Re: #11 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-18 08:15 PM

You've provided an interesting link.

However, it is scaled in $B. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that $1B in 1950 is a completely different amount of money from $1B in 2010.

Would it not be a more useful analysis if it were scaled in more unitary/constant units (e.g., adjusted for inflation, % of GNP, $/population, etc.)?

"Wall street is pumping TARP money into stocks to make fools like you think it means the economy is improving.

Federal spending is running out of control.
research.stlouisfed.org
Tell me that's good.
#7 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-17 09:03 PM"

I won't tell you that's good.

You bring up an interesting point, if I understand you correctly, that inflating the value of stocks (and therefore the DJIA index) does not provide a good/reliable indicator of "the economy".

Fair enough. So, what 'yardstick' does one (e.g., you) use to evaluate and compare economies?

"It actually fell immediately following Scott Brown's election January 20th (look at chart).
#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-17 08:01 PM"

Agreed and that was precisely my point:

Prior to the MA election, there were repeated pundit claims that a Scott Brown election would cause a surge in the market. The reality was exactly contrary to that. In fact so much so that it took TWO MONTHS to recover from the "Scott Brown Market Surge" enough to get back up to pre-Scott Brown levels.

So..., where are all those pundits and their supporters today???

* chirp chirp *

"While it's true that an increase is still within the realm of possibility, I disagree with the notion that this is a foregone conclusion. Sure, the author leaves the upper amount to allow for a range, but even before adjusting for the second year (2004) after a purportedly gradual change, the lower end of the range is actually a decrease.

I think they leave the range in there to show just how much uncertainty there is in interpreting this data - it could be an increase, or it very well could be steady or decreasing. It's impossible to tell when there's been that much mucking around with the dataset.
#49 | Posted by nerdygirl42 at 2010-03-15 10:31 PM"

Of course, and you apparently concur with my original statement: 'In this case one is faced with the challenge of assigning significance to a small difference between large numbers. A task that has many potential pitfalls.'.

However, it's quite a stretch for you to realistically claim 'it very well could be steady or decreasing.' when the range is from -4% to +61%. Personally, I (and likely many others) would be much more willing to "place their bets" that it is likely there was an increase.

Meanwhile, your claim "It's impossible to tell when there's been that much mucking around with the dataset." MIGHT be true. However, you've presented no evidence that there has been ANY mucking around with the dataset, much less that there has been 'that much mucking around'. Until you do, the analysis from your own link stands.

RE: #15 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-03-16 07:25 PM

TOO funny that pic!

possible caption:

"This town ain't big enough for the three of us."

Exorcising his free speech rights...

" 'Looks like I'm dating myself...'

Carbon dating.
#49 | Posted by mitch at 2010-03-13 01:59 PM"

Thank you for not going so far as to say K-Ar dating!

"Has anyone actually looked at the numbers these people are quoting? They're skewed beyond recognition.

Here is an informative article on that. It's amazing what they can do with statistics through some simple selectivity and omission :)
#43 | Posted by nerdygirl42 at 2010-03-13 10:52 PM"

A good point and an interesting question that piqued my curiosity.

The analysis of most any data set is often fraught with assumptions and interpretations. In this case one is faced with the challenge of assigning significance to a small difference between large numbers. A task that has many potential pitfalls.

One could definitely/correctly quibble about whether the 'doubling' is statistically true and/or significant. That all being said, it is quite interesting that how no matter what variation of tweaks they apply in this article to analyze this data set, one still is left with the same conclusion: there is an increase.

The 'doubling' is likely much more useful as a 'headline grabber', but the overall 'bottom line' is still the same (even if it's not as flashly).

"You know what would be funny and creative?
If, during an argument, some liberal mocked your new name by calling you "bitch", instead.
They could just switch the "M" for a "B"---but it would still rhyme with "Mitch".
I wonder if anyone will think of that.
#1 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-03-12 04:43 PM"

Apparently you are the first to think of it, you liberal you...

Actually, the first things I thought of were Robert Micthum, Mitch McConnell, and that 'sing along guy':

"you have to register to read the article ill bet no one one on this thread has actually read the article, so who gives a shit what the headline says...
#35 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2010-03-11 12:25 PM"

And you would lose that bet.

Meanwhile, I don't know why it requires a registration now as it didn't when first linked (on 3-10-10) and this thread was posted on the Back Page. Possibly it's because it was a new article yesterday and it's an old/archived article today.

This is already on the Front Page:

"Bloomberg is being a bit dense here.

There are no jobs and the stimulus is stimulating things like studies of monkeys on cocaine.

Glad to see the market go back up. Get some of the 401k's back in order for the folks.
#13 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-03-10 11:41 PM"

The article both acknowledges and addresses the job situation.

To claim that there are no jobs and implying that the result of the stimulus is financing studies of monkeys on cocaine is such a simplistic summary of the economy as to be completely misleading, wrong, even 'dense'.

Partisan response so far on this (and other similar threads):

1. The stimulus won't work.
2. The stimulus might work, but only temporarily.
3. The stimulus might work, but it wasn't enough.
4. The stimulus might work, but it was too late.
5. The economy would have gone up anyway.
6. Some combination of 2., 3., 4., and/or 5.

Beyond any Monday morning quarterbacking, apparently Bloomberg doesn't agree.

"I guess that's why the "you lie" incident wasn't that big of a deal.

What Wilson did was wholly in appropriate and he deserved more shit than he got for it. But that proves my point that Congress is free to respond (even inappropriately) while Alito shakes his head and mouth's "not true" and people call for his impeachment. The Supreme Court is forced to sit there silent and emotionless while the President and the rest of Congress dresses them down? You think this is really appropriate?
#63 | Posted by flaglerkid at 2010-03-10 01:31 PM"

I see your point, but think you missed (or at least glossed over) one difference: Congress is (by it's nature/definition) political and partisan, the SCOTUS is not and should not be. Their 'job' is to decide the 'Constitutionality' of issues. There's no room for politics, nor should there be. The concern/calls for impeachment are to address a perceived partisanship on the part of the SCOTUS. That perception might be inaccurate, but I think it is the impetus for the concern.

"I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.
#19 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-10 12:19 PM"

If you had gotten the memo, you'd know that only Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices are free from ridicule or rebuke (as evidenced by comments from folks who don't need to be mentioned).

Boingggg...

"None of which addresses the point that Obama seems to be continuing a lot of Bush's policies. Wonder how that came to be?
#7 | Posted by American1st at 2010-03-09 08:12 PM"

That's a good, valid point/question. Maybe you should start a thread about that so it could be on topic? However, as long as you brought it up:

FWIW, I'm personally disappointed/disgusted with some of the 'Bush policies' being continued. What you might perceive as partisan complacency now that the country has 'changed horses' could just as easily be interpreted as a realization that it is easier to initiate a policy than it is to reverse it. As such, it shouldn't be too surprising to encounter more vindictiveness towards those who create a policy than for those who haven't reversed it (yet).

I feel confident that in your political experiences you've had opportunites to experience exactly what I'm talking about. As such, the reactions of folks then (and now) shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

"Maybe they should change their slogan from "Keep Moving Forward".
#1 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-03-09 07:10 PM"

Or maybe just: 'Move On'.

So, absence makes the heart grow fonder?

Who could have foreseen that...

Of course, TIME heals all wounds. Hey, there's ANOTHER great prediction!

There always was (and still are) some who favored Mr. Bush, but if it's any indication of reality: the recent 'Miss Me Yet' billboard hardly drew resounding affirmatives. Maybe folks are just holding back for fifty years to pass so they can properly evaluate his legacy.

Re: #19 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-03-07 09:01 PM

Nice re-tread of an old joke from about a month ago (and even before then...):

Who could have foreseen that bears would like ladyfingers:

More Weird Al...

"Eat It"

"DEMS HAVE to begin the ruse and lies because 10/2/10 gets closer everyday...

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-04 01:10 PM"

"okay okay..I GET IT..

11/2/10
#5 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-04 01:11 PM"

It's OK afkabl2.

10/2/10 is even CLOSER!

"tru, my statement about snow creating jobs is just as valaid as the statement that... White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures...

One is just as big a pile of shit as the other. The current administration will stop at nothing to push the blame anywhere other than on themselves.

Meanwhile you said, "I have worked construction, so spare me the 'ya don't know...'" How much did they pay you for not showing up at the jobsite when there was no work?
#76 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-03-04 10:54 AM"

Your original statement is not correct and for the reasons I've repeatedly listed. You've yet to respond to or counter my points. This NOT to say that what Mr. Summers stated is valid. It's just what I said it was: you're mistaken about how snow removal is contracted for by municipalities. As such, the amount of snow does not affect the employment level since the workers are already contracted at the start of the season. You continue to wander off onto the topic that in construction no work=no pay (BTW I had already agreed with you on that point, but you'd would have known that if you had read more carefully), but that is not pertinent to a snow removal contract. Since the 'construction point' is not part of this discussion (AND is agreed to by both of us), why do you continue to even bring it up???

It seems ironic, but your ongoing pressing of the point "no work = no pay" would actually agree with Mr. Summers has been saying!

If you want to share your knowledge about snow removal contracts that proves your original point, please do! If you'd rather not support your original claim, fine.