RE: it's the economy, stupid......

RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

servantforuse -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 11:37:29 AM)
*If anyone is worried about investment dollars going overseas, just wait until OBama raises the capital gains taxes in this Country. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Sanity -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 12:06:42 PM)
Or when he taxes oil and other energy back to the stone age to please radical greens Or surrenders to our enemies in the Middle East in order to please his friends in Europe Or just wait until his teleprompter goes down during an important policy speech, and see how Wall Street reacts then quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse *If anyone is worried about investment dollars going overseas, just wait until OBama raises the capital gains taxes in this Country. You ain't seen nothing yet.

bipolarber -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 12:22:06 PM)
Um... yeeeaaaahhhh.... riiight. (Steps well back... slowly.... no sudden moves...)

Vendaval -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 1:26:05 PM)
What, are you saying you have a toothache? And that we need more dentists and dental hygenists? All that schooling will require loans and grants and several years of due diligence. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Drill now, drill here.

Lordandmaster -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 2:37:29 PM)
Laughing...right, that's why he just proposed a $1,000 tax rebate on energy. Obama is many things, but he's not green. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Or when he taxes oil and other energy back to the stone age to please radical greens

Sanity -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 2:56:49 PM)
Financed how. Through taxing oil companies... like I said. And the oil companies will merely pass the tax back right on to us, the consumers. They tried these moronic ideas back in the 1970's and the result was fuel shortages and crippling stagflation. Obama thinks we're too stupid to realize this! And maybe some of us are. Or maybe he's the stupid one. You've got to be stupid to try a plan that has been proven not to work! quote: Laughing...right, that's why he just proposed a $1,000 tax rebate on energy. Obama is many things, but he's not green.

FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 3:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Firm you're, as is depressingly usual for you recently, making political statements and then trying to back them up by BS. I'll also note that the revised stats in the report you cite indicates a real GDP shrink in last quarter 2007 of 0.2% annual rate. Further research finds that the adjusted numbers for first quarter 2008 is 0.9% which is well below the rate of population expansion even with your numbers. IOW that's a recession. The Q1 2008 number is here: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt Now about who is making political or ignorant claims... uhh. Yeah. I know. I said that already. Post #7, second to the last paragraph: Taking the highest of the population growth rates given above (1.2%), and taking the report's published economic growth rates of the first two quarters as 1.9% and 0.9%, - hell, let's even throw in the negative 0.2% of the fourth quarter of last year - According to LaM's correction, the current adjusted annual real growth of the economy for the year is 1.9%. According to the highest estimates of an annual population growth of 1.2% (the actual is less than 0.9%), and with inflation already taken into account ... we still have growth. And even if we accept the 1.2% population figure, that's for the full year. For the time period under discussion, it's only half that: 0.6%. How you get anything else out of those numbers beats the hell out of me. Notice as well ... I've yet to insult you, or call you ignorant, just because you are having some sort of difficulty in sorting out this issue. Political .... yes, stupid or ignorant, not necessarily. Hint: What you should do is gracefully admit my point, and then hit me on unemployment. Firm

DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 5:57:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Firm you're, as is depressingly usual for you recently, making political statements and then trying to back them up by BS. I'll also note that the revised stats in the report you cite indicates a real GDP shrink in last quarter 2007 of 0.2% annual rate. Further research finds that the adjusted numbers for first quarter 2008 is 0.9% which is well below the rate of population expansion even with your numbers. IOW that's a recession. The Q1 2008 number is here: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt Now about who is making political or ignorant claims... uhh. Yeah. I know. I said that already. Post #7, second to the last paragraph: Taking the highest of the population growth rates given above (1.2%), and taking the report's published economic growth rates of the first two quarters as 1.9% and 0.9%, - hell, let's even throw in the negative 0.2% of the fourth quarter of last year - According to LaM's correction, the current adjusted annual real growth of the economy for the year is 1.9%. According to the highest estimates of an annual population growth of 1.2% (the actual is less than 0.9%), and with inflation already taken into account ... we still have growth. And even if we accept the 1.2% population figure, that's for the full year. For the time period under discussion, it's only half that: 0.6%. How you get anything else out of those numbers beats the hell out of me. Notice as well ... I've yet to insult you, or call you ignorant, just because you are having some sort of difficulty in sorting out this issue. Political .... yes, stupid or ignorant, not necessarily. Hint: What you should do is gracefully admit my point, and then hit me on unemployment. Firm I'm going to have to assume you simply don't understand the numbers we're talking about. 1.2% pop growth is an annual rate. The quarterly GDP numbers we're tossing about are annual rates as well. See table 1 of the link I provided where the whole table is labeled thus: quote: [Quarters seasonally adjusted at annual rates] This can be established by examining the figures in that table for 2007. The overall growth rate for 2007 was 2.0% but the quarterly rates were 0.1, 4.8, 4.8 and -0.2. Which only works if the quarterly rates are actually annual rates. So once again 2 consecutive quarters with a net contraction of the economy as measured by GDP = recession. Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 were a net contraction of the economy therefore that was a recession.

FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 7:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Firm you're, as is depressingly usual for you recently, making political statements and then trying to back them up by BS. I'll also note that the revised stats in the report you cite indicates a real GDP shrink in last quarter 2007 of 0.2% annual rate. Further research finds that the adjusted numbers for first quarter 2008 is 0.9% which is well below the rate of population expansion even with your numbers. IOW that's a recession. The Q1 2008 number is here: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt Now about who is making political or ignorant claims... uhh. Yeah. I know. I said that already. Post #7, second to the last paragraph: Taking the highest of the population growth rates given above (1.2%), and taking the report's published economic growth rates of the first two quarters as 1.9% and 0.9%, - hell, let's even throw in the negative 0.2% of the fourth quarter of last year - According to LaM's correction, the current adjusted annual real growth of the economy for the year is 1.9%. According to the highest estimates of an annual population growth of 1.2% (the actual is less than 0.9%), and with inflation already taken into account ... we still have growth. And even if we accept the 1.2% population figure, that's for the full year. For the time period under discussion, it's only half that: 0.6%. How you get anything else out of those numbers beats the hell out of me. Notice as well ... I've yet to insult you, or call you ignorant, just because you are having some sort of difficulty in sorting out this issue. Political .... yes, stupid or ignorant, not necessarily. Hint: What you should do is gracefully admit my point, and then hit me on unemployment. Firm I'm going to have to assume you simply don't understand the numbers we're talking about. 1.2% pop growth is an annual rate. The quarterly GDP numbers we're tossing about are annual rates as well. See table 1 of the link I provided where the whole table is labeled thus: quote: [Quarters seasonally adjusted at annual rates] This can be established by examining the figures in that table for 2007. The overall growth rate for 2007 was 2.0% but the quarterly rates were 0.1, 4.8, 4.8 and -0.2. Which only works if the quarterly rates are actually annual rates. So once again 2 consecutive quarters with a net contraction of the economy as measured by GDP = recession. Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 were a net contraction of the economy therefore that was a recession. Ken ... seriously ... no insult intended ... do you even read what I write? Firm

DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 8:38:50 PM)
Yes, I read what you wrote and I'm getting tired of your obfuscation. You made a false claim and I explained why it was wrong. The right thing to do would be to admit your mistake. The insulting thing was to claim you weren't in error. Once more the population grows at about 1.2% annual rate, actually slightly higher when discussing working population expansion since most immigrants immediately enter the workforce and higher than that by every discussion of economics I've ever seen on the matter, and we have had two consecutive quarters where the annual growth rate of the GDP was less than that rate. Therefore the economy, described in terms of GDP, shrunk for two quarters. Which is a recession. I've explained it twice so if you don't understand it now why not ask actual questions rather than insulting me by implying I don't know what I'm talking about.

FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 9:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Yes, I read what you wrote and I'm getting tired of your obfuscation. You made a false claim and I explained why it was wrong. The right thing to do would be to admit your mistake. The insulting thing was to claim you weren't in error. Once more the population grows at about 1.2% annual rate, actually slightly higher when discussing working population expansion since most immigrants immediately enter the workforce and higher than that by every discussion of economics I've ever seen on the matter, and we have had two consecutive quarters where the annual growth rate of the GDP was less than that rate. Therefore the economy, described in terms of GDP, shrunk for two quarters. Which is a recession. I've explained it twice so if you don't understand it now why not ask actual questions rather than insulting me by implying I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been very restrained and to the point through-out this thread, When in error, I've found the simplest thing is to admit it and move on. So far, you've not presented a clear enough case, supported by evidence, to convince me that you are correct. Calling names and being insulting does nothing to help your case. You make unsupported claims, get caught in several mistakes, refuse to do anything but hamfistedly say "I'm right, you're wrong." and expect ... what, exactly? You claimed that the population growth was great enough to make the growth rate negative. I proved you wrong. Then you come back and say ... "No, the working population increase!" although you offer no proof that this is so, nor any figures to support your "3%" figure. You claimed that inflation wasn't taken into account. I proved you wrong. You claimed I was ignoring the slight downturn in the 4th quarter of last year. I proved you wrong. I said that the 1.2% population growth rate was an annual figure, you come back immediately and say "Hey, you're wrong, the 1.2% growth rate is an annual figure!" I suspect there are other failures on your part that I've not chronicled, but I think this will suffice. I'm willing to enter into a discussion, but the two prerequisites are are person of good will, and who knows something of the subject under debate. I'm not convinced you are such a person. Firm

DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/1/2008 10:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And even if we accept the 1.2% population figure, that's for the full year. For the time period under discussion, it's only half that: 0.6%. What's this then? That 0.6% claim is irrelevant or a straight up misstatement. I'm tired of this. I'll explain once more why you're wrong and then I'm done with this. The population expands inexorably. It doesn't stop because of a recession. Therefore anytime we have a period of economic growth less than the rate of population growth that population increase does not go away. Before a net increase of the economy can be considered to have occured enough growth at higher than the population growth rate must occur to offset the population growth rate growth that wasn't previously accounted for. Now in the present example we have Q4 2007 with its -0.2% rate* and Q1 2008 with a 1.2% rate. I'll use the 0.9% population growth rate, which is wrong that works out to the US doubling in pop every 77+ years*, but I'll use it anyway. So over the 2 quarters in question the economy grew by approximately a 0.5% rate while the population still grew at 0.9%. By definition a recession. Extending the example to the Q2 numbers just released that brings the three quarter economic growth rate to a 0.97 (approximately) growth rate for the three quarters or just slightly above the conservative estimate for population growth and well below more reasonable population growth rates. So not only were we in a recession between October 1 2007 and March 31 2008 we likely haven't yet emerged from the recession even with the pickup in the economy shown by the preliminary figures. all rates are annual rates. ** US population is now 304,000,000 (approximate). US population was 152,000,000 sometime in the early 1950's. Being most generous and assuming it was actually in 1950 that's a doubling in 58 years which is the previously mentioned 1.2% rate.

Lordandmaster -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/2/2008 8:01:41 AM)
Not exactly. Oil companies know very well that when gas at the retail end starts to hit a certain ceiling, people change their consumption habits and profits take a hit for the long term. Why do you think oil companies oppose higher energy taxes? According to your logic, they shouldn't care, because they would just pass the tax onto their customers. Anyway, what's your solution? When Exxon posts the highest quarterly profits ever recorded for any corporation in history, I take it as a sign that they're undertaxed. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Financed how. Through taxing oil companies... like I said. And the oil companies will merely pass the tax back right on to us, the consumers. quote: Laughing...right, that's why he just proposed a $1,000 tax rebate on energy. Obama is many things, but he's not green.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/2/2008 8:54:43 AM)
the solution: stop buying fuel from foreign countries and get out of this global economy.

Sanity -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/2/2008 9:24:57 AM)
A sign they're undertaxed??? The government should tax as little as possible, there is no such thing as being undertaxed. IRS agents are armed robbers wearing suits, taking money under the clear threat of force. You did mention a principle that is true, "when gas at the retail end starts to hit a certain ceiling, people change their consumption habits and profits take a hit for the long term. " It works that way with taxation, too. Raise taxes too much and revenue dries up. Still, the Left seeks to demonize America's last great investments and employers and use taxes and union mobsters as weapons to bring them to their knees because of a misguided thought process. A thought process that wants everyone to be equal regardless of individual effort, a thought process that fails to see that global competition will gladly the take the place of every American company that the Left destroys in their misguided effort to make everything "fair". Retirees depend on oil company profits for their investment retirement accounts. Oil profits are needed to take care of oil company employees - providing good paying jobs with excellent benefits. Oil company profits get reinvested, and are used to develop new oil fields and procure new technologies. Profits are not of themselves evil, and taxing a successful American company as punishment for being successful is counterproductive to the nation as a whole. The only possible benefit to punitive taxes for the energy sector would be to make Liberals "feel" good, like they're actually "doing something" even though it's wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Not exactly. Oil companies know very well that when gas at the retail end starts to hit a certain ceiling, people change their consumption habits and profits take a hit for the long term. Why do you think oil companies oppose higher energy taxes? According to your logic, they shouldn't care, because they would just pass the tax onto their customers. Anyway, what's your solution? When Exxon posts the highest quarterly profits ever recorded for any corporation in history, I take it as a sign that they're undertaxed.

Lordandmaster -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/2/2008 9:34:41 AM)
And now that we have entered the domain of ideological fantasyland, I am going to bow out of this discussion. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity there is no such thing as being undertaxed

Sanity -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/2/2008 10:32:12 AM)
The principal that government should stay out of our lives as much as possible is in no way mere "fantasy". But if that's where you and I fundamentally differ, then so be it. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And now that we have entered the domain of ideological fantasyland, I am going to bow out of this discussion.

TreasureKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 12:05:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And even if we accept the 1.2% population figure, that's for the full year. For the time period under discussion, it's only half that: 0.6%. What's this then? That 0.6% claim is irrelevant or a straight up misstatement. I'm tired of this. I'll explain once more why you're wrong and then I'm done with this. The population expands inexorably. It doesn't stop because of a recession. Therefore anytime we have a period of economic growth less than the rate of population growth that population increase does not go away. Before a net increase of the economy can be considered to have occured enough growth at higher than the population growth rate must occur to offset the population growth rate growth that wasn't previously accounted for. sighs I'm really tired of your beating this dead horse and I've no idea what you're on about here, however... A 1.2% annual rate of population increase does not carry over into a daily, monthly, or bi-annual rate of 1.2%. If on January 1st of any given year, you begin with a population of say... 100,000, and your annual rate of growth is 1.2%, then at the end of the year you will have a population of 101,200. 100,000 x .012 = 1,200 100,000 + 1,200 = 101,200 Assuming that the increase was at a steady and even rate, then your population would have increased by 100 people per month, or 300 per quarter, or 600 people per half a year (or two quarters). 1,200 / 12 months = 100 per month 1,200 / 4 quarters = 300 per quarter 1,200 / 2 halves = 600 per half The percentage of increase would be expressed as follows: The monthly growth rate would be .1% 100,000 x .001 = 100 The quarterly growth rate would be .3% 100,000 x .003 = 300 The bi-annual growth rate would be .6% 100,000 x .006 = 600 If your contention is the the annual population growth rate of 1.2% is steady and applicable to any time period of less than the one year that it is referring to, then I'm afraid you are wrong. If that were the case, then in my hypothetical population above, it would be growing exponentially at any given moment. For example... Population at 12:01am, January 1 - 100,000 Population at 12:01:01am, January 1 - 101,200 100,000 + (100,000 x .012) Population at 12:01:02am, January 1 - 102,414.4 101,200 + (101,200 x .012) lol... That would be ridiculous. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Now in the present example we have Q4 2007 with its -0.2% rate* and Q1 2008 with a 1.2% rate. I'll use the 0.9% population growth rate, which is wrong that works out to the US doubling in pop every 77+ years*, but I'll use it anyway. First huge mistake. See above. quote:* ORIGINAL: DomKen So over the 2 quarters in question the economy grew by approximately a 0.5% rate while the population still grew at 0.9%. Second mistake. I have no idea why you are using averaging other than to establish an average growth rate per month... Q4 2007 at -0.2% rate + Q1 2008 at 1.2% rate = 1% 1% / 2 quarters = .5% By dividing 1% by the two quarters in question, you could say that each quarter averaged growth of .5%, but you cannot say the growth was on average .5% for the entire period. For example. On January 1st my business assets were $100. During the first quarter I had a growth rate of -.2%. In other words, at the end of March, my assets were $99.80. $100 x -.002 = $99.80 At the end of June, my growth rate was 1.2%. My assets grew by $1.20 so I now have $101.00. $99.80 + $1.20 = $101.00 You could say that I had an average growth rate of .5% each quarter... $101 - $100 = $1 growth / 2 quarters = $.50 growth each quarter $.50 / $1 = .5% However, if you said that I had a growth rate of .5% over the two quarters, you would be wrong... $100 x .005 = $.50 My increase over the two quarters was $1, not $.50. So what is the correct answer? Over the two quarters, my rate of increase was 1%. The third mistake is using the .9% annual population increase. See my explanation at the top. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen By definition a recession. Extending the example to the Q2 numbers just released that brings the three quarter economic growth rate to a 0.97 (approximately) growth rate for the three quarters or just slightly above the conservative estimate for population growth and well below more reasonable population growth rates. So not only were we in a recession between October 1 2007 and March 31 2008 we likely haven't yet emerged from the recession even with the pickup in the economy shown by the preliminary figures. I see what you're trying to do... you're asserting that -.2% growth the first quarter plus 1.2% growth the second quarter equates to .5% average growth per quarter... subtracting .9% population growth per quarter (which is wrong... again, see my explanation above) and declaring negative growth. It just doesn't work that way. I'm neither a mathematician or an economist, but it didn't take much to figure all this out. Considering that your math is wrong, this whole assumption is wrong. But aside from that, despite the usual layman's definition of recession, the official determination of recession has not been made for the period in question. Unless, of course, you're part of the NBER and privy to information yet unseen by the public. [;)] And to address your assertions of "reasonable" population growth including some 3% increase in the working population... try checking out the Census Bureau's population estimates. While they show an overall estimated annual growth of the US population to be around .99%, the growth of the "working population" (ages 18 to 65) is only growing at .96%. To be honest, I'm surprised Firm has had as much patience with your tirades as he has. No wonder he blew you off.

DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 12:56:15 PM)
Does no one actually understand what a rate per a specific time period means? You tossed out a lot of numbers and verbiage based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Let's examine an example in print from people who actually know math (that I've already used and Firm introduced). http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt Scroll down to Table 1. now find the 2007 total and quarterly rates. That's a 2.0 annual rate and quarterlies of 0.1, 4.8, 4.8, -0.2 which does average to more than 2 but far less than your claimed system would give it (the difference between 2.0 and the raw average comes from the numbers being seasonally adjusted). Now to your example, you tried to apply an annual growth rate as a quarterly rate and of course you got erroneous numbers. A naive (not seasonally adjusted and not continous rate) correct calculation follows: In the first quarter your $100 investment grows at a -0.2% annual rate (IOW naively a -0.05% rate) leaving you with 99.95. Now in the next quarter the annual rate is 1.2% which results in a (again approximately and naively) a 0.3% quarterly rate for a return of $100.25 (rounded). So in 2 quarters your investment has grown 0.25% for an annual rate of 0.5% (again approximated and avoiding use of natural log). So we're right back at that 0.5% approximate annual growth rate (ignoring seasonal adjustments and other complicating factors).

TreasureKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ... Ignores my point ... lol... I can see why Firm decided to walk away.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875