It's the Economy, Stupid!

[Leonhard]

False. I did not mention debt to gdp ratio even once, that's not my part of the argument.

Yes, you instead used your own weird deficit to gdp ratio. This is just the debt to gdp ratio, along with the change in that ratio in disguise.

My argument is that growth in GDP that is fuelled by debt does not mean things are getting better, because of simple balance sheet considerations.

Yes, but that would mean you expect the money borrowed to produce zero value.

At this point I'm going to assume that you're just intentionally misunderstanding. In no way did I argue that "any deficit equals a tanking economy". That's complete BS. I'm not going to respond further unless there's any constructive post from you.

But that is in fact the argument you have made. You made a calculation showing a deficit, and you point it out, and you agreed that the growing debt to gdp ratio was a sign of the US economy going downhill since it had been since Reagan.

Really I'm just trying to understand your argument Demi, but you don't really respond constructively either. And your best approach to responding to statistics was to call it lies, and mainstream. This is all crank approaches.

[demi-conservative]

Yes, you instead used your own weird deficit to gdp ratio.

I am concerned with the balance sheet. Adding deficit to gdp was to show that it gives a crude view of the economy, but slightly useful compared to worthless GDP.

Yes, but that would mean you expect the money borrowed to produce zero value.

No. False. As I have said from the beginning, it's a starting point. You need to start with the balance sheet.

Accept that I presented a simplified argument for people who used to believe in just GDP alone, and we'll get on better.

[demi-conservative]

Okay, I get it. At this point you're just sperging that what I've presented is very incomplete too.

Well, no ****, I simplified it because it's an alternative view that most people here haven't seen. But I take back my claims of deliberate misunderstanding.

[Leonhard]

In regards to the economy, disbelieving mainstream's views about the economy is not at all bonkers. It was the mainstream telling everyone there was no recession in sight in 2017 and scoffing at the economic contrarians. In fact, it was the federal reserve head (as mainstream as it gets) telling everyone there was no housing crisis as late as 2008. Mainstream is designed to keep a bullish outlook on things, naturally to keep panic at bay and the economy and markets going.

I believe in being skeptical, and questioning your own views and how we know things. I often argue here to get my outlook on the economy, or politics as it relates to the US challenged. See if people can show more reliable sources, or better arguments.

Dismissing something out of hand though, because it is "mainstream" isn't sound though. That's a weird anti-bandwaggon fallacy.

[demi-conservative]

If you want a more detailed form of my position, a proper measure of the economy requires a balance sheet that accounts for GDP, debt, inflation, depreciation of national assets like infrastructure, promotion of capital, per capita etc etc.

But the central point I've been arguing here is that you have to take debt into account.

[Leonhard]

Okay, I get it. At this point you're just sperging that what I've presented is very incomplete too.

Well, no ****, I simplified it because it's an alternative view that most people here haven't seen. But I take back my claims of deliberate misunderstanding.

That is fair Demi, it is complex. I guess I didn't argue a full picture either, I was more interested in knowing what Sparko or Mountain Man believed when they claimed the economy "flat-lined" under Obama. So I presented some evidence as launching board.

You are right, deficits, inflation, and other factors should be considered. If you know of a deep going analysis online from a conservative aspect, that goes into these things I'll gladly read it.

[Leonhard]

You can play with charts all you want. I can only speak as to my own situation.

Yay Trump.

Guess who I am voting for in 2020? Go on, guess.

That's fine Sparko, I was seeking to be challenged on my views, if you don't want to challenge them that is fine.

If you believe Trump's policies did you good, and if the values he champions in politics align sufficiently with yours, then by all means you ought to vote for him. That is in fact the only reason to vote for a candidate: you believe their politics will either benefit you or the values you champion.

[seanD]

I believe in being skeptical, and questioning your own views and how we know things. I often argue here to get my outlook on the economy, or politics as it relates to the US challenged. See if people can show more reliable sources, or better arguments.

Dismissing something out of hand though, because it is "mainstream" isn't sound though. That's a weird anti-bandwaggon fallacy.

I was responding to the way you grossly dismissed skepticism of mainstream economic views as somehow being equivalent to 4chan theorizing and flat earthism. I was dismissing your cheap ad reductio absurdum tactic. Mainstream economic views has demonstrably been wrong in the past, so skepticism is perfectly reasonable and logical. And I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant 2007, not 2017, so I guess that's my cue to bow out.

[Leonhard]

I was responding to the way you grossly dismissed skepticism of mainstream economic views as somehow being equivalent to 4chan theorizing and flat earthism. I was dismissing your cheap ad reductio absurdum tactic. Mainstream economic views has demonstrably been wrong in the past, so skepticism is perfectly reasonable and logical. And I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant 2007, not 2017, so I guess that's my cue to bow out.

Fair point, still I consider it a fallacy if its not joined to proper evidence.

[lilpixieofterror]

I was responding to the way you grossly dismissed skepticism of mainstream economic views as somehow being equivalent to 4chan theorizing and flat earthism. I was dismissing your cheap ad reductio absurdum tactic. Mainstream economic views has demonstrably been wrong in the past, so skepticism is perfectly reasonable and logical. And I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant 2007, not 2017, so I guess that's my cue to bow out.

You can line up 100 economist and not a single one of them will point in the same direction.

[shunyadragon]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-by-not-coun/

Do you actually have any actual economic data to justify your claim instead of trashing the same data everybody uses including Trump. Calculating the unemployment is the same way it has been done for years and the figures are consistent. See the graphs posted by Leonard.

[demi-conservative]

That is fair Demi, it is complex. I guess I didn't argue a full picture either, I was more interested in knowing what Sparko or Mountain Man believed when they claimed the economy "flat-lined" under Obama. So I presented some evidence as launching board.

It's all good.

I don't think numerical arguments are that useful because of the lack of reliable data. It is government practice to mislead with U3 numbers.

Stock indices are the worst because they are so manipulated, government with UE and interest rates, rich entities betting on how the stock market will go, and the euphoria/mania of ordinary investors. They doesn't even take inflation into account.*

*not that I trust CPI, surprise.

[shunyadragon]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-by-not-coun/

I want to add Forbe's is a reliable economic and financial magazine. What do you have as a reference that contradicts this.

[demi-conservative]

Don't take it personally - he attacks indiscriminately when he gets defensive.

He's a true believer that's having his world view shredded. The lashing out irrationally is to be expected of anyone in that situation.

Those who live in glass houses...

[NorrinRadd]

...

Also, "serious."

Unless asking the question caused his tissues to leak watery fluid.