Is a 4.1% quarterly increase in GNP good?

wifeisafurd
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.
Wrong on several counts. I was responding to a legit post by cohen which I agreed with and I was telling of the predicament voters who are not lefties like you found themselves in. And as I suggested, she isn't the ogre she is being made out to be, she had huge ethical baggage, polices those not lefties had problems swallowing, and see personally turned off people. And Trump wasn't great either. That you didn't get most voters didn't like their choice is not my problem, but clearly, in the end, a lot of voters who are not lefties voted for Trump, and your view that they are dumb speaks more to your smug elitism that drives voters away, than those voters.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

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.
My bad, I didn't appreciate the context of your comments.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

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).
On the frightening side, I heard on NPR about the Q-non (sp?) group that has a huge internet following, where Q (whoever that is) leave clues that Q-con people try and find related to internet games that involve conspiracies about the deep state led by people like Hilary and others. At the end of a particular game Hilary is blown-up or done-away with by the "good guys." Very creepy.

Edit: apparently it is Q-Anon.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:


It's cute how you try to make her seem as bad as Trump. Good for a laugh.
Wrong on several counts.
Impossible for me to be wrong on several counts when I said only one thing. Don't let your emotions cloud your intellect.

Quote:

I was responding to a legit post by cohen which I agreed with and I was telling of the predicament voters who are not lefties like you found themselves in. And as I suggested, she isn't the ogre she is being made out to be, she had huge ethical baggage, polices those not lefties had problems swallowing, and see personally turned off people. And Trump wasn't great either. That you didn't get most voters didn't like their choice is not my problem, but clearly, in the end, a lot of voters who are not lefties voted for Trump, and your view that they are dumb speaks more to your smug elitism that drives voters away, than those voters.
Lefties. Funny how you try to paint yourself as an independent when you use all the code words of the Republican Party.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Well I didn't say I would vote for him again, but then I don't want your hand, and let me suggest than when you leave the friendly confines of the Bay Area, your arrogance will find very few hands extended in return.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Well I didn't say I would vote for him again, but then I don't want your hand, and let me suggest than when you leave the friendly confines of the Bay Area, your arrogance will find very few hands extended in return.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/78525/replies/1453787
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
Folks, in wiaf's weekend rager here on BI, he has gone full off the deep end conspiracy theory. He now claims the 4.1% GDP growth rate that we all use (he even used in the title of this thread) is now altered numbers.

Here are the numbers from BEA I am using, once again, that wiaf says are altered.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6
From those numbers:
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $18,324.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $18,507.2 billion

Those are the very numbers used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate.
$18,507.2 / $18,324.0 = 1.0100^4-1 = 4.1%

It must be very hard to be a Trumpian these days. Wiaf mocked concordtom for asking if the 4.1% number under Trump can be trusted and here he is claiming the 4.1% numbers are altered. A complete and total meltdown.

Don't take my word for it. Try out this website, which does the same math I did above with the same numbers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gdp-growth-rate-3306016

Please, wiaf, if my numbers are altered, provide a link to the "actual" BEA numbers that gives us the 4.1% calculation. You can't, because my numbers are the ones.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Well I didn't say I would vote for him again, but then I don't want your hand, and let me suggest than when you leave the friendly confines of the Bay Area, your arrogance will find very few hands extended in return.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/78525/replies/1453787
Actually, I wouldn't vote for Clinton. At this point I wouldn't vote for Trump either.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom 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.
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."
Sorry, no I didn't. May have been thankfully out of the country.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
Folks, in wiaf's weekend rager here on BI, he has gone full off the deep end conspiracy theory. He now claims the 4.1% GDP growth rate that we all use (he even used in the title of this thread) is now altered numbers.

Here are the numbers from BEA I am using, once again, that wiaf says are altered.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6
From those numbers:
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $18,324.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $18,507.2 billion

Those are the very numbers used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate.
$18,507.2 / $18,324.0 = 1.0100^4-1 = 4.1%

It must be very hard to be a Trumpian these days. Wiaf mocked concordtom for asking if the 4.1% number under Trump can be trusted and here he is claiming the 4.1% numbers are altered. A complete and total meltdown.

Don't take my word for it. Try out this website, which does the same math I did above with the same numbers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gdp-growth-rate-3306016

Please, wiaf, if my numbers are altered, provide a link to the "actual" BEA numbers that gives us the 4.1% calculation. You can't, because my numbers are the ones.

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
Folks, in wiaf's weekend rager here on BI, he has gone full off the deep end conspiracy theory. He now claims the 4.1% GDP growth rate that we all use (he even used in the title of this thread) is now altered numbers.

Here are the numbers from BEA I am using, once again, that wiaf says are altered.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6
From those numbers:
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $18,324.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $18,507.2 billion

Those are the very numbers used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate.
$18,507.2 / $18,324.0 = 1.0100^4-1 = 4.1%

It must be very hard to be a Trumpian these days. Wiaf mocked concordtom for asking if the 4.1% number under Trump can be trusted and here he is claiming the 4.1% numbers are altered. A complete and total meltdown.

Don't take my word for it. Try out this website, which does the same math I did above with the same numbers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gdp-growth-rate-3306016

Please, wiaf, if my numbers are altered, provide a link to the "actual" BEA numbers that gives us the 4.1% calculation. You can't, because my numbers are the ones.

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.
You keep saying my numbers are altered, not the actual numbers, not the numbers people use. I showed how the BEA numbers I am using are the numbers used in the 4.1% GDP Growth calculation. How about the numbers you are using (which are also adjusted for seasonality):
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $20,041.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $20,402.5 billion

$20,402.5 / $20,041.0 = 1.0180^4-1 = 7.4%

You can't dismiss my numbers and have belief in the 4.1% GDP growth number that is the only accepted number for Q2 2018 GDP growth.

So, to summarize, you started a thread asking about 4.1% GDP. As the conservation went on, I provided some data. You said the data was incomplete and gave me a definition to use. I concurred, my original data was incomplete. I used the definition you provided and tied it to the 4.1% GDP growth rate we are talking about and showed that Gross Private Domestic Investment in Q2 2018 is actually negative. You respond by 1) discounting inventory and by implication are arguing that the definition you provided, and that I used, is not the definition you want to use anymore; and 2) going all koo-koo bird and, rather than admit you made a mistake about how to properly use inflation chained vs. nominal data, are claiming that the BEA data used to calculate 4.1% GDP growth is bogus data.

That's the difference between you and me (I would say this is a big part of the difference between liberals and conservatives in general). When you pointed out my data was not complete, I revised and took another look. When I put out correct data that you don't like you spent who knows how much of your weekend trying to discredit BEA data and in the process threw away a big chunk of your credibility.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Agreed. But that is not name calling, which does the opposite of what we want, which is trump out of office. Name calling makes people defend their prior position. We need to move them off their seat, not nail them to it.

I have a confession to make. I hosted family last week, and I tried to joke but instead came of as serious, because I actually was (and was upset). I told my beloved aunt and uncle that if they had anything pro-trump to say while at my house, I would have to show them the door. Again, i tried to say it as a joke, but it came off as very sincere.

I f***ing hate Donald Trump!!!

The real challenge is going to be at a family wedding next month in SC where my Christian Conservative older step-bro-in-law minister will ask me once again why I dislike trump so much. Buddy, if you don't know now, if you can't figure it out, then I really have nothing to say to you. He was somebody I used to admire growing up. He's always been conservative an all. But now he's just imminently stupid. There is no more "compassionate conservative". He is now judgmental and divisive.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

concordtom 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.
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."
Sorry, no I didn't. May have been thankfully out of the country.
He said it during the primaries. It was his own internal admission of surprise at how much people were supporting him. He is caught up in his own narcissistic story.

From Wikipedia:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope. He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him, causing some to commit suicide to prove their unrelenting devotion to his striking beauty. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in deeply in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the allure of his reflection in the pool and having developed an unrequited love that could never be reciprocated, Narcissus lost his will to live and committed suicide. In some versions of the myth, Narcissus stared into his reflection until he withered away. In all versions, his body disappears and all that is left is a narcissus flower. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself and one's physical appearance or public perception
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

concordtom 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.
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."
Sorry, no I didn't. May have been thankfully out of the country.
He said it during the primaries. It was his own internal admission of surprise at how much people were supporting him. He is caught up in his own narcissistic story.

From Wikipedia:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope. He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him, causing some to commit suicide to prove their unrelenting devotion to his striking beauty. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in deeply in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the allure of his reflection in the pool and having developed an unrequited love that could never be reciprocated, Narcissus lost his will to live and committed suicide. In some versions of the myth, Narcissus stared into his reflection until he withered away. In all versions, his body disappears and all that is left is a narcissus flower. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself and one's physical appearance or public perception
Here's just another humorous piece as evidence of such:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-watches-himself-on-tv.html

...But one candidate could not bring himself to pretend that he has much in common with the average People reader. Does he like bacon and eggs? Sure, but while most people complain about gaining weight on the campaign trail, he bragged that he'd lost 15 pounds because his massive rallies are so exhilarating. He asserted that his secret talent is being excellent at sports. And this is how he answered the question "What's your favorite guilty pleasure TV show?"
Quote:

My guilty pleasure TV show SNL, starring me. They got great ratings. The best ratings in years. It was a terrific success. I enjoyed doing it. It was 50 percent more than Hillary's show. That makes me feel good.
Back in those halcyon days, people probably assumed that Donald Trump was joking, or misunderstood the question. But a new report from Axios suggests Trump was being honest about watching himself, and doesn't feel very guilty about this habit. The president is said to love watching recordings of his debates and rallies but instead of evaluating his performance, he "luxuriates in the moments he believes are evidence of his brilliance," sometimes before a small audience. Per Axios:
Quote:

Trump commentates as he watches, according to sources who've sat with him and viewed replays on his TiVo, which is pre-loaded with his favorites on the large TV in the private dining room adjoining the Oval Office. When watching replays, Trump will interject commentary, reveling in his most controversial lines. "Wait for it. See what I did there?" he'll say.

...where does this reporting come from? Unless it's fabricated, it's from leaks from within by those present.
These types of stories, negative and unflattering about Trump and the structure and function within the White House have been extremely common ever since he moved in.
I guess it comes down to a question of "who do you trust? Trump and his followers, or the hundreds of White House reporters?" Given trump's propensity to contradict himself, and all his other insane behavior and statements, they is no contest who I trust. The man is off rails. I do not trust him with nuclear codes. I do not trust him with our economy, environment, social justice, and certainly not with my wife or daughters (pervert!)

In fact, I outright disagree with him on many policy decisions he's made!
He's a ticking time bomb of a disaster waiting to explode, in all our faces.
Unpredictable. Radical. Aloof to the common American. Outright liar.
Dangerous!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone wants to know: "Where's the golden shower tape? Where's the golden shower tape?"

A: Trump has it. And watches it to his delight.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Well I didn't say I would vote for him again, but then I don't want your hand, and let me suggest than when you leave the friendly confines of the Bay Area, your arrogance will find very few hands extended in return.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/78525/replies/1453787
Actually, I wouldn't vote for Clinton. At this point I wouldn't vote for Trump either.
Okay, thank you! Hallelujah!!!
Praise God! Glory unto his highest.
Let the celebration commence!
Slaughter the fatted calf!
He said it! He wouldn't vote for Trump.
That's it, nothing more be said.
The man is on his way out and we can try someone else.
An answer to my prayers has come.
No more, no more, no more.
The end of this nightmare is within sight!

Give this man, a wise convert, a pat on the back by scrolling up and starring his comment. Turn it blue for all to see. Witness and cheer!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:


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.
I have no more patience for Trump supporters. Anyone that has seen his performance and still says he would vote for him again is not someone I am going to invite with hand extended.
Well I didn't say I would vote for him again, but then I don't want your hand, and let me suggest than when you leave the friendly confines of the Bay Area, your arrogance will find very few hands extended in return.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/78525/replies/1453787
Actually, I wouldn't vote for Clinton. At this point I wouldn't vote for Trump either.
Okay, thank you! Hallelujah!!!
Praise God! Glory unto his highest.
Let the celebration commence!
Slaughter the fatted calf!
He said it! He wouldn't vote for Trump.
That's it, nothing more be said.
The man is on his way out and we can try someone else.
An answer to my prayers has come.
No more, no more, no more.
The end of this nightmare is within sight!

Give this man, a wise convert, a pat on the back by scrolling up and starring his comment. Turn it blue for all to see. Witness and cheer!
BTW, my view is not due to all the social media idiocy. It''s because I think he is an unmitigated disaster when ti comes to foreign affairs.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ConcordTom - Please tell us how you really feel about Trump. You're so ambiguous.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
Folks, in wiaf's weekend rager here on BI, he has gone full off the deep end conspiracy theory. He now claims the 4.1% GDP growth rate that we all use (he even used in the title of this thread) is now altered numbers.

Here are the numbers from BEA I am using, once again, that wiaf says are altered.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6
From those numbers:
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $18,324.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $18,507.2 billion

Those are the very numbers used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate.
$18,507.2 / $18,324.0 = 1.0100^4-1 = 4.1%

It must be very hard to be a Trumpian these days. Wiaf mocked concordtom for asking if the 4.1% number under Trump can be trusted and here he is claiming the 4.1% numbers are altered. A complete and total meltdown.

Don't take my word for it. Try out this website, which does the same math I did above with the same numbers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gdp-growth-rate-3306016

Please, wiaf, if my numbers are altered, provide a link to the "actual" BEA numbers that gives us the 4.1% calculation. You can't, because my numbers are the ones.

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.
You keep saying my numbers are altered, not the actual numbers, not the numbers people use. I showed how the BEA numbers I am using are the numbers used in the 4.1% GDP Growth calculation. How about the numbers you are using (which are also adjusted for seasonality):
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $20,041.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $20,402.5 billion

$20,402.5 / $20,041.0 = 1.0180^4-1 = 7.4%

You can't dismiss my numbers and have belief in the 4.1% GDP growth number that is the only accepted number for Q2 2018 GDP growth.

So, to summarize, you started a thread asking about 4.1% GDP. As the conservation went on, I provided some data. You said the data was incomplete and gave me a definition to use. I concurred, my original data was incomplete. I used the definition you provided and tied it to the 4.1% GDP growth rate we are talking about and showed that Gross Private Domestic Investment in Q2 2018 is actually negative. You respond by 1) discounting inventory and by implication are arguing that the definition you provided, and that I used, is not the definition you want to use anymore; and 2) going all koo-koo bird and, rather than admit you made a mistake about how to properly use inflation chained vs. nominal data, are claiming that the BEA data used to calculate 4.1% GDP growth is bogus data.

That's the difference between you and me (I would say this is a big part of the difference between liberals and conservatives in general). When you pointed out my data was not complete, I revised and took another look. When I put out correct data that you don't like you spent who knows how much of your weekend trying to discredit BEA data and in the process threw away a big chunk of your credibility.
So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release [url=http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter][/url]http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used. And you mislead everyone who didn't dig into a linked footnote that these were actual numbers.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

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.
Nice try. Just mentioning Trump on this boards is enough no one will notice that you represented altered numbers as actual numbers. Way to change the narrative.
Folks, in wiaf's weekend rager here on BI, he has gone full off the deep end conspiracy theory. He now claims the 4.1% GDP growth rate that we all use (he even used in the title of this thread) is now altered numbers.

Here are the numbers from BEA I am using, once again, that wiaf says are altered.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6
From those numbers:
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $18,324.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $18,507.2 billion

Those are the very numbers used to calculate the 4.1% GDP growth rate.
$18,507.2 / $18,324.0 = 1.0100^4-1 = 4.1%

It must be very hard to be a Trumpian these days. Wiaf mocked concordtom for asking if the 4.1% number under Trump can be trusted and here he is claiming the 4.1% numbers are altered. A complete and total meltdown.

Don't take my word for it. Try out this website, which does the same math I did above with the same numbers.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gdp-growth-rate-3306016

Please, wiaf, if my numbers are altered, provide a link to the "actual" BEA numbers that gives us the 4.1% calculation. You can't, because my numbers are the ones.

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.
You keep saying my numbers are altered, not the actual numbers, not the numbers people use. I showed how the BEA numbers I am using are the numbers used in the 4.1% GDP Growth calculation. How about the numbers you are using (which are also adjusted for seasonality):
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $20,041.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $20,402.5 billion

$20,402.5 / $20,041.0 = 1.0180^4-1 = 7.4%

You can't dismiss my numbers and have belief in the 4.1% GDP growth number that is the only accepted number for Q2 2018 GDP growth.

So, to summarize, you started a thread asking about 4.1% GDP. As the conservation went on, I provided some data. You said the data was incomplete and gave me a definition to use. I concurred, my original data was incomplete. I used the definition you provided and tied it to the 4.1% GDP growth rate we are talking about and showed that Gross Private Domestic Investment in Q2 2018 is actually negative. You respond by 1) discounting inventory and by implication are arguing that the definition you provided, and that I used, is not the definition you want to use anymore; and 2) going all koo-koo bird and, rather than admit you made a mistake about how to properly use inflation chained vs. nominal data, are claiming that the BEA data used to calculate 4.1% GDP growth is bogus data.

That's the difference between you and me (I would say this is a big part of the difference between liberals and conservatives in general). When you pointed out my data was not complete, I revised and took another look. When I put out correct data that you don't like you spent who knows how much of your weekend trying to discredit BEA data and in the process threw away a big chunk of your credibility.
So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release [url=http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter][/url]http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used. And you mislead everyone who didn't dig into a linked footnote that these were actual numbers.
You keep saying my numbers are altered, not the actual numbers, not the numbers people use. I showed how the BEA numbers I am using are the numbers used in the 4.1% GDP Growth calculation. How about the numbers you are using (which are also adjusted for seasonality):
Annualized Q1 2018 GDP = $20,041.0 billion
Annualized Q2 2018 GDP = $20,402.5 billion

$20,402.5 / $20,041.0 = 1.0180^4-1 = 7.4%

You can't dismiss my numbers and have belief in the 4.1% GDP growth number that is the only accepted number for Q2 2018 GDP growth.

So, to summarize, you started a thread asking about 4.1% GDP. As the conservation went on, I provided some data. You said the data was incomplete and gave me a definition to use. I concurred, my original data was incomplete. I used the definition you provided and tied it to the 4.1% GDP growth rate we are talking about and showed that Gross Private Domestic Investment in Q2 2018 is actually negative. You respond by 1) discounting inventory and by implication are arguing that the definition you provided, and that I used, is not the definition you want to use anymore; and 2) going all koo-koo bird and, rather than admit you made a mistake about how to properly use inflation chained vs. nominal data, are claiming that the BEA data used to calculate 4.1% GDP growth is bogus data.

That's the difference between you and me (I would say this is a big part of the difference between liberals and conservatives in general). When you pointed out my data was not complete, I revised and took another look. When I put out correct data that you don't like you spent who knows how much of your weekend trying to discredit BEA data and in the process threw away a big chunk of your credibility.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

ConcordTom - Please tell us how you really feel about Trump. You're so ambiguous.
Yeah....
It's therapeutic for me to have this forum to get it off my chest. Thank you, BI.

It was fine before when he was being him boasting in NYC, bankrupting Atlantic City, spying on Miss Teens, being a jerk on Howard Stern, thinking he was the man on his stupid show, which of course I never watched.... cause none of that affected me. I didn't like him 35 years ago with the USFL, and I really didn't like him 6 years ago when he was peddling that "birth certificate is fake" bullcrap, because my cousin in TX believed it and would send me delusional emails about it.

But now that he's on tv each day, making policies and culture that affect me and my kids? He needs to exit stage left immediately. And not come back.

The most interesting thing about it is that I now finally understand human nature in a way I never could have before. My family was friends with an Austria family that fought against my step-father in ww2. They became good friends in Spain in the 70s, but were on opposite sides. Delightful family! Us kids got along great. We never discussed much ww2, but when I did bring it up once, the daughter fired back immediately "oh, and we know all about your history of slavery! Don't think you are so righteous."

That still didn't convince me of much.

But, now with Trump. I see how an evil movement can take root, and be followed.
To me, Trumpism is Hitlerism.
It's the cult of personality, and people will follow that.



Great song!
From the hey day of MTV




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

Unit2Sucks said:

ConcordTom - Please tell us how you really feel about Trump. You're so ambiguous.
Yeah....
It's therapeutic for me to have this forum to get it off my chest. Thank you, BI.

It was fine before when he was being him boasting in NYC, bankrupting Atlantic City, spying on Miss Teens, being a jerk on Howard Stern, thinking he was the man on his stupid show, which of course I never watched.... cause none of that affected me. I didn't like him 35 years ago with the USFL, and I really didn't like him 6 years ago when he was peddling that "birth certificate is fake" bullcrap, because my cousin in TX believed it and would send me delusional emails about it.

But now that he's on tv each day, making policies and culture that affect me and my kids? He needs to exit stage left immediately. And not come back.

The most interesting thing about it is that I now finally understand human nature in a way I never could have before. My family was friends with an Austria family that fought against my step-father in ww2. They became good friends in Spain in the 70s, but were on opposite sides. Delightful family! Us kids got along great. We never discussed much ww2, but when I did bring it up once, the daughter fired back immediately "oh, and we know all about your history of slavery! Don't think you are so righteous."

That still didn't convince me of much.

But, now with Trump. I see how an evil movement can take root, and be followed.
To me, Trumpism is Hitlerism.
It's the cult of personality, and people will follow that.



Great song!
From the hey day of MTV





There's a story I think probably apocryphal of Lady Astor confronting Stalin with a question something like: When are you going to stop torturing and killing your people? to which Stalin's retort was: When you English stop beating your children.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And that has to do with what?
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

And that has to do with what?
Your Austrian friend's automatically-triggered defensive retort about slavery - kind-of disproportionate.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ah, sorry.
I was stuck on trump being a cult of personality that a bunch of idiots folllow because they are unintelligent and fooled by deceptive narratives.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Answer: study American slavery and civil rights struggles through history.

Question: what do Austrians do when they start to feel guilty about their role in ww2 and the holocaust?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this the right thread to ask if the fact that real wages have declined since the tax cut is a good thing?

Here's the BLS report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm

Here's a politico summary of the WH's response: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/05/white-house-disputes-wage-stagnation-768243


Quote:

Countering reports from its Bureau of Labor Statistics that the typical worker's wages have declined since passage of the December tax cut, the Trump White House said wages have in fact increased by 1.4 percent.
In a new report by its Council of Economic Advisers, the White House contended that official wage statistics were faulty because they didn't include bonuses and benefits, and because they overstated inflation, among other factors.

"Ignoring bonus pay and other benefits is particularly misleading during the past year," the report said, "when over 6 million workers have benefited from the tax cuts in the form of pay raises, better benefits, and bigger bonuses."
"This is in no way a criticism of the BLS," said CEA Chairman Kevin Hassett in a press call.
But the report was plainly meant to neutralize BLS statistics that contradict the administration's predictions that the tax cut, H.R. 1 (115), would boost paychecks.
According to BLS, gains in full-time median weekly earnings lagged inflation during the first six months of 2018 compared to one year before, and also during the last three months of 2017.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
double post
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:




Answer: Yasser Arafat

Question: What sound is made when Dolly Parton takes her brassiere off?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Page 5 of 5
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.