Obamas State of the Union Speech

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:51 am

^^^dhunt too, he fits into that category.^^^^
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby vincentpa » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:56 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Here you go Spinnerman, median household incomes are trending down in the face of rising number of household consolidation.

"the Census Bureau said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home." It concluded, quite logically, that "the share of young adults living with their parents edged up last year despite improvements in the economy—a sign that the effects of the recession are lingering."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-14/true-state-economy-record-number-college-graduates-live-their-parents-basement

What about those over 34? Divorces increase the number of households. That's just a small piece of trying to get meaning from this statistic that can easily give misleading impressions. Much like you like to criticize GDP, often rightly so, it is a more seriously flawed statistic. While most people are well aware of the flaws in GDP, which is why inventories and all those other things are also reported, median household income is not scrutinized, largely because I doubt any serious person takes it seriously because it is so flawed. You should at least also include mean, median, and mode. I'd also include that for households of varying size and varying age of the head of household. I would then also, like cancer, have an age-adjusted, or in this case an age and household size adjusted measure, which is still flawed, but would remove all effects of changing age distribution of the head of household and the change in distribution of household sizes.

Of course, if you are simply looking for statistics to confirm what you already know to be true, it is very easy to find them. After all, isn't that what the internet is all about. It's not trying to figure out where you are wrong and learn, but to find someone to confirm what you already believe?

For example, the last graph you posted. It doesn't even tell on that graph what the values being plotted are. The numbers look like growth rates. Are they quarterly, yearly, last quarter, next quarter, ??? The graph prior to that. Who plots a graph with where the x-axis intercepts at 1.9% unless they are looking to visually exaggerate the trend. Hey why not set the intercept at 2% so it looks like we hit rock bottom, or better yet make it 2.4% so it appears that growth has gone negative, nah, let's make it 1.9% so it doesn't look ridiculous where people may actually read the numbers and see the game played with the scale of the access. I'll bet Obama plots the same graph where the intercept is at -10% and it looks like we have booming growth that has barely changed.

Be skeptical. Your sources look like students I would have flunked if they presented data the way that they did. Is it incompetence or willful deception? Image Whatever it is, it doesn't look like they know what they are doing or at least how to communicate this type of information.


Hmm, I think they started the GDP graph at 1.9 because of the scale of the graph. If the graph started at 0, there would be a giant white space between the bottom and the first data point. That white space would be irrelevant in the point the graph is trying to address, which is the relative drop. I think your student should fail you.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:16 pm

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Here you go Spinnerman, median household incomes are trending down in the face of rising number of household consolidation.

"the Census Bureau said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home." It concluded, quite logically, that "the share of young adults living with their parents edged up last year despite improvements in the economy—a sign that the effects of the recession are lingering."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-14/true-state-economy-record-number-college-graduates-live-their-parents-basement

What about those over 34? Divorces increase the number of households. That's just a small piece of trying to get meaning from this statistic that can easily give misleading impressions. Much like you like to criticize GDP, often rightly so, it is a more seriously flawed statistic. While most people are well aware of the flaws in GDP, which is why inventories and all those other things are also reported, median household income is not scrutinized, largely because I doubt any serious person takes it seriously because it is so flawed. You should at least also include mean, median, and mode. I'd also include that for households of varying size and varying age of the head of household. I would then also, like cancer, have an age-adjusted, or in this case an age and household size adjusted measure, which is still flawed, but would remove all effects of changing age distribution of the head of household and the change in distribution of household sizes.

Of course, if you are simply looking for statistics to confirm what you already know to be true, it is very easy to find them. After all, isn't that what the internet is all about. It's not trying to figure out where you are wrong and learn, but to find someone to confirm what you already believe?

For example, the last graph you posted. It doesn't even tell on that graph what the values being plotted are. The numbers look like growth rates. Are they quarterly, yearly, last quarter, next quarter, ??? The graph prior to that. Who plots a graph with where the x-axis intercepts at 1.9% unless they are looking to visually exaggerate the trend. Hey why not set the intercept at 2% so it looks like we hit rock bottom, or better yet make it 2.4% so it appears that growth has gone negative, nah, let's make it 1.9% so it doesn't look ridiculous where people may actually read the numbers and see the game played with the scale of the access. I'll bet Obama plots the same graph where the intercept is at -10% and it looks like we have booming growth that has barely changed.

Be skeptical. Your sources look like students I would have flunked if they presented data the way that they did. Is it incompetence or willful deception? Image Whatever it is, it doesn't look like they know what they are doing or at least how to communicate this type of information.


Hmm, I think they started the GDP graph at 1.9 because of the scale of the graph. If the graph started at 0, there would be a giant white space between the bottom and the first data point. That white space would be irrelevant in the point the graph is trying to address, which is the relative drop. I think your student should fail you.

Just trying to make the drop seem dramatic. It is NOT, especially how wrong they are about their projections. It is a 0.5% swing in opinion. Do they compare their opinions with reality? No. Why? :huh: This is not intended to provide objective information, but simply put the most negative spin on the data :fingerpt:

Image

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby vincentpa » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:02 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Here you go Spinnerman, median household incomes are trending down in the face of rising number of household consolidation.

"the Census Bureau said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home." It concluded, quite logically, that "the share of young adults living with their parents edged up last year despite improvements in the economy—a sign that the effects of the recession are lingering."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-14/true-state-economy-record-number-college-graduates-live-their-parents-basement

What about those over 34? Divorces increase the number of households. That's just a small piece of trying to get meaning from this statistic that can easily give misleading impressions. Much like you like to criticize GDP, often rightly so, it is a more seriously flawed statistic. While most people are well aware of the flaws in GDP, which is why inventories and all those other things are also reported, median household income is not scrutinized, largely because I doubt any serious person takes it seriously because it is so flawed. You should at least also include mean, median, and mode. I'd also include that for households of varying size and varying age of the head of household. I would then also, like cancer, have an age-adjusted, or in this case an age and household size adjusted measure, which is still flawed, but would remove all effects of changing age distribution of the head of household and the change in distribution of household sizes.

Of course, if you are simply looking for statistics to confirm what you already know to be true, it is very easy to find them. After all, isn't that what the internet is all about. It's not trying to figure out where you are wrong and learn, but to find someone to confirm what you already believe?

For example, the last graph you posted. It doesn't even tell on that graph what the values being plotted are. The numbers look like growth rates. Are they quarterly, yearly, last quarter, next quarter, ??? The graph prior to that. Who plots a graph with where the x-axis intercepts at 1.9% unless they are looking to visually exaggerate the trend. Hey why not set the intercept at 2% so it looks like we hit rock bottom, or better yet make it 2.4% so it appears that growth has gone negative, nah, let's make it 1.9% so it doesn't look ridiculous where people may actually read the numbers and see the game played with the scale of the access. I'll bet Obama plots the same graph where the intercept is at -10% and it looks like we have booming growth that has barely changed.

Be skeptical. Your sources look like students I would have flunked if they presented data the way that they did. Is it incompetence or willful deception? Image Whatever it is, it doesn't look like they know what they are doing or at least how to communicate this type of information.


Hmm, I think they started the GDP graph at 1.9 because of the scale of the graph. If the graph started at 0, there would be a giant white space between the bottom and the first data point. That white space would be irrelevant in the point the graph is trying to address, which is the relative drop. I think your student should fail you.

Just trying to make the drop seem dramatic. It is NOT, especially how wrong they are about their projections. It is a 0.5% swing in opinion. Do they compare their opinions with reality? No. Why? :huh: This is not intended to provide objective information, but simply put the most negative spin on the data :fingerpt:

Image

Image


A 1/2 percent drop in predicted GDP over a quarter is significant.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:06 pm

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Here you go Spinnerman, median household incomes are trending down in the face of rising number of household consolidation.

"the Census Bureau said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home." It concluded, quite logically, that "the share of young adults living with their parents edged up last year despite improvements in the economy—a sign that the effects of the recession are lingering."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-14/true-state-economy-record-number-college-graduates-live-their-parents-basement

What about those over 34? Divorces increase the number of households. That's just a small piece of trying to get meaning from this statistic that can easily give misleading impressions. Much like you like to criticize GDP, often rightly so, it is a more seriously flawed statistic. While most people are well aware of the flaws in GDP, which is why inventories and all those other things are also reported, median household income is not scrutinized, largely because I doubt any serious person takes it seriously because it is so flawed. You should at least also include mean, median, and mode. I'd also include that for households of varying size and varying age of the head of household. I would then also, like cancer, have an age-adjusted, or in this case an age and household size adjusted measure, which is still flawed, but would remove all effects of changing age distribution of the head of household and the change in distribution of household sizes.

Of course, if you are simply looking for statistics to confirm what you already know to be true, it is very easy to find them. After all, isn't that what the internet is all about. It's not trying to figure out where you are wrong and learn, but to find someone to confirm what you already believe?

For example, the last graph you posted. It doesn't even tell on that graph what the values being plotted are. The numbers look like growth rates. Are they quarterly, yearly, last quarter, next quarter, ??? The graph prior to that. Who plots a graph with where the x-axis intercepts at 1.9% unless they are looking to visually exaggerate the trend. Hey why not set the intercept at 2% so it looks like we hit rock bottom, or better yet make it 2.4% so it appears that growth has gone negative, nah, let's make it 1.9% so it doesn't look ridiculous where people may actually read the numbers and see the game played with the scale of the access. I'll bet Obama plots the same graph where the intercept is at -10% and it looks like we have booming growth that has barely changed.

Be skeptical. Your sources look like students I would have flunked if they presented data the way that they did. Is it incompetence or willful deception? Image Whatever it is, it doesn't look like they know what they are doing or at least how to communicate this type of information.


Hmm, I think they started the GDP graph at 1.9 because of the scale of the graph. If the graph started at 0, there would be a giant white space between the bottom and the first data point. That white space would be irrelevant in the point the graph is trying to address, which is the relative drop. I think your student should fail you.

Just trying to make the drop seem dramatic. It is NOT, especially how wrong they are about their projections. It is a 0.5% swing in opinion. Do they compare their opinions with reality? No. Why? :huh: This is not intended to provide objective information, but simply put the most negative spin on the data :fingerpt:

Image

Image


A 1/2 percent drop in predicted GDP over a quarter is significant.

and that is just the correction at one bank. Take the average of these and it's worse...
Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:53 pm

This is a result of QE to the moon in the US. Massive inflation in emerging markets....which affects P&E earnings of the big multinational corporations.
Two-Week Price Inflation in Argentina hits 30%
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:02 pm

Indaswamp wrote:and that is just the correction at one bank. Take the average of these and it's worse...
If you compare their past predictions to the actual data, they don't seem to do a very good job. They missed the ups and downs by a long shot. A revision down of a 0.5%, while not a good thing, given that they are often off by a 2% or more both directions, what does it mean?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:05 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:and that is just the correction at one bank. Take the average of these and it's worse...
If you compare their past predictions to the actual data, they don't seem to do a very good job. They missed the ups and downs by a long shot. A revision down of a 0.5%, while not a good thing, given that they are often off by a 2% or more both directions, what does it mean?

The projections are usually to the upside because they are talking their book/pitching growth. The corrections are normal. Most people just read the headlines and never check the revisions.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:15 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:and that is just the correction at one bank. Take the average of these and it's worse...
If you compare their past predictions to the actual data, they don't seem to do a very good job. They missed the ups and downs by a long shot. A revision down of a 0.5%, while not a good thing, given that they are often off by a 2% or more both directions, what does it mean?

The projections are usually to the upside because they are talking their book/pitching growth. The corrections are normal. Most people just read the headlines and never check the revisions.

I showed you the results next to the predictions. They were wrong in both directions, by what seems to be equal frequency and magnitude in both directions.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:16 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:and that is just the correction at one bank. Take the average of these and it's worse...
If you compare their past predictions to the actual data, they don't seem to do a very good job. They missed the ups and downs by a long shot. A revision down of a 0.5%, while not a good thing, given that they are often off by a 2% or more both directions, what does it mean?

The projections are usually to the upside because they are talking their book/pitching growth. The corrections are normal. Most people just read the headlines and never check the revisions.

I showed you the results next to the predictions. They were wrong in both directions, by what seems to be equal frequency and magnitude in both directions.

your graph data is not from the banks though....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:30 pm

Well show me the data where they are good at predicting it. If they were, it would be the gold standard.

I'm not saying this stuff does not matter. I'm saying that graph showing a 0.5% down as if it is falling off a cliff, when norm quarterly fluctuations are far greater than that is not disasters. They revised it from 2.5% to 2.0%. They are not even predicting a recession. Just a significant slow down. Something that everybody sees coming based on the data that has come out recently. It's almost hindsight that we are in for slower growth. And Obama, et. al. are going to desperately try to "fix" things for the upcoming election and they will be assbackwards approaches, they will do more harm than good, we will likely see a slow down, but I doubt Obama has the power to push us back into recession. Maybe if we didn't kick the Obamacare mandates down the road, which I doubt he did to keep the economy limping along, but for the aesthetics of less people getting the boot. Although, my reading of his current changes are more complex and have much more agenda buried in them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579382881038848514

I still think incompetence, control freak, Utopianism, and egomania explain the vast majority of what they do and not some master plan.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby cartervj » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:25 pm

NEW YORK - Writer Jen Singer, the mother of two teenage boys, wrestles with her grocery list every week to keep the household budget from getting away from her.

"I'd like the government to stop by my house, come food shopping with me and see where the real costs are," she said.

The adage "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is impossible thanks to apple prices, she said.

"We go through one of these every few days," she said, holding a loaf of bread. "It's a big part of my take home pay."



food-prices-bread.jpg
Some experts believe food inflation is greater than the government thinks CBS NEWS

It's is not her imagination. While the government says prices are up 6.4 percent since 2011, chicken is up 18.4 percent, ground beef is up 16.8 percent and bacon has skyrocketed up 22.8 percent, making it a holiday when it's on sale.
"Oh my God!" Singer said as she spied bacon for $3.

"The things that are going up in price are the things I absolutely need to buy," she said. "It's the meat, it's the milk, it's the eggs and it's getting out of hand."



food-prices-beef.jpg
Beef, chicken and bacon prices have soared CBS NEWS

ConvergEx market strategist, Nick Colas, said that mothers could tell the government a lot about inflation.

"Food inflation is far greater than the government thinks it is," he said.

But the big problem for families: Wages are not budging.

"If my income isn't going up, how am I going to keep up with inflation?" Singer asked.



food-prices-register.jpg
Wages are not budging as prices rise CBS NEWS

Median income is up only 1 percent a year. For Singer, that makes it hard to save for college tuition - which has been rising 6 percent to 8 percent every year for five decades.

"The price of college is terrifying and so we're looking at cheaper schools or scholarships, I hope," she said. "You know, 'Run faster in track.' That will really help me out a lot."

Many are concerned that while economists paint a benign picture, middle-class families are quietly struggling.

"The disconnect is severe, because it's the economists that make policy but it's the people who have to live with the outcome of that policy and that disconnect is growing to the point where I think it has to break soon," Colas said.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:27 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Well show me the data where they are good at predicting it. If they were, it would be the gold standard.

I'm not saying this stuff does not matter. I'm saying that graph showing a 0.5% down as if it is falling off a cliff, when norm quarterly fluctuations are far greater than that is not disasters. They revised it from 2.5% to 2.0%. They are not even predicting a recession. Just a significant slow down. Something that everybody sees coming based on the data that has come out recently. It's almost hindsight that we are in for slower growth. And Obama, et. al. are going to desperately try to "fix" things for the upcoming election and they will be assbackwards approaches, they will do more harm than good, we will likely see a slow down, but I doubt Obama has the power to push us back into recession. Maybe if we didn't kick the Obamacare mandates down the road, which I doubt he did to keep the economy limping along, but for the aesthetics of less people getting the boot. Although, my reading of his current changes are more complex and have much more agenda buried in them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579382881038848514

I still think incompetence, control freak, Utopianism, and egomania explain the vast majority of what they do and not some master plan.

better to look at the over all trends... look at GDP growth from 2010-2013 and then compare that to prior 2008. bottom line is GDP has tanked and not recovered.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:46 pm

For Spinnerman (I highlighted the relevant section):
China is now the second largest economy in the world and for the last 30 years China's economy has been growing at an astonishing rate, wowing the world, as spending and investment has been undertaken on a scale never seen before in human history - 30 new airports, 26,000 miles of motorways and a new skyscraper every five days have been built in China in the last five years. But as we (and Michael Pettis, George Soros, and Jim Chanos - among many others) have warned, it is all eerily reminiscent of what happened in the West... the vast majority of it has been built on credit. This has now left the Chinese economy with huge debts and questions over whether much of the money can ever be paid back (spoiler alert: it can't and it won't).


You can only pull so much demand forward in the form of credit to goose GDP growth before you hit a wall. Period. No way around it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-16/charts-how-china-fooled-world
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:49 am

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Well show me the data where they are good at predicting it. If they were, it would be the gold standard.

I'm not saying this stuff does not matter. I'm saying that graph showing a 0.5% down as if it is falling off a cliff, when norm quarterly fluctuations are far greater than that is not disasters. They revised it from 2.5% to 2.0%. They are not even predicting a recession. Just a significant slow down. Something that everybody sees coming based on the data that has come out recently. It's almost hindsight that we are in for slower growth. And Obama, et. al. are going to desperately try to "fix" things for the upcoming election and they will be assbackwards approaches, they will do more harm than good, we will likely see a slow down, but I doubt Obama has the power to push us back into recession. Maybe if we didn't kick the Obamacare mandates down the road, which I doubt he did to keep the economy limping along, but for the aesthetics of less people getting the boot. Although, my reading of his current changes are more complex and have much more agenda buried in them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579382881038848514

I still think incompetence, control freak, Utopianism, and egomania explain the vast majority of what they do and not some master plan.

better to look at the over all trends... look at GDP growth from 2010-2013 and then compare that to prior 2008. bottom line is GDP has tanked and not recovered.

So what is the definition of tanked? That would sound like negative growth. That is not true. It has not recovered either. It has limped along and this means that large chunks of society are in a de facto recession, but the economy as a whole is technically not.

When the economy gets out of line with reality (aka a bubble), the bursting bubble forces people to return to rational business and lifestyle decisions. This makes businesses more efficient and the economy stronger in the long run. That part has happened in large parts of the economy while the government has worked hard to prevent that in other areas. The net effect is that businesses that have gotten more efficient have cut a lot of jobs, which if there were an actual recovery would have sucked up those workers and we would move forward quickly. However, would you start a new business in this environment? What is the cost of Obamacare? Hell, nobody read it because they appear to have known Obama would rewrite as the political winds shift. It is the model of the liberal ideal of the rule of law, which is flows with their mood. This is a business killer. If not for the natural gas boom, the net effect would almost certainly be that we have tanked, but as is, we are just limping along with growth that is sufficient to keep us out of a technical recession, but far from adequate to have a recovery leaving millions in a de facto depression.

Indaswamp wrote:For Spinnerman (I highlighted the relevant section):
China is now the second largest economy in the world and for the last 30 years China's economy has been growing at an astonishing rate, wowing the world, as spending and investment has been undertaken on a scale never seen before in human history - 30 new airports, 26,000 miles of motorways and a new skyscraper every five days have been built in China in the last five years. But as we (and Michael Pettis, George Soros, and Jim Chanos - among many others) have warned, it is all eerily reminiscent of what happened in the West... the vast majority of it has been built on credit. This has now left the Chinese economy with huge debts and questions over whether much of the money can ever be paid back (spoiler alert: it can't and it won't).


You can only pull so much demand forward in the form of credit to goose GDP growth before you hit a wall. Period. No way around it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-16/charts-how-china-fooled-world


So central planning on a grand scale works as long as they don't do it on credit? :lol3:

Debt or equity, it does not matter. If what you build is more valuable than it costs, real value and not hypothetical value, it is sustainable. If it is not, then it is not.

Central planners have a very, very limited range of value. A few grand schemes, like the interstate highway system, but not the local features such as on ramps, spurs, etc. which can only be done by state, then local, then housing development, and the finest and most numerous details by the individual.

That is unless you think central planning and the Chinese system was sustainable if not for excess use of credit.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:48 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Well show me the data where they are good at predicting it. If they were, it would be the gold standard.

I'm not saying this stuff does not matter. I'm saying that graph showing a 0.5% down as if it is falling off a cliff, when norm quarterly fluctuations are far greater than that is not disasters. They revised it from 2.5% to 2.0%. They are not even predicting a recession. Just a significant slow down. Something that everybody sees coming based on the data that has come out recently. It's almost hindsight that we are in for slower growth. And Obama, et. al. are going to desperately try to "fix" things for the upcoming election and they will be assbackwards approaches, they will do more harm than good, we will likely see a slow down, but I doubt Obama has the power to push us back into recession. Maybe if we didn't kick the Obamacare mandates down the road, which I doubt he did to keep the economy limping along, but for the aesthetics of less people getting the boot. Although, my reading of his current changes are more complex and have much more agenda buried in them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579382881038848514

I still think incompetence, control freak, Utopianism, and egomania explain the vast majority of what they do and not some master plan.

better to look at the over all trends... look at GDP growth from 2010-2013 and then compare that to prior 2008. bottom line is GDP has tanked and not recovered.

So what is the definition of tanked? That would sound like negative growth. That is not true. It has not recovered either. It has limped along and this means that large chunks of society are in a de facto recession, but the economy as a whole is technically not.

When the economy gets out of line with reality (aka a bubble), the bursting bubble forces people to return to rational business and lifestyle decisions. This makes businesses more efficient and the economy stronger in the long run. That part has happened in large parts of the economy while the government has worked hard to prevent that in other areas. The net effect is that businesses that have gotten more efficient have cut a lot of jobs, which if there were an actual recovery would have sucked up those workers and we would move forward quickly. However, would you start a new business in this environment? What is the cost of Obamacare? Hell, nobody read it because they appear to have known Obama would rewrite as the political winds shift. It is the model of the liberal ideal of the rule of law, which is flows with their mood. This is a business killer. If not for the natural gas boom, the net effect would almost certainly be that we have tanked, but as is, we are just limping along with growth that is sufficient to keep us out of a technical recession, but far from adequate to have a recovery leaving millions in a de facto depression.

Indaswamp wrote:For Spinnerman (I highlighted the relevant section):
China is now the second largest economy in the world and for the last 30 years China's economy has been growing at an astonishing rate, wowing the world, as spending and investment has been undertaken on a scale never seen before in human history - 30 new airports, 26,000 miles of motorways and a new skyscraper every five days have been built in China in the last five years. But as we (and Michael Pettis, George Soros, and Jim Chanos - among many others) have warned, it is all eerily reminiscent of what happened in the West... the vast majority of it has been built on credit. This has now left the Chinese economy with huge debts and questions over whether much of the money can ever be paid back (spoiler alert: it can't and it won't).


You can only pull so much demand forward in the form of credit to goose GDP growth before you hit a wall. Period. No way around it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-16/charts-how-china-fooled-world


So central planning on a grand scale works as long as they don't do it on credit? :lol3:

Debt or equity, it does not matter. If what you build is more valuable than it costs, real value and not hypothetical value, it is sustainable. If it is not, then it is not.

Central planners have a very, very limited range of value. A few grand schemes, like the interstate highway system, but not the local features such as on ramps, spurs, etc. which can only be done by state, then local, then housing development, and the finest and most numerous details by the individual.

That is unless you think central planning and the Chinese system was sustainable if not for excess use of credit.

central planning has not been done on equity for a LONG time spinnerman. The economy has tanked ex massive government stimulus via the FED. The problem today is the massive distortion in Risk and Price signals stimulating speculation instead of business investments.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:32 pm

Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:33 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.

EQUITY spinnerman...EQUITY... It has not been done on EQUITY in a long time....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:37 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.

EQUITY spinnerman...EQUITY... It has not been done on EQUITY in a long time....

To wit:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-17/china-folds-reforms-bails-out-2nd-shadow-banking-default-after-last-drop-blood-threa

the banks have the central planners by the balls globally because of shadow banking contagion fears...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:54 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.

EQUITY spinnerman...EQUITY... It has not been done on EQUITY in a long time....

Sorry, I misread, so back to my original point, do you think central planning works if it is done on equity?

FYI, it does not. Central planning does not work beyond a very narrow sliver where it provides real value. Just like any bad business model, equity or borrowed wealth, it is destroyed and not created. I guess if the Soviets would have stuck with equity, they would have never collapsed. Glad they didn't do that. :yes:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:57 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.

EQUITY spinnerman...EQUITY... It has not been done on EQUITY in a long time....

Sorry, I misread, so back to my original point, do you think central planning works if it is done on equity?

FYI, it does not. Central planning does not work beyond a very narrow sliver where it provides real value. Just like any bad business model, equity or borrowed wealth, it is destroyed and not created. I guess if the Soviets would have stuck with equity, they would have never collapsed. Glad they didn't do that. :yes:

that is a whole different tangent of a topic to discuss....and goes back to the monetary system involved.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:59 pm

BTW, the FED OWNS the mortgage market right now, buying up 100% issuance of new MBS'. Yet ignorant people think this re-re inflation of the housing bubble is real. :rolleyes:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:08 pm

Also of note is that foreclosures have been put on hold by the banks. This has stalled the supply of homes to the market and supports rising home prices. Those people living in homes not paying mortgages are using mortgage payments to live on/spend into the economy.....yet that is supposedly a 'healthy recovery'??? Color me bearish.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:17 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Central planning has not been done in China in a LONG time :eek:

They have loosened it, but that was from an extremely firm grip and that has a high cost that cannot be rolled over indefinitely. The Soviets did the same thing and had what seemed like a decent run of it as well for awhile. It is unsustainable. Economic growth is that natural state and when too much pressure is applied to steer it or artificially accelerate it, it eventually crashes, bogs down, or in some way gets stuck or worse.

And the U.S. has wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much central planning and we pay a pretty heavy cost for that as well. The entire porkulus bill was a central planning effort. Obamacare is a massive central planning effort. Green energy is another central planning effort. Virtually everything Obama in particular in Democrats in general propose are central planning and way too much of what the Republican machine proposes are watered down central planning.

EQUITY spinnerman...EQUITY... It has not been done on EQUITY in a long time....

Sorry, I misread, so back to my original point, do you think central planning works if it is done on equity?

FYI, it does not. Central planning does not work beyond a very narrow sliver where it provides real value. Just like any bad business model, equity or borrowed wealth, it is destroyed and not created. I guess if the Soviets would have stuck with equity, they would have never collapsed. Glad they didn't do that. :yes:

that is a whole different tangent of a topic to discuss....and goes back to the monetary system involved.

No it is not. It is an important part of the equation and you cannot disregard its impact in attempting to explain why things are happening. You can't ignore it and think you are explaining reality. That is unless you believe it is negligible. Central planning is not negligible even in the U.S.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Obamas State of the Union Speech

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:06 am

good lord spinnerman, READ! The topic of EQUITY financing is a whole different tangent of a topic and yes, it DOES depend on the monetary system used. Believe it or not, there is such a system as an equity system of money. Sadly, it is squashed by the international bankers every time it is tried because it negates their existence. It is their kryptonite.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56772
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron