Is a 4.1% quarterly increase in GNP good?

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
Yes it was. It just started on the right. Read my post.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.

The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:

1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.

One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.

But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency

I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.

Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.

Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.

Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."

But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?

So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
You are correct and just to remind you, he's leading this country and the economic policy. WILL.NOT.END.WELL.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Back to football analogies. So, Trump is Bobby Petrino and Obama is Ty Willingham
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I still think the growth bump is due to deregulation and a brief moment of no one guarding the henhouse and investors and corporations thinking "get it now while it lasts, and get it ALL.". It has lubed the economy but tariffs and bad policy will kill it off.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.

The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:

1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.

One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.

But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency

I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.

Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.

Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.

Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."

But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?

So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.


This is a really long lie. It could have come straight from Trump, except this whole discourse is over Trumps head.

Just look at how wiaf distorts #6, about me. My point being this economy is like Obama's 2nd term - Not the additional commentary gibberish wiaf adds. This distortion has previously been said by wiaf upthread and a different poster already called him out on this distortion upthread. Nevertheless he continues, Trumpian style, with the same distortion. And the distortions just go on and on.

I'll just add this - anybody who looks at economic data and dismisses real (i.e. inflation chained) data as "adjusted" and "non-actual numbers" is not to be trusted either because of bad faith or ignorance. 1) The BEA website recommends using inflation chained data when comparing multiple time periods. 2) The 4.1% number in the thread title itself is inflation chained. And I don't think wiaf is ignorant.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.
yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.

The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:

1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.

One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.

But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency

I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.

Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.

Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.

Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."

But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?

So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.


This is a really long lie. It could have come straight from Trump, except this whole discourse is over Trumps head.

Just look at how wiaf distorts #6, about me. My point being this economy is like Obama's 2nd term - Not the additional commentary gibberish wiaf adds. This distortion has previously been said by wiaf upthread and a different poster already called him out on this distortion upthread. Nevertheless he continues, Trumpian style, with the same distortion. And the distortions just go on and on.

I'll just add this - anybody who looks at economic data and dismisses real (i.e. inflation chained) data as "adjusted" and "non-actual numbers" is not to be trusted either because of bad faith or ignorance. 1) The BEA website recommends using inflation chained data when comparing multiple time periods. 2) The 4.1% number in the thread title itself is inflation chained. And I don't think wiaf is ignorant.
Let's end this with the last paragraph. Just so we are clear on distortions. Dayo was the one who left the impression he was talking about actual numbers, so those not digging into the schedule would not otherwise know. His next distortion is to say that even if when called on it, and though his table doesn't use actual numbers, the difference in investment (which is primarily the change in inventory levels) is caused by inflation. Since I think we all know inflation is not going to be an impact over a 1quarter number for inventories, what has he forgot to tell us [again]? Oh yes, there also is an adjustment for seasonality that Dayo's forgot to mention (but you should have known that by the note on the table). In fact, to cite the BEA's guidelines verbatim:

"Much of the data used by BEA to estimate detailed components of GDP are seasonally adjusted by the source data agencies. For example, BEA uses seasonally adjusted inventory and retail sales datafrom the U.S. Census Bureau and seasonally adjusted consumer price indexes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." [Emphasis added].

It gets even better, this is the first quarter they used new seasonal adjustment data, so the other quarters are not comparable from the results of the 2018 comprehensive update of the National Income and Product (NIPA)Accounts released on July 27, 2018, to reflect the outcome of a multiyear initiative to improve BEA's approach to seasonal adjustment and address residual seasonality observed in previous estimates. I guess that little change mention was inadvertent.

But it gets better: unlike the actual numbers, under NIPA guidelines, this schedule excludes imports and foreign income from American companies and people. That negates the impact of exchange rates on inflation.

In other news today, Commissioner Rob Manfield today announced that Bobby Bonds name was no longer considered the official MLB leader in home runs in a separate table now produced by the MLB to accompany the schedule that contains the actual number of home runs hit by players. Said one outraged Giants fan: "and I thought the record books will be forever accompanied by an asterisk, an exclamation mark, or something like that, because Bonds's alledged used of Performance Enhancing Drugs." But no, instead Bonds watched his record fall because of adjustments made for inflation in the number of home runs hit during the era he performed, the deletion of home runs yielded by foreign raised pitchers, and the baseball season adjusted seasonality of trending to far into summers impacted by global warming which meant adjustments were neccessary for balls traveling longer in the hot sun.

The decision, which Manford characterized as the only way to accurately convey that Barry Bonds hit his 714-plus home runs under "some pretty special circumstances that under government standards we can actually use to screw (or a word of similar import] Mr. Bonds." The Commissioner continued: "When my children's grandchildren open up their Baseball Almanac a hundred years from now, they'll see this enduring, universally understood two sets of tables right next to Barry's name. And when they do, they'll immediately know that this second table reflects history's attitude toward not only the conditions under which he was able to hit his home runs, but also the general atmosphere and weather of baseball in an era he will come to embody.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.

There is no two sides to the story for people who cast aside any sense of values or morality to try and justify why they voted for Trump. It was patently obvious that he was a charlatan who had nothing to offer. Your excuses for why you voted for him anyway are laughable. You are someone who passes himself off as a very smart person, but in actuality, you are someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and in reality, a stupid stupid person.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.

There is no two sides to the story for people who cast aside any sense of values or morality to try and justify why they voted for Trump. It was patently obvious that he was a charlatan who had nothing to offer. Your excuses for why you voted for him anyway are laughable. You are someone who passes himself off as a very smart person, but in actuality, you are someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and in reality, a stupid stupid person.
Well I voted for Obama the first time as well. Ump moved me back to second.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.
Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.

Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.

The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).

The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

mikecohen said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.
Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.

Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.

The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).

The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
It's cute how you try to make her seem as bad as Trump. Good for a laugh.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

mikecohen said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.
Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.

Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.

The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).

The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
It's cute how you try to make her seem as bad as Trump. Good for a laugh.
Not funny. Frightening that he would go to such lengths (including lengths of exaggeration) - and, of course, he is right about the fact that, as exaggerated as he is, that is nothing compared to the extraordinary, truly devil-incarnate stories about her which still permeate the net (e.g., child-sex rings, and anything else sexual that these writers think that some readers will actually take to heart, murder, murder hit lists . . . whatever incarnate evil anyone can imagine).
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
Yes, I agree with Dajo9 here and I recall that commentary.

You shouldn't call me (and cast me off as) a "lefty", however, wife. I grew up with Republicans on both sides of my family, and thus:
* a signed photo of Nixon (by the time) in my closet, and
* my step father not only was honored with his name on a plaque at the RNC headquarters office in DC as a Lifetime Eagle as a result of his large contributions. He had
* photos with Reagan and Bush on his desk, not to mention the Pope and Mother Teresa
* supporter of Chuck Colson prison ministries, and was
* friends with several congressmen and senators, all Republicans.

In fact, just yesterday I was scanning old family photos, and there was Pres Nixon at his niece's wedding (Don's daughter grew up in Whittier with my aunt, and Clara Jane remained decades long friends with my Cal grad grandmother).

That said, my family also founded what some would call a new age think tank, walked on fire, explored many alternate understandings. I once sat in on a meeting with a senator where a guest earnestly explained how there are UFO's everywhere and aliens in storage at certain facilities - that was bizarre! That happened the same year I answered the door and let Ollie North in for a meeting downstairs, part of his penance and reconciliation tour, I suppose.

To try and label me and cast my views aside as something that should simply be ignored is highly irresponsible. It reduces me and I think you are overlooking what's really going on here. I am well educated and very broadly exposed.

What's going on here is that my prior statement expressed an incredible amount of distrust in President Trump and the vast amount of spokesmen and politicians who have joined his ranks. I think it's well founded. If you'd like a dissertation on that I'll be happy to provide.

The distrust I have for the current regime increases with his daily tweets, speeches, and wreckless behavior.

I have a lot of respect for you, wife. I know who you are just based upon reading BI, an honored and involved donor. You are one of my favorite posters here because you shoot straight, like 4thGen. But if you are going to try and defend Trump's credibility (not the stats that the govt puts forth, that's okay - but Trump and the many defenders of his lies) then I will have lost respect for you, too.

I realize I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth by both questioning and accepting the 4.1% figure. You can point that out and criticize me for it. It's just a reflection of how important it is that Americans be able to Trust their government officials. I trust Trump for nothing and as a result HE MUST GO. His lying, exaggerated ways were well known before 2016, and I can't believe a single person fell for it. What am I missing here, Wife? Please tell me why anything that is put forth from Trump's mouth is to be believed??

Policies aside, HE threatens our union! Because he practices Divisive Politics. He is a master at it. But it's evil, rotten to the core. No more.

We.
Not Us vs Them.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

concordtom said:

Trump would do just about anything to make sure he wins in people's eyes, which means winning in his eyes.
He'd probably even shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue.
Bad day?
Any and every day that Trump is up on stage is a bad day.
With every tweet, with every speech, he is sewing further division among our populace.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

That was a question not a conspiracy theory. Fox News was peddling the lies for years that Obama's economic numbers were fake. Trump said he heard actual unemployment was as high as 42%. Don't recall anyone on Fox correcting him.
Thank you, Unit.
You are correct.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.
Correct. It's as if...correct me if wrong here.... because some fault may be found in my post, a very serious question about the nature of our President doesn't have to be responded to. So just keep going ahead with the lies, the slander, the spewing of hate speech (like Maxine Waters is low IQ).

(President trump should address Waters with issues, not name-calling. But he cannot construct and hold such an argument. Instead it's name calling, typical bully behavior, just like his standing behind Hillary to intimidate her and throw her off her game. Governing should not be about posturing and gamesmanship, it should be that the best ideas rise to the top.)
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
There is no equivalency between a BI poster asking a question and the Republican Presidential candidate (at the time) making false, baseless, conspiratorial accusations.
blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?
Only repeating Trump's own theory about the nature of his following. Come on, now!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


See, wife, some of us remember. How could you not?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Wait. Are you seriously indicating here that you had never heard this? Omg, it was playing over and over on the (fake news?) channels. All of them: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS.... I bet Fox has even played it a million times. Wait, they have, haven't they? If you've missed this, then you need to expand your exposure to the "Fake News" (aka Mainstream Media) side of the world.

But trump's weak plea: "don't believe the crap you see and hear. Just stick with us!"

My translation: "I know I suck and say and tweet the most inane (that's actually too big a word for Trump) things imaginable. I can't help myself, it's who I am. But don't believe me. Don't LEAVE me. I need you, please stick with me."
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.
yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.
Hey, 4.1% is fantastic!
But, yes, I agree with you that it comes at the expense of the future.

Um, it is manipulated via the tax cuts and allowance of repatriation of foreign earned profits, and the spending bill, all of which inflate the immediate term deficit and overall economy's spending. This was done in order to give Trump the right to say, "I boosted the economy." "I boosted the stock market." "I am a winner."

But I agree with you that it's irresponsible, not only to risk inflation in the subsequent periods, but to saddle our grandchildren with massive debt which they will either suffer to pay off or be forced to inflate away.

Obama took over at a time of economic crash. Bush regime initiated massive expenditures to save the economy from runs on banks and Obama regime continued that. I was trading millions and overseeing billions in mutual funds at the time and had CNBC and Bloomberg on constantly. It was real and I supported the drastic measures. But Obama should have shut it down sooner than he did. An end of tarp and rising interest rates at the (independent) Fed were rumored for a long time. I think the bull market was allowed to continue thru to the elections to help keep the Dems in power. As it turned out, they didn't get that win and now Trump is doing the same game to a greater degree for his own gain.

In this sense, there is too much power in DC to affect the economy for political gain.

GDP = C + I + G + (Exports - Imports)
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investment
G = Government Spending

Economic cycles happen. The government can intervene to smooth things out, as discussed by Bernanke as lessons learned in the 30's. But government should not be intervening to try and manipulate one party to stay in power. That's excessive.

This current stock market boom is unprecedented in length by a long margin! 10 years now? As someone above said, Will. End. Badly.
As in, POP.
And then, no doubt, Trump will blame the "other people" who stopped his grand plan from coming to fruition. There will be no truth telling within the executive branch.
Sadly, much of America is not educated in economics or politics to understand all this. A lot of people (most, or all) on this board are, however, which is why I like the OT thread.

Thank you for posting the question, Wife. It's a good one!
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.

The OP was about the 4.1 2nd quarter growth rates while good in the short run, leading to inflation and high interest rates. I made no contrast with any other President (didn't even mention Trump, time period or the like. I didn't even get into the concern the FED has about inflationary pressures. Mistakenly I expected a discussion about FED policy and inflation. Stupid me. Instead, I get all usual lefty stuff you see on O/T:

1) Trump is horrible
2) The horrors inflected by the tax cuts that really have not kicked in yet (but see below),
3) Its all about debt which is a legit concern (the poster made the mistake of noting that under Trump there is budget deal to increase spending which was quickly dropped probably because than was the Obama strategy, and in the Trump case, also has not really kicked in yet),
4) The real problem is executive bonuses (I blame Nick Saban)
5) The real problem is income distribution (never to be confused with wealth distribution by the O/T gang)
6) A repeated attempt by Dajo to say this really can't be a good economy, especially when you compare it to the Obama economy.
7) We are in a period of f-tude (this could be accurate, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP).
8) The problem is growth has been caused by deregulation.

One qualification is the earnings repatriation has kicked in and as was finally pointed out there is a study that certain firms are adopting plans post-tax law enactment to distribute (a distribution includes dividends and buy-backs) material portions of these earnings to shareholders, with IMO, has some negative impact on what would otherwise intended to be used for corporate investment.

But the discussion with Dajo became a continuing back and forth. He did not want to look at the entire Obama economy (which had an anemic 1.1% growth rate), but just focus on his second term. I said that was cherry-picking, you have to compare the entire period Obama was President versus the entire period Trump was President. Dajo said that was unfair, because Obama inherited a bad economy. So I said fine, why don't we look at the last 6 quarters of Obama (which sucked relatively speaking) versus Trump's six quarters since that at least gives you equal time period and shows you the economy Trump inherited. No said Dajo, I'm cherry-picking, you have to use the entire second term because? I said that the last 18 months showed the Obama economy had gone bad and Dajo was relaying on the one period of sustained growth that Obama enjoyed in his first two years of the second term to offset the fact that Trump had inherited an economy on the decline. One poster blamed the Obama economic dip on everyone being afraid of Trump perhaps ignoring what everyone considered the inevitability of Clinton's ascendancy to the Presidency

I then made the mistake of pointing to certain indicators that are up including GDP, showing that the economy is strong, and that the increase in consumer demand was driving the current economy since the tax cuts and increased government spending had nor really kick-in yet. It included an article on business investment being up and that was different than under Obama and an article that did mention an increase in household income, thought that was not the point.

Ignoring the substance of the thread, Dajo incorrectly fixated on one sector of one component of investment, fixed investment structures, and said the increase during the 6 quarter Trump period was due to oil and gas capital projects due to high oil prices and the same thing occurred in 2014. I noted that he forgot the two other major components of investment, inventories and residential construction, that he was wrong on oil prices (they had actually decreased in 2014 and not moved much during the Trump 6 Qs), and that oil and gas companies looked at future interest rates since there investment today was in projects that would not come on line for some time. I also pointed out that oil and gas investment increase was only a small component in the increase in investment since Trump took office.

Dajo then fixated on this obscure index of household median income that was the real index to look at for the economy in his opinion, and that in the golden two-year period of the otherwise weak Obama economy, the income numbers were better (I guess proving the Obama economy was stronger). He then called me a bunch of names.

Dajo then acknowledged that he should have considered the other two factors in the investment, but that the BEA index really was a crummy index for business investment since there was "government" and "household" spending. And he likes the household medium income even if no one uses it. Further, he was now going to only focus on investment in the last quarter. Before we go to what happened next, I provided Dajo with the FED numbers on "private" domestic investment, which remarkably were the same numbers reported by the BEA. As for household spending, here is the exact language in the other component that purportedly is household spending: "Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants."

But then Dajo decided not look at the table on domestic investment (either the BEA or FED table) and instead look at the GDP table, but not any GDP table, one that had adjusted numbers, look at only the last quarter and say forget the numbers I was using before when tried to explain away an increase in investment as due to oil and gas capital expansion, but now I understand investment actually went down in the last quarter and that is what is really the point about the Trump economy (so we have moved from household income comparisons to investment in one quarter). So when I pointed out that he wasn't using actual numbers, that he didn't point that out, his response was well if you link the tables, there is this small disclaimer at the top And btw, the real change in investment wasn't due to oil and gas investment, but inflation. Of course, if you look at the table Dajo relies on with the non-actual numbers, the difference is in inventory, which raises the question is how does business reducing their inventories be impacted by inflation?

So to bottom line this, a post about the GDP this quarter and possible FED action became a referendum on Trump (sound familiar) and somehow that Obama economy really is better than Trump economy because of something I can find eventually, even if I don't have to use real numbers.


This is a really long lie. It could have come straight from Trump, except this whole discourse is over Trumps head.

Just look at how wiaf distorts #6, about me. My point being this economy is like Obama's 2nd term - Not the additional commentary gibberish wiaf adds. This distortion has previously been said by wiaf upthread and a different poster already called him out on this distortion upthread. Nevertheless he continues, Trumpian style, with the same distortion. And the distortions just go on and on.

I'll just add this - anybody who looks at economic data and dismisses real (i.e. inflation chained) data as "adjusted" and "non-actual numbers" is not to be trusted either because of bad faith or ignorance. 1) The BEA website recommends using inflation chained data when comparing multiple time periods. 2) The 4.1% number in the thread title itself is inflation chained. And I don't think wiaf is ignorant.
Let's end this with the last paragraph. Just so we are clear on distortions. Dayo was the one who left the impression he was talking about actual numbers, so those not digging into the schedule would not otherwise know. His next distortion is to say that even if when called on it, and though his table doesn't use actual numbers, the difference in investment (which is primarily the change in inventory levels) is caused by inflation. Since I think we all know inflation is not going to be an impact over a 1quarter number for inventories, what has he forgot to tell us [again]? Oh yes, there also is an adjustment for seasonality that Dayo's forgot to mention (but you should have known that by the note on the table). In fact, to cite the BEA's guidelines verbatim:

"Much of the data used by BEA to estimate detailed components of GDP are seasonally adjusted by the source data agencies. For example, BEA uses seasonally adjusted inventory and retail sales datafrom the U.S. Census Bureau and seasonally adjusted consumer price indexes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." [Emphasis added].

It gets even better, this is the first quarter they used new seasonal adjustment data, so the other quarters are not comparable from the results of the 2018 comprehensive update of the National Income and Product (NIPA)Accounts released on July 27, 2018, to reflect the outcome of a multiyear initiative to improve BEA's approach to seasonal adjustment and address residual seasonality observed in previous estimates. I guess that little change mention was inadvertent.

But it gets better: unlike the actual numbers, under NIPA guidelines, this schedule excludes imports and foreign income from American companies and people. That negates the impact of exchange rates on inflation.

In other news today, Commissioner Rob Manfield today announced that Bobby Bonds name was no longer considered the official MLB leader in home runs in a separate table now produced by the MLB to accompany the schedule that contains the actual number of home runs hit by players. Said one outraged Giants fan: "and I thought the record books will be forever accompanied by an asterisk, an exclamation mark, or something like that, because Bonds's alledged used of Performance Enhancing Drugs." But no, instead Bonds watched his record fall because of adjustments made for inflation in the number of home runs hit during the era he performed, the deletion of home runs yielded by foreign raised pitchers, and the baseball season adjusted seasonality of trending to far into summers impacted by global warming which meant adjustments were neccessary for balls traveling longer in the hot sun.

The decision, which Manford characterized as the only way to accurately convey that Barry Bonds hit his 714-plus home runs under "some pretty special circumstances that under government standards we can actually use to screw (or a word of similar import] Mr. Bonds." The Commissioner continued: "When my children's grandchildren open up their Baseball Almanac a hundred years from now, they'll see this enduring, universally understood two sets of tables right next to Barry's name. And when they do, they'll immediately know that this second table reflects history's attitude toward not only the conditions under which he was able to hit his home runs, but also the general atmosphere and weather of baseball in an era he will come to embody.
You put in a lot of effort to discredit the very numbers that are used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate that everybody in the world is talking about. You are starting to sound like Trump questioning Obama's numbers.

Bad faith, indeed.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
In any competition where Donald Trump is one of the choices, the other choice is the right choice. People who don't understand that are stupid. As you are stupid.

There is no two sides to the story for people who cast aside any sense of values or morality to try and justify why they voted for Trump. It was patently obvious that he was a charlatan who had nothing to offer. Your excuses for why you voted for him anyway are laughable. You are someone who passes himself off as a very smart person, but in actuality, you are someone who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and in reality, a stupid stupid person.
Name calling serves no good purpose. While I agree with your logic about the election, poking people in the eye only causes them to react instinctively in a defensive manner to prop up and support their prior position. Much better than pushing would be to invite someone with hand extended and lead them to the direction you want them to go.

To Trump supporters, I would simply invite them to pick a different person, pretty much any other person. He is unique. Uniquely unqualified and disqualified.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
Please do keep in mind that the 4.1% was only in one quarter - Obama had a number of those.
yup this is one quarter. Trump had six. Obama had 32, but only a few seem to matter (not any of the bad ones). What matters is the overall rate. Obama was somewhere just above 1% annually. We won't be able to evaluate Trump until his term is over. That said, my comments were about concerns for inflation and higher interest rates. Per my original post, the quarter's growth is short term.
Hey, 4.1% is fantastic!

.
.
.


Thank you for posting the question, Wife. It's a good one!

You got it wrong concordtom - wiaf now believes the 4.1% number is adjusted, bogus, and not the real numbers. Go ahead and read his post about how the numbers behind the 4.1% GDP growth that the BEA has on its website are adjusted to oblivion.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will be interesting to see if the Q3 growth truly suffers because activity was pull forward in advance of the onset of tariffs. Soybeans, etc. I'm sure if that turns out to be the case it will be Obama's fault or Mueller's or Hillary's or Mexicans' or whatever.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

mikecohen said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

blah, blah, blah. You do realize the guy was theorizing Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue in the prior post?


No theory, Dotard Donnie said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and still win. You know, sure thing...but, but, you know...the RUSSIANS.

From Snopes.com: Donald Trump 'Fifth Avenue' Comment


Jesus, Trump really is dumb.
Not as dumb as you were for voting for him.
You forget my choices.
Somebody tell me what was so terrible about Hillary [that was not the truly "Fake News" which permeated (and still permeates) the net, with the most extraordinarily evil lies about her, for I don't know how long before 2016, and from I don't know what sources, that is, to what extent it was Russians vs. straight Republicans and general misogynists - which permeations took in even young people I know who think themselves progressives]. I mean, Hillary got a bad mark in my book for her political cowardice/weakness in support of the Iraq War. But she did so much good on so many other issues (not to mention on the constituent services area on the side of local, otherwise powerless or overlooked, interests in her Senate constituency); and, despite the horrible human consequences of the Iraq War, certainly millions of others were more responsible than her for that, PLUS, nobody and nothing is perfect - ever. And yet Trumpist Republicans have the permission to say that the real, truly undeniable, monstrousness of Trump is somehow parallel to the almost entirely made-up (perhaps even more monstrous) fictions which sometimes otherwise rational people were brought to believe about Hillary.
Well she isn't the ogre being presented. But,she did bring a lot of baggage to the table. The AP story about herforeign visitors to the State Department, who "happened" to have given large amounts of cash to the Clinton Foundation, and well, conflicts of interest having foreign heads of state contribute to your foundation (the Russians were better at hiding their role). There are issues with cattle futures, law firm billing records, Whitewater, muddled sniper fire recollections, arguably questionable practices with the Clinton Foundation (the so-called Clinton-style of philanthrocapitalism) where a lot of contributing companies landed nice "philanthropic" projects, the State Dept. E mail thing, the husband meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac to stop the e mail thing, which in turn led the pissed-off Obama thing to release records that the capital futures problem may have been deeper (she didn't make the trades, they were steered to her account), her vigorous defense of a decision which haunted her primary campaignher acceptance of large amounts of money for giving speeches to Wall Street banks, as the most effective way to discuss regulation of Wall Street, the Clinton Cash thing and assertions of a play for play mentality, her knowing acceptance of stolen debate questions and using them to prep before the debate, the stuff lifted from the Clinton campaign server like "getting away with what we can whether that be ending welfare or Monica Lewinsky" (some might say the internal e mails were not serious, but showed a poor choice of words), and enough space already.
.
When you look at the positions she has taken on some of the most significant public policy questions of her time, you cannot escape noticing one key pattern: She has always embraced the politically popular standindeed, she has gone out of her way to reinforce that standand she has shifted her ground in a way that perfectly correlates with the shifts in public opinion. Gay m
arriage check, trade pacts check, fossil fuels check (remember the oil companies donated big time to the Clintons), income inequality check, capital gains check, Obama's immigration policy now too harsh check, too many people in jail check (just go down the famous Cooper Anderson "will you say anything to get elected" question). Even that dumb Canadian pipeline she changed her mind on several times, probably as the polls changed.

Then there was that I didn't like many of her policies, starting with her imposition of more taxes in what was a retreating economy. Hilary was talking about any way possible to increase regulation. Clinton wanted to give tax credits for long-term investments, but was supposedly against capital gains after her primary with Sanders. I personally prefer a single payer system, which Obama care stands in the way of. At the time, Clinton came off much more hawkish on foreign affairs and use of the military. I thought a lot of what Trump said was nonsense as well. Not good choices.

The other part of the problem was she seemed to set herself up as a symbolic candidate, basically, I'm a woman, and you have to vote for me. In fact she blamed women for her loss at one point. She really took identity politics to a whole new level, and I was turned off. I mean here was some elitist DC insider who hung with every celebrity possible telling me who was important, and who wasn't (almost the same bumpy ride I got with Trump as well).

The only thing weirder than ending up with those two poor candidates is Trump's obsession with Hillary a year and one-half after the election, and some of the strange things Trump says about her. Even the Dems are not that stupid to bring her back.
Thank you for the detailed explanation of what you felt was so horrible about Hillary.

I think it's a double edged sword, perhaps.
We want someone with lots of experience in government, yet unscathed by any association or accusatory impropriety. In the world of politics, once they see you may be a rising star, they will try to hang whatever impropriety they can around your neck. It can be hard to filter thru what should stick and what was just slanderous attempts to discredit a person.

No human is without fault.
No human is able to live a life and come out shiny at the other end.
So, we have to accept a certain amount of sludge.

Next time a candidate gets up there and says, I wish I had done this differently, or, I have changed my view on this topic because of these reasons, I'm going to consider accepting that. I actually think Obama spoke very eloquently on such matters. He remained calm and did not react angrily. Now, some may claim he was arrogant and ridiculing at times, but I'll grant him that, as I was mostly laughing at his detractors with him.

I will respect the candidate who accepts blame, and even can be self-deprecating about their shortcomings. For instance, Trump would have gotten a lot of mileage had he shrugged and said, "sometimes I do wonder if it's true what they say about small hands", rather than his "there's NO problem in that regard, I can ASSURE you that!"

Reminds me of Reagan's: " I am not going to use my advantage in age and experience for political gain over my opponent." (Something like that). Even Mondale laughed!

Page 4 of 5
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.