The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
Isn't that sweet more bullshit and misrepresentation. Well Michael, you are nothing if not consistent.
The data used to produce those graphs is FRED.Isn't that sweet more bullshit and misrepresentation. Well Michael, you are nothing if not consistent.
And the format, layout, scaling, etc, was from this text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
But in truth, much can be learned from such graphs - for one thing, the US economy set out on its continuing slide into trouble around 1982. Any idea what happened ?
Don't you think it would be interesting / a refreshing change for you/ to attack the facts (as false) presented in Michael's post 1301 graphs?Isn't that sweet more bullshit and misrepresentation. Well Michael, you are nothing if not consistent.
Why do you normally ignore the content you don't agree with / like/ and attack the message bearer (Michael in this case) or his sources?
Pick at least one point made graphically and tell why it is wrong or at least "misleading." Discussion of the presented data is more useful than your attacks on persons and their sources.
LOL, well BillyT, that's very funny especially coming from you. No I don't believe bogus made up data or believe in unsupported conspiracy theories as you do or blindly believe paid advertisement as you do. The graphs presented by Michael are bogus and you don't have to be a genius to figure that out. For example, the Fed doesn't publish a metric called "Workers Share of Economy"....oops. Instead of sourcing those charts from a specious web site, how about sourcing them from the Federal Reserve? You know, the source Michael attributes them to. If the Fed is actually the source, which it obviously isn't, then Michael should be able to reference the Fed web site rather than a specious web site. Gee, I wonder why Michael sources, like you do, from specious web sites rather than the actual sources.
Last edited:
Then show the data from FED. You do know the FED actually publishes charts on its web site. Instead of referencing specious web sites reference the actual FED charts. Oh yeah, but then they wouldn't say what you need them to say. You wouldn't find a chart called "Workers Share of the Economy".
The Labor Force Participation Rate is a good measure. That chart isn't bogus. But you have misrepresented it. It has been explained to both you and BillyT over and over, work force participation is falling because of demographic changes, and it isn't attributable to some underlying flaw in the economy. Additionally, it isn't a bad thing unless and until we reach full employment. If work force participation rate were to fall too low wages would rise significantly because there wouldn't be enough labor. That's the potential problem with a low work force participation rate.
The Median Income chart is cherry picked. You do know there was this little thing called The Great Recession. Gee, income falls during a recession. That really isn't surprising. It would be surprising if that were not the case. The Fed has no chart called "Money Printing". It does have many charts on money supply, but money supply isn't money printing...that's another oops. What you and your sources have done is grossly misrepresented Fed data. I suggest you use actual Fed data from the Fed not one of the many specious web sites you so love.
Last edited:
The bottom of each graph indicates some xxxxxxxx.org source, but the resolution is not high enough to tell what the xxxxxxxx is. I agree he should tell the source more clearly, but don't see him claiming to be using data for the Fed - Thus there is no justification for your "....oops." FRED is not FED. You are putting words in his mouth by saying he is quoting the Fed.
Now without troubling to find source but based on many recent reports, even on comments by Janet Yellen her self that the middle class earning have not increase in proportion to corporate or earing by the wealthy, I can easil believe the 0.05 fractional decrease* in workers "Share of the Economy" in last 15 years shown in that graph is true. After all large capital investments have been made in automation and other productivity improvements and that does reduce the workers, "cut" of the economy gains. Do you not agree? If not can you give data supporting your claim this is false, made up, BS? Or are we just to accept your opinion?
* from 0.47 in 2000 to 0.42 now.
In post 1308, I forgot to also mention that the replacement of good pay 40 hour /week jobs back in 2000 by the lower pay Big Mac jobs and part time jobs, but still BLS counting those worker as if fully "employed" explains in part the 0.05 fractional decline in workers share of the economy and the now lower unemployment numbers produced by the BLS.
Well, he does tell the source, it just isn't the Fed. As I said before, he is sourcing them from one of your favorite specious sources. And Michael clearly attributes his charts to the Fed. What Michael or is sources have done is taken Fed charts and intentionally modified them and misrepresented them. That is an "oops". Someone got his/her hand in he cookie jar.
Well here is the deal, here is no metric called "Worker's Share of the Economy". What he hell does that even mean? If you cannot define it, you cannot measure it. But if you are Michael, that really isn't important. But details and facts do matter. As I have consistently and repeatedly said, wealth inequality is a problem and it is getting worse not better. And hat will continue as long as the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of return on labor. In order to remedy that malady changes will need to be made in the tax code.
Yes you can. Google: "workers share of national income" and you get more than 15 pages (I stopped clicking on "next" at that point) of articles that defined what they were writing about and not one disagreed with the general fact of Michael's graph that there has been a very significant decline in the workers share of national income.
Joe, just because you make an unsupported claim does not make it so. "Workers share of national income" is easily defined but admittedly there may be slight, relatively unimportant differences in the definitions used. - None significantly large enough to support your "rose colored view" that things are getting better for the workers. They are not. More every year need to sell their homes (extract what ever equity they have there) and be come renters just to make ends meet - eat well*, clothe their kids, buy their school books, etc.
Take your rose colored glasses off and have a realistic look around!
* Have some protein in their diet. Far too many former meat eaters have been reduced to "franks & beans" once per week - as the poor lady complained to Obama as he walk thru a crowd a couple of years ago.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Hey, guys, learn to use the internet.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGCCSAQ027S is the first hit of "FRED Student Loans" search.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA is one click from the first hit of "FRED Food Stamps".
To find the other pictures I will leave you as an exercise (I'm too lazy).
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGCCSAQ027S is the first hit of "FRED Student Loans" search.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TRP6001A027NBEA is one click from the first hit of "FRED Food Stamps".
To find the other pictures I will leave you as an exercise (I'm too lazy).
Exactly, isn't that what I have been advocating? And do those graphs match Michaels? No, because Michael has cherry picked his dates.
Now show me one of "dem" Fed reports labeled "Printing Money".
You can't because it doesn't exist. Michael is misrepresenting the Fed data.
And are any of them links to the Federal Reserve? No. And "income" more definitive and descriptive than "economy". As I said before, if you want to measure it you have to define it. But then Michael is going for what he always goes for demagoguery.
LOL, and what unsupported "claim" would that be exactly BillyT? What claim have I not supported? It's too bad you don't apply that level of scrutiny to your sources of information. Just because you or your sources make unsupported claims, and you do (e.g. the conspiracy to delay returning Germany's gold), it doesn't make them true.
Michael didn't use he word "income", you did. Michael's chart didn't say anything about income. It very clearly is labeled "economy". The Fed has no such chart, nor does it have a chart called "printed money". Do you know Michael intended to use the word "income" rather than "economy"? If percent of income it is, the chart below from the Bureau of Economic Analysis is the appropriate chart. This is where the Fed gets its income data.
Workers’ Share of National Income
Blue: Labor Income
Gold: Capital Income
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/myths/20130329_cspan_myths_slides_5.pdf
Facts are not rose colored BillyT, they are just facts. And you have been dead wrong for 8 years and you are telling someone else they are looking through rose colored. The unpleasant fact for you is the economy has improved and improved dramatically from The Great Recession. It has improved so much, the Fed is now looking to slow he economy by increasing interest rates. Those are easily verifiable facts and facts you have consistently ignored.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
To find it is trivial, https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ So to claim that the data do not exist is nonsense.And do those graphs match Michaels? No, because Michael has cherry picked his dates.
Now show me one of "dem" Fed reports labeled "Printing Money".
The data set seems to be the same too. The only difference is that the range of time shown, and the text in red. The last date is not the most actual one, but looks like what was available near the end of 2014. Say, Real Median Household Income ends 2012, but now it ends 2013, so that it 2014 ended with 2012 seems plausible. The red text seems simplifying but otherwise ok, say, that "St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base" is named "money printing" does not seem to me to be a serious manipulation, especially given that what it really is remains visible.
What remains suspect is the beginning date, but for the "money printing" it is also the same, and what data have been available there 2014 is unclear, it it at least imaginable that they have put some additional data points from the past into this data set, so that the smaller data set for some of them (like Real Median Household Income) was simply what was available at that time. In comparison with your cherry picking I remember from my last discussion with you this is nothing.
LOL, THIS MAY BE OVER YOUR PAYGRADE. I SAID THE CHARTS MICHAEL PRODUCED DO NO EXIST. BECAUSE THEY DON'T. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, MICHAELS CHARTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND MISREPRESENTED. DID YOU NOT NOTICE? HAVE YOU NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?
Oh, so you so me the Fed Chart labeled "Printing Money". As I have said several times now, it doesn't exist. Because the Fed doesn't make that chart. Money supply isn't printing money as Michael's chart is labeled. You know it really does help to understand the conversation.
Show me a chart from the Fed labeled "Printing Money".
Michael has yet again misrepresented information.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Don't cry. Michael has written about these charts: "The data used to produce those graphs is FRED." And not that the picture itself, in particular the red text, is FRED.
Why would I cry? Where are Michael's charts? Where are the red labels?
Last edited: