The "Stimuluses"

[Eulogy]

what are the other factors

why won't anyone answer my question

unemployment always lags. what are the other acceptable indicators?

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

what are the other factors

why won't anyone answer my question

unemployment always lags. what are the other acceptable indicators?

There aren't any non-controversial non-problematic indicators that I know of.

Also I would beware the "lagging unemployment" argument, because it is prone to all kinds of abuse from those with economic power.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

well you said the economy is good because of stocks i say it's bad because of employment and other factors but then you go "it's good for t**** and i'm still wondering how that makes it a "good economy"

For the last time, read my posts. This is a retarded interpretation I what I said. I told you it shows part of it has improved.

"Entire economy good because Dow Jones" is fucking dumb and I purposely avoided. Here we go again. This is you bitching about something that wasn't even said. As usual.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

There aren't any non-controversial non-problematic indicators that I know of..

Fair.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

There aren't any non-controversial non-problematic indicators that I know of.

Also I would beware the "lagging unemployment" argument, because it is prone to all kinds of abuse from those with economic power.

so economics is your field of doctoral research and you're telling us there's no way to tell if it's good or bad or not

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by duovamp

For the last time, read my posts. This is a retarded interpretation I what I said. I told you it shows part of it has improved.

"Entire economy good because Dow Jones" is fucking dumb and I purposely avoided. Here we go again. This is you bitching about something that wasn't even said. As usual.

i'm not bitching about anything i'm just axing you a question that you apparently can't answer

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

so economics is your field of doctoral research and you're telling us there's no way to tell if it's good or bad or not

Where would you even start to begin to define a "good" economy? Productivity? Efficiency? Wage disparity? Employment? Interest rates? Consumer spending/confidence?

There are tons of indicators. And all of them only show a portion of what's happening. And a given index of stock prices on a market is one of them. It's like any other statistical tool of measuring economic activity - partial and open to some interpretation. But it is a tool and it does show recovery - although you're right to point out the issues with the income gap or even unemployment.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

so economics is your field of doctoral research and you're telling us there's no way to tell if it's good or bad or not

Well, my case-study was pre-modern and it was more economic history, but...

My phd dissertation argued (in part) that neoclassical economics has completely failed to produce a reliable means to quantify economic performance. So, yes, I'm kind of saying that.

Personally, I question whether macro-economics is really as valuable as everyone says it is, but I don't have a polished argument for that. The whole "national economy" model is fraught with problems and I think we should really stop thinking that way (and stop creating institutions which reinforce it).

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Mooney

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/op...rked.html?_r=2

You lost me at

By DAVID FIRESTONE

[Nimrod's Son]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...03056077_n.jpg

[Order 66]

ITS HAPPENING