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.
Some people's mad desire to control others. Did this really need explained?
And here I thought it was to combat the consequences of capitalism..... Like most historians and political scientists think.... Go read a book bro, educate yourself.
It's cute you think capitalism doesn't control people.
There is no relationship between GDP and Wages. If GDP increases, there is no cause for Wages to rise. If GDP decreases, there is no cause for Wages to stagnate or decrease.
Why?
There is one and only one thing that affects Wages, and that is the Law of Supply & Demand as applied in a given Market for a specific Skill-set.
I don't know why that is so difficult for mental midgets to grasp.
If your Skill-set is Fast-Food, then how much competition do you have?
The entire US Labor Force of 155 Million?
No, wrong answer.
Your competition is only those people with your Skill-set in your Labor Market, which could be a small town of only 20,000 people of working age, or it could be 11 counties and a labor force of 6 Million, but since not everyone has the Fast-Food Skill-set, your real competition may only be 2 Million.
If you are a licensed profession, what is your competition? The entire US? No, wrong answer.
Your competition is limited to only other licensed professionals in the State or Commonwealth in which you are licensed.
You're a CNC lathe operator, and 10 Million illegal immigrants flood the US.
How does that affect your wages?
It doesn't, and won't, unless the illegals happen to be trained and qualified to operate CNC lathes.
Your CNC machine operator, and you work in the export market, then your competition is all other CNC operators globally.
Your claim that wages were stagnant in the 1970s is totally rejected and refuted.
Note that Nixon levied a Wage & Prize Freeze barring wage increases for a period of time, and then women started to enter the work-force, increasing the size of the labor pool, and therefore also increasing competition for many Skill-sets.
The Laws of Economics are just like the Laws of Physics.
There's no such thing as 100% efficiency.
Take the number of atoms in 1 kg of Pu239 and with 180 mEv of energy, it gives a yield of 17.0+ kilotons.
Now, how many kilograms of Pu239 is required for a yield of 1 kiloton?
4.5 kilograms.
What??
I was describing theory --- in theory if there was 100% efficiency, then every nucleus would fission within 6 nanoseconds.....except it's not a perfect world, and there's great inefficiency, so much so, that it actually takes 4x as much Pu238 to get a tiny 1 kt yield. That ineficiency is caused by natural drag....friction and energy loss -- for any number of reasons which aren't relevant here.
Economics is the same way.....you want 100% efficiency, but you cannot have that, because there are natural drags on the economy.....but you can live with that and work around it. What you cannot live with or work around is artificially induced drag created by government or non-governmental organizations.
Idiots have dumbed Keynes down to government spending saves the economy, even though Keynes never said anything like that.
What Keynes actually said is government spending --- when spent in sectors of the economy where Capital is being underutilized -- creates growth.
When government spends money in sectors of the economy in which Capital is being efficiently used, or if over-utilized, then money is wasted and drag is created.
The problem is government can never know which sectors of the economy where Capital is being underutilized. Even with modern data collection it might take 3 months to an entire to make the determination. Worse still, you upon making the determination, you then have to asses they "Why?" part.
So, Capital in the 8-Track Tape Player Sector of the economy is being underutilized, due to the fact that the sector is being dismantled and the Capital shifted to other economic sectors to be reabsorbed....and here comes government rushing in with a $200 Billion bail-out....total fail.
Why did Stimu-Lost fail?
I just told you why.
The government is dumping money into a sector of the economy where Capital was already being utilized, or in the case of Education, which is over-Capitalized, and grossly inefficient.
Which brings us to Obamacare.
Obama forced employers and employees and consumers of all classes to take Capital out of economic sectors where it was being used efficiently and stuck in a sector of the economy which is highly over-Capitalized and which is grotesquely inefficient.
That's why there will be a recession.
Recessions have nothing to do with consumer demand.....it's all about Capital use. Inefficient use of Capital always forces a recession, and it's worse when government artificially creates the inefficiency that leads to the forced shift of Capital.
Labor and other Capital in the US is being shifted where?
It's being shifted from inefficiency in the US to efficiency in emerging-States, developing-States and maturing 2nd World States.
As far as your Idiot Class....they destroyed themselves through their own greed and apathy....they worked very hard to earn this....
...don't deprive them of the rotten fruits they so richly deserve....
Mircea
Still waiting for that scholarly paper.... Dont want you to waste your vast intellect....
You've had two....count 'em....two.....one....two...consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The new method of calculating GDP artificially inflates the value of your GPD by 2%-4%, perhaps even as high as 5%, just as government policies artificially inflate the value of housing....which is still over-inflated by as much as 13%-15%.
So when your economy contracts 2% under the old method of GDP calculation, this new method artificially inflates that by 2%-4% falsely indicating 0% to 2% growth, when in reality, no GDP growth took place.
...
Mircea
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not even going to bother to reply the rest of your ranting nonsense, but the above section had me rolling in the aisles with all that coming from someone who doesn't even understand the difference between the GDP and the GDP GROWTH RATE.
The changes bump the GDP by 3%, NOT the GDP GROWTH RATE by 3%. Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!
The GDP is a dollar value - and IS bumped by 3%.
The GDP growth rate is a percentage - is largely unaffected by the change.
Here is my quote you were responding too:
"Regarding the "3% bump" you refer to - once again, that's going to have an insignificant affect on the monthly GDP change numbers. It will NOT bump those numbers by 3% (ie change a 3% GDP growth rate to a 6% GDP growth rate or a -1% to a 2%)."
Do you have reading comprehension problems or are you just too ignorant to know the difference between GDP and GDP growth rate?
Note that I specifically said "GDP growth rate" - NOT GDP. The GDP was bumped by 3%, the GDP growth rate was NOT.
The quarterly numbers that are reported every three months (and get widespread attention) are the GDP GROWTH rate. That growth rate is largely uneffected by this change, because all that GDP GROWTH RATE number shows is the CHANGE between 2 quarters and the 3% bump in the GDP afftects ALL QUARTERS so the GDP GROWTH RATE is essentially UNEFFECTED. If the GDP of Q1 is bumped by 3% and the GDP of Q2 is bumped by 3%, the quarterly GDP growth rate (the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2) is essentially UNAFFECTED.
Your claim that "So when your economy contracts 2% under the old method of GDP calculation, this new method artificially inflates that by 2%-4% falsely indicating 0% to 2% growth, when in reality, no GDP growth took place." is DEAD WRONG - that's WHY the 4th Quarter GDP didn't get adjusted down to a negative number even after the change.
You seem to be under the impression that by flooding us with verbage you somehow make yourself look smart. The problem is, the more you write, the more your ignorance shows. Learn the difference between GDP and GDP growth rate THEN maybe you can come back and lecture other people. If you don't understand the difference between GDP and GDP growth rate, you are clearly not in a position to lecture ANYONE on economics.
Geeze!
"The GDP growth rate measures how fast the economy is growing. It does this by comparing one quarter of the country's economic output (Gross Domestic Product) to the last...."
And here I thought it was to combat the consequences of capitalism..... Like most historians and political scientists think.... Go read a book bro, educate yourself.
It's cute you think capitalism doesn't control people.
We already are the government takes our money and trickles it down to almost everything . So the question is were we better off with private trickle down where we kept our own money , bought our own health care or are we better off giving it to the government and let them trickle down with what was left after bureaucracy costs. Choose your trickle down that you prefer
The changes bump the GDP by 3%, NOT the GDP GROWTH RATE by 3%. Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!
Wrong, Ken.
The changes do not increase GDP by 3%.
The changes increase GDP by 2% to 4% to possibly as much as 5%, depending on how the intangibles are calculated.
For the record, the lowest "bump" was 1.57% 1Q 2010 and the largest 3.89% 4Q 1970
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The GDP is a dollar value - and IS bumped by 3%.
Wrong, Ken. The GDP Dollar Value is not bumped by 3%.
Depending on how the intangibles are calculated, the GDP Dollar Value can be increased by 2% to 4%, possibly as high as 5%, with the average being 3%.
For the record, the lowest "bump" was 1.57% 1Q 2010 and the largest 3.89% 4Q 1970
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The quarterly numbers that are reported every three months (and get widespread attention) are the GDP GROWTH rate. That growth rate is largely uneffected by this change, because all that GDP GROWTH RATE number shows is the CHANGE between 2 quarters and the 3% bump in the GDP afftects ALL QUARTERS so the GDP GROWTH RATE is essentially UNEFFECTED. If the GDP of Q1 is bumped by 3% and the GDP of Q2 is bumped by 3%, the quarterly GDP growth rate (the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2) is essentially UNAFFECTED.
You're wrong. The GDP growth rate is affected, since GDP is artificially inflated by 2%-4%.
For the record, the lowest "bump" was 1.57% 1Q 2010 and the largest 3.89% 4Q 1970
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
You seem to be under the impression that by flooding us with verbage you somehow make yourself look smart. The problem is, the more you write, the more your ignorance shows. Learn the difference between GDP and GDP growth rate THEN maybe you can come back and lecture other people. If you don't understand the difference between GDP and GDP growth rate, you are clearly not in a position to lecture ANYONE on economics.
You're about to be lectured now and proven wrong.
Is there a particular reason you cannot use a US government website? Seriously, about.com? What a loser.
Your claim that "So when your economy contracts 2% under the old method of GDP calculation, this new method artificially inflates that by 2%-4% falsely indicating 0% to 2% growth, when in reality, no GDP growth took place." is DEAD WRONG - that's WHY the 4th Quarter GDP didn't get adjusted down to a negative number even after the change.
This is fun.....and I get to show everyone just how freaking wrong you are.
This is what everyone understands, except for Ken....
The % Growth between 3Q 2013 and 4Q 2013 is reported as +1.04%.
But, the method of calculating GDP inflates the GDP by 2%-4%.
GDP is calculated using the Old Method and then, the intangibles are added....which inflates the GDP...by 2% to 4%.
Let's assume using the best case scenario, that the GDP was artificially inflated by only 2.00%.
+2.00%
-1.04%
-------
-0.96%
Your economy did not grow....it contracted.
Suppose the GDP was artificially inflated by as much as 4%. Then:
+4.00%
-1.04%
-------
-3.96%
Let's take a different approach so people are not confused.
3Q 2013 = 16912.9
4Q 2013 = 16750.0 as calculated using the Old Methodology.
Is that not a contraction of -0.96%?
Yes, it is a contraction.
The new method artificially inflates the GDP by 2% to 4% --- as I've already shown.
So using the old method of calculating GDP, we come with 16750, then we add in our mystical magical intangibles and inflate that artificially by 2.03% to 17089.6.
So the claim is the economy grew by 1.04% 4Q 2013, when that is not necessarily true.
1Q 2008: 14328.4 = 0.26% under the old method
1Q 2008: 14672.9 = -0.12% under the new method
And I selected that intentionally to prove that fudging the numbers does not always give the government an advantage.....and in that case it obviously did not.
Again, for the record and for the Stupid, the new method of calculating GDP has artificially inflated the GDP for each quarter by 1.57% to as much as 3.89%.
For example, 1Q 1950 the old GDP is artificially inflated by 2.18%, but 2Q 2005, the old GDP number was artificially inflated by 3.67%.
So, in spite of the misleading info provided by Lord Fails-a-lot, it is not a flat 3%.
Only an idiot would not understand the meaning of "intangible".....
This is what everyone understands, except for Ken....
The % Growth between 3Q 2013 and 4Q 2013 is reported as +1.04%.
But, the method of calculating GDP inflates the GDP by 2%-4%.
GDP is calculated using the Old Method and then, the intangibles are added....which inflates the GDP...by 2% to 4%.
Let's assume using the best case scenario, that the GDP was artificially inflated by only 2.00%.
+2.00%
-1.04%
-------
-0.96%
Your economy did not grow....it contracted.
Suppose the GDP was artificially inflated by as much as 4%. Then:
+4.00%
-1.04%
-------
-3.96%
Let's take a different approach so people are not confused.
3Q 2013 = 16912.9
4Q 2013 = 16750.0 as calculated using the Old Methodology.
Is that not a contraction of -0.96%?
Yes, it is a contraction.
The new method artificially inflates the GDP by 2% to 4% --- as I've already shown.
So using the old method of calculating GDP, we come with 16750, then we add in our mystical magical intangibles and inflate that artificially by 2.03% to 17089.6.
So the claim is the economy grew by 1.04% 4Q 2013, when that is not necessarily true.
1Q 2008: 14328.4 = 0.26% under the old method
1Q 2008: 14672.9 = -0.12% under the new method
And I selected that intentionally to prove that fudging the numbers does not always give the government an advantage.....and in that case it obviously did not.
Again, for the record and for the Stupid, the new method of calculating GDP has artificially inflated the GDP for each quarter by 1.57% to as much as 3.89%.
For example, 1Q 1950 the old GDP is artificially inflated by 2.18%, but 2Q 2005, the old GDP number was artificially inflated by 3.67%.
So, in spite of the misleading info provided by Lord Fails-a-lot, it is not a flat 3%.
Only an idiot would not understand the meaning of "intangible".....
Mircea
First off the "3%" GDP bump is the AVERAGE bump over that period of time - that's WHY I used it. Some quarters WILL be more than other, but the AVERAGE is 3%.
Secondly even your OWN examples show that the GDP growth rate is NOT being bumped up by adding 3% to it. In the middle of your post you showed the following changes to the GDP growth rate:
Did the GDP growth rate change? Not significantly (which is EXACTLY what I said). There's almost no change to the GDP growth rate. In the REAL LIFE EXAMPLE that YOU posted, 1Q 2008 went from 0.26% to -0.12% - a REALLY SMALL change. Since the reported GDP is generally rounded to the nearest 1/10th of percent the GDP simply went from 0.3 to -0.1 (less than a half a percent change). Same is true for the real life bump in the 2Q 2008 numbers (when the GDP growth rate went from 1.00% to .98%. The actual change is TINY (wayyyyyyy less than even a single percentage point). In the 2Q 2008 example the change is .02 of a percent!!!!!!!
Later when you made up some examples, as shown below, you did something entirely different:
"The % Growth between 3Q 2013 and 4Q 2013 is reported as +1.04%.
But, the method of calculating GDP inflates the GDP by 2%-4%.
GDP is calculated using the Old Method and then, the intangibles are added....which inflates the GDP...by 2% to 4%.
Let's assume using the best case scenario, that the GDP was artificially inflated by only 2.00%.
+2.00%
-1.04%
-------
-0.96%"
In your example case above, you ADDED 2% to the old number. If that been whats going in the TRUE change that you listed above, that 1Q 2008 would have been changed from 0.26% to 2.26%.
Likewise, using the method you CLAIM the BLS is using, the 2Q 2008 number would have gone from .98% to 2.98%. Same thing is true for every single one of the real life quarterly changes you show. There's not a SINGLE instance where the increase is more than about 1/2 of a percent and most of the time it's around 1/10th a percent - and yet in your made up example you are added MULTIPLE FULL PERCENTAGE POINTS.
Once again, here's the REAL LIFE change you posted:
"The %Change in GDP Growth by Quarter:
O 1Q 2007: 13789.5 (from 4Q 2006) = 1.31%
O 2Q 2007: 14008.2 = 1.59%
O 3Q 2007: 14158.2 = 1.07%
O 4Q 2007: 14291.3 = 0.94%
N 1Q 2007: 14235.0 (from 4Q 2006) = 1.18%
N 2Q 2007: 14434.5 = 1.33%
N 3Q 2007: 14571.9 = 1.02%
N 4Q 2007: 14690.0 = 0.81%"
Look at the change between those numbers (old on top, new on bottom). Are ANY of them adding ANYWHERE NEAR 2% or 2% to the percent that they had previously? ANY OF THEM?
1Q went from 1.13% to 1.18%
2Q went from 1.59% to 1.33%
3Q went from to 1.07% to 1.02%
4Q went from to 0.94% 0.81%
So why the h*ll are you ADDING a FULL 2% to the old percentage number in the examples you made up. It's certainly not bumping the GDP growth rate in the REAL LIFE examples you gave. The real life GDP growth changes in real life are TINY (.05% in the 1st, .26% in the 2nd, .05% in the 3rd, and .13% in the 4th).
The raw dollars go up by 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5%, but GDP GROWTH RATE doesn't - NOT EVER. Not even CLOSE. The GDP growth rate goes up by a TINY fraction of that. TINY.
Again even YOUR OWN Post shows that.
1Q 2007 GDP went up by 3.23% but the GDP growth rate went up by just .05%
2Q 2007 GDP went up by 3.04% but the GDP growth rate went up by just .26%
3Q 2007 GDP went up by 2.92% but the GDP growth rate went up by just .05%
4Q 2007 GDP went up by 2.78% but the GDP growth rate went up by just .13%
The GDP rate went up around 3% but the GDP growth hardly changed (and that the data YOU just posted). And that happens EVERY SINGLE quarter. There's not a single quarter of any year where the GDP growth rate increase came anywhere NEAR the GDP increase - NOT ONE (so WHY are YOU bumping them by the same amount?).
Clearly your made up example is bullsh*t
That's because you have no clue what the BLS is actually doing and what the changes really MEAN.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-01-2014 at 02:03 PM..
This is the error of projecting uniquely human qualities onto something that isn’t human.
I suppose in your drug-induced hallucinations it might appear that Capitalism controls people, but that is hardly reality.
Capitalism is great, but without a Free Market, it's useless.
Maybe not....you'd actually prefer being price-gouged $55,000 for an appendectomy, in spite of the fact that with a Free Market it would only cost about $2,800.
And you'd rather be price-gouged $41,000 for an open-heart procedure that only costs $13,000.
That makes sense, right? Paying more money than necessary is always beneficial, right?
And why would you want to pay premiums for only 120 months on your catastrophic health/life plan?
Oh, how many times do I forget.......I just cannot dumb myself down to the level of the Stupid.
Stupid is paying premiums for 120 months, never paying another time, while being covered the rest of your life, and then getting back every penny you paid in as premiums, plus a few $100,000s more.
I can certainly see where the Liberal way of paying premiums for your entire life, maybe being covered, maybe not, and never getting a dime back that you paid is much, much better.
It's even better when you can drag millions of people to the curb with you.
First off the "3%" GDP bump is the AVERAGE bump over that period of time - that's WHY I used it. Some quarters WILL be more than other, but the AVERAGE is 3%.
Secondly even your OWN examples show that the GDP growth rate is NOT being bumped up by adding 3% to it. In the middle of your post you showed the following changes to the GDP growth rate:
Did the GDP growth rate change? Not significantly (which is EXACTLY what I said). There's almost no change to the GDP growth rate. In the REAL LIFE EXAMPLE that YOU posted, 1Q 2008 went from 0.26% to -0.12% - a REALLY SMALL change. Since the reported GDP is generally rounded to the nearest 1/10th of percent the GDP simply went from 0.3 to -0.1 (less than a half a percent change). Same is true for the real life bump in the 2Q 2008 numbers (when the GDP growth rate went from 1.00% to .98%. The actual change is TINY (wayyyyyyy less than even a single percentage point). In the 2Q 2008 example the change is .02 of a percent!!!!!!!
Later when you made up some examples, as shown below, you did something entirely different:
"The % Growth between 3Q 2013 and 4Q 2013 is reported as +1.04%.
But, the method of calculating GDP inflates the GDP by 2%-4%.
GDP is calculated using the Old Method and then, the intangibles are added....which inflates the GDP...by 2% to 4%.
Let's assume using the best case scenario, that the GDP was artificially inflated by only 2.00%.
+2.00%
-1.04%
-------
-0.96%"
In your example case above, you ADDED 2% to the old number. If that been whats going in the TRUE change that you listed above, that 1Q 2008 would have been changed from 0.26% to 2.26%.
Likewise, using the method you CLAIM the BLS is using, the 2Q 2008 number would have gone from .98% to 2.98%. Same thing is true for every single one of the real life quarterly changes you show. There's not a SINGLE instance where the increase is more than about 1/2 of a percent and most of the time it's around 1/10th a percent - and yet in your made up example you are added MULTIPLE FULL PERCENTAGE POINTS.
Clearly your made up example is bullsh*t
That's because you have no clue what the BLS is actually doing and what the changes really MEAN.
Ken
You should probably stop soon. You are embarrassing yourself.
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.
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.
