unofan
Well-known member
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
It's not my fault everything you say is an easily debunked right-wing talking point (or in this case, so far beyond derp that even the right wing blogosphere won't touch it). If you were to actually come up with an "independent" point of view, perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to disagree with everything you post.
It's still growth from a quarter that saw plenty of negative influences: the worst winter in 30 years, the growing instability in Eastern Europe, a weakened Chinese economy, etc. That ain't nothing.
And that's clearly because of QE, I'm sure. Not the sequestration, the government shutdown, the slight raise in taxes, companies sitting on billions of dollars in cash rather than raising salaries or returning it to their owners. It's QE. Sure. Please show me the regression and multi-variable analyses you've done to prove that.
The numbers say otherwise (USA Real GDP - aka inflation adjusted):
Dec 31, 2013 15.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 15.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 15.24 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 14.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 14.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 14.57 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 15.00 trillion
Looks like output has risen by roughly 1.5 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars since the bottom of the recession. That's an average growth rate of 2.4% per year. Not stellar, but certainly solid for a developed economy.
No, unemployment is falling for both reasons. If what you were saying is true, the U6 number would be unchanged since it measures the underemployed and discouraged workers segment. However, it isn't. It has likewise dropped over the last 4 years from a high of 17.1 percent to 12.3 percent, which means unemployment is dropping because of more people working to at least some extent. We also shouldn't be surprised that fewer people are working. That tends to be what happens when a large generation, a "baby boom" if you well, hits retirement age.
Ok. So corporations are becoming more efficient. How is that a negative caused by QE?
And here's where you really lose it by pulling a Karl Rove and believing the math you tell yourself to feel better rather than the actual numbers and statistics. Your gut is telling you inflation must be out of control, even though it's not, and clearly it's the numbers that are lying and not your gut's anecdotes.
No, you're just making shiat up because you don't like the Fed. If you don't like the Fed, fine, but claiming that QE lowered aggregate demand because "old people" is stupid once you realize that roughly 1/3rd of the country has less than $1000 in retirement savings and roughly 2/3rds have less than $25,000 in retirement savings. Low yields and interest rates don't impact spending habits when people have nothing to get interest on in the first place. Many, many retirees live by having a paid off house and a social security check.
It's not my fault everything you say is an easily debunked right-wing talking point (or in this case, so far beyond derp that even the right wing blogosphere won't touch it). If you were to actually come up with an "independent" point of view, perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to disagree with everything you post.
It's still growth from a quarter that saw plenty of negative influences: the worst winter in 30 years, the growing instability in Eastern Europe, a weakened Chinese economy, etc. That ain't nothing.
And that's clearly because of QE, I'm sure. Not the sequestration, the government shutdown, the slight raise in taxes, companies sitting on billions of dollars in cash rather than raising salaries or returning it to their owners. It's QE. Sure. Please show me the regression and multi-variable analyses you've done to prove that.
The numbers say otherwise (USA Real GDP - aka inflation adjusted):
Dec 31, 2013 15.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 15.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 15.24 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 14.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 14.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 14.57 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 15.00 trillion
Looks like output has risen by roughly 1.5 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars since the bottom of the recession. That's an average growth rate of 2.4% per year. Not stellar, but certainly solid for a developed economy.
No, unemployment is falling for both reasons. If what you were saying is true, the U6 number would be unchanged since it measures the underemployed and discouraged workers segment. However, it isn't. It has likewise dropped over the last 4 years from a high of 17.1 percent to 12.3 percent, which means unemployment is dropping because of more people working to at least some extent. We also shouldn't be surprised that fewer people are working. That tends to be what happens when a large generation, a "baby boom" if you well, hits retirement age.
Ok. So corporations are becoming more efficient. How is that a negative caused by QE?
And here's where you really lose it by pulling a Karl Rove and believing the math you tell yourself to feel better rather than the actual numbers and statistics. Your gut is telling you inflation must be out of control, even though it's not, and clearly it's the numbers that are lying and not your gut's anecdotes.
No, you're just making shiat up because you don't like the Fed. If you don't like the Fed, fine, but claiming that QE lowered aggregate demand because "old people" is stupid once you realize that roughly 1/3rd of the country has less than $1000 in retirement savings and roughly 2/3rds have less than $25,000 in retirement savings. Low yields and interest rates don't impact spending habits when people have nothing to get interest on in the first place. Many, many retirees live by having a paid off house and a social security check.
