it's simple math. You can't claim 7 months of recovery AND 6 months of recession in the same year - they must add to 12.
As for my motives - you are wrong.
The Stimulus Seems to have failed
- Thread starter Skeptic
- Start date
As for my motives - you are wrong.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
If a recovery starts in June you don't have 1 month of recovery until July, this is truly very simple math that seems to be going right over your head. What should I believe, are you to stupid to get the math or are you lying about your motives?
In favor of you lying is that you haven't said a word of objection to the claims that "because the recession only lasted until may the Obama economic plans couldn't have done anything to end it" That is the whole point of this discussion after all and you are deliberately choosing to round in a way that makes it seem like that statement could be true when we already know beyond a doubt it's false because the recession ended in June.
Uh...that is my point exactly. You can't count June as both a full month of recovery and a full month of recession. You are simply counting June as recession while I count it as recovery.
The math is trivial and since I haven't given my motives the only one lying about them is you.
Are you really serious that a few days makes the difference between the stimulus succeeding and failing? I happen to think the stimulus was mildly successful. A bit expensive, but it did prevent the recession from being deeper than it would have without it.
So quit falsely assigning me motives then claiming I'm lying until you look in the mirror.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Oh so you simply can't read...
No one is doing this, saying the recession ended in June is not even remotely close to double counting June. The debate is about whether the measures coming online in June helped create the recovery that started in June, and you are siding with the people who a"round" the end of the recession to May and therefore they did not.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Where does the article mention May as being the last month of recession?
YES, moving of goal posts. You did it just now! Before you said May was the last month of recession, and just now you said May was the last "month" of recession.
The article said June was the last month of recession, and you yourself said "it just as valid to count June as part of the recovery as it is to count is as part of the recession." So the article and you say that June was the last month of the recession, but then you also say that May was the last month of the recession.
You are utterly confused. Like I said, go work out what your story is, taking into consideration that the article in question we are both referring to says that the recession ended in June 09, meaning June 09 was the last month of the recession. It's plain and clear as it can be.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Allow me to demonstrate your ever-changing view on the month the recession ended, Skeptics Annotated Bible-style:
When does JohnnyG think the recession ended?
May 09:
June 09:
He doesn't know:
Please, for the love of FSM, get to understand the concept of "month" as an approximately 30-day fiscal period, and not simply a calendar month that begins on the 1st and ends on the 28th, 29th, 30th or 31st, depending. I mean, you don't do that with your birthday, do you? If you were born in 1980, and your birthday was in June, you wouldn't wait until 31 Dec 10 at midnight before you said you were 30 years old, right? Same principle. Turning 30 in 2010 doesn't mean the last day of the year (or the first). Recession ending in June doesn't mean on the last day of the month (or the first).
When does JohnnyG think the recession ended?
May 09:
June 09:
He doesn't know:
June is not counted as a full month of recovery AND a full month of recession. It's counted as part of both. Just like September is counted as both summer and fall. Just like darkness happens both at night and at early morning. The article isn't saying recovery started on 01 June 09 at 12:01am in any way, nor is it saying it started on 30 June 09 at midnight.
Please, for the love of FSM, get to understand the concept of "month" as an approximately 30-day fiscal period, and not simply a calendar month that begins on the 1st and ends on the 28th, 29th, 30th or 31st, depending. I mean, you don't do that with your birthday, do you? If you were born in 1980, and your birthday was in June, you wouldn't wait until 31 Dec 10 at midnight before you said you were 30 years old, right? Same principle. Turning 30 in 2010 doesn't mean the last day of the year (or the first). Recession ending in June doesn't mean on the last day of the month (or the first).
Last edited:
Of course some of those quotes were attempts to clarfiy what another poster was saying, but once again you prove that you don't care about truth if you can twist something to support your argument.
Unlike birthdays and seasons, the data for June is for the calendar month, to look at time-shifted or shorter time periods cannot be done from the data, nor is it even feasible because of the coarseness of the data. I have always agreed the recession ended sometime in June which makes May the last full calendar month of recession. But for the sake of counting months we have to round off somewhere - without more specificity you can round up or down with equal validity. However, you cannot round both recession and recovery to include the same time period.
If you can't understand that you are beyond my help, or you simply don't want to understand.
I do believe this horse is dead.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/30/bloomberg-obama-not-particularly-interested-in-business/
LOL! Talk about Stuck On Stupid.
LOL! Talk about Stuck On Stupid.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
What situation did the Jobless advocate claim the democrats created?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I saw the great little video I've linked at the end of this post and couldn't help but recall Obama saying back in 2008, while running for President, that "trickle down" economics and indeed "capitalism" had failed. In fact he released a two minute internet video that started out by saying "Well now we know the truth. It didn't work. Instead of prosperity trickling down, pain has trickled up." Of course, he was referring to trickle down economics via the private sector and capitalism. (Of course, the pain he was talking about mostly kept happening during times when democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress, like now, not when both houses of Congress were controlled by republicans as I've shown in this thread.)
But in any case, he wasn't really against trickle down economics if it was the government, and particularly democrat government, doing the trickling. Afterall, Obama's Stimulus program was inherently a trickle down approach. It depended on money allocated to infrastructure spending via federal and state governments, the financial industry via government then banks, and the auto industry via government then auto companies to find it's way down into ordinary people's pockets. Of course, with a lot of government workers siphoning money off along the way, executives in each of those industries (and union representatives) siphoning off money as well, the non-labor related costs in each project siphoning off money … sometimes to foreign countries, and just the general waste associated with government projects, very little of the money actually did get into ordinary folk's pockets. But it will have been taken out of ordinary folks pockets ... like your children's.
In fact, it turns out that the average cost of "creating" or "saving" jobs where the income might be $50,000 dollars (before taxes), if you were lucky, was hundreds of thousands of dollars per job (sometimes millions) … and many of those were/are quite temporary jobs at that. For example (http://www.dinorossi.com/washington...-cost-taxpayers-an-average-of-410000-per-job/ ), Washington state received a bunch in stimulus funds and saved or created 14,495 jobs … at an average cost of over $400,000 per job. That's according to the government's own data. And what kind of jobs were they? Well, billions were targeted for cleanup of the Hanford nuclear plant. That created 2900 jobs with an average salary of about $65,000. Of course, these aren't long term jobs because they'll end the moment the cleanup is done. But as you can see, only a fraction of the stimulus money actually trickled down to a new or saved job in that case. And those are the good jobs. Many stimulus jobs in Washington State were in fact minimum wage jobs or cases that were nothing more than pay raises for workers whose jobs weren't threatened at all.
So I guess we could safely conclude that Obama's stimulus has proven that trickle down theory doesn't work. Obama was indeed right … but, of course, only for the entry point into the economy that he (being a socialist) had thought worked … the government. Ironic.
He was, of course, wrong about trickle down economics not working in the capitalist, private sector world. That's what makes his efforts at promoting class war against anyone making over $200,000 if single, or $250,000 if married, is so damaging. The video below shows a clear example of how trickle down really does work in the capitalist world … the world that Obama and so many of his supporters openly or secretly despise. Enjoy ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZ4St2BYnk "Stick Figure Logic: The Truth About Capitalism"
But in any case, he wasn't really against trickle down economics if it was the government, and particularly democrat government, doing the trickling. Afterall, Obama's Stimulus program was inherently a trickle down approach. It depended on money allocated to infrastructure spending via federal and state governments, the financial industry via government then banks, and the auto industry via government then auto companies to find it's way down into ordinary people's pockets. Of course, with a lot of government workers siphoning money off along the way, executives in each of those industries (and union representatives) siphoning off money as well, the non-labor related costs in each project siphoning off money … sometimes to foreign countries, and just the general waste associated with government projects, very little of the money actually did get into ordinary folk's pockets. But it will have been taken out of ordinary folks pockets ... like your children's.
In fact, it turns out that the average cost of "creating" or "saving" jobs where the income might be $50,000 dollars (before taxes), if you were lucky, was hundreds of thousands of dollars per job (sometimes millions) … and many of those were/are quite temporary jobs at that. For example (http://www.dinorossi.com/washington...-cost-taxpayers-an-average-of-410000-per-job/ ), Washington state received a bunch in stimulus funds and saved or created 14,495 jobs … at an average cost of over $400,000 per job. That's according to the government's own data. And what kind of jobs were they? Well, billions were targeted for cleanup of the Hanford nuclear plant. That created 2900 jobs with an average salary of about $65,000. Of course, these aren't long term jobs because they'll end the moment the cleanup is done. But as you can see, only a fraction of the stimulus money actually trickled down to a new or saved job in that case. And those are the good jobs. Many stimulus jobs in Washington State were in fact minimum wage jobs or cases that were nothing more than pay raises for workers whose jobs weren't threatened at all.
So I guess we could safely conclude that Obama's stimulus has proven that trickle down theory doesn't work. Obama was indeed right … but, of course, only for the entry point into the economy that he (being a socialist) had thought worked … the government. Ironic.
He was, of course, wrong about trickle down economics not working in the capitalist, private sector world. That's what makes his efforts at promoting class war against anyone making over $200,000 if single, or $250,000 if married, is so damaging. The video below shows a clear example of how trickle down really does work in the capitalist world … the world that Obama and so many of his supporters openly or secretly despise. Enjoy ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZ4St2BYnk "Stick Figure Logic: The Truth About Capitalism"
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Says the guy who twisted "recession ended in June" into "May is the last month of the recession"?
No, it's not the calendar month. It's sometime within the calendar month.
But for the sake of counting months we have to round off somewhere - without more specificity you can round up or down with equal validity. However, you cannot round both recession and recovery to include the same time period.[/quote] Who did this?
About time you gave up and admitted you were wrong.
Says the guy who agrees that the 4th of July is 6 months (not 7) after New Years Day but can't seem to understand that if "sometime in July" is all that is known both 6 and 7 months are both arguably valid.
GDP for example, one of the measures of economic activity used to determine recession, is not a value that has a specific value at any given point in time. It is the total of all activity between two dates. If you found out that the June data included two days in July are you going to claim it is wrong to call it June data?
I was thinking the same about you.About time you gave up and admitted you were wrong.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
The start date is 20 Jan 2009. The end date is sometime between 01 Jun and 30 Jun. The time period range is approx. 4 months and 12 days to approx. 5 months and 11 days. You can't seem to understand that "sometime in June" doesn't mean May.
If this is true, then what are the two dates used to calculate the June data? And if the June data includes two days in July, there's a stronger case for the duration being 5 months, isn't there.
Without justification.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/30/news/economy/subsidized_jobs_program/index.htm
Wow, Obama's Stimulus sure did work to get the economy going again.
Wow, Obama's Stimulus sure did work to get the economy going again.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...e-as-recovery-can-t-generate-enough-jobs.html
I guess this means Recovery Summer is officially over?
I guess this means Recovery Summer is officially over?
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Although the stimulus seems to have succeeded -- together with other measures -- in preventing the economy from throwing a rod, but to have failed to measure up to what its most ardent cheerleaders said or implied it would do, there is a bigger question lurking out there: Will it have succeeded?
Let's take Cash for Clunkers, for example.
While it provided a shot in the arm for auto dealers, at what cost?
As far as I can see, CfC simply allowed auto dealers to pick their own pockets, by merely moving buying decisions forward in time for people in the market for cars. Hence the drop-off after it ended.
The first-time home-buyer credit appears to have done the same thing.
(Btw, bad management decisions where I work resulted in the same sort of cycle. A strategy seemed to have resulted, judging by short-term results, in a boost in revenue. And although some of us protested the decision, the strategy was then fully implemented. As it turned out, we merely moved our clients' decisions forward in time, and the boost was followed by a very nasty trough.)
So the important question now seems to be: Even though stimulus measures appear to have succeeded in doing the basic task they were designed for -- unrealistic hype aside -- will it have been worth it?
My guess is that the answer is "yes", even though much of the money was undoubtedly wasted.
Given the situation immediately after the global financial collapse -- with, for instance, the Port of Shanghai converted into a parking lot and world banks in a Mexican standoff -- it's difficult for me to imagine that the artificial boost, borrowed against the future, provided by the emergency measures worldwide was not the better alternative to allowing that situation to continue.
Let's take Cash for Clunkers, for example.
While it provided a shot in the arm for auto dealers, at what cost?
As far as I can see, CfC simply allowed auto dealers to pick their own pockets, by merely moving buying decisions forward in time for people in the market for cars. Hence the drop-off after it ended.
The first-time home-buyer credit appears to have done the same thing.
(Btw, bad management decisions where I work resulted in the same sort of cycle. A strategy seemed to have resulted, judging by short-term results, in a boost in revenue. And although some of us protested the decision, the strategy was then fully implemented. As it turned out, we merely moved our clients' decisions forward in time, and the boost was followed by a very nasty trough.)
So the important question now seems to be: Even though stimulus measures appear to have succeeded in doing the basic task they were designed for -- unrealistic hype aside -- will it have been worth it?
My guess is that the answer is "yes", even though much of the money was undoubtedly wasted.
Given the situation immediately after the global financial collapse -- with, for instance, the Port of Shanghai converted into a parking lot and world banks in a Mexican standoff -- it's difficult for me to imagine that the artificial boost, borrowed against the future, provided by the emergency measures worldwide was not the better alternative to allowing that situation to continue.