How soon to the next big correction/crash?

[william the wie]

This is by far your dumbest post.
Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
Don't put words in my mouth,
Now go back and read my posts again.

I've read them, and you STILL haven't been able to explain how part-timer data is phony despite that being the point of contention.

Implying BLS employees lying, lack of audits, all sorts of stuff you're throwing out without any proof doesn't help your position. Bottom line you have nothing to prove the data is phony, and it is fairly amusing to what you trying to dancing around that fact.

The problem is that UE is defined by organizations such as the World Bank, IMF and the Bank of International Settlements in ways that are not particularly useful in the US.

 

[Indeependent]

This is by far your dumbest post.
Even WilliamTheWie is ignoring your nonsense at this point.
Don't put words in my mouth,
Now go back and read my posts again.

I've read them, and you STILL haven't been able to explain how part-timer data is phony despite that being the point of contention.

Implying BLS employees lying, claiming lack of audits when you have no idea about their statistical process, all sorts of stuff you're throwing out without any proof doesn't help your position. Bottom line you have nothing to prove the data is phony, and it is fairly amusing to what you trying to dancing around that fact.

So I'll ask again, how EXACTLY is BLS data on part timers phony? Taking wild ass guesses that they must be lying or don't audit when you have no idea isn't an answer, that is tantamount to saying you're right because you are right.

Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.

 

[DrainBamage]

The problem is that UE is defined by organizations such as the World Bank, IMF and the Bank of International Settlements in ways that are not particularly useful in the US.

No, the common measure of unemployment (U-3) is defined by International Labor Organization and has been adapted by BLS.

It measures the number of people who have jobs / (people with jobs + actively looking for work)

From that they derive a percentage of labor force that cannot find work despite actively looking.

 

[DrainBamage]

Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.

This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.

If you're dismissing an explanation by BLS of how their data is collected, then you are implying deception. It is fairly cut and dry, they say part-timer data comes from the Household Survey, while you say it comes from the Establishment Survey. You are discounting their explanation of CB calling 60k households by saying they are in fact calling companies which fits more easily into your narrative that the data is wrong because companies want to look good. By doing this you are saying they are lying by actually using company surveys for part-time workers instead of what they say they are using, the household.

 

[Indeependent]

Point out the post(s) where I claim the BLS is lying.

This is rich...You are quoting the BLS as to how the BLS operates.

If you're dismissing an explanation by BLS of how their data is collected, then you are implying deception. It is fairly cut and dry, they say part-timer data comes from the Household Survey, while you say it comes from the Establishment Survey. You are discounting their explanation of CB calling 60k households by saying they are in fact calling companies which fits more easily into your narrative that the data is wrong because companies want to look good. By doing this you are saying they are lying by actually using company surveys for part-time workers instead of what they say they are using, the household.

Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.

 

[william the wie]

The ILO operates on the following assumptions:

That the average country has a population 3 million true but since the world's three largest countries by population: China, India and the US; account for 48% of the world's population the ILO model does not work in any of them without a lot of modifications. In fact even the 11th largest country, Mexico, needs a lot of modifications.

Those modifications are provided by the competing international banking regulators. The ILO operates on the principle that most of the world lives in a Denmark or similar country.

 

[DrainBamage]

Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.

1. Correct, which in no way backs up your claim that the consistent long term trend of part-timers since the recession is "phony"
2. You have no idea whether there is auditing and you know it, you didn't even know the data came from Household not Establishment
3. Logic fail and argument flail, there are many contributing factors to Trump winning the elction

 

[Indeependent]

Their data is collected by those who deem to submit to their request for data.
There is no auditing of the accuracy of this data.
The fact is that 16 years of the BLS analyzing this "data" and making predictions based upon it caused Trump to win the election.

1. Correct, which in no way backs up your claim that the consistent long term trend of part-timers since the recession is "phony"
2. You have no idea whether there is auditing and you know it, you didn't even know the data came from Household not Establishment
3. Logic fail and argument flail, there are many contributing factors to Trump winning the elction

You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?

 

[DrainBamage]

The ILO operates on the following assumptions:

That the average country has a population 3 million true but since the world's three largest countries by population: China, India and the US; account for 48% of the world's population the ILO model does not work in any of them without a lot of modifications. In fact even the 11th largest country, Mexico, needs a lot of modifications.

Those modifications are provided by the competing international banking regulators. The ILO operates on the principle that most of the world lives in a Denmark or similar country.

I'd love to see your source on this as I find it interesting, please provide. I've read the entire definition of unemployment on ILO's website and it makes no references to assumptions about population. It does mention relaxing criteria for definition of people seeking work in countries with more informal less organized labor system but in the definition I saw this is population agnostic since many smaller population countries like Singapore or Denmark have more organized labor systems while other populous countries like Indonesia or Vietnam not so much.

The ILO model for measuring unemployment has already been explained, as it is the basis for U-3. It is useful as a measure of slack in the labor market, and I don't see how this formula of people-with-jobs / (people-with-jobs + people-actively-seeking jobs) needs modification based on population, it should measure the same regardless. What part of that definition is modified by banking regulators?The definition is from Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians in Geneva, 1982.

 

[DrainBamage]

[
You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?

No I'm not, I'm directly pointing out the flaws in your argument. You're dismissing it as dishonest because it sinks them and you don't like it.

Trump's platform has nothing to do with your claim the part-timer data by BLS is phony, and you know it.

I make no claim to be an economist, but I sure smell BS when it's being shoveled and you have done nothing but talk in circles trying to avoid backing up your claims of phony data by BLS. Bragging about how many of your friends have advanced degrees didn't work, falsely claiming the data comes from surveying companies didn't work, pretending some enlightenment will arrive by driving to a local Dept of Labor branch didn't work, throwing out random speculation about how BLS audits their data when you clearly have no idea what they do didn't work.

This thread is wonderful, let's keep it up you are more entertaining than anything else I've got going on today.

 

[Indeependent]

[
You are being intellectually dishonest on all 3 points.
I presume you haven't been watching Trump's speeches and Thank You tour and listening to his platform and WHY he developed such a platform and WHY he won despite the fact that BOTH parties wanted him to lose.
Are you going to visit your local DOL and ask or are you a message board economist?

You're dismissing it as dishonest because it sinks them and you don't like it.

Unlike you, I do not need to resort to ad hominems.
Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.

 

[DrainBamage]

Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.

I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.

1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data

So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?

You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.

Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart

QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.

Dude a whole lot of people would call a 2000+ point drop a 'crash', duh.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.

I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.

1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data

So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?

Citing three points he disagrees with them on does not equate to calling them dishonest, dude.

My Gawd, grow a brain or just shut the fuck up, how about it?

 

[Indeependent]

No, the market did the retrace I had been talking about, from a high in May 18, 2015 of 18,298 down to 16,285 Aug 26, and repeated down to 5,973 on Feb 12, 2016. That was two 2,000 point drops in less than a year.

Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart

QE ended in 2014, you predicted a "crash" as a result. The market has always gone up and down, it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute dips happening over a year later as a direct result, especially since they recovered (as market dips always have) and you questioned what could fuel the stock market without QE. Clearly the stock market can go up without QE.

Dude a whole lot of people would call a 2000+ point drop a 'crash', duh.

Now, now, narcissistic, sociopathic Portfolio Neo-Conservatives don't believe in crashes...just "Adjustments".
You know, the adjustments where 4 million people lose their homes and Directors escape unscathed.

 

[Indeependent]

Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.

I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.

1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data

So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?

You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?

All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.

 

[Indeependent]

Point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.

I already did but I'll do it again since it is pretty amusing looking at your history in this thread.

1. You said the BLS data on part-timers is phony because they survey companies and companies lie to look good
2. It is shown BLS own website clearly explains the methodology and that data comes the CPS Household Survey, not CES
3. You dismiss BLS explanation, saying that's rich I'm actually reading their own explanation of how they get their data

So which is it? Were you wrong about how BLS gets part-timer data or are they being deceptive in their explanation of how they get it?

You've thrown out so many different random explanations of why BLS data is phony it is difficult to keep track of which one you currently have as the reason. I'm pretty sure companies lying has been shot down since you finally understand part-timer data doesn't come from CEP, and so is it this lack of auditing that you have no idea if true or maybe still the people on the phone lying in a consistent trend downwards over 8 years?

Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.

 

[rdean]

Correction? Is that what Republicans call the mess they left Obama?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.

He has been talking in circles for about 30 posts now and he still has not addressed those two key points.

Do you think he gets paid by the post?

 

[DrainBamage]

[
All 3 are facts of life but you won't go to a real person to validate those facts.
You must be an avid reader of The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.

The methodology is is right on the BLS website, so there is no need to go to a DOL and ask some admin how BLS collects data.

Fact: you said they survey companies to get part-timer data
Fact: BLS says that is from the household survey

From above facts we can conclude you really don't know much about this subject, and the constant suggesting to drive to a local DoL office don't change that.

Once again, point out the post where I state the BLS is dishonest.
Using unaudited data does not make an agency dishonest.
It simply means no analysis or prediction made upon that input can be trusted to ensure the future prosperity of a nation.

I already did, you just ignore it.

You have no idea whether their data is audited and you know it, remember you're the one confused about CES vs CPS so you can't expect anyone to believe you have some intimate knowledge of BLS statistical auditing procedures.

You're the only one talking about predictions in here, I'm taking about historical part-time worker data that say is phony but in 10 pages of a thread can't prove.