JPS1 The article that you have cited reflects the opinions of one economist. Moreover, it is ripe with nuances and qualifications. If, that is, Mr. Gordon is right. But there is good reason to suspect he is far too pessimistic….. Using Mr. Gordon's estimate of productivity growth (which is for the total economy rather than just the private sector), America has managed growth of just 1.3% over the past 40 years, if one excludes the period from 1996 to 2004.
I had exceeded my 3 article limit. So Gordon (the economist CMStPnP cites) was looking at productivity growth, which though it underpins and correlates with GDP growth, is not the same thing.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
JPS1As you can see Schlimm ask for the nominal growth rates. In fact economists use both nominal and real growth rates. So too does the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), from which I drew my information. Give it a go. You might learn something.
He didn't ask for the Nominal rates until you brought it into the discussion as a topic that isn't relevant. And Economists refer to it as the Chamber of Commerce not the BEA, most use the raw data to produce their own Real GDP figures instead of presenting and saying "look everyone, this is what the BEA says via Google". You would know that if you worked with Economists before or on a Economics Staff. Because there is always argument over the GDP deflator among Economists and what makes up the deflator.
JPS1 CPAs don’t deal with economics in a professional context.
Ehhhhh, what? Yes that alone tells me you are not a CPA but I knew it before.
JPS1The article that you have cited reflects the opinions of one economist. Moreover, it is ripe with nuances and qualifications.
Several reasons why....
First I don't believe I should "cite" an Economics 101 concept that someone with a college degree should already understand.
Second, plenty of other sources available via text search in Google. Again, grown adults should know how to Google in our increasingly technical environment.
Third, it's a informal discussion forum not a forum for publication in a scientific journal. If after a Google someone cannot find what is being asserted, I don't mind them saying.........hey I can't find that anywhere on the internet. However this is a common discussion and has been on and off the last eight years on how much our Economic recovery should have been and what we can realistically set as a goal for our GDP rates.
Fourth, if I were a professor at Northwestern or if I were POTUS, I would never take a position contrary to that taken by the Federal Reserve an orginization that actually has significant influence over the U.S. Economy and much broader insight into it than your average college professsor or average POTUS.
Fifth, I would make the point the reason we are off and into the weeds on a Economics discussion is someone cannot accept what I stated that growth rates were set as a bar for performance way too low to make a past administration look better than they actually were. Fundamentally there was a total lack of understanding on how regulations and uncertainty over them have a significant influence on Economic activity. Additionally, a total lack of understanding on how return on investment and time to completion should be looked at when applying an Economic stimulus package.
CMStPnP JPS1 The article that you have cited reflects the opinions of one economist. Moreover, it is ripe with nuances and qualifications. Several reasons why.... First I don't believe I should "cite" an Economics 101 concept that someone with a college degree should already understand. Second, plenty of other sources available via text search in Google. Again, grown adults should know how to Google in our increasingly technical environment. Third, it's a informal discussion forum not a forum for publication in a scientific journal. If after a Google someone cannot find what is being asserted, I don't mind them saying.........hey I can't find that anywhere on the internet. However this is a common discussion and has been on and off the last eight years on how much our Economic recovery should have been and what we can realistically set as a goal for our GDP rates. Fourth, if I were a professor at Northwestern or if I were POTUS, I would never take a position contrary to that taken by the Federal Reserve an orginization that actually has significant influence over the U.S. Economy and much broader insight into it than your average college professsor or average POTUS. Fifth, I would make the point the reason we are off and into the weeds on a Economics discussion is someone cannot accept what I stated that growth rates were set as a bar for performance way too low to make a past administration look better than they actually were. Fundamentally there was a total lack of understanding on how regulations and uncertainty over them have a significant influence on Economic activity. Additionally, a total lack of understanding on how return on investment and time to completion should be looked at when applying an Economic stimulus package.
JPS1 The article that you have cited reflects the opinions of one economist. Moreover, it is ripe with nuances and qualifications.
Official government economic data is assembled by career civil servants. Some folks like to believe the data is politically influenced, when the data doesn't suit the individual's particular agenda. I see this every year on retiree forums, when the annual CPI that determines raises in Social Security and other Federal annuities is published. Some will always believe there's political tinkering going on with the numbers.
The obvious cause of the diversion into macroeconomics and th job skills of CPAs was Milwaukee's inability to admit his error in regard to citing economic growth rates and his long-running feud with JPS1. Comparing the posts of both, it is obvious that he lacks the broader university-level knowledge and professional experience of JBS1.
The state legislature overrode the governor's veto of a budget in a bipartisan vote, so state-supported trains can hopefully be saved.
The new budget will have about $4.76 billion more in personal and corporate income taxes, and $2.9 billion in spending cuts,of which $2.5 billion will come from a 5% cut in most state agencies and a 10% cut to higher education. Previously Governor Rauner wanted to cut Illinois payment to Amtrak of $42 million by 40%, and ended up paying $38.3 million in FY2016.
schlimmThe obvious cause of the diversion into macroeconomics and th job skills of CPAs was Milwaukee's inability to admit his error in regard to citing economic growth rates and his long-running feud with JPS1. Comparing the posts of both, it is obvious that he lacks the broader university-level knowledge and professional experience of JBS1.
Your last conclusion before this was I made up my Army service. So, another grain of salt, here I guess. Your mad because you lost another argument.
BLS53Official government economic data is assembled by career civil servants. Some folks like to believe the data is politically influenced, when the data doesn't suit the individual's particular agenda. I see this every year on retiree forums, when the annual CPI that determines raises in Social Security and other Federal annuities is published. Some will always believe there's political tinkering going on with the numbers.
Actually not completely true. Some Econonomic stats and outlooks are privately gathered. Also, it's not that Economists feel the stats does not fit their agenda, they feel instead that government collection methods are not always accurate so they substitute others to give decision makers a range. Nobody relys on the BEA figures in my experience, instead they use the raw data.
Some of the Detroit Economic Club lunches I have attended they would have an analyst from CoAmerica bank for example presenting his outlook of the Economy or Economic area..........next meeting maybe an Economist from Chrysler, etc, etc. Private Industry. Sometimes they would have a member of the Chicago Fed speak (again private). University of Michigan also provides a consumer sentiment index that is used as much as the Manufacturers/Producers index.
CPI is similar to real GDP Deflator but the two are actually different, they will take the raw CPI and adjust it using various inputs. The stats between official and what an Economist presents are not usually far off unless a significant event happened where they argue there should be a major difference. The other problem you have of course is the Feds adjust or correct past real GDP estimates and CPI so the initial figure is rarely treated as final.
CMStPnP Yes that alone tells me you are not a CPA but I knew it before.
Actually, you know nothing of the sort! This is just another in your long line of unsupported assumptions.
To opine on the qualifications of a forum participant you don’t know is ignorant.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
CMStPnP BLS53 Official government economic data is assembled by career civil servants. Some folks like to believe the data is politically influenced, when the data doesn't suit the individual's particular agenda. I see this every year on retiree forums, when the annual CPI that determines raises in Social Security and other Federal annuities is published. Some will always believe there's political tinkering going on with the numbers. Actually not completely true. Some Econonomic stats and outlooks are privately gathered. Also, it's not that Economists feel the stats does not fit their agenda, they feel instead that government collection methods are not always accurate so they substitute others to give decision makers a range. Nobody relys on the BEA figures in my experience, instead they use the raw data. Some of the Detroit Economic Club lunches I have attended they would have an analyst from CoAmerica bank for example presenting his outlook of the Economy or Economic area..........next meeting maybe an Economist from Chrysler, etc, etc. Private Industry. Sometimes they would have a member of the Chicago Fed speak (again private). University of Michigan also provides a consumer sentiment index that is used as much as the Manufacturers/Producers index. CPI is similar to real GDP Deflator but the two are actually different, they will take the raw CPI and adjust it using various inputs. The stats between official and what an Economist presents are not usually far off unless a significant event happened where they argue there should be a major difference. The other problem you have of course is the Feds adjust or correct past real GDP estimates and CPI so the initial figure is rarely treated as final.
BLS53 Official government economic data is assembled by career civil servants. Some folks like to believe the data is politically influenced, when the data doesn't suit the individual's particular agenda. I see this every year on retiree forums, when the annual CPI that determines raises in Social Security and other Federal annuities is published. Some will always believe there's political tinkering going on with the numbers.
Given your impecable qualifications as an economist, which presumably we should understand because of the searing logic of your unsupported arguments, one would think that you could at least tell your readers the difference between the GDP Deflator and CPI. Here is an explanation from the BEA as a reminder:
"Although at first glance it may seem that CPI and GDP Deflator measure the same thing, there are a few key differences. The first is that GDP Deflator includes only domestic goods and not anything that is imported. This is different because the CPI includes anything bought by consumers including foreign goods. The second difference is that the GDP Deflator is a measure of the prices of all goods and services while the CPI is a measure of only goods bought by consumers."
The BLS, BEA, Census Bureau, etc. adjust their data for seasonal fluctations and, furthermore, may continue adjusting them for up to a year or more as new information comes to light. All of the statistics are based on sampling, which means that all of the statistics are subject to sampling error. As it emerges, the authorities take whatever steps they deem appropriate to adjust the outcomes.
CMStPnP schlimm The obvious cause of the diversion into macroeconomics and th job skills of CPAs was Milwaukee's inability to admit his error in regard to citing economic growth rates and his long-running feud with JPS1. Comparing the posts of both, it is obvious that he lacks the broader university-level knowledge and professional experience of JBS1. Your last conclusion before this was I made up my Army service. So, another grain of salt, here I guess. Your mad because you lost another argument.
schlimm The obvious cause of the diversion into macroeconomics and th job skills of CPAs was Milwaukee's inability to admit his error in regard to citing economic growth rates and his long-running feud with JPS1. Comparing the posts of both, it is obvious that he lacks the broader university-level knowledge and professional experience of JBS1.
1. Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension or logic? I never disputed your army service. Just said that real veterans, i.e. those who served in combat, don't brag about it.
2. And your last statement is indicative of your shallow level of knowledge. Professionals have no interest in "winning" arguments. Discovery of factual knowledge is what matters. You seem to have some need to ridicule JPS1. On what basis? What coursework do you have in econ and accountancy?
JPS1 CMStPnP BLS53 Official government economic data is assembled by career civil servants. Some folks like to believe the data is politically influenced, when the data doesn't suit the individual's particular agenda. I see this every year on retiree forums, when the annual CPI that determines raises in Social Security and other Federal annuities is published. Some will always believe there's political tinkering going on with the numbers. Actually not completely true. Some Econonomic stats and outlooks are privately gathered. Also, it's not that Economists feel the stats does not fit their agenda, they feel instead that government collection methods are not always accurate so they substitute others to give decision makers a range. Nobody relys on the BEA figures in my experience, instead they use the raw data. Some of the Detroit Economic Club lunches I have attended they would have an analyst from CoAmerica bank for example presenting his outlook of the Economy or Economic area..........next meeting maybe an Economist from Chrysler, etc, etc. Private Industry. Sometimes they would have a member of the Chicago Fed speak (again private). University of Michigan also provides a consumer sentiment index that is used as much as the Manufacturers/Producers index. CPI is similar to real GDP Deflator but the two are actually different, they will take the raw CPI and adjust it using various inputs. The stats between official and what an Economist presents are not usually far off unless a significant event happened where they argue there should be a major difference. The other problem you have of course is the Feds adjust or correct past real GDP estimates and CPI so the initial figure is rarely treated as final. Given your impecable qualifications as an economist, which presumably we should understand because of the searing logic of your unsupported arguments, one would think that you could at least tell your readers the difference between the GDP Deflator and CPI. Here is an explanation from the BEA as a reminder: "Although at first glance it may seem that CPI and GDP Deflator measure the same thing, there are a few key differences. The first is that GDP Deflator includes only domestic goods and not anything that is imported. This is different because the CPI includes anything bought by consumers including foreign goods. The second difference is that the GDP Deflator is a measure of the prices of all goods and services while the CPI is a measure of only goods bought by consumers." The BLS, BEA, Census Bureau, etc. adjust their data for seasonal fluctations and, furthermore, may continue adjusting them for up to a year or more as new information comes to light. All of the statistics are based on sampling, which means that all of the statistics are subject to sampling error. As it emerges, the authorities take whatever steps they deem appropriate to adjust the outcomes.
I wasn't implying that I didn't know the difference between GDP and CPI. It's just that for personal reasons, I track the CPI more closely, and was using it as an analogy as to how some folks try to find political influences in the data.
schlimm real veterans, i.e. those who served in combat
I think you have insulted the majority of all veterans who took the oath, wore the uniform and served their country. Combat veterans are highest on the continuum, of course.
BLS53I wasn't implying that I didn't know the difference between GDP and CPI. It's just that for personal reasons, I track the CPI more closely, and was using it as an analogy as to how some folks try to find political influences in the data.
I think JPS1 was referring to CMStPnP, not your comment.
wanswheel schlimm real veterans, i.e. those who served in combat I think you have insulted the majority of all veterans who took the oath, wore the uniform and served their country. Combat veterans are highest on the continuum, of course.
Clumsy wording. No insult intended. I meant to say that most of our vets (and almost ALL combat veterans) don't need to name drop and refer to their service so frequently. Heroes don't toot their own horns.
When I was in college, in the mid-fifties, two of my good friends had come back from three years on active duty in the Marine Corps. In all of our conversations, they never mentioned their combat experiences. At times, they would speak of this or that experience in Korea, but never anything about combat.
Johnny
schlimm Clumsy wording.
Clumsy wording.
wanswheel schlimm Clumsy wording.
Well, you apparently have a need to belittle others, Mr. Grammar Policeman. I was not using i.e. to give an example but clarification, clumsily handled.
Unfortunately, both you and your cartoon are incorrect with regard to eg. Although i.e. does stand for the Latin words id est (that is), eg. stands for a single Latin word, egregium, meaning (for) example.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exempli_gratia
schlimmUnfortunately, both you and your cartoon are incorrect with regard to eg. Although i.e. does stand for the Latin words id est (that is), eg. stands for a single Latin word, egregium, meaning (for) example.
In what pathetic excuse for a cow college is that supposed to be true?
Exempli gratia: "for the sake of, or by way of, example"*
That's the Latin, and it needs no help or correction - least of all, wrong correction.
It's your right in America to be snarky toward veterans, or contemptuous of those you might consider would-be grammar Nazis. But you're in good company with Danforth Quayle when you superciliously correct someone ... incorrectly.
(Oh yes, 'egregium' is perfectly correct Latin in its place, which is the sense of something extraordinary or remarkable - 'standing out from the herd' of other things of similar kind. But your 'correction' is remarkably NOT that place.)
Now, can we get back to enumerating those 'bozo economists'? I'm still waiting with some interest to see who they're supposed to be, and I don't have a reliable bozo filter to use in a Google search.
*It does have to be said that I am grateful for this interlude, because I myself had been mentally mistranslating this phrase, which makes me no better ... morally ... in initially firing up the wire brush of correction. At any rate, and perhaps with additional application to the whole ad hominem lurch this thing has taken ... "all's well that ends."
And no, I had no intent to pick on Illinois in general, even in the general context of this thread, just a specific part of it.
Just the thing everybody wanted - A urination contest about Illinois?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
RME would-be grammar Nazis.
C’mon, just leave me be Mr. Grammar Policeman. I ain’t no kind of Nazi.
wanswheelC’mon, just leave me be Mr. Grammar Policeman. I ain’t no kind of Nazi.
Personally I was thinking of you, in the context of your contribution, as more of a grammar Samaritan. A cartoon was a rather clever way to establish a point that a policeman would have to be empowered to enforce in some way.
Looked for a while as though no good deed would go unpunished. Fortunately it would appear that some good old metatarsal marksmanship came into play.
RMEAnd no, I'm not intending to pick on Illinois in general, just a specific part of it.
I stand corrected. And you, Sir Polymath, whoever you actually are, have just insulted the people of Illinois. You have chosen to repeat Wanswheel's interprtation of my remark about veterans, even though I corrected it. Some of us (including CMStPnP ans self) earned some creds to comment on vets. Did you?
A cartoon, even if using correct grammar, using an ape-like creature is insulting when directed at a forum member. But I guess Wanswheel is a privileged fellow.
Considering the consistent 20 foot 3 pointer jump shots scored by Wanswheel perhaps the Bulls should sign him up.
OK, so back to trains...
Miningman Considering the consistent 20 foot 3 pointer jump shots scored by Wanswheel perhaps the Bulls should sign him up.
schlimmI stand corrected. And you, Sir Polymath, whoever you actually are, have just insulted the people of Illinois.
Not at all. Even you could have figured out the humor involved -- it's a very specific part of Illinois I meant, one on two very specific legs, with a very unfortunate attitude (corrected or uncorrected). No matter - I withdraw the whole thing referring to Illinois, as none of the points at issue here otherwise concern, or are related to, Illinois, and I have no reason to insult or even involve that state or its people, even with humorous intent.
You have chosen to repeat Wanswheel's interpretation of my remark about veterans, even though I corrected it.
I saw what you wrote. I saw what you corrected. I haven't changed my opinion of it, or of the likely sentiment behind it. Perhaps you need to 'correct' it some more. But that's just my opinion.
Some of us (including CMStPnP and self) earned some creds to comment on vets. Did you?
Probably at least as much as you - and I wouldn't go so far as to insult noncombat veterans as being somehow inferior, as you did. (I find it pathetic that you now bluster about 'cred' as if you can bully your way out of the situation you've gotten yourself into...)
This reminds me vaguely of the argument about why it was supposedly OK to make fun of Shrub Bush with monkey references, but not Obama. The ape-like creature is Bigfoot, and I suppose the reference is to Sasquatch not knowing enough to tell the correct difference between i.e. and e.g. -- not so much because he is 'ape-like' but, presumably, because the cartoon's author thought wild men wouldn't know the finer points of grammar. I am sure that Mike will appreciate that he should have more sensitivity toward the intellectual capacity of probably-mythical creatures who may, for all we know, be quite capable (as you were not) of correctly discriminating between those two abbreviations, and I will leave it up to him to apologize -- to sasquatches -- for that prejudice in choosing his illustrative material. Perhaps he can find a less 'controversial' example and paste that in to satisfy your objections.
Now, why you come to think the character in the cartoon was intended as 'insulting' to you personally, I'm not sure. But I'm sure you will have thought of something, and probably an equally insulting manner of expressing it to people who really, really want to move on to something meaningful and railroad-related instead of rehashing already-established grammatical and intellectual shortcomings. I encourage you to move on so that we can all go back to being friends on this forum, as we should be.
Deggesty When I was in college, in the mid-fifties, two of my good friends had come back from three years on active duty in the Marine Corps. In all of our conversations, they never mentioned their combat experiences. At times, they would speak of this or that experience in Korea, but never anything about combat.
They will not open to civilians because they have never done the job before and to explain it all would bring back bad memories of the constraints they were under or rules they had to follow. It's not like someone implied about tooting their own horn. Many are proud of what they did and have no problem saying so but would rather have an audience that at least served in uniform so they are not asked stupid questions or can at least sympathize. Or another fear is they will run into someone highly judgemental (like you know who) who would second guess their actions publicly.
They do open up to other Veterans in most cases if other Veterans take the time to ask especially if they share the same MOS. I will not discuss Veteran issues among the open public either because there is always some jackazz that jumps into the conversation and says something stupid. So any Veteran group I belong too is closed to the public and looks at proof of service before they admit new members.
Can't tell you how many times I have tried to have a public discussion with a Combat Veteran and some bozo pops into the conversation and asks how many "confirmed kills" they have......."if they were a Sniper" or my personal favorite....."If it was me, I never would have done that......." All from people that never served a day in uniform.
The last reason they do not discuss publicly is they do not want to be reminded of bad memories and chase personal demons all over again. So when I ask I always leave an out if they would rather not discuss.
So it is nothing personal and you shouldn't take it that way. It's just that they all have been burned in their past discussions and do not want to get burned again.
BTW, the reason most Combat Veterans buy guns and rifles after discharge from the service is they have been in countries where the government has fallen apart completely and they think it can happen here if it happened over there... So the gun confiscation folks will never be successful in this country unless they stop sending people to war.
And now back to trains. I still have not heard of any threats made to the trains in Illinois........might be the news media I read.........who knows.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.