?

Should this thread be locked?

Poll closed May 23, 2021.
  1. Yes

    27 vote(s)
    64.3%
  2. No

    15 vote(s)
    35.7%
  3. 42 voter(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. D34DL1N3R

    D34DL1N3R Nephilim
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,282
    Country:
    United States
    Bullshit. You wouldn't be here commenting if you actually felt that way.
     
    Xzi likes this.
  2. KingVamp

    KingVamp Haaah-hahahaha!
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,532
    Country:
    United States
    Yeah, besides climate change, this is just another reason not to rely on just one form of energy.
     
    Xzi likes this.
  3. Darth Meteos

    OP Darth Meteos Entertainer
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,477
    Country:
    United States
    no, i'm saying that he's fighting a pointless battle against someone who will dogmatically continue to assert they are right even as their entire evidence base crumbles around them

    pretty sure this is a bot you guys
    it never adds anything to the conversation outside of trolling and cringe shitposts
     
    Xzi likes this.
  4. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan
    That's where you are wrong, spaz.

    "Fight a battle"? He is saying something stupid. You were right to point it out.
     
  5. AkiraKurusu

    AkiraKurusu DS Pokémon Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2019
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    Australia
    I was wondering why this non-funny months-old thread still appears on the front page, but politics. Also likely why this has 200 pages...the greatest argument is politics, I'd say.
     
  6. Darth Meteos

    OP Darth Meteos Entertainer
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,477
    Country:
    United States
    he is saying something accurate about a number i think is irrelevant to the broader topic of the failings of the trump administration in an economic sense
    you are denying the accuracy of his accurate statements about the number i feel is irrelevant
    his sin is wasting time on a pointless debate, and i told him what i thought about the jobs growth number as a metric
    your sin is being wrong, and you are somehow conflating my disagreement over tactics with an accusation of untruthfulness

    no.

    feed my thread
    give it your soul
    become part of the sisyphean crusade against the dummy dumdums
     
    Xzi likes this.
  7. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan
    Lol. I'm not wrong. Under the Trump administration, the US reached record low unemployment levels for the duration between the end of Obama's term and just prior to the epidemic. That is a fact. Lacius responds by inserting a strawman and boasting pride that it somehow refutes it. But it was janky logic and spoke more about his personal sentiments.

    Conjecture as to why it's all Obama's doing is speculative. Calling the lack of sharp change in the rate of employment unmeaningful is just shit if you care about people having jobs.

    If you share sentiments with Lacius, that's fine. If you somehow think that there is only meaning in the lack of stability, that's fine too. I disagree with that point specifically.

    Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment? Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity? No, because that would make you fucking stupid.

    A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated. If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.
     
    Last edited by tabzer, May 12, 2021
  8. JonhathonBaxster

    JonhathonBaxster GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2021
    Messages:
    141
    Country:
    United States
    LOL.

    Apparently you don't recall the numerous times Biden said he's going to do away with fossil fuels and move us to depend on more cleaner solutions. Biden did indeed brag on national television that he's going to do away with gasoline. While the pipeline virus and panic buying weren't planned the rise in price right before that was. We will continue to see tactics by the Biden administration that will limit the amount of gas there is on the market for the time being. They are just getting warmed up. Remember, the goal is to get rid of using fossil fuels and the Democrats aren't going to care who they hurt in the process.

    I also am going to have to laugh at loud when the price increases hit home. Biden is already planning on raising the minimum wage and taxing wealthy people and all of those new taxes and costs will be passed onto the working class consumer, just like has happened time and time again. What really cracks me up is Biden was campaigning on raising taxes and each time he addressed a crowd of people they'd cheer him on for doing so. I'm not sure what sort of stupid they are breeding these days, but Democrats who voted to raise taxes and love the fact that's going to happen are in a league of their own.

    The gas prices, consumer goods prices and taxes are just starting to increase as it takes around 3 months after a President is gone from office for the next administrations policies kick into effect. So what we're all seeing is just the start of Biden's impact on the economy. It's going to get much, much worse than it is now as we're seeing the "the new normal", which is higher taxes and higher prices all around the board. Prices of good, services and taxes are going to get insanely bad under a Democratic leadership especially leadership that is implementing Liberal policies. If you need an example look at any of the major crime ridden larger cities that have been under Democratic leadership for years such as Chicago, Detroit or Los Angeles.
     
  9. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,035
    Country:
    United States
    It's a numerical fact that job gains were unchanged between when Obama left office and just before the pandemic hit. It's not, like, "my opinion, man." See the charts I've provided. This is all I've argued, and it's provably right. I'm probably going to ignore any future "nuh uh" or "it's your opinion, man" posts from you.

    I'm not sure what part of any of my posts could be reasonably described as "throwing the working man under the bus."

    If the former administration had done anything positive for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in monthly job gains; we didn't. What we did see from the former administration was record unemployment due in part to its bungled response to the pandemic and its economic consequences.

    The former president inherited a booming economy from Obama, and we can see that the monthly job gains didn't substantively change until the pandemic. I refer you back to my Bitcoin rig analogy, because it applies. Since you didn't seem to get it: The rig is economic policy, the Bitcoin are jobs, Obama is the nerd who set it up, and the last president is the one who inherited that rig and did nothing to change it until he smashed it with a hammer when the pandemic hit.
     
    Last edited by Lacius, May 12, 2021
  10. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Endless Trash
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,663
    Country:
    Poland
    Comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive as it neglects some of the key figures - Obama's stimulus package that was meant to jump start the economy (as well as a mountain of new "freebies" courtesy of the federal government) greatly reduced labor participation rates. People who drop out of the workforce and are no longer active jobseekers are not labelled as "unemployed" - they're not looking for employment. Labor participation rates at the beginning of Obama's presidency were measured at 65.7%, by 2017 they were at 62.7%. It's easy to drop the "unemployment rate" when your workforce participation also shrinks by 3% - you didn't get unemployed people employed, they just dropped out. This metric is useless in isolation. Not only did Trump "continue the trend" of decreasing unemployment, job participation rates have increased, not decreased under his presidency. Job participation rates peaked at 63.4% in January 2020, right before the pandemic hit and started negatively affecting the economy. More people overall were willing to actively seek for jobs *and* they managed to find them. Trump's economy was the first on record under which the amount of job openings has surpassed the amount of job seekers, it was unprecedented. The current administration is benefitting from a similar effect - the sudden "growth" is not caused by Biden's stimulus, it's caused by the receding pandemic and the job force returning to work. His policies haven't led to any amazing job creation, he's coasting on what the previous administration had already achieved prior to the economy shutting down on account of an external and uncontrollable factor. Of course, in all fairness, no administration "creates jobs" besides the jobs within the administration itself - private industry "creates jobs", and it is the job of the administration to create conditions where said private industry is incentivised to expand and create them. So far the current administration is slowing down the recovery, not accelerating it, by providing incentives *not* to return to the workforce as in many cases the unemployment benefits available are higher than the potential wages upon returning to work. This has been true since the introduction of the CARES act, and yet the Biden administration is still stacking relief bills on top of relief bills for some reason.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/
     
    tthousand and tabzer like this.
  11. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan

    Wow, look at all these numerical facts that Lacius didn't account for when forming his opinion. Those must be inconvenient.

    The part referenced by the bold statement assessing my primary disagreement with you.

    Total shit analogy. Stay away from Bitcoin (for your protection).

    Oh boy. Let me repeat myself.

    Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment? Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity? No, because that would make you fucking stupid. OOPS.

    A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated. If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.
     
    Last edited by tabzer, May 12, 2021
  12. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,035
    Country:
    United States
    I've already said this, but as monthly job gains continue unchanged, the unemployment rate is going to go down. The reason monthly job gains continued, however, is because the previous administration started with a booming economy left by Obama, and the amount of jobs gained per month didn't change until the pandemic. Mentioning the unemployment rate going down under the previous administration doesn't refute my point the way you think it does. In fact, it supports my point. To put it another way, we can look at the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers objectively, and we can predict what the unemployment number would become if monthly job gains continued unchanged. Spoiler alert: The unemployment numbers we saw during the former administration matched what we would expect if nothing changed. If the former administration had at all improved the economy, we would have seen steeper monthly job gains and steeper reduction of unemployment. You don't seem to understand that the number of new jobs added per month did not change between Obama leaving and the pandemic, and I don't know how else to explain this to you. However, based on the snappiness, I'm assuming you are getting far more frustrated than I am. I'm happy to drop this if it's making you mad.

    You should also reread Foxi4's post. It doesn't say what you think it says. I agree with him that comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive. You're the one who doesn't understand why.

    "Trump failed at ruining the economy before he ruined the economy."
     
    Last edited by Lacius, May 12, 2021
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  13. Acid_Snake

    Acid_Snake GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2019
    Messages:
    149
    Country:
    Spain
    Unions are a communist idea, not socialist in the general terms. You're confusing theory and practice, which is exactly what differentiates communism and fascism (same theory, different practice).

    How about you read what fascism is from the point of view of their own creators rather than some wikipedia page?
    Mussollini and Hitler both started within socialist parties (and got out of them to form their own because they considered them to be "far too weak").

    You can read the "Nazi-Soci" (Manual of National Socialism), Mein Kampf and pretty much any history book about the origins of nazis and fascism as radical socialist ideologies.
    The nazis considered themselves "the true socialists" which is why they were at war with communists (they considered communism to be an incorrect way to apply socialism, an unreachable utopia full of idiots ad illiterates).

    The fascists hated democracy and capitalism, they controlled all media (used for propaganda and manipulation), they controlled all means of productions (VolksWaggen was even created under Hitlers command, not by pure luck of free market).
    If the nazis and fascists are not socialist, then what the hell do you consider socialism then?

    It seems to me most of you wanna-be socialists don't even know what socialism really is and how dangerous it becomes when radicalized (it literary either becomes communism or fascism and none of which are any good for anyone).
     
    Last edited by Acid_Snake, May 12, 2021
    tthousand likes this.
  14. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan
    Lol. Strong projection game. Try telling me how we can have upticks in the rate of job gain as unemployment gets closer to zero? (The point you missed twice now). The lack of infrastructure to support these jobs and the lack of eligible workforce is going to cause the monthly rate to plateau and then decline if left alone. If everyone is employed, you will see NO gains (or if we account for population growth and all those other kinds of variables it would still be considered neglible in light of the claim that "sustaining the employment growth rate at record highs is not meaningful") As per the facts that @Foxi4 mentioned, there was a lot of work internally to make more people eligible for employment, which mathematically should compound the "meaning" of the rate of growth being sustained. I mean, if you want to live in a world where everyone being on welfare = no unemployment, then you are chasing the meme.
     
    Last edited by tabzer, May 12, 2021
  15. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,035
    Country:
    United States
    As more jobs are created, fewer people will be unemployed. That's the case regardless of whether or not the rate of job growth increases. The rate of job growth did not increase under the former administration; it was the same level it was when Obama left office (until the pandemic).
     
  16. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan
    Dust off your calculus skills and acknowledge the limits imposed by the available workforce. There is a parabolic relationship that you aren't grasping.

    Also, I don't understand how you can agree with @Foxi4's statement that comparing Trump-era unemployment to Obama-era unemployment is intentionally deceptive, yet keep doing that. The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are intentionally being deceptive.
     
  17. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,035
    Country:
    United States
    The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are confusing unemployment for monthly job gains.
     
  18. Valwinz

    Valwinz GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2020
    Messages:
    427
    Country:
    Puerto Rico
    Really makes you think on the Biden disaster how all that way gain is now gone because Biden wants more wars
     
  19. tabzer

    tabzer Newbie
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,139
    Country:
    Japan
    I'm insisting that there is a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment you are stubbornly resisting to acknowledge. You are persisting in injecting Obama.
     
  20. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,035
    Country:
    United States
    I hope you understand that present events demonstrate the former administration didn't actually accomplish anything eight months ago.

    My entire argument is there's a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment. I suggest you reread my posts.
     
    KingVamp likes this.
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - officially, President, America

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.