Mindy wrote:
DeeDee88 wrote: Mindy wrote: DeeDee88 wrote: When i read your post...i always have to smile:) when bimbos say "facts are facts"...and then write to a graph
"Unemployment was going down durning the entirety of the Obama presidency."
sorry...this is like school for kids and bimbo logic!
the fact of this graph is only...that the unemployment went down since a peak in 2008! That is science!!!
that Obama had any effect on this...is scientifically NOT proven!
the main effect was the bank/house/credit crises in the USA and a bit later in many other countries between 2007 and 2009.
Obama started his job as president in 2009 (!)...after the peak of the crises!
besides this bank/house/credit crises we had of course many more different effects...
- for example cheap oil from Iraq (90% of their oil goes to US companies)
- general economic rebound in USA and worldwide
- a better position of power of the USA after the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and many other countries
- continous economic, military and political pressure on other countries and regions (which has a positiv effect on american/western markets)
- sanctions against other countries (to prevent that these countries can be part of global markets and the USA can sell their own products)
...and so i could go on...
hehe...ok....in some points Obama had really his hands in the game. for me this makes him a good leader who cares about his own people...but a bad person in an ethical way! but well....who said that people should be good:)
BTW... his statement: take the guns first, due process later is such an incredible display of ignorance that I did not, as I usually do when I read news from your benighted shores, snort derisively: I laughed out loud. Stupid Yanks!
But I do agree with Epica. You misread her statement.
Ad hominem? Facts is facts.
Who has claimed Obahma was the cause of the UI decreasing? It was stated it continually went down while he was in office. His administration returned it to where it was pre-crash. Someone tried claiming that "trump fixed it in a year" which really wasn't the case. The market was recovered and UI trends have continued the same trend they were on. That is not saying Trump has done nothing, but there was not a problem with UI when he came into office. To say BO had no effect on it is a lil silly though. Was he the sole reason? Of course not. Trump is doing good things to bring jobs home, but the previous administration had a bad market and did an overall good job bringing it back
You have to read the post correctly and all.
Even in the post i made a Quote of Pia's writing !!!
"Unemployment was going down durning the entirety of the Obama presidency."
And as you can read in my post...this is science for kids!!! That is simple propaganda logic. And all reasons for this i posted too!
I do not have to write it now again!
The problem of such writing is...that you implicate the fact the unemployment went down since a peak in 2008...Obama would be the reason.
And that is not true! The fact is....that the unemployment during Obama went down....because there was the peak before he came to White House in 2009!
A simple example for kids and Pia and you:
people like you say...unemployment went down in the years of Obama...ok
what would you say now....that this was only so....because Bush Jr. was responsible for this...because the peak was in his time in the White House!
And only because of this change during Bush Jr. was is possible to keep this curse further during Obama.
So...people like Pia could say now...actually it was Bush Jr. who is responsible for this went down of the unemployment during Obama's time.
Both is true....but from the scientific view nonsense...because you can read every study very subjectively!
And that is the problem of normal people like you....who do not understand how to read studies.
You have to be for a good scientists very logical...and you should always delete every subjective view on things!
Only when you understand...how it came to such graph, data, study and so on...you know the deeper science in it!
and now this all in short for cute bimbos:
"Unemployment was going down durning the entirety of the Obama presidency."
"Unemployment was going down durning the entirety of the Obama presidency...because Bush Junior was the reason for this in 2008!"
both on itself you could say...correct.
but it is simple stupid propaganda trash talk:)
Democrats would use the first sentence...
Republicans the second:)
another simple example:)
"Unemployment was going down during the entirety of the Trump presidency."
that is totally correct (so far!)! We do have the data and the proves!!!
but it is nonsense:) because so far Trump had no effect on this!
he is just too short the president....and the worldwide economy is pretty good these days!
"The problem of such writing is...that you implicate the fact the unemployment went down since a peak in 2008...Obama would be the reason."
Umm...no...someone else may have...I never once indicated that. My entire reply, if you care to backtrack and read, was in reply to 'Trump fixed UI in one year' which simply is not true. It hovered around 4.5 right before the market crashed (due largely to lack of red tape) and when BO left office it had regressed to about 4.6. It is now 4.1...which is great and a sign of Trump bringing some good jobs home (I have never disputed that and stated I like a lot of what he is doing). He did not "fix" it though, because it was already repaired. Some people like to think that it was 8 or 10% when he took office...it wasn't...that is not a knock, that is reality.
Who cares about bailouts? Any government was going to do that in some fashion. Of course they stemmed the bleeding.
Pure economics wise my big concern with Trump is that he cuts a lot of red tape. That is great for getting the ball rolling and helping the economy grow, but it also brings a lot of risk. I get that red tape is painful...I deal with it all the time. Right now I am in a bi battle on 802.11 protocols with multiple levels of government...it is painful, but that red tape is there for a reason. Could it all be more efficient? Absolutely. fannie and freddie failed hard...others followed. But why did they fail? The government (likely bought and paid for as so many are) pushed private-label securities and made changes that allowed firms to carry a very high level of risk debt. In other words, red tape was cut to allow private companies to buy up higher risk debt...interest rates were very low (below prime actually) so the higher risk debt portfolios allowed them to back ones that were at higher rates...the restrictions on the ratio one could do this was very high. Those high risk ones where why Stearns and Lehman got big so fast...they were collecting on higher interest and really not building the base. Fannie and Freddie eventually caved and started doing the same because they were missing out on the housing boom that was created by companies that now had little red tape and were permitted to have huge ratios of these in their portfolios. Fannie and Freddie watched these private labels grow for 5 years and dig into their bottom line, to the point they were showing losses. in 2007 they joined the game and battled the private labels. That is what both sides really stepped it up and took on ridiculous risk...no red tape. In under a year these risks started coming back on everyone and it snowballed.
Point of all that...who cares who made the inevitable bailout. The concern was why it ever got there, and that was because the government (Bush's administration) cut away too much bureaucracy / red tape. Trump wants less red tape. Substantially less. That is heart in right place, but probably not the best results long-term. Yes...it slows economic growth...but sometimes safeguards are worth something moving slower.
The cause was not the housing crisis...the cause was regulations (red tape) being removed. The bubble was a result of that. The crash was a result of the bubbl bursting.
As far as Trump having no effect on the UI going down...I do disagree. He has persuaded multiple companies not to leave the country and some to return...and he was very hands on with that. I agree he doesn't own the numbers...but he is a pretty big part of it.
I get a kick out of people that say "Trump is bad and can do no good" just as I get a kick out of people that say "Trump is the Saviour". Same can be said for essentially any leader. Reality is that they generally sit on the middle ground somewhere. They do some great things as well as things that suck
the fact of this graph is only...that the unemployment went down since a peak in 2008! That is science!!!
that Obama had any effect on this...is scientifically NOT proven!
Really? NO effect? NONE? Cmon'...this is beyond a silly statement. So YES...."read correctly." I responded, largely, to 2 specific things you stated. the above, and the quote I started this post with.
"Who has claimed Obahma was the cause of the UI decreasing?"
These were your own words...and i gave you a simple answer. well...of course the anwser was a bit complicated and included some simple characteristics of propaganda, bad journalism or bad science!
The main problem of all this new Trump hating and Obama (or even Hillary) loving is...that people, journalists, talk shows are subjective!
Like i wrote in my post about Hillary...1 week of some little cute "investigation"...the FBI said "all is ok"....of course journalist wrote (80% of all in the USA are democratic...especially big newspapers (east and west cost) and TV channels)...Hillary is free and unguilty and our mother USA.
On the other side....the same journalists, newspapers, TV Channels search and write over 2 years about some "influence of Russia in elections" and Trump is an evil traitor or something like that. 2 Years...without any prove!!! that is fact so far...and that is just a big joke!
A normal scientist and thinker would now
laugh and say....well...there is really something wrong and
subjective:)
Of course not all people are scientists and thinkers:) and that is totally ok:)
Propaganda and journalism or political talk shows in TV are not for those....they are for the normal worker who has no time to think about such things.
"
the fact of this graph is only...that the unemployment went down since a peak in 2008! That is science!!!
that Obama had any effect on this...is scientifically NOT proven!
Really?
NO effect? NONE? Cmon'...this is beyond a silly statement. So
YES...."read correctly." I responded, largely, to 2 specific things you
stated. the above, and the quote I started this post with.
"
Well...yes. all economics and scientists in university and research institute know this.....so it is pretty fact:)
There is non any sign that Obama is responsible for this. And in my post i wrote you about this.
The only 1 big thing he made in his presidency....was the
Health Insurance !
Please...god please....you can't be such stupid TV bimbo....and tell me now...this
Health Insurance has anything to to with the
increase of the unemployment!
Even an Hillary and Obala lover can't be so silly and show his stupidity so open here:)
So...when you show me any scientifical prove, that Obama made some big invention and is responsible for the increase of the unemployment...well...show me:)
if not...then your "Really?
NO effect? NONE? Cmon'...this is beyond a silly statement. So
YES...."read correctly."" is just lame trash talk:)
Say something...prove it!
show me that Obama had any effect on this:)
if not not...i could write and show you something silly too...from my old post
"Unemployment was going down during the entirety of the Trump presidency."
that is totally
correct (so far!)! We do have the data and the proves!!!
but it is
nonsense:) because so far Trump had no effect on this!
he is just too short the president....and the worldwide economy is pretty good these days!
You see. When some people talk about unemployment....some praise Obama...
and now hate Trump that he is doing the same?!
That is a joke:)
and here some info for real bimbos and Mindy or Pia:) (some info from Wikipedia)
In
mathematics, a
function[1] is a
relation between a
set
of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each
input is related to exactly one output. An example is the function that
relates each
real number x to its square
x2. The output of a function
f corresponding to an input
x is denoted by
f(
x) (read "
f of
x"). In this example, if the input is −3, then the output is 9, and we may write
f(−3) = 9. Likewise, if the input is 3, then the output is also 9, and we may write
f(3) = 9. (The same output may be produced by more than one input, but each input gives only one output.) The input
variable(s) are sometimes referred to as the argument(s) of the function.
A Graph is a Function...and that Obama has anything to do with math now....well...hui hui hui...then we have to find maybe a new scitific field....
Mindymath :)
16.03.2018 06:49:01
