Here comes the good times again!!

yesme · 01-22-2013, 12:09 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ectations-2009

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...moderated.html

Led by declines in production-related indicators, the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) decreased to +0.02 in December from +0.27 in November. Two of the four broad categories of indicators that make up the index decreased from November, and only two of the four categories made positive contributions to the index in December.

The index’s three-month moving average, CFNAI-MA3, edged up from –0.13 in November to –0.11 in December—its tenth consecutive reading below zero. December’s CFNAI-MA3 suggests that growth in national economic activity was below its historical trend. The economic growth reflected in this level of the CFNAI-MA3 suggests subdued inflationary pressure from economic activity over the coming year.

Space Pope · 01-22-2013, 12:37 PM

Yes yes, the economy is going to crash and we are doomed. We get it. You have been going on about it for years with all the other nonsense.

yesme · 01-23-2013, 06:16 AM

"The
comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required
Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States
Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal
government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path." http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651357.pdf

Space Pope · 01-23-2013, 07:20 AM

Did you read and understand the entire report, yesme? You have proved to be "read some highlights and make drastic leaps of logic" guy in the past.

benji25 · 01-23-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesme

"The
comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required
Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States
Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal
government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path." http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651357.pdf

This sounds familiar. I think people have known this for a while now.

Quote:

It is noteworthy that preventing the debt-to-GDP ratio from rising over the next 75 years requires that primary surpluses be substantially positive on average. This is true because projected GDP growth is on average smaller than the projected government borrowing rate over the next 75 years. The implication is that debt would grow faster than GDP if primary surpluses were zero on average. For example, if the primary surplus was precisely zero in every year, then debt would grow at the rate of interest in every year, which would be faster than GDP growth.

licence2kill · 01-23-2013, 11:12 AM

Projecting 75 years in the future is a completely useless and meaningless gesture.

benji25 · 01-23-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licence2kill

Projecting 75 years in the future is a completely useless and meaningless gesture.

How so? Sure some details may not be perfect but it is not exactly hard to see that the current model is unsustainable long term.

To my knowledge you are one of a very few who supports going further into debt.

F1VENOM · 01-23-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benji25

How so? Sure some details may not be perfect but it is not exactly hard to see that the current model is unsustainable long term.

To my knowledge you are one of a very few who supports going further into debt.

Models can't even predict weather accurately out to a week and you're expecting models of human behavior to be accurate 75 years out?

benji25 · 01-23-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Models can't even predict weather accurately out to a week and you're expecting models of human behavior to be accurate 75 years out?

Not even comparable. Weather is a scientific measurement that no one can predict.

However, projecting what would happen in different scenarios is more an art than a science. The report isn't claiming it will know what GDP is in 75 years. It is saying, that based on how we are acting to today, if we continue to act as we historically have, this is where we will probably be in 75 years.

Will it be 100% accurate? No. But do you think a lot of time and money went in to their analysis and that it can somewhat be relied on.

F1VENOM · 01-23-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benji25

Not even comparable. Weather is a scientific measurement that no one can predict.

However, projecting what would happen in different scenarios is more an art than a science. The report isn't claiming it will know what GDP is in 75 years. It is saying, that based on how we are acting to today, if we continue to act as we historically have, this is where we will probably be in 75 years.

Will it be 100% accurate? No. But do you think a lot of time and money went in to their analysis and that it can somewhat be relied on.

Weather is a scientific measurement?

Look at how much we've changed over ~3 administrations. You seriously think the next 3 or 10+ are going to be the same?

TheSilentAssassin · 01-23-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benji25

Not even comparable. Weather is a scientific measurement that no one can predict.

However, projecting what would happen in different scenarios is more an art than a science. The report isn't claiming it will know what GDP is in 75 years. It is saying, that based on how we are acting to today, if we continue to act as we historically have, this is where we will probably be in 75 years.

Will it be 100% accurate? No. But do you think a lot of time and money went in to their analysis and that it can somewhat be relied on.

There is a joke among economists. Why do economists exist? To make weathermen look good. Economics is hardly a predictable subject. Predicting 75 years out is absurd.

jamest91 · 01-23-2013, 01:22 PM

the founding fathers did a decent job at predicting ahead of their time.

yesme · 01-23-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Weather is a scientific measurement?

Look at how much we've changed over ~3 administrations. You seriously think the next 3 or 10+ are going to be the same?

Yeah i can see how we have changed over the last 5 admins, can you?

TheSilentAssassin · 01-23-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesme

Yeah i can see how we have changed over the last 5 admins, can you?

Is that adjusted for real dollars or as a percentage of gdp?

jamest91 · 01-23-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesme

Yeah i can see how we have changed over the last 5 admins, can you?

inb4 pbnation leftists come in and call you a moron.

Space Pope · 01-23-2013, 01:31 PM

I always enjoy a good "yesme makes himself look stupid" thread.

F1VENOM · 01-23-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamest91

inb4 pbnation leftists come in and call you a moron.

Are you saying rightests are too dumb to figureout he's dumb?

TheSilentAssassin · 01-23-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamest91

inb4 pbnation leftists come in and call you a moron.

You can answer this for him: Is that graph adjusted for real dollars or is it adjusted as a percentage of gdp? Or neither?

jamest91 · 01-23-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Are you saying rightests are too dumb to figureout he's dumb?

no, im just saying his post shall lead to the flocking of the left wing guys in here, which will end ultimately with name calling and insults I am sure.

here is an illustration for a debt to gdp ratio with the last couple presidencies showing change. I miss Clinton

TheSilentAssassin · 01-23-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamest91

no, im just saying his post shall lead to the flocking of the left wing guys in here, which will end ultimately with name calling and insults I am sure.

Because his post was incredibly stupid. You can't look at 70 years of economic information without making adjustments.

F1VENOM · 01-23-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamest91

no, im just saying his post shall lead to the flocking of the left wing guys in here, which will utimately with name calling and insults I am sure.

here is an illustration for a debt to gdp ratio with the last couple presidencies showing change. I miss Clinton

Go through and see who starts the name calling and I think you'd be surprised to find it's often linked to the pleas to emotion, forefathers, tradition, etc. that define a certain political party.