PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Misery Index Worst Since 1983


epicSocialism4tw
06-17-2011, 10:39 PM
"The index, first compiled during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s by economist Arthur Okun, is registering a nausea-inducing 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation—a number not seen since 1983. The index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43441924

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-17-2011, 11:18 PM
5...4...3...2...1...

Inkana7
06-17-2011, 11:22 PM
hm who was president in 1983

Archer81
06-18-2011, 01:03 AM
hm who was president in 1983


Who controlled congress in 1983...Better yet...who controlled the senate for nearly 2 decades before 1983. Since we are all about blaming previous administrations now...

How the chart reads: Congress, yrs, total num of senators, dems, reps. total number of house members, dems, reps.

89th 1965–1967 100 68 32 — — 435 295 140 — — 90th 1967–1969 100 64 36 — — 435 248 187 — — 91st 1969–1971 100 58 42 — — 435 243 192 — — 92nd 1971–1973 100 54 44 2 — 435 255 180 — — 93rd 1973–1975 100 56 42 2 — 435 242 192 1 — 94th 1975–1977 100 61 37 2 — 435 291 144 — — 95th 1977–1979 100 61 38 1 — 435 292 143 — — 96th 1979–1981 100 58 41 1 — 435 277 158 — — 97th 1981–1983 100 46 53 1 — 435 242 192 1 — 98th 1983–1985 100 46 54 — — 435 269 166 — —

Read more: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2010 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html#ixzz1Pc3rYVBv

:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
06-18-2011, 03:22 PM
hm who was president in 1983

Who is president in 2011?

I would hope that you'd be intelligent enough to vote based on what's happening in 2011.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-18-2011, 03:29 PM
hm who was president in 1983

Read it again. It said "since". Who was president before 1983? Oppps.

lostknight
06-18-2011, 03:31 PM
Its amazing how fast the blame game kicks in.

Cito Pelon
06-18-2011, 04:19 PM
Its amazing how fast the blame game kicks in.

Bi-partisan solutions are what is needed.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-18-2011, 05:37 PM
Measuring an emotion is retarded since humans are often like lemmings. I'm sure there are tons of people not effected a bit by the recession that would answer "times are tough". We live in a community and all buy into the communal mood, especially when it comes to something we can collectively complain about.

Arkie
06-18-2011, 06:18 PM
Measuring an emotion is retarded since humans are often like lemmings. I'm sure there are tons of people not effected a bit by the recession that would answer "times are tough". We live in a community and all buy into the communal mood, especially when it comes to something we can collectively complain about.


That's all true, but it has nothing to do with the misery index (unemployment + inflation)

SonOfLe-loLang
06-18-2011, 07:45 PM
That's all true, but it has nothing to do with the misery index (unemployment + inflation)

I guess it would help if i read the article :) Perhaps the "misery index" should be renamed.

epicSocialism4tw
06-18-2011, 11:04 PM
Measuring an emotion is retarded since humans are often like lemmings. I'm sure there are tons of people not effected a bit by the recession that would answer "times are tough". We live in a community and all buy into the communal mood, especially when it comes to something we can collectively complain about.

LOL

It might have helped if you actually read the post. I'm not sure it would have helped you formulate a better opinion, but at least you would have an idea what the thread is about. Hilarious!

SonOfLe-loLang
06-18-2011, 11:13 PM
LOL

It might have helped if you actually read the post. I'm not sure it would have helped you formulate a better opinion, but at least you would have an idea what the thread is about. Hilarious!

I already admitted to not reading it, dickhead. But nice try on the "gotcha" post.

epicSocialism4tw
06-18-2011, 11:55 PM
I already admitted to not reading it, dickhead. But nice try on the "gotcha" post.

Maybe you should read it next time before you pop off on the "people are lemmings" bit, proving yourself to be exactly what you criticize.

That probably wasn't even the most dispicable thing you opined about in that post. What was even more dispicable was your eager readiness to criticize people who are affected by the economic downturn as just being a bunch of idiots who are only in their current state because of the "communal mood". Ridiculous.

Kaylore
06-19-2011, 06:58 AM
5...4...3...2...1...

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4KU6pd6cxgw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pony Boy
06-19-2011, 07:31 AM
Bronco's Misery Index Worst Since we Traded Hillis......

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-19-2011, 08:38 AM
It's absolutely correct.

Every time miserable EpicFAIL posts, everyone gets more miserable.

Rausch 2.0
06-19-2011, 09:32 AM
All blame does not go on Obama any more than all credit goes to Clinton for the internet/tech boom that happened while he was in there.

Clinton saw a good thing coming and knew you don't fix what ain't broke.

Obama was handed a sinking ship and decided to try and prevent scurvy. No, he didn't cause it...

SonOfLe-loLang
06-19-2011, 10:32 AM
Maybe you should read it next time before you pop off on the "people are lemmings" bit, proving yourself to be exactly what you criticize.

That probably wasn't even the most dispicable thing you opined about in that post. What was even more dispicable was your eager readiness to criticize people who are affected by the economic downturn as just being a bunch of idiots who are only in their current state because of the "communal mood". Ridiculous.

Thats for completely misinterpreting what I said you ****ing, no good horrible piece of ****ing ****. I wasn't criticizing ANYONE, I was claiming that often people who are completely unaffected by something feel the emotional effect of an event simply because thats the national conversation. One of these days youre going to wake up and realize we live in a very interconnected community and we rely on each other for every single thing this world has to offer. And then, hopefully, youll think twice about your bull**** opinions.

cutthemdown
06-19-2011, 11:07 AM
Politics is amusing. No one wanted to give Gbush sr any credit when Clintons economy took off. How come we only invoke the previous admin when things go bad? No doubt things are bad right now and much of it caused because Obama has done a poor job.

Jason in LA
06-19-2011, 11:47 AM
Damn, LeBron James was right. ;D

epicSocialism4tw
06-19-2011, 02:46 PM
Thats for completely misinterpreting what I said you ****ing, no good horrible piece of ****ing ****. I wasn't criticizing ANYONE, I was claiming that often people who are completely unaffected by something feel the emotional effect of an event simply because thats the national conversation. One of these days youre going to wake up and realize we live in a very interconnected community and we rely on each other for every single thing this world has to offer. And then, hopefully, youll think twice about your bull**** opinions.

http://thederisoreport.com/files/2011/04/the-hindenburg-disaster.jpg

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-19-2011, 03:36 PM
Damn, LeBron James was right. ;D

He's taking his talents to South Beach?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-19-2011, 04:57 PM
...the soaring inflation days of the 1970s...

Gotta chuckle at this sort of cherry-picked characterization.

I wonder if the dink who wrote this actually remembers the 70s?

Those of us who were actually around will probably remember the 70s as a time when a family could still enjoy a comfortable middle class existence on the father's income alone, when almost everything you bought still said "made in USA," when we still believed in a "we" society, (as opposed to a "me" society) and when we still believed in a "pay as you go" economy.

Then Red Ink Ron got in, and it's been a race to "Gilded Age 2.0" since then.

Broncobiv
06-19-2011, 09:20 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4KU6pd6cxgw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OMFG you just blew my mind man...SO MANY years since I've seen that! Memories!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-19-2011, 09:27 PM
Gotta chuckle at this sort of cherry-picked characterization.

I wonder if the dink who wrote this actually remembers the 70s?

Those of us who were actually around will probably remember the 70s as a time when a family could still enjoy a comfortable middle class existence on the father's income alone, when almost everything you bought still said "made in USA," when we still believed in a "we" society, (as opposed to a "me" society) and when we still believed in a "pay as you go" economy.

Then Red Ink Ron got in, and it's been a race to "Guilded Age 2.0" since then.

"During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[1] For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[2] Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
Thats a BAD thing

Arkie
06-19-2011, 09:45 PM
Politics is amusing. No one wanted to give Gbush sr any credit when Clintons economy took off. How come we only invoke the previous admin when things go bad? No doubt things are bad right now and much of it caused because Obama has done a poor job.

QFT. credit or blame doesn't all go to the pres anyway (or even government)

Taco John
06-19-2011, 09:46 PM
Does it count that I'm miserable that we're not talking about June minicamps right now?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-20-2011, 05:02 AM
"During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[1] For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[2] Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
Thats a BAD thing

That's some serious cherry picking you did there.

Mark Twain called the late nineteenth century the "Gilded Age." By this, he meant that the period was glittering on the surface but corrupt underneath.

The late nineteenth century was also a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. An an era of corruption, conspicuous consumption, and unfettered capitalism.

Sound familiar yet?

In any event, I notice you didn't dispute anything I said about the 70s.

alkemical
06-20-2011, 05:27 AM
Does it count that I'm miserable that we're not talking about June minicamps right now?

+100

Maybe this bodes well. IF the NFL starts up - maybe the apocalypse doesn't happen.

But if there's no football and people can focus more on the bull**** of what's going on...maybe that's the zombie rising.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-20-2011, 12:20 PM
That's some serious cherry picking you did there.

Mark Twain called the late nineteenth century the "Gilded Age." By this, he meant that the period was glittering on the surface but corrupt underneath.

The late nineteenth century was also a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. An an era of corruption, conspicuous consumption, and unfettered capitalism.

Sound familiar yet?

In any event, I notice you didn't dispute anything I said about the 70s.

Yes the quote is from Twain about money was corrupting. However, EVERYBODY that uses that quote were really people from "old money" who was worried people who had "New Money".

And actually their was a second guilded age. It was the 1920's. During that time people actually where able to buy telephones, and radio's. Things that had been around of for 30-40 years but where out of reach of the average American.

"The etymology of "radio" or "radiotelegraphy" reveals that it was called "wireless telegraphy", which was shortened to "wireless" in Britain. The prefix radio- in the sense of wireless transmission, was first recorded in the word radioconductor, a description provided by the French physicist Édouard Branly in 1897. It is based on the verb to radiate (in Latin "radius" means "spoke of a wheel, beam of light, ray"). This word also appears in a 1907 article by Lee De Forest, it was adopted by the United States Navy in 1912, and became common by the time of the first commercial broadcasts in the United States in the 1920s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/smiley20/image043.gif


"The number of local telephone conversations grew 46.8 percent between 1920 and 1930, while the number of long distance conversations grew 71.8 percent over the same period. There were 5 times as many long distance telephone calls as telegraph messages handled in 1920, and 5.7 times as many in 1930."

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final


But here is some you probably didn't know. Before there was the great depression of the 1930's, there was the 1920-1921 depression. However we got out of that depression because we cut taxes from a top marginal rate of 77% to 25% and cut government spending by 50%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_5bar.php?title=Total%20Expenditure,%20Total+G overnment&year=1918_1922&sname=United_States&units=m&stack=&size=s&col=&total=16770_23004_11328_10530_9297&source=i_i_i_i_a

http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/smiley20/image060.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-20-2011, 04:21 PM
^

Your citing the stats above is analogous to posting the earning statements from Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Halliburton, et al, to support the argument that 2001-2009 was a time of economic growth, prosperity, etc.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-20-2011, 05:18 PM
^

Your citing the stats above is analogous to posting the earning statements from Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Halliburton, et al, to support the argument that 2001-2009 was a time of economic growth, prosperity, etc.

Ok smart guy. What happened during 2000-2001?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-20-2011, 10:13 PM
Ok smart guy. What happened during 2000-2001?

Nothing you've posted so far addresses my original point about the 70s.

Inkana7
06-20-2011, 10:17 PM
Yeah the gilded age sucked for most people, not sure how you can say otherwise with a straight face. Unless you support sweatshops, corruption and monopolies.

broncocalijohn
06-20-2011, 10:31 PM
That's some serious cherry picking you did there.

Mark Twain called the late nineteenth century the "Gilded Age." By this, he meant that the period was glittering on the surface but corrupt underneath.

The late nineteenth century was also a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. An an era of corruption, conspicuous consumption, and unfettered capitalism.

Sound familiar yet?

In any event, I notice you didn't dispute anything I said about the 70s.

Buying a house at late 70s rate wasnt exactly great. Lst part was the Carter administration with high interest rates. You going to try to tell us how great that was? As for one income, it depends on where you lived. Most in my neighborhood had two incomes coming in. Add some horrible fashion and that shag carpet of yellow, a tad of red and light green and you can have the 70s. Just talking to my Dad yesterday at my Father's Day BBQ, I asked, "What was up with the orange chairs for our kitchen table?" Ugh!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-20-2011, 10:33 PM
Nothing you've posted so far addresses my original point about the 70s.

Love how you argue. Like every other lib in the world you make every simple thing on earth sound more complicated than it really is. Example, economy is complicated. Wrong. Its really simple DON'T SPEND MORE THAN YOU MAKE. I'll give you one. How do you win a war?

Inkana7
06-20-2011, 10:42 PM
Love how you argue. Like every other lib in the world you make every simple thing on earth sound more complicated than it really is. Example, economy is complicated. Wrong. Its really simple DON'T SPEND MORE THAN YOU MAKE. I'll give you one. How do you win a war?

Lulz @ thinking Economics is simple.

Que
06-20-2011, 11:56 PM
Love how you argue. Like every other lib in the world you make every simple thing on earth sound more complicated than it really is. Example, economy is complicated. Wrong. Its really simple DON'T SPEND MORE THAN YOU MAKE. I'll give you one. How do you win a war?

LOL. Wow, damn. Glad we got that all figured out. We can tell all those eggheads at Chicago and MIT to just chill cause you got this shizzle under control.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-21-2011, 02:19 AM
LOL. Wow, damn. Glad we got that all figured out. We can tell all those eggheads at Chicago and MIT to just chill cause you got this shizzle under control.

:rofl: :thumbs:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-21-2011, 02:21 AM
Buying a house at late 70s rate wasnt exactly great. Lst part was the Carter administration with high interest rates. You going to try to tell us how great that was? As for one income, it depends on where you lived. Most in my neighborhood had two incomes coming in. Add some horrible fashion and that shag carpet of yellow, a tad of red and light green and you can have the 70s. Just talking to my Dad yesterday at my Father's Day BBQ, I asked, "What was up with the orange chairs for our kitchen table?" Ugh!

Why are you trying to tell us about a decade you're too young to have more than a few childhood memories of?

Requiem
06-21-2011, 06:27 AM
Epic reaching Baja territory...

Or is it the other way around?

alkemical
06-21-2011, 06:33 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfxkw9UMaZCpR_KQJ2np1kZmVhysiC9 0U0T04vFVoyR_HO-xHkug

epicSocialism4tw
06-21-2011, 09:57 AM
Epic reaching Baja territory...

Or is it the other way around?

Requiem reaching Requiem territory.

Rigs11
06-21-2011, 10:12 AM
Love how you argue. Like every other lib in the world you make every simple thing on earth sound more complicated than it really is. Example, economy is complicated. Wrong. Its really simple DON'T SPEND MORE THAN YOU MAKE. I'll give you one. How do you win a war?

wow.thanks professor.Ha!you should stick to the video games.

broncocalijohn
06-21-2011, 02:55 PM
Why are you trying to tell us about a decade you're too young to have more than a few childhood memories of?

Well, I remember going out to the 2 cars and seeing if our license plate ends in odd or even to pick which day my parents can get gas, I remember my Mom discussing interest rates with my Dad since they invest and my Mom was a real estate agent. I also remember my Dad being mad at his Union for backing Carter in the presidential election even though he wanted to cut the B1 bomber......Carter won and Carter cut spending and then, surprise, my Dad was laid off later. I also remember my parents being euphoric when Carter lost the election to Reagan. Pretty amazing things you can remember as a kid when it affects you and your family.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-21-2011, 03:26 PM
I love all you guys criticizing me. But, oh wait, there is a common theme amongst all those post you mind numbed zombies have. I wonder what is it? Proof that Dems and Libs have a Hive mind.

broncocalijohn
06-21-2011, 04:17 PM
I love all you guys criticizing me. But, oh wait, there is a common theme amongst all those post you mind numbed zombies have. I wonder what is it? Proof that Dems and Libs have a Hive mind.

I think they are on you because it is way past Spend less than what you bring in. On a personal level, you are correct. But, borrowing money ie. home loan is essential for our country to continue to prosper. Borrowing to invest in yourself or company is another way of taking more currently than what you bring in.

Arkie
06-21-2011, 04:24 PM
People, chill the **** out. Obama's got this!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxXEHg5r-GzXxzt6maO5w6KJt_zIiIA9SBqE6ZAM1xt0p8ycrV&t=1

cutthemdown
06-21-2011, 05:42 PM
They just discovered there is a loophole in Obamas health care plan that will let middle class early retirees get free insurance. Not that I wouldnt like people to get free insurance but free for one means more expensive for someone else.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-21-2011, 06:36 PM
They just discovered there is a loophole in Obamas health care plan that will let middle class early retirees get free insurance. Not that I wouldnt like people to get free insurance but free for one means more expensive for someone else.

ITS NOT FREE!!!

Requiem
06-22-2011, 08:00 AM
Requiem reaching Requiem territory.

You're hooked on phonics, cool kids hooked on chronic, Sonic.

TonyR
06-22-2011, 09:01 AM
Good read from the WSJ:


The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending
Drastic expenditure cuts would imperil a shaky economy that still isn't generating enough jobs.
By ALAN S. BLINDER

It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who famously wrote that ideas, "both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else." Right now, I'm worried about the damage that might be done by one particularly wrong-headed idea: the notion that, in stark contrast to Keynes's teaching, government spending destroys jobs.

No, that's not a typo. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." Think about that for a minute. The claim is that employment actually declines when federal spending rises. Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.

Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "kill jobs"?

It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.

The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?

Read the rest here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-22-2011, 12:00 PM
Well, I remember going out to the 2 cars and seeing if our license plate ends in odd or even to pick which day my parents can get gas, I remember my Mom discussing interest rates with my Dad since they invest and my Mom was a real estate agent. I also remember my Dad being mad at his Union for backing Carter in the presidential election even though he wanted to cut the B1 bomber......Carter won and Carter cut spending and then, surprise, my Dad was laid off later. I also remember my parents being euphoric when Carter lost the election to Reagan. Pretty amazing things you can remember as a kid when it affects you and your family.

So your point is that you bought into the republican mythology at an early age?

Requiem
06-22-2011, 12:10 PM
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UaSynuLTusk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cutthemdown
06-22-2011, 12:20 PM
Sometimes its not that the govt didn't have to spend money. Obviously both sides will throw money into the economy to make jobs, stimulate growth. It's how much and where I think that the ideology comes into play. Obama did a lot of union paybacks IMO.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-22-2011, 09:15 PM
So your point is that you bought into the republican mythology at an early age?

Classic DemLib move. That all you got. Hahahhahahaahhahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahah haahahhahahahahahahahahah. BTW, LOL!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-22-2011, 09:33 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-Reserve-gloomier-on-cnnm-1918664097.html?x=0