The economy grew 2.9% in the 3rd quarter

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Manquoteasser...

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264...iel-greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.

But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.

The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.

Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.

Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.

“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.

Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.

The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.

In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.

The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.

This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.

Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.

Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.

It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.

This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.

Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.

The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.

This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.

It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.

The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.

At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.

CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.

The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.

Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.

Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.

And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.

+1

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Revenant

So, THAT is what you are hanging your hat on? My use of the colloquialism "financial meltdown" is what you are basing your "argument" on?

No, dumbshit. My argument is about WHEN, not WHAT. Did you forget you dated everything in 2007?


Tell me, Stalker Lad, - since you think of yourself as some kind of economist - what is the definition of "financial meltdown"?

Why ask ME? You've experienced plenty of meltdowns. You picked the term. Now you want to apply it to the financial system. Surely you must have a definition in mind.


I mean, a "recession" is a (sic) objectively defined term in economics (typically 2 successive quarters of negative GDP). But what is the agreed-upon meaning of "financial meltdown"? I want a citation to an authority, NOT your self-serving bullshit.

Wow. You suck at paying attention, don't you? If a recession is defined as “2 successive quarters of negative GDP” then it looks like the Great Recession didn't start until mid-2008. Are you changing your dates again? Geez, I even posted the quarter-by-quarter data for you 3 times (see post #52) and you still don't know how to interpret it all.

Sorry, the definition of recession isn't 100% objective. The statisticians and economists at the NBER can weigh other data besides quarterly GDP. And they usually don't make their official “look-back” determination until long after the recession has started. Indeed, they didn't proclaim we were in the Great Recession until December 2008 – a year after it began.


Strangely enough, a Google search reveals nothing for "financial meltdown". And Google has a definition for practically everything.

So you used a term you don't understand, you googled it unsuccessfully, and you still want us to believe you know what you're talking about?


The housing market bubble burst in 2006. By the end of 2007, financial losses were already crushing the big banks. They had $4.1 trillion in debt. All those CDOs were coming home to roost.

You say losses were “crushing” the banks in 2007? Do you mean the banks were “tanking”? Did their earnings plummet? Crater? Nosedive? What are you, a drama queen?

There's at least one teeny weeny problem with your timeline, Rev-an-anus... if the banks were already being “crushed” in late 2007, why did Hank Paulsen and Ben Bernanke wait until October 2008 – a full year later – to ask Congress for TARP bailout funds? And you say the “big banks” had $4.1 trillion in debt? Oh, my! That sounds terrifying... unless they had more than that in maturity-matched, performing assets. Have you ever looked at a bank's balance sheet?


Bear Stearns was defunct by March 2008 - not the end of 2008. By September 2008, Lehman declared bankruptcy and Merrill was sold for pennies on the dollar. Do you think that Lehman and Merrill were not already in deep crisis by then?

Bear Stearns was acquired by J.P. Morgan Bank and never closed its doors. BofA paid $50 billion for Merrill Lynch – not exactly “pennies on the dollar”. If you're truly curious to understand the roots of the 2008/09 financial crisis (note correct dates), read up on “mark to market accounting”. Banks were forced by accounting rules to write down billions in the value of securities they held, even though there was no longer a liquid market to provide reliable, non-distressed prices. Suspension of the MTM rules in 2009 was a key factor in damping down the financial panic.


You have a subjective opinion about what constitutes a "financial meltdown".

Define it your way - then explain how/why it happened in 2007 and NOT in 2008/09.


If not, then why are you quoting the DJIA? What does that have to do with either the recession or the bank problems?

Plenty. The Dow is a barometer of economic sickness or health. Only a fool would argue otherwise. I'll try to keep it simple for you. Bank problems = tight credit = recession = weaker corporate earnings = lower stock prices. Get it now?


What difference does it make if the DJIA was at its high in the Q4 of 2007? The DJIA does NOT always align with the economy.

It's an excellent barometer. You're the only person in denial. During the Great Recession, the Dow aligned quite well with the economy. It peaked 3 months before the recession started and bottomed out 3 months before it ended. Moreover, the most dramatic plunges in the DJIA occurred during Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 - precisely when the economy was in free-fall. No surprises there.


It is undisputed that the Great Recession went from December 2007 to about July 2009. Do you contest the start date because the DJIA was still high?

No, dumbfuck... see my last paragraph.


You have NO objective arguments to make - just your own hyperbole (cratering!) that is supposed to substitute for an argument.

Au contraire, Rev-an-anus. My arguments are entirely supported by empirical data – quarterly GDP changes, the DJIA, etc. Your arguments - such as they are - are backed by thin air and stubbornness.


You jumped into the thread to try to play the part of the intellectual and you stuck your foot in your mouth. All the rest of what you are trying to do is face saving. It isn't working.

I'm no intellectual. I just happen to know more about economics than you do. Don't let it bother you. You obviously know more than I do about trannies. You also know more about how to file class action lawsuits and apply tort doctrine to leech off the productive sectors of society. No one can take that away from you, Rev-an-anus.

[Revenant]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm no intellectual. I just happen to know more about economics than you do. Don't let it bother you. You obviously know more than I do about trannies. You also know more about how to file class action lawsuits and apply tort doctrine to leech off the productive sectors of society. No one can take that away from you, Rev-an-anus.

Keep trying. You not only can't define "financial meltdown" which is what your are claiming to know the dates of, but you are also trying to pretend there is not objective meaning to "recession". Funny, but economists (real ones) DO seem to know what it is.

And you also know nothing about me, Stalker Lad. I've never filed a class action lawsuit in my life and do not apply tort doctrine to leech off anything. Keep trying.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Revenant

Keep trying. You not only can't define "financial meltdown" which is what your are claiming to know the dates of, but you are also trying to pretend there is not objective meaning to "recession". Funny, but economists (real ones) DO seem to know what it is.

And you also know nothing about me, Stalker Lad. I've never filed a class action lawsuit in my life and do not apply tort doctrine to leech off anything. Keep trying.

He called you ""Rev-an-anus"" LMAO!!!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Revenant

Keep trying. You not only can't define "financial meltdown" which is what your are claiming to know the dates of, but you are also trying to pretend there is not objective meaning to "recession". Funny, but economists (real ones) DO seem to know what it is.

Why would you use the term “financial meltdown” in the first place if you need to ask others what it means? I never said I can't define it. You're the one who is failing and flailing in all elements of your so-called argument... and you want ME to toss you a lifeline? Pathetic!

Your reading comprehension is also failing (again). I never said the definition of recession is not objective... I said it isn't “100% objective” - or tied to a rigid rule such as "2 successive quarters of negative GDP" as you put it. I know nuances and percentages are lost on you, but here is how the NBER explains it. Turn up your comprehension dial and try to learn something for a change:


Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html


Again, if you want to take issue with the NBER's explanation and cling to a strict and 100% objective two-quarter definition, then you'll have to move your Great Recession starting point to July 2008 instead of December 2007. Try to make up your mind, mope.

Originally Posted by Revenant

And you also know nothing about me, Stalker Lad. I've never filed a class action lawsuit in my life and do not apply tort doctrine to leech off anything. Keep trying.

Ok, so you're not a tort lawyer. I take that part back. Thanks for confirming the tranny lover part!

[Revenant]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why would you use the term “financial meltdown” in the first place if you need to ask others what it means? I never said I can't define it. You're the one who is failing and flailing in all elements of your so-called argument... and you want ME to toss you a lifeline? Pathetic!

Keep trying, putz. I used "financial meltdown" as a colloquialism. I never said it had a particular definition. My point was only that the Great Recession began at the end of 2007. It was YOU, not ME, who made it a point to state when the "financial meltdown" occurred. So, apparently you think you can define it, otherwise why were you trying correct me? Everything in this thread since then has been YOU flailing about trying to make the end of 2008 some kind of provable date for the recession so you can appear to be correct. But you can't. You should have kept your mouth shut

Your reading comprehension is also failing (again). I never said the definition of recession is not objective... I said it isn't “100% objective” - or tied to a rigid rule such as "2 successive quarters of negative GDP" as you put it. I know nuances and percentages are lost on you, but here is how the NBER explains it. Turn up your comprehension dial and try to learn something for a change:

See above.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

Again, if you want to take issue with the NBER's explanation and cling to a strict and 100% objective two-quarter definition, then you'll have to move your Great Recession starting point to July 2008 instead of December 2007. Try to make up your mind, mope.

The very same NBER in the article I originally cited said that the Great Recession began in December 2009 and went to mid-2009. It is YOU that needs to make up your mind.

Ok, so you're not a tort lawyer. I take that part back. Thanks for confirming the tranny lover part!

The tranny lover would be your butt buddy, IBHankertwat.

Is that the best you can do? Repeat my insult against the Confederate fag?

It was bad enough that you were copying "mope". Can't you come up with original, Stalker Lad?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why would you use the term “financial meltdown” in the first place if you need to ask others what it means? I never said I can't define it. You're the one who is failing and flailing in all elements of your so-called argument... and you want ME to toss you a lifeline? Pathetic!

Keep trying, putz. I used "financial meltdown" as a colloquialism. I never said it had a particular definition. My point was only that the Great Recession began at the end of 2007.

Liar. You started it all by referring to the “2007 financial meltdown”. That means it occurred entirely in 2007. Now you claim it merely “began at the end of 2007”. If you want to walk back your original post, then own up to it like a man. Admit you fucked up and MEANT to say the “2007-08-09 financial meltdown”.


It was YOU, not ME, who made it a point to state when the "financial meltdown" occurred.

There you go, lying again. You clearly dated it as the “2007 financial meltdown”. If you had left the date out, I would not have corrected you.


So, apparently you think you can define it, otherwise why were you trying correct me?

Are you stupid, deaf, or both? Go back to the top of this post. See where it says “I never said I can't define it”? The burden is on you, mope, so stop trying to deflect it. If your definition of “financial meltdown” fits like a glove with the history of 2007 - but not with the events of 2008-09 - then go with it!


Everything in this thread since then has been YOU flailing about trying to make the end of 2008 some kind of provable date for the recession so you can appear to be correct. But you can't. You should have kept your mouth shut.

No one is flailing except you. My original post said the economy “started to tank two months before the (2008) election”. Then I proved it to you by trotting out the real GDP data. Not once, not twice, but three times. Most intelligent people know the gig is up when someone's argument is demonstrably backed up by empirical data. But not rev-an-anus. You would rather be a mule-headed, argumentative asshole and refuse to concede anything - even when it's obvious and irrefutable to everyone else. Wanna look at the GDP data for the FOURTH time, mope?

Q1 2008: -2.7%
Q2 2008: +2.0%
Q3 2008: -1.9%
Q4 2008: -8.2%
Q1 2009: -5.4%
Q2 2009: -0.5%
Q3 2009: +1.3%


Your reading comprehension is also failing (again). I never said the definition of recession is not objective... I said it isn't “100% objective” - or tied to a rigid rule such as "2 successive quarters of negative GDP" as you put it. I know nuances and percentages are lost on you, but here is how the NBER explains it. Turn up your comprehension dial and try to learn something for a change:

See above.

Nothing you said "above" tells anyone you have a clue how recessions are defined.


Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

Again, if you want to take issue with the NBER's explanation and cling to a strict and 100% objective two-quarter definition, then you'll have to move your Great Recession starting point to July 2008 instead of December 2007. Try to make up your mind, mope.

The very same NBER in the article I originally cited said that the Great Recession began in December 2009 and went to mid-2009. It is YOU that needs to make up your mind.

Wow. Now you're completely flummoxed, aintcha? First, you said the recession started in December 2007. Then you switched to the two-quarter definition which means it started in July 2008. Now you want to go with December 2009? Really? So it ended six months BEFORE it even began? How does that work, rev-an-anus? Was it some kind of retroactive, back-slogging, time-warp recession? Ok, I've made up my mind. You're much stupider than I originally thought!

Keep digging, mope.

[Revenant]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Keep digging, mope.

You can twist words all you like, mope. But I said at the start that the Great Recession went from Dec. 2007 to mid July 2009. And I quoted the NBER. That is good enough of a source for me and just about everyone else for the timeline - your bullshit not-withstanding.

The expression "financial meltdown of 2007" doesn't contradict that and it does NOT mean it lasted all of 2007. That's just MORE of your BS.

You popped of like some kind of faux expert with your "end of 2008" date for the financial meltdown (again a colloquialism, not an objective term). All because you wanted to look smart, which you're not.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Revenant

You can twist words all you like, mope. But I said at the start that the Great Recession went from Dec. 2007 to mid July 2009. And I quoted the NBER. That is good enough of a source for me and just about everyone else for the timeline - your bullshit not-withstanding.

You're a fucking basket case! All you do is flee to the same strawman argument, thinking it will save you and let you duck my comments and questions and data. I already replied to this 4 times. How is it each time my reply goes in one ear and out the other with you? Is there nothing between your ears to process the same information 4 times and recognize you heard it before?

You're a fucking basket case. Get help!

Originally Posted by lustylad

I am not challenging the NBER's official determination of when the Great Recession started and ended.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Straw man, you mope. I already told you I don't challenge the NBER (that's the National Bureau of Economic Research) on when the 2008/09 recession officially started and ended.

Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't challenge you OR the NBER on when the recession began...

Originally Posted by lustylad

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not talking about when it began...

Next?

Originally Posted by Revenant

The expression "financial meltdown of 2007" doesn't contradict that and it does NOT mean it lasted all of 2007. That's just MORE of your BS.

Once again, you miss (or duck) the point. Dating something as "2007" means it didn't happen in 2008 or 2009. Only an ignorant, fact-challenged moron is incapable of acknowledging that the financial meltdown and the accompanying economic recession were most acute in 2008-09.


And then there is this rich little gem:

Originally Posted by Revenant

You popped of (sic) like some kind of faux expert... All because you wanted to look smart, which you're not.

You're right, asshole... I should have repeated the same strawman argument over and over again 5 times, after being repeatedly told it wasn't even in dispute. That would have made me look smart.