Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Economic Boom, Detested President, how to run in '06 and '08?

Yakk · 04-07-2006, 09:35 PM

One thing to take into account is that "inflation" and "unemployment" don't mean what they used to.

Folks discovered that with a bit of wrangling, you could make the economy look better, and up your poll numbers.

All you have to do is change how you define inflation and unemployment...

Some data:
http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn

This site claims that if you used the CPI definition from pre-1992, inflation is 3% higher than the official government numbers claim.

Simularly, using the definition of unemployment used during the great depression, unempolyment is upwards of 12%.

See: http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi...article/id=341

Maybe this data is inaccurate. But it seems reasonable.

If this is true, then the economy isn't as good as the numbers claim. And it would explain some of the soft support.

04-07-2006, 09:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	One thing to take into account is that "inflation" and "unemployment" don't mean what they used to. Folks discovered that with a bit of wrangling, you could make the economy look better, and up your poll numbers. All you have to do is change how you define inflation and unemployment... Some data: http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn This site claims that if you used the CPI definition from pre-1992, inflation is 3% higher than the official government numbers claim. Simularly, using the definition of unemployment used during the great depression, unempolyment is upwards of 12%. See: http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi...article/id=341 Maybe this data is inaccurate. But it seems reasonable. If this is true, then the economy isn't as good as the numbers claim. And it would explain some of the soft support. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.