Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46265)	9/29/2010 6:49:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The decade of the '200s' is NOT a 'projection' any longer. It's history now. Pretty much true. Some would argue that 2010 is part of the 00's because there was no year zero (thus the first decade is 1-10, and 2000 years later we have 2001-2010), but that's an unimportant quibble in my opinion. More important is that some of the data for the last several years isn't really in yet, but still some is, and you have all the data for the rest of the years. Its more than a quibble, but it not a serious objection. But none of that is very relevant in context. Because 1 - I was replying to your statement - "You mean those THREE econometric projections were not run early on in Bush's first term?". I pointed out how those projections are in fact projections, and so your statement had little relevance to the overall argument. They are not actual results, they are projections. and 2 - The 200x's may be history, but that doesn't mean we have the actual results that are relevant to this discussion. We don't have them for the 199x's, or for the 190x's either. As I said in my previous post - "Sure we can tell definitively what the debt levels are, and to as much accuracy as government economic statistics can get what the economy has done, but not the source for the different changes".