Reign of Error
-
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that. That was on another sub-thread, anyway. So again peddle your pseudo-theories to someone who cares.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that.
Retard...See the "data" link? And financial analysis is a large component of my job. And I would never call Kruger a liar. He would slash me up in my dreams. -- modified at 15:31 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that.
Retard...See the "data" link? And financial analysis is a large component of my job. And I would never call Kruger a liar. He would slash me up in my dreams. -- modified at 15:31 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
thank you for living down to my expectations.
Maggot.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
thank you for living down to my expectations.
Maggot.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign): Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists. Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office. Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997). You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists.
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease. It is considered "full employment" by some economists. Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
espeir wrote:
Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office.
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
espeir wrote:
Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
espeir wrote:
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign):
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
espeir wrote:
You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
-
espeir wrote:
Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists.
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease. It is considered "full employment" by some economists. Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
espeir wrote:
Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office.
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
espeir wrote:
Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
espeir wrote:
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign):
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
espeir wrote:
You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease.
2000 was Clinton's last year in office, if that's what you mean. :rolleyes: Bush did not enter office until 2001 and economic policy takes years to take effect, not days. 2000 was simply a cyclical stall in the economy that was exacerbated by irrational exhuberance and overinvestment.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
I frequently see this claim and never see any actual evidence. The personal income statistics seem to contradict this. Although I'm sure it is true that some people with cushy jobs in the 90s are worse off. I saw a lot of crappy developers back then and I hope to God that they are flipping burgers right now.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
That's my point. You're trying to draw a correlation to Bush's term and there simply isn't one.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Right...again that goes against your claim that we're seeing drastically increasing poverty, etc...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
My numbers only serve to demonstrate that your claims were unfounded. Even you admitted it accidentally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
The problem is you're buying into Democratic spin that the slowed economic activity a couple years ago is Bush's fault. In fact, t
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet there are fewer jobs (especially jobs with good wages), more people living without insurance, more people living in poverty, lower median household income, fewer new homeowners, etc. I'm sure it's strong by some measures -- productivity, for example -- but weaker in others. If you measure quality of life (I know you Repubs don't like that "touchy feely" stuff), rather than just raw money raked in by the federal government, the country was unquestionably better off during Clinton's terms.
Bla bla bla. That's irrelevant and partially wrong (as homeownership is at an all-time high). It has nothing to do with the state of the economy. Those are tertiary measurements and any Republican can pick and choose the elements that are most politically advantageous to them as there are literally thousands of different ways to measure all of that.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The Republicans continue to improperly apply supply-side economics, with repeatable results. Not that supply-side is all that solid to begin with. John Kenneth Galbraith has referred to the trickle-down effect as the "horse and sparrow theory," on the idea that "if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." That description seems to fit the results.
Well, it works. Keep in mind that fiscal policy originates in the Congress, so attributing the late 90's to Clinton is erroneous (he was a very weakened president and didn't get any legislation through). If you want to claim that supply-side economics doesn't work, then you have to make the crazy claim that America's long-term economy sucks, considering that it's what has been in effect since Reagan. Since we're by far the richest nation in the world, you'd be hard-pressed to actually prove it wrong.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
as homeownership is at an all-time high
You misunderstand. Housing affordability is down. There are fewer new homeowners.
espeir wrote:
any Republican can pick and choose the elements that are most politically advantageous to them
Obviously.
espeir wrote:
Well, it works.
Many economists, as well as reality, would beg to differ.
espeir wrote:
Since we're by far the richest nation in the world, you'd be hard-pressed to actually prove it wrong.
So amount of debt isn't factored into your measure of riches? How Republican -- and fiscally liberal -- of you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
.....a perfect example of why we need Fox Limbaugh, etc, in the mix. Otherwise, no one would have ever even known that any thing at all had been found. Krugman would have happily covered up the truth, just as his buddy Cronkite purposefully covered up the truth about the Tet offensive, and its conseguences in 1968. Too bad we didn't have a Limbaugh and a Fox in 1968 to counter that kind of propaganda.
If we had Limbaugh, Fox News and Coulter in 1968, American dead would have topped 200,000 in Vietnam.
No, by 1970 the North Vietnamese would have agreed to a cnditional surrender and the conflict would have ended in a Korea type standoff. Why? Because the word of the demoralization of North Vietnam would have been circulated in the news, instead of covered up by the media. Tet virtually destroyed any effective offensive combat capabilities the North had. After that, it became nothing by a political contest of wills which the left was all to happy to surrender to the communists on.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
No, by 1970 the North Vietnamese would have agreed to a cnditional surrender and the conflict would have ended in a Korea type standoff. Why? Because the word of the demoralization of North Vietnam would have been circulated in the news, instead of covered up by the media. Tet virtually destroyed any effective offensive combat capabilities the North had. After that, it became nothing by a political contest of wills which the left was all to happy to surrender to the communists on.
Thank God for disproportional force.
That's just what they were saying in Germany after WWI. If Germany had not been 'stabbed in the back' by the Trade unionists, etc, Germany would have won the war. -- modified at 16:09 Saturday 29th July, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
That's just what they were saying in Germany after WWI. If Germany had not been 'stabbed in the back' by the Trade unionists, etc, Germany would have won the war. -- modified at 16:09 Saturday 29th July, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
Maybe, but the media stabbed us in the front.
Thank God for disproportional force.