|
A big flaming stink posted:Generally if the hypothetical you are describing sounds like the plot of an episode of The West Wing, it is likely that you are overrated its electoral significance Anyway this could be added to the OP, or stickied at the top of every page?
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:You cannot seriously believe this? If when he was stalking around behind her like a creepy flesh golem, she hauled off and slugged him, I know I would have liked it. It'd probably have helped curb the "oh she's dying" and "women aren't strong and decisive like men" talking points, too. Plus that would have been an iconic moment in American history that would actually be, y'know, good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 12:23
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:If when he was stalking around behind her like a creepy flesh golem, she hauled off and slugged him, I know I would have liked it. It'd probably have helped curb the "oh she's dying" and "women aren't strong and decisive like men" talking points, too. Let's be clear here. You can't shame the shameless. "Hillary Clinton is a violent oppressor and cannot be trusted!" along with a bunch of clearly manufactured and fake scandals about how abusive she is to Bill or _____ person would have resulted. Hell, I remember the insane "Hillary clearly abuses Bill." poo poo the right pushed, even though Bill was the one who straight up cheated on her and they stayed together. Meaning if the relationship is abusive then it could qualifiedly be said to be the other way around.  You're right however that one way to deal with people like that is to just walk over them to what's right through whatever means are necessary. Unfortunately, where politics is concerned (or any endeavour that involves the potential for violence really) this is typically where you're on the path to someone getting domed by an assassin or some degree of a civil war. Since it usually transpires that when your leaders are throwing hands at each other that means that the ability to talk (or reach across the aisle, as it's said nowadays) to try and compromise has completely and likely irrevocably been done away with.* But unfortunately the ridiculous media network the right has that's designed to entrap viewers coupled with the lack of accountability enforced onto it means that any Democrat trying to stand up to them gets tarred and feathered irregardless of the facts. Even worse, actually throwing hands would have them baying for blood and instigating acts of stochastic terrorism (remember how Trump said the country needed a "second amendment solution" to Hillary getting elected? It'd be like that only the people attacking the capital would be heavily armed supremacists who believed that it was okay to do violence now that the other side did it eager to shed some blood to enforce their insane dystopia instead of them trying to blend into the crowd and sneakily get away with assassinating someone or changing the vote count.) on par with the poo poo you see in authoritarian or fascistic regimes. A fix to this situation would be if more pressure is put on places like Fox News to tell the truth while punishing them for lying or pulling tricks from the same bag of lies and misdirection that places like Russian news networks use. It opens up breathing room for the Democrats to throw a punch, metaphorically or literally. Probably the former, since beating the poo poo out of your opponent is genuinely frowned upon in any functioning democracy that isn't ancient Rome. Even if the guy is a tremendous creep who probably would have done something predatory or skeezy to have it coming it's the sort of thing where their popularity amongst their own base needs to be cratered to not have immensely bad feelings on both sides of the aisle become the norm going forwards. Alternatively, if our internal groups like the FBI start actively disbanding extremist right wing militias and supremacist groups and websites then throwing a punch also becomes a lot more viable. Since those places are ridiculously eager to have a legit incident that would start the RaHoWa or whatever the gently caress they're calling it these days. *And if you doubt we'd possibly go the same way keep in mind that we had multiple situations like that in the lead up to the civil war where our seated politicians decided to brawl while in session to try and sort the other side out. There's incidents where we've straight up had politicians try to cane the poo poo out of people (As in, whipping the ever loving poo poo out of them with a walking cane, hilariously enough.) they didn't like to get them to behave according to their values. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-most-infamous-floor-brawl-in-the-history-of-the-U-S--House-of-Representatives/ https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-duel-congressional-violence Heck, we straight up had duels to the death on the rare occasion of policy disputes (or a dispute of who gets what position. Or in the case of a certain duel crazy politician just because he liked shooting people.). Which was the "civil" way of doing that wasn't going to lead to widespread violence. Archonex fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Found one possibly great hidden gem in the proposed reconciliation bill language. Finally fixing one of the dumbest and most pointlessly painful aspects of American government. This reads to me as spending $15M on a study on how much it would cost, what public opinion is, and how they would do it, not directing them to actually implement it
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone (especially for those that are trying to redefine the term) but we are officially in a recession now. https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1552632896225255425
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Srice posted:I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone (especially for those that are trying to redefine the term) but we are officially in a recession now. Still not how recessions are legally defined. This hasn’t changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Still not how recessions are legally defined. This hasn’t changed. GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. That's a recession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Devor posted:This reads to me as spending $15M on a study on how much it would cost, what public opinion is, and how they would do it, not directing them to actually implement it Nothing like that is ever going to pass the 2023 congress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Srice posted:GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. That's a recession. No, it isn't. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/07/21/how-do-economists-determine-whether-the-economy-is-in-a-recession/ https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://www.newsweek.com/united-states-economy-inflation-recession-stock-markets-experts-1721035 https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jul/26/what-exactly-recession-sorting-out-confusing/ https://money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, it isn't. quote:"A common definition of recession is two negative quarters of GDP growth, or at least that's something that's been true in past recessions," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" on July 25. "So we could see that happen. And that will be closely watched. But I do want to emphasize: What a recession really means is a broad-based contraction in the economy. And even if that number is negative, we are not in a recession now." Hm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Yeah, and it's still not how it's legally defined, as all the articles I linked describe, including saying why the two quarter definition isn't adequate, where it comes from, and who and how the actual definition is applied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, and it's still not how it's legally defined, as all the articles I linked describe, including saying why the two quarter definition isn't adequate, where it comes from, and who and how the actual definition is applied. At least two of those were written this year. Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model as described in Manufacturing Consent? E: further, what should I rely on you as a trusted mediator? What reason do you have for wanting me to see these articles? What narrative are you trying to establish with your mediation of information? Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, and it's still not how it's legally defined, as all the articles I linked describe, including saying why the two quarter definition isn't adequate, where it comes from, and who and how the actual definition is applied. Very well, I will amend my point and say it's 99.99% likely we're in a recession right now since all of the common recession factors are present.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
All this pedantry has real strong magic words energy. Who cares what its called?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, and it's still not how it's legally defined, as all the articles I linked describe, including saying why the two quarter definition isn't adequate, where it comes from, and who and how the actual definition is applied. There is no "legal definition" of a recession. There is no formal definition of a recession at all. A recession is declared "official" when a group of Very Important People say it is, and there are no explicit criteria for it, public or private. The Politifact article does explain this well, which you could have quoted directly instead of linking and adding something incorrect. Consequently, everyone else on the planet has used the two-quarters rule as a convenient proxy, but there is now a full court press by the White House to point out that the government has never considered that official because it looks bad otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:There is no "legal definition" of a recession. There is no formal definition of a recession at all. A recession is declared "official" when a group of Very Important People say it is, and there are no explicit criteria for it, public or private. Consequently, everyone else on the planet has used the two-quarters rule as a convenient proxy, but there is now a full court press by the White House to point out that the government has never considered that official because it looks bad otherwise. Heck, to put it another way, has there been a period of time in US history post-WWII where there was a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? I am pretty sure there isn't but I haven't closely examined every single instance so it's possible I missed one!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Srice posted:Heck, to put it another way, has there been a period of time in US history post-WWII where there was a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? I am pretty sure there isn't but I haven't closely examined every single instance so it's possible I missed one! We'd actually be looking for the opposite: a time where there was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth without a recession. That would be a counterexample for when the rule-of-thumb has failed. I'm having a little trouble finding this broken down by quarter pre-2000 rather than annualized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Let's go to the dictionary shall we https://www.allbusiness.com/barrons_dictionary/dictionary-recession-4954237-1.html quote:Dictionary of Accounting Terms: recession
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:We'd actually be looking for the opposite: a time where there was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth without a recession. That would be a counterexample for when the rule-of-thumb has failed. I'm having a little trouble finding this broken down by quarter pre-2000 rather than annualized. I was thinking of hunting for an instance where it the rule of thumb didn't trigger a warning but yeah you're right that would be a much better way to approach it. I found some historical data that has a quarterly breakdown starting in 1948: https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, and it's still not how it's legally defined, as all the articles I linked describe, including saying why the two quarter definition isn't adequate, where it comes from, and who and how the actual definition is applied. Legally defined? What does that mean in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Isn't the weirdness here that unemployment is level/people keep getting hired. so, yah the economy isn't growing but unemployment is low and people are still getting checks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Srice posted:Heck, to put it another way, has there been a period of time in US history post-WWII where there was a recession without two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? I am pretty sure there isn't but I haven't closely examined every single instance so it's possible I missed one! Casselman has an example from 1947, but idk about afterward. Anyway the high council of economic wizards took 8 months to declare the '08 recession a recession and the federal reserve only raises the probability of a recession after a recession is occurring. Employment is considered a lagging indicator too. If we take Powell at his word he and the fed believe the unemployment rate needs to start to rise. There is a good chance q3 gdp is already baked in negative and y/y gdp will most likely end up negative. About the only thing to stop any of this is an actual infrastructure bill being passed. Dubar posted:All this pedantry has real strong magic words energy. Who cares what its called? Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Casselman has an example from 1947, but idk about afterward. Anyway the high council of economic wizards took 8 months to declare the '08 recession a recession and the federal reserve only raises the probability of a recession after a recession is occurring. After poking around the data I linked I saw that 2001 had a recession declared despite GDP growth not being negative for two consecutive quarters. But also that seems like an understandably wild exception to the rule since 9/11 was a factor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Devor posted:This reads to me as spending $15M on a study on how much it would cost, what public opinion is, and how they would do it, not directing them to actually implement it No, it doesn't direct them to actually do it because Congress needs to approve. The task force will study and then draw up a plan to implement. The plan will be presented to congress around June 2023 and then congress would vote on it. That's why I said "possible" hidden gem. If it was a 100% sure thing that they would do it, it would be a definite hidden gem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
Srice posted:After poking around the data I linked I saw that 2001 had a recession declared despite GDP growth not being negative for two consecutive quarters. Oh I misread your post. You were looking for positive gdp quarters as recession. Recession is also being backed up by housing numbers and fed activity gauges. There is just too much data out there saying recession is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Legally defined? What does that mean in this context? There is no legal definition of a recession. "Real GDP falls for two consecutive quarters" is an extremely common definition among pundits because it's black and white. But policymakers go by the NBER business cycle dating committee's recession calls. And they generally call recessions based on whether they think actual real GDP has fallen below its potential. And potential real GDP isn't something we can directly measure in the data. It's a holistic construct of synthetic control forecasting, quantitative modeling, etc. The important thing, though, is that if a decline in real GDP is driven mostly by a decline in potential GDP, that's not a recession. Or at least, it's not a situation that we think monetary or fiscal policy can do much to fix in the short run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Oh I misread your post. You were looking for positive gdp quarters as recession. I wound up looking for examples of positive GDP as recession and also negative GDP numbers without recession. But yeah, turns out the rule of thumb is a rule of thumb for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Legally defined? What does that mean in this context? it's an entertaining bit of sophistry because recession is not at all a legally defined term. it's a little like insisting that because an article in Piss Pedants Periodical said you could argue piss was a type of precipitation, you are in the wrong for getting upset someone pissed on your leg and told you it was rain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:There is no legal definition of a recession. "Real GDP falls for two consecutive quarters" is an extremely common definition among pundits because it's black and white. But policymakers go by the NBER business cycle dating committee's recession calls. And they generally call recessions based on whether they think actual real GDP has fallen below its potential. And potential real GDP isn't something we can directly measure in the data. It's a holistic construct of synthetic control forecasting, quantitative modeling, etc. The important thing, though, is that if a decline in real GDP is driven mostly by a decline in potential GDP, that's not a recession. Or at least, it's not a situation that we think monetary or fiscal policy can do much to fix in the short run. Also worth noting naming these things is highly political. I swear there was some talk of the Great Recession actually being a depression but since no one wanted to call it though, least of the Conservatives in power they named it a recession to avoid panic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Srice posted:I was thinking of hunting for an instance where it the rule of thumb didn't trigger a warning but yeah you're right that would be a much better way to approach it. So if we cross-reference to this: https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-contractions It appears that every time there are two consecutive negative quarters of GDP growth, it has been determined that we are in a recession. There are recessions on that list (2001, 1960) that do not also have the drops in GDP, and of course, the edges of the recession can not be determined by this metric. The White House is arguing that due to other economic metrics not lining up because of the generaled fuckedupness of the global economy between COVID and war in Ukraine, we might not be in a recession -- e.g. jobs and employment are still increasing. So it's not to say that the rule of thumb can't be broken, just that it would be seemingly unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Still not how recessions are legally defined. This hasn’t changed. Gumball Gumption posted:Legally defined? What does that mean in this context? Recessions aren't legally defined. There isn't a statute that defines them. DV may be referring to the NBER definition, which is the official designation they use to calculate a recession, which is: quote:The first thing to note is that two straight quarters of negative GDP growth isn’t determinative. The official determination is up to the NBER, a nonpartisan, private organization that utilizes other factors in making such calls. Srice posted:GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. That's a recession. It's technically not. But, it is a common shorthand and is almost always true. There have been a few examples (2001, 1960, and 1947) where the two quarters = recession calculation wasn't true. So, it is very likely that when they have the final numbers it will technically be a recession. But, just two quarters on itself isn't the entire thing. quote:The first thing to note is that two straight quarters of negative GDP growth isn’t determinative. The official determination is up to the NBER, a nonpartisan, private organization that utilizes other factors in making such calls. Mooseontheloose posted:Isn't the weirdness here that unemployment is level/people keep getting hired. so, yah the economy isn't growing but unemployment is low and people are still getting checks. Yeah, that is part of it. It is very likely that when NBER makes the final distinction with the revised quarterly information (today's is the preliminary estimated measure) that it will be a recession. But, it isn't actually "official". BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The White House is arguing that due to other economic metrics not lining up because of the generaled fuckedupness of the global economy between COVID and war in Ukraine, we might not be in a recession -- e.g. jobs and employment are still increasing. So it's not to say that the rule of thumb can't be broken, just that it would be seemingly unprecedented. It happened in 1947. And in the other direction (recession declared without two consecutive quarters of losses) in 1960 and shortly after 9/11. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Srice posted:After poking around the data I linked I saw that 2001 had a recession declared despite GDP growth not being negative for two consecutive quarters. There are a number of recessions that did not have 2 consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth. Also, this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison because we are looking at the prelim gdp numbers right now not the final gdp numbers,.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
So now that we're officially in a recession, what actually changes other than every talking head wanting to make it worse with austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So now that we're officially in a recession, what actually changes other than every talking head wanting to make it worse with austerity. Talking heads stating we are technically not in a “legal” recession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
I really despise this creepy motherfucker. I hate the way he thinks, the things he says and the way he looks https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-19-other-republicans-112450368.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall Matt Gaetz, 19 Other Republicans Vote Against Bill Targeting Human Trafficking Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has been embroiled in a federal sex-trafficking investigation, on Wednesday joined 19 other Republicans in voting against a House bill targeting human trafficking. The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, aimed at protecting survivors of human trafficking and providing funds for programs fighting the crime, passed the House with 401 votes. All Democrats, except for one who abstained, supported the legislation. Gaetz and 19 other Republicans voted against the bill, while eight GOP members abstained. The legislation calls for granting $1.1 billion over five years to fund programs that came about through the implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, according to The Hill. Gaetz took issue with the bill’s definition of “human trafficking” and its cost, spokesperson Joel Valdez told USA Today . “The government’s failure to accurately and specifically define human trafficking allows this legislation to act as a backdoor loophole for illegal immigration and amnesty,” Valdez said. “The bill also costs over half a billion dollars to implement and gives more taxpayer money to overfunded, inefficient grant programs.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So now that we're officially in a recession, what actually changes other than every talking head wanting to make it worse with austerity. Well billionaires will need to get some bailouts without issuing any sort of stock or ownership to the tax payers providing the funds, first and foremost. Then, you know, it's pretty much solved 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The key missed opportunity was when he walked up to Clinton. The way to handle stuff like this on the debate stage is with some kind of humor or subtle way of highlighting how weird the opponent is being. Gore came up to Bush at one of the 2000 debates and Bush paused and nodded at him. Given the double standards for women, Clinton likely couldn’t have done more than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So now that we're officially in a recession, what actually changes other than every talking head wanting to make it worse with austerity. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Talking heads stating we are technically not in a “legal” recession. DV was wrong that there is such a thing as a "legal" recession. Thee closest thing is the NBER report that is the official designation. We probably are in a recession, but aren't "officially" in a recession. It will be official when they get the actual data (not the preliminary estimates from today) and compare it to the other economic factors like real wage growth, employment, and production slowdowns. Either way, it doesn't really matter much. The economy is slowing down and there is no disputing that. But, we are in a very unique situation where GDP may be going down, but employment and earnings aren't. The GDP contraction seems to be mostly from lowered productivity and inflation/supply chain stretches. This seems like yet another "exciting" new and unique situation the pandemic has put us in. But, even though real wages went up a lot in the first half of 2021, they have been falling since Q3 of 2021. We might not be in an official recession, but the direction isn't good. Basically, the U.S. economy is a boat. The boat has a large hole in it. You might be able to repair the hole before the boat meets Davey Jones, but the most common scenario when you have a hole in your boat is that your boat sinks (recession). We're in the "large hole" phase where we have a small chance of repairing it and it has not actually sunk the boat yet, but it is very likely that we are heading into the end result that includes "meeting Poseidon".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The way to handle stuff like this on the debate stage is with some kind of humor or subtle way of highlighting how weird the opponent is being. Gore came up to Bush at one of the 2000 debates and Bush paused and nodded at him. Given the double standards for women, Clinton likely couldn’t have done more than that. Biden’s “Just shut up man” came off well. Yeah. Humor would have worked for Clinton too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Ultimately it comes down to that Hillary Clinton, and thus her campaign and support base, did not treat it as a campaign for a competitive election. Trump was the comically loathsome antagonist whose defeat was obviously a given, though there'd be some tension towards the end for the sake of drama. That's how the West Wing episode goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:17
|
|
