455
1997\t0.459
1998\t0.456
1999 \t0.458
2000 \t0.462 Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466
2002\t0.462
2003\t0.464
2004 \t0.466
2005\t0.469
2006\t0.470
2007\t0.463
2008\t0.466
2009\t0.468 Obama's first year in office

From 1980-1988 income inequality increased 5.71% (0.023).

From 1992-2000 income inequality increased 6.70% (0.029).

From 2000 - 2008 income inequality increased 0.87% (0.004).

What's more, the total increase for Reagan and Bush (16 years) was 0.027 and for Clinton (8 years) was 0.029.

I'll bet that was unexpected.

Hahaha!!! What's absolutely not unexpected is that you interpret the data from 1993 to be the effect of Clinton's policies.
post #85 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You didn't post facts. You posted a line graph. A graph explains nothing by itself. The conclusions you infer are not at all supported by the line graph.

No one on Earth can look at that graph and support what you're claiming, without lying or making shit up. The graph shows unarguably that there has been zero correlation between the wealth increase of the rich and the wealth increase of the working class.
post #86 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hahaha!!! What's absolutely not unexpected is that you interpret the data from 1993 to be the effect of Clinton's policies.

Thanks for your "in-depth" analysis.

I used consistent timeline ranges for all of them. And chose the first full year of their presidencies for a reason. But, okay, let's deal with your objection.

If you assume that the incoming President did not implement any policies in their first year that effect this metric, the picture changes:

From 1981-1989 income inequality increased 6.2%.

From 1993-2001 income inequality increased 2.6%.

From 2001 - 2009 income inequality increased 1.3%.

So income inequality increased twice as fast under Clinton than Bush. Much faster under Reagan. What's still interesting is that we heard lots about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" under Bush, but not so much about Clinton.

Now we can debate which start and end years are the best picks and for what reasons.

BTW...I don't actually claim the Gini coefficient to be a useful measure. Just the one the left likes to use.

A more important measure would be rising median incomes. Because while the rich might get rich faster, it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They might just be getting rich more slowly. In fact, during the Clinton years, mean household income rose faster in the top 5% and top fifth than in either of the other two administrations while the bottom 4/5 stayed pretty steady.

The other issue is class mobility. The people at the bottom in the earlier years are not necessarily the same people in the bottom in the later years.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thanks for your "in-depth" analysis.

I used consistent timeline ranges for all of them. And chose the first full year of their presidencies for a reason. But, okay, let's deal with your objection.

If you assume that the incoming President did not implement any policies in their first year that effect this metric, the picture changes:

From 1981-1989 income inequality increased 6.2%.

From 1993-2001 income inequality increased 2.6%.

From 2001 - 2009 income inequality increased 1.3%.

So income inequality increased twice as fast under Clinton than Bush. Much faster under Reagan. What's still interesting is that we heard lots about the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" under Bush, but not so much about Clinton.

Now we can debate which start and end years are the best picks and for what reasons.

BTW...I don't actually claim the Gini coefficient to be a useful measure. Just the one the left likes to use.

A more important measure would be rising median incomes. Because while the rich might get rich faster, it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They might just be getting rich more slowly. The other issue is class mobility. The people at the bottom in the earlier years are not necessarily the same people in the bottom in the later years.

I believe he is talking about the argument posted here often that it is interesting who has control of Congress during that time as that is who actually implements fiscal policy. You have argued that Congress is responsible for the upswing, and then in this post appear to be assigning responsibility to the president which is inconsistent on its face.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #88 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No one on Earth can look at that graph and support what you're claiming, without lying or making shit up. The graph shows unarguably that there has been zero correlation between the wealth increase of the rich and the wealth increase of the working class.

So it's understood. Your reasoning is as follows. You make a claim. You post a line graph that shows things like minimum wage and percentage rise in S&P500. It is pointed out those items are in no form shown to be related. You call a bunch of names.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I believe he is talking about the argument posted here often that it is interesting who has control of Congress during that time as that is who actually implements fiscal policy. You have argued that Congress is responsible for the upswing, and then in this post appear to be assigning responsibility to the president which is inconsistent on its face.

Actually, I'm not making any argument like that at all*. I'm simply showing some data.

*Though if I was, I'm arguing on the same terms that our leftist friends want to use when vesting all control, power and responsibility with the president. I agree 100% that who controls Congress is an additionally useful data point on this table/chart.

Here's that data:

Senate/House

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 R/D Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412 R/D
1983 0.414 R/D
1984\t0.415 R/D
1985 0.419 R/D
1986\t0.425 R/D
1987 0.426 D/D
1988\t0.426 D/D
1989\t0.431 D/D Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428 D/D
1991\t0.428 D/D
1992 0.433 D/D
1993 0.454 D/D Clinton's first year in office
1994 0.456 D/D
1995 0.450 R/R
1996\t0.455 R/R
1997\t0.459 R/R
1998\t0.456 R/R
1999 0.458 R/R
2000 0.462 R/R Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466 D/R
2002\t0.462 D/R
2003\t0.464 R/R
2004 0.466 R/R
2005\t0.469 R/R
2006\t0.470 R/R
2007\t0.463 D/D
2008\t0.466 D/D
2009\t0.468 D/D Obama's first year in office

Granted it would be much more helpful to plot this visually on a chart...including the degree of control by each party. NOTE: This whole party thing also presumes (incorrectly I believe) that Republicans (or Democrats) 20 years ago are the same as Republicans (or Democrats) now. At best this is a very loose proxy for actual political and economic philosophy and policy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #90 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, I'm not making any argument like that at all*. I'm simply showing some data.

*Though if I was, I'm arguing on the same terms that our leftist friends want to use when vesting all control, power and responsibility with the president. I agree 100% that who controls Congress is an additionally useful data point on this table/chart.

Here's that data:

Senate/House

1980\t0.403
1981\t0.406 R/D Reagan's first year in office
1982\t0.412 R/D
1983 0.414 R/D
1984\t0.415 R/D
1985 0.419 R/D
1986\t0.425 R/D
1987 0.426 D/D
1988\t0.426 D/D
1989\t0.431 D/D Bush's first year in office
1990\t0.428 D/D
1991\t0.428 D/D
1992 0.433 D/D
1993 0.454 D/D Clinton's first year in office
1994 0.456 D/D
1995 0.450 R/R
1996\t0.455 R/R
1997\t0.459 R/R
1998\t0.456 R/R
1999 0.458 R/R
2000 0.462 R/R Bush's first year in office
2001\t0.466 D/R
2002\t0.462 D/R
2003\t0.464 R/R
2004 0.466 R/R
2005\t0.469 R/R
2006\t0.470 R/R
2007\t0.463 D/D
2008\t0.466 D/D
2009\t0.468 D/D Obama's first year in office

Granted it would be much more helpful to plot this visually on a chart...including the degree of control by each party. NOTE: This whole party thing also presumes (incorrectly I believe) that Republicans (or Democrats) 20 years ago are the same as Republicans (or Democrats) now. At best this is a very loose proxy for actual political and economic philosophy and policy.

It may be in line with their arguments, but I was more interested in how you reconciled the possible discrepancy.

Thank you for the data update.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #91 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

For 1% of the population.

Completely false. From wiki:

Quote:
In his stated intention to increase defense spending while lowering taxes, Reagan's approach was a departure from his immediate predecessors. Reagan enacted lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with simplified income tax codes and continued deregulation. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.[3] The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2]

Quote:
Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.[10][11] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[12] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983.[13] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[14] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[15] The latter caused a brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%.

Now, let's talk about tax revenue:

Quote:
During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[27][28] According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue.[29]

and

Quote:
Impact

According to a 1996 study[34] from libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.

The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.



Let's also add that federal revenue increased about 30% during the decade when inflation is accounted for, or nearly 50% in real dollars. So tell me...how did it only benefit the top 1%?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #92 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #93 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


I believe that is the "we're fucked" chart.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 235
Quote:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that the U.S. economy was recovering more slowly than expected, but central bank officials gave no indication they intend to take new steps to boost growth and jobs.

That's because there aren't any.

Quote:
In updated forecasts, Fed officials lowered their growth forecasts and predicted core inflation would remain higher than previously thought.

Another "oops".

Quote:
The economy is now expected to expand at a rate of around 2.7% to 2.9% this year and 3.3% to 3.7% in 2012. That is below estimates given after the last meeting in April for growth of 3.1% to 3.3% in 2011 and 3.5% to 4.2% next year.

The 2011 projection for underlying inflation - stripping out volatile food and energy costs -

... you know, those things you actually need...

Quote:
...was raised to between 1.5% and 1.8% from April's forecast of 1.3% to 1.6%.

If you include the food and energy the real inflation rate - that perceived by the consumer - becomes scarier. Estimates range from 12% to 27%. Carter-esque.

Quote:
The unemployment rate is expected to decline to 8.6% to 8.9% in 2011 and 7.8% to 8.2% next year, ...

Oh good.

Quote:
Although the Fed is less comfortable with the economic outlook, it has less leeway to take new steps to fix it. That's because underlying inflation also has crept up, making the central bank leery of injecting more money into the financial system.

Which is exactly what happens when you "inject more money into the financial system."

Idiots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...645898530.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...740744336.html
http://www.indexmundi.com/commoditie...ty-price-index
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #95 of 235
Thread Starter 
CNBC

Quote:
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week, a government report showed on Thursday, suggesting little improvement in the labor market this month after employment stumbled in May.

Expect the unexpected if you want to be smart.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 235
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #97 of 235

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #98 of 235

And Obama is fiddling while we burn. He's hoping to pin the double-dip recession/depression on the GOP because they don't want to raise the debt limit. He'll try to argue that lack of government spending increases caused the double-dip. \

Interestingly, I heard today that the notion we will default in August is simply not true. Treasury will still have money to pay the bills because of ongoing income tax receipts. What some now believe Obama wants is to let us pass the deadline and wait until Treasury really does have insufficient cash to fund government operations. In that case, the Administration gets to choose what to fund and what not to fund rather than default on credit obligations. He'd then try to pin the whole thing on the GOP, who refused to raise the debt limit without serious cuts in spending.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #99 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #100 of 235
U.S. Stock Futures Tumble on Jobs Growth

Quote:
U.S. stock-index futures retreated after the nation added fewer jobs than forecast in June, damping optimism about the economy. Treasuries rallied.

Futures on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index expiring in September lost 1 percent to 1,338.5 at 8:30 a.m. in New York. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures tumbled 95 points, or 0.8 percent, to 12,586.
Labor Department figures showed U.S. employers added 18,000 workers in June, less than the median economist forecast of 105,000 and the fewest in nine months, while the unemployment rate unexpectedly climbed to 9.2 percent, indicating a struggling labor market.

The S&P 500 has climbed 6.7 percent since the start of last week as Greek lawmakers passed a five-year austerity package, qualifying the country for further aid, and yesterday’s report from ADP Employer Services showed U.S. companies added twice as many jobs as forecast in June. The index is about 10 points shy, or less than 0.8 percent, of a three-year high reached on April 29.

Investors are also turning their attention to the second- quarter earnings season, which unofficially starts on July 11 with Alcoa Inc., the first Dow company to release results. S&P 500 profits are forecast to have grown by 13 percent in the period, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #101 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #103 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #104 of 235
The U.S. economy expanded at a slower pace than expected: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...201857064.html

Quote:
... first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4% rate from the earlier estimated 1.9% gain. A big reason behind the downward revision in first-quarter growth was that the inventory buildup by companies was less than initially estimated, while outlays by the federal government and consumers were also revised down.

The economic consensus was for 1.8% growth, but the most pessimistic forecasts estimated 1.5%, concluding markets will react negatively to anything less. The economy needs to expand at a minimum of 3% just to support population growth. Therefore, anything less than 3% is effectively a recession, a mantra consistently repeated by the complicit media when Bush was in office.

It gets worse: the degree of GDP growth required to support Obama's pullulating welfare state is much, much higher than 3%. We're not anywhere close to that, yet - incredibly - Obama and his swarms of complicit Congresscritters are calling for even more crushing taxes to support even more unsustainable spending, for which yet more borrowed money is required!

Quote:
Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 last year (both figures expressed in 2005 dollars). That's a more than fourfold increase in the richness of the benefits, making dependence on government an ever-sweeter deal - one that gets harder and harder to walk away from.

Another reason is that fewer and fewer people pay for the richer benefits. All adult Americans can vote, but not all voters pay taxes. In 2008, more than 132 million Americans paid no income taxes. That's nearly half - 43.6 percent - of all Americans, more than three times the percentage that prevailed just 25 years earlier.

Consumer sentiment at its lowest since Obama's inauguration: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S0T120110729. That can't possibly be related, could it

When history books chronicle the decline and fall of the United States, the reasons will be obvious. The only unresolved question will be "how could they have allowed this to happen".
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #105 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The U.S. economy expanded at a slower pace than expected: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...201857064.html



The economic consensus was for 1.8% growth, but the most pessimistic forecasts estimated 1.5%, concluding markets will react negatively to anything less. The economy needs to expand at a minimum of 3% just to support population growth. Therefore, anything less than 3% is effectively a recession, a mantra consistently repeated by the complicit media when Bush was in office.

It gets worse: the degree of GDP growth required to support Obama's pullulating welfare state is much, much higher than 3%. We're not anywhere close to that, yet - incredibly - Obama and his swarms of complicit Congresscritters are calling for even more crushing taxes to support even more unsustainable spending, for which yet more borrowed money is required!



Consumer sentiment at its lowest since Obama's inauguration: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S0T120110729. That can't possibly be related, could it

When history books record the reasons for the decline and fall of the United States, the reasons will be obvious. The only unresolved question will be "how could they have allowed this to happen".

"....history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: man's old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

---Ronald Reagan, 1964


Talking about the Soviet Union. Could easily be applied to today's economic woes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 235
Quote:
President Obama’s job approval rating averaged 40 percent in July, representing a new low for him since he took office, according to a Gallup poll conducted July 26-28.

“The inability of U.S. lawmakers to agree on the debt ceiling has apparently shaken Americans’ confidence in the economy and now seems to be taking its toll on the president’s public support, with Obama’s approval rating at a new low,” Gallup said.

http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/0...-hits-new-low/

Obama's overall approval rating is now lower than Bush's ever was.

Even Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon's approval ratings weren't as bad as the Obamanation's

I'm sure this is all the Tea Party's fault
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #107 of 235

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #108 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

(Ronald Reagan) Talking about the Soviet Union. Could easily be applied to today's economic woes.

Speaking of the Evil Empire:

Quote:
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means "like a parasite" on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.

"They are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy," Putin told the pro-Kremlin youth group Nashi while touring its lakeside summer camp some five hours drive north of Moscow.

"They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar," Putin said at the open-air meeting with admiring young Russians in what looked like early campaigning before parliamentary and presidential polls.

... Putin, who has often criticized the United States' foreign exchange policy, noted that Russia holds a large amount of U.S. bonds and treasuries.

Putin's choice of the word "parasite" is significant. The USSR often used it to describe dissidents, Jews, and anyone else who disagreed with their all-knowing beneficent Government. Under Stalin, "parasitism" was a crime punishable by imprisonment, exile, banishment, or death. This was their commonly accepted practice, which continued until the end of the Soviet Union.

Quote:
"If over there (in America) there is a systemic malfunction, this will affect everyone," Putin told the young Russians.

There already is, and it already has.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77052R20110801
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #109 of 235
Thought it was time for this thread to come back.

Unemployment "unexpectedly" drops to 8.5% with "200,00 new jobs" created.

Quote:
The U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 8.5 percent last month as job creation was more robust than expected, providing continued signs that the nation's labor market is improving gradually.

Right, except 200,000 jobs is the number needed to offset losses. It means real unemployment is going nowhere, because 200,000 jobs is the number we need tread water.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #110 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thought it was time for this thread to come back.

Unemployment "unexpectedly" drops to 8.5% with "200,00 new jobs" created.



Right, except 200,000 jobs is the number needed to offset losses. It means real unemployment is going nowhere, because 200,000 jobs is the number we need tread water.

Oh it is much worse than that. The unemployment rate drops because the labor participation rate has profoundly dropped. People no longer think it important to look for work in this wonderful food stamp nation. Basically the government can lower the unemployment rate by lowing the number of people who want to be employed and that is exactly what they have been doing.

We've got some nice unexpectedly's lined up for 2012. The Euro might unexpectedly fail. The bond rate spike might unexpected occur. China will unexpectedly go into recession.

A lot of unexpected shit is ready to hit the fan.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #111 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Oh it is much worse than that. The unemployment rate drops because the labor participation rate has profoundly dropped. People no longer think it important to look for work in this wonderful food stamp nation. Basically the government can lower the unemployment rate by lowing the number of people who want to be employed and that is exactly what they have been doing.

We've got some nice unexpectedly's lined up for 2012. The Euro might unexpectedly fail. The bond rate spike might unexpected occur. China will unexpectedly go into recession.

A lot of unexpected shit is ready to hit the fan.

Good point. In fact, I was just taking that as a given (people not looking for work). Even assuming that WASN'T true, 200,00 jobs are still needed to tread water.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 235
Thread Starter 
It's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

Jobless claims unexpectedly rise last week.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

Jobless claims unexpectedly rise last week.

No one could have anticipated this disastrous recovery.
post #114 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

No one could have anticipated this disastrous recovery.

Well let's remember that it isn't really disastrous because even though they are experts and generated the initial results and outcomes, they didn't really "understand the severity" of the problems they had to confront.

Remember when we all went to that person trainer and after paying him thousands and doing what he said for months, we lost 3lbs instead of the promised 40lbs. He went back and told me we actually lost 40lbs but that he didn't realize the scale gave him the wrong initial weight, and he didn't know how to use that scale even though he is an expert and works with and hangs out with other experts who all apparently never caught that initial mistake as well.

So in reality, we've really lost 40lbs because the initial number on the scale was really wrong and it was wrong for all the subsequent weigh in's as well. It only became known that it was initially wrong when we complained about having only lost 3 lbs.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

No one could have anticipated this disastrous recovery.

I don't think that's true. In fact, this recovery actually rather closely models the Great Depression "recovery." The problem is that people perceived the causes and effects of that time wrongly. They learned the wrong lessons.

In other words there was an analogous pattern of what happens when you have a bubble, a crash and then a heavily Keynesian response. The GD is that. This is merely a milder form of that.

Japan provides another example. We're about 3.5 years into our own "lost decade."

So I think it could be anticipated. The specific details? No. Of course not. But the general stagnation and non-recovery? Sure.

In fact I was saying that all they were doing was kicking the can down the road rather than solving the core problems and probably making the problems worse just dragging them out.

Both Bush and Obama did the exact opposite of what they should have done. Maybe someone will wake up and turn this thing around:

- Cut spending and deficits
- Cut taxes...start with both personal and corporate income taxes (preferably also streamline and simplify)
- Reduce and streamline regulations
- Tear down trade barriers, stop erecting our own

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #116 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't think that's true. In fact, this recovery actually rather closely models the Great Depression "recovery." The problem is that people perceived the causes and effects of that time wrongly. They learned the wrong lessons.

In other words there was an analogous pattern of what happens when you have a bubble, a crash and then a heavily Keynesian response. The GD is that. This is merely a milder form of that.

Japan provides another example. We're about 3.5 years into our own "lost decade."

So I think it could be anticipated. The specific details? No. Of course not. But the general stagnation and non-recovery? Sure.

In fact I was saying that all they were doing was kicking the can down the road rather than solving the core problems and probably making the problems worse just dragging them out.

Both Bush and Obama did the exact opposite of what they should have done. Maybe someone will wake up and turn this thing around:

- Cut spending and deficits
- Cut taxes...start with both personal and corporate income taxes (preferably also streamline and simplify)
- Reduce and streamline regulations
- Tear down trade barriers, stop erecting our own

Check his cheek MJ because I'm pretty sure that is where is tongue is at when saying that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Check his cheek MJ because I'm pretty sure that is where is tongue is at when saying that.

Doh! Oops. Sorry FJ...my brain was not in full gear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #118 of 235
U.S. Employers Add 69,000 Jobs, Fewer Than Forecast
Quote:
American employers in May added the fewest workers in a year and the unemployment rate unexpectedly increased as job-seekers re-entered the workforce, further evidence that the labor-market recovery is stalling.

Payrolls climbed by 69,000 last month, less than the most- pessimistic forecast in a Bloomberg News survey, after a revised 77,000 gain in April that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate called for a 150,000 May advance. The jobless rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent, while hours worked declined.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #119 of 235
Thread Starter 

Who knew one word could reveal so much media bias, government incompetence and reveal so many "smart" forecasters to be so stupid?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Who knew one word could reveal so much media bias, government incompetence and reveal so many "smart" forecasters to be so stupid?

 

I've got to say, you couldn't have created a more illustrative thread with regard to bias and incompetence.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Unexpectedly