50,000 captured/killed....

[cj001f]

Doing NE butt of Jberg tomorrow and thursday then fri/sat doing NE ridge on triumph. Though Ivan is trying to talk me into replacing the triumph climb with the index traverse! That thing looks terrible tho!!

 

Sounds sweet!

[j_b]

let's also not forget that most jobs created in the last few years are linked to the housing bubble .... .... ....

[Jim]

Ah spin?

 

Compare the date of J_B's link and my data.

 

Then consider who's the spinner....

 

 

The last link you posted has no relevant date related to current statistics - it's just an explanation on a theory of business cycles. JBs linked article covers data through 2004. Things have substantially improved since then?

[cj001f]

Things have substantially improved since then?

Not according to that pinko rag the Economist!

"AFTER weeks of focusing on the presidential race, Americans’ attention this week swung back to a more pressing concern: their economy. Financial markets have been jittery for weeks, as signs of an economic slowdown have increased."

 

"ONE by one, economies around the world are stumbling. By cutting interest rates again this week—for the seventh time this year—the Federal Reserve hopes it can keep America out of recession. But in an increasing number of economies, from Japan and Taiwan to Mexico and Brazil, GDP is already shrinking"

 

all quotes are from this weeks issue.

[Peter_Puget]

Ah spin?

 

Compare the date of J_B's link and my data.

 

Then consider who's the spinner....

 

 

The last link you posted has no relevant date related to current statistics - it's just an explanation on a theory of business cycles. JBs linked article covers data through 2004. Things have substantially improved since then?

 

Jim Jim JIm the data J_B claimed to be unspining was as of 2005. I would note that the bus cycle article is useful here as it cleaerly shows that we are in an area where the the slope is expected to be increasing, so the recovery has been improving and yes we are better off.

 

 

CJXXX$ - I love ya!

[cj001f]

CJXXX$ - I love ya!

Peter Puget the Petulant Polyp. When I want fed data, I'll ask the people I know who work there to give it to me. As for your link, what does that prove other than your ability to insert a trite insult into a link?

[j_b]

wtf?

 

first, why don't you provide a link (for a change) so that we know what you are talking about. second, i just don't see how ignoring the last year of data is helping you make your point. it's actually pretty simple: the cbpp analysis shows that through the end of 2004 the economic picture was grim. have things improved since then? (please answer the question this time)

[Peter_Puget]

Jim Jim JIm the data J_B claimed to be unspining was as of 2005. I would note that the bus cycle article is useful here as it cleaerly shows that we are in an area where the the slope is expected to be increasing, so the recovery has been improving and yes we are better off.

 

J_B -

I already said where the data comes from you are certainly free to verify or disregard as you see fit. I would note that I did say that we were better off - see bold quote above. Also my point was that good things were happening. R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y!

 

CFXXX$ -

 

You are priceless!

[JayB]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

If one parses the reasoning in this quote it would seem that:

 

-Companies that are either sustaining losses or eking out marginal profits are more likely to expand production and hiring -let alone wages - than those enjoying robust profits.

 

-Corporations which are actually managing their affairs ably enough to insure that the value of their outputs is greater than their inputs (hint: these are profits) are not going to reinvest them to expand production in their most profitable lines of business.

 

-That real wages have any chance whatsoever of rising in the absence of increased productivity (increasing output per worker).

 

-That paying wages in excess of the real value of worker's output will lead to a net increase in employment. Exhibit A: GM. Not to mention the fact that in the face of increasing unemployment brought on by mandating wage increases beyond their real value, the Fed will simply take measures to decrease the value of the currency to the point where the value of the increased money wages is once again reduced to parity with the value of the outputs.

 

-That increased output per worker can actually occur in the absence of increased capital spending on more efficient machinery, additional on-the-job training - all of which must be funded by...profits.

 

-Etc, etc, etc.

 

No profits, no jobs.

[Jim]

As usual PP your point is not clear and you fail to respond the either jb's information or the question I posed. Here's a hint - Try posting a narrative of your point, clearly written, and then post a link to bolster your opinion. This is much more effective than posting random links to rightwing blogs or apparantly unconnected BLS tables. Cheers.

[TheJiggler]

Even more good news!!!!!

 

Fewer layoff comming in July!!!!!

Planned layoffs in the United States fell 7 percent in July from June, led by job cuts announced in the consumer products, computer and financial industries, a report said on Wednesday.

 

This is truly great news. Fewer people will be forced out of good jobs in July. Only 102,971! But thats OK. They can work at Wal-Mart. Who needs those pesky health care benefits anyway.

[archenemy]

Even more good news!!!!!

 

Fewer people will be forced out of good jobs in July. Only 102,971! But thats OK. They can work at Wal-Mart. Who needs those pesky health care benefits anyway.

 

Unless they are women who deserve a fair paycheck...

[JayB]

They would definitely be better off with no employment of any kind.

[TheJiggler]

I would note that I did say that we were better off - see bold quote above. Also my point was that good things were happening. R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y!

 

So as long as we are in R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y! its OK that we're not better off? Sweet, I'm gonna run out and start a Heroin addiction, so I can soon be in revovery!

 

Typical right wing, ends justify the means thinking. So what that there are fewer people working. So what that the twin deficits are larger than ever. So what that the average worker is less well off now than 10 years ago. So what, were in R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y! So its all good. Kick back, borrow anoth $10K with a home equity loan. The Chineese are happy to give it to you. Gas up your hummer, there are lotsa oil producing countries left to invade.

[j_b]

yes we are better off.

 

so we are supposed to take your word for it?

 

I already said where the data comes from you are certainly free to verify or disregard as you see fit.

 

i am also free to point out that until you provide a link to the data you cited it doesn't mean anything (although even if you did I just don't see how it would negate the data throught hte end of 2004). you have this annoying habit of almost never substantiating (i.e. providing links to reputable sources) your saliant points.

 

I would note that I did say that we were better off - see bold quote above. Also my point was that good things were happening. R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y!

 

right, this is also what you said every few month for the last few years, but i have yet to read a single retraction from you once the complete data came in and proved you wrong .... every single time!

[Peter_Puget]

absolute crap Jim! J_B's post clearly showed data from a post I made before my post containing the business cycle. Your confusion is simply the result of fast reading or not undertanding the discussion in general.

 

Again the data was merely used to prove that some good things are going on. A direct rejoinder to JoshK. I compared to the "miracle under Clinton" assuming it would show how my claimed "good thing" compared to what I assumed to be a well accepted "good thing".

 

I to the style of discourse you "liberals" choose I can only repeat: I am rubber you are glue......

[Jim]

Again the data was merely used to prove that some good things are going on.

 

In that case I'm surprised you didn't include that the sun still rises each morning! Great, all is not dismal, just the vast majority. Now there's a rallying cry! And "..keep on the sunny side, always on the sunnyside, keep on the sunnyside of life..

[JayB]

ONE by one, economies around the world are stumbling.By cutting interest rates again this week—for the seventh time this year—the Federal Reserve hopes it can keep America out of recession. But in an increasing number of economies, from Japan and Taiwan to Mexico and Brazil, GDP is already shrinking."

 

Something about that quote makes me think we're dealing with a rather more dated article. I think that was the point of PP's posting the link to the Fed data showing steadily increasing interest rates as of late. Not a policy move usually associated with an economy in recession.

 

 

[j_b]

"The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation."

 

If one parses the reasoning in this quote it would seem that:

 

-Companies that are either sustaining losses or eking out marginal profits are more likely to expand production and hiring -let alone wages - than those enjoying robust profits.

 

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry.

[cj001f]

ONE by one, economies around the world are stumbling. By cutting interest rates again this week—for the seventh time this year—the Federal Reserve hopes it can keep America out of recession. But in an increasing number of economies, from Japan and Taiwan to Mexico and Brazil, GDP is already shrinking

Careful Jay!

[Peter_Puget]

yes we are better off.

 

so we are supposed to take your word for it?

 

I already said where the data comes from you are certainly free to verify or disregard as you see fit.

 

i am also free to point out that until you provide a link to the data you cited it doesn't mean anything (although even if you did I just don't see how it would negate the data throught hte end of 2004). you have this annoying habit of almost never substantiating (i.e. providing links to reputable sources) your saliant points.

 

I would note that I did say that we were better off - see bold quote above. Also my point was that good things were happening. R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y!

 

right, this is also what you said every few month for the last few years, but i have yet to read a single retraction from you once the complete data came in and proved you wrong .... every single time!

 

That's crap. Even Forwaker has mentioned that I generally provide links. Your link by the way is not substantial at all. It is merely unsubstantuiated opinion. I generally try to provide the source data when we have been arguning economic data. You have never destoyed my argument ever. The best example was when you were using the incorrect inflator to indicate the loss in purchasing power. Saez himself was not supportive of your methodology. And this is from the guy holding himself out as Math.

 

Please stop the insults as I said earlier you can simply ignore the data.

[Jim]

Are you serious? Consumer spending is the only thing currently proping up our economy. Our government debt is pretty astounding right now, household saving is down to 0% for the second month. It would be hard to say that the fundamentals are anything other than troubling.

[j_b]

AND STILL .... NO LINK TO THE DATA .... what are you hiding PP?

[JayB]

let's also not forget that most jobs created in the last few years are linked to the housing bubble .... .... ....

 

Just thought I'd take a moment to point out a statement from the Evil Homonym that, with a certain number of qualifiers - I agree with. Buy some lottery tickets everyone.

[Peter_Puget]

Ah J_B you are amazing. Nothing is hidden all is exposed. It is all revealed in the thread many posts above. Your postings do have a certain similarity to a certain Senator J. MCarthy.