I posted 3 replies. The 1st was my own argument, the 2nd was written by Stan Veuger, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute are they a "liberal advocacy group"? The third was an argument from a personal blog which doesn't seem to be connect to any such group.
As for the sources they include my own logic, Shadowstats own figures, and the Billion Prices Project (an attempt to calculate a CPI type index based off an enormous number of prices, not just those of a few goods). Which of those do you find to be discredited.
More importantly who makes an argument doesn't determine the arguments validity.
OTOH, this merely attempts (very poorly) to discredit Shadowstats GDP analysis
Partially, not merely (and hardly poorly).
The 1st post in reply focused on unemployment more than inflation (the other two were focused on inflation, because while both of those figures from Shadowstats seem very unrealistic, the inflation figures are more obviously wrong.)
But the unemployment figure is pretty weak as well. The smaller U6 figure, which Shadowstats adds to, already includes employed people as being "unemployed".
OTOH while people leaving the workforce aren't unemployed anymore, they aren't employed either. (Which goes back to my previous post with a link to Dan Mitchell's blog post "If You Want to Gauge the Health of the Job Market, Focus on Employment rather than Unemployment"
Obama printed 28% more money in the first six years of his usurpation than President Bush 43 printed in 8 years.
Maybe the fed did. And maybe it will lead to future inflation, but the Shadowstats figures aren't trying to predict the future, they are supposed to reflect what's already happened. Some Austrian economists consider inflation to be the actual growth of the money supply in excess of the value of new production. If that's what your talking about then a strong argument that we've already had a lot of inflation can be made, but that isn't what Shadowstats is claiming to measure. |
