What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[kandrathe]

There is historical precedence, though, when looking at empires.

Britain and France each lost empires, and they seem no worse for wear. Neither does democracy, for that matter.

I thought of that, But, it was really WWI and WWII that commingled with that loss. It's hard to compare the British Empire of the late 1800's to 1920's, with that which emerged after WWII. Britain controlled in that era, 22% of the worlds land mass, and 20% of the worlds population.

France was the same, but less successful.

I'm waiting for a period of sustained economic growth.

To abandon or reinforce a hypothesis about inflation? Why does that make sense?

You'd need a return of "normal" demand for goods and services.

[kandrathe]

Again, no, it's not. If there is no opportunity, there is no chance for equality. You cannot say that just because there's no opportunity then it's equal to all. You have to have an opportunity to begin with to check on equality of such.

I think we are at an impasse on just even what an "opportunity" is or is not.

If the college where I work has room to admit 500 new freshmen, it is an opportunity of higher education for those who can afford it. If we subsidize those with low incomes, we create a more equal opportunity. I measure equality in that case to be when the subset (of new freshmen) represent the population we are drawing our students from (primarily Minnesota, and the surrounding states). I would still say there are barriers preventing "equality", but they are outside our organizations control. Mostly, they are factors in K-12 education run by the State of Minnesota.

When I was an employer, I would typically hire 20% of my work force per year (10% due to growth, and 10% due to turn over). In a recession, you can cut the hiring at least in half due to a lack of growth, and more as turnover also is reduced due to people's fears about being left without a chair when the music stops. It's not so bad for the employer, who now has 100 applications for every open position. But, if running an organization of say 1000 workers, going from 200 "opportunities" per year, to say 50, is still 50 more opportunities than zero.

We can argue about the equality of hiring practices -- but we won't resolve it without either statistical evidence to prove your case, or my mine. I still hold that current regulations, and anti-discrimination measures make rigging the system risky to the organization that engages in that type of practice. I feel it leaves them wide open to lawsuits, which over time would cull that behavior from corporations. It might happen more frequently in smaller organizations, and in areas of poorly managed ones.

[Jester]

I thought of that, But, it was really WWI and WWII that commingled with that loss. It's hard to compare the British Empire of the late 1800's to 1920's, with that which emerged after WWII. Britain controlled in that era, 22% of the worlds land mass, and 20% of the worlds population.

France was the same, but less successful.

It's not like other empires just up and died without any cause. Regardless, Britain and France share what the US has, at least in some fraction - a developed internal state with an enormous tax base. Unlike most past empires, but like the British and French, the US is an empire because it is prosperous, not prosperous because it is an empire. The vast majority of the US economy is, and always has been, by and for Americans.

You'd need a return of "normal" demand for goods and services.

What, for you, would indicate "normality"?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It's not like other empires just up and died without any cause. Regardless, Britain and France share what the US has, at least in some fraction - a developed internal state with an enormous tax base. Unlike most past empires, but like the British and French, the US is an empire because it is prosperous, not prosperous because it is an empire. The vast majority of the US economy is, and always has been, by and for Americans.

Oh, I think we'll be a player, but not with the same clout. This may be a good thing for the US anyway.

You'd need a return of "normal" demand for goods and services.

What, for you, would indicate "normality"?

When the red line on the chart below gets above zero and stays there for at least a year.



Note the correlation of Consumer demand with inflation(offset a quarter later). I was watching the last spike up, during our almost recovery in 2010, but it's not an issue again as we dipped back into recession in 2011.

[Jester]

When the red line on the chart below gets above zero and stays there for at least a year.

The red line is what, exactly? (Noting that it was above zero for almost exactly a year, between 2009 and 2010?)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

When the red line on the chart below gets above zero and stays there for at least a year.

The red line is what, exactly? (Noting that it was above zero for almost exactly a year, between 2009 and 2010?)

It's a more accurate measurement of consumer activity (i.e. spending). And, if you remember, in that time period I expressed some concerns about growing inflation (then again, my dirge about pending inflation hasn't changed).

[ShadowHM]

Indeed, that's why environmental issues scare me more than resource shortages - there is no automatic economic mechanism for solving those problems.

-Jester

I have been thinking about this comment. This concern was highlighted in an interesting TEDtalk - Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!

Worrisome issues indeed.

[Jester]

It's a more accurate measurement of consumer activity (i.e. spending). And, if you remember, in that time period I expressed some concerns about growing inflation (then again, my dirge about pending inflation hasn't changed).

Um, is it? It sounds to me like it's indexed to last year - which tells us nothing about the overall state of demand, unless it can be presumed that last year was normal. Which, in these times, is a dangerous assumption.

What do the index values represent?

The index values are relative to the same period one year ago. An index value of 100 on any date indicates consumers showing the same level of interest in purchases as on that same date one year earlier. Thus an index of 105 indicates an increase in consumer interest of 5% relative to the same date a year earlier. An index of 95 would similarly indicate a 5% decrease in interest relative to the same period in the prior year.

Or am I missing something? I'm still not sure what this exactly *is*, other than "an index."

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Indeed, that's why environmental issues scare me more than resource shortages - there is no automatic economic mechanism for solving those problems.

-Jester

I have been thinking about this comment. This concern was highlighted in an interesting TEDtalk - Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!

Worrisome issues indeed.

Well, there maybe natural corrective consequences, but they involve unacceptable levels of mass extinction and thousands of years before nature re-balances the equilibrium. On the positive side, nature has dealt with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before. Perhaps, the flora and fauna that thrive in higher CO2 atmospheres will result in higher levels of carbon sequestration. Toxins, and radioactivity just take time to diminish and dilute away. Living with toxic zones (e.g. heavy metals pollution down wind from coal plants) is troubling.

I'm very much in sync with his ideas, although it would need to be phased in slowly to prevent cost shock to economies.

[kandrathe]

Um, is it? It sounds to me like it's indexed to last year - which tells us nothing about the overall state of demand, unless it can be presumed that last year was normal. Which, in these times, is a dangerous assumption.

It is a measure of year over year growth, so it continuously retains it's value as an index. If the economy resets to 2006 levels, then grows to 2007 levels, this index would still reflect growth. It's value is only as a leading indicator of economic growth (strength). So, in mathematical terms, it is more of a 2nd or 3rd level derivative, not measuring position, but velocity, or acceleration.

What do the index values represent?

The index values are relative to the same period one year ago. An index value of 100 on any date indicates consumers showing the same level of interest in purchases as on that same date one year earlier. Thus an index of 105 indicates an increase in consumer interest of 5% relative to the same date a year earlier. An index of 95 would similarly indicate a 5% decrease in interest relative to the same period in the prior year.

Or am I missing something? I'm still not sure what this exactly *is*, other than "an index."

They collect indexes (housing, automotive, food, etc) across the spectrum of consumer purchases, and make a master index that is more predictive of consumer "interest". Since consumer's are key to purchasing products that businesses sell, they are a leading indicator of economic growth. It is more than a survey of consumer sentiment, it is a measure of consumer demand.

[Jester]

It is a measure of year over year growth, so it continuously retains it's value as an index.

This is exactly what it *doesn't* do. An index ... well, it indexes. It gives us a baseline from which to measure things. This just tells us how things are relative to how they were last year - a bad year following a terrible year is the same as an amazing year following a great year.

If the economy resets to 2006 levels, then grows to 2007 levels, this index would still reflect growth. It's value is only as a leading indicator of economic growth (strength). So, in mathematical terms, it is more of a 2nd or 3rd level derivative, not measuring position, but velocity, or acceleration.

It measures spending relative to last year's spending. Is that really what we want to know? Especially for (going back to the whole point of this) calculating when we're back to "normal" demand, whatever that is? Presumably that's a level, not a velocity, or acceleration?

They collect indexes (housing, automotive, food, etc) across the spectrum of consumer purchases, and make a master index that is more predictive of consumer "interest". Since consumer's are key to purchasing products that businesses sell, they are a leading indicator of economic growth. It is more than a survey of consumer sentiment, it is a measure of consumer demand.

Okay. But its actual workings are obscure to us, no? We just have to kind of take their word for it that it's something sensible?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It gives us a baseline from which to measure things. This just tells us how things are relative to how they were last year - a bad year following a terrible year is the same as an amazing year following a great year.

Right. So, you'd see a positive upward value, followed by another upward positive value. The upward slope indicates the amount of amazing.

It measures spending relative to last year's spending. Is that really what we want to know? Especially for (going back to the whole point of this) calculating when we're back to "normal" demand, whatever that is? Presumably that's a level, not a velocity, or acceleration?

The slope of the line would indicate the velocity of change. YOY +6% increase in spending, or YOY +12% increase in spending. Theoretically then, inflation would be a factor of the slope of the line. Steep up would indicate periods where prices would likely increase, and steep down would indicate possible deflationary periods. To me... Normal would be a GDP growing at between 3%-5%

Okay. But its actual workings are obscure to us, no? We just have to kind of take their word for it that it's something sensible?

They seem to be getting some renown in the financial rags for having a better economic leading indicator than the BEA.

[Jester]

They seem to be getting some renown in the financial rags for having a better economic leading indicator than the BEA.

I see a lot of self-promotion... where's the press saying it's better, that isn't just some guy on a forum somewhere? Or some random website?

-Jester