Economic Collapse: the breakdown

[little_monkey]

The problem is that this is not an excuse either. As I showed you in the following post you were getting your numbers wrong, so your whole analysis was skewed from the get-go. Moral is, the government is lying to you, and so are the economists who rely on government numbers for their own analysis.

What is not an excuse? That the economy goes up and down? Have you study the economics of the last two hundred years? Do you know anything about the business cycle of bust and boom? Do you have any idea of why booms and busts occur? By the looks of it, you seem to be pretty ignorant of those studies. The business cycle is not something that the US government, or any government on this planet, can control. The best that any government can do is to fine-tune the economy, hoping to prevent large swings in either its downward or upward direction. And it's not rocket science, since a lot of economic activities are human in nature, and humans are quite often irrational. That economic forecasting is proned to errors goes with the territory. But idiots will wrongly perceived that economists are lying. Well, there are not lying, not more than your weather forecaster who said it would rain this afternoon, but turns out to be a sunny afternoon. In either case, they are not lying, it just that economics forecasting, like the weather, is subject to a variety of factors, any of them can drastically make a 180 degrees turn at any moment.

[seanD]

What is not an excuse? That the economy goes up and down? Have you study the economics of the last two hundred years? Do you know anything about the business cycle of bust and boom? Do you have any idea of why booms and busts occur? By the looks of it, you seem to be pretty ignorant of those studies. The business cycle is not something that the US government, or any government on this planet, can control. The best that any government can do is to fine-tune the economy, hoping to prevent large swings in either its downward or upward direction. And it's not rocket science, since a lot of economic activities are human in nature, and humans are quite often irrational. That economic forecasting is proned to errors goes with the territory. But idiots will wrongly perceived that economists are lying. Well, there are not lying, not more than your weather forecaster who said it would rain this afternoon, but turns out to be a sunny afternoon. In either case, they are not lying, it just that economics forecasting, like the weather, is subject to a variety of factors, any of them can drastically make a 180 degrees turn at any moment.

The government is lying, pure and simple, and they fudge their numbers to make them look better than they are, which isn’t really that big of a conspiracy theory. It’s only natural they do this to retain confidence in the economy. I don’t believe most economists are lying, I was just generally using hyperbole, though I do believe there are economists out there that are paid shills for the government such as economists like Krugman. Anyone who says we need to stage an alien invasion in order to start another bubble in the economy I have to imagine is getting paid to say that. Most economists I would guess are just in denial and blinded by their own bias because they have too much to lose in the way of investments and can’t afford an economic collapse. They fully know the repercussions of that situation inside and out, so they deny the reality of it, and since the government numbers are convenient for that denial, they use those numbers knowing full well, even if on a subconscious level, that those numbers aren’t accurate. Forecasting movements and patterns in the economy is not at all difficult as you make it out to be, in fact, probably easier than predicting the weather. I actually covered why we've been going through boom and busts cycles in another thread, and these are really just illusionary bubbles. Most economists grossly miscalculate or just miss the signs of these bubble busts not because they’re lying or trying to be deceptive but because they’re in denial, yet there are some economists who are not this cowardly about the truth and are able to predict the busts quite accurately, such as the housing bubble. A few economists, such as Peter Schiff, were predicting the signs of the housing bubble bust before it happened and were sounding the alarms, and they got a whole lot of ridicule and flak before it happened by their colleagues who are in denial like the ones you see on CNBC and the like. Professional economists like Bernanke totally missed the housing bubble bust. Now either Bernanke was lying through his teeth or he was in psychological denial about it because I can’t imagine that if other economists accurately predicted it, with all the data he had at his disposal, he couldn’t predict it. In his case, I choose to believe the latter, but I could be wrong. People like you just think it’s difficult to predict these patterns because you don’t understand how the economy actually works, you just think you do because you probably know all the technical jargon to make it sound like you do, and this is why you get things wrong. I would imagine you don’t even get your own analysis wrong from the actual numbers, you just parrot other economists which explains why people like you believe we’re in a recovery when we’re not.

[little_monkey]

The government is lying, pure and simple, and they fudge their numbers to make them look better than they are, which isn’t really that big of a conspiracy theory. It’s only natural they do this to retain confidence in the economy. I don’t believe most economists are lying, I was just generally using hyperbole, though I do believe there are economists out there that are paid shills for the government such as economists like Krugman. Anyone who says we need to stage an alien invasion in order to start another bubble in the economy I have to imagine is getting paid to say that.

That you have absolutely no evidence that the government pays people like Krugman doesn't seem to faze you, yet you disparage him on an analogy that he made as a joke to bring out a point, which by all the likelyhood went way over your head. Well, that was good for a laugh.

Most economists I would guess are just in denial and blinded by their own bias

Nice projection on your own bias.

because they have too much to lose in the way of investments and can’t afford an economic collapse.

Less we forget that the word "recession" has been in the news for the last four years.

Forecasting movements and patterns in the economy is not at all difficult as you make it out to be, in fact, probably easier than predicting the weather... People like you just think it’s difficult to predict these patterns because you don’t understand how the economy actually works, you just think you do because you probably know all the technical jargon to make it sound like you do, and this is why you get things wrong. I would imagine you don’t even get your own analysis wrong from the actual numbers, you just parrot other economists which explains why people like you believe we’re in a recovery when we’re not.

It must suck for you that you don't know all the technical jargon, yet believe that you've got all the answers that the experts seems to constantly miss. Poor you!

So, if you think you know it all then what's your economic forecast: a) for the next 6 months, b) for the next 12 months, c) for the next two years.

We'll then see how accurate those predictions of yours will turn out. Here's your chance to prove your claim. Should you refuge this invitation of your economic forecast, then I'll know you are filled with nothing but BS.

[seanD]

Seriously, dude, I don't understand why you're pushing the issue and why you're so hostile about this. You already showed you know nothing about the economy, so I can only imagine you're just trying to save face, or as some of the other posters here say, you're just butthurt about it?

[little_monkey]

Seriously, dude, I don't understand why you're pushing the issue and why you're so hostile about this. You already showed you know nothing about the economy, so I can only imagine you're just trying to save face, or as some of the other posters here say, you're just butthurt about it?

You're the one who claimed: "Forecasting movements and patterns in the economy is not at all difficult as you make it out to be, in fact, probably easier than predicting the weather." Since you are refusing the challenge in post #33, I can only conclude that you're just full of it.

[seanD]

You're the one who claimed: "Forecasting movements and patterns in the economy is not at all difficult as you make it out to be, in fact, probably easier than predicting the weather." Since you are refusing the challenge in post #33, I can only conclude that you're just full of it.

I don't claim to be an expert. I'm just an amateur at best who finds this subject of personal interest. But as far as making an "accurate forecast," this was already done in the OP, as well as the post where I corrected your errors from post #9, which I'm guessing is why you're so persistently agitated

[little_monkey]

I don't claim to be an expert. I'm just an amateur at best who finds this subject of personal interest.

Fine, but before you disparage experts in the field, think twice. Economists have no motivation to lie. Their carreers depend on their reputation, and without that, they'll soon find themselves without a job. Having said that, they could err just like any other human beings, and their theories could fail. That's fine. But calling them liars is unacceptable unless you have solid proof that they are.

But as far as making an "accurate forecast," this was already done in the OP,

Your OP is full of vague statements. What I want as forecast is: what will be the interest rate, the unemployment rate, the growth in GDP, the debt, etc. I want numbers, not vague statements.

as well as the post where I corrected your errors from post #9, which I'm guessing is why you're so persistently agitated

Again my post was written in March. It was based on the economic indicators available at that time. So my forecast was based on that. And as I indicated, economic forecasting is not rocket science. Many factors can easily make a 180 degree turn and send the economy in reverse direction. If you could predict in March the debacle over the raising of the debt ceiling which would have to take place in August, then I hope you acted on that. You would be a millionaire by now just by shorting the stock market. But now, I realize that your claims are empty words.

[seanD]

Fine, but before you disparage experts in the field, think twice. Economists have no motivation to lie. Their carreers depend on their reputation, and without that, they'll soon find themselves without a job. Having said that, they could err just like any other human beings, and their theories could fail. That's fine. But calling them liars is unacceptable unless you have solid proof that they are.




Your OP is full of vague statements. What I want as forecast is: what will be the interest rate, the unemployment rate, the growth in GDP, the debt, etc. I want numbers, not vague statements.




Again my post was written in March. It was based on the economic indicators available at that time. So my forecast was based on that. And as I indicated, economic forecasting is not rocket science. Many factors can easily make a 180 degree turn and send the economy in reverse direction. If you could predict in March the debacle over the raising of the debt ceiling which would have to take place in August, then I hope you acted on that. You would be a millionaire by now just by shorting the stock market. But now, I realize that your claims are empty words.

I wasn't calling economists liars, as I pointed out in my following post, I was using hyperbole, and then I explained what I believe about their position. I do believe people like Krugman is a paid shill. I believe this for various reasons, but of course I could be wrong, he could always just be an imbecile. But why do care what I think about Krugman? Specific numbers would be impossible to predict, but this doesn't mean we can't forecast certain overall outcomes. I mean you can't figure out this difference? Predicting that there is no economic recovery in spite of what most economists are claiming and that these signs will show at a certain period in time is predicting an overall outcome, or what you call "vague statements." And yet some can't even get this right, such as yourself. But this was because you actually believed the numbers that the government sold to you, as you have admitted, and apparently didn't understand not only that the numbers were inaccurate but that GDP growth is affected by artificial stimulation such as quantitative easing, thus this distorts market assets as well as actual productive long lasting growth. I mean these are just rudimentary basics. This is how I knew we would have a downturn at about this time, in spite of the fact I also had no idea the debt ceiling would become an issue. You tried to claim it was caused by the debt ceiling issue, which further shows why you are apparently clueless about the overall situation. I mean this isn't rocket science, so don't get mad at me if you don't know or understand this information.

[little_monkey]

I wasn't calling economists liars, as I pointed out in my following post, I was using hyperbole, and then I explained what I believe about their position. I do believe people like Krugman is a paid shill. I believe this for various reasons, but of course I could be wrong, he could always just be an imbecile.

Again bald assertions with no evidence to back them. Do you have any idea how it makes you look? Calling a Nobel prize winner an imbecile is not going to make you look good, except perhaps among ignoramuses.

Specific numbers would be impossible to predict, but this doesn't mean we can't forecast certain overall outcomes. I mean you can't figure out this difference? Predicting that there is no economic recovery in spite of what most economists are claiming and that these signs will show at a certain period in time is predicting an overall outcome, or what you call "vague statements."

Well you did put some numbers in your OP: "The biggest long term threat -- and by long term, I mean within 1-2 ½ years – is hyperinflation."

Herrrr, the inflation rate has been at 3% for quite a while now. The forecast by most analysists is that it will be around 1% in spring of 2012. Who do you think will be right?

And yet some can't even get this right, such as yourself.

So were you with your prediction of hyperinflation. It hasn't happened, and the future looks like we're getting deflation, not hyperinflation.

But this was because you actually believed the numbers that the government sold to you, as you have admitted, and apparently didn't understand not only that the numbers were inaccurate but that GDP growth is affected by artificial stimulation such as quantitative easing, thus this distorts market assets as well as actual productive long lasting growth. I mean these are just rudimentary basics. This is how I knew we would have a downturn at about this time, in spite of the fact I also had no idea the debt ceiling would become an issue.

Get your terminology right: if you are predicting hyperinflation, which you did, this is not a downturn. A downturn is a recession. An economy going through hyperinflation is "spinning upward", "over-heating", "going through a bubble" -- any of those expressions would apply.

You tried to claim it was caused by the debt ceiling issue, which further shows why you are apparently clueless about the overall situation. I mean this isn't rocket science, so don't get mad at me if you don't know or understand this information.

The one who is clueless is you. The wild gyrations in the stock market after the debacle on raising the debt ceiling is no coincidence. Investors saw two thing in that debacle: 1) Congress is on the wrong track with its misplaced agenda on the debt, and its prescription of government cuts will not only stiffle the meager growth in GDP but bring it into negative territory to send the economy into a double-dip recession. 2) Consumers are not going to go spending their money when they see the same scenario as investors are seeing. And this will further contract the economy.

[seanD]

Now I think you are actually Krugman? lol

But seriously, post #10 described a downturn sometime by the last half of this year 2011 and was done to correct your errors from post #9, which is separate from the OP, so stop confusing the issues. And you actually were proven you don't know anything about the economy and that the official numbers were inaccurate, and yet you're STILL throwing false official CPI numbers at me? The inflation is around 8-10% by now bro, and anyone with a strict household budget knows this. Hyperinflation was on the stipulation that the Federal Reserve continues stimulus and monetizing the debt, which I specified, and I think will keep happening, otherwise the markets will continue seesawing as it ultimately plummets and the economy will continue to deflate which is what I also stated in post #15. So do me a favor, if you're going to come in here spewing out erroneous forecasts, and then get all up in arms when you get corrected for your erroneous forecasts, then just stay out of the thread.

[little_monkey]

Now I think you are actually Krugman? lol

But seriously, post #10 described a downturn sometime by the last half of this year 2011 and was done to correct your errors from post #9, which is separate from the OP, so stop confusing the issues. And you actually were proven you don't know anything about the economy and that the official numbers were inaccurate, and yet you're STILL throwing false official CPI numbers at me? Hyperinflation was on the stipulation that the Federal Reserve continues stimulus and monetizing the debt, which I specified, and I think will keep happening, otherwise the markets will continue seesawing as it ultimately plummets and the economy will continue to deflate which is what I also stated in post #15. .

Wow, how ignorant can you be? You want to talk about the economy, but you can't understand the most basic terms. Do you know that inflation means the opposite of deflation? Apparently not. In the same sentence you talk about hyperinflation concluding that the economy will continue to deflate? Which is it, will we have hyperinflation or deflation? You can't have them both at the same time!!! Yet you predicted hyperinflation for the next 1-2 ½ years, your words. And you think you are clever because you think you corrected yourself in post #10, when in fact in that post, you continue to believe in hyperinflation. And none of the economic indicators show that we're in a period of hyperinflation. Keep the faith bro!

The inflation is around 8-10% by now bro, and anyone with a strict household budget knows this.

And no, anecdotes don't replace vast studies done by experts in the field. Inflation is not determined by speaking to your neighbors because their budget tells them that inflation is at 8-10%. This is a number that is completely baseless, and you know it.

So do me a favor, if you're going to come in here spewing out erroneous forecasts, and then get all up in arms when you get corrected for your erroneous forecasts, then just stay out of the thread

Whatever rocks your boat. Be happy with this thread, and continue with your bliss ignorance.

LOL.

[seanD]

You keep paralleling the OP with post #10 when they are separate issues. And I'm guessing you're doing it to obfuscate the discussion to try and save your hurt ego. In post #10, I stated a downturn in the second half of 2011, whereas in the OP I made a projection of hyperinflation by Feb 2012 - Aug 2013. So stop trying to misrepresent what I said or, seriously, stay out of the thread.

And look, if you want to stick to the offical numbers in spite of the fact you have been wrong as a result, then suit yourself

I believe you can actually have hyperinflation with deflation as a result of all the QE. Bernanke has been injecting all this liquidity into the system to try and stimulate inflation and prevent deflation. This works for awhile but it obviously doesn't last. Inflation picks up, but the economy as a whole deflates. This I believe is happening for two reasons: a) Obviously the dollar is being devalued, and thus this results in a currency war with other countries who also want to devalue their currencies against each other for exportation reasons, and this back and fourth currency war reeks havoc on the stability of the economies; b) The illusionary bubble that Bernanke is trying to re-inflate is not fooling anyone anymore so banks don't lend to businesses (or businesses just can't afford to borrow), but instead use the liquidity to gamble and speculate with commodities and derivatives, thus the economy doesn't pick up yet prices of commodities (precious metals, food, energy, etc.) continue to rise; c) People in general are afraid, so they too invest away from stocks and into commodities. I admit this is more theoretical than anything, but I think it's being proven by the fact that the prices of gold and silver are skyrocketing to new record highs as deflation continues to set in.

[little_monkey]

You keep paralleling the OP with post #10 when they are separate issues. And I'm guessing you're doing it to obfuscate the discussion to try and save your hurt ego. In post #10, I stated a downturn in the second half of 2011, whereas in the OP I made a projection of hyperinflation by Feb 2012 - Aug 2013. So stop trying to misrepresent what I said or, seriously, stay out of the thread.

And look, if you want to stick to the offical numbers in spite of the fact you have been wrong as a result, then suit yourself

I believe you can actually have hyperinflation with deflation as a result of all the QE. Bernanke has been injecting all this liquidity into the system to try and stimulate inflation and prevent deflation. This works for awhile but it obviously doesn't last. Inflation picks up, but the economy as a whole deflates. This I believe is happening for two reasons: a) Obviously the dollar is being devalued, and thus this results in a currency war with other countries who also want to devalue their currencies against each other for exportation reasons, and this back and fourth currency war reeks havoc on the stability of the economies; b) The illusionary bubble that Bernanke is trying to re-inflate is not fooling anyone anymore so banks don't lend to businesses (or businesses just can't afford to borrow), but instead use the liquidity to gamble and speculate with commodities and derivatives, thus the economy doesn't pick up yet prices of commodities (precious metals, food, energy, etc.) continue to rise; c) People in general are afraid, so they too invest away from stocks and into commodities. I admit this is more theoretical than anything, but I think it's being proven by the fact that the prices of gold and silver are skyrocketing to new record highs as deflation continues to set in.

Well, I read your post #10 again, and nothing in there indicates that you are talking about a recession, but rather that the market was being flooded with cheap money, implying it will be the hyperinflation you have predicted. Also, you mentioned that consumers are still spending and they are dupes for doing so, etc. If you were talking about a recession, please quote to me which sentence in #10 you were specifying that.

Secondly, inflation means that the CI is increasing, deflation means CI is decreasing. Both CANNOT take place at the same time. So repeating this nonsense as the sentence emboldened above makes you look like you don`t know what you're talking about.

Thirdly, you fight a recession by increasing the money supply. Of course, you don't do that in a period of inflation. And we're not, we're closer to a period of recession, which means the GDP could start to contract soon, which means demand is decreasing, so the Fed's actions are appropriate to boost the economy.

[seanD]

I was wondering if you actually knew that food and energy is counted in the official inflation numbers or not, and now I know you didn't. Please, just stop. Another thing to consider is that when they make estimates of inflation, they never revised it to consider unique circumstances, such as the quadrillion dollar derivative market that we've never had before. And I"m not refuting what the Fed is doing, because I realize they have very little choice. Although, printing money and loaning it out to foreign banks at the risk of US tax payers is something that is an anathema to our best interests, but that's a whole separate issue.

[shadowmaster]

I was wondering if you actually knew that food and energy is counted in the official inflation numbers or not, and now I know you didn't. Please, just stop. .

Not that clear: inflation and core inflation

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ion-usat_N.htm

SM