How is austerity doing in Europe

[AmazonTania]

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

 

[AmazonTania]

Really trying hard not to laugh at your picture, but I couldn't resist. LMAO.

But on a deeper note, not that I am defending Gasby anything, but... Even if you believe GDP is a measure of economic growth, it certainly isn't the same measure of economic growth it once was before. Now the BEA has changed the methodology of the investment component to include intangibles, which pretty much includes Hollywood. GDP grew by $500 Billion in Q2. Not sure if the change was to make GDP bigger or the debt to GDP smaller, but you have to admit something fishy is going on.

What are your thoughts?

Believe it or not, I actually like gasbag. I'm sure he doesn't reciprocate, but it's hard to dislike anyone who makes you laugh.

I generally disagree with the new changes, which are capitalizing media content. I don't believe it's anything nefarious. It's technical. I just think they're incorrect. The best guy to ask is pinqy IMO.

I think the economy is stronger than advertised. A couple of sources, both money managers whom I think are highly credible, support that argument.

It might not be anything malicious, but I don't understand why the new change is necessary. Other countries do not measure GDP in this fashion. And there is really nothing different from the US and other advanced economies. Maybe it's because more citizens rely on entertainment than any other country and the statisticians want to capture that in the GDP. Or it could be propaganda piece politicians can use to show that they're policies are working when really it's not...

I believe it's incorrect because it doesn't differentiate between a capital good and a consumer good. It makes zero sense from a business and an investment perspective.

 

[Toro]

Really trying hard not to laugh at your picture, but I couldn't resist. LMAO.

But on a deeper note, not that I am defending Gasby anything, but... Even if you believe GDP is a measure of economic growth, it certainly isn't the same measure of economic growth it once was before. Now the BEA has changed the methodology of the investment component to include intangibles, which pretty much includes Hollywood. GDP grew by $500 Billion in Q2. Not sure if the change was to make GDP bigger or the debt to GDP smaller, but you have to admit something fishy is going on.

What are your thoughts?

Believe it or not, I actually like gasbag. I'm sure he doesn't reciprocate, but it's hard to dislike anyone who makes you laugh.

I generally disagree with the new changes, which are capitalizing media content. I don't believe it's anything nefarious. It's technical. I just think they're incorrect. The best guy to ask is pinqy IMO.

I think the economy is stronger than advertised. A couple of sources, both money managers whom I think are highly credible, support that argument.

It might not be anything malicious, but I don't understand why the new change is necessary. Other countries do not measure GDP in this fashion. And there is really nothing different from the US and other advanced economies. Maybe it's because more citizens rely on entertainment than any other country and the statisticians want to capture that in the GDP. Or it could be propaganda piece politicians can use to show that they're policies are working when really it's not...

I believe it's incorrect because it doesn't differentiate between a capital good and a consumer good. It makes zero sense from a business and an investment perspective.

Often, when the American agencies change how they calculate an economic metric, the foreign ones follow. For better or for worse.

Media companies capitalize much of their content. If a show becomes a hit and the company thinks a hit show (i.e., The Big Bang Theory) will go into syndication, they will capitalize the cost and run it off over several years. If a show is a flop (i.e., the Lone Ranger), it will be expensed. My guess is that this is the thinking at the BEA. Content libraries are enormously valuable.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

GDP is a very oversimplified way of looking at the economy. It ignores debt accumulation, unemployment levels, poverty levels, inflation, increases in liabilities, decreases in quality of lives, etc. Republicans and Democrats alike use the GDP to justify all kinds of nonsense while stooges like Toro go along for the ride.

 

[Toro]

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

GDP growth is everywhere and always economic growth. That is not debatable.

However, it is fair to critique the quality of growth. For example, much of the growth in the 00s was driven by a housing bubble. Without the housing bubble, growth would have been lower. It is also fair to question whether QE is creating similar artificial growth. Only time will tell, but given that it is controversial and the scale unprecedented, it is open to fair criticism.

 

[AmazonTania]

Believe it or not, I actually like gasbag. I'm sure he doesn't reciprocate, but it's hard to dislike anyone who makes you laugh.

I generally disagree with the new changes, which are capitalizing media content. I don't believe it's anything nefarious. It's technical. I just think they're incorrect. The best guy to ask is pinqy IMO.

I think the economy is stronger than advertised. A couple of sources, both money managers whom I think are highly credible, support that argument.

It might not be anything malicious, but I don't understand why the new change is necessary. Other countries do not measure GDP in this fashion. And there is really nothing different from the US and other advanced economies. Maybe it's because more citizens rely on entertainment than any other country and the statisticians want to capture that in the GDP. Or it could be propaganda piece politicians can use to show that they're policies are working when really it's not...

I believe it's incorrect because it doesn't differentiate between a capital good and a consumer good. It makes zero sense from a business and an investment perspective.

Often, when the American agencies change how they calculate an economic metric, the foreign ones follow. For better or for worse.

Media companies capitalize much of their content. If a show becomes a hit and the company thinks a hit show (i.e., The Big Bang Theory) will go into syndication, they will capitalize the cost and run it off over several years. If a show is a flop (i.e., the Lone Ranger), it will be expensed. My guess is that this is the thinking at the BEA. Content libraries are enormously valuable.

Yes, but there is also plenty of R&D which tells you that you should not develop something, or whether or not something is profitable in the long run. If I decide to spend money on production of a movie or music, all the money I spend is considered an investment, even if it is of zero value to anyone else. It's really silly, and it makes my head hurt.

Anyways, how about that short-term oversold rally on QQQ and SOCL

 

[AmazonTania]

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

GDP growth is everywhere and always economic growth. That is not debatable.

However, it is fair to critique the quality of growth. For example, much of the growth in the 00s was driven by a housing bubble. Without the housing bubble, growth would have been lower. It is also fair to question whether QE is creating similar artificial growth. Only time will tell, but given that it is controversial and the scale unprecedented, it is open to fair criticism.

There are many things which can contribute to economic growth. The issue is whether or not it is indeed economic growth, but whether or not it always the best indicator no matter what. If it's used right, it can be, but often times it's used as a bogus metric.

 

[AmazonTania]

^^^

Why do you say you're not defending me like I said anything wrong? I've stated all along that GDP is an indicator of potential economic growth; but that it's not an absolute measure of economic growth. A first year econ student could tell you that. Toro is the idiot with the issue, not me, AT. Don't be further implicating me in his nonsense.

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

GDP is a very oversimplified way of looking at the economy. It ignores debt accumulation, unemployment levels, poverty levels, inflation, increases in liabilities, decreases in quality of lives, etc. Republicans and Democrats alike use the GDP to justify all kinds of nonsense while stooges like Toro go along for the ride.

Economic growth is merely the increase of goods and services in the economy. It's really not suppose to include all of what you have mention, but the general premise is that the more goods and services which are purchased in the economy, the more the economy grows. There is nothing wrong with this metric, but it is subject to manipulation and distortion.

For example many of the goods and services which exist in the country are foreign produced. Is this a bad thing? Not really, but much of money used to purchase these goods and services is borrowed as well. GDP has many elements that are hedonically adjusted. There is alot of malinvestment which can attribute to the growth. It makes no distinction between unproductive money transfers as opposed to wealth creating endeavors. Also, not everything which takes away from GDP is bad for the economy.

There are tons of indicators which can make the growth questionable and tons of different ways to look at GDP.

It really all depends on the structural problems with the economy, but I understand where you concerns lie. GDP was originally meant to be a measure of effective Government Policy, not economic well-being.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I never said you were wrong. I don't jump into debates, especially when I believe both sides has a good point.

Do I think GDP is a metric of economic growth? Yes.

Do I believe GDP is the best metric of economic growth? Not at all.

GDP can be fundamentally flawed at times. You have to look at the data closely to understand when someone is using it as a bogus metric.

GDP growth is everywhere and always economic growth. That is not debatable.

However, it is fair to critique the quality of growth. For example, much of the growth in the 00s was driven by a housing bubble. Without the housing bubble, growth would have been lower. It is also fair to question whether QE is creating similar artificial growth. Only time will tell, but given that it is controversial and the scale unprecedented, it is open to fair criticism.

There are many things which can contribute to economic growth. The issue is whether or not it is indeed economic growth, but whether or not it always the best indicator no matter what. If it's used right, it can be, but often times it's used as a bogus metric.

Actually, the issue very much is whether GDP is indeed economic growth. During the Obama years, GDP has crawled upward while debt has skyrocketed and now for the first time ever, the debt has surpassed GDP. The question is not can the US sustain this trend; but for how long. I would say that the last four years have been severely negative in many ways for the US economy. Yet, if we were to take Toro's simple minded approach of only looking at GDP, we could only deduce that everything is roses.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??

Who are they and what motives?

And speaking they and ulterior motives; you pretend that govt. doesn't have ulterior motives. That's the huge flaw in your nonsense. If an angelic commission was doling out the money, there might be merit to your nonsense.

See, that is how we know you are delusional. Saying that I made statements that I never made. But, what the hell. Delusion is a psychological issue. It really is not your problem. Just plain bad luck.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yup. You don't suspect they have ulterior motives, do you??

Who are they and what motives?

And speaking they and ulterior motives; you pretend that govt. doesn't have ulterior motives. That's the huge flaw in your nonsense. If an angelic commission was doling out the money, there might be merit to your nonsense.

See, that is how we know you are delusional. Saying that I made statements that I never made. But, what the hell. Delusion is a psychological issue. It really is not your problem. Just plain bad luck.

I never said you said jack, deuchewad. Hence why I asked you who you were referring to and what they're alleged motives were. Then I did regard your over-arching argument of maximized government spending.

 

[Rshermr]

Who are they and what motives?

And speaking they and ulterior motives; you pretend that govt. doesn't have ulterior motives. That's the huge flaw in your nonsense. If an angelic commission was doling out the money, there might be merit to your nonsense.

See, that is how we know you are delusional. Saying that I made statements that I never made. But, what the hell. Delusion is a psychological issue. It really is not your problem. Just plain bad luck.

I never said you said jack, deuchewad. Hence why I asked you who you were referring to and what they're alleged motives were. Then I did regard your over-arching argument of maximized government spending.

Please, I know you are mad. But that is just a symptom of being a congenital idiot.
By the way i would like to apologize for calling you a delusional congenital idiot. That is just not fair. And it is redundant. Congenital idiots are always delusional. And I know it makes you see things that are not there. And again, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

See, that is how we know you are delusional. Saying that I made statements that I never made. But, what the hell. Delusion is a psychological issue. It really is not your problem. Just plain bad luck.

I never said you said jack, deuchewad. Hence why I asked you who you were referring to and what they're alleged motives were. Then I did regard your over-arching argument of maximized government spending.

Please, I know you are mad. But that is just a symptom of being a congenital idiot.
By the way i would like to apologize for calling you a delusional congenital idiot. That is just not fair. And it is redundant. Congenital idiots are always delusional. And I know it makes you see things that are not there. And again, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

I know you think you're clever. But, all you did was engage in an ad hominem rambling session. You accused me of falsities and then when I successfully refuted you, you decided that that was better than manning up and simply saying, 'my bad.'

 

[Rshermr]

I never said you said jack, deuchewad. Hence why I asked you who you were referring to and what they're alleged motives were. Then I did regard your over-arching argument of maximized government spending.

Please, I know you are mad. But that is just a symptom of being a congenital idiot.
By the way i would like to apologize for calling you a delusional congenital idiot. That is just not fair. And it is redundant. Congenital idiots are always delusional. And I know it makes you see things that are not there. And again, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

I know you think you're clever. But, all you did was engage in an ad hominem rambling session. You accused me of falsities and then when I successfully refuted you, you decided that that was better than manning up and simply saying, 'my bad.'

So, there you go. You are indeed just the best debater ever. And don't you ever let them tell you differently. Why, being a delusional congenital idiot .....OOPS, I do so have a problem with being redundant. I mean, you have already mastered copy and paste. And those nice people who give you those great talking points, why, no wonder you have problems with rage. I mean, people telling you things other than what those nice people tell you to believe. Why, those that have taught you what to believe have such nice white coats. Really, it is like they say. Believing what they tell you is SO much easier than having to try reason, and all that hard stuff. And believing what they tell you is so much more convenient. And they make you so mad. And you so like being mad. And, like they tell you, your urge to hunt little girls on playgrounds is not your fault. You are just that way. Just plain bad luck.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations invest into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In personal life

You add a swimming pool = $
You add a extra room to your home = $

To a corporation

Your corporation adds another r@d building = $

Austerity is like Intel saying oh shit we should fire 2,000 works and give them to AMD. LOL

Unless you can't afford to do so without collapsing your cooperation it is a bad idea. Same with a nation. Cutting education is a bad idea. Killing investment into science is a really bad idea and pave that road is pure idiocy.

 

[Rshermr]

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations invest into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.

Yup. I agree. So is there some reason to believe that reducing a budget deficit by brute force would ever have some degree of success in making the economy better???
It leaves some questions to answer, like:
1. When has a bad economy ever been helped by reducing gov spending??
2. What has reducing gov spending ever worked in bringing a bad economy back from high unemployment??
3. What is going to happen to a country that increases spending and the deficit during times of high unemployment???
4. Since decreasing gov spending has demonstrably increased unemployment levels, can you find a time when the economy has gotten better from a deficit standpoint when unemployment levels are increased??

The answers are obvious. Only when you invest into an economy to make demand increase can you expect job numbers to get better, and only then will the economy improve. And cutting things like education are only done by the brain dead, as it can only hurt the economy. You would do so only if you want to import workers to help those from other countries. Not your own.

But if you can cut services and decrease education costs and shrink the gov and require the working middle class to take smaller wages, you do set up a sure fire way to make the wealthy more so. Higher unemployment ALWAYS makes wages go lower, which immediately increases profits for the business owners. And, as costs decrease for services, taxes decrease for those same business owners. Again, making their profits higher. And, all is well, from a deficit standpoint, they believe, if they can just keep the working class in control. How nice it is if the economy grows as long as they get the increases in earnings.

 

[RKMBrown]

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations invest into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.

Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money. You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.

 

[Rshermr]

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations invest into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.

Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money. You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad us economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

 

[RKMBrown]

Austerity doesn't = investment into a economy. That's all you need to know.

Investment can equal (more) return if done right. This is why most intelligent corporations invest into new technology within their r@d departments and why we as a nation invest into education for our children.

Bullshit. Unless you are spending to defend from enemies who are attacking you... Less money sucked into the vortex that is government spending is most certainly a better investment in the economy than government spending.

Nothing, nothing done by government is better than what the people would have done for themselves with their own money. You want my paycheck to spend on your crack pot investment scheme? Screw you.

Profound, rkm. Stupid. Unsubstantiated. But I am sure you believe it is profound. So, do you have an example of a bad economy being helped by doing nothing, or by decreasing taxes?

You mean other than the American revolution and the Reagan revolution?

I did not say do "nothing." The key is to do things that improve the economy, and usually that does not have to include spending tons of money through government redistribution programs.