Republican economic wisdom

[Toro]

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.

Lol. I'm with PI on this one, he zapped you pretty effectively.

Oh, the irony...

 

[AllieBaba]

No, not really.

 

[Ravi]

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.

That was pretty much the point of the thread...Republican economic wisdom being a myth...heh heh heh.

 

[Toro]

No, not really.

I guess you're right. Its not really ironic, is it?

Sadly.

 

[AllieBaba]

How odd that the "recession" started the minute Obama was elected.

Don't you find that sort of..odd?

 

[Toro]

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.

That was pretty much the point of the thread...Republican economic wisdom being a myth...heh heh heh.

PubliusInfinitum is displaying it in spades.

Which is why those Republicans with economic intelligence - and there are plenty - are cringing right about now.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those Republicans saw this coming years ago.

 

[elvis]

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.

That was pretty much the point of the thread...Republican economic wisdom being a myth...heh heh heh.

PubliusInfinitum is displaying it in spades.

Which is why those Republicans with economic intelligence - and there are plenty - are cringing right about now.

There seem to be idiots on both sides that make their party look ridiculous.

 

[Toro]

There seem to be idiots on both sides that make their party look ridiculous.

I can't argue with that.

 

[Ravi]

That was pretty much the point of the thread...Republican economic wisdom being a myth...heh heh heh.

PubliusInfinitum is displaying it in spades.

Which is why those Republicans with economic intelligence - and there are plenty - are cringing right about now.

There seem to be idiots on both sides that make their party look ridiculous.

True enough.

 

[Toro]

How odd that the "recession" started the minute Obama was elected.

Don't you find that sort of..odd?

The recession started in December 2007.

 

[DiveCon]

How odd that the "recession" started the minute Obama was elected.

Don't you find that sort of..odd?

The recession started in December 2007.

11 months after the dems took over congress

LOL

 

[AllieBaba]

Hehe.

 

[elvis]

How odd that the "recession" started the minute Obama was elected.

Don't you find that sort of..odd?

The recession started in December 2007.

11 months after the dems took over congress

LOL

Those dates match. lol

 

[Modbert]

Ok. The dems never scream about it. Is that better? I haven't read ANY posts on here from democrats in regards to Iraq where Clinton gets ANY blame.

You seem to miss my posting about the 500,000 Iraqi children dying from Bombings and Sanctions plenty of times then.

 

[AllieBaba]

Troll, knock it off. You've already had that discussion with every single person on this site, and it has been determined that you use ass numbers.

 

[Modbert]

Troll, knock it off. You've already had that discussion with every single person on this site, and it has been determined that you use ass numbers.

Are you referring to me MichelleAnn?

Gee, I wonder why Elvis agrees with me then huh MichelleAnn among the other intelligent people on this site?

But hey MichelleAnn keep it up because we all know you want to keep poking at the killer bee's nest that is the Middle East.

 

[elvis]

Ok. The dems never scream about it. Is that better? I haven't read ANY posts on here from democrats in regards to Iraq where Clinton gets ANY blame.

You seem to miss my posting about the 500,000 Iraqi children dying from Bombings and Sanctions plenty of times then.

I thought about that later on yesterday. Yes you DID protest it. Kudos.

 

[AllieBaba]

Troll, knock it off. You've already had that discussion with every single person on this site, and it has been determined that you use ass numbers.

Are you referring to me MichelleAnn?

Gee, I wonder why Elvis agrees with me then huh MichelleAnn among the other intelligent people on this site?

But hey MichelleAnn keep it up because we all know you want to keep poking at the killer bee's nest that is the Middle East.

Lol.
There's always that funky smell when you're around, Bobby.

You should really wipe after pulling those numbers out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok Kids... Let's examine the argument below for relevance and cogency... And by all means, let's encourage our leftist opposition to take the time to look up the meaning of 'relevance' and 'cogency' in order to facilitate better communication...

The relevant issues in this discussion are: The definition of "Recession;" that the word is rooted in RECEDE and that there are those who would REDEFINE THAT TERM TO MEAN SOMETHING OTHER THAN RECEDE and the attempt by those who are redefining "RECESION" AND PROJECTING IT TO MEAN RECEDE<<<< EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE ASKED FOR SUPPORTING DATA TO PROVE THE ASSERTION, WHERE UPON THEY FALL BACK TO DECLARE 'RECESSION DOESN'T MEAN RECEDE ANY MORE;' and REPEATED REQUEST for them to state what objective threshold is being used which establishes that the Product of the US Economy is RECEDING...

So let's examine this argument for relevance and it's means to persuade us to accept it's perspective regarding the relevant issues...

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.

This opening point has established that the subject of the argument is "PubliusInfnitum." It then conveys a subjective inference in which the speaker hopes to cloak the new-found subject...

So it becomes clear that this member has departed from the relevant issues and is overtly changing the subject from the relevant issues to this new subject.

Now the question becomes: "Can an argument which speaks to a new, wholly distinct subject; a subject other than the relevant issues, hope to persuade the observer of their perspective regarding the former issue?"

The answer is NO. One changes the subject because the old subject isn't working out for them... In this case Toro has been repeatedly challenged to show us TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS WHERE THE PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY RECEDED... Challenges which Toro has FAILED TO MEET... Meaning that TORO FEELS THAT SHE CAN'T PRODUCE DATA WHICH SHOWS TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS WHEREIN THE PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY RECEDED... So she hopes to change the subject to obscure her failure.

Now let's continue to examine Toro's argument for relevance...

Wrong...

You (Publius Infinitum) 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.

The subject continues to focus upon issues which are NOT relevant to the discussion...

Here we find the irrelevant discussion to be focused upon the baseless presumption which projects the implication that the irrelevant subject is under educated to advance an intellectually sound, logically valid opinion on yet another irrelevant subject... 'economics.'

How this species of reasoning is designed to persuade the observer that the product of the US economy is receding in the absence of any data which shows a prolonged RECEDING OF THE PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY is known only to the speaker... but it is clear that what the speaker wants the observer to understand is that the irrelevant subject is not equipped to understand economics and is thus not in a position to offer a sustainable opinion... Which were such a position resting upon a sustainable basis... and were the argument to be relevant to the issues at hand, it might be persuasive, but it's not.

The issue at hand is the challenge wherein Toro is to produce Data which shows that the product of the US economy is RECEDING... Not Publius Infinitum; Not Publius Infinitum's education in economics; and not the means of Publius Infinitum to advance a sustainable opinion on matters of economics.

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.

Again the speaker hangs on to the new subject... implying the over-riding opinion of 'economists' trump the opinion of the layman... which were the relevant issue subtle nuance which lies deep within some complex economic calculation... she'd have a great point. But the issue is NOT a subtle nuance of a complex economic calculation; the issue is the objective threshold which determines that the product of the US economy is RECEDING... this is a matter of Linguistics and the concept which is intrinsic to and illustrated through the use of the word RECEDE... and the logical extension which expresses the experience of receding: Recession. The relevant issue is whether or NOT the PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY WAS RECEDING AT THE TIME THOSE QUOTED IN THE OP MADE THOSE STATEMENTS...

However in this last facet of her argument, Toro has now proclaimed that ANY period wherein the US Economy recedes; be that period " one quarter or one month or one week or one day" that this indicates a 'contraction'... which is sure enough true... but that truth does not answer the CHALLENGE WHICH ASKS FOR DATA WHICH SHOWS A PERIOD OF TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS WHEREIN THE PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY RECEDED...

Understand what Toro is implying... as it is critical to the understanding of why it si not reasonable to lend credence to her position... that the US economy contracted for a day, DOES NOT A RECEDING ECONOMY MAKE... A RECEDING ECONOMY IS AN ECONOMY WHICH IS NOT GROWING... RECEDING IMPLIES A TREND... IT IS A DIRECTION OF GROWTH... An Economy which is in RECESSION IS AN ECONOMY WHICH IS RECEDING; THE TREND OF MOVEMENT IS THAT OF CONTRACTION... NOT EXPANSION... and THAT is at the basis of the necessary two quarters wherein the Product of the US Economy is RECEDING prior to declaring that economy to be in RECESSION... Two quarters of consistent RECEDING conclusively establishes the trend of movement to be CONTRACTION... NEGATIVE GROWTH...

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.

Again Toro remains focused on anything but the relevant issues... in this instance she continues to imply ignorance on her opposition; she implies incontestable credibility upon her resource and all without a scintilla of data to establish that, in fact, the US Economy has sustained a consistent trend of negative economic RECESSION...

Toro is in effect taking the position that 'Economics' is such that the layman is in no position to challenge the wisdom of 'Economists'... note the above implications where she consistently advances her resource as being indisputable; the final arbiter of all that is 'economics.' Anyone who dares challenge the reasoning, must do so, not from commonly understood thresholds of reason... through the common understanding of readily defined words and phrases which the 'High-Holies of Economics' use to advance their opinions... even a Doctorate in Economics will not suffice as far as Toro is concerned... if that Doctorate is not expressing an opinion which agrees with her...

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 calendar 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.

Speaking of idiots... Gee, and the nutbar Right wonders why it gets labeled as "anti-intellectual." Anti-intellectualism once again.

SWEET IRONY is the best Irony...
Anti-intellectualism...? ROFLMNAO... Oh you're truly a Hallmark opponent sis... "The Gift that keeps on giving..."

It's hysterical! Yet ANOTHER TERM re-defined... The would-be "intellectual," whose ENTIRE ARGUMENT amounts to: 'SAYS YOU! MY SOURCE HAS A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS AND THEY KNOW BEST!' is running to declare the opposition as representing the antithesis of Intellectualism; the oppositon who has at every point in the discussion, explained every facet of their reasoning; laying down a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for that position; a position which has never wavered from the simple challenge for the advocates of the OP, to SHOW DATA WHICH PROVES A SIMPLE TREND TOWARDS RECESSION, AS INDICATED BY TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH, which serves no other purpose than to establish a CONCLUSIVE TREND OF ECONOMIC RECESSION, so that they can establish that the US was IN A RECESSION AT THE TIME THE QUOTES CITED IN THE OP WERE STATED... this, so that the OP's projected implication: that the quotes prove either incompetence, deceit or both... can be substantiated or refuted...

ROFLMNAO... HYSTERICAL! (in at least two contexts and on several levels...)

Toro&#8217;s argument fails on an EPIC scale&#8230; She&#8217;s gone to absurd lengths to simply avoid admitting that she cannot show a consistent trend wherein the product of the US Economy has RECEDED FOR ONLY TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS&#8230; declaring instead that ANY period of economic contraction; periods as small as ONE DAY, provides more than a sufficient basis for the High-Holies of Economics to declare that the economy is in RECESSION; in effect, they're reducing the word 'recession' to essentially meaningless... they want to declare that &#8220;the US economy has been in Recession since December of 07&#8221; but when they&#8217;re asked to support that declaration&#8230; they respond by telling us that &#8220;it&#8217;s all very complicated and beyond the means of the uneducated to understand, but suffice it to say that recession doesn&#8217;t mean recede&#8230; not anymore&#8230;&#8221; that just because the product of the economy is EXPANDING, THIS in NO WAY can be used to conclude that the ECONOMY IS NOT RECEDING!

ROFLMNAO&#8230; Nothing anti-intellectual in that&#8230; It&#8217;s pure GENIUS! Of the evil variety...

FTR, the following is the BEA accounting of the US ECONOMY by quarter, to the last recorded period, since the 1st quarter of 2007:

2007q1 - (4.3)
2007q2 - (6.9)
2007q3 - (6.3)
2007q4 - (2.3)
2008q1 - (3.5)
2008q2- (4.1)
2008q3 - (3.4)
2008q4 - (-5.8)

Now clearly the US Economy RECEDED in the last quarter of 2008... but it is not reasonable to conclude that a SINGLE INCREMENT OF TIME REPRESENTS A TREND; in this case the FISCAL QUARTER represents that increment: thus reason is served that MORE THAN ONE TIME INCREMENT is necessary to represent a TREND, wherein the RECEDING TREND CAN REASONABLY BE SAID TO REPRESENT A "RECESSION"...

Again... NO WHERE in my position have I taken the position that the Product of the US ECONOMY IS NOT OR TRENDING TOWARDS CONTRACTING, RECEDING OR OTHER NOTIONS OF SHRINKAGE... my position has consistently been that the opposition wants to use subjective opinion, which stands on the 'authority' of the Social Scientists, to DECREE THAT SUCH IS THE CASE, ABSENT THEIR HAVING PRODUCED DATA THAT SUCH HAS OCCURED USING A PERIOD, SUFFICIENT TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT SUCH IS THE CASE; AND THAT THE US ECONOMY WAS IN RECESSION AT THE TIME OF THE QUOTED STATEMENTS, ADVANCED BY THE OP...