The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Posted by inmate2007 (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your original and correct premise was that we have not experienced a recession until the Conference Board declares one by looking back at two quarters of negative GDP. That was why you demanded the correction, and a the missing correction 2.

Now your presenting Wall Street data that might indicate a tulip festival is occurring and unemployment figures that the CB does not look at. Neither of which defines a recession.

Please pick a story and stick to it. I understand that by ignoring/dismissing the bad thing it might not happen or be happing but then again I've known many a cuckold that was surprised when the wife told him the truth a year later.

Posted by inmate2007 (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 2:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand corrected on who calls the recession but you are clearly declaring we are not in a recession or approaching one when by your own admission the NBER has not stated that. They will make that determination in the future.

Now just where do you stand? Do you know more then the NBER will know in the future? Or are you making statements about the present that please you?

By the NBER's own admission they live in the past but it seems much more prudent to look to the future. Even the FED president recently stated that a recession was possible even through I would bet it didn't please him. If I knew who was on the NBER I might be able to find a similar statement........

Posted by inmate2007 (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So your soap box is that we might be but until the NBER declares one we are not. And that the present data your using says we are not but the NBER hasn't determined that so are you any different then the media?

You have also stated that one data point doesn't determine the NBER decision but today your pounding the table about unemployment (a data point that has varied by administrations). Is that ultimate indicator or should it be stock market results? But then again you stated "ii) No, the NBER does not mention the stock market per se in their descriptions of what they evaluate."

Are you really different then the media? A twist is a twist, it only
matters if it's in you direction or not. The NBER admits that they often declare a recession after its done, isn't that closing the barn door after the horse is gone? Could the media just be trying to get the door closed before the horse is gone while your trying to add it to your herd?

Posted by mtroach (anonymous) on April 6, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell your BS to the 80,000 americans that lost their job last quarter, or the 2,000,000 americans the are in the midst of foreclosure. Their may not be a recession up in your ivory tower, but for most of America, life is not defined by government statistics.

Posted by inmate2007 (anonymous) on April 7, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sbvor, Can you provide us with a link that shows/proves that "the very large majority of those 80,000 have already found better jobs" did get a better job. Other then something that points back to your own opinion, of course.

Posted by inmate2007 (anonymous) on April 8, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So none of your other links are to media based sites?

Watching others and experincing a layoff might be two different reality's. Is it more relevant to be involved or to be an observer?

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

inmate
bore will skew data to fit his (wrong) thesis.
just because his "dozens" of "friends" found better jobs, going from garbage picker to ditch digger isnt that great.
also the link bore provides
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fre...
is interesting. I see that 8 of the 10 recession periods since the data is shown started when unemployment was below the 6% that he claims is a prerequisite for the definition of a recession, including 3 that occurred when it was at 4% or less.
hmmm.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bore sez repeatedly
Unemployment, which is normally a LEADING indicator of a recession, remains well BELOW the 6% traditionally regarded as "full employment.

bore sez
Posted by sbvor (anonymous) on March 7, 2008 at 2:41 p.m.
Since an unemployment rate of 6% is considered to be "full employment", an unemployment rate of 4.8% (and dropping for the last two months in a row) is HARDLY indicative of a recession.
bore sez
Posted by sbvor (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 p.m.

Total change in unemployment during the 2001 recession (3/01 to 11/01): 1.2%

ii) Today

Total change in unemployment over the last 8 months: 0.4%

We have NOT seen the sharp spike in unemployment which ALWAYS accompanies a recession!

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OOoooooo...tagged & (tea)bagged!!!

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bore sez
Unemployment, which is normally a LEADING indicator of a recession, remains well BELOW the 6% traditionally regarded as "full employment.
bore sez
We have NOT seen the sharp spike in unemployment which ALWAYS accompanies a recession!
bore sez
SBC,

Lie much?

I have never, EVER stated that there is ANY given level of unemployment which "is a prerequisite for the definition of a recession"
you didnt repeatedly speak of 6% as a recessoinary level?
and I am missing what?
semantics?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's because your eyesight sucks. You've proven that with your links that we use against you, since it's obvious you don't actually read them.

I figured a Conservative like you wouldn't be out in "Left" Field all the time.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kiel
while we debate semantics I would change that conservative to Neocon.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and the 2001 Recession didn't involve 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. So...the rules don't always fit. It's just when you decide to apply them to fit your needs.

And SBC- noted! "NeoCon standing out in 'Left' Field!" The grass must be greener there when looking for something more to smoke.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

semantics bore, not a lie
you have implied that recession needs a higher unemployment rate than we currently have, the data you presented shows different.
besides, the next unemployment report will be higher,
unless of course the rag pickers can get those high paying ditch digger jobs.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.investorwords.com/4086/recess...

"recession
Definition

A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters"

2001 Recession wasn't consecutive, right? That goes against the rules! So if that went against the rules, I guess 3 months of lost jobs, a declining GDP with a good chance of it dropping below Sea Level this quarter, home sales tanking, the NBER President saying we're in a recession...yeah- business as usual.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the definition is...not the true definition...it's more "complicated."

Go Team!! Rah Rah Rah! Let's not pay attention to the 3 months jobs loss indicator, either, in conjuction with a GDP slowing to a standstill. Nooooo...we need to wait until the house burns to the ground to yell "FIRE!!" Wonder why we didn't apply that rule of thumb to Iraq? If it's good enough for invading another country based on bad intel, it should be good enough to apply that logic for our own country. Just like how we'll waterboard other countries' people in order to get them to stop waterboarding their own people. (EEEEEK!!! Moral Equivalence!!! Hit it with a rolled up newspaper!!!)

YOU are the only one stating no recession. Sounds like you're the only inconsistency when it comes to Economics. It speaks volumes about your that you would keep lying to yourself like that. You have only proved that you only read what you like to hear. NBER Pres (and even our old, beloved Greenspan) states we're currently in a recession, but like all good cheerleaders, you'll wait til the end of the game to acknowledge the 55-10 blowout as a loss. Maybe you can do your nails afterward. You know nails, right? The ones you keep pounding into your own coffin of logic?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, quoting a NeoCon driven website instead of the NBER is now how you roll?

"Go Team!!"

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stagflation back?
Wholesale Prices Soar in March
Tuesday April 15, 9:56 am ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Wholesale Prices Soar 1.1 Percent in March, Driven by Big Increases in Food and Energy

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Inflation at the wholesale level soared in March at nearly triple the rate that had been expected as the costs of energy and food both climbed rapidly.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

link for above
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080415/economy.h...

Posted by corduroy (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

looks like the bor is gone? Lots of missing posts, so half the forums don't make any sense. Maybe finally got sick of this

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeehaw!
my 100,000 shares of GOOG I bought at $420 are now worth a cool $10 Mil more!
guess I'll be paying a lot of taxes this year!!!