Dallas Fed Respondent Sums It Up: “Anyone Saying We’re Not In Recession Is Peddling Fiction”

a reply to: onequestion

You're closer to dumb and ignorant than I'll ever be. When you call me out on personal attacks, when it was you who attacked me first, that's duplicity. When you continually say I presented no facts and I did, you started to qualify and backtrack. My Ph.D has taught me a lot, a lot more about macroeconomics than you'll ever know. I'm done. For reals. Spread your nonsense with someone else.

I'm out *mic drop-style*

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Still waiting.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Cauliflower

Hmm, not sure, honestly. I think a lot of Bernanke and not much of Greenspan, so I'd prolly be bias. But, I do believe they are very comfortable with the underpinnings of the economy. If you look at aggregate demand, the signs of a continued recovery (and possibly a legit expansion) are there. The OP is nowhere near the truth and the US is the sole reason the economy in 2008 didn't turn into a global depression lasting 10 years or more. Your thought?

They covered a lot of ground in the panel discussion there was a lot there on the menu.
My selective memory pursued the comments concerning the lack of *real* investment by US companies.

There have been changes in our financial instruments since the inflation of the late 70's, and it is true that modern investors often end up feeding indexed Derivatives, ETF's and just the short term price fluctuations of traditional investment products. The huge quantitative easing implemented after 2008 has driven up the price of indexed products without creating a corresponding strength increase for the books of public companies that issue stock.

Bernanke stated "nothing happened" when Japan kicked the can down the road for 20 years with their low interest rate policies that resulted in Japanese national debt exceeding twice their GDP. Japan still has low inflation their industry and real estate are still in stagnation. Good rhetorical response by Bernanke to a thorny question. What were we expecting for the US another 1987?

So due to my selective reading of that panel discussion I'm currently under the illusion that the PTB may let US interest rates rise to the level Janet suggested would allow the government to successfully *sell* the US government debt rather than hold it like Japan is doing.

In the short term that would create a wider trading range for stocks.

Historically the US lengthy Bull markets have been aided greatly by that sort of cathartic process because it creates a solid floor that attracts new investor classes such as the millennials. Large groups feeding the system with steady reliable cash inflow for years has a proven positive effect on corporate reinvestment and infrastructure.

I'm having trouble understanding who in their right mind would buy the enormous US national debt unless it was priced favorably in relation to competing instruments such as stocks? Perhaps you could weigh in with a better interpretation of Bernanke's response?

a reply to: Cauliflower

Before I get to answering your Bernanke question I just wanted to say, "finally, someone on this board can tell me the difference in the FOMC and the FED!"

Very throurough and well-written response. Economics is boring, and someone here is willing to talk with me intelligently. Thanks.

Your Bernanke (he took the chairmanship my second semester in grad school) question and answer will follow, but I really appreciate the intelligent dialogue.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

It says nothing I'm addressing an idea and your talking about the author.

Who cares about credible sources where discussing information at this point please give me a break.

You're "addressing an idea" ... and for you opinion=idea.

Fine. I won't quibble with that rank generalization.

However, if you want to discuss an issue based on facts ... the source of the information is part of the verification of the truth .

Aside: Are you just trolling me on this issue? From your posts, I would think you can easily understand such a basic fundamental fact...

a reply to: Gryphon66
No, this guy isn't trolling you - he thinks he knows everything. Just take a look at what he's come at me with. He's just ignorant to facts. I wouldn't sweat it. I stopped responding to him. Best you should to.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
No, this guy isn't trolling you - he thinks he knows everything. Just take a look at what he's come at me with. He's just ignorant to facts. I wouldn't sweat it. I stopped responding to him. Best you should to.

Thanks for your advice, but like I've said to you, I've been around here a bit, and I have a different take on things.

I prefer to engage headon when possible rather than sniping passive-aggressively from the sidelines.

a reply to: xuenchen

The banking industry has to find a way to dump or erase some big percentage of the money they hand out so that they can keep on making and handing out more.

New socialist math.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: xuenchen

The banking industry has to find a way to dump or erase some big percentage of the money they hand out so that they can keep on making and handing out more.

New socialist math.

It might remotely qualify as "socialist math" if the government owned the banks ...

... as the situation in the US is the opposite, perhaps the term "oligarchy" would be a bit more apt to toss around.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The source of the information doesn't determine weather or not the information is correct or not it has nothing to do with it.

A bad source may present accurate information.

I'm honestly tired of kill the messenger perspectives either the economy is doing better or it's not and that's the point of the post.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
No, this guy isn't trolling you - he thinks he knows everything. Just take a look at what he's come at me with. He's just ignorant to facts. I wouldn't sweat it. I stopped responding to him. Best you should to.

I'm trying to find the "intelligence" you've been talking about in your last five or six posts but the only thing I see are personal attacks.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

The source of the information doesn't determine weather or not the information is correct or not it has nothing to do with it.

A bad source may present accurate information.

I'm honestly tired of kill the messenger perspectives either the economy is doing better or it's not and that's the point of the post.

Ah, not trolling then ...

If you reduce "source" as you seem to be doing, to the information dispensary (Wikipedia, a blog, or CNN) then, yes, you have a generally true statement on your hands that the source doesn't necessarily influence the factual nature of a statement. (Although you'd have to admit that some "sources" are more or less credible than others, I would think.)

However, in general the "source" of information is understood to be "the originator of the claim or statement."

In that case, obviously, the source is vitally and intricately related to the factual matter of the statement.

You can be irritated all day long that macro-economics is a complicated field of understanding and study that doesn't always reduce itself to "do I have more money on my paycheck or not?"

The irritation is understandable; the desire to reduce everything to emotion, opinion and/or simplistic statements is not.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Cauliflower

Before I get to answering your Bernanke question I just wanted to say, "finally, someone on this board can tell me the difference in the FOMC and the FED!"

Very throurough and well-written response. Economics is boring, and someone here is willing to talk with me intelligently. Thanks.

Your Bernanke (he took the chairmanship my second semester in grad school) question and answer will follow, but I really appreciate the intelligent dialogue.

There is no intelligent dialogue if read back through the thread you'll notice a very condescending and arrogant attitude to fellow posters while presenting little to no argument from your side of the debate.

You went from telling me about inflation and the unemployment number to calling me ignorant and dumb when I disagreed with how they come to those numbers.

So rather than prove to us or me why you believe the unemployment numbers and the inflation rate are calculated in a way that accurately reflects the true state of our economy you chose to revert immediately to personal attacks and calling me ignorant and dumb.

It seems to me that if you really knew what you were talking about you would engage in a more fact based debate rather than simply just insulting me with childlike attacks.

I'm sorry your education has done you such a disservice.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How does your previous post prove weather or not we are in a rescission or not which is the true point of the thread?

Weather or not this comes from a valid source does not change weather or not we are questioning weather or not the economy is still in recession or not.


I know I used weather or not a lot but I'm not changing it.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

How does your previous post prove weather or not we are in a rescission or not which is the true point of the thread?

Weather or not this comes from a valid source does not change weather or not we are questioning weather or not the economy is still in recession or not.

Because your post that I'm responding to is discussing sources of information. If you're done with carping about the requirements of discussion, we can certainly move back to the topic at hand.

The "weather" to the side ... what are you referring to with "this"? The OP?

Okay, fine. Let's talk about that then. Forget the source and deal with the simple question: is the data factual?

Prove that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In previous post I've present an argument challenging the validity of the use of the government produced unemployment rate based on. The data supplied by the BLS for total workforce and its massive decline.

I've been waiting for the newbie calling dumb and ignorant to prove that the unemployment number used by the government or the inflation number are accurate representations of the actual unemployment and inflation.

I'm not convinced either are true based on cost of living vs wage increases and labor force participation rate.

What metric is used to determine weather we are not in a recession?

What's he inverse of that metric?

I'm on a cellphone riding a bus to work so please forgive my grammatical errors.

a reply to: onequestion

Are you addressing the spurious nonsense presented as factual information in the OP?

Because, that is, you know, the erstwhile topic of the thread.

But as an aside, since you at least made an attempt to be factual ... here's my question for you: what would convince you that any metric (from the World Bank, US Department of Commerce, etc. etc.) was valid and accurate?

Does it have to conform to your preexisting beliefs that the economy is, how did you put it earlier, "gone to crap"?

You're questioning data, One. Massive amounts of data that thousands of people work to compile on a daily basis.

If you can't accept the "A data" then how do you accept the "B data" gathered in much the same ways?

I.e. what basis is there to have a rational conversation with you on this matter? What can we agree on as factual?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: xuenchen

The banking industry has to find a way to dump or erase some big percentage of the money they hand out so that they can keep on making and handing out more.

New socialist math.

It might remotely qualify as "socialist math" if the government owned the banks ...

... as the situation in the US is the opposite, perhaps the term "oligarchy" would be a bit more apt to toss around.

To what essential difference?

Money has to disappear so they can make more and pass it out.

The folks who gave us socialism give us quadrillion debt no matter where their offices are.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

To what difference?

Oh, just the actual meaning of words.

As far as the rest ... I accept that is your opinion while maintaining that the statements are vague, basically meaningless and utterly devoid of evidence.

Good thing about opinions though ... we've all got 'em!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

To what difference?

Oh, just the actual meaning of words.

As far as the rest ... I accept that is your opinion while maintaining that the statements are vague, basically meaningless and utterly devoid of evidence.

Good thing about opinions though ... we've all got 'em!

Remove collectivism/socialism from history and you have either no debt or honest despotism.