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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bart13 who wrote (85410)	1/1/2012 9:13:47 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217931

Eyeballing the red line it seems to me that it hovers between 0% and 2% growth during the nineties and almost all of the oughts are shown in deep recession. I remember the nineties as a time of pretty vigorous growth. 0-2% growth at a time of fairly rapid population growth feels like a recession. In any case, the red line implies that US GDP today is considerably lower than US GDP in 1992. Do you believe that?

To: bart13 who wrote (85410)	1/1/2012 7:22:39 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217931

Well, one of the things about statistics is that they are not reality. I know they are what we have but nevertheless it is true. If you study the history of economic statistics as a way of modeling the past, nobody was really even collecting them and analyzing them until the 1930's, and the practice has gotten much better over time. I used to study the history of the Great Depression and earlier depressions, and was astonished at how sparse the collections were, when you peel back commentary and keep peeling back commentary upon commentary trying to get to bedrock. I actually gave up because it was all guesswork, and guessing wasn't good enough for me. I believe in things that are true, as true as a plain chair hand made of cherry wood finished with clear shellac, and nothing else interests me.