U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,129 posts, read 1,187,741 times
Reputation: 1243

Advertisements

There is likely some truth to that "mattress stuffing". Housing/Apartment development has ALOT on the books....it just takes so long to get through all the red tape these days. People have been seeing houses and car prices rise significantly and anyone with brains doesn't "buy while prices are high". More people are aware of another potential bubble after 2007/2008. As more units finally come online, house prices will fall and that's a good thing.
Furthermore there is a slowdown and short term pain in going through rehab from the usual way of handling, shipping, and selling all of our imported crap.....shipping, trucking, retail, a lot of things are going to be changing IF we stay on the path to better balancing our trade and increasing our domestic manufacturing base. That brings up the final question, next years election, and corporations holding up on their decisions "should be re-open three more plants in USA, or prepare to move our HQ and plants back offshore if the Dems win and abolish tariff's...reinstate higher corporate taxes? Better wait and see what happens, sit on the money."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:25 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,422 posts, read 16,976,967 times
Reputation: 8934
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Obama is the foundation for that economy.
LOL! No he isn't! How is he "the foundation for the economy?"
The Obama economy sucked! Even Obama said, "1% GDP was the new normal."

When Trump said he would bring manufacturing back to the U.S., Obama said,
“Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it."

"He just says, 'Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.' Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
This is the longest economic recovery ever -- 10 years -- Trump has been in for 25% of that time.
This is just laughable. The "longest economic recovery ever," was the Reagan through Bush. Some include the Clinton years.

New York Times, January 17, 1990:
"We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time."

"When you add up the record of the Reagan years, and the first year of President Bush - during which he has faithfully continued Mr. Reagan's economic policies - the conclusion is clear, inescapable and stunning. We have just witnessed America's Great Expansion."

Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
And let's be clear -- if a Democrat is chosen for President next year -- if things continue as is - -he (or she?) will be fortunate to inherit a good economy.

Obama inherited a horrible economy.

Just saying.
Actually, the Bush economy was very good until the mortgage crisis, which some had been predicting for may years. That was caused by forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The result was inevitable.

But the Obama "recovery" was nothing compared to what we are experiencing now, and he had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. It was because of Trump's policies, which he had promised, and the Democrats had bashed as being "for the rich" (and still are). The Obama years were sluggish at best. On the basis of expectations, the economy began to turn around after Trump's election. This has been shown graphically, and after the passage of his tax cuts, the economy began to boom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
10,158 posts, read 3,098,774 times
Reputation: 7745
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
This is just laughable. The "longest economic recovery ever," was the Reagan through Bush. Some include the Clinton years.

New York Times, January 17, 1990:
"We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time."

"When you add up the record of the Reagan years, and the first year of President Bush - during which he has faithfully continued Mr. Reagan's economic policies - the conclusion is clear, inescapable and stunning. We have just witnessed America's Great Expansion."
Uh, no it wasn't. You're quoting something from 1990? In case you didn't know, 29 years have elapsed since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Current expansion is 121 months, so far
1990's expansion was 120 months
1960's was 106 months
Reagan-Bush was 92 months.

Not even close to being the longest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
31,124 posts, read 20,507,086 times
Reputation: 8681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
No, it is not. There are tens of millions of Americans out of jobs. Labor Force Participation Rate is still very bad.

We had 4% unemployment under Clinton, and kept adding 300-400K jobs per month.
You had 4% (or less) under Clinton for thirteen months (Dec 1999-Dec 2000).

Job gains averaged 172K per month during this period.

Not bad!

So far, we have had 4% (or less) for seventeen months under Trump (Mar 2018 to present).

During this seventeen month period, job growth has averaged 196K per month, and Trump added these jobs with even lower unemployment.

In fact, during the last four months, unemployment has been 3.6-3.7% and even with that, job growth averaged 159k per month.


The only month in which Clinton had UE at or below 4% and added 300-400K jobs, as you claim, was Dec 1999.

In that month, UE was 4.0% and jobs increased by 307K.

It was a one time deal and barely qualifies for your braggadocios claim.

There was no "kept adding" anything under Clinton.


This is a slam-dunk for Trump!


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0..._view=net_1mth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:53 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,422 posts, read 16,976,967 times
Reputation: 8934
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Uh, no it wasn't. You're quoting something from 1990? In case you didn't know, 29 years have elapsed since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Current expansion is 121 months, so far
1990's expansion was 120 months
1960's was 106 months
Reagan-Bush was 92 months.

Not even close to being the longest.
Well, it's simply a lie that the current expansion began in 2009. It didn't. What we're experiencing now began with President Trump. Obama didn't do anything to contribute to, let alone cause, the current economic boom. Obama never achieved even 3% GDP. And Markets began to soar, AFTER President Trump took office, and continue to break records.

It's only the die hard Obama sycophants (and Obama himself) that like to claim he had something to do with the current economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he had anything to do with it, why wasn't the economy booming in his last year, or even his last two years? He was in office for 8 long years, and the economy was basically stagnant the entire time.

But you will believe what you want, and so will the other Obama lovers. Obama was your god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
10,158 posts, read 3,098,774 times
Reputation: 7745
Did you not read the link I provided? It says:

June 2009–Ongoing

It bothers you that the expansion began under Obama, so you decide to devise your own definition of it. Talk about ODS!

In addition I already provided the following link. The entity that dates the beginnings and ends of recessions stated back in September 2010 that the recession ended June 2009.

Recession ended in June 2009: NBER
Quote:
The recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the National Bureau of Economic Research said on Monday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Obama never achieved even 3% GDP.
Neither has Trump!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
597 posts, read 82,510 times
Reputation: 253
a lot of posters are trying to hijack this thread

back on topic: 160k job additions in the context of under 4% unemployment is indeed, great news.
More people employed now than in our history is also good news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Florida/Tennessee
3,309 posts, read 4,515,400 times
Reputation: 1912
Remember good news for the country is bad news for dems. Let that sink in a bit and think about Baltimore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,499 posts, read 14,586,322 times
Reputation: 16731
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
As usual, Mircea has to mislead by citing unadjusted numbers when everyone else is talking about the seasonally adjusted numbers.
The unadjusted data is the true and correct data.

The seasonally adjusted numbers are distortions of the true and correct.

The true and correct unadjusted data is inserted into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program that you can download for free at the US Census Bureau website, which is something you've never done, so you don't even know how to use the program.

Extraneous weighting factors are added to adjust the data.

If seasonally adjusted data is so good, then why don't we use it for traffic accident fatalities?

Suppose the true and correct data for traffic fatalities in July 2019 was 1,923 deaths.

We enter 1,923 into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program then enter extraneous weighting factors like temperature, weather conditions and the number of birds in that tree over yon.

Then we come up with a seasonally adjusted number of 1,114 fatalities. Or maybe 1,656 fatalities or maybe even 2,271 fatalities.

If we wanted, we could skew the numbers using weighting factors so that only 500 people died.

Wouldn't that be great? Not as many people died as actually did die!


Is that making any sense?

Do you want seasonally adjusted traffic fatalities?

How about firearm fatalities?

If 2,487 people died by firearms in May 2019, we could just enter 2,487 into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program and add extraneous weighting factors like temperature, and whether it was sunny or rainy and the number of cars parked in front of 21 Baker Street.

Then we can say the number of seasonally adjusted firearm deaths was 1,989 or 2,661 or 2,113 or whatever.

If we shouldn't do it for traffic fatalities and firearm deaths, then why do it for employment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
And he/she always seems to forget to include January, when his/her unadjusted numbers ALWAYS take a big hit.
Which part of "1 : Data affected by changes in population controls" do you not understand?

The changes in population controls affects the data for Januray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
But since he/she likes to cite such things, here they are, from the BLS:

Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
# employed July 2018: 157,004,000
# employed July 2019: 158,385,000
-----------------------------------------
A paltry gain of 115K per month, on average

Your attempt at deception is noted:





The January data is changed to reflect changes in population controls, which is what makes for an apparent discrepancy, not an actual discrepancy.

Any person seeking Truth would take the changes in population controls into consideration, thus:


July 2018-December 2018 = -523,000 jobs
Jan 2019-July 2019 = 3,420,000 jobs

3,420,000 + (-523,000) = 2,897,000 jobs

2,897,000 / 13 = 222,846 jobs and not the 115K you claimed.

(July to July is 13 months)

You've been debunked.

Congratulations!
Attached Thumbnails
Payrolls Rise 164,000 as Labor Force Sets a Record High-employment-levels.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
10,158 posts, read 3,098,774 times
Reputation: 7745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The unadjusted data is the true and correct data.

The seasonally adjusted numbers are distortions of the true and correct.

The true and correct unadjusted data is inserted into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program that you can download for free at the US Census Bureau website, which is something you've never done, so you don't even know how to use the program.
You don't seem to be aware that these entire data sets - seasonally adjusted as well as unadjusted - are extrapolations based on sample surveys and are revised many times over many years. Saying that something that is based on sample surveys and continually adjusted over many years (and even decades) is "true and correct" is a gross exaggeration of reality.

Quote:
If seasonally adjusted data is so good, then why don't we use it for traffic accident fatalities?
Actually, yes that would be a perfectly legitimate use of seasonal adjustments if someone was interested in monthly patterns. Of course, over the course of a year seasonality is irrelevant and we don't need adjusted numbers for yearly totals.

Quote:
Which part of "1 : Data affected by changes in population controls" do you not understand?

The changes in population controls affects the data for Januray.
I was citing the PAYROLL numbers, not the household survey. The payroll numbers have nothing to do with population changes.

But the fact that you just noted that "population controls" affect the unadjusted household survey every January is just more evidence that you, yourself, are aware that what you are citing as the "true and correct" data is not really that. It is nothing more than another statistical adjustment, just like the seasonal ones you're ridiculing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top