don't forget Jeezus and the second coming...SeattleGriz wrote:Don't forget Krugman. Weren't we all supposed to be dead by now?kalm wrote:
Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.
Jesus was a simpleton economist?Chizzang wrote:don't forget Jeezus and the second coming...SeattleGriz wrote:Don't forget Krugman. Weren't we all supposed to be dead by now?
I show graphs because they are easier for most people to understand. Would you like to provide a statistical analysis to show that there was, for instance, a "statistically significant" change in the downward trend in the unemployment rate around the end of 2016? If so, feel free. But you won't because it's not there.AZGrizFan wrote:
You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.
To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.
U.S. stocks on Monday had their best day since March on a percentage basis after the Federal Bureau of Investigation said its review of a new batch of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails won’t lead to charges.
And this article about the November 8 close at https://www.businessinsider.com/closing ... 16-2016-11:Financial markets in general view a Clinton win as the better outcome in Tuesday’s election, as it presents fewer unknowns and possibly more stability for markets than a Trump presidency.
Never mind that it clearly appears as though the upswing started BEFORE people knew Trump was going to be President. I have been being conservative and giving Trump credit for what happened for a few months before he took office so I won't include that in the average pre Trump rate.Based on most proxies, it appears the market is pricing in a victory by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
JohnStOnge wrote:I had time on my hands yesterday and I like playing with numbers so I took a more detailed look at State-by-State 2016 Presidential election polls as well as national polls. I looked only at polls such that questioning ended from November 1, 2016, on. I used all of them unless some were repeats. For example: There was an Opinion Savvy poll conducted November 1 – 2 in Florida. I did not include it because there was another opinion Savvy poll, which I did include, conducted in Florida during November 5-6.
There are 79 results of such polls of State-by-State voters. The poll estimates understate the percent support Clinton had, on average, by 2.1 percentage points. They understate Trump support by, on average, 3.5 percentage points. The difference is significant at above the 95% confidence level.
The State polls overstated the Clinton – Trump margin, on average, by 1.5 percentage points. The average error is significantly different from 0 above the 95% confidence level (0 means no statistical bias). The range of error is from under estimating Clinton’s performance with respect to the margin in a State by 8.4 percentage points to under estimating Trump’s performance in that regard by 12.5 percentage points.
National results are similar. 13 polls met the criteria. They underestimated Clinton’s national vote percentage, on average, by 2.4 percentage points and underestimated Trump’s, on average, by 3.9 percentage points. The difference is not significant at 95% confidence because that would require p < 0.05 and p = 0.14. The relatively small sample size is probably a factor in that.
The polls overstated the Clinton – Trump national margin, on average, by 1.2 percentage points. The average error is significantly different from 0 above the 95% confidence level. The range of error is from under estimating Clinton’s performance by 4.1 percentage points to under estimating Trump’s performance by 3.9 percentage points.
The bottom line is that there was a bias towards Clinton, but it was small. The polls did not under estimate Clinton’s percentages as much as they did Trump’s and therefore over estimated the Clinton – Trump margins. But not by much. You’re talking about something like 1 to 2 percentage points when averaging polls. It’s not nearly enough to account for things like Trump being 7.2 percentage points down in the Real Clear Politics Job Approval/Disapproval average or 7.3 percentage points down in the Real Clear Politics average for a theoretical Trump vs. Biden matchup.
Of course things can and do change. Trump could move into being above water in Job Approval and he could move to being ahead of Biden in the potential popular vote. But right now he’s not in either of those places.
I think he has had some positive movement lately, and I am not happy about that. But he's still in a situation whereby most people don't want him as President and just about any candidate the Democrats end up with will have a reasonable shot to win. Let's just hope the next inevitable downturn in the economy is timed so as to increase the likelihood.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
Lol @ AZ and his macroeconomics statement. He and BDK do the best job at ignoring general economic indicators while touting one or two things (usually increase in the GDP/decrease in unemployment).kalm wrote:Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.AZGrizFan wrote:
You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.
To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.
Wrong. A plurality of Americans do have investments in the stock market, and are benefiting from it.∞∞∞ wrote:Lol @ AZ and his macroeconomics statement. He and BDK do the best job at ignoring general economic indicators while touting one or two things (usually increase in the GDP/decrease in unemployment).kalm wrote:
Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.
They don't mention that productivity is up, yet wages have been fairly stagnant. They don't mention the strong GDP is primarily benefiting already rich people/companies. They don't mention most Americans don't have enough money to invest in the stock market to benefit from it. They don't mention most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't even save up for a $500 emergency. They don't mention the rising, nearly unsustainable costs, of living/education/healthcare. They don't mention the federal bailouts and subsidies to companies. They don't mention the torn down consumer protections and decrease in welfare.
And oh yeah, they never mention that huge deficit conservatives have gotten us into.
Macroeconomics?
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
You are the biggest cry baby on this board. Oh, woe is you!!∞∞∞ wrote:Lol @ AZ and his macroeconomics statement. He and BDK do the best job at ignoring general economic indicators while touting one or two things (usually increase in the GDP/decrease in unemployment).kalm wrote:
Many of the world’s “greatest” economists look at it through a clouded lens of ideology and confirmation bias. Couched in your own language/description/performance Stephen Moore and Alan Greenspan are economic simpletons.
They don't mention that productivity is up, yet wages have been fairly stagnant. They don't mention the strong GDP is primarily benefiting already rich people/companies. They don't mention most Americans don't have enough money to invest in the stock market to benefit from it. They don't mention most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't even save up for a $500 emergency. They don't mention the rising, nearly unsustainable costs, of living/education/healthcare. They don't mention the federal bailouts and subsidies to companies. They don't mention the torn down consumer protections and decrease in welfare.
And oh yeah, they never mention that huge deficit conservatives have gotten us into.
Macroeconomics?
This post just proves that you don't comprehend what you're reading. NEVER have I said there was a statistically significant change in the unemployment trend. Never. You pass Trump's accomplishment off as nothing, but it was done in entirely different economic circumstances than the tailwinds afforded Obama for 8 years. It's YOU who won't look past the end of your nose, and as soon as you see an "analysis" (and I use that word very loosely) of the data that supports your TDS you run with it. There's no change in the trend. The change is in the economics UNDERLYING the trend. The miracle is the trend hasn't changed for the worse--like it has with just about every other President not named Trump when faced with the end of a natural business cycle and rising Fed rates and the historic and unprecedented unwinding of the Fed balance sheet that NO president EVER has had to deal with. The CHANGE is that he's gotten us into uncharted waters on several economic and employment indicators--something NO predecessor has EVER been able to accomplish in my lifetime despite these headwinds. You keep arguing about the "statistically significant change" that's not there. No one has ever argued that point. You must just enjoy playing with yourself.JohnStOnge wrote:I show graphs because they are easier for most people to understand. Would you like to provide a statistical analysis to show that there was, for instance, a "statistically significant" change in the downward trend in the unemployment rate around the end of 2016? If so, feel free. But you won't because it's not there.AZGrizFan wrote:
You see...you see....you see....and yet you refuse to “see” the vast differences in what was happening during Obama’s presidency and Trump’s. You act as if these decisions/results are achieved in some kind of economic vacuum where nothing changes and conditions remain constant. It’s like you took one macroeconomics class and think that’s really how the world’s economy works.
To say they’re anything near equal proves that you don’t look at STATISTICS. You look at graphs. You’re an economic simpleton, plain and simple.
What's a Ressession?Chizzang wrote:
whats interesting is that I found a whole bunch of pay scale vs. inflation graphsAZGrizFan wrote:What's a Ressession?Chizzang wrote:
The need to live paycheck to paycheck to support a heavily consumption and service based economy is the part people like BDK don’t get.AZGrizFan wrote:You are the biggest cry baby on this board. Oh, woe is you!!∞∞∞ wrote:
Lol @ AZ and his macroeconomics statement. He and BDK do the best job at ignoring general economic indicators while touting one or two things (usually increase in the GDP/decrease in unemployment).
They don't mention that productivity is up, yet wages have been fairly stagnant. They don't mention the strong GDP is primarily benefiting already rich people/companies. They don't mention most Americans don't have enough money to invest in the stock market to benefit from it. They don't mention most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't even save up for a $500 emergency. They don't mention the rising, nearly unsustainable costs, of living/education/healthcare. They don't mention the federal bailouts and subsidies to companies. They don't mention the torn down consumer protections and decrease in welfare.
And oh yeah, they never mention that huge deficit conservatives have gotten us into.
Macroeconomics?
You seriously should read a fucking book, junior. Wages are NOT stagnant. They're up 2-2.5x inflation in the last year. And most Americans have ALWAYS lived paycheck to paycheck....how else you gonna support a growing GDP on a 70% consumption-based economy? Rising cost of education? See "government guaranteed student loans" for a reason.
Big fat fucking whiff right there, Einstein.
Of course you would. You're a fucking commie and don't want to earn what someone else has been forced to give you.∞∞∞ wrote:Instead of natural growth with consumer protections, solid social safety nets, paying down debts during good times, and reducing the deficit, conservatives have pumped the economy by massively borrowing against the future and funneling the productivity of this nation to the top.
Maybe when the bill is due and AZ, BDK, and their ilk are old men, we'll pay for these IOUs with their social security, medicare, and 401Ks. I'd vote for that.
And notice how none of them care about the (exploding) deficit anymore. Even their "strong" economy can't make up for the money they steal from the work of future Americans...as long as they get theirs.
Best get the gov't out of those industries, then Klammy.kalm wrote:The need to live paycheck to paycheck to support a heavily consumption and service based economy is the part people like BDK don’t get.AZGrizFan wrote:
You are the biggest cry baby on this board. Oh, woe is you!!
You seriously should read a fucking book, junior. Wages are NOT stagnant. They're up 2-2.5x inflation in the last year. And most Americans have ALWAYS lived paycheck to paycheck....how else you gonna support a growing GDP on a 70% consumption-based economy? Rising cost of education? See "government guaranteed student loans" for a reason.
Big fat fucking whiff right there, Einstein.
But without a backdrop of affordable Ed, healthcare, and catastrophic insurance, you start to fall behind.
Face it, your generation's voting record (both Dem/GOP) has stolen from future Americans.AZGrizFan wrote:Of course you would. You're a **** commie and don't want to earn what someone else has been forced to give you.∞∞∞ wrote:Instead of natural growth with consumer protections, solid social safety nets, paying down debts during good times, and reducing the deficit, conservatives have pumped the economy by massively borrowing against the future and funneling the productivity of this nation to the top.
Maybe when the bill is due and AZ, BDK, and their ilk are old men, we'll pay for these IOUs with their social security, medicare, and 401Ks. I'd vote for that.
And notice how none of them care about the (exploding) deficit anymore. Even their "strong" economy can't make up for the money they steal from the work of future Americans...as long as they get theirs.
And I've been on record here multiple times supporting reduced government, cutting spending by 20% across the board, closing large departments like Education, HLS, etc., pulling troops back and closing bases overseas, stopping being the world's policeman, and otherwise reining in the runaway spending that's associated with BOTH parties, because I guarantee you I paid more in federal income taxes in 2018 than you **** MADE, so go peddle that weak-ass **** somewhere else junior. These are the adults talking.
That's why I don't vote Dem or Rep, numbnuts.∞∞∞ wrote:Face it, your generation's voting record (both Dem/GOP) has stolen from future Americans.AZGrizFan wrote:
Of course you would. You're a **** commie and don't want to earn what someone else has been forced to give you.
And I've been on record here multiple times supporting reduced government, cutting spending by 20% across the board, closing large departments like Education, HLS, etc., pulling troops back and closing bases overseas, stopping being the world's policeman, and otherwise reining in the runaway spending that's associated with BOTH parties, because I guarantee you I paid more in federal income taxes in 2018 than you **** MADE, so go peddle that weak-ass **** somewhere else junior. These are the adults talking.
None of you have been fiscal conservatives and it's time to pay the piper.
I'm certainly not going to let you continue stealing from not just my generation, but my children's.
You come from a generation of thieves and commies, redistributing wealth from the future to you.
Wrong. There's no 'need' for many of these people. There's no need to buy all this shit they want, but don't ultimately need, to live.kalm wrote:The need to live paycheck to paycheck to support a heavily consumption and service based economy is the part people like BDK don’t get.AZGrizFan wrote:
You are the biggest cry baby on this board. Oh, woe is you!!
You seriously should read a **** book, junior. Wages are NOT stagnant. They're up 2-2.5x inflation in the last year. And most Americans have ALWAYS lived paycheck to paycheck....how else you gonna support a growing GDP on a 70% consumption-based economy? Rising cost of education? See "government guaranteed student loans" for a reason.
Big fat **** whiff right there, Einstein.
But without a backdrop of affordable Ed, healthcare, and catastrophic insurance, you start to fall behind.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
You’re right. The “desire”. Which changes little about what I said.BDKJMU wrote:Wrong. There's no 'need' for many of these people. There's no need to buy all this shit they want, but don't ultimately need, to live.kalm wrote:
The need to live paycheck to paycheck to support a heavily consumption and service based economy is the part people like BDK don’t get.
But without a backdrop of affordable Ed, healthcare, and catastrophic insurance, you start to fall behind.
We would be better off in the long run if these people spent less, and saved more.
It's like crack cocaine...we were much healthier as a country (economically, maybe not physicallykalm wrote:You’re right. The “desire”. Which changes little about what I said.BDKJMU wrote: Wrong. There's no 'need' for many of these people. There's no need to buy all this shit they want, but don't ultimately need, to live.
We would be better off in the long run if these people spent less, and saved more.
I wonder how the economy would be doing if most people lived in 1200 square foot homes, had rotary phones, no cable or internet, and 24” TV’s?
(Fully acknowledging the world might be a better place)
) when we were a production country not a consumption country.AZGrizFan wrote:It's like crack cocaine...we were much healthier as a country (economically, maybe not physicallykalm wrote:
You’re right. The “desire”. Which changes little about what I said.
I wonder how the economy would be doing if most people lived in 1200 square foot homes, had rotary phones, no cable or internet, and 24” TV’s?
(Fully acknowledging the world might be a better place)
This right here ^^^^^^∞∞∞ wrote:Face it, your generation's voting record (both Dem/GOP) has stolen from future Americans.AZGrizFan wrote:
Of course you would. You're a **** commie and don't want to earn what someone else has been forced to give you.
And I've been on record here multiple times supporting reduced government, cutting spending by 20% across the board, closing large departments like Education, HLS, etc., pulling troops back and closing bases overseas, stopping being the world's policeman, and otherwise reining in the runaway spending that's associated with BOTH parties, because I guarantee you I paid more in federal income taxes in 2018 than you **** MADE, so go peddle that weak-ass **** somewhere else junior. These are the adults talking.
None of you have been fiscal conservatives and it's time to pay the piper.
I'm certainly not going to let you continue stealing from not just my generation, but my children's.
You come from a generation of thieves and commies, redistributing wealth from the future to you.