fjl2nd Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Nice read - http://www.epi.org/b...s-belie-claims/ Excerpt: Of particular interest is whether businesses are holding back from investing in equipment and software because of fears of new or potential regulations. This investment category leaves out residential investment and investments in business “structures”—because those types of investments are clearly faltering as a result of the bursting of the residential and commercial real estate bubble (and not because of regulatory activity). As a share of the economy, the data show that equipment and software investment has increased more in this recovery than in the three prior recoveries. Indeed, three years into this recovery the growth of 1.6 percentage points in the share of GDP going to investment in equipment and software is more than twice as large as the growth during the first three years of either the George W. Bush or the Reagan recoveries. That means that this recovery, with the Obama regulatory approach, is far more investment-led than the recoveries under the generally deregulatory Bush and Reagan administrations. Click the link at the top so you can get the full write-up with a fancy graph included. If regulation is so overbearing on businesses, why are they investing more in this recovery compared to the past? The article also goes on to talk about the growth of the private sector in this recovery and how it is very comparable or even better than the numbers from the early 90's and 2000's. The difference of course is the shrinking of the public sector. Edited August 8, 2012 by fjl2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 My statistical oversimplification is better than your statistical oversimplification. One of the main causes of the 2001 recession, if you want to call it that was the massive build up of IT, Internet and telecom leading up to 2000, so it stands to reason why IT spending fell off dramatically as excess supply burned off. That recession also had a negligible effect on jobs, so it's natural that there was a smaller rebound in hiring after that one. How's this, instead of focusing on ratios, compare actual number of people employed, jobs available and jobs created. There's a reason your profession is called dismal science. Instead of poring through backward looking data, take a survey of small to medium size business owners and ask them about their hiring outlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Or, if he's insistent on examining ratios, perhaps he should examine pertinent ones like debt to liquid capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Nice read - http://www.epi.org/b...s-belie-claims/ Excerpt: Click the link at the top so you can get the full write-up with a fancy graph included. If regulation is so overbearing on businesses, why are they investing more in this recovery compared to the past? The article also goes on to talk about the growth of the private sector in this recovery and how it is very comparable or even better than the numbers from the early 90's and 2000's. The difference of course is the shrinking of the public sector. Lawrence Mishel = bearded commie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 Seems like PPP is stumped. Three replies? It sucks when data doesn't back up your main claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Seems like PPP is stumped. Three replies? It sucks when data doesn't back up your main claim. The article was a steaming pile of ****. Referring to the deregulatory Bush years is like referring to the aggressive Juaron years. It's !@#$ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Seems like PPP is stumped. Three replies? It sucks when data doesn't back up your main claim. I don't read any articles you link to because you have no credibility. I would say that you've lost all credibility, but you never established any to begin with. If others read and respond then I may give it a look. Edited August 9, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Seems like PPP is stumped. Three replies? It sucks when data doesn't back up your main claim. Or, instead of handwaving away the responses you did get and claiming faux-victory you could, you know, address them. Good grief. Edited August 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/red-tape-and-the-onerous-effects-of-overregulation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Seems like PPP is stumped. Three replies? It sucks when data doesn't back up your main claim. The "report" was completely asinine. Looking at capital investment in equipment and software as THE metric for the impact of regulation on economic recovery, thereby generalizing it to "Regulation creates jobs!" It's like it was written by an eight year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It's like it was written by an eight year old. ... it was written by two economists ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 ... it was written by two economists ... A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job. The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly." Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four." Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 ... it was written by two economists ... Two four year olds, one eight year old...same difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 ... it was written by two economists ... And at least one was a bearded commie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 I don't read any articles you link to because you have no credibility. I would say that you've lost all credibility, but you never established any to begin with. If others read and respond then I may give it a look. Who are you? The "report" was completely asinine. Looking at capital investment in equipment and software as THE metric for the impact of regulation on economic recovery, thereby generalizing it to "Regulation creates jobs!" It's like it was written by an eight year old. I don't think they were generalizing it to that point at all. What types of data/numbers should we look at to see the impact of regulation in your opinion. Investment by businesses should definitely be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Who are you? I don't think they were generalizing it to that point at all. What types of data/numbers should we look at to see the impact of regulation in your opinion. Investment by businesses should definitely be a factor. You don't ask the masked man who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Who are you? I don't think they were generalizing it to that point at all. What types of data/numbers should we look at to see the impact of regulation in your opinion. Investment by businesses should definitely be a factor. A FACTOR. Not the only factor. That's my point. You want to see the effect of regulation, you'd get a better measure by taking that measure of capital expenditure over, say, the S&P, and including trends in ROE, ROI, SG&A, and net margins over the same time, for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 So...after spending most of this thread complaining about nobody being willing to discuss his point...and it being more than a day later since Tom's response... How many think fjl2nd got his questioned answered....and how many still think PPP is ducking him? I can say...from a BI perspective...that we risk much when we go looking for patterns in data, rather than letting them come to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 So...after spending most of this thread complaining about nobody being willing to discuss his point...and it being more than a day later since Tom's response... How many think fjl2nd got his questioned answered....and how many still think PPP is ducking him? I can say...from a BI perspective...that we risk much when we go looking for patterns in data, rather than letting them come to us. Just got on to PPP now. Sorry, I was out drinking last night and woke up at 5pm today! Lol. A FACTOR. Not the only factor. That's my point. You want to see the effect of regulation, you'd get a better measure by taking that measure of capital expenditure over, say, the S&P, and including trends in ROE, ROI, SG&A, and net margins over the same time, for a start. Agreed. ROE and ROI are pretty important IMO. I still think that measuring aggregate investment is a very good measuring stick to start with. As pointed out, there are unique qualities to each recession so some numbers can be misleading. Maybe I'll try to do some more research on this and look for other data to see the effects of the "over-regulation" of this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Just got on to PPP now. Sorry, I was out drinking last night and woke up at 5pm today! Lol. Ahh....the wawrow....and the OCinBuffalo excuse....very nice. I can say...nothing. Other than: this 4 am thing sneaks up on you like a dirty, dirty whore. Or, drinking till 4 am makes it easier for the dirty, dirty whores to sneak up on you....or something...something like that. Edited August 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 Ahh....the wawrow....and the OCinBuffalo excuse....very nice. I can say...nothing. Other than: this 4 am thing sneaks up on you like a dirty, dirty whore. Or, drinking till 4 am makes it easier for the dirty, dirty whores to sneak up on you....or something...something like that. The bar I was at last night will basically let you stay there until after 6 in the morning. I love it there. They turn off most of the lights, and lock the doors. People can smoke in there and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The bar I was at last night will basically let you stay there until after 6 in the morning. I love it there. They turn off most of the lights, and lock the doors. People can smoke in there and everything. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts