> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Beal
>
>
hotmail.com> wrote:>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:14:17 -0400, Harry Hope
ix.netcom.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>>The increase in the jobless rate sent the misery index, which adds
>>>>unemployment to inflation, to 11.7 percent, the highest level since
>>>>1991.
>
>
>>> The misery index may now actually be higher than it was in the 70s.
>
>>Yes, all you have to do is invent facts like the moron blogger you
>>just linked and suddenly the stats show that the day George Bush took
>>office, the Misery Index rose to 700%% and has gotten worse every
>>single day he has been in office.
i.e. a conspiracy theory. Couldn't be that hedonic adjustments make
sense. Nope. A sedan built in 1960 with no seatbelts, no airbags, no
ABS, drum brakes, no fuel injection, no navigation system, no A/C, a
standard transmission, a drive train that won't make 100k miles, no
child door locks, no electric windows, and making 10 MPG is exactly
the same product as a sedan built today with every single one of those
features standard and making 25 MPG or better.
You're right, an 8086 with 64k of RAM, no hard drive, running on
floppy disks only, bringing the wonderful world of text strings to you
in startling monochrome is exactly the same computer as you are
working on now. No difference, so we should measure any price
differences on a straight line basis...
...or maybe you conspiracy nuts should try to understand that there
might be a legitimate reason for hedonic adjustments.
> And the unemployment methodology has similarly changed.
He doesn't just note that it has changed. He flat out lies about it.
Note the lack of details regarding these changes? That would be your
first clue.
"If we were measuring Inflation & Unemployment the way we did in the
1970s, we would see unemployment much closer to U6 Unemployment levels
of 9.7%%"
-Completely unsubstantiated nonsense.
1) According to his own source, the major change in UE calculation
methodology (dropping discouraged workers from the official rate) was
instituted in the early 1960s, so please explain for me how we should
be including discouraged workers in order to compare with the 1970s if
the were already excised from the 1970s data.
2) When statistical methods are changed, the Bureau restates
historical data, so none of this matters anyway.
3) Again, maybe you conspiracy nutcases should invetigate other
reasons for limiting the unemployment calculation to people who
actually look for work. It's not like it an international standard or
anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Labour_Organization
> And the misery index is achieved by combining those two.
>
> That "moron blogger" is one of the most respected investing economists
> in the country, dipshit.
Well then maybe he should stick to picking stocks because he obviously
can't keep up with the finer details of econometrics.
> The Wallstreet Journal says about him:
Yes, nice copy and paste from his own testimonials page.
> "The Economics Blog Insiders Read to Stay Current"
> -WSJ, What the In-Crowd Knows
>
> "The Creme de la Creme of Financial Blogs."
> -WSJ Managing Editor
>
> And Barrons says:
> "Barry Ritholtz pens The Big Picture, a must-read blog, and is a
> regular guest on financial television, where he tries to provide a
> counterweight of rationality to the typical ravings heard there."
> -Randall W. Forsyth, Barron's Up and Down Wall Street Daily
>
> So go back to the hard work of maintaining your intentional ignorance
> and ignoring the real world. Be a good little ignorant neocon. No
> reality for you.
Yes, and you can go back to your usenet cesspool of unsubstantiated
stupidity. I don't know why I bother posting here but every time I
do, I am reminded of why I stopped.
