Oh dear. You don’t know the meaning of the phrase leading indicator. Usually I warm up before I work out. Does that mean warming up causes me to work out? Fuck no, it simply LEADS it. Again, you have no cause. Every economic mind disagrees with you. If you’re not going to listen to logic, at least listen to consensus.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.[/quote]
psst: look up what “indicator” means. Then look up what “cause” means.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.
psst: look up what “indicator” means. Then look up what “cause” means. [/quote]
Since it is clearly a leading indicator of how well the economy is, it would imply that a low unemployment rate indicates strong economy: which the increase of jobs caused the economy to strengthen.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.[/quote]
INDICATOR! I take you back to my thermometer example, the height of the mercury is an indicator of the temperature. In fact if employment drove the economy you couldn’t use it as an indicator, you need to measure an effect not a cause.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.
INDICATOR! I take you back to my thermometer example, the height of the mercury is an indicator of the temperature. In fact if employment drove the economy you couldn’t use it as an indicator, you need to measure an effect not a cause.[/quote]
How can employment not be an indicator? I plainly quoted it.
If employment doesn’t explain how healthy the economy is, how is there an economy with no jobs?
If the economy was solid enough, then yes, the economy could create more jobs. However, that is not the case we are in.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.
INDICATOR! I take you back to my thermometer example, the height of the mercury is an indicator of the temperature. In fact if employment drove the economy you couldn’t use it as an indicator, you need to measure an effect not a cause.
How can employment not be an indicator? I plainly quoted it.
If employment doesn’t explain how healthy the economy is, how is there an economy with no jobs?
If the economy was solid enough, then yes, the economy could create more jobs. However, that is not the case we are in.[/quote]
I’m going to have to second the call of troll, or possibly just an extra chromosome.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.
INDICATOR! I take you back to my thermometer example, the height of the mercury is an indicator of the temperature. In fact if employment drove the economy you couldn’t use it as an indicator, you need to measure an effect not a cause.
How can employment not be an indicator? I plainly quoted it.
If employment doesn’t explain how healthy the economy is, how is there an economy with no jobs?
If the economy was solid enough, then yes, the economy could create more jobs. However, that is not the case we are in.[/quote]
No shortbus, employment is an indicator, this is how you can tell it is not a cause.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting
You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.
xoxo
Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.
INDICATOR! I take you back to my thermometer example, the height of the mercury is an indicator of the temperature. In fact if employment drove the economy you couldn’t use it as an indicator, you need to measure an effect not a cause.
How can employment not be an indicator? I plainly quoted it.
If employment doesn’t explain how healthy the economy is, how is there an economy with no jobs?
If the economy was solid enough, then yes, the economy could create more jobs. However, that is not the case we are in.
No shortbus, employment is an indicator, this is how you can tell it is not a cause.[/quote]
I suppose all of a sudden, lack of jobs doesn’t cause economic turmoil anymore.
I’ve been reading along and have to say that I think most of you shouldn’t quit your day job; or your night job. It’s like this. If people have jobs, they have money. If people have money, they spend it. If people spend money it both boosts the economy and requires producers to produce more. In order for production companies to produce more they hire more people (create jobs). If the people of America buy products made by Americans, then those companies that are hiring are hiring more Americans. If more Americans have jobs, they have more money.
If Americans have more money they spend more money on American products…well lets hope you get the idea by now. It’s not rocket science; it?s elementary. It’s a good thing that you all work out; I mean at least you have something going for you. Most of you should just go measure your penis or something and leave the thinking to others.
[quote]tpovey wrote:
If people spend money it both boosts the economy and requires producers to produce more. In order for production companies to produce more they hire more people (create jobs). If the people of America buy products made by Americans, then those companies that are hiring are hiring more Americans. If more Americans have jobs, they have more money.
[/quote]
No. Just because I have a job does not mean I am spending it on products made here nor should I be spending my money on American made products just to satisfy the need to employ an American. Foreign made goods are cheaper and usually better made. That is the reality the American worker is faced with. They are not competitive.
The reason many Americans are in such a fix is that they have spent more money than they can pay back (government too for that matter). This means for the time being those heavily leveraged with debt must work to pay back their debts and not consume. This does not mean the American workers cannot have jobs but rather they need to find new customers other than themselves.
What you say is partially correct in that demand for goods – rather than consumption – does lead to a demand for jobs but it isn’t necessary that this demand come from Americans. The world population is closing in on 8 billion people and Americans only make up 1.25% of that. There is a huge opportunity for Americans to be a supplier of goods on the world market if he is willing to compete. This means he must be willing to accept lower wages until he becomes more productive.
With such a huge world population there is no need for any American to be unemployed just because he cannot afford to consume the products he produces. In fact, that is a completely ass-backward way of looking at the situation. We should trade those goods and increase our quality of life only when we have payed back our debts.
tpovey, you have missed the step where the improving economy allows companies to expand and take on new employees. Without that, none of what you describe happens. Yes there is a positive or negative feedback loop in that the employed spend the money that they earn over and above subsistance on luxury items which boosts the economy but that is not the root cause.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
I suppose all of a sudden, lack of jobs doesn’t cause economic turmoil anymore.
[/quote]
Well really it is lack of production and trade and over-consumption that causes the turmoil.
“Foreign made goods are cheaper and usually better made.”
Misconception. If people were to do a little research, they would find this statement to not be true. Those people who advocate over-seas production want people to believe this.
“The reason many Americans are in such a fix is that they have spent more money than they can pay back (government too for that matter).”
This no doubt is a big problem.
“This does not mean the American workers cannot have jobs but rather they need to find new customers other than themselves.”
This statement is true. The problem is that much of the rest of the world cannot afford the products made in America, as well as those made in their own country. This is partly why these countries are still poor.
“This means he must be willing to accept lower wages until he becomes more productive.”
Americans do not need to accept lower wages if Americans bought what Americans produce.
[quote]tpovey wrote:
I’ve been reading along and have to say that I think most of you shouldn’t quit your day job; or your night job. It’s like this. If people have jobs, they have money. If people have money, they spend it. If people spend money it both boosts the economy and requires producers to produce more. In order for production companies to produce more they hire more people (create jobs). If the people of America buy products made by Americans, then those companies that are hiring are hiring more Americans. If more Americans have jobs, they have more money.
If Americans have more money they spend more money on American products…well lets hope you get the idea by now. It’s not rocket science; it?s elementary. It’s a good thing that you all work out; I mean at least you have something going for you. Most of you should just go measure your penis or something and leave the thinking to others.[/quote]
Oh Lord, why doest thou punish me so?
You are aware that there are whole courses of study called “economics”?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
I suppose all of a sudden, lack of jobs doesn’t cause economic turmoil anymore.
Well really it is lack of production and trade and over-consumption that causes the turmoil.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it is the lack of production that causes the lack of jobs. Over-consumption can be looked as irresponsible spending. If peolpe were to consume responsibly (such as American made, among other things), we would not see the lack of production.
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
If peolpe were to consume responsibly (such as American made, among other things), we would not see the lack of production.
[/quote]
How could you say it is responsible consumption to buy American made if foreign made goods are cheaper and better quality?
Other than that you are generally incorrect. Consumption is not a requirement to produce more goods.
As I stated earlier, and you seem to have neglected to understand, Americans do not have to be their own customers. The world population is very large. There is room to produce and return to our previous standard of living if Americans are willing to become competitive with the rest of the world market.
Do you not agree with this premise?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
If peolpe were to consume responsibly (such as American made, among other things), we would not see the lack of production.
How could you say it is responsible consumption to buy American made if foreign made goods are cheaper and better quality?
Other than that you are generally incorrect. Consumption is not a requirement to produce more goods.
As I stated earlier, and you seem to have neglected to understand, Americans do not have to be their own customers. The world population is very large. There is room to produce and return to our previous standard of living if Americans are willing to become competitive with the rest of the world market.
Do you not agree with this premise?[/quote]
[quote]J Eldred wrote:
If people were to do a little research, they would find this statement to not be true. Those people who advocate over-seas production want people to believe this.[/quote]
I only advocate cheap and good. Americans cannot compete with the world market in most manufacturing jobs because labor prices are set artificially too high by protectionism. I would gladly buy American made if American made were as cheap and durable.
[quote]
“This does not mean the American workers cannot have jobs but rather they need to find new customers other than themselves.”
This statement is true. The problem is that much of the rest of the world cannot afford the products made in America, as well as those made in their own country. This is partly why these countries are still poor.[/quote]
On one hand you understand that American labor is not competitive with the world market…
…and on other hand you do not recognize why they are not competitive…
Labor wages are a function of productivity. American laborers are not as productive as compared to the rest of the world market yet they still demand wages much higher than the world market demands…?
The world would be able to afford American products if we produced more of them and or did not consume them all ourselves.
“demand wages much higher than the world market demands…?”
This is probably associated with unions who want to be givien the world and give very little in return. If this is the kind of thing you are refering to, I agree with you. I do not back unions at all (I will defend the UAW in Michigan, but in no way do I back them).
However, if people were to buy American, they are able to afford the higher wages. Also, I think, many times it is greedy execs who say they cannot afford these higher wages because they do not want to cut into their bottom line. That is another another topic all together though.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
If people were to do a little research, they would find this statement to not be true. Those people who advocate over-seas production want people to believe this.
I only advocate cheap and good. Americans cannot compete with the world market in most manufacturing jobs because labor prices are set artificially too high by protectionism. I would gladly buy American made if American made were as cheap and durable.
They are man. Everything made in China or Mexico is junk. Sometimes, not all the time, American made is a little more expensive, but the quality is better.
“This does not mean the American workers cannot have jobs but rather they need to find new customers other than themselves.”
This statement is true. The problem is that much of the rest of the world cannot afford the products made in America, as well as those made in their own country. This is partly why these countries are still poor.
On one hand you understand that American labor is not competitive with the world market…
“This means he must be willing to accept lower wages until he becomes more productive.”
Americans do not need to accept lower wages if Americans bought what Americans produce.
…and on other hand you do not recognize why they are not competitive…
Labor wages are a function of productivity. American laborers are not as productive as compared to the rest of the world market yet they still demand wages much higher than the world market demands…?
The world would be able to afford American products if we produced more of them and or did not consume them all ourselves.[/quote]
How would they afford them if we just produced more? They need to have good paying jobs to have the money to buy anything.