unemployment drops to 7.8%

[rwh11385]

i will answer only for anyone else that happens to be reading and has an interest in the economy and opinions other than yours.

you haven't proved anything, that is the point that hussman is making if you could read.
current economic data is so heavily revised down the road to make any conclusion about the economy and jobs growth based on today's/tommorrow's news meaningless. you really have no idea if there is any job growth at all, or economic growth at all, and won't for many more months.
if you would read the article, which i know you won't, you see that. but you knew that already didn't you? how come you never brought it up in your arguments before? this is econ 101.

What about nando's point or Brave's? You are willing to answer anyone who already agrees with you but not defend your bullshit to the rest of the world? Why do you avoid my questions, besides a clear inability to answer them?


Wait, so let me get this straight. You were stating as a fact that the economy was entering a recession at the beginning of this year based on the current economic data at the time, and followed data like a hawk and focusing (cherry picking) on any data that was marginally less than positive, yet not when data is positive - you are dismissing that economic data is meaningless? You sir are full of it. Why were to so bold to claim you knew for certain the economy outlay previously and now are claiming that all economic data is meaningless? Why do people even pay attention to it, since it is pointless?

I read Hussman's article but the only thing that shone through was that he is progressively choosing to deny data as it goes more against his case. He's moved the goal posts before, saying that if X occurred, his view would change - but alas, he would keep re-affirming his prior conclusion. Just like ECRI. There's a difference between not being certain of the future based on data that can be revised to completely choosing to ignore data as it no longer backs your conclusions. Ironic that you, Hussman, and Achuthan are doing exactly what you and Fusion claim of climate scientists.

[rwh11385]

Case in point - cuz I back up my points with evidence:

January 21, 2012:

i'll tell you right now our economy is starting to enter a new recession, so you're right that its not a double dip, its a new one on its own

And your view was based upon Hussman's, here:

here's a link if you have an interest to a manager we use

http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc120116.htm

this guy is really smart, is apolitical, and just grinds the data

January 16, 2012
We'll respond to new data as it changes, but I expect that the primary window of interest here is about 6-8 weeks. In the event that economic data can produce fairly upbeat readings over that horizon, and the S&P 500 can remain at or about present levels, our estimate of oncoming recession risk would back off fairly quickly. Presently, that outcome would be outside of the norm based on the leading economic measures we track, as well as the overvalued, overbought, overbullish condition of the stock market.

Well, S&P 500 is up 7% over the 12 weeks since this article, so does that mean you doubt double dip now??

And yet, he moved the goalposts and didn't change his tune even if his self-imposed bar was met. Hence, a reason time to stop listening to him.

[gwb72tii]

nothing you ranted about is even on point about the hussman article and why current econ news means little

the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.
instead of trying to make yourself look smart, how about letting others chime in if they choose to after reading about the historical revisions to economic data?

[rwh11385]

nothing you ranted about is even on point about the hussman article and why current econ news means little

the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.
instead of trying to make yourself look smart, how about letting others chime in if they choose to after reading about the historical revisions to economic data?

Actually, I think it is on point - current economic data was meaningful to you previously when you thought it pointed downward, but now only when it is positive does it lack any value.

Even Bill Clinton can't evade a basic question that well

Like Brave said... At least you have demonstrated repeatedly to the board that you are so incapable of answering questions about your logic that you seek to avoid them entirely. But this is a discussion board where you don't get to pick and choose who doesn't get to challenge your bull. You might surround yourself with gullible clients who eat it up, but no one does around here.

[gwb72tii]

so, rwh, you're saying hussman is lying, is that it?

[rwh11385]

so, rwh, you're saying hussman is lying, is that it?

Strawman building.

What he said was accurate. But why he (and you) are suddenly focusing on it is misdirection and a shift from previous mentalities.

[gwb72tii]

What he said was accurate.

thank you

[tjts1]

n
the article was posted for others, not you, to think about. that's it.

So if its not for him, is it for my benefit or do I fall in the NO SOUP FOR YOU! club too?

Maybe you should add a list after your links of who worthy and not worthy of your shit.

[Frog]

So now the argument that Obama has taken the economy from a free fall (thanks to previous policies) to growth (which in 2008, economists thought best case scenario was worse than where we are today) thanks to Obama's new policies. But growth isn't good enough... So we need to bring it back the previous policies via Romney!!! Yay!!

People that feel that way must have a very short memory.

[rwh11385]

So now the argument that Obama has taken the economy from a free fall (thanks to previous policies) to growth (which in 2008, economists thought best case scenario was worse than where we are today) thanks to Obama's new policies. But growth isn't good enough... So we need to bring it back the previous policies via Romney!!! Yay!!

People that feel that way must have a very short memory.

Another solid post. Yes, joshh's argument is that growth and improvement isn't good enough. (compared to what?)


Oh well, consumers are certainly less gloomy than 4-5 years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-november.html

"The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary consumer sentiment index rose to 84.9, the fourth straight increase and the highest since July 2007, from 82.6 in October."

"The Michigan index of consumer expectations six months from now, which more closely projects the direction of consumer spending, increased to 80.8, the best reading since July 2007, from 79 in October. The gauge of current conditions rose to 91.3, the highest since January 2008, from 88.1 the prior month."

Meaning: 'Confidence among U.S. consumers climbed to a five-year high in November, improving the prospects of bigger spending gains that will help spur the expansion.' They also mentioned that although the fiscal cliff looms, people are still expecting a solid holiday shopping season and that could help round out the year.

[joshh]

Another solid post. Yes, joshh's argument is that growth and improvement isn't good enough. (compared to what?)


Oh well, consumers are certainly less gloomy than 4-5 years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-november.html


Meaning: 'Confidence among U.S. consumers climbed to a five-year high in November, improving the prospects of bigger spending gains that will help spur the expansion.' They also mentioned that although the fiscal cliff looms, people are still expecting a solid holiday shopping season and that could help round out the year.

Compared to growing much faster than it currently is considering we are still seeing the chance we may *still* slide back into a recession. Your denial is strong. You've been arguing this "growth is growth" point for what, almost two years now.

[nando]

compared to fantasy land, then? how exactly do you propose we magically grow the economy "faster"? hiring a right wing nut job who uses an untested version of a software application for the most important day of his life? (yet, we're supposed to believe in his business acumen?)

look, your side lost. they spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to unseat a president who oversaw one of the worst recessions ever, and FAILED. People saw through the BS machine, maybe someday you will too..

[joshh]

compared to fantasy land, then? how exactly do you propose we magically grow the economy "faster"? hiring a right wing nut job who uses an untested version of a software application for the most important day of his life? (yet, we're supposed to believe in his business acumen?)

look, your side lost. they spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to unseat a president who oversaw one of the worst recessions ever, and FAILED. People saw through the BS machine, maybe someday you will too..

Nice red herring there Nando.

Obama spent how many years working on what instead of the economy during his first term. How much debt added to the national debt with only small growth over the four years he's been in office. Yet here we are still on the edge of possible recession still....partially because of what Obama did in his first term instead of work on just the economy.
And to make it clear for you once again. The Republicans aren't my "side". They're just the lesser of two evils. That clear yet.

[Kershaw]

no, not really. until you stop parroting faux news, that's just what you are.

[gwb72tii]

no, not really. until you stop parroting faux news, that's just what you are.

so you deny that obama paid no attention to the economy in his first two years? years when he had a filibuster proof senate and a majority in the house, could have passed any law/program he wanted? you're saying this did not happen?

and josh, don't you know that an economy that is decelerating from over 3% GDP to less than 1.5% GDP is growing? Sheesh. econ 101 man.