3 stupid myths republicans believe

[Oldstyle]

Great.

Yet another idiot who thinks I said that either the unemployment rate OR the inflation rate are not economic indicators.

Another person pointing out the absurdity of your admitting unemployment and inflation rates are economic indicators but that adding them together produces a number that isn't! How does that work, Faun?

Really? It's really my fault you're a fucking imbecile who can't comprehend just because you combine 2 economic indicators doesn't necessarily mean the sum indicates the health of the economy?

Hey, you can't blame me. I even tried to help you. I showed you a misery index of 7.4. That was the actual misery index in April, 1997 as well as in July, 2009. Two entirely different economies. One strong and robust; the other, in the toilet. Yet same exact misery index.

So go head, Einstein ... tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

I didn't say the Misery Index indicated the "health of the economy", Faun...I said that the Misery Index was something created to gauge how people were feeling about the economy.

Now did you want to explain how the Misery Index isn't an economic indicator when it is comprised by only two things...both of which ARE economic indicators? Or did you intend to keep on blustering about other things? What you can't seem to grasp is that the more you hurl insults instead of simply answering what's been asked of you...the more you come across as someone who got caught bullshitting about a topic they know little about.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I would challenge you to answer that question, but you're one of the dumbest posters on this site and you have no chance. Pity that.

What question is that?

tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

If you haven't figured it out by now, there's no sense going over it yet again.

 

[zeke]

This thread is in misery. That's for sure. Trying to engage in real discussion with a rabbit? LMAO.
Misery misery misery. I have tried. Miserable experience.

 

[Stephanie]

the op is such a sheep...post one article and no more thinking needed after that

 

[Faun]

Another person pointing out the absurdity of your admitting unemployment and inflation rates are economic indicators but that adding them together produces a number that isn't! How does that work, Faun?

Really? It's really my fault you're a fucking imbecile who can't comprehend just because you combine 2 economic indicators doesn't necessarily mean the sum indicates the health of the economy?

Hey, you can't blame me. I even tried to help you. I showed you a misery index of 7.4. That was the actual misery index in April, 1997 as well as in July, 2009. Two entirely different economies. One strong and robust; the other, in the toilet. Yet same exact misery index.

So go head, Einstein ... tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

I didn't say the Misery Index indicated the "health of the economy", Faun...I said that the Misery Index was something created to gauge how people were feeling about the economy.

Now did you want to explain how the Misery Index isn't an economic indicator when it is comprised by only two things...both of which ARE economic indicators? Or did you intend to keep on blustering about other things? What you can't seem to grasp is that the more you hurl insults instead of simply answering what's been asked of you...the more you come across as someone who got caught bullshitting about a topic they know little about.

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

 

[Faun]

What question is that?

tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

If you haven't figured it out by now, there's no sense going over it yet again.

Great. Yet another rightard who thinks bluffing is an adequate aversion to avoid answering questions which blow away their position.

Rightard, like the others, you actually prove my point when you demonstrate you can't answer that question.

April, 1997, during a great economy, the misery index equals 7.4. July, 2009, during a horrible economy, the misery index equals 7.4. So? What does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?

... btw, you never responded in regard to my post on why the idiotic claim that the unemployment rate is 32.7% was so completely rightarded. You asked me a question about it and I answered. You have no comments?

 

[The Rabbi]

This thread is in misery. That's for sure. Trying to engage in real discussion with a rabbit? LMAO.
Misery misery misery. I have tried. Miserable experience.

It's Zeke, toothless stumpbroke of USMB with his own special brand of brainless.
What's the answer to the question, Zeke?

 

[The Rabbi]

tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

If you haven't figured it out by now, there's no sense going over it yet again.

Great. Yet another rightard who thinks bluffing is an adequate aversion to avoid answering questions which blow away their position.

Rightard, like the others, you actually prove my point when you demonstrate you can't answer that question.

April, 1997, during a great economy, the misery index equals 7.4. July, 2009, during a horrible economy, the misery index equals 7.4. So? What does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?

... btw, you never responded in regard to my post on why the idiotic claim that the unemployment rate is 32.7% was so completely rightarded. You asked me a question about it and I answered. You have no comments?

The Misery Index indicates the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate for both periods.

I can't believe you couldn't figure this out on your own. Then again, you are sort of slow.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great. Yet another rightard who thinks bluffing is an adequate aversion to avoid answering questions which blow away their position.

Rightard, like the others, you actually prove my point when you demonstrate you can't answer that question.

April, 1997, during a great economy, the misery index equals 7.4. July, 2009, during a horrible economy, the misery index equals 7.4. So? What does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?

... btw, you never responded in regard to my post on why the idiotic claim that the unemployment rate is 32.7% was so completely rightarded. You asked me a question about it and I answered. You have no comments?

The Misery Index indicates the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate for both periods.

I can't believe you couldn't figure this out on your own. Then again, you are sort of slow.

You're still answering questions I didn't ask but avoiding the ones I do?

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

 

[Faun]

The Misery Index indicates the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate for both periods.

I can't believe you couldn't figure this out on your own. Then again, you are sort of slow.

You're still answering questions I didn't ask but avoiding the ones I do?

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

Seems you're calling oldstyle an idiot, he says it indicates how people feel about the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're still answering questions I didn't ask but avoiding the ones I do?

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

Seems you're calling oldstyle an idiot, he says it indicates how people feel about the economy.

He's not an idiot. I am not certain he is correct though. I am certain you dont have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Oldstyle]

Really? It's really my fault you're a fucking imbecile who can't comprehend just because you combine 2 economic indicators doesn't necessarily mean the sum indicates the health of the economy?

Hey, you can't blame me. I even tried to help you. I showed you a misery index of 7.4. That was the actual misery index in April, 1997 as well as in July, 2009. Two entirely different economies. One strong and robust; the other, in the toilet. Yet same exact misery index.

So go head, Einstein ... tell me what that misery index indicated about the economy ... ?

I didn't say the Misery Index indicated the "health of the economy", Faun...I said that the Misery Index was something created to gauge how people were feeling about the economy.

Now did you want to explain how the Misery Index isn't an economic indicator when it is comprised by only two things...both of which ARE economic indicators? Or did you intend to keep on blustering about other things? What you can't seem to grasp is that the more you hurl insults instead of simply answering what's been asked of you...the more you come across as someone who got caught bullshitting about a topic they know little about.

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't say the Misery Index indicated the "health of the economy", Faun...I said that the Misery Index was something created to gauge how people were feeling about the economy.

Now did you want to explain how the Misery Index isn't an economic indicator when it is comprised by only two things...both of which ARE economic indicators? Or did you intend to keep on blustering about other things? What you can't seem to grasp is that the more you hurl insults instead of simply answering what's been asked of you...the more you come across as someone who got caught bullshitting about a topic they know little about.

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

So in other words you gave a response that was careful and nuanced and required some kind of judgement to read and understand it. And Faun blathered on because he didnt get any of that.
This is surprising why?

 

[Billy000]

You're still answering questions I didn't ask but avoiding the ones I do?

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

Seems you're calling oldstyle an idiot, he says it indicates how people feel about the economy.

Faun you're wasting your time. Nothing will ever make these people see past their ridiculous fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

Seems you're calling oldstyle an idiot, he says it indicates how people feel about the economy.

Faun you're wasting your time. Nothing will ever make these people see past their ridiculous fallacy.

I agree he is wasting everyone's time. But what fallacy would that be?

 

[Oldstyle]

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

So in other words you gave a response that was careful and nuanced and required some kind of judgement to read and understand it. And Faun blathered on because he didnt get any of that.
This is surprising why?

As I said before...comprehension is not Faun's strong suit. He was busy hurling insults when he would have been better served to read what was posted. I'm always amused by the trouble that progressives here seem to have with economic theory. I'm not sure what most of them took for college classes but it's rather apparent that Econ was not in their course load.

 

[Faun]

I didn't say the Misery Index indicated the "health of the economy", Faun...I said that the Misery Index was something created to gauge how people were feeling about the economy.

Now did you want to explain how the Misery Index isn't an economic indicator when it is comprised by only two things...both of which ARE economic indicators? Or did you intend to keep on blustering about other things? What you can't seem to grasp is that the more you hurl insults instead of simply answering what's been asked of you...the more you come across as someone who got caught bullshitting about a topic they know little about.

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

Say what? Exactly where do you find my comprehension skills lacking? Let's review, shall we?

Faun: And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Oldstyle: Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy.​

I addressed your point and showed you how unreliable it is at indicating what you think it indicates.

Here's yet another example of how the misery index fails to perform in the manner you claim ... 1931. Heading into the worst part of the Great Depression, unemployment was over 16%, but with deflation averaging around 9% that year, the misery index produced a sum of about 7.3 -- a historically low misery index which was lower than all of Reagan's term, Bush41's term, and most of Bush43's term. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled about the economy during the Great Depression in 1931 because that's what the misery index reveals.

I ignored your other point about working folks being happy with deflation since that's about as idiotic as just about anything else you've said. Deflation is usually worse than inflation. No one in their right mind is ever happy with deflation. Certainly not working people since deflation is typically coupled with recession, meaning there are usually fewer working people during bouts of deflation, leaving many working people in fear of losing their job.

 

[Faun]

You asked "what does a misery index of 7.4 indicate?" I answered that. You didn tlike that answer. You ask questions and then dont like what I answer and somehow it's my fault.

Seems you're calling oldstyle an idiot, he says it indicates how people feel about the economy.

Faun you're wasting your time. Nothing will ever make these people see past their ridiculous fallacy.

Conservatism is a mental disease.

 

[The Rabbi]

What difference does it make if I refrain from insulting you? You still can't answer my question. Do you realize what it makes you look like when you make a claim you can't defend?

And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Here's another example ... December, 2008 ... one of the worst months during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While the economy is tanking all around us, the Consumer Board's CCI, which actually does measure how people feel about the economy, is, as expected, dropping like a rock to what at that time, was a historic low. In other words, the economy sucked. Did the misery index indicate that? No, it was falling. According to you, that meant people were feeling better about the economy.

As far as your question, I already answered. Even though the misery index is comprised of two economic indicators, it itself is not one because of deflation. Deflation can be worse than inflation, yet deflation improves the misery index. According to your claim that the misery index measures how people feel about the economy, we could have 10% unemployment and 4% deflation, and the misery index would indicate people are thrilled with that economy.

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

Say what? Exactly where do you find my comprehension skills lacking? Let's review, shall we?

Faun: And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Oldstyle: Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy.​

I addressed your point and showed you how unreliable it is at indicating what you think it indicates.

Here's yet another example of how the misery index fails to perform in the manner you claim ... 1931. Heading into the worst part of the Great Depression, unemployment was over 16%, but with deflation averaging around 9% that year, the misery index produced a sum of about 7.3 -- a historically low misery index which was lower than all of Reagan's term, Bush41's term, and most of Bush43's term. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled about the economy during the Great Depression in 1931 because that's what the misery index reveals.

I ignored your other point about working folks being happy with deflation since that's about as idiotic as just about anything else you've said. Deflation is usually worse than inflation. No one in their right mind is ever happy with deflation. Certainly not working people since deflation is typically coupled with recession, meaning there are usually fewer working people during bouts of deflation, leaving many working people in fear of losing their job.

Wow are you slow on the uptake.

 

[Faun]

Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy. I also said that one of the drawbacks of the Misery Index is that it's number can remain constant even though the two economic indicators that make it up change. It's something that one has to take into account when looking at the Misery Index. As I also pointed out...someone who has a job is going to be very happy with deflation because it makes the pay in their pocket go further while someone without a job would view a higher unemployment rate as crushing to their chance of finding work. That being said however does not change the fact that the Misery Index is made up solely of economic indicators making it an economic indicator itself. Your contention that it isn't because the number can be misleading is amusing but totally illogical. Unemployment numbers can be misleading when large numbers of people give up looking for work and drop out of the equation...does that mean that unemployment ceases to be an economic indicator? Obviously not...one simply has to take into account what made up the unemployment number.

Say what? Exactly where do you find my comprehension skills lacking? Let's review, shall we?

Faun: And the misery index also fails to indicate how people "feel" about the economy. I already stumped you with an example of two completely different economies yet they both scored the exact same misery index.

Oldstyle: Your comprehension skills are lacking, Faun. What I said was that the Misery Index was coined in an attempt to better gauge how people felt about the economy.​

I addressed your point and showed you how unreliable it is at indicating what you think it indicates.

Here's yet another example of how the misery index fails to perform in the manner you claim ... 1931. Heading into the worst part of the Great Depression, unemployment was over 16%, but with deflation averaging around 9% that year, the misery index produced a sum of about 7.3 -- a historically low misery index which was lower than all of Reagan's term, Bush41's term, and most of Bush43's term. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled about the economy during the Great Depression in 1931 because that's what the misery index reveals.

I ignored your other point about working folks being happy with deflation since that's about as idiotic as just about anything else you've said. Deflation is usually worse than inflation. No one in their right mind is ever happy with deflation. Certainly not working people since deflation is typically coupled with recession, meaning there are usually fewer working people during bouts of deflation, leaving many working people in fear of losing their job.

Wow are you slow on the uptake.

Cries the rightard who idiotically claimed the unemployment rate has gone down under every Republican president and up under every Democrat president.

Here, on planet Earth, with the exception of one Republican, it's actually the complete opposite of your insane claim:

Clinton: 7.3 - 4.2; -3.1
LBJ: 5.7 - 3.4; -2.3
Reagan: 7.5 - 5.4; -2.1
Obama: 7.8 - 6.6; -1.2
JFK: 6.6 - 5.7; -0.9
Carter: 7.5 - 7.5; 0.0
Bush41: 5.4 - 7.3; +1.9
Ford: 5.5 - 7.5; +2.0
Nixon: 3.4 - 5.5; +2.1
Bush43: 4.2 - 7.8; +3.6
Ike: 2.9 - 6.6; +3.7

You've convinced me you're completely insane. That's all I take from reading your posts/