Originally posted by Metal Brain The recession never ended in reality. The government economic numbers are bogus to prevent panic.
How bad things are depends on where you live. I live in Michigan and things are bad here!
I think that the general feeling is that the entire economic structure is a house of cards. You have the credit crisis just wipe away trillions in wealth and then the government comes along and finances those responsible using trilliions of tax payer money to keep them afloat. In addition, you have a government out of control in terms of spending with the general perception that government will be the next great bubble to burst. Then to add insult to injury the feds heap regulation and taxation upon private enterprise so as to choke off small businesses whom hire up to 2/3 of the work force every year.
As far as the unemployment numbers, everyone can agree that they are higher than only 9%, its just a question of how much higher. Unless the US reverses course, it will only get worse.
Originally posted by whodey I think that the general feeling is that the entire economic structure is a house of cards. You have the credit crisis just wipe away trillions in wealth and then the government comes along and finances those responsible using trilliions of tax payer money to keep them afloat. In addition, you have a government out of control in terms of spending with the g ...[text shortened]... its just a question of how much higher. Unless the US reverses course, it will only get worse.
Originally posted by whodey Tell that to businessmen who won't hire, not me. 😀
We'll see what happens over the next year; I suspect you'll look as foolish come next January as you look now railing against the bailouts that you originally wholeheartedly supported.
Originally posted by joneschr Because they are correct as often as my coin.
What's wrong with my statement - I guess you are arguing that they are projecting based on future events? They can see the future?
My point, clearly missed, is that I think events such as outbreak of war or collapse of trade more significantly influence the economy than current trends -- and economists have no more insight into when such things happen than you or I.
Because they are correct as often as my coin.
Correct? Oh, dear. Forecasting is not about getting it "correct" or "wrong", it's not a binary result. Forecasts are expected values. In fact they are usually whole distributions but the media always focuses on the point forecasts alone.
Moreover, that you can only use past information doesn't mean that you are basing your forecast on recent trends. The final forecast is a composite of backward and forward looking elements. And even if they were purely backward looking, it's hardly the same when you look at trends based on your paperback view of the economy and finger wetting or when you do a proper statistical analysis which will use far more information than our little brains can contain.
And finally, the outbreak of war or other such rare events are infrequent enough for forecasts to still be valuable. Obviously the more volatile is an economy the less valuable forecasts are. Given your statement quoted above, what is the size of the mean forecast error (in percent of GDP) for the last 10 years? If you're honest you'll reply that you didn't have a clue before I asked, thus proving my point.
Originally posted by Palynka [b]Because they are correct as often as my coin. Given your statement quoted above, what is the size of the mean forecast error (in percent of GDP) for the last 10 years? If you're honest you'll reply that you didn't have a clue before I asked, thus proving my point.[/b]
The mean forecast error of every economist that has made a forecast? If you think anyone can answer this, it explains your faith in economists.
Originally posted by joneschr The mean forecast error of every economist that has made a forecast? If you think anyone can answer this, it explains your faith in economists.
No every economist, dummy. Let's take the Fed GDP forecasts.
Go!
Oh, wait a minute. I can already answer that issue about your honesty. It would be interesting to hear you say you can do as well as the Fed by pulling economic forecasts out of your behind. Oh, wait again, you already said that.
Originally posted by Palynka No every economist, dummy. Let's take the Fed GDP forecasts.
Go!
Oh, wait a minute. I can already answer that issue about your honesty. It would be interesting to hear you say you can do as well as the Fed by pulling economic forecasts out of your behind. Oh, wait again, you already said that.
Fed GDP forecasts aren't the issue, the issue is the reliability of forecasts that unemployment will remain this high until 2016. Did you read the thread?
So lets turn it around - what is the mean forecast error of unemployment figures 5 years in the future? Go.
And what exactly does this have to do with my honesty? Why the personal attack? Why call me a dummy? Having a rough day?
Originally posted by joneschr Fed GDP forecasts aren't the issue, the issue is the reliability of forecasts that unemployment will remain this high until 2016. Did you read the thread?
So lets turn it around - what is the mean forecast error of unemployment figures 5 years in the future? Go.
And what exactly does this have to do with my honesty? Why the personal attack? Why call me a dummy? Having a rough day?
Why should we turn it around? For me to do your work for you?
I wanted to show you actually know very little about economic forecasting but still that didn't stop you from making sweeping statements based on some paperback book you read. I've done what I wanted to do, it's pretty obvious you haven't got a clue about how accurate forecasts are (or even what that means).
You know nothing about what my background is, and have proven nothing. Why don't you answer the question posed in the thread yourself, rather than threadjacking. What do you think the reliability of forecasts 5 years in the future is?
Originally posted by joneschr You know nothing about what my background is, and have proven nothing. Why don't you answer the question posed in the thread yourself, rather than threadjacking. What do you think the reliability of forecasts 5 years in the future is?
You're a joke, buddy. The question was made to show you didn't know the answer. If I answer it, that defeats the purpose.
Tell you what, give me your forecast (or your coin's) of the unemployment rate in 2016. If we're both here, if you get your forecast closer to reality than the Fed I'll buy you a subscription and vice-versa if you don't. Deal?
I don't believe it's possible to accurately forecast unemployment 5 years in advance, that was my entire point. If I don't think economists have a clue, why do you think I would?
Originally posted by joneschr I don't believe it's possible to accurately forecast unemployment 5 years in advance, that was my entire point. If I don't think economists have a clue, why do you think I would?
So if you don't then you'll have no problem in accepting the bet, right?
Originally posted by joneschr True, my coin says heads. So my coin says I'll be paying your subscription in 5 years if unemployment remains at 9%, come 2016.
What is your estimate? The deal was about who gets it closer.
US economy to continue recovery - economists guess
28 Jan '11 01:00
Back to Top