Despite what doom/gloomers say, economy roars on.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, October 23, 2025 22:23
VIEWED: 13580
PAGE 12 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Actually, the initial post was about the stock market, not the housing market and consumer confidence. So, yeah, it's quite evident you're only posting as a troll and not posting facts.
So why are you providing links regarding the housing market and consumer confidence?
Quote:
Most of the dispute was about getting people to stake their opinions on specific markers rather than shift from one to the next. Evading whatever was down and focusing on whatever was up that day..
Please see my above question.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cause the original poster then shifted ground, again, to include them. So why are YOU posting about them, seeing as they weren't "at the outset of this thread" (as you claimed)?
Please see my question, above.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, if you don't want people calling you a troll, you better stop advertising yourself as one, as in: "Posting to stir stuff up."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which is why I persistently tried to get Auraptor to define what he considers "the economy". He hopped from one indicator to the next. He left the thread rather than (I speculate) enter into a substantive discussion.
But the question "What is the economy?" is worthy of a PhD dissertation and could sustain a lengthy and lively debate. I personally would like to talk about "the economy" because it's a hobby of mine, and because I always learn something new from discussions here (provided the topic doesn't degenerate into a flame war.)
And yes "Posting to stir stuff up" is a troll's motto. Might want to reconsider your signature.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cause the original poster then shifted ground, again, to include them. So why are YOU posting about them, seeing as they weren't "at the outset of this thread" (as you claimed)?
Because, most recently in this thread, you and SignyM started to use housing and consumer confidence as your economic indicators. If both are now dropping as you state, than both must have been in a better postion at this thread's outset, hence a 'better economy'. You, in effect, legitimized the original point of this thread. That was why I asked what all the previous arguing was about.
And call me troll all you like, it matters not to me. We are what we do, not how other's perceive us. At least I'm up front about my intentions.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever.
What I'm trying to get going is a discussion on what indicators we should choose to take the pulse of "the economy". But the indicators that we choose say a lot about what we think "the economy" SHOULD be doing, which is rooted in our ideological views.
For example, if you were to chose the stock market as one of fundamental indicators, it means that you think of "investors" as the appropriate focus of economic activity because "investment" is a primary driving force. Investment is important because it is the engine that eventually creates a better life for all.
That's one theory.
What's yours?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I already said mine - percent in poverty and working wages. It's rooted in the view that the economy is a human construct made to serve people. Seems simple and common-sense enough to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's one theory.
What's yours?
Gross Domestic Product.
http://www.bea.gov/
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, I'm gone for the next week.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So in your view, "production" is what an economy should be doing. However, GDP is not a good measure of "standard of living". For example, an economy that produces a lot but exports nearly all of its production would have a low standard of living. Given that, do you still think GDP is a good measure of "the economy", and why?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME