richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Why am I not surprised that you can't afford write a check for your monthly utilities or your cable bill.
The government covers the rest though, right welfare gramps?
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
Why am I not surprised that you can't afford write a check for your monthly utilities or your cable bill.
The government covers the rest though, right welfare gramps?
Today only, on Battle of the Thought Titans. . .
IN the Blue Corner - Richard Daily
In the Red Corner - The Tag Team of Vettman and Garbage Can.
Ref's instructions: This is an IQ limited matchup, limit of 90 points per corner. It appears that we're well within the limits.
The only rule is, your statements must progressively get dumber until all that is left is calling each other names.
I'll take a point away for the first use of "hitler" and a match disqual for the second use.
Touch pointy hats and Fight.
IN the Blue Corner - Richard Daily
In the Red Corner - The Tag Team of Vettman and Garbage Can.
Ref's instructions: This is an IQ limited matchup, limit of 90 points per corner. It appears that we're well within the limits.
The only rule is, your statements must progressively get dumber until all that is left is calling each other names.
I'll take a point away for the first use of "hitler" and a match disqual for the second use.
Touch pointy hats and Fight.
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,228
Weren't you the one who told us that stock was basically a loan to a company with a guaranteed price and return last month?
God bless that government check you get each month, it allows you to get on here and lecture others on the importance of bein' bootstrappy.
More smug meta-commentary from Lit's paragon of passive aggressiveness. "Let's have them fight for my amusement! Derp!"
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,228
Jack Welch just did a "full Vetteman" (tucked tail and ran like a coward) and resigned his op-ed position at Forbes.
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Thankfully you're here to do things other than call names, right Eva Braun?
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
We don't
We should go a head have a managed default while we have 12 battle groups.
40 percent hair cut across board doing that the dollar still be the prettiest girl at the dance dollar comes stronger price of oil comes down with the price of everything.
We well default the question is well it be managed.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,685
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report
The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months..
By JACK WELCH
Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.
Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.
Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.
Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.
The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.
Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.
Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.
The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."
Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.
Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:
In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.
Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.
These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.
I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"
I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.
The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.
The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.
Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.
My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."
As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.
But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."
The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."
The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.
Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.
The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months..
By JACK WELCH
Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.
Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.
Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.
Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.
The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.
Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.
Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.
The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."
Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.
Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:
In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.
Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.
These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.
I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"
I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.
The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.
The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.
Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.
My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."
As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.
But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."
The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."
The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.
Mr. Welch was the CEO of General Electric for 21 years and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,685
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Either one shows you have no idea what you're posting about.
Have a great day.
Just the headlines stupid. Have a great day, break a leg.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,685
I'm feeling magnanimous today, so let me teach you something:
Futures are an indication of how the market is expected to open BEFORE the opening bell. Once open, they become as relevant as yesterday's newspaper, err, headlines.
Ergo, posting that 'headline' six minutes after the opening bell makes you look like C&P fool.
You're welcome!
RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,228
Either one shows you have no idea what you're posting about.
Have a great day.
Cloacabear sees a headline that reinforces his Doom 'n Gloom mindset, he dutifully regurgitates it faster than his mother used to regurgitate sailor spunk she'd swallow on Fleet Week.
They both place a premium on expediency and efficiency.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Hey pig snout, how ya doing today.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Wynn On Obama: "I'll Be Damned If I Want To Have Him Lecture Me"
On the Tuesday broadcast of the nightly Nevada political program "Ralston Reports," Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts sat down with host Jon Ralston to discuss the presidential election.
Wynn, an outspoken critic of President Obama, didn't hold back in his latest criticism of the incumbent president seeking a second term.
"I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back," Wynn said about Obama to Ralston. An excerpt of the interview is below.
WYNN: I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada's measurement. If the number is 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back.
The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.' I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can't stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works.
Wynn on a scrapped business plan: "I'm afraid of the president. I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you Jon that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks."
On the Tuesday broadcast of the nightly Nevada political program "Ralston Reports," Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts sat down with host Jon Ralston to discuss the presidential election.
Wynn, an outspoken critic of President Obama, didn't hold back in his latest criticism of the incumbent president seeking a second term.
"I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back," Wynn said about Obama to Ralston. An excerpt of the interview is below.
WYNN: I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada's measurement. If the number is 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back.
The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.' I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can't stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works.
Wynn on a scrapped business plan: "I'm afraid of the president. I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you Jon that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks."
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Posts
- 66,685
That's why the next post reads, stocks slip.
If only I hadn't seen you add that BEFORE the post-edit deadline.
Again, have a great day, dumbass.
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
Koalabear and busybody, did you both attend public school, private school, or were you home schooled?
Because school definitely failed you, so it would be a good measure of what kind of system doesn't work.
Please let me know.
Because school definitely failed you, so it would be a good measure of what kind of system doesn't work.
Please let me know.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,305
Yes we can, and we can pay for it ourselves if you stop blocking any and all tax increases. Even if you want to blame the Republicans we managed a surplus just twelve years ago. We can do this if we want.
There is always someone out there willing to give you a loan. It might be someone you shouldn't borrow money from but there are options. Besides I can't just print money so at some point the comparison breaks down.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
If only I hadn't seen you add that BEFORE the post-edit deadline.
Again, have a great day, dumbass.
Don't worry stupid, your place in the collective of stupid is quit safe.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Lil fag pedo chihuahua chimes in.
- Status
