SIXTH TIME....BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Markle wrote:I showed where you lied.  I'm sorry it is beyond your comprehension.  I feel sorry for you and the other far left Progressives here who are unwilling to accept FACTS.

When?  Where?  Use the quote feature.

Markle wrote:Now simply carry on the conversation  by yourself or, as you are wont to do, simply delete the thread.  It's how little kids "fight".

And he runs away again!   Run, Forrest!  Run!

I must say this is a new low for you, Markle.  It's one thing to run away from a political discussion involving the labor force participation rate.  It's another thing to run away from qualifying a statement that you make such as "You lied!"

If you can't even quality a comment such as that...I don't know what to tell you. That's just bad.

I believe that his position is that there are many factors... such as labor participation, credit access, wages, hours, benefits, corp taxes, trade agreements, epa climate regulations and un redistribution, debt, deficit... etc.

But there are those that simply flaunt govt generated numbers... that don't consider monetary policies or govt subsidy.

That makes the picture much more complex than you celebrate... and makes you intellectually dishonest.

But there are those that simply flaunt govt generated numbers... that don't consider monetary policies or govt subsidy.

That makes the picture much more complex than you celebrate... and makes you intellectually dishonest.



I think not.  Let me give a simple analogy.   Since the early 1950s we have had speedometers in our cars which have changed little.  They basically gage the speed of the vehicle in a forward position.   We can judge history by the use of the data which that speedometer provides, and set policy like speed limits for varying road conditions and where that vehicle is traveling.   A car going 60mph in 1950 is still going 60mph in 2014.

So when a vehicle which had been traveling for 20 years at 60, slows down to 40 there is historical context and there is the immediate recognition of what that speed of 40mph is.

When that car increases the speed back up to 60 mph that increase in speed stands alone as a concept.

It does not stand alone as to what the actual speed limit is.  It does not stand alone as to the weather conditions which may give input as to why the car is traveling at that speed.  It does not tell us the MPG or fuel consumption at a given speed, but simply tells us the speed.

Mr. Markle's argument is that the speed of  economy and the economic indicators which act as that speedometer are inaccurate because the car is going down hill, and when it goes up hill when the Labor participation rate increases and there is more participation the speed will reduce.

This is simply absurd conceptually and practically, because the speed is the constant in the calculation, and it is static and does not change as the INDICATOR of comparison.  It does not become false by going uphill or downhill, using more fuel, or being restricted by speed limits......speed is simply an indicator.

PkrBum wrote:I believe that his position is that there are many factors... such as labor participation, credit access, wages, hours, benefits, corp taxes, trade agreements, epa climate regulations and un redistribution, debt, deficit... etc.

You're not really saying anything here.  There are many factors....in what?  What does that even mean?

Entering a conversation about, say, GDP and simply saying "Well, you have to understand that there are many factors.  EPA, Congress, House, the President.  China.  The EU. The EPA.  Financial regulation.  Yes.  Many factors" doesn't really say anything.  There is no substance there.

I could post any sort of economic news - jobs numbers, GDP, consumer confidence, leading indicators, etc.. - and Markle will chime in with a chart of the labor force participation rate.  Simply posting the labor force participation rate with no qualification as to why it is relevant is meaningless; hence why I asked him why it is that he always posts it.  Does he feel it is a greater indicator of the success or failure of an economy than any other data point?  Does he feel that current short-term policy is to blame for the labor force participation rate?  We can only guess because - to date - Markle has never been able to explain why he continues to post the LPR chart.  Not once.  

PkrBum wrote:But there are those that simply flaunt govt generated numbers... that don't consider monetary policies or govt subsidy.

That makes the picture much more complex than you celebrate... and makes you intellectually dishonest.

On what planet am I unaware of fed policy or government fiscal policy?  On what planet do I only focus on one number?  Are you confusing me with Markle?  I regularly post GDP, employment situation, new jobless claims, leading indicators, lagging indicators, CPI, consumer confidence, corporate profits, stock market indicators, PMI manufacturing surveys, retail sales, etc., etc..  If there is anyone who avoids worshiping one single data point, it's me.  I post it all.

Markle on the other hand does in fact worship the same chart again and again, and yet he can't even tell us why.  Isn't that odd?  It's almost as if he's an idiot who doesn't actually know what he's talking about, so he has no choice but to defer to the labor force participation rate.  The LPR and the fed monetary base chart - that is Markle's entire economic repertoire.  That's it.  He's an empty user name that randomly interjects the same chart but lacks any ability to explain what they mean, why they move the way that they do, or why they are even relevant to the subject matter at hand.

And when you call him out on this, he claims some sort of victory and then runs away.  This phrase gets used way too much, but you really can't make this shit up.   It crosses over from "This guys and idiot" to "Eh...that's really really weird behavior".