Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

The Dude said:
Someone with two degrees more than you!
And a live time of studying the economy that needs those as a starting point.
Click to expand...



then explain why the Bush admin held back the broker rules for nearly his entire both terms.


why will NOT ONE of you cons even try to answer that question?
 
what is with the nexis of him announcing the crash to the world and a couple of day later the broker rules actually went into implemation?
 
Now if you guys already know everything about the economy then why didn't you know this pattern had changed and cant tell us all why?

also why does the right blame Obama for this pattern if they already know about this pattern because YOU are so educated?
 
Desh, you lost badly on this thread - with your own link, I might add - and all I asked was that you stopped digging.

You couldn't do that. You had to keep digging.

To sum up: I said that jobs tend to lag behind market increases in a recovery. This has pretty much always been true. You disputed this, and asked for links. I provided one, and you provided another.

You lost. The end.
 
To add - I liked USC as a poster. The only point was that he wasn't some sort of economic god or guru for stating what most know to be true.

He'd actually probably be embarassed that you're portraying it as such.
 
I asked you to prove a claim.

Your claim was found to be partially true.

the actual subject of me bumping this thread was to show yet again usc was right.

you didn't like that

even though you pretended you were right about it all being just a panic that didn't effect the larger economy
 
Onceler said:
I'm so glad I don't have to look for any reason.

Still, I'm optimistic. The "crash" didn't really relate at all to the state of the overall economy; it was really sheer panic when it dipped below 10,000.

I don't think it's going to take forever to get back up to where it was....
Click to expand...



you were wrong
 
USC was poor and uneducated.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
There will be another recession.
There exist thus thing you never studied called the business cycle.
 
evince said:
I asked you to prove a claim.

Your claim was found to be partially true.

the actual subject of me bumping this thread was to show yet again usc was right.

you didn't like that

even though you pretended you were right about it all being just a panic that didn't effect the larger economy
Click to expand...

It wasn't partially true; it was true.

And can you provide the words where I "didn't like that"? My 1st post was about Chapdog, and then I found a post that I had added that turned out to be right, so commented on it, as you do w/ your own posts a few dozen times a day. And YOU didn't like THAT.

You're a psycho, desh. Or maybe Grind is right, and you're just stupid.
 
This thread is another real illustration of just how narcissistic you are, and how you really have issues admitting when you're wrong - even when facts that YOU provide prove you wrong.
 
evince said:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto.../in-new-economy-jobs-lag-behind-recovery.html


From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.

You can see those patterns in comparisons of job creation and growth rates across post-World War II recoveries. Starting in 1949 and continuing for more than 30 years, once the economy started to grow after a recession, major job creation usually followed within about a year.

At the height of those recoveries, every 1 percentage point of economic growth typically spurred about 0.6 percentage points of job growth. You could call that number the “job intensity” of growth.

The pattern began to break down in the 1992 recovery, which began under President George H. W. Bush. It took about three years — instead of one — for job creation to ramp up. Even then, the “job intensity” of that recovery barely topped 0.4 percent.

The next two recoveries were even worse. Three-and-a-half years into the recovery that began in 2001 under President George W. Bush, job intensity was stuck under 0.2 percent. The Obama recovery is now up to an intensity of 0.3 percent, or about half the historical average.



From 1948 through 1982, recessions and recoveries followed a tight pattern. Growth plunged in the downturn, then spiked quickly. When growth returned, so did job creation.
Click to expand...

post 32
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top