2015 Q4 GDP (first estimate): +0.7%

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

Markle wrote:

SheWrites wrote:With a slow buying season in the traditional holiday quarter, maybe this means people are finding better ways to celebrate and give.  One can hope.  I don't think it indicates people do not have the money to spend.  I think it's the choice of how they spend.

I had to familiarize myself with US exports.  Decent site for a refresher:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Our top exports to Switzerland are pretty interesting:

America’s exports to Switzerland amounted to
$22.7 billion or 1.4% of its overall exports.

 1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $11 billion
 2. Pharmaceuticals: $2.3 billion
 3. Collector items, art, antiques: $2.3 billion

As you should well know, that is not the case.  The average household had $3,000.00 less income last year.  The average income has gone down each year Lame Duck President Obama has been in the Oval Office.

You are doom and gloom.  

.7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective.

Let's pretend for a second that I know absolutely nothing about economics.  What is your point here?  When you say "it's likely below inflation", what do you actually mean?  What is it that you're suggesting here?

So...you don't know what your point was there?  

Uh oh...it's happening again.

If you're going to suggest that someone is dishonest, shouldn't you at least be able to state such a point succinctly and in some way that conveys substance?  Shouldn't you at least be able to explain your opinion to some degree?

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

The latest inflation rate for the United States is 0.7% through the 12 months ended December 2015 as published by the US government on January 20, 2016.

boards of FL wrote:By a show of hands, who here places any stock Markle's subjective opinion about economic numbers?  Who here thinks Markle can even tell you how old he is without stopping to think about it?

Don't all raise your hands at once now.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

PkrBum wrote:http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

The latest inflation rate for the United States is 0.7% through the 12 months ended December 2015 as published by the US government on January 20, 2016.

But what is your point?  Let me help you out here.  We're having this conversation within a thread that I created today about the recent GDP numbers.  All I did was post a direct link to the actual GDP report.  Your response there is to tell me that I'm dishonest and that ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that..."  That was your response.  My question to you was what on earth does that mean?   That is what I'm asking you, and your response is a random citation of the inflation rate?  

PkrBum, are you not able to simply state what your point was?  Are you not able to explain your opinion that I'm being dishonest by posting the GDP numbers?  Is this another one of those times where you make a vague, unintelligible statement, and then when asked to clarify, you run away?

I feel the need to restate everything again here.  Here is the conversation so far:


boards of fl: (insert GDP report)

PkrBum:  ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective."

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"

PkrBum:  (insert link to a website about inflation)

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"


PkrBum, can you simply state your point?  You realize that I really can't set the bar any lower for you, right?  I mean, if you can't even explain your own subjective beliefs...

Let me see if I can give you some help here in coming up with the words to explain the inflation part of your comment. Did you mean to say that since our growth in GDP is roughly the same as our rate of inflation, we can therefor conclude that we didn't actually have any economic growth? Instead, all we have is inflated numbers? Is that what you're trying to say, PkrBum?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

Markle wrote:

SheWrites wrote:With a slow buying season in the traditional holiday quarter, maybe this means people are finding better ways to celebrate and give.  One can hope.  I don't think it indicates people do not have the money to spend.  I think it's the choice of how they spend.

I had to familiarize myself with US exports.  Decent site for a refresher:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Our top exports to Switzerland are pretty interesting:

America’s exports to Switzerland amounted to
$22.7 billion or 1.4% of its overall exports.

 1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $11 billion
 2. Pharmaceuticals: $2.3 billion
 3. Collector items, art, antiques: $2.3 billion

As you should well know, that is not the case.  The average household had $3,000.00 less income last year.  The average income has gone down each year Lame Duck President Obama has been in the Oval Office.

You are doom and gloom.  

.7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective.

Let's pretend for a second that I know absolutely nothing about economics.  What is your point here?  When you say "it's likely below inflation", what do you actually mean?  What is it that you're suggesting here?

The economy is in the toilet.

How's that?

In order for that to be true, we would at the very least need to be in a recession.   But we're not, are we?  We're having this very discussion within a thread whose subject is the very expansion - however slow in this particular observation - of our economy.   That is, the economy expanded in the fourth quarter of 2015.  The economy grew.

Now, I'm sure you would like to inject some choice subjective words in there, like "good", "average", or "bad".  Feel free.  By a show of hands, who here places any stock Markle's subjective opinion about economic numbers?  Who here thinks Markle can even tell you how old he is without stopping to think about it?

Don't all raise your hands at once now.

Not really. The word would be malaise. A word made famous during the infamous term of Jimmy Carter.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

The latest inflation rate for the United States is 0.7% through the 12 months ended December 2015 as published by the US government on January 20, 2016.

But what is your point?  Let me help you out here.  We're having this conversation within a thread that I created today about the recent GDP numbers.  All I did was post a direct link to the actual GDP report.  Your response there is to tell me that I'm dishonest and that ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that..."  That was your response.  My question to you was what on earth does that mean?   That is what I'm asking you, and your response is a random citation of the inflation rate?  

PkrBum, are you not able to simply state what your point was?  Are you not able to explain your opinion that I'm being dishonest by posting the GDP numbers?  Is this another one of those times where you make a vague, unintelligible statement, and then when asked to clarify, you run away?

I feel the need to restate everything again here.  Here is the conversation so far:


boards of fl: (insert GDP report)

PkrBum:  ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective."

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"

PkrBum:  (insert link to a website about inflation)

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"


PkrBum, can you simply state your point?  You realize that I really can't set the bar any lower for you, right?  I mean, if you can't even explain your own subjective beliefs...

Let me see if I can give you some help here in coming up with the words to explain the inflation part of your comment.  Did you mean to say that since our growth in GDP is roughly the same as our rate of inflation, we can therefor conclude that we didn't actually have any economic growth?  Instead, all we have is inflated numbers?  Is that what you're trying to say, PkrBum?  

Well?

boards of FL wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

The latest inflation rate for the United States is 0.7% through the 12 months ended December 2015 as published by the US government on January 20, 2016.

But what is your point?  Let me help you out here.  We're having this conversation within a thread that I created today about the recent GDP numbers.  All I did was post a direct link to the actual GDP report.  Your response there is to tell me that I'm dishonest and that ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that..."  That was your response.  My question to you was what on earth does that mean?   That is what I'm asking you, and your response is a random citation of the inflation rate?  

PkrBum, are you not able to simply state what your point was?  Are you not able to explain your opinion that I'm being dishonest by posting the GDP numbers?  Is this another one of those times where you make a vague, unintelligible statement, and then when asked to clarify, you run away?

I feel the need to restate everything again here.  Here is the conversation so far:


boards of fl: (insert GDP report)

PkrBum:  ".7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective."

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"

PkrBum:  (insert link to a website about inflation)

boards of fl:  "What is your point?"


PkrBum, can you simply state your point?  You realize that I really can't set the bar any lower for you, right?  I mean, if you can't even explain your own subjective beliefs...

Let me see if I can give you some help here in coming up with the words to explain the inflation part of your comment.  Did you mean to say that since our growth in GDP is roughly the same as our rate of inflation, we can therefor conclude that we didn't actually have any economic growth?  Instead, all we have is inflated numbers?  Is that what you're trying to say, PkrBum?  

Well?

You seriously have to be kidding me.   So let me get this straight.  You just entered this thread, called me dishonest, made a vague reference to inflation, and you can't even explain what you meant there?  You can't find the words to simply communicate your own thoughts?  Each time I think we've hit rock bottom, PkrBum digs deeper.

PkrBum, you're leaving me no choice here but to take a guess at what your intent was with that first post.  I can only assume that what you intended to say was that if inflation is at 0.7% and if our economy is growing at 0.7%, that isn't really growth.  That is just inflated prices creating the appearance of growth.  Here again, I can only guess here since you're not equipped with the ability to simply communicate your own thoughts or political beliefs unless they are pre-written for you in an article that you can link to.   So that is my guess at what you were trying to say, and here is the problem with that:  GDP numbers are adjusted for inflation.  The headline number of 0.7% is real GDP - meaning, GDP adjusted for inflation.  If we only look at the raw numbers - or, nominal GDP -  we see that the economy grew at a rate of 1.5% annualized in the fourth quarter.  It is only after we adjust that figure to account for inflation that we arrive at the 0.7% number.  

Had you simply read the first sentence of the actual GDP report, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of being an ignorant clown, confidently stating your opinion while insulting others in a discussion of subject matter that you clearly know nothing about.

   Real gross domestic product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price changes -- increased at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, according to the
"advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

Lol... I hadn't even read this. Omy... I guess I have to concede that the economy grew at .7. Congratulations comrade.

Until the revision... amiright?

PkrBum wrote:Lol... I hadn't even read this. Omy... I guess I have to concede that the economy grew at .7. Congratulations comrade.

Until the revision... amiright?

You still have somehow managed to not respond, and I'm running out of ways to dumb this down any further.  Do you understand what I have asked you?  


You said this:

PkrBum wrote:.7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective.

Can you explain what your point was or whatever it was that you were trying to suggest there?  I swear this isn't a trick question.  

My point was that this is a very poor indicator... and that you will not honestly report that. Are you buying?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Lol... I hadn't even read this. Omy... I guess I have to concede that the economy grew at .7. Congratulations comrade.

Until the revision... amiright?

You still have somehow managed to not respond, and I'm running out of ways to dumb this down any further.  Do you understand what I have asked you?  

You said this:

PkrBum wrote:.7 is not unicorns and rainbows... it's likely below inflation. Bofer should know that... if he were honest and objective.

Can you explain what your point was or whatever it was that you were trying to suggest there?  I swear this isn't a trick question.  

The answer isn't a trick answer either.

If a Republican President had such a disastrous record Democrats would be livid. Instead, the Democrats have shifted the spin into overdrive.

I have enjoyed this discussion but the most conspicuous element omitted regarding the .7% growth in GDP should be transposed against the global economy . . . . . . the world economy is in a state of malaise and the US is one of the few remaining growing economies. It is not a condemnation of the US economy per se but a reflection of a slowing world economy.

PkrBum wrote:My point was that this is a very poor indicator... and that you will not honestly report that. Are you buying?

You are seriously dense.  If we look back through this thread, we see that I first posted a link directly to the actual GDP report.   I can't possibly be any more objective than that.  Your response to that was to tell me that I'm being unobjective and dishonest, and your basis for that assertion was some unintelligable rambling about inflation that you were never able to actually explain.  You basically said that I was being unobjective and dishonest because I didn't come out and say "The end is nigh!!"  That in itself suggests that you don't know what it means to be 'objective'.   I mean, we irrefutably know at this point that you don't know what 'objective' means.  

But what really gets me is the ego required to enter a thread based on subject matter that you clearly know absolutely nothing about, and then proclaim others - people who have masters degrees in that subject - as being dishonest and unobjective.  And your reasoning for that lies in your own ignorance of the subject matter!  You know so little about GDP - the most fundamental measure of the economy that has been released every quarter of your life - that you didn't even know that the headline number is adjusted for inflation.  

And you regularly use the term 'useful idiots'.  

Your diagnosis is in, PkrDumb.  You still don't pass the Turing test, though I think we can safely assume that you are not a robot at this point.  You're just really really incompetent and delusional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]

The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. They postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

Bottom line is that our economy is in the toilet.

We have yet to have a good year since our Lame Duck President took office.