[Simulcast]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

Is this supposed to be a good thing? Isn't it sad that they are better off than so many people, yet they still feel such hopelessness, such frustration with their situation? Or maybe they could just be a bunch of pussies, but I don't think so.

I agree. It's sad.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

Is this supposed to be a good thing? Isn't it sad that they are better off than so many people, yet they still feel such hopelessness, such frustration with their situation? Or maybe they could just be a bunch of pussies, but I don't think so.

I wouldn't say hopelessness, but it's definitely frustrating, especially since I'm not a pussy about stuff like shitty jobs and public transportation. As a matter of fact, I worked in the back of a shitty pizzeria for more than a year until they finally shut down due to lack of business, leading to my current situation.

The only point I was trying to make is that sometimes the circumstances are larger than a person's means. If I was in Orlando or Jacksonville, this would be a non-issue. I'm living in a retirement city, however, and it makes moving up and out extremely difficult, and most definitely frustrating.

I know the same can be said for many others.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by BEERfortheBEAR

I wouldn't say hopelessness, but it's definitely frustrating, especially since I'm not a pussy about stuff like shitty jobs and public transportation. As a matter of fact, I worked in the back of a shitty pizzeria for more than a year until they finally shut down due to lack of business, leading to my current situation.

The only point I was trying to make is that sometimes the circumstances are larger than a person's means. If I was in Orlando or Jacksonville, this would be a non-issue. I'm living in a retirement city, however, and it makes moving up and out extremely difficult, and most definitely frustrating.

I know the same can be said for many others.

Exactly. Of course.

[Jason Tate]

I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I had it right:

During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases "Wall Street" and "shadow banking" and the words "interconnection" and "deregulation" from the panel's final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.

Whose interests are even served by this? The financial regulation bill has already passed. The country is aware that Wall Street had something to do with the financial crisis. Even Wall Street is aware that Wall Street had something to do with the financial crisis.

[Zeran]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I had it right:

During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases "Wall Street" and "shadow banking" and the words "interconnection" and "deregulation" from the panel's final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.

Whose interests are even served by this? The financial regulation bill has already passed. The country is aware that Wall Street had something to do with the financial crisis. Even Wall Street is aware that Wall Street had something to do with the financial crisis.

krugman wrote about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=home page

[evvandflow]

can anyone please recc me some good finance/investment blogs that are frequently updated? thanks in advance.

[Jason Tate]

States with no income tax and light regulations have growing economies while the rest of the US suffers: http://bit.ly/enGxOc.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

States with no income tax and light regulations have growing economies while the rest of the US suffers: http://bit.ly/enGxOc.

I don't know how strong of a case the author can make by using population growth as an indicator of economic growth. Although it seems intuitive that augmenting the size of the labor force leads to economic growth, several studies have failed to find a correlation between population growth and economic growth in terms of per capita GDP. I'm surprised the author didn't use a more precise measurement of economic growth, especially since the data are freely available.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by macabre

I don't know how strong of a case the author can make by using population growth as an indicator of economic growth. Although it seems intuitive that augmenting the size of the labor force leads to economic growth, several studies have failed to find a correlation between population growth and economic growth in terms of per capita GDP. I'm surprised the author didn't use a more precise measurement of economic growth, especially since the data are freely available.

Growing economies.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Growing economies.

Growing economies is one interpretation. However, why use such an imprecise measure when per capita GDP data are available for every state? It seems to me like the author is using the data in his own favor. I'll see if anyone has looked into it by using more traditional measures.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by macabre

Growing economies is one interpretation. However, why use such an imprecise measure when per capita GDP data are available for every state? It seems to me like the author is using the data in his own favor. I'll see if anyone has looked into it by using more traditional measures.

I think you missed the point, he's using the term: growing economies as population growth.

It's a census analysis.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

I think you missed the point, he's using the term: growing economies as population growth.

It's a census analysis.

He's measuring a growing economy in terms of population growth, there is no reference to per capita GDP or any other traditional measure of economic growth in his article. The author cannot claim that lower tax rates and regulation have led to growing economies because that's not what he is measuring, he is measuring population growth. In order for him to make that argument, he would have to specify a link between population growth and economic growth, a link that does not exist in the literature. Therefore, the analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt until a more precise analysis is conducted.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by macabre

He's measuring a growing economy in terms of population growth, there is no reference to per capita GDP or any other traditional measure of economic growth in his article. The author cannot claim that lower tax rates and regulation have led to growing economies because that's not what he is measuring, he is measuring population growth. In order for him to make that argument, he would have to specify a link between population growth and economic growth, a link that does not exist in the literature. Therefore, the analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt until a more precise analysis is conducted.

You're misconstruing growing economies to mean economic growth.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

You're misconstruing growing economies to mean economic growth.

A growing economy is, by definition, currently experiencing economic growth. You can measure this growth in a time span of days, weeks, years, and so on by using an indicator such as per capita GDP. Why settle for an uncorrelated measure of economic growth when more precise measures are available?

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by macabre

A growing economy is, by definition, currently experiencing economic growth. You can measure this growth in a time span of days, weeks, years, and so on by using an indicator such as per capita GDP. Why settle for an uncorrelated measure of economic growth when more precise measures are available?

Not when it's qualified as it is in the article. Did you even read it?