Q3 GDP: Obviously Fictional 44 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
There was no surprise with the announced third-quarter GDP for the U.S. economy (+3.5%), however, there was some personal disappointment for me. The disappointment relates to the fact that few, if any, commentators were willing to speak up and exclaim that “the emperor is wearing no clothes.”
The reason that this is such a big disappointment is that the “official” number for U.S. Q3 GDP cannot withstand the slightest analytical scrutiny. So, allow me to analytically dissect this obviously fraudulent number.
Let's start with the big picture. At the end of 2008, official GDP was -6.4%. This was also likely an understatement, but for the sake of argument let's treat it as “fact”. Move ahead to the Q3 2009 reading of +3.5% and we see a swing of 10% in U.S. GDP – in merely the span of nine months. The only factor in the U.S. economy pushing against this massive contraction (and debt implosion) is the “Obama stimulus package”. However, using the Obama regime's own numbers, less than $300 billion of true “stimulus” would reach the U.S. economy over the course of this entire year.
This means that as of the end of Q3, only about $200 billion of true stimulus has entered the U.S. economy. If anyone actually believes that this $200 billion could create a 10% shift in U.S. GDP, the following points will quickly dispel that fantasy.
Regular readers will recall that I have pointed out on a number of occasions that the U.S. economy has lost roughly $2 trillion in spending-power from the peak of the housing bubble. This is comprised of roughly ½ reduced credit, and ½ lost income. On the credit side, at the peak of the bubble, U.S. homeowners extracted $840 billion in (temporary) “equity” in 2006 alone. That source of credit has virtually disappeared – along with billions in other categories of “consumer credit”.
The following graph from the St. Louis Fed helps to illustrate this more clearly.
As you can see, for the first time in the more than 40 years for which this data has been kept, U.S. consumer credit is steadily contracting. This 40-year period also marks the era in which the U.S. economy has become totally dependent on ever expanding debt/credit. Clearly, a mere $200 billion in stimulus could do little more than slow down the U.S. economic collapse – and certainly not reverse it.
With the U.S. economy now burdened with $60 trillion in total public/private debt, it already spends trillions each year simply paying the interest on this debt. Thus, this Ponzi-scheme economy now requires a steady, significant rise in credit merely for this economy to “tread water” (i.e. zero growth). By itself, contracting credit is a powerful downward force on the U.S. economy. The following point will make this even more obvious.
As I have recently stated, the U.S. government can never afford to voluntarily raise interest rates again. A mere 1% increase in interest rates would result in $600 billion per year in added interest payments (on top of the existing trillions per year in interest payments). I observed that, by itself, this $600 billion extracted from the U.S. economy would be equal to roughly a 5% drop in GDP.
I also added that the total drop in U.S. GDP would be greater than 5% because of the spin-off (or “multiplier”) effect of that withdrawal of cash. This begs the question: how large a multiplier effect would be a reasonable estimate?
If we look at the Obama stimulus package, and the purported gain in U.S. GDP, we are supposed to believe that a mere $200 billion could cause a 10% shift in GDP. If that was true, then a 1% increase in U.S. interest rates, which would lead to a subtraction of $600 billion from the economy (three times the amount of Obama stimulus) implies a drop in U.S. GDP of 30%. If anything, a 1% increase in interest rates would cause an even larger collapse in the U.S. economy – since this additional push would be working with the existing downward momentum, not against it (like the Obama stimulus package).
If I wrote a piece claiming that a 1% increase in U.S. interest rates would cause a 30% drop in U.S. GDP, would anyone believe that? Yet, if you refuse to believe those numbers, then you can't possibly place any credence on the GDP number which the U.S. government fabricated for the third quarter.
However, denouncing this ridiculous farce isn't dependent on logic, alone – we also have our “smoking gun”. In order to fabricate a number as wildly inaccurate as Q3 GDP, the U.S. government had to also fabricate additional data – most notably the “GDP deflator”.
For those who haven't had this explained to them before, every GDP estimate must be “deflated” (by the prevailing inflation in the economy). If this wasn't done, then the “raw” GDP data is totally invalid – because there is no separation of how much of that “growth” was a genuine increase in economic activity, and how much was merely higher prices.
For the third quarter, the U.S. government used a “deflator” of less than 1%. Again, it is easy to demonstrate that this number has no connection to the real world. As we have all heard, the entire world is engaged in a game of “competitive devaluation” of their currencies. Obviously “devaluing currencies” is identical to “rising prices” (i.e. inflation) since by definition it requires more units of a devalued currency to purchase goods.
In a world of devaluing currencies, the U.S. dollar has managed to fall much farther than almost every other currency in the world. Again, as a matter of logical necessity, this means that the U.S. economy must experience more inflation than other economies – not less. Yet other governments are beginning to withdraw monetary stimulus from their economies, precisely because of growing inflationary pressures.
As a further rebuttal of the ridiculous inflation numbers of the U.S. government, we have the well-respected John Williams, and his own web-site: shadowstats.com – which calculates U.S. economic statistics using the same methodology which was used a generation (or two) ago, before the U.S. government added all of its “techniques” for manipulating those same statistics. Williams pegged Q3 U.S. inflation at roughly 7% - a huge gap from the less-than-1% the U.S. government used to “deflate” its raw GDP data.
In short, any commentator who removed his/her “blinders” to take a close look at the latest U.S.GDP number would have to reject it as being inaccurate to the point of total irrelevance – assuming one is capable of performing simple arithmetic. The fact that even critics of U.S. official “statistics” refuse to denounce this number as fraud is a regrettable demonstration of their own timidity.
“The emperor is wearing no clothes,” and I'm not afraid to explicitly state this. We will all be better off when other commentators who are not part of the corporate propaganda-machine will cease their own self-censorship and explicitly denounce the endless stream of fraudulent “statistics” of the U.S. government.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 44 comments:
Fortunately those dark days are over and here in the Soviet of America we have government of the Regime, by the Regime and for the Regime........ in name of the People.
The sole source and repository of truth, in these bright and shining times, are the Statistics of the Government. Reality is what the Statistics say it is. If the Statistics say there is a "V" recovery accelerating into a boom (Wall St be praised) then it is so. If the Statistics say that jobs without number have been" saved and created" then it is so(WashDc be praised). If the Statistics say that uncounted home foreclosures have been prevented by the wisdom, skill and ceaseless labors of the Regime then it must be so (MSM be praised)
The Statistics have been handcrafted with exquisite care and devoted attention to detail by Master Deceivers assembled with great effort and cost from across the land. They must only be viewed in the dim light of the MSM or the strobe lights of Wall St. When viewed thus, in the proper and approved manner, they appear remarkably lifelike.
It is forbidden to view them in daylight because they are simply too fine, too delicate, too magical to be seen by the destructive light of reason and logic.
The Regime be praised and may all Middle class doubters be exposed and hunted down....in the name of the Statistics.
All of the media "business" shows are at fault, with a few exceptions. But I believe CNBC to be the worst prostitute, as they have to stay the corporate course for GE, consort to obama.
We have Capitol Hill truth, Wall Street truth and finally Main Street truth, while CH & WS share similar goals and ambitions and have appeared to formed a strong alliance MS has been left to fend for itself, CH gets more powerful, WS gets wealthier and MS gets the shaft, it was the same during the GD, there is a method to this madness which favors the carpetbaggers once again
On Nov 08 07:30 AM chris coonan wrote:
> why isn't there a major questioning of statistics in the media?
> i know from looking at the BLS for the Architecture profession that
> the numbers are far from accurate. In a field which is suffering
> due to lack of billings, lack of future projects, and no credit....the
> unemployment rate is reported as 9 percent in the Q3 of 2009, below
> the national average. how can that be possible? IT ISN'T
On Nov 08 09:07 AM fwi wrote:
> chris coonan asks why the media doesn't question the numbers. They
> don't because they do not know what they are talking about. Bob Pisani?
> Erin Bernett? None of these teleprompter and cheerleading queens
> have any business experience or education. You don't major in Broadcasting
> and learn anything about gdp deflators or derivative structures.
>
>
> All of the media "business" shows are at fault, with a few exceptions.
> But I believe CNBC to be the worst prostitute, as they have to stay
> the corporate course for GE, consort to obama.
I am 85 years old and in all my life have never experienced the lies, half truths, coverups and scandals that I see our governement perpetuating on daily basis. Keep your passion for calling the US out on the biggest fraud we have seen in centruies from any govenrment.
GoldLovingTurtle
I knew there was some way to pay for the $10,0000 Obama dress.
So see yourself out the door and don't let it hit you in the keister on the way out!
We won't miss you.
GreatWhite
On Nov 08 11:44 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:
> ngs Ouch! Another 190,000 jobs went down the crapper in October,
> taking unemployment rate to a new 27 year high of 10.2%. Add in discouraged
> job seekers, and that puts the jobless rate at gut churning 17.5%,
> and over 20% in California. Along with yesterday’s stunning, gob
> smacking 9.5% increase in Q3 productivity, the figures point a giant
> arc spotlight on what is really happening in the economy. Companies
> are still firing workers en mass to boost profits. After getting
> blood from a stone, they are returning to the same rock for one more
> drop. I guess if I fire myself, the profitability of my business
> would go through the roof too, and maybe even my stock would rise.
> At least then, I would be rid of my oldest, most expensive, but least
> productive employee, who is the most difficult to get along with,
> maxes out his sick and vacation days, and wears the same clothes
> to work every day, even when there lipstick on the collar. But then
> who would write this daily letter? Maybe Cecelia, my cleaning lady
> would do it. She’s cheap. You don’t mind getting this letter in Spanish,
> do you? ¡Andale! This explains why when you go into Office Depot
> these days, there is only one minimum waged employee standing at
> the cash register, the hours on the phone I have to wait to get technical
> support from Dell, and the endless unmovable lines at Citibank. America’s
> service economy has become all about denying service to customers.
> The scary thing is, with companies firing their way to prosperity,
> what happens when we get another dip? My theory is that the US has
> entered an era of chronically high unemployment that is never going
> away, no matter what the government does. Goodbye USA, hello Germany!
-----
You seem to like facts and logic, so let's parse those statements you made.
(1) "At the end of 2008, official GDP was -6.4%." Wrong. The RATE OF GROWTH of the GDP was -6.4%, not the GDP itself. The GDP was contracting at a 6.4% annual rate. That's what happens in a recession, overall economic activity contracts. There is a difference between size and rate of change, just as there is a difference between, say, a car's location and its velocity of movement away from that location.
(2) "This means that as of the end of Q3, only about $200 billion of true stimulus has entered the U.S. economy. If anyone actually believes that this $200 billion could create a 10% shift in U.S. GDP, the following points will quickly dispel that fantasy." Wrong again, repeating the same mistake. The $200 B did not create, and is not claimed to have created, a 10% shift in GDP. It is one of many factors that led to a CHANGE IN THE RATE OF GROWTH in GDP from -6.4% annualized to +3.5% annualized. There have been many such shifts in history. Just look at any long-term chart of quarter-to-quarter changes in the rate of growth of GDP over the years. There is nothing remarkable about this. It is what typically happens towards the end of recessions.
(3) "The only factor in the U.S. economy pushing against this massive contraction (and debt implosion) is the 'Obama stimulus package'." Wrong again. There are lots of factors. Since we are talking about a rate of change, not absolute size, any economic measurement or activity that contracted at a slowing rate of speed, or flattened out instead of contracting, or turned upward from a downward trajectory, ALL contributed to the change in the rate of growth in GDP. There are literally thousands of such factors. Many of them are reported in a continuing stream of data and information almost daily.
Surely you must understand the difference between the size of something and the rate at which it is changing? If you do, I'm wondering why you write such misleading sentences as the ones quoted here? Perhaps the reason the MSM didn't look into things like the ones stated here is because they are false, illogical, and misleading, not because the journalists are part of a massive conspiracy or lazy. If you are going to present analysis to help the users of SA, you could use facts and sound logic. Efforts to dig behind government (or any kind) of information are welcomed, but such obviously flawed statements diminish any writer's credibility.
Foreign dollar holders currently have over 50% of the dollar supply; our policy wonks think that tax revenues will come in a tidal stream once these dollars are spent on American made goods, services and/or assets. These tax revenues will be used to pay down the government’s huge debt load. And once the debt load is paid off, the smoke screen numbers they gave will not even be a footnote in history books.
And once again our political leaders will be in control of events.
President Obama and Congress will revise the bankruptcy laws so that individuals can use legal means to get out from under their debt load.
And the above is the scenario that will supposedly play out in the coming months and years.
I think the better argument is simply to point out how simply injecting money into GDP doesn't an economic recovery make. Cash for clunkers cost far more than it saved yet it accounts for a big portion of the Q3 gdp blip.
It would make more sense to take the money they are borrowing, and just pay producers not to produce until natural demand drove the prices up. I hate supply side manipulation for some of its moral implications, but this whole approach of creating artificial demand is probably even more ineffective and will with all certainly lead to successive bubbles and crashes down this mega mountain slope we are on.
Artificial demand is not any less deceptive and destructive however, since its the economic equivalent of an infomercial for a product that doesn't live up to its promises and/or hardly gets any use.
Even better is they could stop borrowing money altogether, but that would take confident, strong leadership that could handle one really bad year.
They seem to have fully committed to this course, and it seems like at this point, much like businesses I have seen prior to their implosion or failure, are sticking with the program just to maintain face, to not have to admit they were wrong, very wrong, at the start, and that things are in fact worse now than they were. It is probably the biggest weakness any businessperson could have.
However in the land of politics, you can't be a waffler, so you have to stick to the same line until your ship sinks. Unfortunately, with government at the helm of the US economy we are now all on that ship!
First, actually at the end of 2008, or in Q4 of that year, the official annualized GDP contraction rate was 5.4%, not 6.4% as you stated.
Second, your claim of a 10% swing by merely subtracting annualized growth rates from each other, which are based on SEQUENTIAL growth estimates, is not correct. The 3.5% annualized growth rate basically means that compared with the prior quarter (Q2), the economy grew at a 3.5% annualized rate, or a monthly rate of around .292%. So its saying that if the economy grew at this rate for the next 12 months, then we could say that the economy expanded at a rate of 3.5%. Such rate is not directly related to the Q4 2008 GDP. Similarly, the annualized 5.4% contraction rate of Q4 2008 was based on the sequential estimated growth for that quarter.
Simply put, your assumption of a "10% shift in U.S. GDP" during the last 9 months doesn't appear to be correct.
The 3.5% growth rate figure is derived from BEA's estimated chained-dollar GDP, which I would say would be a better figure for you to use because then you can actually compare it with Q4 2008. If you do that, you will actually see that compared with Q4 of last year, the Q3 GDP contracted at a 1.3% annualized rate, indicating a less significant "shift".
I personally believe the second category to be MUCH more abundant than the first. Living in an era of unprecedented "group-think", it takes only a tiny amount of manipulative "shepherds" to heard all of the ignorant sheep.
You buy-off a few high-profile (and totally unprincipled) shills like Cramer, make sure they have a HUGE "platform" from which to spew their propaganda - and allow them to deceive our generation all of the "mental couch potatoes".
On Nov 08 07:19 AM socrateaz wrote:
The big dramatic swings in GDP are due to calculation methodology.
www.planbeconomics.com.../
One point I'd like to emphasize is the phoniness of the inflation numbers, among all the other government's fountain of mis-information - and that is how many people believe the fairy tale called deflation.
Look at all of the, as I call them, "deflation dummies" who are falling all over themselves to buy Treasuries at near 0% in the biggest financial bubble ever. And all because they believe the fairy tale concocted by Wall Street and Washington about deflation.
Don't they understand that the whole deflation fairy tale was cocncocted so the powers that be could find some investors dumb enough to buy US government debt.
I have to disagree with you.
With respect to your choice of numbers, I used the PRELIMINARY estimate for Q4 of '08 and Q3 of '09. We KNOW the preliminary estimate of Q3 GDP will be revised - so I don't see anything inappropriate with comparing two preliminary estimates.
Secondly, my point about a 10% swing in the rate of change of GDP is entirely valid. The only two ways to engage in valid comparisons is to compare absolute GDP in both instances or the rate of change in both instances (which is what I did).
On Nov 08 01:47 PM Ali Mogharabi wrote:
> Although I am not bullish regarding this economy and the mkt, and
> I do agree with your thoughts on consumer credit and consumption,
> I must disagree with your interpretation of last quarter's GDP figures.
>
>
> First, actually at the end of 2008, or in Q4 of that year, the official
> annualized GDP contraction rate was 5.4%, not 6.4% as you stated.
>
>
> Second, your claim of a 10% swing by merely subtracting annualized
> growth rates from each other, which are based on SEQUENTIAL growth
> estimates, is not correct. The 3.5% annualized growth rate basically
> means that compared with the prior quarter (Q2), the economy grew
> at a 3.5% annualized rate, or a monthly rate of around .292%. So
> its saying that if the economy grew at this rate for the next 12
> months, then we could say that the economy expanded at a rate of
> 3.5%. Such rate is not directly related to the Q4 2008 GDP. Similarly,
> the annualized 5.4% contraction rate of Q4 2008 was based on the
> sequential estimated growth for that quarter.
>
> Simply put, your assumption of a "10% shift in U.S. GDP" during the
> last 9 months doesn't appear to be correct.
>
> The 3.5% growth rate figure is derived from BEA's estimated chained-dollar
> GDP, which I would say would be a better figure for you to use because
> then you can actually compare it with Q4 2008. If you do that, you
> will actually see that compared with Q4 of last year, the Q3 GDP
> contracted at a 1.3% annualized rate, indicating a less significant
> "shift".
If you look at U.S. statistics, even the "official" ones, all you see are statistics which are less-bad (i.e. still falling) OR numbers which are SLIGHTLY positive (by the barest of margins).
I strongly question the readings on BOTH the U.S. "service sector" and the "manufacturing sector", especially the service sector where claims of a TINY amount of growth are highly dubious - but of immense propaganda value.
However, if you think it is important to take note of this extremely minimal "growth" in the service sector, fine, it is so slight that is immaterial to my analysis.
As a reminder, we are dealing with overall parameters expressed in TRILLIONS. It doesn't discredit my analysis to point out "exceptions" which are several orders of magnitude smaller.
On Nov 08 06:16 PM User 190582 wrote:
> I enjoyed reading this but the one MAJOR problem is that the author
> assumes that THE ONLY contributor to GDP was the $200 Billion of
> Stimulus money. ("The only factor in the U.S. economy pushing against
> this massive contraction (and debt implosion) is the “Obama stimulus
> package”) Who ever said that accounted for the entire 3.5% number?
> I'm in the same camp as most of you and the author & I believe
> we are being lied to. I think this author makes his point clear
> & I agree with most of it, but that one incorrect assumption
> he used makes all of the rest of his calculations flawed as well.
I don't credit the Obama "stimulus package" with anything. Most of it has not even been spent yet. This is just a normal cyclical recovery.
"Williams pegs current U.S. Inflation at roughly 7% - a huge gap from the less-than-1% the U.S. Government used to “deflate” its raw GDP data."
You even LIE about your own twisted data sources CPI figures. According to Shadow stats most recent CPI figures it is at 5%. But I guess in your twisted mind you can simply just use 2008 "Shadow Stats" figures without anybody questioning it. Your own fantasy data site contradicts your outrageous claims.
Get your Lies straight!
GreatWhite
The burden becomes a function of the major portion of the debt, not just the current deficits. The burden, in fact, becomes exponential. In other words, if the trend is not stopped, the debt inevitably has to be repudiated.
There are other sources of GDP. In south Florida the tourists are increasingly foreign, and a few are picking up real estate. Some South Americans have to visit periodically either for business or healthcare treatment. The favorable exchange rates make everything American even more attractive. The dollar index has fallen 10% since elections last year and I trust the market more than government statisticians.
Dear Jeff,
I do not want to rain on your party, but you have misunderstood what this means. It is 3.5% growth from the bottom, not 3.5% on the figure from last year. The turnaround is a drop of 4% not a rise of 10%.
Your point regarding interest rates is valid. I have also done the figures, interest rates cannot go above about 3-4% without causing a major depression.
The only option for the fed and the treasury is to print 10-15% of GDP every year to inflate away the debt or to let the debt holders fail.
Tell me do ANY of you arguing the point actually believe the government numbers? If you do I'm sorry to say you deserve what is coming.
Twist Turn and Distort again.
GreatWhite
On Nov 08 09:35 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> That's interesting that you have posted this IDENTICAL comment THREE
> times now. The first time you posted it (on my instablog), for some
> strange reason you never replied.
>
> When you posted this comment a SECOND time, apparently Seeking Alpha
> deleted it before I could even respond to it.
>
> For the sake of those who do not want to have to go to my "instablog",
> I'll re-post my reply - and we'll see if THIS time YOU actually reply:
>
>
>
> "I did mis-speak in one respect. Since I was talking about Q3 GDP,
> I should have said "Williams pegged Q3 U.S. inflation at roughly
> 7%..." - it has been corrected.
>
> Beyond that, Williams chart of his own CPI calculation shows it NEVER
> going lower than 6% - momentarily this year - and higher every other
> month. I've looked over the site and can see no reference to "5%
> current inflation". Did you simply make that up?
>
> A more interesting point is that Williams' data is only available
> to SUBSCRIBERS. Are you a subscriber to shadowstats.com, Great White?
> Because if you are, then you couldn't possibly believe your own B.S.?"
>
-----
"Sorry, but this "rally" is 50% propaganda, and 50% Plunge Protection Team. It sounds like you could use a large dose of REALITY.
"I recommend John Williams' site: shadowstats.com. Take a look at REAL numbers - and that should be all it takes to bring you back to Earth.
"The U.S. housing collapse isn't half-over, and forget about ridiculously fabricated employment "statistics", the U.S. is actually on course to lose 20 MILLION jobs, this year alone.
"Finally, the U.S. government cannot AFFORD for this "rally" to continue - as it would result in the Treasuries "bubble" deflating - as people move out of bonds into equities.
"The U.S. government CANNOT prop up the USD, the bond market, AND equities all at once."
-----
Do you see a fact in there? I don't. In case you don't recognize the comment, it's one that you wrote back in May. As to the market rally itself, down here on Earth where I've been all along, the market is up about 23% since you wrote the above. Guess your "reality" has flaws.
As a matter of necessity ALL arguments require the use of some parameters as starting points for analysis. You'll excuse me for not having the PERSONAL RESOURCES to be able to engage in the same level of data-collection as the U.S. (with its $11 trillion economy).
More generally, we know as an elementary fact of human behavior that these propagandists will NEVER over-state the severity of the U.S. economic collapse.
Such statements are legally described as "admissions against one's own interests" and it is an established principle of LAW that when someone makes such a statement it is given MUCH higher "weight" as evidence than statements made in SUPPORT of one's position (i.e. that the U.S. economy is "recovering").
Thus, we know as a matter of behavioral science that the propagandists will never over-state the weakness of the economy - thus these bogus statistics can be RELIABLY deemed as MINIMUM estimates of U.S. economic weakness.
The fact that I can establish such gaping inconsistencies in U.S. "statistics" using the government's own, flawed data certainly does not discredit MY analysis in any respect.
Don't let their confusion impede you. You and a handful of others are a beacon in the black clouds ahead.
Thanks for your continuing efforts. Some will be saved.
GreatWhite
On Nov 09 12:25 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> So now it's "closer to 5% or 6% range" and I'M the "liar"?
>
> As I pointed out, ANYONE exposed to shadowstats data could not POSSIBLY
> believe the manure you spew in EVERY ONE of your comments.
>
> You have no credibility - and no matter how often you accuse ME of
> being a "liar", that doesn't change.
>
> As another individual pointed out in a recent comment, it was only
> a few weeks ago you branded my work as being so pathetic that it
> wasn't even "worth your time" to insult it.
>
> The fact that you're STILL here is nothing less than an implicit
> admission that YOU are treating my recent work as being more even
> more credible.
>
> Give up your pathetic "crusade"! Don Quixote had a clearer grasp
> of reality than you do.
How almost romantically said and believed until it's attached to your name
GRUMLEY!!
Give me a break! Back to Jr High with you.
GreatWhite
On Nov 09 01:04 PM Grumley wrote:
> Jeff, we all know that these individuals are still in the denial
> phases of this kind of a crisis. There is nothing wrong with that
> as we all pass through the stages at different times and speeds.
>
>
> Don't let their confusion impede you. You and a handful of others
> are a beacon in the black clouds ahead.
>
> Thanks for your continuing efforts. Some will be saved.
Also, what is your take on private data? Do you believe the NAR over the government? Oh yeah, while the government is just propaganizing us, private companies are just reporting their private agenda. So we should believe no one except people who you've predetermined to already agree with your perspective? Perhaps we should ignore all data and just rely on your feelings (since you refuse to use data yourself because no data is trustworthy)?
Lastly, if it were honestly true that the government NEVER reports data that is better than reality, then we have a HUGE negative deficit in the data. The GDP is much smaller than being reported, the unemployment rate was 10% before this recession and now it is 30% (even though 90% of our neighbors have jobs, we must all just be in lucky neighborhoods), corporate revenues/earnings must be getting manipulated by the government (or maybe they are all just lying too, and by chance, by the exact right amount to support government numbers - after all, government = propaganda and private = agenda).
On Nov 09 12:35 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> Thiazole,
>
> As a matter of necessity ALL arguments require the use of some parameters
> as starting points for analysis. You'll excuse me for not having
> the PERSONAL RESOURCES to be able to engage in the same level of
> data-collection as the U.S. (with its $11 trillion economy).
>
> More generally, we know as an elementary fact of human behavior that
> these propagandists will NEVER over-state the severity of the U.S.
> economic collapse.
>
> Such statements are legally described as "admissions against one's
> own interests" and it is an established principle of LAW that when
> someone makes such a statement it is given MUCH higher "weight" as
> evidence than statements made in SUPPORT of one's position (i.e.
> that the U.S. economy is "recovering").
>
> Thus, we know as a matter of behavioral science that the propagandists
> will never over-state the weakness of the economy - thus these bogus
> statistics can be RELIABLY deemed as MINIMUM estimates of U.S. economic
> weakness.
>
> The fact that I can establish such gaping inconsistencies in U.S.
> "statistics" using the government's own, flawed data certainly does
> not discredit MY analysis in any respect.
On Nov 09 12:35 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> Thiazole,
>
> As a matter of necessity ALL arguments require the use of some parameters
> as starting points for analysis. You'll excuse me for not having
> the PERSONAL RESOURCES to be able to engage in the same level of
> data-collection as the U.S. (with its $11 trillion economy).
>
> More generally, we know as an elementary fact of human behavior that
> these propagandists will NEVER over-state the severity of the U.S.
> economic collapse.
>
> Such statements are legally described as "admissions against one's
> own interests" and it is an established principle of LAW that when
> someone makes such a statement it is given MUCH higher "weight" as
> evidence than statements made in SUPPORT of one's position (i.e.
> that the U.S. economy is "recovering").
>
> Thus, we know as a matter of behavioral science that the propagandists
> will never over-state the weakness of the economy - thus these bogus
> statistics can be RELIABLY deemed as MINIMUM estimates of U.S. economic
> weakness.
>
> The fact that I can establish such gaping inconsistencies in U.S.
> "statistics" using the government's own, flawed data certainly does
> not discredit MY analysis in any respect.
On Nov 09 01:04 PM Grumley wrote:
> Jeff, we all know that these individuals are still in the denial
> phases of this kind of a crisis. There is nothing wrong with that
> as we all pass through the stages at different times and speeds.
>
>
> Don't let their confusion impede you. You and a handful of others
> are a beacon in the black clouds ahead.
>
> Thanks for your continuing efforts. Some will be saved.
On Nov 09 07:49 PM GreatWhite wrote:
> "You and a handful of others are a beacon in the black clouds ahead"
>
>
> How almost romantically said and believed until it's attached to
> your name
> GRUMLEY!!
>
> Give me a break! Back to Jr High with you.
>
> GreatWhite
GDP is a bit misleading since it tends to count the resources twice; our production and the consumption of it. Nevertheless the recent GDP numbers were not caused by real growth it was just caused by deeper debt. Is it really a recovery if the growth is false?
You obviously didn't understand my explanation since you got things 100% BACKWARDS.
Try again.
On Nov 10 10:44 AM thiazole wrote:
> Well, that is an interesting point, but the data the government reported
> in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 was all terrible. Why would they report such
> news? If they wanted a "happy face" on everything, why not lie then?
>
>
> Also, what is your take on private data? Do you believe the NAR
> over the government? Oh yeah, while the government is just propaganizing
> us, private companies are just reporting their private agenda. So
> we should believe no one except people who you've predetermined to
> already agree with your perspective? Perhaps we should ignore all
> data and just rely on your feelings (since you refuse to use data
> yourself because no data is trustworthy)?
>
> Lastly, if it were honestly true that the government NEVER reports
> data that is better than reality, then we have a HUGE negative deficit
> in the data. The GDP is much smaller than being reported, the unemployment
> rate was 10% before this recession and now it is 30% (even though
> 90% of our neighbors have jobs, we must all just be in lucky neighborhoods),
> corporate revenues/earnings must be getting manipulated by the government
> (or maybe they are all just lying too, and by chance, by the exact
> right amount to support government numbers - after all, government
> = propaganda and private = agenda).
> Thiazole,
>
> You obviously didn't understand my explanation since you got things
> 100% BACKWARDS.
>
> Try again.
It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about here, but now I see I screwed up my statement. I said, "Lastly, if it were honestly true that the government NEVER reports data that is better than reality, then we have a HUGE negative deficit in the data." what I meant was "Lastly, if it were honestly true that the government NEVER reports data that is worse than reality (and often reports data that is better than reality), then we have a HUGE negative deficit in the data." In other words, every time the government lies about employment, the difference between the government report and reality grows. It would mean that over the past 10-20 years that the spread in employment (for example) between reality and what is reported must be HUGE. It would imply that the unemployment rate must have been >10% before this recession. What I am saying is that IF the government has been lying about things like employment or GDP to make things look rosier than they are for a long enough period of time, then at some point they must also lie about the rate of recovery to make things look LESS rosy than they are, or the difference between reported values and reality would grow so much that it would be obvious to all that they have been lying.
Use this example: Let's say (as I've heard many bears claim) that the current unemployment rate is really 20%, or greater than the reported value by 10% of the workforce. Let's then assume that over the next 5 years that the true unemployment rate stays at 20%, but that the government "claims" that the unemployment rate has improved to 5%. Now the spread is 15%. Now, lets say GE discovers cold fusion and sells the technology worldwide for trillions of $ spurring the US economy to new heights causing the true unemployment rate to improve from 20% to 5% over the next 10 years. Now if the government has been claiming that the unemployment rate was only 5% BEFORE this event, how do they adjust for when the unemployment rate improves by 15% of the workforce? If they are bound by never reporting data that is worse than reality, then they would have to say that the unemployment rate is now negative 10%. Since that isn't an option, they'd have to lie and claim that the unemployment rate didn't improve nearly as much as it really did (ie, even though the new economy added 20 million jobs, the government would have to pretend that the number is much lower to avoid having a negative unemployment rate). That is the point that I'm making. IF the government purposefully reports data that is better than reality, then they must ALSO at times report data that is worse than reality, or the deficit between reported values and reality would grow to a point where it would become absurd.