On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 1:32:31 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 1:03:21 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:29:38 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:06:03 PM UTC-8,
paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > You must be mistaken. What? Do you think we're in a recession or something? Ask BillB, the economy is booming. Nothing to worry about.
> > > ~ It can be difficult for a layperson to appreciate the frightening magnitude of a .6% drop (only a few weeks after a 1.3% gain).
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you too frightened to mention:
> > >
> > > 'fell 2.6 percent in November and are down 3.2 percent on the year'
> > >
> > > 'sales drop 2.6 percent in November and are up just 0.5 percent on the year. Including auto parts stores, the sector lost 2.3 percent in sales from October'?
> ~ That's included in the .6%. Anything that dropped higher than that .6% was offset by something else. That's how math works.
>
>
> Hogwash. In other words, anything that contradicts the factoid you chose doesn't count. LOL. What a fake. Blabbermouth- president of the 'Save the corporate >Democrats club'. LOL.
It's not "hogwash," and I have no idea what it has to do with "corporate Democrats." It's math. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70 that if retail sales dropped .6% over a certain period, that doesn't mean they dropped exactly .6% across the board in every retail category. It's an average. That means some categories went down more than .6% and some went down less .6% and/or went up. You are failing grade three math again. Your article simply highlighted the categories that dropped the most, and it makes perfect sense that vehicle sales would be one of them since they are a big ticket item often bought on credit, and consumer interest rates have increased substantially. That is important information if you happen to have a financial interest in that sector, but the bottom line is that the drop in retail overall averaged out to .6%.
> ~ Again, refer to the visual aid I provided to put it all in perspective for you
>
>
> Why don't YOU refer to your visual aid, dumb shit? Those are estimates.
No, only the last quarter is an estimate, and the chart wasn't updated with the new data yet. It was for all intents and purposes bang-on. What you were supposed to learn from that graph is that a .6% drop in retail sales doesn't mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, but that was obviously over your head.
> > > On the other hand, who wouldn't consider Blabbermouth-in-Vancouver's economic analysis more reliable than economists at consulting firm EY-Parthenon, an >economic analyst at Morning Consult, and a senior industry analyst at Bankrate? Did THEY predict 3.5% 'inflation'? No, only RGP's in-house expert on everything.
> ~ I'm sure they all forecasted something very similar at that time.
>
> Sure they did. Because that would make you look less stupid?
If I look stupid in the eyes of a person who supported Paul's hyperinflation hyperventilations to the hilt, so be it. Pretty funny stuff. I guess the entire financial world is "stupid" too, because that was the consensus and the Fed's forecast at that time. Remember you later even tried to change the definition of hyperinflation to say that 7% inflation was hyperinflation. LOLOLOL You made an absolute fool of yourself, but that's how desperate you were.
> ~ It was the Fed's forecast I was parroting that day
>
> After all these months of calling it a prediction, you are now calling it parroting? LOL. The new Blabbermouth >> 🦜.
No, I always said on that on that one day I said "probably 3.5%" because I was just giving the nod to the Fed's forecast rather than mine. It really didn't even matter if I went with their forecast or mine, because it was said to Alim in the context that he shouldn't be worried about hyperinflation.
> ~ (I personally thought it would be 5% by the end of fiscal 2021 and it came in at 5.4%).
>
> You have repeated that lie incessantly and I have exposed it as a lie repeatedly.
You didn't expose anything except in your own mind. You also claimed I didn't contemplate the possibility that inflation could reach 7%, even though I offered to show you the quote (under reasonable conditions). You ran from that offer at least three times.
> ~ Of course, many unforeseeable exacerbating factors occurred after that.
>
> There's never any shortage of excuses for your stupidity, is there?
What I stated is a fact, not an excuse. A forecast is just that, a prediction made on the information available and/or foreseeable at that moment in time.
> ~ No worries, it was all transitory. The US is already back down to 2.4% annualized over the last five months' data.
>
> Oh, so you now have enough liar's guts to go back to the 'transitory' thing you shut up about for many months?
I have said all along that I accepted the Fed's assessment that the inflation would be transitory.
>You're a real visionary when you look backward. LOL. You don't have enough brains or knowledge to realize it can change direction again.
Of course it can reverse again. That's not saying anything. But after five months of relatively low inflation, it is fair to say that the very high m/m inflation data that drove annual inflation to 9% has ended. That doesn't mean inflation has ended for all time. That doesn't even make sense.
> ~ Enjoy yourself. The world is not coming to an end as you and Paul predicted. You could have saved a lot of stress just listening to my reassurances. Don't bet against America. In the long run you will go broke.
>
>
> Don't let the fact that I never proposed anything coming to an end have any restraint on your lying.
Yes, you did. You defended Paul's apocalyptic views to the hilt, and everyone knows it. Now that he was proved wrong and I was prove right you are running away from him as fast as you can. Some wife you are. For better or for worse, remember? Weren't those part of your marriage vows?
> BTW- you can't be exposed as utterly stupid and uninformed and then credibly call that 'reassurance'.
It would be impossible to expose me as stupid. You didn't listen to me, and now you look like a fool. No amount of revisionist history is going to change that, Mr. HYPER-inflation. Get over it.
> Obviously, every attempt to educate you has failed. Personality disorders like yours are not susceptible to reason.
LOL You educate me. Now that's the funniest comment of the decade. You really are delusional.