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

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



Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:13:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

... Ignores my point ...


lol... I can see why Firm decided to walk away. 



Told you.

Firm



bipolarber -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:13:59 PM)

All of this proves to me a basic truisim:

BDSM attracts lawyers, catholics, and now... accountants.

Honestly, I can't remember a thread that both got so testy, AND so dull that my eyes glazed over several times.

All I know is, my meager paycheck just isn't cutting it anymore. It used to be great during the Clinton era... but in the last eight years, I've seen my paycheck stay pretty much the same and the cost of living skyrocket to shit-o-rific levels! And it's all due to the fuckers who were in power before the democratic shift in congress. Every last bit of it. This asshole President has gotten every god damned thing he asked for, like some spoiled brat on Christmas eve, and look at where it's led us.

Fuck the republicans. They had their shot (they had packed all three branches of government) and they fell flat on their faces.



FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:32:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

All of this proves to me a basic truisim:

BDSM attracts lawyers, catholics, and now... accountants.

Honestly, I can't remember a thread that both got so testy, AND so dull that my eyes glazed over several times.

All I know is, my meager paycheck just isn't cutting it anymore. It used to be great during the Clinton era... but in the last eight years, I've seen my paycheck stay pretty much the same and the cost of living skyrocket to shit-o-rific levels! And it's all due to the fuckers who were in power before the democratic shift in congress. Every last bit of it. This asshole President has gotten every god damned thing he asked for, like some spoiled brat on Christmas eve, and look at where it's led us.

Fuck the republicans. They had their shot (they had packed all three branches of government) and they fell flat on their faces.


Confirmation bias is always pretty convincing.

Firm



DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:37:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

... Ignores my point ...


lol... I can see why Firm decided to walk away. 


I know why as well, he was wrong.

BTW why aren't you at least acknowledging your errors of using an annual rate as a quarterly rate? I'm just looking for some basic honesty at this point.



TreasureKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 1:53:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

...BTW why aren't you at least acknowledging your errors of using an annual rate as a quarterly rate? I'm just looking for some basic honesty at this point.


Honestly?  Show me anywhere in my example where I said I was using an annual rate.  (I'm betting you won't.  [;)])

I was illustrating, in the most basic and simple manner that I could, that you cannot use a quarterly average to sum up the growth over two quarters, i.e....

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%.


While we're at it, how about you admitting you were wrong for trying to apply an annual population growth figure to a quarterly average?  [;)] 



DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 2:31:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

...BTW why aren't you at least acknowledging your errors of using an annual rate as a quarterly rate? I'm just looking for some basic honesty at this point.


Honestly?  Show me anywhere in my example where I said I was using an annual rate.  (I'm betting you won't.  [;)])

I was illustrating, in the most basic and simple manner that I could, that you cannot use a quarterly average to sum up the growth over two quarters, i.e....

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%.


While we're at it, how about you admitting you were wrong for trying to apply an annual population growth figure to a quarterly average?  [;)] 


You implicitly used the annual rate as a quarterly rate by using the -0.2 and 1.2 rates discussed in this thread. Either you made the mistake of assuming these were quarterly despite the many statements that they were annual rates or you were attempting to deceive.

I never used an annual rate to compare to a quarterly rate. I exclusively discussed everything in terms of annual rate. Go back over the entire thread find any number where I ever used a quarterly rate instead of an annual rate. In the specific post you attacked the rates are even footnoted to be all annual rates although I do note you snipped them from your reply.

Now either show where my numbers are wrong or admit your and Firm's error.



FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 6:07:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Now either show where my numbers are wrong or admit your and Firm's error.


We do not take orders from you. 

The only reason this discussion was opened again was because Treasure was convinced that you couldn't really be  .... the way you are. (She tends to have a higher opinion of people than I do.)

Now she knows.

Neither she nor I will engage you about this subject again, so you can just declare "victory" if you wish, and move on.

Do not continue to harass us again on this subject.

Firm



Owner59 -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 6:32:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Confirmation bias is always pretty convincing.

Firm



Look at Firm, ...playing the confirmation bias card.

No need for that.



DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 6:50:45 PM)

That's the second time you've declared victory and run away. Now you're claiming I harassed you. I will admit I made fun of you and showed my clear contempt for you but harassment? Since you ran away from this thread on 8/1 I've replied to precisely 5 comments, this will be the sixth, you made and none by Treasure.outside this thread and of those 5 only 4 are even related to this. So 4 posts is harassment? please.



popeye1250 -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 7:19:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

All of this proves to me a basic truisim:

BDSM attracts lawyers, catholics, and now... accountants.

Honestly, I can't remember a thread that both got so testy, AND so dull that my eyes glazed over several times.

All I know is, my meager paycheck just isn't cutting it anymore. It used to be great during the Clinton era... but in the last eight years, I've seen my paycheck stay pretty much the same and the cost of living skyrocket to shit-o-rific levels! And it's all due to the fuckers who were in power before the democratic shift in congress. Every last bit of it. This asshole President has gotten every god damned thing he asked for, like some spoiled brat on Christmas eve, and look at where it's led us.

Fuck the republicans. They had their shot (they had packed all three branches of government) and they fell flat on their faces.


Bipolar, I agree but where do you go, to the Democrats?
Obama has a $1.4 Trillion tax increase in his back pocket ready to go.
Those bastards will take an even bigger chunk out of your check!



FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 8:57:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Confirmation bias is always pretty convincing.

Firm



Look at Firm, ...playing the confirmation bias card.

No need for that.


Hey, O59, we all have confirmation bias (you certainly do! [:D]).  The question is how much we struggle or try to overcome it to see the world as it is, not how we think it is, or wish it to be.

Firm



NeedToUseYou -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/9/2008 10:41:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

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 - we have an economc growth rate of 2.6% over the last three quarters, compared to a 0.9% population growth (1.2 / 4 * 3 = 0.9).


It does seem you are wrong here, I just read a large section  of the report, and the method of computation is not the way you did it in this paragraph from the beginning of the thread, from which the whole debate started.
Your math was to simply add all the numbers together and treat that as annualized growth, that is flawed according to the way they calculate the numbers.

You went  -0.2 +1.9+0.9= Annualized growth of 2.6 over last three quarters. This is wrong, it just is 100% wrong.

Here are the  numbers from the report, and you'll see that they do not compute it like you do, at all.
QI     QII   QIII  QIV   Annual Growth Total from the report for 2007
(.1) (4.8) (4.8) (-.2) (2.0)

Now, using your method we would simply add them together as
such
.1 + 4.8 + 4.8+ -.2 = 9.5% rate of annual growth, which would be remarkable but it isn't correct

The actual quarterly numbers per the actual report are "Annualized already", and skewed for seasonal fluctuations.


So, in summary, your method you used would result in about 4 times the Annual rate of growth than the report would show.
Pretty much because they skew the numbers for other factors to so it's not a straight divide by 4(quarters).

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt

So to keep it simple we'll use the last four quarters growth, versus a 1.2% annual population growth.

4.8 -.2 .9 1.9

which using the rough imprecise method to get close but not the actual number.

would be a annual rate of growth approximately of 1.85 annual rate of growth.
Past annual growth rates(from report): 2004:3.6 2005:2.9 2006:2.8 2007: 2.0

However, the GDP growth of 1.85(approximate, me simply dividing by four, excludes seasonal adjustments they use) is greater than 1.2% annual population growth.
http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm this site says it's about 1.88. So pretty close. (I checked about 10 other sites and they all agree).
However, it is still shitty.

Yeah, thanks for having this long thread, I'd never have read that damn thing otherwise. The economy is shit, according to the numbers.








Vendaval -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/10/2008 2:07:58 AM)

Here in California, the state budget has yet to be balanced and deadlines are coming.  The numerous fires made a tough financial year even worse
and fire season lasts through October.

 
"State budget stalemate continues"
 
John Wildermuth, Samantha Sondag, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
 
"With the budget now more than a month overdue, some important deadlines are looming. The state could be forced as early as Monday to ask banks and other lenders to start putting together billions of dollars in loans to keep the state afloat, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance.

The revenue anticipation warrants, designed to pay the bills if the state doesn't have a budget, will cost California hundreds of millions in extra fees and interest.

Schwarzenegger has said that he won't accept a spending plan that doesn't include some type of permanent budget reform, such as a cap on future spending or authority for the governor to make midterm budget reductions to avoid deficits.

But any reform would have to be approved by voters and there's an Aug. 16 deadline for adding measures to the Nov. 4 ballot."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/06/BA1O125MC5.DTL



L8bloomer -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/10/2008 3:50:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The 1.9% figure is in the second paragraph. However it needs to be kept in mind that  a rate below the rate at which the working population expands is really a net contraction. With the working age population expanding at about a 3% rate that means growth is matching what's needed simply to keep up with population growth.

As to why it didn't work, the real and paper losses continue. Every time a homeowner defaults on a mortgage he loses all his equity and has to go out on the market to rent and the bank loses the remaining unpaid amount of the motgage. The banks count on being able to sell homes below market and still recoup their loss. However with the real estate bubble prices being so much higher than present prices banks have to take a real loss when they sell the foreclosed properties. As long as this is going on, in a very real sense a decrease in the money supply, it will be very hard for banks to make loans to businesses needed to expand and grow the economy.

What's really disturbing is that fuel prices have managed to overcome that deflationary pressure and cause significant inflation. Significant inflation during a recession is a very bad sign as any one who remembers the late 70's and early 80's will recall.


Will you be my economics teacher? [:)]



DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/10/2008 7:15:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: L8bloomer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The 1.9% figure is in the second paragraph. However it needs to be kept in mind that  a rate below the rate at which the working population expands is really a net contraction. With the working age population expanding at about a 3% rate that means growth is matching what's needed simply to keep up with population growth.

As to why it didn't work, the real and paper losses continue. Every time a homeowner defaults on a mortgage he loses all his equity and has to go out on the market to rent and the bank loses the remaining unpaid amount of the motgage. The banks count on being able to sell homes below market and still recoup their loss. However with the real estate bubble prices being so much higher than present prices banks have to take a real loss when they sell the foreclosed properties. As long as this is going on, in a very real sense a decrease in the money supply, it will be very hard for banks to make loans to businesses needed to expand and grow the economy.

What's really disturbing is that fuel prices have managed to overcome that deflationary pressure and cause significant inflation. Significant inflation during a recession is a very bad sign as any one who remembers the late 70's and early 80's will recall.


Will you be my economics teacher? [:)]


And what do I get out of the arrangement?



DomKen -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/10/2008 7:16:43 AM)

Needtouseyou,

Thanks. I was beginning to think no one on this board understood simple math.



L8bloomer -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/10/2008 9:17:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: L8bloomer

Will you be my economics teacher? [:)]


And what do I get out of the arrangement?


My undying gratitude? :D Uhm...got anything in mind? *grins*



FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/11/2008 9:40:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

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 - we have an economc growth rate of 2.6% over the last three quarters, compared to a 0.9% population growth (1.2 / 4 * 3 = 0.9).


It does seem you are wrong here, I just read a large section  of the report, and the method of computation is not the way you did it in this paragraph from the beginning of the thread, from which the whole debate started.
Your math was to simply add all the numbers together and treat that as annualized growth, that is flawed according to the way they calculate the numbers.



Sorry, but you must have missed where LaM already pointed that out, and it was taken into account. (See his very first post in the thread).

Nice work going through the figures, however. 

The debate started when I claimed that the economy was growing, and Ken claimed it was not.  LaM pointed out the same thing you did, and I acknowledged his point, but it does not change the primary fact.  Ken continues to "work" the figures to try to "prove" there actually negative growth.


Your figures ...
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

However, the GDP growth of 1.85(approximate, me simply dividing by four, excludes seasonal adjustments they use) is greater than 1.2% annual population growth.

http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm this site says it's about 1.88. So pretty close. (I checked about 10 other sites and they all agree).

... agree with my basic claims.  Ken claims you (and I) are in error.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

However, it is still shitty.

My point was that the economy had positive growth, however anemic.  As I said before, we can certainly discuss what an "acceptable" level of growth is, and how to improve it.  Those are valid discussions.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: it's the economy, stupid...... (8/11/2008 10:12:17 AM)

Darn ATT cellular card ...

Double post deleted.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.640625E-02