Republican economic wisdom

The United States-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines economic recession as: "a significant decline in [the] economic activity spread across the country, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[5] The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. Academic economists, policy makers, and businesses all usually refer to recessions as determined by the NBER.

I'm pretty sure we had just about all of that. So epic fail.

EDIT: Even more evidence to show epic fail.

America Officially in Recession

In December of 2008:

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nongovernmental group of economists that studies market cyclicity, announced that the current economic slump has indeed been a recession—for going on a year.


ROFLMNAO... This is more of the same Left-think: REVISIONIST BULLSHIT...

It's the left REDEFINING RECESSION... so that they can declare the last year of the Bush economy as a Recession...

Recession is rooted in 'recede'... recede is to 'go back' to fall back... thus an ECONOMIC RECESSION is where the PRODUCT OF THE ECONOMY RECEDES... It has LONG BEEN HELD that a single qrtr wherein the product of the economy recedes is not a fair indicator of true recession, because such can be a function of a reduction in a facet, or a sector of the economy and as such, it isn't reasonable to conclude that a single qrtr of receding gross product is indicative of a whole economic recession.

Thus the conclusion has always been that TWO QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH: A CONSISTENTLY RECEDING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS THE DEFINITION OF A RECESSION.

The left did not want to declare the end of the Clinton economic era to be a recession... when THAT economy was 'showing signs of shrinking...'

Once again what we have here is the Left REDFINING TERMS SO THAT THEIR IDIOCY CAN CLAIM AN AIR OF CREDIBILITY...

That's SO MUCH EASIER than actually taking a credible position... of course the problem is that credibility is usually associated with sound reasoning and left-think NEVER IS.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt of the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.

i don't mind you're not being particularly bright, you can only play the hand you're dealt, but i do wish you could find a less prolix means of showcasing it.

thanks
Why do you hate PubicVomitoriums?

btw, Del, I didn't know you were a woman. No wonder you are so wise. :cool:
 
ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt of the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.


i don't mind you're not being particularly bright, you can only play the hand you're dealt, but i do wish you could find a less prolix means of showcasing it.

thanks

Why do you hate PubicVomitoriums?

btw, Del, I didn't know you were a woman. No wonder you are so wise. :cool:

Oh del would claim that she doesn't hate me... She would claim that she simply finds my positions uninspiring... or some similarly baseless obfuscation.

It's my understanding that del is a biological male... I'm not speaking to her biological underpinnings; I am responding to her feminized psyche... Leftism is the ideological equivilent of an drunk, irrational woman, demanding respect while she screams her guts out informing the world how much she hates us ALL!

Very much like you, sis.
 
Pubic, what did your poor mother do to you to make you hate women to this extent? Or was it your father?
 
you just proved him right
LOL
since the previous 2 quarters were not in a ressession

It's obvious you can't read. Fuck, you can't even spell recession and you try to tell me you know economics better then me. Get a dictionary first. :lol:

We've had a recession for a YEAR. That's more then two quarters. :eusa_eh:

Aaaahh.... mister 'get a dictionary'.... it's *better THAN*... not *better THEN*. Maybe you ought to try and sound intelligent yourself before you go thinking you've got room to preach to someone else about it. This has only been pointed out to you a dozen times already, and you appear incapable of learning it.





:clap2:
 
The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nongovernmental group of economists that studies market cyclicity, announced that the current economic slump has indeed been a recession—for going on a year.


ROFLMNAO... This is more of the same Left-think: REVISIONIST BULLSHIT...

It's the left REDEFINING RECESSION... so that they can declare the last year of the Bush economy as a Recession...

Recession is rooted in 'recede'... recede is to 'go back' to fall back... thus an ECONOMIC RECESSION is where the PRODUCT OF THE ECONOMY RECEDES... It has LONG BEEN HELD that a single qrtr wherein the product of the economy recedes is not a fair indicator of true recession, because such can be a function of a reduction in a facet, or a sector of the economy and as such, it isn't reasonable to conclude that a single qrtr of receding gross product is indicative of a whole economic recession.

Thus the conclusion has always been that TWO QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH: A CONSISTENTLY RECEDING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS THE DEFINITION OF A RECESSION.

The left did not want to declare the end of the Clinton economic era to be a recession... when THAT economy was 'showing signs of shrinking...'

Once again what we have here is the Left REDFINING TERMS SO THAT THEIR IDIOCY CAN CLAIM AN AIR OF CREDIBILITY...

That's SO MUCH EASIER than actually taking a credible position... of course the problem is that credibility is usually associated with sound reasoning and left-think NEVER IS.

Speaking of idiocy, lack of credibility and unsound reasoning...

In fact, the economy was in a recession for the last year of the Bush Presidency.

The National Bureau of Economic Research marks the dates when the economy officially enters and exits recession. The economy entered a recession in December 2007.

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession.

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

So it is not, ahem, "revisionist bullshit" to state that the economy has been in recession for a year, because, well, the economy had been in a recession for a year!

It's all very easy to find out for yourself on the Internet.

Here is the chronology of all recessions.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

And as you can see at the bottom of the page, PubliusInfinitum is wrong - unsurprisingly - about how a recession is defined.

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

This is just too easy. It's like playing T-ball with a 50-foot fence.

The belief that a recession is two quarterly contractions is a common one. I don't fault anyone for thinking this is true since it is a widely held belief. But it is probably not a good idea to act like a jackass and call others out over facts when they, indeed, have the facts correct.
 


ROFLMNAO... This is more of the same Left-think: REVISIONIST BULLSHIT...

It's the left REDEFINING RECESSION... so that they can declare the last year of the Bush economy as a Recession...

Recession is rooted in 'recede'... recede is to 'go back' to fall back... thus an ECONOMIC RECESSION is where the PRODUCT OF THE ECONOMY RECEDES... It has LONG BEEN HELD that a single qrtr wherein the product of the economy recedes is not a fair indicator of true recession, because such can be a function of a reduction in a facet, or a sector of the economy and as such, it isn't reasonable to conclude that a single qrtr of receding gross product is indicative of a whole economic recession.

Thus the conclusion has always been that TWO QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH: A CONSISTENTLY RECEDING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS THE DEFINITION OF A RECESSION.

The left did not want to declare the end of the Clinton economic era to be a recession... when THAT economy was 'showing signs of shrinking...'

Once again what we have here is the Left REDFINING TERMS SO THAT THEIR IDIOCY CAN CLAIM AN AIR OF CREDIBILITY...

That's SO MUCH EASIER than actually taking a credible position... of course the problem is that credibility is usually associated with sound reasoning and left-think NEVER IS.

Speaking of idiocy, lack of credibility and unsound reasoning...

In fact, the economy was in a recession for the last year of the Bush Presidency.

The National Bureau of Economic Research marks the dates when the economy officially enters and exits recession. The economy entered a recession in December 2007.

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession.

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

So it is not, ahem, "revisionist bullshit" to state that the economy has been in recession for a year, because, well, the economy had been in a recession for a year!

It's all very easy to find out for yourself on the Internet.

Here is the chronology of all recessions.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

And as you can see at the bottom of the page, PubliusInfinitum is wrong - unsurprisingly - about how a recession is defined.

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

This is just too easy. It's like playing T-ball with a 50-foot fence.

The belief that a recession is two quarterly contractions is a common one. I don't fault anyone for thinking this is true since it is a widely held belief. But it is probably not a good idea to act like a jackass and call others out over facts when they, indeed, have the facts correct.
right, but they wouldnt have been able to call that till after the 2nd qt of 2008, right?

and most of the quotes in the OP were well before that
 
right, but they wouldnt have been able to call that till after the 2nd qt of 2008, right?

and most of the quotes in the OP were well before that

Like I said earlier, I don't blame most of those in the OP for arguing that we weren't in a recession, nor do I blame Bush for keeping an upbeat tone, since I think his job is to do so. However, factually, the recession has been in a recession since Dec/07.

The NBER usually identifies the start of recessions months after they actually start, as they do with the ends of recessions. The NBER is also wary of politics and has been known to delay announcing recession start dates once elections are over. Many speculated that the NBER was not announcing the start of the recession because of the election even as early as late summer..
 
right, but they wouldnt have been able to call that till after the 2nd qt of 2008, right?

and most of the quotes in the OP were well before that

Like I said earlier, I don't blame most of those in the OP for arguing that we weren't in a recession, nor do I blame Bush for keeping an upbeat tone, since I think his job is to do so. However, factually, the recession has been in a recession since Dec/07.

The NBER usually identifies the start of recessions months after they actually start, as they do with the ends of recessions. The NBER is also wary of politics and has been known to delay announcing recession start dates once elections are over. Many speculated that the NBER was not announcing the start of the recession because of the election even as early as late summer..
right, but that is not the point of the OP


thus the OP is partisan BULLSHIT at its finest
 
right, but they wouldnt have been able to call that till after the 2nd qt of 2008, right?

and most of the quotes in the OP were well before that

Like I said earlier, I don't blame most of those in the OP for arguing that we weren't in a recession, nor do I blame Bush for keeping an upbeat tone, since I think his job is to do so. However, factually, the recession has been in a recession since Dec/07.

The NBER usually identifies the start of recessions months after they actually start, as they do with the ends of recessions. The NBER is also wary of politics and has been known to delay announcing recession start dates once elections are over. Many speculated that the NBER was not announcing the start of the recession because of the election even as early as late summer..
Yeah, the upbeat tone thing...I can't deny the validity in that, but Bush pretended things weren't getting sucky when it was obvious that they were. He'd have done better saying, things are bad, but it is only temporary, and we'll all come out ahead if you just decide to live through it. That isn't what he did, though...and everyone saw through it. Well, except dcon.:lol:
 


ROFLMNAO... This is more of the same Left-think: REVISIONIST BULLSHIT...

It's the left REDEFINING RECESSION... so that they can declare the last year of the Bush economy as a Recession...

Recession is rooted in 'recede'... recede is to 'go back' to fall back... thus an ECONOMIC RECESSION is where the PRODUCT OF THE ECONOMY RECEDES... It has LONG BEEN HELD that a single qrtr wherein the product of the economy recedes is not a fair indicator of true recession, because such can be a function of a reduction in a facet, or a sector of the economy and as such, it isn't reasonable to conclude that a single qrtr of receding gross product is indicative of a whole economic recession.

Thus the conclusion has always been that TWO QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH: A CONSISTENTLY RECEDING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS THE DEFINITION OF A RECESSION.


The left did not want to declare the end of the Clinton economic era to be a recession... when THAT economy was 'showing signs of shrinking...'

Once again what we have here is the Left REDFINING TERMS SO THAT THEIR IDIOCY CAN CLAIM AN AIR OF CREDIBILITY...

That's SO MUCH EASIER than actually taking a credible position... of course the problem is that credibility is usually associated with sound reasoning and left-think NEVER IS.

Speaking of idiocy, lack of credibility and unsound reasoning...

In fact, the economy was in a recession for the last year of the Bush Presidency.

The National Bureau of Economic Research marks the dates when the economy officially enters and exits recession. The economy entered a recession in December 2007.

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession.

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

So it is not, ahem, "revisionist bullshit" to state that the economy has been in recession for a year, because, well, the economy had been in a recession for a year!

It's all very easy to find out for yourself on the Internet.

Here is the chronology of all recessions.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

And as you can see at the bottom of the page, PubliusInfinitum is wrong - unsurprisingly - about how a recession is defined.

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

This is just too easy. It's like playing T-ball with a 50-foot fence.

The belief that a recession is two quarterly contractions is a common one. I don't fault anyone for thinking this is true since it is a widely held belief. But it is probably not a good idea to act like a jackass and call others out over facts when they, indeed, have the facts correct.


Hey Toro... ALL I AM INTERESTED IN: IS THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NEGATIVE GROWTH...

I'm not interested in these cute little rationalizations where you and the egg-heads explain in nauseating detail how this and/or that sector was depressed for a subjective period which can only be divined through the higher understanding known only to the High-Holies of economics... who also happen to 'lean' in the same ideologicla direction that a subjective declaration of a recession will help... PARTICULARLY when you declare that recessions, in your opinion, are a result of negative growth of real GDP and the underlying data of which real GDP is comprised and ya CAN'T SHOW A PERIOD WHERE TWO MEASLEY CONSECUTIVE QRTRS OF REAL GDP RECEDED.

THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NEGATIVE GROWTH OF THE US GDP... PERIOD. NOTHING ELSE...

Now if you can't show that the US GDP has realized two consecutive qrtrts of negative growth, then you can't factually state the the US economy is in a recession... CLEARLY you and the Economic eggheads have stated that the US IS in a recession and I don't disagree... I've not made ANY statement which contests that the US IS in a recession...

I've simply responded to an OP which takes various statements made God knows when, which the OP claims to indicate the Republicans which were in power at the time were UNAWARE that the Economy WAS in a Recession....

I challenged and CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE THE OP TO SIMPLY TELL US WHAT TWO CONEQUITIVE QRTRS THAT THE US GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT REALIZED A NEGATIVE GAIN: MEANING IT RECEDED... MEANING THE PRODUCT OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION RECEDED... MEANING THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A RECESSION...

Again... NOT INTERESTED IN ALL OF THE SUBTLE NUANCES WHICH SERVE TO RATIONALIZE AROUND THE BASIC OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD...

Now go ahead and fail to show which TWO CONSECUTIVE QRTRS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A NEGATIVE GROWTH... OKA: THE ECONOMY RECEDED… to support the assertion that the US economy is in recession... which seems reasonable given that this is the minimal threshold necessary to realize that the economy is receding.

Now this must be a MONSTER recession where neither YOU, nor the High-Holies of Economics at NEBR can cough up TWO QUARTERS WHERE THE US ECONOMY HAS RECEDED...

(Again Kids, this is precisely what I said it was.... a subjective opinion designed to redefine terms which they THEN USE TO PROJECT WHAT THE TERMS USED TO MEAN< so that when they're CALLED ON IT... they can then run to delcare "OH NO! We aren't LIARS... WE REDEFIEND THAT TERM A LONG TIME AGO... IT MEANS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT NOW; EVEN THO' WE WANTED YOU TO THINK IT STILL MEANT THE SAME THING THAT IT USED TO MEAN!")
 
Last edited:
Hey Toro... ALL I AM INTERESTED IN: IS THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NGATAIVE GROWTH...

I'm not interested in these cute little rationalizations where you and the egg-heads explain in nauseating detail how this and/or that sector were depressed...

THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NEGATIVE GROWTH OF THE US GDP... PERIOD. NOTHING ELSE...

Now if you can't show that the US GDP has realized two consequitive qrtrts of negative growth, then you can't factually state the the US economy is in a recession... CLEARLY you and the Economic eggheads have stated that the US IS in a recession and I don't disagree... I've not made ANY statement which contests that the US IS in a recession...

I've simply responded to an OP which takes various statements made God knows when, which the OP claims to indicate the the Republicans which were in power at the time were UNAWARE that the Economy WAS in a Recession....

I chellenged and CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE THE OP TO SIMPLY TELL US WHAT TWO CONEQUITIVE QRTRS THAT THE US GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT REALIZED A NEGATIVE GAIN: MEANING IT RECEDED... MEANING THE PRODUCT OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION RECEDED... MEANING THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A RECESSION...

Again... NOT INTERESTED IN ALL OF THE SUBTLE NUANCES WHICH SERVE TO RATIONALIZE AROUND THE BASIC OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD...

Now go ahead and fail to show which TWO QRTRS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A NEGATIVE GROWTH... to support the assertion that the US economy is in recession... which seems reasonable given that this is the minimal threshold necessary to realize that the economy is receding.

The economic community has come to a consensus that a recession is defined as a significant contraction in economic activity. How you define a recession is irrelevant.
 
Hey Toro... ALL I AM INTERESTED IN: IS THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NEGATIVE GROWTH...

I'm not interested in these cute little rationalizations where you and the egg-heads explain in nauseating detail how this and/or that sector were depressed...

THE TWO CONSEQUITIVE QUARTERS WHICH REALIZED NEGATIVE GROWTH OF THE US GDP... PERIOD. NOTHING ELSE...

Now if you can't show that the US GDP has realized two consequitive qrtrts of negative growth, then you can't factually state the the US economy is in a recession... CLEARLY you and the Economic eggheads have stated that the US IS in a recession and I don't disagree... I've not made ANY statement which contests that the US IS in a recession...

I've simply responded to an OP which takes various statements made God knows when, which the OP claims to indicate the the Republicans which were in power at the time were UNAWARE that the Economy WAS in a Recession....

I challenged and CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE THE OP TO SIMPLY TELL US WHAT TWO CONEQUITIVE QRTRS THAT THE US GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT REALIZED A NEGATIVE GAIN: MEANING IT RECEDED... MEANING THE PRODUCT OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION RECEDED... MEANING THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A RECESSION...

Again... NOT INTERESTED IN ALL OF THE SUBTLE NUANCES WHICH SERVE TO RATIONALIZE AROUND THE BASIC OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD...

Now go ahead and fail to show which TWO QRTRS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE US ECONOMY REALIZED A NEGATIVE GROWTH... to support the assertion that the US economy is in recession... which seems reasonable given that this is the minimal threshold necessary to realize that the economy is receding.

The economic community has come to a consensus that a recession is defined as a significant contraction in economic activity. How you define a recession is irrelevant.

ROFL... Which is not to say that "the only people who can tell when there is a recession are the High-Holies of Economics...

MAN I LOVE BEING RIGHT...


Now Toro, the economic community doesn't get to change the meaning of words... RECESSION IS A RECEDING ECONOMY... A RECEDING ECONOMY IS AN ECONOMY WHICH IS SHRINKING IN TERMS OF REAL ECONOMIC PRODUCT... A SHRINKING ECONOMY IS NOT A GROWING ECONOMY, even an economy realizing SLIGHT growth is NOT A RECEDING ECONOMY...


Now either POST THE TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS WHICH HAVE REALIZED A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
 
Last edited:
ROFL... Which is not to say that "the only people who can tell when there is a recession are the High-Holies of Economics...

MAN I LOVE BEING RIGHT...

That's because since it rarely happens, you appreciate it more.

Now Toro, the economic community doesn't get to change the meaning of words... RECESSION IS A RECEDING ECONOMY... A RECEDING ECONOMY IS AN ECONOMY WHICH IS SHRINKING IN TERMS OF REAL ECONOMIC PRODUCT... A SHRINKING ECONOMY IS NOT A GROWING ECONOMY, even an economy realizing SLIGHT growth is NOT A RECEDING ECONOMY...


Now either POST THE TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS WHICH HAVE REALIZED A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Actually, yes, in the matters of economics, the economists do get to define the meaning of terms, not ideological hacks and ignorant nutters. I realize you have an aversion to empiricism and loathe "elitist" higher education, but the economists define economics, the doctors define medicine, the engineers engineering, the biologists biology, and so on. Perhaps in your world, the mechanics define oncology and the fisherman defines aeronautical engineering, but thankfully, most do not.
 
Last edited:
I find it rather amusing that we debate when the recession actually started.

For many classes in this society, the recession actually started in the late 60s.

When it finally dawned on the geniuses on Wall street and in our banks that our economy is in trouble mostly irrelevant to us.
 
On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt of the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.

i don't mind you're not being particularly bright, you can only play the hand you're dealt, but i do wish you could find a less prolix means of showcasing it.

thanks

Oh ~ OUCH!! Del.That was truly harsh, like only truth can be.

Since PU is incapable of feeling the pain that you just dished out for him -- because his superpower is his complete lack of subtlty, and his childish vision that the world is divided into black and white hats -- I have taken the liberty of feeling the pain that he is too dense to feel for himself, on his behalf.

Cause that's how this kinder and gentler liberal rolls, you know?

He's a kid, that's obvious.

Time and fate will buff off those sharp edges over time, I'm sure.

Just like it has for most of us.
 
ROFL... Which is not to say that "the only people who can tell when there is a recession are the High-Holies of Economics...

MAN I LOVE BEING RIGHT...

That's because since it rarely happens, you appreciate it more.

Now Toro, the economic community doesn't get to change the meaning of words... RECESSION IS A RECEDING ECONOMY... A RECEDING ECONOMY IS AN ECONOMY WHICH IS SHRINKING IN TERMS OF REAL ECONOMIC PRODUCT... A SHRINKING ECONOMY IS NOT A GROWING ECONOMY, even an economy realizing SLIGHT growth is NOT A RECEDING ECONOMY...


Now either POST THE TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS WHICH HAVE REALIZED A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Actually, yes, in the matters of economics, the economists do get to define the meaning of terms, not ideological hacks and ignorant nutters. I realize you have an aversion to empiricism and loathe "elitist" higher education, but the economists define economics, the doctors define medicine, the engineers engineering, the biologists biology, and so on. Perhaps in your world, the mechanics define oncology and the fisherman defines aeronautical engineering, but thankfully, most do not.


Wrong...

First in matters economics, Economists are entitled to their opinion, as are plumbers and watch-makers. Economists are, as has already been noted, NOT entitled to change the meaning of words, so that the NEW meaning can be used to IMPLY it's OLD meaning and to provide an intellectual egress when they're opinion is found in opposition to reality, or the facts.

Second, there is no concensus within the "Economic Community" that a subjective and wholly un-declared period of negative economic growth, which does NOT correlate to an OBJECTIVE measure of economic performance can be used to declare a recession.

Only an IDIOT would accept A SUBJECTIVE OPINION of Social Scientists as the EQUIVILENT of an OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT of ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE.

Let the record reflect that Toro has had her feelings hurt that I reject the idiocy wherein it is said that 'empiricism equates to subjective assertions, standing in the absence of objective standards.'

What we have here is yet another "Advocate of Social Science declaring that we, the lowly lay-people accept the OPINION of their High-Secular-Holliness, AS FACT, despite THE FACT that when THEY'RE ASKED TO PRESENT THE FACTS, ALL THEY RESPOND WITH ARE THEIR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS...

In this case, THE FACTS being requested: THE PERIOD WHEREIN TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS REALIZED NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH...

Now Toro simply feels that we should accept the subjective opinions of economists who 'feel' that their subjective feelings are a superior measure of economic performance than the OBJECTIVE STANDARD which uses CONCLUSIVE DATA; WHEREIN THE PERFORMANCE OF REAL GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS MEASURED AND A MINIMAL TREND OF TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS (A calender period of six months of economic performance) are necessary to conclusively determine that the product of the economy is RECEDING...

Now Friends, ALL I'VE ASKED TORO TO DO is to show us TWO TEENY LITTLE CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHERE REAL US GDP IS KNOWN TO HAVE RECEDED...

And all Toro has managed to provide is her opinion that Economists don't need to use objective standards; and that Economists can say that the economy is in a recession anytime they want because... well... They're economist... then she tells us how she's all about 'empericism'...

ROFL... funny stuff.
 
When I talk to PubliusInfnitum, I feel like I'm having a conversation with someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old, that man walked with the dinosaurs and that The Flintstones was a documentary.


You do not have the education nor the training to be able to assert what is right and wrong. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant, at least when it comes to factual matters in economics.

A wise man would stop talking right now. Unsurprisingly, you do not. But I will humor you in the same manner a cat humors himself with a mouse, only usually the mouse has a clue.

First in matters economics, Economists are entitled to their opinion, as are plumbers and watch-makers. Economists are, as has already been noted, NOT entitled to change the meaning of words, so that the NEW meaning can be used to IMPLY it's OLD meaning and to provide an intellectual egress when they're opinion is found in opposition to reality, or the facts.

Economists are not changing the words, but you are conveniently defining whatever it is you wish to suit a political and ideological agenda. There is no "old" meaning. The NBER has defined recessions in this manner for decades, even longer than the 16 years you've been alive. Yet you cling to a misconception. Unsurprisingly.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that you are defining what "contraction" means, even though the experts disagree. You are defining it as two quarters. Of course, contraction can be one quarter or one month or one week or one day. However, you get called out on a forum, bruising your self-esteem, and you retreat into sophistic semantics and misconceptions. That amuses me.

Second, there is no concensus within the "Economic Community" that a subjective and wholly un-declared period of negative economic growth, which does NOT correlate to an OBJECTIVE measure of economic performance can be used to declare a recession.

Yes, there is a consensus within the economic community. The NBER is perhaps the most respected institution in the country. And it is not a subjective. It is very objective. You just aren't able to discern objectivity.

Unsurprisingly.

Only an IDIOT would accept A SUBJECTIVE OPINION of Social Scientists as the EQUIVILENT of an OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT of ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE.

Speaking of idiots...

Gee, and the nutbar Right wonders why it gets labeled as "anti-intellectual."

Let the record reflect that Toro has had her feelings hurt that I reject the idiocy wherein it is said that 'empiricism equates to subjective assertions, standing in the absence of objective standards.'

What we have here is yet another "Advocate of Social Science declaring that we, the lowly lay-people accept the OPINION of their High-Secular-Holliness, AS FACT, despite THE FACT that when THEY'RE ASKED TO PRESENT THE FACTS, ALL THEY RESPOND WITH ARE THEIR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS...

Anti-intellectualism once again. No surprise from the nutbar wing of the fringe Right.

In this case, THE FACTS being requested: THE PERIOD WHEREIN TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS REALIZED NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH...

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Now Toro simply feels that we should accept the subjective opinions of economists who 'feel' that their subjective feelings are a superior measure of economic performance than the OBJECTIVE STANDARD which uses CONCLUSIVE DATA; WHEREIN THE PERFORMANCE OF REAL GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS MEASURED AND A MINIMAL TREND OF TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS (A calender period of six months of economic performance) are necessary to conclusively determine that the product of the economy is RECEDING...

Now Friends, ALL I'VE ASKED TORO TO DO is to show us TWO TEENY LITTLE CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHERE REAL US GDP IS KNOWN TO HAVE RECEDED...

And all Toro has managed to provide is her opinion that Economists don't need to use objective standards; and that Economists can say that the economy is in a recession anytime they want because... well... They're economist... then she tells us how she's all about 'empericism'...

ROFL... funny stuff.

And all PubliusInfinitum has done is once again demonstrate his ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

Yabba-Dabba-Do!
 
BTW, the title of this thread is "Republican economic wisdom." PubliusInfinitum is displaying a discernible lack of it at the moment.

Thinking Republicans will want PubliusInfinitum to be quiet now.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top