OK, so back to trains...
Considering the consistent 20 foot 3 pointer jump shots scored by Wanswheel perhaps the Bulls should sign him up.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
RME would-be grammar Nazis.
C’mon, just leave me be Mr. Grammar Policeman. I ain’t no kind of Nazi.
Just the thing everybody wanted - A urination contest about Illinois?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exempli_gratia
wanswheel schlimm Clumsy wording.
schlimm Clumsy wording.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
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.
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.
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.
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.
The state legislature overrode the governor's veto of a budget in a bipartisan vote, so state-supported trains can hopefully be saved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
JPS1The article that you have cited reflects the opinions of one economist. Moreover, it is ripe with nuances and qualifications.
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.
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.
CMStPnP ...... If Illinois collapses, so do California and New York state (all three are in the same boat). Which also happen to be among the three largest states on the electoral map.
...... If Illinois collapses, so do California and New York state (all three are in the same boat). Which also happen to be among the three largest states on the electoral map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college#/media/File:2010ElectoralCartogramGott.png
CMStPnP https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/09/americas-economy
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/09/americas-economy
JPS1 schlimm So who are those "Bozo economists" CMStPnP? Citation? A carefuly read of my post shows that I was confirming your figures regarding real GDP growth from 2010 to 2016. They agree to a T! I calculated the rates of change from the BEA GDP data. This was my reason for entering the conversation. Anyone participating in these forums can weigh-in if he chooses to do so. It is my choice just like that of every other participant or wanna be participant to comment if desired. The only rule should be to refrain from personal attacks either directly or indirectly. Name calling, the use of inflamatory language, and unwarranted assumtions about a participant adds no value.
schlimm So who are those "Bozo economists" CMStPnP? Citation?
So who are those "Bozo economists" CMStPnP? Citation?
A carefuly read of my post shows that I was confirming your figures regarding real GDP growth from 2010 to 2016. They agree to a T!
I calculated the rates of change from the BEA GDP data. This was my reason for entering the conversation.
Anyone participating in these forums can weigh-in if he chooses to do so. It is my choice just like that of every other participant or wanna be participant to comment if desired.
The only rule should be to refrain from personal attacks either directly or indirectly. Name calling, the use of inflamatory language, and unwarranted assumtions about a participant adds no value.
I knew that your figures were in agreement with the ones I listed. CMStPnP was just trying a distraction from his alternate facts about economics, which last I looked is still centered in academia. This was all in service of his defending his hero's phony comments on our "failed" economy. It's an old strategem to inflate one's own accomplishments by claiming lower numbers than were actual before your watch began. His self-styled expertise on accountancy is laughable.
Back to the thread topic! Illinois' governor unfortunately vetoed a bipartisan budget bill which would have staved off a junk bond crdit rating. His veto may be overridden.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.