The "Beveridge Curve" predicts unemployment to recover by 2014.

[Direckshun]

I've never heard of the Beveridge Curve before, but here:



You can read about it more here, by Timothy Taylor.

Taylor writes that the Curve offers several insights to the current scenario:

• Job openings are increasing, but the unemployment rate is not.
• There are threey key reasons for this: "a mismatch between the skills of unemployed workers and the available jobs; incentives from extended unemployment insurance that have slowed the incentive to take available jobs; and heightened uncertainty over the future course of the economy and economic policy"
• These three factors have a historical tendency of correcting themselves over time.
• By early 2014, the curve will have righted itself, and unemployment will drop like a rock.

Well, here's hoping.

[AustinChief]

I'm gonna go ahead and post this again.. just to be clear...

Originally Posted by KC native

Generally when there is a conversation and you are discussing something the context is important. I guess your need to be a know it all jack ass is so strong that now you're falling back on this.

Here we go! You sir, are a lying douche bag. Let's take a look at the evidence. (To be fair you may not be a liar, you could just be INCREDIBLY stupid)

Originally Posted by KC native

The future is by definition uncertain. When are you guys going to let this canard die?

Businesses always have to guess. THE FUTURE IS BY DEFINITION UNCERTAIN.

Uncertainty is always present. Will an enterprise have sufficient revenues, are they entering in a good market, do they have a viable business model (cough groupon cough), etc. All of those decisions involve uncertainty. Uncertainty is key to capitalism.

Originally Posted by Austinchief

Economic Policy Uncertainty." EPU (my new short form!) is NEVER good for the economy. Economists will pretty much agree on this 99.9%

Now here comes the kicker...

Originally Posted by Austinchief

Gotcha. So my points are
1)Economic Policy Uncertainty is bad for the economy
2)Obama caused a great deal of this with various changes like Obamacare

You disagree on one or both? I just want us to be clear before we continue.

Originally Posted by KC native

Both.

Originally Posted by Austinchief

Just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

KC native, you are saying that...

Economic Policy Uncertainty has no ill effect on the economy
AND
Obama's policies haven't increased uncertainty any more so then it would be under other recent presidents

Originally Posted by KC native

Yes.

Also, the really isn't any economic policy uncertainty.

AT this point I proceed to show paper after paper that proves that it is an accepted principle that uncertainty limits growth.

KCNative comes back with...

Originally Posted by KC native

JFC I never said uncertainty never limits growth.

and his argument is "context"... HOW IN THE WORLD could one not see WHEN I SPLIT IT OUT INTO TWO STATEMENTS.. what I was saying?

OK, so KCNative, what did you THINK I meant by statement #1? I clearly didn't mean economic uncertainty caused by Obama... otherwise why would I make that statement #2. Did ANYONE else here misunderstand the purpose of breaking it out into two statements and presenting it TWICE to be absolutely clear?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's countless examples of this during the Obama administration. I think we can agree the Republican Party has moved severely to the right since January, 2009.

The debt ceiling debacle of 2011 is the perfect example of what I am referring to.

Yes we can agree to that, which, I'm sure we would argue is a good thing or not.

I'd also argue that increased regulations, Obamacare, and a crazy energy policy, and countless other examples has/had more impact to uncertainty.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Yes we can agree to that, which, I'm sure we would argue is a good thing or not.

I'd also argue that increased regulations, Obamacare, and a crazy energy policy, and countless other examples has/had more impact to uncertainty.

All those things, from the regs, to the health reform, to the energy policy, has all either originated from Republican ideas or are to the right of what Clinton pursued.

So, yeah. Since there was all that uncertainty in the Clinton era...

[AustinChief]

Now to address KCNative's assertion that I simply don't understand the paper I quoted... (regarding the index of Economic Policy Uncertainty)

How about John Taylor? (renowned economics professor at Stanford) Does he ALSO not understand it? Because he often cites that same paper to claim that Obama's policies increase uncertainty and therefore limit growth.

but let's not forget, KCNative knows better then all of these economists.

[AustinChief]

Direckshun... you still think I should "just stop" ?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Direckshun... you still think I should "just stop" ?

You're still screaming quite a bit.

But it's a free country.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're still screaming quite a bit.

But it's a free country.

I'm sitting here typing calmly between compiles of the software I am working on. Your idea of screaming is an odd one.

Now, please address what I said instead of critiquing my posting style. Or was your "just stop" not related to the debate by my posting style in this thread? If so, fair enough. But you can see how I have dominated the first point.. the only point I have substantially addressed so far.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I'm sitting here typing calmly between compiles of the software I am working on. Your idea of screaming is an odd one.

C'mon, man. You live on the internet. We both do.

You can't tell me you have no idea where Direckshun gets the idea that you're getting all huffy.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Now, please address what I said instead of critiquing my posting style. Or was your "just stop" not related to the debate by my posting style in this thread? If so, fair enough. But you can see how I have dominated the first point.. the only point I have substantially addressed so far.

I was referring to your posting style more than your arguments -- my apologies for not being clear about that. That's on me.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Now to address KCNative's assertion that I simply don't understand the paper I quoted... (regarding the index of Economic Policy Uncertainty)

How about John Taylor? (renowned economics professor at Stanford) Does he ALSO not understand it? Because he often cites that same paper to claim that Obama's policies increase uncertainty and therefore limit growth.

but let's not forget, KCNative knows better then all of these economists.

You are ****ing douchebag blowhard.

The 4th paper you cited doesn't even have any implications for forward looking growth. They created an INDEX based on news searches, forecasts, and stock market price action. They made the index to try to measure uncertainty. It fails horribly as it has a 1 year out forecast as a main variable. Forecasting is a folly. NO ONE IS GOOD AT IT. A model built on that is severely flawed.

Your "gotcha" paper has several variables in it which have nothing to do with that country's economic policies. Exchange rates and two examples that have nothing to do with a country's economic policies.

You have completely and totally shown your ass on this. Stick with IT. Finance is a weak point for you.

Also, I find it funny how you like to challenge authorities sayings on this (like global warming), but economists have become infallible.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I'm gonna go ahead and post this again.. just to be clear...
Here we go! You sir, are a lying douche bag. Let's take a look at the evidence. (To be fair you may not be a liar, you could just be INCREDIBLY stupid)

Now here comes the kicker...

AT this point I proceed to show paper after paper that proves that it is an accepted principle that uncertainty limits growth.

KCNative comes back with...

and his argument is "context"... HOW IN THE WORLD could one not see WHEN I SPLIT IT OUT INTO TWO STATEMENTS.. what I was saying?

OK, so KCNative, what did you THINK I meant by statement #1? I clearly didn't mean economic uncertainty caused by Obama... otherwise why would I make that statement #2. Did ANYONE else here misunderstand the purpose of breaking it out into two statements and presenting it TWICE to be absolutely clear?

Yup, relying on this Too bad I'm not a mod so I could go back and **** with someone's posts that call me a liar.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I'm sitting here typing calmly between compiles of the software I am working on. Your idea of screaming is an odd one.

Now, please address what I said instead of critiquing my posting style. Or was your "just stop" not related to the debate by my posting style in this thread? If so, fair enough. But you can see how I have dominated the first point.. the only point I have substantially addressed so far.

It's hard to dominate a point if you've posted evidence which doesn't even remotely say what you think it does.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by KC native

You are ****ing douchebag blowhard.

The 3rd paper you cited doesn't even have any implications for forward looking growth. They created an INDEX based on news searches, forecasts, and stock market price action. They made the index to try to measure uncertainty. It fails horribly as it has a 1 year out forecast as a main variable. Forecasting is a folly. NO ONE IS GOOD AT IT. A model built on that is severely flawed.

Your "gotcha" paper has several variables in it which have nothing to do with that country's economic policies. Exchange rates and two examples that have nothing to do with a country's economic policies.

You have completely and totally shown your ass on this. Stick with IT. Finance is a weak point for you.

Also, I find it funny how you like to challenge authorities sayings on this (like global warming), but economists have become infallible.

Also, in your 3rd paper, read about all the manipulations they had to do to fit the data to what they expected the index should look like. They practically designed the regression to spike in 2009. You'd have to read it and understand it to know that though.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

You are ****ing douchebag blowhard.

The 3rd paper you cited doesn't even have any implications for forward looking growth. They created an INDEX based on news searches, forecasts, and stock market price action. They made the index to try to measure uncertainty. It fails horribly as it has a 1 year out forecast as a main variable. Forecasting is a folly. NO ONE IS GOOD AT IT. A model built on that is severely flawed.

Your "gotcha" paper has several variables in it which have nothing to do with that country's economic policies. Exchange rates and two examples that have nothing to do with a country's economic policies.

You have completely and totally shown your ass on this. Stick with IT. Finance is a weak point for you.

Also, I find it funny how you like to challenge authorities sayings on this (like global warming), but economists have become infallible.

So John Taylor should find another line of work as well? Who exactly is the blowhard? You have yet to show an ounce of proof instead you rely on the "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT" argument yet fail to prove anything close to that.

I ask again, does renowned economist John Taylor "not understand" that paper as well?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

Yup, relying on this Too bad I'm not a mod so I could go back and **** with someone's posts that call me a liar.

Are you claiming I modified any of these posts???? Or is that a lame reference to Orange?

This is WORD FOR WORD what you and I posted and it's pretty damn clear you were WRONG and now you're trying to weasel out of it.

[AustinChief]

So let's be absolutely CLEAR.

KCNative, you are NOW claiming that you never said or meant to say that uncertainty limits growth even though you very clearly said EXACTLY that. You instead are claiming what exactly? Because I have yet to argue point #2 about Obama's policies... all of these papers are simply there to establish the principle that uncertainty limits growth. THAT IS IT. Please explain to me why they don't. I think the disconnect here is that your reading comprehension and probable overall intelligence is keeping you from seeing the line of debate I have clearly laid out.

ALL this has been about up to now is establishing that uncertainty limits growth or is "bad". All of the papers cited either show that or show that the concept is a well accepted principle.

NOW, explain to me how I am misunderstanding these papers when that is my entire intent in posting them.

I have not at any point since breaking out the debate in to two clear concepts (#1 uncertainty limit growth and #2 Obama's policies have added to uncertainty) addressed point #2. This has all been a refutation of your inane assertion that uncertainty doesn't limit growth. So again I ask, how do these papers not help establish that fact? Please remember, I am not citing these papers as evidence to point #2 that I have yet to discuss at all.

Do I need to dumb it down any further for you?