Trump fires groups responsible for calculating economic data

[nakedfrog]

"I don't understand it, therefore it has no value"

 

[fskimospy]

It's Trump, of course he canned her for making him look bad.
That still brings us to the crux of the issue, if the numbers can be off by a 1000%, why bother posting them? Clearly the data used is worthless, so what's the point of publishing the information? Any action taken based on worthless data has to be the wrong action.
Pull the plug on the entire operation, it's worthless.

Lots and lots of people with actual skin in the game disagree with you. What do you know that they don’t?

Also why do you continue to repeat the 1000% figure when you’ve already been corrected and instead it’s fractions of a percent? Is it just a stubborn unwillingness to admit being wrong?

 

[brycejones]

"I don't understand it, therefore it has no value"

More like:

"I've done zero investigation but correcting anything is bad and therefore Trump is right even though I know nothing about how the data is complied or why it may need to be updated. While I'm at it I'll skip right past all the responses giving me useful information that would correct my ignorance"

#greenman

 

[fskimospy]

More like:

"I've done zero investigation but correcting anything is bad and therefore Trump is right even though I know nothing about how the data is complied or why it may need to be updated. While I'm at it I'll skip right past all the responses giving me useful information that would correct my ignorance"

#greenman

I think my favorite part is he ignores all contrary information and then accuses other people of being in a partisan bubble. Every accusation a confession.

 

[DZero]

If Trump removes Powel from his job, it's over for the US Dollar.

 

[hal2kilo]

"I don't understand it, therefore it has no value"

He, because of the projection of his own criminality, he assumes corrections are just the usual fraud he practices.

 

[DZero]

He because of the projection of his own criminality, he assumes corrections are just the usual fraud he practices.

And stupidity, don't forget that Trump bankrupted 6 times...

 

[ivwshane]

More like:

"I've done zero investigation but correcting anything is bad and therefore Trump is right even though I know nothing about how the data is complied or why it may need to be updated. While I'm at it I'll skip right past all the responses giving me useful information that would correct my ignorance"

#greenman

And until people like greenman change and actually look into things, we will continue down this road of poor governance and idiocracy.

I know greenman likes to think everything is “us vs them” and we are just different sides of the same coin but it’s really not like that at all. It’s more like we are all in the same canoe and side is paddling backwards to avoid a waterfall and the other is paddling forwards thinking that just over the fall is nirvana. One ignores reality and the other has no idea how to stop spinning in circles and how to avoid the waterfall at the same time.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think my favorite part is he ignores all contrary information and then accuses other people of being in a partisan bubble. Every accusation a confession.

This in my opinion, is motivated behavior. Conservatives have many more areas of moral concern than liberals do as a general rule of thumb. That makes them more morally conscious than liberals which can make they more morally self righteous as well. But you should be able to sympathize with this feeling just by looking at how you react to where Greenman violates your far more focused insistence on preventing emotional attachment to principle cloud intellectual honesty, especially things like fairness.

Now imagine that someone told you your ideas as to what fairness is, in your case deeply thought out, as in free from what your ego might prefer to believe, were actually not what fairness is at all. What Greenman hears in your words. I believe, is a denial the the wider range of moral beliefs that are important to him are false, just as you would feel that if told there is no moral value in fairness, when in fact it might be that you are in error of something you feel is fair but actually isn't. We have such a conflict over taxing old people out of their homes in the name of fairness, because they live on retirement money that is insufficient to keep up with local housing prices and the present day valuations new buyers are subject to paying they could never affort. I believe that your logic in that area suffers from too much emotional detachment from reality. You believe Greenman is morally compromised by feelings. I believe that most people you and Greenman included act our of the belief their view of reality is moral, but that there is a difference in knowing that there is right and wrong and knowing what it is in every instance.

I believe also therefore, that conflict arises in people when they fail to see the other as moral rather than holding unexamined moral beliefs that are really only a reflection of past conditioning and ego attachments derived from feeling morally superior. In short, I see others not as devils but as broken gods able to be repaired. I think that happens via love and respect and example, not condemnation of sin.

 

[fskimospy]

This in my opinion, is motivated behavior. Conservatives have many more areas of moral concern than liberals do as a general rule of thumb. That makes them more morally conscious than liberals which can make they more morally self righteous as well. But you should be able to sympathize with this feeling just by looking at how you react to where Greenman violates your far more focused insistence on preventing emotional attachment to principle cloud intellectual honesty, especially things like fairness.

Now imagine that someone told you your ideas as to what fairness is, in your case deeply thought out, as in free from what your ego might prefer to believe, were actually not what fairness is at all. What Greenman hears in your words. I believe, is a denial the the wider range of moral beliefs that are important to him are false, just as you would feel that if told there is no moral value in fairness, when in fact it might be that you are in error of something you feel is fair but actually isn't. We have such a conflict over taxing old people out of their homes in the name of fairness, because they live on retirement money that is insufficient to keep up with local housing prices and the present day valuations new buyers are subject to paying they could never affort. I believe that your logic in that area suffers from too much emotional detachment from reality. You believe Greenman is morally compromised by feelings. I believe that most people you and Greenman included act our of the belief their view of reality is moral, but that there is a difference in knowing that there is right and wrong and knowing what it is in every instance.

I believe also therefore, that conflict arises in people when they fail to see the other as moral rather than holding unexamined moral beliefs that are really only a reflection of past conditioning and ego attachments derived from feeling morally superior. In short, I see others not as devils but as broken gods able to be repaired. I think that happens via love and respect and example, not condemnation of sin.

My logic about housing is that the solution of not taxing incumbent homeowners is part of an overall housing system causing mass human suffering. It’s really hard to see parking lots full of destitute people and think to myself ‘no, building more houses and taxing people the same would be too reprehensible so I’ll just take this instead’.

Regardless, my annoyance with Greenman is simple - this is a board created for the purpose of sharing ideas. If you share an idea and someone refutes it there are plenty of good ways to answer that, up to and including ‘I don’t care what the facts say, nothing can change my mind’. What IS annoying is pretending that no such facts exist even when you know they do.

We all lie to ourselves unconsciously sometimes but this is him lying consciously. That’s not good!

 

[Moonbeam]

My logic about housing is that the solution of not taxing incumbent homeowners is part of an overall housing system causing mass human suffering. It’s really hard to see parking lots full of destitute people and think to myself ‘no, building more houses and taxing people the same would be too reprehensible so I’ll just take this instead’.

Regardless, my annoyance with Greenman is simple - this is a board created for the purpose of sharing ideas. If you share an idea and someone refutes it there are plenty of good ways to answer that, up to and including ‘I don’t care what the facts say, nothing can change my mind’. What IS annoying is pretending that no such facts exist even when you know they do.

We all lie to ourselves unconsciously sometimes but this is him lying consciously. That’s not good!

Your views on people living in parking lots is answered in part by demanding that people who accidentally were luck enough to have bought their homes pre insane inflation, or saw it coming and were lucky enough to be able to act should never have been able to take advantage of mass voter rebellion that voted to separate property tax rates set to current evaluation. You want to change that vote based on the grievance of those yet unable to vote for their own protections. I see this as easily understandable coming from a financially sufficiently well off liberal who doesn’t own a home and is content to live in a can of sardines.

I think you lack a life experience that lends itself easily to homeless people but not so much to some others whose lives you have less sentiment for. You think the money they would get from being forced to sell is compensation enough. I think this is your belief rather than that you are lying and trying to hide that you are actually heartlessly callous. I don’t think you are right that Greenman is lying either. I think both of you can be wrong while motivated by moral beliefs. None of us walks in others shoes easily.

 

[fskimospy]

Your views on people living in parking lots is answered in part by demanding that people who accidentally were luck enough to have bought their homes pre insane inflation, or saw it coming and were lucky enough to be able to act should never have been able to take advantage of mass voter rebellion that voted to separate property tax rates set to current evaluation. You want to change that vote based on the grievance of those yet unable to vote for their own protections. I see this as easily understandable coming from a financially sufficiently well off liberal who doesn’t own a home and is content to live in a can of sardines.

I own a home, and this is not the first home I have owned. My place is also larger than plenty of houses in California. It would appear your understanding is flawed, agree?

I don’t want to change it based on grievance, I just think people shouldn’t be homeless and it’s sad that these policies force mass homelessness.

I think you lack a life experience that lends itself easily to homeless people but not so much to some others whose lives you have less sentiment for. You think the money they would get from being forced to sell is compensation enough. I think this is your belief rather than that you are lying and trying to hide that you are actually heartlessly callous. I don’t think you are right that Greenman is lying either. I think both of you can be wrong while motivated by moral beliefs. None of us walks in others shoes easily.

Unless your claim is that he has some sort of sight disability that prevents him from reading inconvenient posts he is deliberately ignoring them and that is dishonest.

As far as my life experience goes I have had a more varied one than most, and most of that variance was not good.

 

[balloonshark]

Revisions to the data are perfectly normal but they think their base is ignorant and won't find that important fact out. They certainly know their base.

This recession will become a depression and 40% of the country will cheer on the greatest economy ever as they stand in line for bread.

 

[K1052]

Your views on people living in parking lots is answered in part by demanding that people who accidentally were luck enough to have bought their homes pre insane inflation, or saw it coming and were lucky enough to be able to act should never have been able to take advantage of mass voter rebellion that voted to separate property tax rates set to current evaluation. You want to change that vote based on the grievance of those yet unable to vote for their own protections. I see this as easily understandable coming from a financially sufficiently well off liberal who doesn’t own a home and is content to live in a can of sardines.

You bought a house not the right to freeze the entire built environment in amber even if the societal effects are fucking terrible for everybody who came after.

 

[fskimospy]

You bought a house not the right to freeze the entire built environment in amber even if the societal effects are fucking terrible for everybody who came after.

I can’t count how many times I’ve said this. Want to control what the land around you does? Buy that land and then you can let it sit empty forever if you want.

People don’t want to do that though - they want all the control and none of the costs.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let me guess - no. Because facts don’t matter to you.

MAGA Nazis will only accept "facts" from each other. From their Emperor.
They will not tolerate the existence of anything else. They move to destroy institutions and knowledge. When that is done, they will move on to physically destroying people. They always do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I own a home, and this is not the first home I have owned. My place is also larger than plenty of houses in California. It would appear your understanding is flawed, agree?

I don’t want to change it based on grievance, I just think people shouldn’t be homeless and it’s sad that these policies force mass homelessness.

Unless your claim is that he has some sort of sight disability that prevents him from reading inconvenient posts he is deliberately ignoring them and that is dishonest.

As far as my life experience goes I have had a more varied one than most, and most of that variance was not good.

How to live in the world in a morally proper way probably is the issue I find most challenging as I do not believe I am sufficiently aware of every negative conditioning in operation within me, and that, coupled also with the notion I take to be factual, that the the more people are confronted by fact they as yet lack the honesty to take in, the more deeply they will resist, sets the stage that produces for me the greatest inner conflict. At what point does a so called or self imagined bringer of what one imagines to be profoundly needed light in the most honest way one can muster cross a line where the result is the strengthening of the others will n capacity to rest.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. But if you devote enough energy to the task can you turn the horse into a donkey?

As far as judging how varied my life experience has been especially regarding negatives, and owing to the fact that I do not feel I have full self understanding and I am thus hesitant to put too much self confidence into any such self analysis for risk it might be just my self hate speaking.

I have no idea what the course of my life would have been were it not for the experience I had as a phoenix from ashes thanks to the shock to my world view at that time in my early twenties caused by exposure to Zen literature. Somewhere in the last month I realized in a moment of shame I will and have never been grateful enough for the grace I experienced. I am endlessly irritated it seems by what is surely pettiness.

I drop buttered bread on the floor minute by minute and you know on what face it lands every time. How do you stay present? Do you remember to remember or forget to forget?

 

[Moonbeam]

You bought a house not the right to freeze the entire built environment in amber even if the societal effects are fucking terrible for everybody who came after.

I claim no such right. I voted at the time that right was on the ballot to deny home owners that privilege. At no such time since then has there been any vote on a ballot that I could vote to repeal it. I claim only that those who would now seek to tax people who in their old age can stay in their homes but would lose them if they were taxed at the levels of their new neighbors is a morally unethical solution preferred by people who do not have the moral guts to sacrifice their own selfish interests and have themselves no stake themselves in the suffering they will cause.

The solution to homelessness is simple. Go out in the street and start a revolution to bring down capitalism. Acquire a piece of property and let people with no means to care for themselves financially live there and pay for all of their needs. I did that for two people for years at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

End the slavery of needing a job to live. Institute a universal minimum wage. Initiate campaign finance reform that ends the ability of money to buy elections. Stop pretending the answer to poverty is other that to end your own ambition to own things. Capitalism is competition and competition is hate. Your world view is sick and it is the last thing you want to fix. You want no part of having your own skin in the game. You will do nothing to fix what is really wrong with the world because of your own inability to sacrifice all the little ego rewards you worship that bring you phony self respect.

You have gained the world at the cost of your soul. You are the reason that people are homeless. So if you seek oblivion find someone else to blame.

I’ll be the fool on the hill waiting there still.

We can agree on one thing. The societal effects of the system we worship are truly aweful. We are those very effects. We are morally bankrupt. Capitalism is the killer of empathy. Do you see your own hand in it?

 

[alien42]

Greenman like Trump is a liar

Why anyone responds to that idiot is beyond me. He has a long history of being wrong and never learning anything. I've had him on ignore for years.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump lackey: - “Sir, the jobs report is horrendous, how should we respond?”

Trump: - “Fire the people who put out the report.”

EJ Antoni is not qualified. He is worse than not qualified, actually; he is agenda-driven, untrustworthy, and wasting no time pushing to limit the public's access to critical economic data by wanting to get rid of its transparency entirely.

Well this is what these clowns voted for, a guy convicted of fraud for fudging the numbers. They've convinced themselves that someone that has cheated at everything is honest. The jobs data will now be 6’3, 215lbs.