the decade from hell - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-05-2010, 04:26 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Lord Stanley's Cup stayed in the Lower 48 the entire decade so it wasn't all bad.

__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:51 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:29 PM
The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell - TIME

Quote:
To paraphrase the question Ronald Reagan posed years ago, Are you better off today than you were at the beginning of the decade? For most of us, the answer is a resounding no. Let us count the ways. For one thing, the stock market is down 26% since 2000, making this the worst decade for stocks. (Inflation-adjusted, it's even worse.) I remember Warren Buffett telling me at the beginning of the decade that there was no way the go-go returns of the 1990s were going to continue and that we had better get used to meager returns going forward. Buffett saw it coming.


For the average working stiff, it was a pretty lousy 10 years. The median household income in 2000 was $52,500. Last year (the most recent year available) it was $50,303. And given that the unemployment rate has climbed to 10.2%, income will almost certainly drop again this year. Low-income Americans fared even worse. In 2000, 11.3% of Americans were living below the poverty line. By 2008, that number had risen to 13.2%. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans without health insurance increased from 13.7% to 15.4%.
Surprisingly, housing prices were not such a debacle — that is, if you bought early and stayed put. The median price of an existing home was $143,600 in 2000. Today the median is nearly $175,000. But remember, millions of Americans splurged for homes in the middle of the decade when prices were high: in July 2006 the median selling price peaked at $230,300. If you bought then — assuming you haven't lost your house to foreclosure — your home has lost some 25% of its value. Nothing to cheer about there.

Our national psyche has been damaged as much as our national economy by the record number of corporate bankruptcies, many of them household names: Kmart, United Airlines, Circuit City, Lehman Brothers, GM and Chrysler. The price of oil more than tripled this decade, settling at more than $70 a barrel, straining our economy.


Read more: The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell - TIME
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:57 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Hey, why don't you stop insulting the island folk and go laugh at my joke about the inherent conflict of interest in a gay man who gets paid to kick balls.
__________________
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 10:34 PM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Worst decade for the US since the 1930s? I don't think so.

01. The 00s average unemployment rate and inflation rate were lower than the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s!

02. The 00s poverty rate was lower than ANY decade in US history with exception of the 1970s.

03. GDP growth throughout the decade was not radically lower than any previous US decade and higher in several cases.

04. The average national debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in the 1990s and 1950s and 1940s.

05. Overall US standard of living increased over the past 10 years.

06. More US citizens go to college and graduate than 10 years ago.

07. The average life expectancy for US citizens has increased.

08. There have been many advances in medicine and technology that have improved the lives of many people in excess of previous decades.

09. Wars in the 1770s, 1780s, 1840s, 1860s, 1910s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, took FAR more US lives than the ones in the 2000s.

10. Ask people in Rawanda and Bosnia and they will tell you the decade from hell was the 1990s and with good reason. Those conflicts killed more people in a shorter amount of time than anything seen worldwide over the past decade.

Bottom line, claiming that the past decade was the decade from hell or the worst decade in US history since the 1930s, perhaps because George Bush was president during most of it, is nothing more than wishful thinking.
You have no concept of basic statistics. The problem with this decade is that we started well and ended shitty. Thus, the problem is in decline, not in average. Any average analysis makes this decade look better because it started off well back during the Clinton administration in 2000.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 11:54 PM   #50
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
You have no concept of basic statistics. The problem with this decade is that we started well and ended shitty. Thus, the problem is in decline, not in average. Any average analysis makes this decade look better because it started off well back during the Clinton administration in 2000.
Strongbow has no concept of anything, never mind basic statistics.

She has a long history of proving this.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:36 AM   #51
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
All this is doing is cherry picking data from 2000 and comparing it to 2009. Thats not representitive of the entire decade by a long shot.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:44 AM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
All this is doing is cherry picking data from 2000 and comparing it to 2009. Thats not representitive of the entire decade by a long shot.
Not representative? It's the perfect representation! That's what this decade was: a massive economic tailspin.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:45 AM   #53
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
You have no concept of basic statistics. The problem with this decade is that we started well and ended shitty. Thus, the problem is in decline, not in average. Any average analysis makes this decade look better because it started off well back during the Clinton administration in 2000.
I actually know the relevant statistics for each decade, each year, and each month and have posted them here before.

Were talking about a period of ten years. Each decade has multiple rises and declines in just a 10 year period. If you want to accurately assess each decade, you don't cherry pick the first month or year and compare it to the last month or year. Your leaving out over 80% of what happened during the decade by doing that.

The Clinton administration was just ONE YEAR of the past decade. Thats it. Most of the Clinton years were in the 90s, a decade that is beaten by the recent one on several levels.

Also conversly, the last year of this decade, 2009, makes it look far worse than it really was. Once again, if you want an accurate assessement of the decade, you have to consider everything. Not just the first year and the last year.

You wouldn't just consider US military casualties in 2000 and in 2009 when looking at the those cost for the decade would you?

If your going to be accurate and objective, you have to look at all the data, including the data that shows unemployment came down to as low as 4.4% under George Bush in 2007!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:49 AM   #54
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Not representative? It's the perfect representation! That's what this decade was: a massive economic tailspin.
Well, you have obviously not looked at the annual and monthly rates for unemployment, inflation, poverty and GDP growth throughout the decade. Several of these statistics rose early in the Bush administration, then they dropped. Monthly unemployment rates dropped to as low as 4.4% in 2007 which is one of the lowest unemployment rates on record.

Any ten year period will have a number of rises and declines. Its not been a straight decline in all the numbers since 2000. In fact, I don't think you'll find any decades that would show that. It just to long of a period. Thats why all the data must be looked at to assess the decade, not just the first month and the last month.

There are millions of people who lived very well during the Bush administration who only just recently lost their jobs and others things in 2009. But your not going to see these things if you just narrowly look at two months or two years of a decade which is TEN YEARS!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:54 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Strongbow has no concept of anything, never mind basic statistics.

She has a long history of proving this.
Wow, what an intelligent, objective, respectful and forum appropriate response.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 01:21 AM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:29 PM
The amazing thing is that you spent all of your posts cherrypicking stats and then accuse us of cherrypicking. Faaaaaantastic.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 09:43 AM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The amazing thing is that you spent all of your posts cherrypicking stats and then accuse us of cherrypicking. Faaaaaantastic.

I didn't cherry pick anything from the 00s. I looked at all the major economic statistics for the decade(EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR) and compared it to the other decades. Nothing is left out. Cherry picking would be looking at only the first month and the last month of a 10 year period. It tells you almost nothing about what happened in the 9 years and 10 months between those dates. It basically says that what happened from 2003 to 2007 is irrelevant. But thats a five year period that had strong economic growth, reduced unemployment and inflation. People got married, bought homes, got promoted, entered new jobs, graduated college and enter the work force to good paying jobs during that time. But your completely ignoring that and claiming that life during the decade can be defined by the first month of the decade and the last month of the decade which is absurd!
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 09:53 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I didn't cherry pick anything from the 00s. I looked at all the major economic statistics for the decade(EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR) and compared it to the other decades.
Your mother must be proud.

"Look papa, our baby is arguing on the interweb!"
__________________
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 08:35 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Take a look at the following.

US monthly unemployment rate from December 2005 through February 2008:

2005
Dec 4.8%
2006
Jan 4.7%
Feb 4.8%
Mar 4.7%
Apr 4.7%
May 4.7%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.5%
Oct 4.4%
Nov 4.5%
Dec 4.4%
2007
Jan 4.6%
Feb 4.5%
Mar 4.4%
Apr 4.5%
May 4.5%
June 4.6%
July 4.7%
Aug 4.7%
Sep 4.7%
Oct 4.8%
Nov 4.7%
Dec 4.9%
2008
Jan 4.9%
Feb 4.8%

Thats 27 consecutive months of an unemployment rate below 5%. The second longest run in the past 40 years and the 5th longest run in United States history. But if your only concerned with statistics in the year 2000 and the year 2009, you would NEVER know this. You can't claim that Bill Clinton was responsible for this either. This started nearly a full year into George Bush's second term in office! This period of time constitutes nearly a quarter of the entire decade and over half of Bush's second term in office.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 08:46 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Those 27 months coincide more or less with the bubble period - i.e., unsustainable. Asset price bubbles are of their nature unsustainable.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Album of the Decade? Lancemc Lemonade Stand Archive 117 02-02-2007 02:38 AM
what the hell has gone wrong? blueyedpoet Dream Out Loud (and in Colour!) 4 02-25-2005 05:41 PM
I'm going to hell because I like Interference doctorwho Lemonade Stand Archive 53 03-01-2003 03:54 AM
Hell and Back karmariff PLEBA Archive 7 10-22-2002 06:28 PM
Why I Would Follow Bono Into Hell...... U2Soar The Goal Is Soul 10 10-10-2002 03:41 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com