OT - Conspiracy Theories

DMW

Gulfcoastguy said:

One thing to notice on that chart is how the rate starts to increase around 1970.  Or about when women started to enter the work market. That starts the beginning of the end of one salary supporting a family as the typical situation. My Dad made around $40,000.00 in the early 1980s. Nation wide I believe that the average is in the low to mide 50s , in today’s inflated currency that is.

Income inequality is a big problem. Started in the 70's and has accelerated. The fall of another Republic was precipitated by this.

https://www.businessinsider.com/even-the-roman-empire-wasnt-as-unequal-as-america-today-2011-12

We often look for easy answers to complex questions. When in reality there are complex answers to easy questions. 

johnnyp

pgprescott said:

johnnyp said:

pgprescott said:

the previous administration so badly choked the economy off they merely had to relieve the barriers and the real plus speculative results spewed forward. Remember all the pent up capital sitting on the sidelines during the last admin? 

Come on Pete.  

Its ok to have a disagreement about policy, but try to stay factual. Economic growth has been great for a decade. 

That’s the stock market right? It’s not exactly the same thing as jobs and such. I know I’m not the smartest guy, but I ain’t the dumbest either. 

The employment rate chart has already been posted.

how about GDP? 




The economy recovered and grew consistently since the big crash in 2008.  Arguing otherwise doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Admitting that the economy has been good for a decade doesn’t mean the last two have sucked.  

Botch

Gulfcoastguy said:

SGH maybe it is worth examining Bills effect on the economy before and after the elections of 1994 and 1996. Cutting the military by over 40% also gave him some cash to play with as did the welfare reforms that he passed using a Republican Congress. Now I admit that the cuts to the military begain under Bush I.

Willie's reign was during the dot.com bubble, also, which I don't think he had anything to do with.  

DMW

Botch said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

SGH maybe it is worth examining Bills effect on the economy before and after the elections of 1994 and 1996. Cutting the military by over 40% also gave him some cash to play with as did the welfare reforms that he passed using a Republican Congress. Now I admit that the cuts to the military begain under Bush I.

Willie's reign was during the dot.com bubble, also, which I don't think he had anything to do with.  

Exactly. Our economy is impacted by Presidential policy, but Presidential policy is not the driver.

pgprescott

johnnyp said:

pgprescott said:

johnnyp said:

pgprescott said:

the previous administration so badly choked the economy off they merely had to relieve the barriers and the real plus speculative results spewed forward. Remember all the pent up capital sitting on the sidelines during the last admin? 

Come on Pete.  

Its ok to have a disagreement about policy, but try to stay factual. Economic growth has been great for a decade. 

That’s the stock market right? It’s not exactly the same thing as jobs and such. I know I’m not the smartest guy, but I ain’t the dumbest either. 

The employment rate chart has already been posted.

how about GDP? 




The economy recovered and grew consistently since the big crash in 2008.  Arguing otherwise doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Admitting that the economy has been good for a decade doesn’t mean the last two have sucked.  

No argument the economy grew. It had to grow even if at anemic rates. A guy doesn’t have to look too far or talk to too many folks to find exception to the assertion that the economy was good. As always it’s good for some and ok for others and bad for yet others. There has been a striking boom in the economy which correlates to the last election.the last guy is on record tell the country to get used to the “new normal” of less than 2% growth. Told us talk of growth higher than that was lies and just plain stupid fantasy. Told us jobs weren’t coming back and just accept that. Well? 

Whatever. Believe what you want. Lol. 

Gulfcoastguy

I can’t believe it, Botch and I agree on something. A younger engineer that I worked with was given $10,000.00 to go to university by his divorced father. He attended from 1993 to 1998 while participating in Cooperative Education, like interning but paid. He daytraded while there and graduated with more money than he started. Probably the only window to do that in. I started during Carters misery index and finished when the Reagan surge finally made jobs available again. I also cooped but graduated owing a bit less than 3 K. Sometimes you just have to deal with life as it is.

DMW

I have to say, I appreciate that this thread has not descended to name calling. 

nolaegghead

JFC, Pete is droning on and on....reminds me of when my kid was 8 years old and knew everything.

bgebrent

DMW said:

I have to say, I appreciate that this thread has not descended to name calling. 

You’re just a douche.

DMW

bgebrent said:

DMW said:

I have to say, I appreciate that this thread has not descended to name calling. 

You’re just a douche.

Well, you’re mean. 

pgprescott

Now that I’ve had some time (with an open mind) to think about it, I can see the economy we are enjoying is clearly the doing of the past administration. The humility of the guy to say that such growth he has only now produced was not even possible is truly magnanimous! Of course I should be used to it because he has been so humble and magnanimous throughout his march of tremendous accomplishment. It is a real lesson (teaching moment) in how to conduct oneself with dignity and humility. I don’t know how I missed it. I only wish he were still in office and then the growth would prolly be 6-7%. It certainly would not have continued at 2% or less as he had stated it would himself. That was clearly him being humble and modest. 

Lay off please. I get it now. Sorry. 

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

JFC, Pete is droning on and on....reminds me of when my kid was 8 years old and knew everything.

Your argument is very compelling as usual. 

DMW

We’ve been sunk. 

pgprescott

DMW said:

I have to say, I appreciate that this thread has not descended to name calling. 

Except when John asked a guy to remove his hood. Of course, you prolly forgot that. 

DMW

pgprescott said:

DMW said:

I have to say, I appreciate that this thread has not descended to name calling. 

Except when John asked a guy to remove his hood. Of course, you prolly forgot that. 

I did not forget that. Technically it wasn’t name calling. 

DMW

Also I would like to mention that even if you would choose to allow our Republic to veer to authoritarianism, I’d still welcome the opportunity to cook alongside you. 

pgprescott

DMW said:

Also I would like to mention that even if you would choose to allow our Republic to veer to authoritarianism, I’d still welcome the opportunity to cook alongside you. 

Irony. The last guy was the authoritarian. He threatened journalists with more than rhetoric. It’s like the irony of Antifa. They are in fact fascists. It hilarious. 

That said, no hard feelings here. Good talk. That’s all. Have a good Sunday. 

GATraveller

Botch said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

SGH maybe it is worth examining Bills effect on the economy before and after the elections of 1994 and 1996. Cutting the military by over 40% also gave him some cash to play with as did the welfare reforms that he passed using a Republican Congress. Now I admit that the cuts to the military begain under Bush I.

Willie's reign was during the dot.com bubble, also, which I don't think he had anything to do with.  

His VP invented it.......DUH!

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

Pondering what makes the current rate more notable than its variance over the last 20 years in particular.

Point being the previous employment chart was bunk. The statistic is artificially skewed because the participation rate dramatically dropped which artificially lowered the unemployment rate. This is fairly common knowledge but not commonly reported. Your chart doesn’t show the rise in participation correlated with the continued lowering of the unemployment rate. Even you must admit, very impressive data.

Charts are just exhibits if not accompanied by some broad analysis. 

Your contention tho is that the pretty steady decline in the unemployment rate is worthless without considering the correlation with the labor force participation rate.

Looking at the LFP rate  zoomed in for just the last couple of years:

All I can see is a pretty consistent cyclical (seasonal?) variation of what...0.3%. I don't see a distinct rise in LFP despite the unemployment rates continued downward trend by about 1% over the past couple years.

JohnInCarolina

DoubleEgger said:

I don’t think a lot of people here really got this.

pgprescott

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

Pondering what makes the current rate more notable than its variance over the last 20 years in particular.

Point being the previous employment chart was bunk. The statistic is artificially skewed because the participation rate dramatically dropped which artificially lowered the unemployment rate. This is fairly common knowledge but not commonly reported. Your chart doesn’t show the rise in participation correlated with the continued lowering of the unemployment rate. Even you must admit, very impressive data.

Charts are just exhibits if not accompanied by some broad analysis. 

Your contention tho is that the pretty steady decline in the unemployment rate is worthless without considering the correlation with the labor force participation rate.

Looking at the LFP rate  zoomed in for just the last couple of years:

All I can see is a pretty consistent cyclical (seasonal?) variation of what...0.3%. I don't see a distinct rise in LFP despite the unemployment rates continued downward trend by about 1% over the past couple years.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/08/02/the-recent-rebound-in-prime-age-labor-force-participation/

Eoin

The biggest influence any president / government can have is on the deficit. Broadly speaking, bumping up the deficit gives a temporary boost to the economy at the expense of long term debt repayments. Inflating the economy like this is easy and looks good, just what politicians working on a short election cycle go for.

JohnInCarolina

Eoin said:

The biggest influence any president / government can have is on the deficit. Broadly speaking, bumping up the deficit gives a temporary boost to the economy at the expense of long term debt repayments. Inflating the economy like this is easy and looks good, just what politicians working on a short election cycle go for.

Yep.  Trump blew up the deficit.  I’m old enough to remember when some folks here contended that his gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy would pay for themselves.  Turns out, not so much really.

fishlessman

finally some real news

Monday, November 05, 2018

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove. 

On this day in 2010, President Obama’s second year in office, 45% of voters approved of the job he was doing; 54% disapproved.