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.
Ahh... but the press has influence on a very important aspect of the economy... consumer confidence. And if they are not careful with that influence, they can actually do damage. I think it is an important aspect to highlight.
To suggest that news moves markets instead of markets moving markets would imply that the US economy is just a confidence game or a house of cards. That's just unpatriotic.
Blowing sunshine up people's butt isn't going to work. Who cares what some pointy headed economist and white house press stooge say? The Fed thinks we are slipping into a recession, Warren Buffet thinks we are in a recession. The stock market thinks we are in a recession. GM just announce layoffs. Does that sound like economic good news to you?
These numbers are official government numbers and the Democratic congress has oversight. I don't know what the press stooges say, just what the headlines are.
All of this "thinking" and predictions came before the numbers were released today. The definition remains 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. In fact all of the predictions you cite magnify the surprise that the number came out positive and makes the news even better.
So I have proved the news is good and asked why you want to spin it negatively and instead of answering the question, you prove my point by repeatedly spinning it negatively and trying to change the subject.
So I will try again.... Why? I am starting to develop theories as to why, but they are not complimentary to you, so I prefer to let you answer the question.
geometric weighting and hedonic adjustments. Look 'em up.
For inflation, values tend to zero with geometric weighting and hedonic adjustments allow a man who eats filet mignon under a chandelier in a toasty 72 degrees one year to be unaffected by inflation when eating dog food, sitting in candlelight with a blanket the next year. He's still eating, keeping warm, and has room lightning, no?
Like unemployment, newer methodologies are constantly invented to remove or dampen the effects of those pesky outliers like food/energy and other necessities.
To suggest that news moves markets instead of markets moving markets would imply that the US economy is just a confidence game or a house of cards. That's just unpatriotic.
LOL...That is good
Your argument is that consumer confidence has no impact on the economy and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic. Orwellian Doublespeak Gibberish.
More like an excuse to lie about positive news to advance your own political goals without having to feel guilty about the notion that you might actually be harming our economy in the process.
I defer to your global warming argument. Even if it is simply possible that spinning good news negatively could hurt the economy, you should not do it.... Just in case.
Oh.... and the answer to the original question is.........
Your argument is that consumer confidence has no impact on the economy and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic. Orwellian Doublespeak Gibberish.
More like an excuse to lie about positive news to advance your own political goals without having to feel guilty about the notion that you might actually be harming our economy in the process.
I defer to your global warming argument. Even if it is simply possible that spinning good news negatively could hurt the economy, you should not do it.... Just in case.
Oh.... and the answer to the original question is.........
I don't have a global warming argument. Not a librul. But I'm also not a neo-con-munist either.
My advisor trashes the dollar everyday on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business. If he's having an effect on the economy all by his lonesome, I guess he's really influential.
The only reason why negative news effects our economy is that it IS a house of cards. If I don't do my part to help spread the word and re-align the malinvestments now, the tower of babel will crush everyone when it gets so high that the faintest wind will knock it down. I'm just doing my patriotic duty. Maybe you should try the same?
These numbers are official government numbers and the Democratic congress has oversight. I don't know what the press stooges say, just what the headlines are.
All of this "thinking" and predictions came before the numbers were released today. The definition remains 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. In fact all of the predictions you cite magnify the surprise that the number came out positive and makes the news even better.
So I have proved the news is good and asked why you want to spin it negatively and instead of answering the question, you prove my point by repeatedly spinning it negatively and trying to change the subject.
So I will try again.... Why? I am starting to develop theories as to why, but they are not complimentary to you, so I prefer to let you answer the question.
You characterize the news a "good" because the preliminary number shows a very low growth economy propped up by an increase in inventory levels. I would characterize a low growth economy as bad news. There is certainly no cause for celebration.
Maybe you thought passing a course in school was a sign of success. I aimed a bit higher than that. George Bush was certainly a 2.5 and survive sort of a guy his entire life.
geometric weighting and hedonic adjustments. Look 'em up.
For inflation, values tend to zero with geometric weighting and hedonic adjustments allow a man who eats filet mignon under a chandelier in a toasty 72 degrees one year to be unaffected by inflation when eating dog food, sitting in candlelight with a blanket the next year. He's still eating, keeping warm, and has room lightning, no?
Like unemployment, newer methodologies are constantly invented to remove or dampen the effects of those pesky outliers like food/energy and other necessities.
We are not talking about inflation, we are talking about GDP and how when good news comes out, people try to spin it negatively or change the subject (to something like inflation)
I will ask you the same thing I asked RL, Why are you so intent on taking this positive number and making it negative?
We are not talking about inflation, we are talking about GDP and how when good news comes out, people try to spin it negatively or change the subject (to something like inflation)
I will ask you the same thing I asked RL, Why are you so intent on taking this positive number and making it negative?
GDP is calculated from the CPI. If you knew economics, you'd understand that.
The economy actually contracted, but because the methodology for calculating CPI constantly changes to understate it (just like unemployment figures), GDP can appear to be positive.
Why do you insist with relying on the answer to the equation being consistent when the equation keeps changing?
These numbers are official government numbers and the Democratic congress has oversight. I don't know what the press stooges say, just what the headlines are.
All of this "thinking" and predictions came before the numbers were released today. The definition remains 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. In fact all of the predictions you cite magnify the surprise that the number came out positive and makes the news even better.
So I have proved the news is good and asked why you want to spin it negatively and instead of answering the question, you prove my point by repeatedly spinning it negatively and trying to change the subject.
So I will try again.... Why? I am starting to develop theories as to why, but they are not complimentary to you, so I prefer to let you answer the question.
Why? Because the media thrives on negativity and keeping the public anxious and nervous. The media is as far as I am concerned playing people against each other very well (see all the devisiveness between libs and conservatives). Economically, although I feel the nation is in bad shape for most, I am doing ok personally. The media has a nice bias toward Bush and will pretty much refuse to report anything that COULD be a positive. And I am not even a Bush supporter!
You characterize the news a "good" because the preliminary number shows a very low growth economy propped up by an increase in inventory levels. I would characterize a low growth economy as bad news. There is certainly no cause for celebration.
Once again, you are trying to spin it negatively. Low growth is not recessionary - and it is much better than all the experts of your previous post predicted. So the question remains.... Why would you "characterize a low growth economy as bad news." - especially in light that it is much better than predicted?
Quote:
Maybe you thought passing a course in school was a sign of success. I aimed a bit higher than that. George Bush was certainly a 2.5 and survive sort of a guy his entire life.
Do you really think changing the subject by getting personal will help you avoid the question? I will put my GPA, Goals, Education, or career against yours any time.
Once again - What possible reason do you have to take good economic news and spin it negatively?
I think I need to clipboard that because I have to ask it every time.
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.
