More nails in McCain's coffin

[BriarFox]

A nicely written, well-evidenced, and succinct account of why McCain would be a terrible choice for president, particularly financially:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20rich.html?th&emc=th

"The best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl ... "

Cheerio.

[crb]

My, that is totally unbiased.

Most economists would tell you Phill Gramm, who, by the way, has a PhD in economics, was right. We're not in a recession, and much of the problem has been the media selling fear and talking themselves into things. Just because you have a weak housing market or high gas prices does not mean you have a recession. In the end, the economy has grown, unemployement is no where near recession levels, and wages are still up, slightly to be sure, but up.

He certainly could have been more politically correct in his statements, but that doesn't make him wrong.

That douche also rehashes the old "bush tax cuts for the wealthy" lie (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html)

I think some liberals think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true.

[Keller]

How does comparing the tax burden on the wealthiest 1% in 1980 to the burden today have any relevance to the Bush tax cuts?

The Bush tax cuts were absolutely a tax cut for the wealthy. They've been heralded as such and given the justification that the increased take-home pay will create jobs.

Beyond that irrelevant article -- LOL at you saying "we're not in a recession" and then saying "I think some liberals think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true." It's splitting semantic hairs at this point to say that, ignoring inflation, we're not in a recession. Further, it's extremely demeaning for some Couvosier conservative like Gramm to tell Coors Light conservatives that they are in a psychological recession.

[BriarFox]

No one mentioned a recession in this piece; you're setting up a straw man. Gramm's comment indicated just how out of touch he (and by extension McCain's campaign) was with your average voter. It's hard to call it whining when inflation has started to increase significantly and prices for food and gas have both increased dramatically.

As for the "Bush taxcuts for the wealthy" bit, the author wasn't reiterating that - he was pointing out McCain's vacillations on the subject.

[crb]

How does comparing the tax burden on the wealthiest 1% in 1980 to the burden today have any relevance to the Bush tax cuts?

The Bush tax cuts were absolutely a tax cut for the wealthy. They've been heralded as such and given the justification that the increased take-home pay will create jobs.

Beyond that irrelevant article -- LOL at you saying "we're not in a recession" and then saying "I think some liberals think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true." It's splitting semantic hairs at this point to say that, ignoring inflation, we're not in a recession. Further, it's extremely demeaning for some Couvosier conservative like Gramm to tell Coors Light conservatives that they are in a psychological recession.
How were they absolutely a tax cut for the wealthy?

[crb]

http://img.slate.com/media/19/041014_taxcut1.gif

[crb]

http://img.slate.com/media/15/041014_taxcut2.gif

[crb]

So here is some basic math.

If you pay $100k a year in taxes, and get a 10% cut, your cut is $10,000.

If you pay $10k a year in taxes, and get a 10% cut, your cut is $1,000.

$10,000 > $1,000. whiney liberal life is unfair.

10% == 10%, intelligent conservative the percentage of the cuts is equal.

Prior to cuts, rich person pays 10x more in taxes than poor person.

After cuts, rich person now pays 10x more in taxes than poor person.

OMG THE RATIO IS THE SAME!!!!!!

Now... if instead of keeping the ratio the same you give a HIGHER PERCENTAGE tax cut to the lower end of the scale, you end up with an increase in the proportion of the federal taxes paid by the top end of the scale, the ratio changes.

Which is why I linked to the first article I linked to, by showing how that proportion has changed you can see how tax cuts have affected varying income groups, and the answer is obvious. Well... if you understand basic math.

[crb]

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single maki ng 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Seems like everyone got a tax cut hmm?>

sourced: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[Keller]

How were they absolutely a tax cut for the wealthy?

The highest marginal rate decrease was the highest marginal rate. Capgains reduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy (capital holders, regardless of stock holdings). All lower marginal rate decreases also benefit those in the highest bracket -- except that they were the ones paying that rate to begin with (lower income individuals pay very little in fed income tax, before and after the cuts).

[Keller]

So here is some basic math.

If you pay $100k a year in taxes, and get a 10% cut, your cut is $10,000.

If you pay $10k a year in taxes, and get a 10% cut, your cut is $1,000.

$10,000 > $1,000. whiney liberal life is unfair.

10% == 10%, intelligent conservative the percentage of the cuts is equal.

Prior to cuts, rich person pays 10x more in taxes than poor person.

After cuts, rich person now pays 10x more in taxes than poor person.

OMG THE RATIO IS THE SAME!!!!!!

Now... if instead of keeping the ratio the same you give a HIGHER PERCENTAGE tax cut to the lower end of the scale, you end up with an increase in the proportion of the federal taxes paid by the top end of the scale, the ratio changes.

Which is why I linked to the first article I linked to, by showing how that proportion has changed you can see how tax cuts have affected varying income groups, and the answer is obvious. Well... if you understand basic math.

I would absolutely love to engage you in a tax education, but it's going to have to wait until August 1 or after. I simply don't have the time to help you right now.

[Stanley Burrell]

I would absolutely love to engage you in a tax education, but it's going to have to wait until August 1 or after. I simply don't have the time to help you right now.

Just make sure to wear your corporate-supersized American flag pin so that the enlightened masses can understand just how much you know about stuff :yes:

[Keller]

Just make sure to wear your corporate-supersized American flag pin so that the enlightened masses can understand just how much you know about stuff :yes:

They will be walmart sized pins.

[Stanley Burrell]

Damn son, you know a lot about stuff.

[crb]

gee whiz keller, is that all you got? Really? I mean, fuck, look at all the shit I posted backup up my point, and you got what? Your opinion?

And oh, the capital gains reduction was to spur economic growth, not to fairly redistribute wealth. Economics and conservatives don't give a fuck about fairness, the goal of a tax policy, outside of funding the government, should be to spur economic growth. Besides, the majority of american households pay capital gains tax, so I guess that the majority of Americans are wealthy? Great news!

Then there is you know, the second graph I posted, which by the way is from Slate, that bastion of conservatism, which factors in capital gains, and shows that the tax cut was more or less dead even except for the group comprised of people between the 20-40th percentile income, which had a higher reduction. What'd you call that 20-40 group? Hmm... lower middle class? Certainly not wealthy.

[Parkbandit]

Anyone have a good site that shows the different taxes and the changes proposed by each candidate? Each tax separated out.. capital gains proposals vs capital gains proposals.. etc...

I would love to see that spelled out specifically for each candidate.

[crb]

this'll probably do pb

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/

[ClydeR]

If you want to know the definition of recession, look to the experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html). They're the ones who look backward at the economy and later tell us officially when recessions began and ended, and the provide the following definition of recession.


A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

[crb]

the standard economic definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

[Daniel]

There is no standard economic definition of recession, dipshit.

I'm still waiting on your numbers on how the current stock market problems are directed related to people believing that Obama is going to win.

[Valthissa]

There is no standard economic definition of recession, dipshit.

I'm still waiting on your numbers on how the current stock market problems are directed related to people believing that Obama is going to win.

Why would you post such nonsense?

Of course there is a standard definition of an economic recession in the US.

C/Valth

[Daniel]

Oh really? Who sets that standard? The definition of a recession is a very fluid term and its usage is dependent upon the context it is being used.

[Back]

I think the title of this thread is very negative. I hope Senator McCain lives a long and auspicious life.

[Parkbandit]

Oh really? Who sets that standard? The definition of a recession is a very fluid term and its usage is dependent upon the context it is being used.


The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP).


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp

[Parkbandit]

Why would you post such nonsense?

Of course there is a standard definition of an economic recession in the US.

C/Valth


In Daniel's defense, he's posted far dumber things.

[Daniel]

The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP).


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp

I can google shit to make myself look smart too!


"There is an old joke among economists that states:

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose your job.

The difference between the two terms is not very well understood for one simple reason: There is not a universally agreed upon definition. If you ask 100 different economists to define the terms recession and depression, you would get at least 100 different answers.

The standard newspaper definition of a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters.

This definition is unpopular with most economists for two main reasons. First, this definition does not take into consideration changes in other variables. For example this definition ignores any changes in the unemployment rate or consumer confidence. Second, by using quarterly data this definition makes it difficult to pinpoint when a recession begins or ends. This means that a recession that lasts ten months or less may go undetected.

http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions.htm

[RichardCranium]

What were the previous nails in McCain's coffin?

[Valthissa]

Oh really? Who sets that standard? The definition of a recession is a very fluid term and its usage is dependent upon the context it is being used.

Recessions (economic ones - hairlines, tides and other things that receed should be ignored for this discussion) are called by looking in the rear view mirror.

The governing body is the National Bureau of Economic Research.

you can even look it up (I actually think you already know this).

The standard definition of an economic recession in the US is:

When the National Bureau of Economic Research declares we have had a recession (which in practical terms is the 2 quarters of negative growth - but that is really a working definition for the public).

Using the term recession in another context, as you put it, would be for the purpose of obscuring it's standard meaning, wouldn't it?

C/Valth

[Daniel]

Relying on a "standard" meaning to belay any discussion of an economic "problem" is far more disingenuous then utilizing a word appropriately, albeit less simply.

You can argue semantics over the utilization of the word all you want. That's not my concern; the current economic problems are.

[Parkbandit]

I can google shit to make myself look smart too!



http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions.htm

It's not working.

And you said there wasn't a definition of a recession... yet there is.

[Warriorbird]

McCain learned to use a computer last week. He's working on getting on the Internet and browsing websites.

[Daniel]

It's not working.

And you said there wasn't a definition of a recession... yet there is.

Reason has never worked with you anyway. Why would I be surprised?

[Parkbandit]

Reason has never worked with you anyway. Why would I be surprised?

Presenting actual facts has never been one of your strong suits. Why would I be surprised?

Making shit up and presenting that as fact... now that, you have down.

[Daniel]

Burn.

[longshot]

I can google shit to make myself look smart too!


It's highly probable that some people use the term incorrectly, but a recession, by definition, is two consecutive quarters of GDP contracting.

[Parkbandit]

It's highly probable that some people use the term incorrectly, but a recession, by definition, is two consecutive quarters of GDP contracting.

Maybe five times is the charm!

[Daniel]

It's highly probable that some people use the term incorrectly, but a recession, by definition, is two consecutive quarters of GDP contracting.

By definition a recession is a economic decline. For simplicity and coherency of research and scholarship people have made a distinction. That, in and of itself does not imply that that is the only quantifiable measure of a recession nor does it preclude the existence of a recession outside of that definition.

The majority of our economic terms are derived from past experiences that have been documented and then turned into scholarship. At one point we said that inflation was almost always coupled with a period of economic growth. That became the definition that that allowed people to deny that inflation was actually occuring in the 1970's despite a slowing economy.

You can make the point that some people associate a recession with certain criteria all you want. However, to suggest that the economy is not in a decline (read: recession) simply because it does not subscribe to a narrow definition of that word with academic implications is silly, if not down right disingenuous.

[Fallen]

Well, calling it a decline is correct i guess, as that doesn't have a fixed definition, whereas calling it a recession is not.

[crb]

There is no standard economic definition of recession, dipshit.

I'm still waiting on your numbers on how the current stock market problems are directed related to people believing that Obama is going to win.
Danny, you really need to stop posting on things you don't understand. There is a standard definition of recession (the one most commonly used), it is negative GDP growth over two consecutive quarters.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10852462
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10398998/1/recession-stagflation-depends-on-the-definition.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23512873-details/Recession+just+months+away,+warn+employers/article.do
http://www.mysmp.com/bonds/economic-recession.html
http://cannona3.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/15/1230013-us-recession-imminent
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/04/weak-job-data-cause-media-forget-definition-recession-again
http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions.htm

Thats just like 90 seconds of looking for sources saying that the standard definition is what I said it was.

Maybe if you... I don't know... ever read financial news you'd know this. It isn't some big secret.

[crb]

Heh... you even found one of those sources yourself, look at you.... learning how to use Google, how special.

Of course, that source says "There is a standard definition, some people don't like it." Doesn't really back up your assinine statement that there "is no standard definition" does it?

Regardless.... GDP has not declined, for a single quarter. Upward movement has slowed, but nothing has receded. Not in the broad economy. A slowing rate of growth is NOT the same thing as a weakening or a shrinking. It means you're getting stronger, bigger, better, just not as quickly.

[crb]

By definition a recession is a economic decline. For simplicity and coherency of research and scholarship people have made a distinction. That, in and of itself does not imply that that is the only quantifiable measure of a recession nor does it preclude the existence of a recession outside of that definition.

The majority of our economic terms are derived from past experiences that have been documented and then turned into scholarship. At one point we said that inflation was almost always coupled with a period of economic growth. That became the definition that that allowed people to deny that inflation was actually occuring in the 1970's despite a slowing economy.

You can make the point that some people associate a recession with certain criteria all you want. However, to suggest that the economy is not in a decline (read: recession) simply because it does not subscribe to a narrow definition of that word with academic implications is silly, if not down right disingenuous.
Our economy is not in a decline, because it hasn't declined, idiot.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

A small increase != a decline.

A decline in growth rate != an actual decline.

This isn't rocket science.

[Daniel]

Heh... you even found one of those sources yourself, look at you.... learning how to use Google, how special.

Of course, that source says "There is a standard definition, some people don't like it." Doesn't really back up your assinine statement that there "is no standard definition" does it?

Regardless.... GDP has not declined, for a single quarter. Upward movement has slowed, but nothing has receded. Not in the broad economy. A slowing rate of growth is NOT the same thing as a weakening or a shrinking. It means you're getting stronger, bigger, better, just not as quickly.

A very simplistic, and worthless analysis.

Growth is always relative.

[BriarFox]

McCain learned to use a computer last week. He's working on getting on the Internet and browsing websites.

He keeps getting interrupted by his naptime, though.

[Clove]

You can say the economy is getting weaker (by evidence of dimishing growth); you can even say that this fact is cause for concern and a reason to act. But it isn't a recession. It is slowing, not receding.

[Parkbandit]

Well, calling it a decline is correct i guess, as that doesn't have a fixed definition, whereas calling it a recession is not.

Bingo. An economic decline doesn't autmatically make it a recession as Daniel's Economic Theory leads us to believe. THAT is why there is a clear defintion of what a recession is.

[Clove]

In Daniel's defense, I think given the current conditions that it's safe to say that we're headed toward a recession. Our economic situation is bad enough to demand attention and a plan.

[Parkbandit]

It's more accurate to say we COULD be headed for a recession since no one can actually see into the future.

[Nieninque]

My, that is totally unbiased.

You can tell when something posted on this forums is biased - when it's in the politics folder.

[crb]

You can say the economy is getting weaker (by evidence of dimishing growth); you can even say that this fact is cause for concern and a reason to act. But it isn't a recession. It is slowing, not receding.
exactly, someone buy that man a cookie

[crb]

In Daniel's defense, I think given the current conditions that it's safe to say that we're headed toward a recession. Our economic situation is bad enough to demand attention and a plan.
Nah, most people, and by most people I mean the economists and other financial professionals on TV and interviewed in financial newspapers and magazines I read, think that the danger was the first and second quarter. Now that we're passed there, and now that we've seemingly turned the tide (oil dropping, banks actually reporting good earnings, housing stabilizing) people think the worst is behind us.

Even Reuters, that perpetual cheerleader of US policy, had an article today about it (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1845323420080721)

[Valthissa]

Nah, most people, and by most people I mean the economists and other financial professionals on TV and interviewed in financial newspapers and magazines I read, think that the danger was the first and second quarter. Now that we're passed there, and now that we've seemingly turned the tide (oil dropping, banks actually reporting good earnings, housing stabilizing) people think the worst is behind us.

Even Reuters, that perpetual cheerleader of US policy, had an article today about it (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1845323420080721)

I think it will be quite a testament to the resiliency of our economy if we avoid a recession in the next 12 months.

C/Valth

[Kembal]

We'll be heading into the "standard" economic definition of a recession pretty soon. The industry that I'm in is a leading indicator for housing starts, and our market has shrunk by probably 20%, if not more. (we produce stuff for water and sewer lines) No one expects our market to go back up until 2010.

[longshot]

We'll be heading into the "standard" economic definition of a recession pretty soon. The industry that I'm in is a leading indicator for housing starts, and our market has shrunk by probably 20%, if not more. (we produce stuff for water and sewer lines) No one expects our market to go back up until 2010.

There should be no quote marks. It's THE definition... not the "standard." This isn't necessarily directed at you, but it's important to clear up already.

Our economy can be weakening. Growth can be slowing. We can be sliding towards recession. We can be in an economic downturn. GDP can be expanding more slowly. GDP can have negative growth, but for only a single quarter.

All of these things are not a recession. That does not mean that they are good... but it does not qualify as a recession. Maybe some people believe that two consecutive quarters of growth are not necessarily a great indicator, and that there are other factors that should be looked at when describing the economy. However, this doesn't change the definition.

Japan's economy grew something like 1% a year for the 10 straight years. This is called "the lost decade." Was it a recession? No. They never had two consecutive quarters of retraction. Was this good? No. It sucked to have 1% growth a year.

And if we're going to try and discuss this stuff, inflation is not exactly a no brainer either. You can use CPI. You can use CPI without food and energy. You can use the GDP deflator, etc. CPI is the most common because it's readily understood, and not revised (like the GDP deflator). Taking out food and energy help lower volatility in the index. All measures of inflation are overstated. They also do not take into account the benefit of the increasing number of substitute goods/variety in purchasing.

The nominal interest rates set by the Fed, the Fed funds rate, is composed of two parts: the real interest rate, and expected inflation. The real interest rate is the rate that determines investment and consumption decisions. Inflation today is already known. The key is what's expected in the future.

It makes sense that given a constant nominal interest rate, when expected inflation is high, money will be worth less. The real interest rate declines, and people spend more. High real interest rates makes people spend less.

There's other stuff... output gaps, phillips curve, taylor rule... but I'm not sure this will be helping out so much.

[longshot]

I think it will be quite a testament to the resiliency of our economy if we avoid a recession in the next 12 months.

C/Valth

We can avoid it, but at the cost of how much inflation?

[crb]

a big chunk of the inflation right now is food and energy, which are related and tied together and a result of energy policy (too much or too little) coming out of washington, not monetary policy. So hopefully, we we can get those two little buggers under control, we'll take a big chunk of this inflation problem out.

[Kembal]

There should be no quote marks. It's THE definition... not the "standard." This isn't necessarily directed at you, but it's important to clear up already.

I put it in quote marks because while it is conventionally accepted as the standard, I think the job creation/job loss number that's released each month gives a better economic picture, and more timely as well. It certainly paints the picture as to what the average American is seeing.

[crb]

In that case, we still have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and they are still historically low for the country.

We just went through a very good period is all, so by comparison now looks troublesome. Really, the first 7 years of Bush were some of the best employment times ever.

[Clove]

Our economy can be weakening. Growth can be slowing. We can be sliding towards recession. We can be in an economic downturn. GDP can be expanding more slowly. GDP can have negative growth, but for only a single quarter.

All of these things are not a recession. That does not mean that they are good... but it does not qualify as a recession. Maybe some people believe that two consecutive quarters of growth are not necessarily a great indicator, and that there are other factors that should be looked at when describing the economy. However, this doesn't change the definition...QFT

[Clove]

Nah, most people, and by most people I mean the economists and other financial professionals on TV and interviewed in financial newspapers and magazines I read, think that the danger was the first and second quarter. Now that we're passed there, and now that we've seemingly turned the tide (oil dropping, banks actually reporting good earnings, housing stabilizing) people think the worst is behind us.

Even Reuters, that perpetual cheerleader of US policy, had an article today about it (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1845323420080721)Maybe so, but I won't be convinced until I see how things are at the end of the 3rd quarter. Oil hasn't been dropping long enough to predict anything (in my opinion) and it's a key factor especially going into heating season. I know more than one person who spent their "stimulus" check to fill their oil-tank.

[Apathy]

In that case, we still have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and they are still historically low for the country.


The unemployment rate is not historically low for our country.

[Parkbandit]

The unemployment rate is not historically low for our country.


Not the lowest ever, but pretty damn close in most states, especially if you take into account prior historical highs.

http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm

[Apathy]

Its certainly not sky-high, by any means, no.

The record low occurred at the beginning of the Bush era...also known as the end of the Clinton era. A series of unfortunate events (aka the Bush era) made the increase unavoidable. I'm sure your link supports this.

[crb]

Actually it was during the Bush era that we had the most consecutive months of job growth in this country's 200+ year history.

Do you just make shit up Apathy? Or is your ass a bullshit factory?

[Apathy]

Actually it was during the Bush era that we had the most consecutive months of job growth in this country's 200+ year history.

That's fucking fantastic! In case you forgot, we were talking about the record low unemployment that we are (not) currently in according to you.


Do you just make shit up Apathy? Or is your ass a bullshit factory?

You don't know everything. Quit being a dick.

[crb]

I said near record lows, and they are. The conversation is about recessions, compared to typical recession levels, our rates are low.

Oh... and I'm a dick for pointing out when you make shit up? Well, maybe, but rather a dick than a douche. As a dick, I do the fucking. As a douche, you swallow the leftovers. Mmm, how do they taste?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-2.html

[Apathy]

Oh... and I'm a dick for pointing out when you make shit up? Well, maybe, but rather a dick than a douche. As a dick, I do the fucking. As a douche, you swallow the leftovers. Mmm, how do they taste?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-2.html

Did you just say douche is taken orally?

Edit: Do you really consider 3 points above the record low, in an upward swing, to be historically low?

[Parkbandit]

Its certainly not sky-high, by any means, no.

The record low occurred at the beginning of the Bush era...also known as the end of the Clinton era. A series of unfortunate events (aka the Bush era) made the increase unavoidable. I'm sure your link supports this.

You should have actually looked at the link before saying that you are 'sure' it supports it. Since it doesn't.

Most of the lows were either well before that evil Bush got into office or well after the Great Bill Clinton left (post 2006).

While I realize it is more fun to just blame Bush for everything, this is just one of those things that the facts don't support your hype.

Sorry :(

[Gan]

Its certainly not sky-high, by any means, no.

The record low occurred at the beginning of the Bush era...also known as the end of the Clinton era. A series of unfortunate events (aka the Bush era) made the increase unavoidable. I'm sure your link supports this.

:facepalm:

[Clove]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2226807320080722?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[Clove]

http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/07/political-picture-soviet-california.jpg

[crb]

Citigroup, BoA, and Wells Fargo all had good results.

[Clove]

Wow. All the banks haven't failed yet.

[Faent]

Eh, I'll side with Daniel here. Parkbandit and CRB lose. That someone calls x the "standard definition of y" does not mean that x is a good definition of y, that x is a widely accepted definition of y, or that even that experts agree x is a semi-plausible attempt at defining y. Because of their ignorance, PB and CRB haven't even begun to produce anything remotely like evidence that economists think we have a recession whenever we have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. What they have provided evidence for, and what was never in dispute, is that people standardly talk about negative GDP growth when they think about recessions. But for people who get all their information from magazines and newspapers, these points may be too subtle. Try subscribing to an academic economics journal (Econometrica, American Economic Review, J. Econ. Theory, etc... - not the Economist) if you want to pretend to talk intelligently about definitions of economic concepts.

[Atlanteax]

Because of their ignorance, PB and CRB haven't even begun to produce anything remotely like evidence that economists think we have a recession whenever we have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

Uhhhh... a recession *is* commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

So until that happens, we have yet to enter a recession.

First we need *one* quarter of negative economic growth before we start fretting whether the current quarter is the 2nd in a row.

.

The media tends to play up the *appearance* of being in a recession... because, well... negative news SELLS.

[ClydeR]

Eh, I'll side with Daniel here. Parkbandit and CRB lose. That someone calls x the "standard definition of y" does not mean that x is a good definition of y, that x is a widely accepted definition of y, or that even that experts agree x is a semi-plausible attempt at defining y. Because of their ignorance, PB and CRB haven't even begun to produce anything remotely like evidence that economists think we have a recession whenever we have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. What they have provided evidence for, and what was never in dispute, is that people standardly talk about negative GDP growth when they think about recessions. But for people who get all their information from magazines and newspapers, these points may be too subtle. Try subscribing to an academic economics journal (Econometrica, American Economic Review, J. Econ. Theory, etc... - not the Economist) if you want to pretend to talk intelligently about definitions of economic concepts.

I already posted (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=766064&postcount=18) the most authoritative definition available anywhere on the planet.

[Clove]

I already posted (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=766064&postcount=18) the most authoritative definition available anywhere on the planet.I couldn't find "recession" anywhere in the Bible.

[longshot]

But for people who get all their information from magazines and newspapers, these points may be too subtle. Try subscribing to an academic economics journal (Econometrica, American Economic Review, J. Econ. Theory, etc... - not the Economist) if you want to pretend to talk intelligently about definitions of economic concepts.

Blow me.

[Daniel]

Uhhhh... a recession *is* commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.



Notice the word "economists" in there. You won't find many who are going to desperately cling to that definition.

[Fallen]

No. Just the people educated in the field.

[Daniel]

No. Just the people educated in the field.

Such as yourself?

[Clove]

Notice the word "economists" in there. You won't find many who are going to desperately cling to that definition.Sure you will. It's the widely held definition. It doesn't mean that because we aren't IN a recession that the economy is healthy. Some economists have recently challenged the widely held definition- but they are still in the minority.

[Daniel]

Sure you will. It's the widely held definition. It doesn't mean that because we aren't IN a recession that the economy is healthy. Some economists have recently challenged the widely held definition- but they are still in the minority.

If you say so.

[Fallen]

Such as yourself?

Such as the people who wrote, and support the definition you seem to be dead set on arguing against. These people were also likely taught said definition in economics 101. Let it go, man. In this one thing, at this one time, you mispoke. It isn't a tragedy.

[Daniel]

Such as the people who wrote, and support the definition you seem to be dead set on arguing against. These people were also likely taught said definition in economics 101. Let it go, man. In this one thing, at this one time, you mispoke. It isn't a tragedy.

You must not be reading what I'm saying.

I'm not arguing against the definition. I'm arguing that there are other, probably more valid, definitions of the word and that any economist worth his salt isn't going to blindly adhere to a simplistic definition when discussing economic markets

[Clove]

You must not be reading what I'm saying.

I'm not arguing against the definition. I'm arguing that there are other, probably more valid, definitions of the word and that any economist worth his salt isn't going to blindly adhere to a simplistic definition when discussing economic marketsYou got some more valid definitions? Let's hear 'em.

[Fallen]

But...why?

The economy, in housing and banking sectors, is doing extremely shitty. Isn't it enough to just say that is universally accepted?

What the hell was the original topic of this thread again? Looking back, it is actually an entire thread about the definition of recession. Fair enough.

[BriarFox]

But...why?

The economy, in housing and banking sectors, is doing extremely shitty. Isn't it enough to just say that is universally accepted?

What the hell was the original topic of this thread again? Looking back, it is actually an entire thread about the definition of recession. Fair enough.

Well, it was supposed to be about McCain's poor financial sense, but crb insisted on talking about recessions, which had nothing to do with the article I originally posted.

[Daniel]

You got some more valid definitions? Let's hear 'em.

Well, off the top of my head I'd probably go with Warren Buffet's definition of "If your financial situation is worse than it was six months ago, you're in a recession".

So, you can take the declining value of the dollar and the effects that has on trade, and purchasing power or you can take the value of the stock market and the declining revenues our of financial system.

Whatever works for you.

[Daniel]

But...why?

The economy, in housing and banking sectors, is doing extremely shitty. Isn't it enough to just say that is universally accepted?



You would think so yes. However, people use these definitons to belay criticisms and discussions of the real problems. "Oh, it's not so bad. We're not in a 'recession', so it's just a minor blip. Nothing to see here."

[Fallen]

There are some upsides in the current economic climate. Apparently, the sale of durable goods are up, and the manufacturing of single family homes are up. I just wish the thing would stabilize a bit more.

What do you people think will be the markers for when the housing and banking sectors will hit bottom, and begin to go back up? End of elections, or just some arbitrary period of time where the price on houses drops so low people can't help but buy them?

[Clove]

Well, off the top of my head I'd probably go with Warren Buffet's definition of "If your financial situation is worse than it was six months ago, you're in a recession".

So, you can take the declining value of the dollar and the effects that has on trade, and purchasing power or you can take the value of the stock market and the declining revenues our of financial system.

Whatever works for you.Oh my. You're right! That is MUCH more precise. Just for the record, Warren Buffet is NOT an economist. He's a very successful business man. Maybe we should nominate him for a Fed seat.

[Daniel]

I wasn't going for specificity but illustration. I'm about to go but find me somewhere that measures GDP in euros and let's see how the us is doing.

[Clove]

Let's review:

You must not be reading what I'm saying.

I'm not arguing against the definition. I'm arguing that there are other, probably more valid, definitions of the word and that any economist worth his salt isn't going to blindly adhere to a simplistic definition when discussing economic markets


You got some more valid definitions? Let's hear 'em.


Well, off the top of my head I'd probably go with Warren Buffet's definition of "If your financial situation is worse than it was six months ago, you're in a recession".

So, you can take the declining value of the dollar and the effects that has on trade, and purchasing power or you can take the value of the stock market and the declining revenues our of financial system.

Whatever works for you.A simplistic definition by an investor who doesn't hold an economics degree.

Thanx.

[Parkbandit]

Let it go, man. In this one thing, at this one time, you mispoke. It isn't a tragedy.


LOL

One thing..

One time...

Clearly you haven't read many of Daniel's posts. I have two of the best quotes ever in my sig.

One time.. that's fucking awesome.

[Clove]

LOL

One thing..

One time...

Clearly you haven't read many of Daniel's posts. I have two of the best quotes ever in my sig.

One time.. that's fucking awesome.STFU. You're not allowed to post here, until Ashliana goes away.

[Parkbandit]

Daniel's problem is: He would like to label the current economic downturn as a recession since it sounds scary... and he is desperately willing to cling to anything or anyone that claims it is.

Unfortunately for him, the actual term "recession" is already defined... as has been posted in this very thread at least 10 times.

Poor little bitch.

[Gan]

Blow me.
ditto


Notice the word "economists" in there. You won't find many who are going to desperately cling to that definition.
Thats how I would set a baseline definition for it. Since you have to start somwhere defineable on a national scale.

[Gan]

Daniel's problem is: He would like to label the current economic downturn as a recession since it sounds scary... and he is desperately willing to cling to anything or anyone that claims it is.
Because thats the best thing that can happen for Obama. Seriously - why would Daniel feel any other way?

[Clove]

Because thats the best thing that can happen for Obama. Seriously - why would Daniel feel any other way?I actually think that it's the best thing McCain can hope for, if he can demonstrate a decent plan for economic recovery given the unpopularity of US involvement in Iraq- a bad economy eclipses Iraq issues.

[BriarFox]

I actually think that it's the best thing McCain can hope for, if he can demonstrate a decent plan for economic recovery given the unpopularity of US involvement in Iraq- a bad economy eclipses Iraq issues.

Actually, even if McCain could use the economy as a distraction from his "stay the course and send in the cavalry" policy on the Iraq War, it still wouldn't turn out all that well for him. The banking and mortgage crisis, the rising costs of basic goods, and the astronomical national debt all give voters reasons to vote for anyone other than another version of Bush.

[Parkbandit]

After McCain said that he was pretty much ignorant on economic matters, I doubt he wants to go down the economic path. His strength will be on Iraq, especially since his idea of the surge seemed to work.. and Obama has banked the last 2 years that the war is lost in Iraq. Obama needs the economy to continue to tank and tie McCain with Bush on the economy.

[Clove]

Actually, even if McCain could use the economy as a distraction from his "stay the course and send in the cavalry" policy on the Iraq War, it still wouldn't turn out all that well for him. The banking and mortgage crisis, the rising costs of basic goods, and the astronomical national debt all give voters reasons to vote for anyone other than another version of Bush.Yes. It's a good thing McCain ISN'T another version of Bush. He's far more moderate than Bush. Yes they're both Republicans, but comparing Bush to McCain is like comparing Lieberman (technically independent) to Hillary. McCain and Obama have to convince undecideds and independents to win, both are moderate enough to do so, but sidelining Iraq is definitely a benefit for McCain.

[Keller]

[McCain's] strength will be on Iraq, especially since his idea of the surge seemed to work.


. . .

That's abot it.

[crb]

You would think so yes. However, people use these definitons to belay criticisms and discussions of the real problems. "Oh, it's not so bad. We're not in a 'recession', so it's just a minor blip. Nothing to see here."
...and the party out of power (or out of the presidency) does the exact opposite, overblowing the issue, using the politics of fear that fuck of a candidate you got always derides against, to make things seem worse than they are.

You have to be a raging hypocrite to not realize that it is in the interest of every Democrat, and all their media lapdogs, to overstate problems in the economy.

[BriarFox]

You have to be a raging hypocrite to not realize that it is in the interest of every Democrat, and all their media lapdogs, to overstate problems in the economy.

Don't even think of taking a moral high ground here - those are the politics of every non-governing party in every election.

Oh, and speaking of media lapdogs, remind me who owns that craptastic station called Fox again? And how he uses it and his empire of newspapers?

[crb]

Liberal douches love to say Fox is biased, but objective studies show that they aren't. They just seem biased because you're used to getting the extreme left bias from other places. NBC News is not a baseline to measure against. Why is it that FOX beats CNN And MSNBC in the ratings?

[Clove]

Liberal douches love to say Fox is biased, but objective studies show that they aren't. They just seem biased because you're used to getting the extreme left bias from other places. NBC News is not a baseline to measure against. Why is it that FOX beats CNN And MSNBC in the ratings?I dunno, I stopped watching FOX after Kiran Chetry left. Seriously. I just couldn't cope anymore and went to CNN...

http://0rg.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kiran_chetry03.jpg

I mean honestly. How could any respectable news agency let that go....

[Back]

Liberal douches love to say Fox is biased, but objective studies show that they aren't. They just seem biased because you're used to getting the extreme left bias from other places. NBC News is not a baseline to measure against. Why is it that FOX beats CNN And MSNBC in the ratings?

Because there are a lot more stupid folk than smarts?

[Parkbandit]

L2 host a pic loser.

Fox still has the hottest chicks.. except Robin Meade.

http://www.pocketsofsanity.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/18/robin_meade_0180_nl.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Because there are a lot more stupid folk than smarts?


You don't have to try and prove this with every post you make dipshit.

Isn't it time for another meltdown for you?

[Back]

You don't have to try and prove this with every post you make dipshit.

Isn't it time for another meltdown for you?

By meltdown do you mean the sycophantic ravings of a lunatic?

Thats a daily occurrence here.

[BriarFox]

Because there are a lot more stupid folk than smarts?

^. And because folk like hearing things that feed their prejudices.

[crb]

Courtney Reagan from CNBC == hot.

And Michele Caruso-Cabrera from CNBC == biggest knockers (http://img180.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=10456_michelle_caruso_cabrera_nipple s_122_472lo.JPG) on TV.

[Clove]

By meltdown do you mean the sycophantic ravings of a lunatic?

Thats a daily occurrence here.You're obsequious and retarded.

[Daniel]

...and the party out of power (or out of the presidency) does the exact opposite, overblowing the issue, using the politics of fear that fuck of a candidate you got always derides against, to make things seem worse than they are.

You have to be a raging hypocrite to not realize that it is in the interest of every Democrat, and all their media lapdogs, to overstate problems in the economy.

Lolz.

Okay. Major investment firms failing, banks losing money by the billions, all not a problem.

Obama possibly winning the election in November? WATCH THE FUCK OUT ECONOMY.

[Daniel]

ditto


Thats how I would set a baseline definition for it. Since you have to start somwhere defineable on a national scale.

Sure. I have no problems using that as a *baseline* definition. I do have a problem with it being used as the one and only true definition.


Because thats the best thing that can happen for Obama. Seriously - why would Daniel feel any other way?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I suggest you look into it.

I was on record on these boards for many months picking McCain over Obama, because of their Iraq policies that I feel very strongly about. This of course was before McCain started selling himself short and the right wing and their retarded anti-obama tactics.

[Daniel]

Let's review:
A simplistic definition by an investor who doesn't hold an economics degree.

Thanx.

Hey, if you want to argue that Warren Buffet is not qualified to talk about the economy more power to you.

Like I said, it was an illustrative example to show that there are more ways to define a recession.

[crb]

Everyone knows Warren Buffet has gotten demented in his old age, his brain is failing, obviously. Like his fuzy math with his income taxes "Oh my secretary pays more than I do."

First of all Warren, your secretary is paid a fuck ton more money than the average secretary. Second of all, she doesn't pay more than you, she pays a higher rate, because her massive wage is, in fact, a wage. Your income is all from investments, for which you pay a lower rate because A. you assume risk, and B. your investments provide business the needed capital to expand and hire more workers, thus growing the economy, so the lower rate is a carrot for you and everyone else to invest more.

Fucking Warren Buffet.

[Kembal]

Buffett's demented in his old age?

The man had the foresight to start a new bond insurance company right when the major two got their ratings slammed due to the subprime crisis, which made their insurance worth a lot less. He's gotta be raking in the cash from that fact alone, not to mention the rest of the Berkshire Hathaway companies.

You can disagree with him, sure. But calling him demented? Give me a break.

[Keller]

Everyone knows Warren Buffet has gotten demented in his old age, his brain is failing, obviously. Like his fuzy math with his income taxes "Oh my secretary pays more than I do."

First of all Warren, your secretary is paid a fuck ton more money than the average secretary. Second of all, she doesn't pay more than you, she pays a higher rate, because her massive wage is, in fact, a wage. Your income is all from investments, for which you pay a lower rate because A. you assume risk, and B. your investments provide business the needed capital to expand and hire more workers, thus growing the economy, so the lower rate is a carrot for you and everyone else to invest more.

Fucking Warren Buffet.

The low capgains rate is mostly a product of the criticism of the tax on corporate income.

Look at hedge fund managers, corporate officers, etc who all earn their "wages" through capital gains mechanisms. Sorry, but Warren's point is very valid.

In my opinion -- we need to completely redefine capital gains. Re-work the corporate tax scheme and then assess "investment income" or some other term than Capital Gains. Because right now, it's the single most complicating factor in tax and is the catalyst for massive inequality in the taxation of "wages".

[Stanley Burrell]

Buffett's demented in his old age?

The man had the foresight to start a new bond insurance company right when the major two got their ratings slammed due to the subprime crisis, which made their insurance worth a lot less. He's gotta be raking in the cash from that fact alone, not to mention the rest of the Berkshire Hathaway companies.

You can disagree with him, sure. But calling him demented? Give me a break.

Wealthy individuals with dementia isn't exactly a phenomenon these days.

[Gan]

I was on record on these boards for many months picking McCain over Obama, because of their Iraq policies that I feel very strongly about. This of course was before McCain started selling himself short and the right wing and their retarded anti-obama tactics.

Thats like saying you were on record for McCain until it rained. Since when has a politician NOT sold himself/herself short in an election year and since when would the right wing ever NOT get retarded with election year tactics?

Spare us the feigned neutrality. You were Obama's boy from the start of the legitimate possibility of the Obama campaign, just admit it so you can be honest with yourself at least.

[crb]

the demented thing was sarcasm.



Look at hedge fund managers, corporate officers, etc who all earn their "wages" through capital gains mechanisms. Sorry, but Warren's point is very valid.

A loophole a few achieve does not justify Obama's desire to near double the capgain tax.

Capital Gains is a tax on business investment, which is a proxy for business expansion and job creation. Taxing those activities is fucking stupid.

The goal of tax policy is not to be "fair" but to encourage economic growth. Liberals would sacrifice growth in favor of redistribution and marxist concepts of fairness.

[Daniel]

Thats like saying you were on record for McCain until it rained. Since when has a politician NOT sold himself/herself short in an election year and since when would the right wing ever NOT get retarded with election year tactics?

Spare us the feigned neutrality. You were Obama's boy from the start of the legitimate possibility of the Obama campaign, just admit it so you can be honest with yourself at least.

lol. It's a good point. I doubt I would have voted Republican, if at all, for those very reasons. However, if I was going to vote for any republican it would be John McCain. I respect the man immensely and faith of my fathers is probably top 5 in my favorite books (as a contrast, I've yet to read any of Obama's books).

[Keller]

the demented thing was sarcasm.



A loophole a few achieve does not justify Obama's desire to near double the capgain tax.

Capital Gains is a tax on business investment, which is a proxy for business expansion and job creation. Taxing those activities is fucking stupid.

The goal of tax policy is not to be "fair" but to encourage economic growth. Liberals would sacrifice growth in favor of redistribution and marxist concepts of fairness.

But those loopholes were what Buffet was talking about.

And I totally support consolidating the corporate tax and reforming capital gains. But most conservatives want their cake, a tall glass of whole milk, a half of a pie, and the tears of the proletariate to wash it all down.

Make it a compromise bill whereby carried interests and incentive stock options are taxed as income. Then we can work to provide balanced and efficient incentives for investments.

[crb]

You sure that is what buffet was talking about?

I mean, he kept getting quoted everywhere with the one liner of "I pay less taxes (rate) than my secretary does." It seems to be bitching about the fact that capital gains is taxed at a lower rate that regular income, which is a typical liberal position, it undermines their notion of fairness.

[Keller]

You sure that is what buffet was talking about?

I mean, he kept getting quoted everywhere with the one liner of "I pay less taxes (rate) than my secretary does." It seems to be bitching about the fact that capital gains is taxed at a lower rate that regular income, which is a typical liberal position, it undermines their notion of fairness.

Yes. Last summer was the summer of exposing and attempting to regulate the compensation structure of private equity. That was when the statement was made.
As I've said on other occasions I've got a personal view and a professional view. Right now the group I work for is making a fortune on the ability to creatively use the partnership (llc) structure to transform what used to be wages into capital gains. In the last 12 months since I started working for them we've added 5 new members, excluding me, to a group of 19. And we'reacrively recruiting more because we have to turn down work.

[Keller]

You sure that is what buffet was talking about?

I mean, he kept getting quoted everywhere with the one liner of "I pay less taxes (rate) than my secretary does." It seems to be bitching about the fact that capital gains is taxed at a lower rate that regular income, which is a typical liberal position, it undermines their notion of fairness.

Also, it's worth noting that the typical liberal as well as the typical conservative doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

I was talking to my dad the other day. He was giving me this shpiel about Obamania. I asked him what he meant and he went on to tell me how many people around Indianapolis support Obama without much of a rational justification. But how is that different than Bush, especially in 2000? 2004 -- I'll give you that the incumbant executive in war-time is a rational justification. Merit aside -- at least it's rational. But to me, a liberal supporting Obama because he is for the nebulous "change" is the same as a conservative supporting Bush because he was a "compassionate conservative." Campaigns create labels for candidates to encourage mindless justifications for support. It's just that this time (as with every other election in my brief policial awareness) the right has been much more effective at propping up their own positions and making the other's look foolish.

[Keller]

The graphs contained in this thread have no link. Did you post them in another thread I should be aware of?