Quote:
Originally posted by Scipio
Why are you telling ME what I'm trying to prove?
For the third time, I only assert what the graph does, which is that the Bush administration has made 3 wildly inaccurate claims about future job growth. The record bears out the claim that they were assuming what happened in the past would happen again (as you pointed out, and which isn't unreasonable), and somehow got it wrong. Three times. Again and again.
|
Obviously it's not your graph and I'm not saying you are trying to prove anything (although your posting of it is for a reason and it doesn't seem to be presented in terms of what we should do about inaccurate forecasting). The writer of the article by cutting out the long term trend is obviously trying to paint a picture that proves his point.
The article (or more specifically the op-ed piece) is totally biased, draws completely inaccurate conclusions by looking at limited data, and claims that "Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. " which is total bullshit.
The opinion piece details how unrealistic the forecasts are and ignores the fact that the long term trend shows precisely the same things on roughly ten year intervals.
The forecasts are perfectly legitimate. They have obviously been wrong, but the increases they expect have basing in historical fact. How many forecasts available today
will accurately predict when the uptick in jobs will come? There are a few out there which I'm sure will be dead on, the question is which one?