PDA

View Full Version : If the regime told us the truth ...



LWW
09-21-2011, 03:42 AM
They would be telling us that, if we measured inflation by the same formula used in the Carter era ... we have an inflation rate currently almost 12%.

There are folks, and sadly they are legion, who will argue that since the regime has changed the formula to reflect a much lower number ... well they would perfer to be spoon fed the myth that we have almost no actual inflation today.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CPI on the Alternate Data Series tab here reflects the CPI as if it were calculated using the methodologies in place in 1980. In general terms, methodological shifts in government reporting have depressed reported inflation, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts)

The Carter malaise has become the new normal.

Soflasnapper
09-21-2011, 11:07 AM
But it was not this regime who changed how the numbers were calculated.

You have almost stumbled upon what this really means, although you don't realize it.

The REAGAN ADMINISTRATION decided that many measures of government statistics were inaccurate, and they made these changes, which applied to their numbers. If that was so, the Carter numbers were just WRONG (as in, inaccurately too high), but that conclusion has not gotten through to most people.

Some 'inaccuracies' were not actually inaccurate, but changing them led to better numbers. For instance, the civilian unemployment rate was always measured without including the military. Under Reagan, they put those servicemen into the civilian workforce UE number. Generally if you're in the service, you are employed, so this change put in some 3 million 100% employed persons to shade the UE number down some.

But if you use Carter years' standards, the UE is higher. Which should we use?

LWW
09-21-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But it was not this regime who changed how the numbers were calculated.

You have almost stumbled upon what this really means, although you don't realize it.

The REAGAN ADMINISTRATION decided that many measures of government statistics were inaccurate ...</div></div>

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Yes, I do know who was POTUS in the 1980's ... and, no, I didn't mention the Obama regime for changing the calc.

Now, back to the arrogance part, the last time I brought this stat up you argued that I was using a crazy source using ridiculous calcs that didn't have any bearing on reality.

Wake up dude ... you have been getting punked by the state for tears.

The sad part is that you seem to love it.

Soflasnapper
09-21-2011, 01:31 PM
The question is why the measures were changed, and whether that was a sound decision on the merits. Which you haven't begun to discuss.

Then we might explore how worse things were under Reagan than is said, since these same changes newly applied to national statistics began under his years in office. Equally, the question arises how much worse things "really were" under Pappa Bush and Jr. Bush, if we use the older definitions.

As you have no interest or at least have not discussed any of the above, it's clear your interests are less than objective truth or reality, and more on the lines of Obama derangement syndrome. QED.

nAz
09-21-2011, 02:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama derangement syndrome. QED. </div></div>

lol Thats good can i use it sometime?

LWW
09-22-2011, 02:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question is why the measures were changed, and whether that was a sound decision on the merits. Which you haven't begun to discuss.</div></div>

That isn't the point at all.

The point(s) are that:

- The state lies to us.

- Some of us question them.

- Some of us question only one of the two parties.

- Some never question at all.

Now ... to bring it to Obama and the current regime, this truly is the worst economy since the great depression, and the misery index is at Carter era levels.

Those are the actual facts.

OTOH ... the dembots will have us believe the Carter era wasn't too bad, the Clinton era was nirvana, the Reagan era was the apocalypse, and the Obama era is far better than either of the Reagan/Bush/Bush eras.

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama derangement syndrome. QED. </div></div>

lol Thats good can i use it sometime?

</div></div>

I didn't invent it. Others have borrowed it from the so-called Bush Derangement Syndrome, where it was said that anyone angry at Bush could only be in that state of mind because they were mentally ill, as surely there was no objective reason to be mad at him. How true! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

So, if I have seen further than others, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants before me.

Soflasnapper
09-22-2011, 06:01 PM
Now ... to bring it to Obama and the current regime, this truly is the worst economy since the great depression, and the misery index is at Carter era levels.

It's a pretty bad economy, however much it does or does not exceed all other eras between now and the GD.

Apparently it cannot be the VERY worst in the meantime, if it is only around the misery index of the Carter era, which while bad in terms of inflation, saw only the briefest of recessions possible (the two quarter down gdp standard, then returning to real growth in gdp).

The low 9%s UE we see were worse, after all, during Reagan's time, and by UE, I mean the SAME UE then as now (U-2).

LWW
09-23-2011, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a pretty bad economy, however much it does or does not exceed all other eras between now and the GD.</div></div>

Let's review ... since WWI we have had 46 months of 10%+ UE. 26 were under the Obama regime. We have had 69 months of 8%+ UE ... 31 under the Obama regime.

All 31 of them were in a row.

So tell me oh great dear leader apologist ... when did we have a stretch worse than this, since the GD?

OH DEAR! (http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp)

Qtec
09-23-2011, 06:35 AM
LWW.."Bush ran the 100M in 25 secs. Obama took 3 minutes! Therefore Bush is quicker."

Q.".. but LWW, Bush was running downhill and Obama was running uphill!"

LWW.."So?"

Q

Soflasnapper
09-23-2011, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a pretty bad economy, however much it does or does not exceed all other eras between now and the GD.</div></div>

Let's review ... since WWI we have had 46 months of 10%+ UE. 26 were under the Obama regime. We have had 69 months of 8%+ UE ... 31 under the Obama regime.

All 31 of them were in a row.

So tell me oh great dear leader apologist ... when did we have a stretch worse than this, since the GD?

OH DEAR! (http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp)
</div></div>

Psst! LWW! Over here! Quiet, now-- listen up!

If you want to be seen as a little smarter than Perry, you have to get your facts in better order.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>YOUR LINK shows UE over 10% just ONE MONTH for Obama, and TEN MONTHS for Reagan</span> (peaking at 10.8% for one month says here; I recall a week or more over 11% as well, if not for the entire month! Which I remember as true, using the standard U2 measure of UE.)

LWW
09-23-2011, 03:53 PM
What is your point, other than to see if you can peg the needle on the stupid meter as hard as charlotte did?

Yes, for a brief time UE was higher under Reagan. Then it quickly rebounded. Why?

The Reagan policy was for the economy to to take it's medicine and be healed.

The Obama policy is to use leeches on the patient until it bleeds out ... while denying the patient is even ill.

The terrifying thing is that the damage from Obama's stupidonomics must still be flushed from the system eventually before the economy can heal. That will be an ugly process ... and each day makes it worse.

The dollar ... crushed.

The market ... teetering.

UE ... out if sight.

Inflation ... bad and getting worse.

I could go on ... but you have proven yourself incapable of getting it.

Soflasnapper
09-23-2011, 05:23 PM
since WWI we have had 46 months of 10%+ UE. 26 were under the Obama regime.

Since 1 doesn't equal 26, what was YOUR point in putting forth such false information?

Since Reagan's TEN such months over 10% are greater than Obama's ONE such month, what was your point in citing Obama's supposed high number of months over 10% UE?

You make these errors, I call them out, and now **I** am pegging the stupid meter, according to you???

For a BRIEF time (19 months??) Reagan saw UE over 9%? Right, starting from a RECOVERY in the economy when he took office. His recovery came once the Fed began reducing its jacked up high rates after he signed some tax increases.

Obama faced such a freefalling gdp at a -8+% 4Q08 as has rarely been seen, in an environment of already very low interest rates, nowhere to lower them from, and not the cause of the recession.

Economists have looked at the aftermath of 'regular' recessions (which the Fed causes by interest rate increases), compared to the aftermath of financial meltdowns.

The latter take 5-6 years to unwind. The former quickly recover.

This is not a mysterious contrast.