3 stupid myths republicans believe

[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.

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.

Your comprehension skills continue to be sub par, Faun...my point wasn't that deflation made people happier than inflation...my point was that people with a job were happier than those without no matter what was happening with inflation. It's one of the criticisms of the Misery Index.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/rditella/papers/AERHappyInflation.pdf

 

[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.

Your comprehension skills continue to be sub par, Faun...my point wasn't that deflation made people happier than inflation...my point was that people with a job were happier than those without no matter what was happening with inflation. It's one of the criticisms of the Misery Index.

This is why I honestly think you're retarded. You don't even understand what you write. Compare what you're now claiming you posted with what you actually posted ...

"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" ~ just another rightard​

 

[Oldstyle]

I note that you decided to ignore my point that declaring that the Misery Index wasn't an economic indicator simply because the number arrived at is questionable is illogical since we also use an unemployment number that is totally skewed by things like temporary employment during a census or large groups of discouraged people dropping out of the system because they've stopped looking for work. How is it that unemployment IS an economic indicator yet the Misery Index is not when it is in fact made up solely of two components that ARE economic indicators?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Your comprehension skills continue to be sub par, Faun...my point wasn't that deflation made people happier than inflation...my point was that people with a job were happier than those without no matter what was happening with inflation. It's one of the criticisms of the Misery Index.

This is why I honestly think you're retarded. You don't even understand what you write. Compare what you're now claiming you posted with what you actually posted ...

"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" ~ just another rightard​

So tell me who you think would be happier...a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went down by 5% or a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went up by 5%?

You're using examples of extreme deflation...like the Great Recession to prove a point...it's equivalent to saying that people should never lose weight because they might become anorexic and die.

 

[Faun]

I note that you decided to ignore my point that declaring that the Misery Index wasn't an economic indicator simply because the number arrived at is questionable is illogical since we also use an unemployment number that is totally skewed by things like temporary employment during a census or large groups of discouraged people dropping out of the system because they've stopped looking for work. How is it that unemployment IS an economic indicator yet the Misery Index is not when it is in fact made up solely of two components that ARE economic indicators?

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

 

[Oldstyle]

I note that you decided to ignore my point that declaring that the Misery Index wasn't an economic indicator simply because the number arrived at is questionable is illogical since we also use an unemployment number that is totally skewed by things like temporary employment during a census or large groups of discouraged people dropping out of the system because they've stopped looking for work. How is it that unemployment IS an economic indicator yet the Misery Index is not when it is in fact made up solely of two components that ARE economic indicators?

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

So you're saying that the unemployment number doesn't have factors that can totally discount the sum? So you're saying that they don't include the temporary workers in that number...or that they take into account the discouraged workers who have dropped out? Please show me where that takes place in the unemployment number that is considered to be an economic indicator, Faun!

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the unemployment rate DOES have things built into it that can totally change it's validity...just as the Misery Index does...yet you call one an economic indicator while you declare that the other is not.

 

[Faun]

Your comprehension skills continue to be sub par, Faun...my point wasn't that deflation made people happier than inflation...my point was that people with a job were happier than those without no matter what was happening with inflation. It's one of the criticisms of the Misery Index.

This is why I honestly think you're retarded. You don't even understand what you write. Compare what you're now claiming you posted with what you actually posted ...

"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" ~ just another rightard​

So tell me who you think would be happier...a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went down by 5% or a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went up by 5%?

Again, for the benefit of the mentally disabled ... no rational person would be happier with deflation. Again, if there's deflation, it's probably symptomatic of a recession, or at least, a bad economy; meaning that worker is possibly facing losing his job.

You're using examples of extreme deflation...like the Great Recession to prove a point...it's equivalent to saying that people should never lose weight because they might become anorexic and die.

My examples expose the huge sucking head wound in the misery index. Tough shit that you don't like that. Deflation improves the misery index. I'm providing example after example of how flawed the misery index is. Your approval is not actually required. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled with the economy in 1931 because the misery index was so low.

 

[The Rabbi]

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/

Under CLinton in APril 2000 the rate was 3.8%. The next month it was 4.0%. The rate went up under Clinton.
All the others can be shown similarly.
What was it you were trying to prove with this particular inane exercise again?

 

[Faun]

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/

Under CLinton in APril 2000 the rate was 3.8%. The next month it was 4.0%. The rate went up under Clinton.
All the others can be shown similarly.
What was it you were trying to prove with this particular inane exercise again?

No worries .... you just proved it for me.

 

[The Rabbi]

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/

Under CLinton in APril 2000 the rate was 3.8%. The next month it was 4.0%. The rate went up under Clinton.
All the others can be shown similarly.
What was it you were trying to prove with this particular inane exercise again?

No worries .... you just proved it for me.

That you dont know WTF you're talking about? Yeah, we get that.

 

[Faun]

Under CLinton in APril 2000 the rate was 3.8%. The next month it was 4.0%. The rate went up under Clinton.
All the others can be shown similarly.
What was it you were trying to prove with this particular inane exercise again?

No worries .... you just proved it for me.

That you dont know WTF you're talking about? Yeah, we get that.

That you think that is what you proved only serves to reinforce what you actually did prove.

 

[The Rabbi]

No worries .... you just proved it for me.

That you dont know WTF you're talking about? Yeah, we get that.

That you think that is what you proved only serves to reinforce what you actually did prove.

That you're ignorant, inarticulate, and logically clueless as well? Yeah, I think we get that too.

 

[Oldstyle]

I note that you decided to ignore my point that declaring that the Misery Index wasn't an economic indicator simply because the number arrived at is questionable is illogical since we also use an unemployment number that is totally skewed by things like temporary employment during a census or large groups of discouraged people dropping out of the system because they've stopped looking for work. How is it that unemployment IS an economic indicator yet the Misery Index is not when it is in fact made up solely of two components that ARE economic indicators?

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

You can't even keep your own argument straight, Faun! You state that the unemployment rate "accurately measures" temporary workers? Where is that number discounted from the unemployment numbers? I can show you quite clearly where unemployment numbers went down BECAUSE of temporary hiring of census workers and that unemployment number was never "adjusted" to reflect the temporary nature of the hires for the census. It simply goes down until the workers doing census work are laid off and then those jobs are lost once again and the unemployment number reflects the job losses.

 

[Oldstyle]

This is why I honestly think you're retarded. You don't even understand what you write. Compare what you're now claiming you posted with what you actually posted ...

"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" ~ just another rightard​

So tell me who you think would be happier...a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went down by 5% or a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went up by 5%?

Again, for the benefit of the mentally disabled ... no rational person would be happier with deflation. Again, if there's deflation, it's probably symptomatic of a recession, or at least, a bad economy; meaning that worker is possibly facing losing his job.

You're using examples of extreme deflation...like the Great Recession to prove a point...it's equivalent to saying that people should never lose weight because they might become anorexic and die.

My examples expose the huge sucking head wound in the misery index. Tough shit that you don't like that. Deflation improves the misery index. I'm providing example after example of how flawed the misery index is. Your approval is not actually required. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled with the economy in 1931 because the misery index was so low.

And I could provide example after example of how flawed the unemployment numbers are...does that mean they cease being an economic indicator because their totals can be badly flawed?

 

[Faun]

I note that you decided to ignore my point that declaring that the Misery Index wasn't an economic indicator simply because the number arrived at is questionable is illogical since we also use an unemployment number that is totally skewed by things like temporary employment during a census or large groups of discouraged people dropping out of the system because they've stopped looking for work. How is it that unemployment IS an economic indicator yet the Misery Index is not when it is in fact made up solely of two components that ARE economic indicators?

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

You can't even keep your own argument straight, Faun! You state that the unemployment rate "accurately measures" temporary workers? Where is that number discounted from the unemployment numbers? I can show you quite clearly where unemployment numbers went down BECAUSE of temporary hiring of census workers and that unemployment number was never "adjusted" to reflect the temporary nature of the hires for the census. It simply goes down until the workers doing census work are laid off and then those jobs are lost once again and the unemployment number reflects the job losses.

Are saying the unemployment numbers dropped when the census workers were hired and the unemployment numbers increased when they were let go?

 

[Faun]

So tell me who you think would be happier...a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went down by 5% or a worker making $500 a week whose grocery bills just went up by 5%?

Again, for the benefit of the mentally disabled ... no rational person would be happier with deflation. Again, if there's deflation, it's probably symptomatic of a recession, or at least, a bad economy; meaning that worker is possibly facing losing his job.

You're using examples of extreme deflation...like the Great Recession to prove a point...it's equivalent to saying that people should never lose weight because they might become anorexic and die.

My examples expose the huge sucking head wound in the misery index. Tough shit that you don't like that. Deflation improves the misery index. I'm providing example after example of how flawed the misery index is. Your approval is not actually required. According to your idiocy, people were thrilled with the economy in 1931 because the misery index was so low.

And I could provide example after example of how flawed the unemployment numbers are...does that mean they cease being an economic indicator because their totals can be badly flawed?

Let's see your examples ....

 

[The Rabbi]

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

You can't even keep your own argument straight, Faun! You state that the unemployment rate "accurately measures" temporary workers? Where is that number discounted from the unemployment numbers? I can show you quite clearly where unemployment numbers went down BECAUSE of temporary hiring of census workers and that unemployment number was never "adjusted" to reflect the temporary nature of the hires for the census. It simply goes down until the workers doing census work are laid off and then those jobs are lost once again and the unemployment number reflects the job losses.

Are saying the unemployment numbers dropped when the census workers were hired and the unemployment numbers increased when they were let go?

Nah, why would that happen?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/12census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I have already explained how the economy is made up of more than just ONE statistical figure, you have to look at several factors such as the misery index, the U-6, in CONJUNCTION with the unemployment number, to get an overall view of how the nation is doing. It's no surprise that you are incapable of giving a break down discription of what each indicator means in demonstrating that you have any knowledge of being capable of interpretating the economy correctly. You can't just give a misery index without including any other piece of information together to formulate an overall economic picture, any "competent" person having a basic discussion on the economy knows this. My god you are hopeless! Do us all a favor and pick a different topic, if you don't have a clue as to what each indicator represents, and how it's used to detail in what way it can have an effect with a particular group of people.

The very fact that you are only focusing on the misery index alone, and providing no other piece of information.... nothing else, in your question PROVES you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[Oldstyle]

The unemployment rate has multiple measures, including an index for measuring discouraged workers. It's called the U6 unemployment rate. As far as temporary workers, they are employed for a brief period and the unemployment rate accurately measures that.

And the unemployment rate doesn't have a factor built into it which can totally discount the sum, like the misery index has.

Next lunacy ... ?

You can't even keep your own argument straight, Faun! You state that the unemployment rate "accurately measures" temporary workers? Where is that number discounted from the unemployment numbers? I can show you quite clearly where unemployment numbers went down BECAUSE of temporary hiring of census workers and that unemployment number was never "adjusted" to reflect the temporary nature of the hires for the census. It simply goes down until the workers doing census work are laid off and then those jobs are lost once again and the unemployment number reflects the job losses.

Are saying the unemployment numbers dropped when the census workers were hired and the unemployment numbers increased when they were let go?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Do you not know this?