Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-visual-guide-to-the-financial-crisis-unemployment-rates/

Here it is...this is old but the methodology helps you understand why the figures you heard recently are BS. The government knows they are BS but they shovel it anyway...in the words of the famous philosopher, "why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling?"

The figure you heard isn't BS for what it represents... its just that other figures may be more representative of the problems out there. BLS reports 6 different figures... go find the one you like (and yes, cherry picking is unfortunate) and run with it/use it/promote it.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

What are these great measures of intelligence that the left-biased media proclaim of Obama?

First, I'd like you to produce these examples of the 'left-biased media' proclaiming Obama to be some sort of super-intellectual.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The figure you heard isn't BS for what it represents... its just that other figures may be more representative of the problems out there. BLS reports 6 different figures... go find the one you like (and yes, cherry picking is unfortunate) and run with it/use it/promote it.

Sure, the number is calculated correctly...if you wanted a number that was an inaccurate indication of employment. The average person assumes the opposite of unemployment is employment, so a decrease in the unemployment rate is viewed as a positive by the general public, most of whom don't see or don't dig into the caveats.

Think of how many models used by government and industry utilize the unemployment rate to forecast budgets, losses, taxes etc. How inaccurate are they if they use the most commonly published number? What is the collective impact on the calculations if the 'improvement' in unemployment doesn't really mean that mortgage delinquencies (and thousands of other metrics) will be going down XX months later?

An improvement in unemployment due to a large population of unemployed people moving into the 'uncounted' category is BS in my book. In a prolonged suppression of employment it stands to reason that any timestamp methodology will create fluctuations in the statistics and those changes shouldn't be reported as progress.

If your job is to increase the number of employed people and you point to a fluctuation in unemployment (due to technicalities in the math) as progress, then that is also BS.

If your sales manager came to you and said sales were up because production was consistent and inventories were down... while knowing that a flood caused a large volume of inventory to be written off...you'd fire that person. At least I would. Then they'd be unemployed, no matter what the statistics said.

When the government and the media both know that what the number represents is BS but report it to the public as a sign of anything (positive or negative) that is BS.


It's the same as reporting growth in GDP due to inventory changes...they know that what the number 'says' doesn't accurately reflect the situation but they publish it and the lemmings suck it up and report it as signs that the government is working when the truth couldn't be further away.

Does the administration (any party) promote the number as vigorously when it gets worse due to technicalities in the formula? We know the answer to that.

What is the definition of propaganda?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Sure, the number is calculated correctly...if you wanted a number that was an inaccurate indication of employment. The average person assumes the opposite of unemployment is employment, so a decrease in the unemployment rate is viewed as a positive by the general public, most of whom don't see or don't dig into the caveats.

OK then... I'm mostly responding to the "figures are BS"... I recall somebody saying that the switch occurred under Clinton and I'll assume the rest of the media followed though I say that without knowing... nevertheless the only way you'll challenge the usage of that figure is to start to mainstream the use of other figures (U-6 like I see often in these conversations for instance).

Think of how many models used by government and industry utilize the unemployment rate to forecast budgets, losses, taxes etc. How inaccurate are they if they use the most commonly published number? What is the collective impact on the calculations if the 'improvement' in unemployment doesn't really mean that mortgage delinquencies (and thousands of other metrics) will be going down XX months later?

Those who do use these figures to forecast these things will not likely restrict themselves to the figure reported in the press... lets recall there are 6 figures reported by the BLS... I would hope those who are in a position to use the number as a numeric input would be savvy enough to realize that there are figures which are more apt to describe what is going on. I would infer that the release of such figures address those concerns.

An improvement in unemployment due to a large population of unemployed people moving into the 'uncounted' category is BS in my book. In a prolonged suppression of employment it stands to reason that any timestamp methodology will create fluctuations in the statistics and those changes shouldn't be reported as progress.

That depends... what if you wanted to make a measure of what is possible... why isn't it valid to count the numbers of those who have jobs to those who want jobs? Seems like a reasonable metric... though I am playing a bit of devil's advocate... there are other issues there... namely those who would take jobs if they were available with a sufficient enough ease.

If your job is to increase the number of employed people and you point to a fluctuation in unemployment (due to technicalities in the math) as progress, then that is also BS.

I agree. The popular unemployment figure doesn't speak to, say, the status of the tax base in paying for budgets. People who are discouraged don't draw enough of an income to pay off the nation's tax bill. So, the unemployment figure used is a less than optimal figure to address the state of the fiscal health of the nation.

If your sales manager came to you and said sales were up because production was consistent and inventories were down... while knowing that a flood caused a large volume of inventory to be written off...you'd fire that person. At least I would. Then they'd be unemployed, no matter what the statistics said.

uh huh

When the government and the media both know that what the number represents is BS but report it to the public as a sign of anything (positive or negative) that is BS.

It's the same as reporting growth in GDP due to inventory changes...they know that what the number 'says' doesn't accurately reflect the situation but they publish it and the lemmings suck it up and report it as signs that the government is working when the truth couldn't be further away.

There are things here which I will discuss over beer but not online. Government can have a different enough of a connotation that I feel I don't want to go there.

Does the administration (any party) promote the number as vigorously when it gets worse due to technicalities in the formula? We know the answer to that.

So i won't bother.

What is the definition of propaganda?

I think that's probably going too far... they've been using the same figure for at least 15 years now. The problem is the spin of what is to be read into a figure. We can always create a ton of figures... and hell, we do. The question becomes how well can those around us digest those figures. All kinds of things can be used to spin... but the problem is the spin as it will exist regardless of the figure... the only question is how far can you take the spin beyond the amount of trust a person has in reading the situation on their own.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Even Dubya, love him or hate him, released all of his college transcripts for the world to see. Not surprising, Obama is the first president to keep his academic records hidden from the public -> kind of keeps the mystery and mystique of hope and change alive!

Seems to me there's a few other unanswered questions about W that were never answered. I could care a less...but it seems this is a big deal for you.

Call it what it is: Obama is the product of Equal Opportunity Placement, timing, and a mathematical majority of the USA just being tired of G W Bush.

..and the fact that the GOP doesn't understand what it takes to lead this country. Bush, Cheney, McCain (age), Palin, Dole (age), GWH Bush and Qualye.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

If my response was taken as a rebuttal, that wasn't my intention. I completely understand what you are saying and don't disagree from a technical standpoint.

And, I wasn't trying to convince you that you should buy into my viewpoint on the numbers...just explaining why I think the whole situation is BS.

Many agencies and companies do use the most widely used figures because they tie to what other people are using and are consistent with past practice. If a recession starts and the forecasters change to a different figure, one that is more pessimistic, then not only will trends get disrupted but there will be pressure to use the 'better' number.

I would go as far as to wonder if a government agency can use the number of their choosing or if it needs to be consistent with what the administration publishes as the most visible number so they are 'all on the same page'.
I'm going to ask a few friends about that one...wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was the case.

The part where you, for lack of a better word, agree with my point about the admin emphasizing the figures selectively is really my assertion...it isn't the math but how the math is contrived and sold that is my concern.

True, this has been the method for 15 years but it becomes more dangerous as the economy falters...it makes sense to hold out long term unemployeds in a status quo economy, following the same methodology when we are in a recession is misleading, in my opinion. I'd make the length of time necessary to be a holdout a variable number based on other economic figures so it moves appropriately as the economy improves or declines.

Not trying to force people to agree with me, just presenting one viewpoint.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

..and the fact that the GOP doesn't understand what it takes to lead this country. Bush, Cheney, McCain (age), Palin, Dole (age), GWH Bush and Qualye.

At what point does age become a negative factor? Is there both an upper and lower bound? Is it relative to the person? Have those bounds moved with time? In today's society we seem to put a premium on youth while in societies past the premium was put on age and an inherent assignment of wisdom. If someone who wanted to take a crack as discrediting the man, that person might be able to make a convincing argument that Pres. Obama has displayed a lack of leadership skills which could have been refined with more experience/age.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I am not buying it. One could easily claim EEO again, and it should not be controversial as leftists enjoy crying "racism" when opposing views are presented. Maybe Obama was good at English, grammar and fact checking case law in codification texts; however, what did he publish while in Law School? How come his senior thesis and transcripts are still kept from the general public? If he is so gifted (I admit he delivers a great speech when on the teleprompter, but stammers just like Bushie when flying solo) how come he was unable to get his super majority of Dems to pass health care?

What are these great measures of intelligence that the left-biased media proclaim of Obama? Proof, let's see some objective evidence! No, it is too easier to run with an idea created by the press that bolsters your reputation... even though it may not be truthful. That's what I am guessing, and I may be wrong.
!

As my previous posts have indicated I'm no Obama fan boy, but this post demonstrates a painful lack of understanding of the law school system. Obama's transcript from Harvard may not have been released, but he graduated Magna Cum Laude (i.e. top 10 percent) and was President of the Law Review (also reserved for top students) at the second most prestigious law school in the county. He has a law school academic record as distinguished as Justice Scalia.

Furthermore, the nature of law school classes and grading means publishing a "thesis" (no such term exists in law school) is not a requirement and is not done frequently. At my school you were only required to take 1 course where a paper expressing a particular POV on the law was required, and even that could be more analytical than policy or opinion based. Most classes are single exam based and aren't really forums where you can do anything other than analyze the the law and facts presented by the professor. Most of Obama's "policy" stances on law school would probably only be discerned from some tape of classroom discussions he participated in.

You might disagree with the man, and in many instances I do, but to imply he is of mediocre intelligence is idiotic.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

If my response was taken as a rebuttal, that wasn't my intention. I completely understand what you are saying and don't disagree from a technical standpoint.

And, I wasn't trying to convince you that you should buy into my viewpoint on the numbers...just explaining why I think the whole situation is BS.

Many agencies and companies do use the most widely used figures because they tie to what other people are using and are consistent with past practice. If a recession starts and the forecasters change to a different figure, one that is more pessimistic, then not only will trends get disrupted but there will be pressure to use the 'better' number.

I would go as far as to wonder if a government agency can use the number of their choosing or if it needs to be consistent with what the administration publishes as the most visible number so they are 'all on the same page'.
I'm going to ask a few friends about that one...wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was the case.

The part where you, for lack of a better word, agree with my point about the admin emphasizing the figures selectively is really my assertion...it isn't the math but how the math is contrived and sold that is my concern.

True, this has been the method for 15 years but it becomes more dangerous as the economy falters...it makes sense to hold out long term unemployeds in a status quo economy, following the same methodology when we are in a recession is misleading, in my opinion. I'd make the length of time necessary to be a holdout a variable number based on other economic figures so it moves appropriately as the economy improves or declines.

Not trying to force people to agree with me, just presenting one viewpoint.

Its how I wanted to reply... that's all.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Furthermore, the nature of law school classes and grading means publishing a "thesis" (no such term exists in law school) is not a requirement and is not done frequently.

Most people carp on whatever he wrote as an undergrad at Columbia which is undoubtedly some warped social justice screed which is probably loaded with red meat material. Again, to believe Obama is a moderate is to believe he is the most conservative person within his own personal life... considering his official history is littered with socialists, communists, and Communists... much of this prior to the fall of the Soviet Union back when "communist" meant something and at least up through his state senate years. I'd wager he's had moderates on staff in the Senate and White House.

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

First, I'd like you to produce these examples of the 'left-biased media' proclaiming Obama to be some sort of super-intellectual.

Honestly, I think if you are trying to deny there is no bias in the press towards Obama you nuts.

I've heard Joy Behar recently say, "... Obama is too intelligent for America"... no east coast elitism there!

Rosie O'Donnell said, "...Bush is an idiot, thank God we have someone as brilliant as Obama as President." O'Donnell is a constant liar, and hopes that her audience does not fact check her stories... she is off 50% of the time due to her biases.

OK, so they are "opinion" or "comedy" shows that are certainly left biased and influencing Americans. No different than the shows on Fox. The line between news, opinion and comedy is long gone. Stewart's show is not comedy, but uses comedy to propel the left and their ideals, while defeating the right and their values.

Huffington Post / Washington Times, ehh, I think they are all liars, but if someone wants to be perceived as a Rhodes, Fulbright, Marshall Scholar they at least ought to have the moxie to substantiate that fact. Obama ran on this "intelligence" myth created by the media, he never attempted to correct it or substantiate it... good politics I guess, but I think it is wrong.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Honestly, I think if you are trying to deny there is no bias in the press towards Obama you nuts.

I've heard Joy Behar recently say, "... Obama is too intelligent for America"... no east coast elitism there!

Rosie O'Donnell said, "...Bush is an idiot, thank God we have someone as brilliant as Obama as President." O'Donnell is a constant liar, and hopes that her audience does not fact check her stories... she is off 50% of the time due to her biases.

OK, so they are "opinion" or "comedy" shows that are certainly left biased and influencing Americans. No different than the shows on Fox. The line between news, opinion and comedy is long gone. Stewart's show is not comedy, but uses comedy to propel the left and their ideals, while defeating the right and their values.

Huffington Post / Washington Times, ehh, I think they are all liars, but if someone wants to be perceived as a Rhodes, Fulbright, Marshall Scholar they at least ought to have the moxie to substantiate that fact. Obama ran on this "intelligence" myth created by the media, he never attempted to correct it or substantiate it... good politics I guess, but I think it is wrong.

So, you can't do it.

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So, you can't do it.

I feel as though I most certainly did.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Rosie O'donnell? Joy Behar?

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Interesting op-ed in today's Washington Post...

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

"Stewart's show is not comedy"

Ummm, no.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Interesting op-ed in today's Washington Post...

Plenty of examples on here

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Honestly, I think if you are trying to deny there is no bias in the press towards Obama you nuts.

I've heard Joy Behar recently say, "... Obama is too intelligent for America"... no east coast elitism there!

Rosie O'Donnell said, "...Bush is an idiot, thank God we have someone as brilliant as Obama as President." O'Donnell is a constant liar, and hopes that her audience does not fact check her stories... she is off 50% of the time due to her biases..

and the other 50% due to her stupidity.

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

and the other 50% due to her stupidity.

Are you honestly trying to turn Rosie O'Donnell into a poster child for leftist humor? She's ****ing awful. I'm no conservative, but she's terrible. eaglehockey was closer with John Stewart and he was still wrong about that.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Are you honestly trying to turn Rosie O'Donnell into a poster child for leftist humor?.

She's as big a joke as you'll find