Measuring the health of the American economy
ta
Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
complex as the American economy?
Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
Michael Coburn
The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full ownership
of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of the health of the
economy. That one metric encapsulates the degree to which economic
development is outpacing population growth and economic rent. It tells
us to what extent Malthus was wrong. All other measures are too
particular and subject to fraud.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Bret Cahill
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
Some rules and even some values are changing and that explains the
confusion.
Under the old rules the economy will show some signs of strength and
some signs of weakness.
The real question, one that no one has asked or answered, is do you
really want to go back to a high growth economy that was
unsustainable?
Wouldn't it be better to provide some economic security for everyone
and make sure the economy isn't on a collision course with geo
political realities?
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
The usual, change in GDP and employment.
> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
Depends on what you want to measure.
Immortalist
Food Stamps Now Only Source of Income for 6 Million Americans
In other economic news, the New York Times reports about six million
Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income.
About one in fifty Americans now lives in a household with a reported
income that consists of nothing but a food stamp card.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/headlines#9
Malthus's essay was also constructed as a specific response to
writings of William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794).
Malthus was sceptical of future improvement, considering that
throughout history a segment of every human population seemed
relegated to poverty. Malthus's explanation for this phenomenon was
that population growth generally preceded expansion of the
population's resources, in particular the primary resource of food:
"...in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency
to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort
towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly
tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to
prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus
In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote an Essay on the Principle of Population
partly in response to Condorcet's views on the "perfectibility of
society".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection
Social progress is defined as a progress of society, which makes the
society better in the general view of those who attempt to cause it.
The concept of social progress was introduced in the early, 19th
century social theories, especially those of social evolutionists like
August Comte and Herbert Spencer. It was present in the
Enlightenment's philosophies of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progress
Rod Speed
> ta wrote
>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
> The amount of time it takes the average American to
> secure full ownership of a suitable retirement abode
> is the best measure of the health of the economy.
Like hell it is. It takes MUCH to long to determine for starters.
> That one metric encapsulates the degree to which economic
> development is outpacing population growth and economic rent.
Housing is only one part of economic development.
And your measure doesnt allow for the fact that work in some
areas produces that result much quick than in others anyway.
And there is no such animal as 'the average american' anyway.
> It tells us to what extent Malthus was wrong.
Like hell it does.
> All other measures are too particular and subject to fraud.
That one is just as bad in the regard.
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> ta wrote
>
>>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
>>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
>>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
>>> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
>>> complex as the American economy?
>
>>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
>
>> The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full
>> ownership of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of the
>> health of the economy.
>
> Like hell it is. It takes MUCH to long to determine for starters.
Pretty easy, actually. It is merely a comparison between median home
prices and media wage. Economic recovery in the USA begins when the wage
is the same fraction of the home prices as it was in 1999.
>> That one metric encapsulates the degree to which economic development
>> is outpacing population growth and economic rent.
>
> Housing is only one part of economic development.
That is actually irrelevant in that what we want is the average rent
loss. And that is best determined by what I proposed.
> And your measure doesnt allow for the fact that work in some areas
> produces that result much quick than in others anyway.
>
> And there is no such animal as 'the average american' anyway.
There is a mean and average wage and a mean and average price of a home.
>> It tells us to what extent Malthus was wrong.
>
> Like hell it does.
Yes.... It does.
>> All other measures are too particular and subject to fraud.
>
> That one is just as bad in the regard.
Nope.
Rod Speed
>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>>
>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> Some rules and even some values are changing and that explains the
> confusion.
>
> Under the old rules the economy will show some signs of strength and
> some signs of weakness.
>
> The real question, one that no one has asked or answered, is do you
> really want to go back to a high growth economy that was unsustainable?
It isnt clear that it is unsustainable.
Yes, the housing bubble is very undesirable, but it isnt clear that that was
all that was happening with the high growth economy that did produce
an unemployment rate that bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and
illegal immigration rate.
> Wouldn't it be better to provide some economic security for everyone
Yes, but it is clear that canada and australia didnt see even a single one
of their retail banks implode spectacularly or even need to be bailed out
by govt and the have MUCH bigger banks per capita than the US does.
So it should be possible for the US to ensure that cant happen again too.
> and make sure the economy isn't on a collision course with geo political realities?
That wasnt the problem. That was at the end of the longest boom in
recorded history, and it may well be feasible to get back there again.
We did manage to avoid even a severe recession for the best part of a century.
All it may need it is a more sophisticated use of interest rates to ensure
that we dont get another housing bubble like the one we saw recently.
Fred Weiss
> Wouldn't it be better to provide some economic security for everyone
> and make sure the economy isn't on a collision course with geo
> political realities?
You mean like they do in Cuba where they have food rationing?
They can't loot the rich - which is your usual answer to everything -
because they've already done that. Or the rich fled, taking what they
could before the looters could get it.
Or there's what Obama and his Wrecking Crew are doing - running the
printing presses overtime creating fiat money and running up huge
deficits.
Paul Krugman approves and he's a Nobel Prize winner so he must be
right.
Fred Weiss
Robert Cohen
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arP4t5OQfEGY&
Why Dr Krugman is not a nominee for
the Norman Vincent Peale Prize For
The Least Dismal Forecast
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> ta wrote
>>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are
>>> the most objective metrics for determining the health of something
>>> as complex as the American economy?
>>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
>> The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full
>> ownership of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of the
>> health of the economy. That one metric encapsulates the degree to
>> which economic development is outpacing population growth and
>> economic rent.
>> It tells us to what extent Malthus was wrong. All other measures are too
>> particular and subject to fraud.
> Food Stamps Now Only Source of Income for 6 Million Americans
> In other economic news, the New York Times reports about six million
> Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income.
> About one in fifty Americans now lives in a household with a reported
> income that consists of nothing but a food stamp card.
> http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/headlines#9
Them saying that they have no other income is even more subject to fraud, stupid.
> Malthus's essay was also constructed as a specific response to
> writings of William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794).
> Malthus was sceptical of future improvement, considering that throughout
> history a segment of every human population seemed relegated to poverty.
And when the US unemployment rate just recently bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate,
its clear that he did not have a fucking clue about the basics.
> Malthus's explanation for this phenomenon was that
> population growth generally preceded expansion of the
> population's resources, in particular the primary resource of food:
And then the entire modern first world ended up not being
even self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
> "...in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the
> tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there
> is a constant effort towards an increase of population.
Have fun explaining the fact that the entire modern first world ended up
not being even self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
Nice theory, pity about the real world, Tommy boy.
> This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society
> to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.
How odd that real living standards improved out of sight
right thruout the entire world since your times, Tommy boy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus
> In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote an Essay on the Principle of Population
> partly in response to Condorcet's views on the "perfectibility of society".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection
> Social progress is defined as a progress of society, which makes the
> society better in the general view of those who attempt to cause it.
And in the view of anyone with even half a clue too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> ta wrote
>>>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>>>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>>>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>>>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>>>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
>>>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
>>> The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full
>>> ownership of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of the
>>> health of the economy.
>> Like hell it is. It takes MUCH to long to determine for starters.
> Pretty easy, actually.
Nope.
> It is merely a comparison between median home prices and media wage.
That measure is fucked up but the change in what people choose to
buy during a housing bubble and ignores changing interest rates too.
> Economic recovery in the USA begins when the wage is
> the same fraction of the home prices as it was in 1999.
Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
They're choosing to have very different standards
of housing even in that relatively short time.
And right thruout the modern first world, over a longer time, we
have seen a radical change in what people buy houses wise, to
the situation now where a huge percentage of new wage earners
choose to buy a fucking great McMansion often brand new when
they are first earning a real wage that isnt just part of their part
time work when still in formal education etc.
That alone means that your measure is completely useless.
>>> That one metric encapsulates the degree to which economic
>>> development is outpacing population growth and economic rent.
>> Housing is only one part of economic development.
> That is actually irrelevant in that what we want is the average rent loss.
Nope.
> And that is best determined by what I proposed.
Like hell it is.
>> And your measure doesnt allow for the fact that work in some
>> areas produces that result much quick than in others anyway.
>> And there is no such animal as 'the average american' anyway.
> There is a mean and average wage and a mean and average price of a home.
Nothing even remotely resembling anything like the average american.
>>> It tells us to what extent Malthus was wrong.
>> Like hell it does.
> Yes.... It does.
Like hell it does. What proves Malthus completely wrong is
the fact that not one modern first world country is even self
replacing on population if you take out immigration.
>>> All other measures are too particular and subject to fraud.
>> That one is just as bad in the regard.
> Nope.
Yep, most obviously with the median wage when not everyone works
full time and the percentage of those who dont that would prefer to
be able to do that swings around so much in recessions etc.
It isnt even possible to measure it accurately so its very subject to fraud.
Immortalist
> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
>
The Statistical Abstract of the United States, published since 1878,
is the authoritative and comprehensive summary of statistics on the
social, political, and economic organization of the United States.
Use the Abstract as a convenient volume for statistical reference, and
as a guide to sources of more information both in print and on the
Web.
Sources of data include the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, and many other Federal agencies and
private organizations.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
Bret Cahill
> printing presses overtime creating fiat money and running up huge
> deficits.
>
> Paul Krugman approves and he's a Nobel Prize winner so he must be
> right.
Well we know who we can summarily reject as wrong: The issue dodgers:
Michael Price
Yes it would, which is why we should reject your moronic reliance on
government. Oh and BTW you haven't responded to my answer to
your idiotic new question. Still haven't gotten over me bitch-
slapping you?
tg
The number of Credit Default Swap transactions, and the size of the
transactions.
As long as lots of paper is being pushed around, everything is just
fine. Much more efficient than making stuff, since you might have to
heave your butt out of a chair to do that.
Just ask Rush.
-tg
hal
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Coburn wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> ta wrote
>
>>>>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
>>>>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
>>>>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>>>>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>>>>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
>
>>>>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
>
>>>> The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full
>>>> ownership of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of the
>>>> health of the economy.
>
>>> Like hell it is. It takes MUCH to long to determine for starters.
>
>> Pretty easy, actually.
>
>Nope.
>
>> It is merely a comparison between median home prices and media wage.
>
>That measure is fucked up but the change in what people choose to
>buy during a housing bubble and ignores changing interest rates too.
Actually it's an outstanding choice of a metric. Very good measure of
the health of the economy, actually.
You, on the other hand have nothing but denials without any
substantive rebuttal or alternative.
Fred Weiss
> As long as lots of paper is being pushed around, everything is just
> fine. Much more efficient than making stuff, since you might have to
> heave your butt out of a chair to do that.
Except of course for HD TV's or farm raised fish or goods produced in
China.
Or anything Tiggy doesn't approve of.
When Tiggy needs a mortgage on his....oh wait, you really don't need a
mortgage on a tepee and no bank is likely to provide one anyway.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> > > Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> > Some rules and even some values are changing and that explains the
> > confusion.
>
> > Under the old rules the economy will show some signs of strength and
> > some signs of weakness.
>
> > The real question, one that no one has asked or answered, is do you
> > really want to go back to a high growth economy that was
> > unsustainable?
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to provide some economic security for everyone
> > and make sure the economy isn't on a collision course with geo
> > political realities?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Yes it would, which is why we should reject your moronic reliance on
> government.
You don't have to pay taxes and have gummint. You are free to move to
low tax Somalia which is just like libertaria.
> Oh and BTW you haven't responded to my answer to
> your idiotic new question.
Repeat it here. I don't always monitor old threads.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
> > > > Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> > > > Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> > > Some rules and even some values are changing and that explains the
> > > confusion.
>
> > > Under the old rules the economy will show some signs of strength and
> > > some signs of weakness.
>
> > > The real question, one that no one has asked or answered, is do you
> > > really want to go back to a high growth economy that was
> > > unsustainable?
>
> > > Wouldn't it be better to provide some economic security for everyone
> > > and make sure the economy isn't on a collision course with geo
> > > political realities?
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Yes it would, which is why we should reject your moronic reliance on
> > government.
>
> You don't have to pay taxes and have gummint. You are free to move to
> low tax Somalia which is just like libertaria.
Hey moron, Somalia stopped being an anarchy years ago. Why should
I move to a place that has suffered the effects of decades of the sort
of
powerful government that you espouse? Admittedly it had a short time
to recover before being plunged again into the hell you recommend
but still. Somalia is the result of your policies not mine, you go
there.
>
> > Oh and BTW you haven't responded to my answer to
> > your idiotic new question.
>
> Repeat it here. I don't always monitor old threads.
>
> Bret Cahill
No liar you don't and if you don't monitor threads where
you ask the question why bother to ask it? In any case you
can find my answer easily enough so clearly you're dodging
(quelle suprise).
"Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
Yes it is. In fact it would be normal on a desert island provided the
person living there had the knowledge to create capital out of
the available natural resources and/or scavenged resources from
shipwreck.
That question took less than 20 seconds to answer in a way that
debunks your claim that it's relevant.
Michael Price
Well no, it's a good measure of certain costs but not others. If
people
can't afford healthcare then who cares if they can afford a
retirement
home that they might not live to use? It doesn't even take into
account
unemployment unless I'm misinterpreting it, which I might be since
I count three possible interpretations off the top of my head.
Michael Price
So then I can ignore you.
tg
You haven't explained how you would measure that, however. How do you
have a growth rate if there is no exchange to establish value?
Just asking---we Elitist Socialists are just so easily confused, you
know.
-tg
phil scott
the answer to that range of questinons lies in the individuals
capacity for intelligence, objectiveness and logic.
... that way you can spot various special interests spun metrics...
aee the fraud clearly...and arrive at a more
accurate view.
I you yourself do not have that skill set, you are dependent on what
to 'believe'... when belief has nothing
to do with it...
actuality and what drives actuality (the real scene and its future)
are the issues...
few have the modest amount of brains required to notice those
drivers.
accordingly the answer to your question begins entirely with *you...
application of the suitable skill set allows you
to evaluate the 'metrics. (in summary, govt is a special interest
in the USA today, it has not behaved for the good of
the people, it has behaved to retain and expand its own power,,,for
that to work it has to present metrics that keep
the people investing, buying and in the end not rioting. thats govt
metrics...
Private sector metrics come in many flavors... economists and banking
interests for intance (they own govt. that should be a cloo for you,
the big money also owns the media... so those metrics are spun to
those interests.
etc.
some people out of those loops are both intelligent and decent...and
not raving...but presenting well supported facts and NOT with cites to
what the banks *say..those 'cites' are worthless... but instead of
'cites'...invite you to notice the food banks running out of food, and
the crashed real estate and the real increases
food costs YOUSELF...no cite in that case is necessary.
so thats what you look for... you observe main street....and what has
driven main street south
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
not bad...but id tweek the wage figures to 'take home wages', or
disposable income... because if wages go way up
but taxes and food costs go higher, the wage available to buy and
maintain a home decline.... those as we have
seen are quite variable as a combination *lately
In support of your view however ..that ratio is viable historically..
what some miss is that we are NOt in just another
business cycle..but in a national life cycle crisis... those last a
generation of so.
also there is real estate taxes... those can be higher than the
persons net retirement income.. etc. as govt bloats, and
goes corrupt in order to stay afloat and pay its burocrats
(retiriements 4 to 10x the average of the taxpaying sector) that'also
distorts the scene.... the USA is in that phase now... it will stay
that way as china eats our lunch for the next 50 years or so.
Phil scott...
Michael Coburn
The bottom line is not changed by a virus infection. How much average
labor is required to secure ones retirement. This is most easily
measured as the price of a suitable retirement abode as measured in hours
of work. All the other stuff just sort of gets in the way.
ta
> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
>
> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
Interesting related article:
"G.D.P. Seen as Inadequate Measure of Economic Health
By DAVID JOLLY
Published: September 14, 2009
PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy told the French national statistics
agency Monday to take greater account of factors like quality of life
and the environment when measuring the country’s economic health.
Mr. Sarkozy made the request after accepting a report from a panel of
top economists he had charged with reviewing the adequacy of the
current standard of fiscal well-being: gross domestic product.
The panel, chaired by two Nobel economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz of
Columbia University and Amartya Sen of Harvard University, concluded
that G.D.P. was insufficient and that measures of sustainability and
human well-being should be included."
continued at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/business/global/15gdp.html
phil scott
hi Fred... your repsonse promted me to notice that most people, except
with kids, dont really need
a large home with its expenses, taxes and tying up capitol... and
btw..forcing them into the
local jobs economy... (abpit all thats kept me viable for the last
20 years has been an ability to
work the national markets (engineering).
I think the future will be mobile to a large degree.. and smaller
houses... and retirement houses getting
very small, 200 sq ft or so. (harvard U put out a coffee table
book on those options last year, very interesting and some
urban mobile guerilla housing.. some of it works of art almost.). a
person comes to realize living that way you really
dont need 6 bathrooms.
The big home scene i believe will become obsolute over the next 10
years or so for at least half the
middle class... and eventually, over the next 20 years for most of the
middle class especially in and around the cities.... same
with cars and motels (Japan has pod motels, sleeping quarters in a
pod, TV etc, sound proofed, air conditioned, cheap..with
the communal bath room and shower. Many of us former high rollers
can see the value in that.
Phil scott
James A. Donald
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is
> recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the
> information, what are the most objective metrics for
> determining the health of something as complex as the
> American economy?
The obvious measures are net savings, inflation,
unemployment, employment, and new business formation -
all of them except inflation are very bad, and all of
them are either getting worse, or at best not improving
much.
In this sense, the economy is going over a cliff. The
optimists are pointing to leading indicators that
suggest that we are most of the way down the cliff and
the bottom is in sight.
Theoretically we are out of recession and have enjoyed
economic growth, but the "economic growth" is a result
of equating government spending with value created - a
statistical mirage.
chazwin
> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
>
The more important issue is the economy of its health.
Fred Weiss
> On Jan 5, 6:40 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 8:33 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > As long as lots of paper is being pushed around, everything is just
> > > fine. Much more efficient than making stuff, since you might have to
> > > heave your butt out of a chair to do that.
>
> > Except of course for HD TV's or farm raised fish or goods produced in
> > China.
>
> > Or anything Tiggy doesn't approve of.
>
> > When Tiggy needs a mortgage on his....oh wait, you really don't need a
> > mortgage on a tepee and no bank is likely to provide one anyway.
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> hi Fred... your repsonse promted me to notice that most people, except
> with kids, dont really need
> a large home with its expenses, taxes and tying up capitol... and
> btw..forcing them into the
> local jobs economy...
Most people don't "need" anything more than a tepee and a hunk of
meat.
So?
> I think the future will be mobile to a large degree.. and smaller
> houses... and retirement houses getting
> very small, ...
All such predictions invariably turn out to be false.
In a prosperous economy people will want all of the material
advantages it can offer them. It's impossible to completely or
precisely predict what specific forms that will take.
By "prosperous economy" I of course mean a *free economy* where people
are able to offer innovative and desirable products which none of us
can even dream of now.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
>
> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
There's only one thing to consider: are the women nice looking and
happy?
Alexis Tocqueville, Andrei Codrescu and others have all used this as
The Channel Marker.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
Nope, even the great depression wasnt.
> those last a generation of so.
The great depression didnt and this one wont last anything like as long as that one did either.
> also there is real estate taxes... those can be higher than the
> persons net retirement income.. etc. as govt bloats, and
> goes corrupt in order to stay afloat and pay its burocrats
> (retiriements 4 to 10x the average of the taxpaying sector) that'also
> distorts the scene....
And makes his measure completely useless.
> the USA is in that phase now...
Nope.
> it will stay that way as china eats our lunch for the next 50 years or so.
Just on manufacturing low cost consumer goods. Modern first world
economys are about a hell of a lot more than just manufacturing.
Rod Speed
>>> Pretty easy, actually.
>> Nope.
>> Nope.
>> Like hell it is.
>>>> Like hell it does.
>>> Yes.... It does.
>>> Nope.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> How much average labor is required to secure ones retirement.
No such animal as average labor, particularly when
the economy is changing and quite a bit of labor in the
manufacturer of low cost consumer goods is exported.
> This is most easily measured as the price of a suitable
> retirement abode as measured in hours of work.
But that is a lousy measure of what matters, whether you
have enough extra assets to pay for the property taxes on
that retirement abode once you have retired etc.
And doesnt allow for significant shifts in what the average
individual decides is a suitable retirement abode.
> All the other stuff just sort of gets in the way.
All the other stuff is what matters with the original request, what
is a good measure of the health of the national economy etc.
There is a hell of a lot more involved in that than just how
much labor is involved in getting a suitable retirement abode.
What matters MUCH more to most is how much labor is involved
in getting the lifestyle they have decided they want while they are
still working as well. Hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to
prefer to drive a truck. Vastly more prefer much more useful work
and your measure completely ignores the health of the economy
and whether it can actually deliver enough jobs like that etc.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> ta wrote
>>>>>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>>>>>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>>>>>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>>>>>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>>>>>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
>>>>>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
>>>>> The amount of time it takes the average American to secure full
>>>>> ownership of a suitable retirement abode is the best measure of
>>>>> the health of the economy.
>>>> Like hell it is. It takes MUCH to long to determine for starters.
>>> Pretty easy, actually.
>> Nope.
>>> It is merely a comparison between median home prices and media wage.
>> That measure is fucked up by the change in what people choose to
>> buy during a housing bubble and ignores changing interest rates too.
> Actually it's an outstanding choice of a metric. Very
> good measure of the health of the economy, actually.
Nope, the main problem is that it changes much too slowly to be any use for
deciding what to do with interest rates and other measures to control the state
of the economy, to attempt to ameliorate the worst of the bubbles and busts etc.
The other problem is that it doesnt even measure some things at all, most
obviously those who cant get a job at all because of the state of the economy.
And that is what most care about most when the economy is as bad as that.
> You, on the other hand have nothing but denials without any substantive rebuttal or alternative.
You're lying now. I said in response to the original that changes in GDP
and unemployment are useful measures of the health of the economy.
Sure, there are also plenty of other useful measures
as well, its never going to be feasible to have just one.
Rod Speed
> ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
>> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
> Interesting related article:
> "G.D.P. Seen as Inadequate Measure of Economic Health
Sure, in the ultimate no single measure is very useful, particularly
an absolute measure rather than changes in a particular measure.
Its obvious that an economy that produces very cheap junk that doesnt
last very long has a higher GDP than well designed high quality products
that last forever and never need replacing for example.
What most really need with modern measures of the health of
the economy is what can be used to decide if the economy needs
some stimulating by reducing interest rates or dampening a bit
if its getting a bit too overheated and is likely a bubble etc.
Changes in GDP is one of the better measures for that,
although it obviously isnt that easy to measure accurately.
And its very hard to put a value on some of the stuff that is what
most really care about, like how effective the education system is etc.
You can even make a case for the claim that one of the
best measures of the health of an economy as complex
as the american on is how well it can deliver interesting
and meaningful jobs to most of its citizens etc.
Its obviously far more important to do education
well than it is to do hair dressing well etc.
Making dealing with serious medical problems that
almost everyone gets in a way that doesnt damage
people financially is obviously much more important
than being able to find the latest trendy clothes etc.
Rod Speed
>> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information,
>> what are the most objective metrics for determining the
>> health of something as complex as the American economy?
> The obvious measures are net savings, inflation,
> unemployment, employment, and new business
> formation - all of them except inflation are very bad,
Nope, just worse than they have been.
> and all of them are either getting worse, or at best not improving much.
Thats a lie.
> In this sense, the economy is going over a cliff.
Another lie.
> The optimists are pointing to leading indicators that suggest that
> we are most of the way down the cliff and the bottom is in sight.
Another lie. Unemployment has only just got into double digits, fool.
Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like a cliff.
> Theoretically we are out of recession and have enjoyed economic growth,
Taint just theoretically either.
> but the "economic growth" is a result of equating government spending with value created
Another lie. There has been a lot more growth than just in govt spending.
> - a statistical mirage.
Another lie.
Rod Speed
Not a chance.
> and eventually, over the next 20 years for most of
> the middle class especially in and around the cities....
Not a chance.
> same with cars and motels
Not a chance.
> (Japan has pod motels, sleeping quarters in a pod, TV etc, sound proofed,
> air conditioned, cheap..with the communal bath room and shower.
Hardly anyone 'lives' like that if they have a choice in the matter.
> Many of us former high rollers can see the value in that.
Yes, but it will only be a tiny subset of the middle class, you watch.
Zerkon
> Peter Schiff (among others) says the sky is falling.
>
> Jim Cramer (among others) says the economy is recovering.
>
> In order to sort out the propaganda from the information, what are the
> most objective metrics for determining the health of something as
> complex as the American economy?
>
> Please also explain why the chosen metrics are better than others.
Your own pocket.
Michael Price
to other things that are produced by the same person? They all have
to be produced by labor, so the amount of labor someone while use
to produce them is a measure of value. If someone is creating more
than could have been created by 108% of his labor time at the start of
the year (before investment) that's greater than 8% growth. Simply
multiply the amount of time getting something in week one by how
much he got in week 52 and see how much extra production he's
getting.
> Just asking---we Elitist Socialists are just so easily confused, you
> know.
>
Yes, I wondered about that. I mean it's not like if you wanted too
you
couldn't have just gone "Oh wait he's right". I mean the concept of
capital being produced and then production isn't that hard to
grasp. Nor is the fact that the less the initial capital the greater
the
increase in growth or the implication that immediately after a
shipwreck
on a desert island rates of 8+% are to be expected.
tg
Sure. You seem to be saying that *productivity* could grow by 8%,
which is fine. But that was not what I understood the conversation
with Bret to be about, and you certainly did not make it explicit in
what you wrote.
The point is that increasing productivity is not the same as
increasing production or consumption. I suppose, having built a hut to
keep the sun and rain off, I might get bored, tear it down, and build
another, using some more productive tools I have fashioned. Is this
what you call an 8% increase in economic activity? Am I supposed to
pick and eat increasingly more bananas and get fat? Do we measure
economic activity by my weight? It seems to me rather that building
the hut and making tools are what count as economic activity, and that
would *decrease* over the first year.
I think you have to be more explicit to make your case in this case.
-tg
ta
I don't think the contents of my pocket can be used to gauge the
overall health of the economy. For starters, I may not be
representative of the average Joe, socioeconomically.
In addition, I may simply be better at managing my money than others,
which doesn't necessarily mean the economy is improving.
Finally, what would my guitar picks have to do with how the economy is
doing? ;-)
Michael Price
No I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that the productivity
times
the hours worked could grow by 8%.
> But that was not what I understood the conversation
> with Bret to be about, and you certainly did not make it explicit in
> what you wrote.
>
What I wrote about was specifically about what Bret asked about.
> The point is that increasing productivity is not the same as
> increasing production or consumption. I suppose, having built a hut to
> keep the sun and rain off, I might get bored, tear it down, and build
> another, using some more productive tools I have fashioned. Is this
> what you call an 8% increase in economic activity?
He didn't mention an 8% increase in economic activity. He mentioned
"growth" which is generally held to be growth in real GDP.
> Am I supposed to pick and eat increasingly more bananas and
> get fat?
8% more bananas than the first week of being shipwrecked probably
won't get you fat.
> Do we measure economic activity by my weight? It seems
> to me rather that building the hut and making tools are what count
> as economic activity, and that would *decrease* over the first year.
>
The problem is that you're making up definitions to try to make
Bret's question not look moronic. Why not admit the simple fact
that it would be normal for someone on a desert island to create
capital that would increase their production by 8%, BTW reread
what I wrote and it's clear that I was not refering to increasing
productivity by 8%. I merely used initial productivity as a measure
of the GDP of the end stage. You were the one who insisted, without
reason, that there needs to be a measure for it. It is pretty clear
that production can be increased by producing capital in this
situation.
Given that normal economies can increase at 8% from a low capital
base clearly this one can do better from an almost no-capital base.
> I think you have to be more explicit to make your case in this case.
>
> -tg
>
No I've been explicit enough for anyone genuinely interested in the
question.
tg
Sorry, but you are still conflating production with productivity as
far as I can tell.
I may improve my productivity and still produce exactly the same
amount. This is hardly an unusual phenomenon; if I get better at
picking bananas, it just means I will have more time for other things
after I've eaten my fill. Is it that you are counting my sitting and
watching the birds as 'production'? How will you include it in the
GDP?
-tg
Michael Price
No I'm not and I specifically so. "I'm saying that the productivity
times
the hours worked could grow by 8%.". Sorry there are no pictures.
> I may improve my productivity and still produce exactly the same
> amount.
Which is kinda why I included "times the hours worked".
> This is hardly an unusual phenomenon; if I get better at
> picking bananas, it just means I will have more time for other things
> after I've eaten my fill. Is it that you are counting my sitting and
> watching the birds as 'production'?
No idiot I'm not and there's no way a rational person could
get that from what I wrote.
> How will you include it in the GDP?
>
> -tg
If you're not prepared to actually read what I wrote and think
about it then don't bother.
tg
Ok, I will agree with that statement. It *could* grow, or it *could*
remain the same, or it *could* diminish.
You may think you are being clear, but being clear requires listening
to your interlocutor as well. I understood some of your comments to
say that it was likely rather than possible, and that less initial
capital would lead to a higher growth rate. I have pointed to
different possible and equally likely scenarios where that wouldn't be
the case.
-tg
Michael Price
Great so you've finally agreed to consider my answer related to the
question Bret asked and I answered. Note that the answer was exactly
what I said it was and you've admitted it. Now considering the
diminishing
returns to capitali investment and considering the initial capital
investment is zero what does that imply for whether production
increases? Hint: I've already told you.
>
> You may think you are being clear, but being clear requires listening
> to your interlocutor as well.
I was being clear, I answered the question directly and with
relevant
points.. There was neither obfuscation nor unclear language. The
fact
that, with zero capital high economic growth rates are possible is
clear
from the law of diminishing returns applied to capital. It's also
clear
given that anyone with common sense can see that it's easy to make
a net and fish traps in a year and that this can increase fishing
production by well over 8%. Similarly with almost anything done on
a desert island. You are deliberately avoiding this obvious
conclusion.
>I understood some of your comments to
> say that it was likely rather than possible, and that less initial
> capital would lead to a higher growth rate. I have pointed to
> different possible and equally likely scenarios where that wouldn't be
> the case.
No you haven't, you've simply made up definitions of value that
make
no sense and then accused me of doing so.
tg
Can't take yes for an answer eh.
You said:
No I'm not [conflating production with productivity] and I
specifically so. "I'm saying that the productivity
times the hours worked could grow by 8%.".
end quote
I agree with this. But it is also true that
Productivity times hours worked could remain constant.
Productivity times hours worked could diminish.
For example, when I land on the island, I spend the first week:
2 hours per day catching 1 pound of fish in the shallows barehanded.
2 hours per day making a net.
The remainder of the day lying on the beach, thinking about
philosophy.
Then, with my newly made net, I spend the rest of the year
.5 hour per day catching 1 pound of fish.
.5 hour per day maintaining my net
The remainder of the day lying on the beach, thinking about
philosophy.
So, while my *productivity* has increased, my *production* has
remained constant or diminished, depending on how we view the activity
of making a net. (You've already said that we don't count my leisure
time as production.)
Got it?
-tg
Michael Price
The question was "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible
without at least _someone_ being free to _communicate
something_ to _someone_ else?". So why keep on now that
you've admitted I'm right and it is possible? Certainly not
to clarify anything, since this is what you seem to be avoiding.
>
> For example, when I land on the island, I spend the first week:
>
> 2 hours per day catching 1 pound of fish in the shallows barehanded.
> 2 hours per day making a net.
> The remainder of the day lying on the beach, thinking about
> philosophy.
>
> Then, with my newly made net, I spend the rest of the year
>
> .5 hour per day catching 1 pound of fish.
> .5 hour per day maintaining my net
> The remainder of the day lying on the beach, thinking about
> philosophy.
>
> So, while my *productivity* has increased, my *production* has
> remained constant or diminished, depending on how we view the activity
> of making a net. (You've already said that we don't count my leisure
> time as production.)
>
> Got it?
>
> -tg
>
Yeah you are making stuff up that has about zero likelihood
in the real world and no relevance to the original question..
tg
Ok---your scenario of being marooned on an island has high likelihood
in the real world. I keep forgetting that your real world isn't like
the one the rest of us live in.
Fred Weiss
Actually the question itself doesn't clarify anything and you've
fallen in the trap of taking Brat seriously.
What difference does it make if someone can communicate with someone?
They can do that in a concentration camp.
Don't ever argue on these guys' terms or concede their premises. Not
Brat, Not Tiggy. Not any of them.
They reside in a time warped alternate socialist universe, frozen in
denial that their reactionary ideas haven't been totally discredited.
They are like prehistoric creatures on the verge of extinction and
they are simply flailing around in their death throes.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > without at least _someone_ being free to _communicate
> > something_ to _someone_ else?".
> > So why keep on now that
> > you've admitted I'm right and it is possible? Certainly not
> > to clarify anything, since this is what you seem to be avoiding.
. . .
> What difference does it make if someone can communicate with someone?
> They can do that in a concentration camp.
But not with an 8% sustained growth rate.
> Don't ever argue on these guys' terms or concede their premises. Not
> Brat, Not Tiggy. Not any of them.
Become irrelevant like the Chicago School of Economic Issue Dodgers!
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> > What difference does it make if someone can communicate with someone?
> > They can do that in a concentration camp.
>
> But not with an 8% sustained growth rate.
So what? That they can "communicate with each other" isn't the primary
issue. It's not relevant to anything. They also communicated with each
other in Nazi Germany. Oh, and look, golly gee, they built the
Autobahn - and concentration camps.
Does giving and taking orders constitute "communicating"? If a gov't
official orders you to do something and you nod your head, is that
communicating?
Is that all you think free speech is? Apparently so. Gee, didn't the
guy freely nod his head? Of course he would have been arrested, even
shot, if he hadn't, but so what? It was still his choice to nod his
head or not, right?
Fred Weiss
Michael Price
It's got a hell of a lot more likelihood than being marooned and
being able
to easily survive within a year.
Michael Price
> > > The question was "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible
> > > without at least _someone_ being free to _communicate
> > > something_ to _someone_ else?".
> > > So why keep on now that
> > > you've admitted I'm right and it is possible? Certainly not
> > > to clarify anything, since this is what you seem to be avoiding.
>
> . . .
>
> > What difference does it make if someone can communicate with someone?
> > They can do that in a concentration camp.
>
> But not with an 8% sustained growth rate.
Again, you're just stating things without any evidence.
>
> > Don't ever argue on these guys' terms or concede their premises. Not
> > Brat, Not Tiggy. Not any of them.
>
> Become irrelevant like the Chicago School of Economic Issue Dodgers!
>
Actually you're the one who consistently lies and dodges the
question.
So, again, why is this question at all relevant to economics?
> Bret Cahill
tg
Well, that's an interesting question. I would argue that if I can
survive the first week---or say a month, so that I don't just live off
body fat---then I can certainly survive the year, and it will indeed
involve less effort than at the beginning. After all, you are the one
talking about increased productivity.
If you have a serious opinion about this, you should begin by defining
how you are treating the work involved in creating capital---tools and
shelter and so on. I would count it as production, and since it is
weighted at the beginning, I think there would be a net decline in
production. But that's just my view of it. You seem to have a scenario
in your head but it hasn't been fleshed out.
-tg
Fred Weiss
> So, again, why is this question at all relevant to economics?> Bret Cahill
Let's concede that "communicating" is a necessary part of it.
For that matter it's a necessary part of *any* society. In fact it's
an indispensable part of there *being* a society.
Even a dictatorship. In fact a dictatorship is impossible without it.
The ruler has to issue orders and the subjects have to nod their heads
in agreement.
The irony here is that Brat has no grasp of the *kind* of
communication which is necessary for a free and prosperous society.
Do you, Brat?
Fred Weiss