It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economy Sinking Government Knows & Giving Bad Info

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


As I said previously, unemployment goes down in November and up in December, every year due to retail hirings. I worked retail for 5 years in high school and college. We hired a ton of people in November and fired basically all of them on December 28th or so.

The media knows this. This is why they say that there was only a "net" gain. The media also knows when the adjusted numbers come out that unemployment will be a bit higher (since it will count the last two days of the month or so then), and the media will then go into another frenzy. This is because the media loves sensationalism. But this happens every year.

It is completely possible to see a depression coming. It was seen by economists before the great depression. We see recessions coming. It doesn't just happen out of no where. There is no evidence that we are anywhere close to a depression, and the most cynical economists predict (last time I saw) a 45% of recession in the next year. That's probably a bit low in my opinion, but in any case, its not a depression - its a recession.

And I have no idea what your talking about with Bush proposing some sort of stimulus. The president cannot magically "stimulate" the economy, he can propose that congress raise or lower taxes. Bush doesn't know anything the informed investor doesn't know. He knows and everyone else knows a recession has been predicted since 2005.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


The story is here...
ap.google.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


This is Bush being a good little politician. He knows the media loves to act like we're all going to die because the economy is going to fall every other year (literally), and it is prudent of him to play along. Failure to do so would result in media attention that he doesn't "care about the economy" - even if he knows that such a package isn't needed. It's politics at its best.

The article says he isn't saying there will be a plan, just that he is exploring the option. A smart media thing to say. Claiming that we don't need one or that one must be put in place immediately would signal a media feeding frenzy.

The media loves to cause panic and stir up emotions - it boosts the ratings. It is what the media does. It isn't about news or even the truth - just whatever it takes to get ratings, and getting ratings means evoking powerful emotions like fear. No one will watch the news if everyone says "all signs indicate a mild recession," but people watch when they proclaim economic disaster.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


So let me get this straight. You're arguing that the government doesn't give bad information because the President is only employing media spin? Would you agree that the President is indeed part of the government? Are you then arguing that "spin" is good information?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I have never said the government doesn't give bad information. Nice try though. I have said that government statistical data is not/never has been/never will be intentionally misleading. Politicians certainly spin, and the executive branch is no different.

If you do not understand the difference between presidential spin and BLS data tables...well, this is political science 101.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I suggest that you read the title of this thread to better understand the topic being discussed here. Futhermore, if the President is willing to lie to us publicly and repeatedly, it is no stretch of the imagination that he and his power base can influence figures that are published and how they are presented to the public. It is not diffucult to manipulate figures and data to support your own agenda, as I am sure you are fully aware given your impressive eduacational achievement level.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I suggest you take a political science class or three to better understand what you type. Furthermore, every President has and always will spin thanks to the media always looking for a story. It is in fact a huge stretch of the imagination (but I know that's all you've got) to extend the spinning of POLITICAL APPOINTEES to a MERIT BASED BUREAUCRACY where the employees are not under the direction of political spinmeisters.

Of course it is incredibly hard to manipulate the particular type of quantitative data released by the BLS. I would also recommend a research methodology course for you.

You still have not told me why the BLS data does not show that everything is full steam ahead and green pastures, since its all lies by the government. Why is it the numbers point toward a recession if the government is faking it? Why not fake good numbers? Thinking is fundamental.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


You have chosen to ignore the BLS data that I have provided.



I suggest you take a political science class or three to better understand what you type.


Your presumptions as to my educational experiences further highlight your own ignorance and inability to argue the topic at hand being discussed here.



It is in fact a huge stretch of the imagination (but I know that's all you've got)...


Oh, thank you, more irrelevant personal insults which legitimize my position on the topic.

It seems Lightindarkness is trying to blind us once again by derailing yet another discussion.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You have provided no BLS data. Nice try. Any data you have provided has been previously debunked. And you will know when I insult you. I make no presumptions about you, I just analyze the logic you present. Now, stop trying to reflect your tactics on me.

Still waiting for you tell me how IS IT that all data points toward a mild recession, yet it must all be LIES - why would the government not at least make it good lies? It seems jackinthebox is trying to stuff reality back in the box, yet again...



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




You have provided no BLS data. Nice try. Any data you have provided has been previously debunked.


Well, if I provided no data, then how was it debunked?



I suggest you take a political science class or three to better understand what you type.



It is in fact a huge stretch of the imagination (but I know that's all you've got)...



I make no presumptions about you, I just analyze the logic you present.


An outright lie. Yes sir, you have proved yourself to be a liar. You presumed to know what classes I have or have not taken, and then deny that you have done this. You presume that I bring only imaginative falsehoods, and then claim to be analyzing my logic. Complete and utter bunk.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Keep up the lying jack. It shows you've got no data. Where is that data showing a causation correlation between crime and poverty? I'm still waiting on that one. Remember, I am being generous with you and will let an adjusted R squared of 0.70 be causation, when normally it would have to be 0.90!

But you'd much rather ramble and insult me, right? Rather than provide data?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I will no longer carry on a pointless and petty argument with fellow member Lightindarkness. However, if anyone else would like to see previously discussed data, please feel free to request it.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Ah yes, more diversion because you have no data. I'm waiting. You let me know when you have it. We'll need to see that adjusted R squared at 0.70 or above. You let me know when you find it, I'll alert academia that you've found something that contradicts all the other evidence that shows no strong causation correlation between poverty and income.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Keep waiting.

I will gladly answer questions that are pertinent to this discussion from reasonable and honest members. Furthermore, I will provide whatever data I have researched to said members.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I will gladly answer questions that are pertinent to this discussion from reasonable and honest members. Furthermore, I will provide whatever data I have researched to said members.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

It is very frustrating to readers when a topic goes off track.
Please return to the topic and keep off-topic remarks for u2us.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


So back on topic Jack, where is that data that shows crime and poverty correlate? But wait..all government data is lies. Hmm. This is probably most distressing for you. I understand.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


I believe we are discussing the topic of government information here. I covered the realtion between crime in poverty in another thread, as you well know.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


So, where is your information that all government data is lies? Or that the economy is tanking...but remember, you can't use government data because its all lies.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]




top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join