Did not see the interview. But did see this analysis of it:
Harris decision to appear on Colbert was like "announcing your exploratory committee on the sinking deck of the Titanic."
"Recently, I made the decision that I just – for now, I don’t want to go back in the system. I think it’s broken," Harris told Colbert after he asked about her declining a potential California gubernatorial run.
"I just can‘t possibly believe that someone who was attorney general for a good period of time, a United States senator for a good period of time, and then vice president for four years and then ran for president, all of a sudden believes that the best way to solve it is from being outside the system. Oh, please. Not a chance on God‘s green earth that that’s necessarily the case," Enten said, reacting to Harris' remarks.
"What‘s probably going on is she saw what the polling numbers were, perhaps for her running for governor of California. Yes, she has left open the idea that maybe she could run in 2028 for the Democratic nomination. But I‘ll tell you Abby, I‘ve looked at those numbers. She would be the weakest front-runner since 1992. So the bottom line is this, she is looking at the numbers. She knows what‘s cooking. And then all of a sudden, you know what? Actually, this lifelong politician, I want to be outside the system. Give me a break," the CNN data analyst added.
@THEMUGG
Did not see the interview. But did see this analysis of it:
Harris decision to appear on Colbert was like "announcing your exploratory committee on the sinking deck of the Titanic."
"Recently, I made the decision that I just – for now, I don’t want to go back in the system. I think it’s broken," Harris told Colbert after he asked about her declining a potential California gubernatorial run.
"I just can‘t possibly believe that someone who was attorney general for a good period of time, a United States senator for a good period of time, and then vice president for four years and then ran for president, all of a sudden believes that the best way to solve it is from being outside the system. Oh, please. Not a chance on God‘s green earth that that’s necessarily the case," Enten said, reacting to Harris' remarks.
"What‘s probably going on is she saw what the polling numbers were, perhaps for her running for governor of California. Yes, she has left open the idea that maybe she could run in 2028 for the Democratic nomination. But I‘ll tell you Abby, I‘ve looked at those numbers. She would be the weakest front-runner since 1992. So the bottom line is this, she is looking at the numbers. She knows what‘s cooking. And then all of a sudden, you know what? Actually, this lifelong politician, I want to be outside the system. Give me a break," the CNN data analyst added.
She didnt make an 80% error, that is funny to hear you say that. The data estimate is an estimate, the estimate was inaccurate but pretty much every estimate is inaccurate and it meant nothing. The FED would never have changed their view outside a multiple standard deviation difference. Trump is one of the worst blaming individuals Ive ever come across and he will never take ownership for the real truth that the FED fears the unknown impact of his stupid tariffs much more than a month to month high vol data point.
Trump never met a source of blame he didnt take advantage of.
@Raiders22
She didnt make an 80% error, that is funny to hear you say that. The data estimate is an estimate, the estimate was inaccurate but pretty much every estimate is inaccurate and it meant nothing. The FED would never have changed their view outside a multiple standard deviation difference. Trump is one of the worst blaming individuals Ive ever come across and he will never take ownership for the real truth that the FED fears the unknown impact of his stupid tariffs much more than a month to month high vol data point.
Trump never met a source of blame he didnt take advantage of.
"I think what people want are solutions, and she has not said a single one," Wright said. "And consistently, people want her to be descriptive about what she says is wrong. And I don‘t think that that interview, she was able to do that. And it‘s a shame because she‘s had six months to figure it out."
"She hasn‘t said anything really for six months," panel host Manu Raju agreed.
"You know, she was so guarded last night. I mean, I was a bit surprised because she had been gone. She‘s now not running for office, at least at the moment. And she was not, perhaps, as forthcoming about some of the issues with the campaign than maybe what I personally expected," Raju said, before playing a clip of Mark Cuban saying Harris is far more charismatic behind closed doors.
AP White House reporter Michelle Price argued that Thursday night’s interview stood out because "she was especially robotic, but that is a longstanding problem for her. She even looked physically uncomfortable, like her shoulders seemed up into her neck most of that interview, which was just striking because, you know, she has nothing to lose right now. She could be energetic or much more candid than she was."
So weird that the Democrats refuse to see how weak of a candidate she is. It is far past time to move on from her.
@THEMUGG
"I think what people want are solutions, and she has not said a single one," Wright said. "And consistently, people want her to be descriptive about what she says is wrong. And I don‘t think that that interview, she was able to do that. And it‘s a shame because she‘s had six months to figure it out."
"She hasn‘t said anything really for six months," panel host Manu Raju agreed.
"You know, she was so guarded last night. I mean, I was a bit surprised because she had been gone. She‘s now not running for office, at least at the moment. And she was not, perhaps, as forthcoming about some of the issues with the campaign than maybe what I personally expected," Raju said, before playing a clip of Mark Cuban saying Harris is far more charismatic behind closed doors.
AP White House reporter Michelle Price argued that Thursday night’s interview stood out because "she was especially robotic, but that is a longstanding problem for her. She even looked physically uncomfortable, like her shoulders seemed up into her neck most of that interview, which was just striking because, you know, she has nothing to lose right now. She could be energetic or much more candid than she was."
So weird that the Democrats refuse to see how weak of a candidate she is. It is far past time to move on from her.
LOL spoken like an uneducated blame oriented zero ego dictator. The BLS is based on surveys, unknown and unquantifiable surveys, the estimate if you have researched is based on historic seasonal trends. The likely fault of the missed estimate is that there is no historic trend when the POTUS is firing government employees and slamming tariffs down businesses. Forecasts in an environment when there are a high number of unknowns makes the value OF a forecast greatly limited. It would be similar to having a sportsbook leave up a line when the team is missing a QB and running back and the offensive line, but hey the expectation is that the line stay up...lol yeah that would really work out.
Aside from the blame master, it is not why Trump did not get his rate cut, so what is the value in sacking someone who is forced to keep a forecast when the accuracy is completely impossible?
If Toyota had their largest production plant closed for an unknown period of time they would pull guidance or dramatically reduce expectations, I guess its time to sack the CEO of Toyota.
@Raiders22
LOL spoken like an uneducated blame oriented zero ego dictator. The BLS is based on surveys, unknown and unquantifiable surveys, the estimate if you have researched is based on historic seasonal trends. The likely fault of the missed estimate is that there is no historic trend when the POTUS is firing government employees and slamming tariffs down businesses. Forecasts in an environment when there are a high number of unknowns makes the value OF a forecast greatly limited. It would be similar to having a sportsbook leave up a line when the team is missing a QB and running back and the offensive line, but hey the expectation is that the line stay up...lol yeah that would really work out.
Aside from the blame master, it is not why Trump did not get his rate cut, so what is the value in sacking someone who is forced to keep a forecast when the accuracy is completely impossible?
If Toyota had their largest production plant closed for an unknown period of time they would pull guidance or dramatically reduce expectations, I guess its time to sack the CEO of Toyota.
Who cares how far off it was, the OFF is not quantifiable given the uncertainty that Trump creates from his bonkers agenda. I can guarantee that statistical averages will smooth out over time meaning you can have a large one off "MISS" in EITHER direction, it might be initially massive and guess what happens? Revisions happen like every single report to previous estimates and figures and the overall average goes from whipsaw to within reasonable ranges and averages out.
You do not fire someone off ONE estimate, well I would not but Trump the blame master does even when the "miss" is due to his maniacal nonsense.
@Raiders22
Who cares how far off it was, the OFF is not quantifiable given the uncertainty that Trump creates from his bonkers agenda. I can guarantee that statistical averages will smooth out over time meaning you can have a large one off "MISS" in EITHER direction, it might be initially massive and guess what happens? Revisions happen like every single report to previous estimates and figures and the overall average goes from whipsaw to within reasonable ranges and averages out.
You do not fire someone off ONE estimate, well I would not but Trump the blame master does even when the "miss" is due to his maniacal nonsense.
But the assumption is that it has been more than just one. The issue was this one was awful. I still say he should have fired the whole bunch and not just her.
@wallstreetcappers
You do not fire someone off ONE estimate
Apparently you do.
But the assumption is that it has been more than just one. The issue was this one was awful. I still say he should have fired the whole bunch and not just her.
@wallstreetcappers Who cares how far off it was You said it wasn’t as far off as I quoted. So, why say that if you don’t care. So, it was that far off. That is all I am saying.
Where did I say this?
Revisit my replies and read them again if necessary, I dont even know what the number was you quoted as that was not the point to me. To you the purpose for talking with me seems to be for validating Trump firing someone, my comments were that the BLS data is high VOL (I said those words) has never ending revisions (I said that) the data evens out after revisions and adjustments (I said that) the data is pulled from surveys which can wildly swing (I said that) I would not fire someone or the entire enterprise off one MISS in either direction (I said that) and the most central part of my comments to you is that Trump is a zero blame oriented thug and thinks for some bizarre reason that a wild BLS number is why he did not get his ZIRP cut, that being a dictator who does not own any of their actions does not understand that the larger reason for the lack of cuts is due to Trumps policies and chaos, that the very tariffs he loves so much are largely the reason why rates are not lower already...AND I said in what universe does Trump demand ZIRP as an economic norm? We are not entitled to 1% interest rates and our real estate and stock markets are not at the level required to add speculative stimulus anyway. THIS is what I said..I could give two craps about a one BLS report that will be revised and altered and whipsawed as it always is. I do not consider the BLS to be material or consistent because it is a collection of random surveys, that is all it is...kind of a waste of time if you ask me.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers Who cares how far off it was You said it wasn’t as far off as I quoted. So, why say that if you don’t care. So, it was that far off. That is all I am saying.
Where did I say this?
Revisit my replies and read them again if necessary, I dont even know what the number was you quoted as that was not the point to me. To you the purpose for talking with me seems to be for validating Trump firing someone, my comments were that the BLS data is high VOL (I said those words) has never ending revisions (I said that) the data evens out after revisions and adjustments (I said that) the data is pulled from surveys which can wildly swing (I said that) I would not fire someone or the entire enterprise off one MISS in either direction (I said that) and the most central part of my comments to you is that Trump is a zero blame oriented thug and thinks for some bizarre reason that a wild BLS number is why he did not get his ZIRP cut, that being a dictator who does not own any of their actions does not understand that the larger reason for the lack of cuts is due to Trumps policies and chaos, that the very tariffs he loves so much are largely the reason why rates are not lower already...AND I said in what universe does Trump demand ZIRP as an economic norm? We are not entitled to 1% interest rates and our real estate and stock markets are not at the level required to add speculative stimulus anyway. THIS is what I said..I could give two craps about a one BLS report that will be revised and altered and whipsawed as it always is. I do not consider the BLS to be material or consistent because it is a collection of random surveys, that is all it is...kind of a waste of time if you ask me.
I think this shows the lack of reading through a flow on your part where my post is a reply to your comment to my comment versus it being a single one off reply. I went back to your string of messages and still did not find what number you are referring to from your words meaning what the estimate was and what the actual was, my 80% comment was the MISS, I have no idea what the actual estimate or figure was because I do not even look at the month to month BLS information, my comment(s) have been about the classless thug dictator approach he has to anyone that does not validate his current quandry...he is all over the map so it could be one thing today and something opposite tomorrow, his lack of involvement in the actual job and understanding of data flow is mind boggling so my comment was that it is absurd to fire someone or as you say the entire lot based on a SINGLE month figure given that the BLS collects data from small to mid size companies, they collect surveys and tabulate the totals, they do not create a number from anything else than surveys in which they collect and compile only.
So what happens when next month the previous month data is adjusted as it always is, does the fired person get a BOGO to the Trump property of their choice and oopsie sorry about that?
Directly post 52 was stating that you cannot "miss" an estimate when you cannot control the outcome or even have a clue about the outcome, the BLS group has seasonal historical information so they can say that given the past X years the month of X is usually X and shape an "estimate" based on what happened in the past, nobody ever in my experience has sacked a department head based on a month estimate because it is never accurate as an estimate it is never accurate as an actual figure it will take months to get the final print after several adjustments and changes.
So what would happen if said "miss" was in the favor of the dictator in chief? What if a "miss" actually got the result he wanted, would that person be sacked if a miss went in the favor of captain chaos? Of course the answer is NO and there is the truth of this entire situation.
@Raiders22
I think this shows the lack of reading through a flow on your part where my post is a reply to your comment to my comment versus it being a single one off reply. I went back to your string of messages and still did not find what number you are referring to from your words meaning what the estimate was and what the actual was, my 80% comment was the MISS, I have no idea what the actual estimate or figure was because I do not even look at the month to month BLS information, my comment(s) have been about the classless thug dictator approach he has to anyone that does not validate his current quandry...he is all over the map so it could be one thing today and something opposite tomorrow, his lack of involvement in the actual job and understanding of data flow is mind boggling so my comment was that it is absurd to fire someone or as you say the entire lot based on a SINGLE month figure given that the BLS collects data from small to mid size companies, they collect surveys and tabulate the totals, they do not create a number from anything else than surveys in which they collect and compile only.
So what happens when next month the previous month data is adjusted as it always is, does the fired person get a BOGO to the Trump property of their choice and oopsie sorry about that?
Directly post 52 was stating that you cannot "miss" an estimate when you cannot control the outcome or even have a clue about the outcome, the BLS group has seasonal historical information so they can say that given the past X years the month of X is usually X and shape an "estimate" based on what happened in the past, nobody ever in my experience has sacked a department head based on a month estimate because it is never accurate as an estimate it is never accurate as an actual figure it will take months to get the final print after several adjustments and changes.
So what would happen if said "miss" was in the favor of the dictator in chief? What if a "miss" actually got the result he wanted, would that person be sacked if a miss went in the favor of captain chaos? Of course the answer is NO and there is the truth of this entire situation.
Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris?
You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
@THEMUGG
Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris?
You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
@THEMUGG Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris? You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
Why the personal attacks when all he did was ask a question? So asking what Harris is done that is more than Trump, your words, amount to "partisan rage bias"?
I am also curious as to what is the "more for people" that Harris has done. In keeping with discussion/debate in good faith, please just answer the question. Why even come in the man's thread if you can't engage cordially?
It's all more gaslighting. Rage bias? Give me a break. It's a dog whistle comment. It plays into the narrative that the average Republican voter is an angry white male. Probably racist. Probably sexist. Full of "rage". How about he's just a guy who believes Harris was a bad candidate. That her struggles in public speaking don't point to possible cognitive decline due to age (Biden, Trump). They point to ineptitude.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris? You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
Why the personal attacks when all he did was ask a question? So asking what Harris is done that is more than Trump, your words, amount to "partisan rage bias"?
I am also curious as to what is the "more for people" that Harris has done. In keeping with discussion/debate in good faith, please just answer the question. Why even come in the man's thread if you can't engage cordially?
It's all more gaslighting. Rage bias? Give me a break. It's a dog whistle comment. It plays into the narrative that the average Republican voter is an angry white male. Probably racist. Probably sexist. Full of "rage". How about he's just a guy who believes Harris was a bad candidate. That her struggles in public speaking don't point to possible cognitive decline due to age (Biden, Trump). They point to ineptitude.
In an attempt to steer this thread back onto the road, i'll give my take. Harris didn't lose because of cryto investors. That's laughable. She lost for the same reason Hillary Clinton lost. Poor campaign strategy, lower than expected turnout anongst certain demographics, and general lack of appeal. Likability. The proverbial "who would you rather have a beer with" test. Nobody wants to have a beer with Kamala. Nor did they with Hillary. I'll deeper into this in a little while.
R.I.P. #94 MARSHAWN KNEELAND - DC4L
In an attempt to steer this thread back onto the road, i'll give my take. Harris didn't lose because of cryto investors. That's laughable. She lost for the same reason Hillary Clinton lost. Poor campaign strategy, lower than expected turnout anongst certain demographics, and general lack of appeal. Likability. The proverbial "who would you rather have a beer with" test. Nobody wants to have a beer with Kamala. Nor did they with Hillary. I'll deeper into this in a little while.
I think this shows the lack of reading through a flow on your part where my post is a reply to your comment to my comment versus it being a single one off reply. I went back to your string of messages and still did not find what number you are referring to from your words meaning what the estimate was and what the actual was, my 80% comment was the MISS, I have no idea what the actual estimate or figure was because I do not even look at the month to month BLS information,
Okay. But why even comment about me saying how far the estimate was off if you didn’t even look at it. How can you make the comment and now say you have no idea what it was because you did not even look at it. You didn’t have to ‘look at it’. It was posted here and everywhere.
Arguing about why it was off and whether she should be fired because of how bad she was off, and repeatedly off, does not make sense if you do not even know the numbers.
You have to have a starting point in a discussion. The starting point was always the numbers were wildly off, and more than once. They were far off of the usual adjustments.
So, she got fired. But if you do not even know if the numbers were off by a larger multiple than usual, how can you take the discussion to another step by simply bypassing the main gist of the argument.
Now it would look like it harkens back to your innate hatred of Trump. Since he fired her, you just assume it was wrong. She was absolutely fired for cause and every economist over there should have been fired.
The numbers matter — that is their entire job.
To not see the cause and effect that has been coming from those bad numbers is disingenuous at best.
So, it is not ‘a lack of reading through’ on my part. I made my WHOLE argument based off of the numbers. Then you jumped in here ABOUT my statement on the numbers. Then when I asked you about it, you try to shift the discussion to the subject about why they could possibly be wrong. That has nothing at all to do with the starting point. Even if that were the topic I questioned, there is enough of a reason to fire her still.
Numbers matter in economics and monetary policy. That department should strive to be accurate. They failed, more than once.
@wallstreetcappers
I think this shows the lack of reading through a flow on your part where my post is a reply to your comment to my comment versus it being a single one off reply. I went back to your string of messages and still did not find what number you are referring to from your words meaning what the estimate was and what the actual was, my 80% comment was the MISS, I have no idea what the actual estimate or figure was because I do not even look at the month to month BLS information,
Okay. But why even comment about me saying how far the estimate was off if you didn’t even look at it. How can you make the comment and now say you have no idea what it was because you did not even look at it. You didn’t have to ‘look at it’. It was posted here and everywhere.
Arguing about why it was off and whether she should be fired because of how bad she was off, and repeatedly off, does not make sense if you do not even know the numbers.
You have to have a starting point in a discussion. The starting point was always the numbers were wildly off, and more than once. They were far off of the usual adjustments.
So, she got fired. But if you do not even know if the numbers were off by a larger multiple than usual, how can you take the discussion to another step by simply bypassing the main gist of the argument.
Now it would look like it harkens back to your innate hatred of Trump. Since he fired her, you just assume it was wrong. She was absolutely fired for cause and every economist over there should have been fired.
The numbers matter — that is their entire job.
To not see the cause and effect that has been coming from those bad numbers is disingenuous at best.
So, it is not ‘a lack of reading through’ on my part. I made my WHOLE argument based off of the numbers. Then you jumped in here ABOUT my statement on the numbers. Then when I asked you about it, you try to shift the discussion to the subject about why they could possibly be wrong. That has nothing at all to do with the starting point. Even if that were the topic I questioned, there is enough of a reason to fire her still.
Numbers matter in economics and monetary policy. That department should strive to be accurate. They failed, more than once.
That you guys took those numbers at face value - doesn’t show anything else - than you guys are idiots - every policy Trump has implemented will slow down growth and is very bad for your economy with no exceptions ! And it isn’t a discussing point - it is plain facts and if you disagree you are just an idiot with no knowledge about macro economics - everyone with any kind of economical knowledge could tell you this - so that you think for one second that your guys numbers would resemble any kind of “normal” behaviour is laughable - I guarantee every single price metric has also been fiddled with - because Trump can and he will
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
That you guys took those numbers at face value - doesn’t show anything else - than you guys are idiots - every policy Trump has implemented will slow down growth and is very bad for your economy with no exceptions ! And it isn’t a discussing point - it is plain facts and if you disagree you are just an idiot with no knowledge about macro economics - everyone with any kind of economical knowledge could tell you this - so that you think for one second that your guys numbers would resemble any kind of “normal” behaviour is laughable - I guarantee every single price metric has also been fiddled with - because Trump can and he will
@THEMUGG Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris? You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
LOL, Harris couldn't accomplish what Trump has if she lived to be 120. She's just inept as a public servant. I know it must burn to see the your party in shambles like this, but dumping on Trump won't change that.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG Oy why even have a conversation with you when you are partisan rage biased against Harris? You fully know the reference to my comment, Harris has been a public servant longer than Trump ever could be so what she has done for actual people is greater than Trump ever could. Trump is an overlord of his company, he has no idea what personal interaction and impact means..just get him the tee times and stay out of his way.
LOL, Harris couldn't accomplish what Trump has if she lived to be 120. She's just inept as a public servant. I know it must burn to see the your party in shambles like this, but dumping on Trump won't change that.
This is just another example of your Harris bias, I have no idea what you are even trying to suggest as to your original statement. Public service is not the same as owning a private corporation. Harris in her position(s) were to serve the public, not serve as chairman or CEO of a corporation..even if you oddly suggest that all Harris did in her public service was negative and liberally biased (which you have suggested) it is STILL a position of public service.
You are strongly biased against Harris, so how would you be able to have a reasonable conversation about her that is constructive?
If you want to fall back to the public speaking stuff that is fine, Trump is by far the worst as a public speaker vs Harris and there are volumes of examples to show this but if you want to talk about PUBLIC SERVICE as you did we can discuss that, she has more time in public service than Trump I have no idea how you can try and suggest otherwise.
@THEMUGG
This is just another example of your Harris bias, I have no idea what you are even trying to suggest as to your original statement. Public service is not the same as owning a private corporation. Harris in her position(s) were to serve the public, not serve as chairman or CEO of a corporation..even if you oddly suggest that all Harris did in her public service was negative and liberally biased (which you have suggested) it is STILL a position of public service.
You are strongly biased against Harris, so how would you be able to have a reasonable conversation about her that is constructive?
If you want to fall back to the public speaking stuff that is fine, Trump is by far the worst as a public speaker vs Harris and there are volumes of examples to show this but if you want to talk about PUBLIC SERVICE as you did we can discuss that, she has more time in public service than Trump I have no idea how you can try and suggest otherwise.
You are going in circles with the intention to validate Trump firing someone off a "miss" of a forecast. I dont mind that you follow lock step with Trump as it is obvious this is the case and you want to fall back on generalities about "numbers matter" but that just does not make sense. Numbers never matter when you are making an estimate based not on actual real time data or statistics, an estimate is based on historical data and is never accurate for any period of time. The BLS estimates are inaccurate and always modified, as I said above that numbers matter number will be adjusted next month and the following month and the FINAL number will be completely different than the reported number because the BLS relies on individual companies to fill out surveys and then collect data from surveys which are elective and not mandatory.
So you did not answer but what would have happened if the BLS "MISS" were in the favor that got Trump the rate cut he demands? Would that MISS have resulted in a firing of a data collector? I would say no and how many prior BLS heads have been fired by the POTUS for a single "numbers matter" MISS?
Trump is not getting his rate cuts because of his chaotic agenda and inflation risk tariffs, the FED wants economic stability and consistency, a BLS data point is not going to sway the FED outside a massive multiple standard deviation outlier that correlates with OTHER economic data. They do not make decisions based solely on the BLS number, Trump is a dictator and thinks firing people will get him a different result, well it will not and I actually think his dictator approach is a risk alarm to the FED and it would not shock me that they are more apprehensive to move based on the scorched earth approach Trump has.
@Raiders22
You are going in circles with the intention to validate Trump firing someone off a "miss" of a forecast. I dont mind that you follow lock step with Trump as it is obvious this is the case and you want to fall back on generalities about "numbers matter" but that just does not make sense. Numbers never matter when you are making an estimate based not on actual real time data or statistics, an estimate is based on historical data and is never accurate for any period of time. The BLS estimates are inaccurate and always modified, as I said above that numbers matter number will be adjusted next month and the following month and the FINAL number will be completely different than the reported number because the BLS relies on individual companies to fill out surveys and then collect data from surveys which are elective and not mandatory.
So you did not answer but what would have happened if the BLS "MISS" were in the favor that got Trump the rate cut he demands? Would that MISS have resulted in a firing of a data collector? I would say no and how many prior BLS heads have been fired by the POTUS for a single "numbers matter" MISS?
Trump is not getting his rate cuts because of his chaotic agenda and inflation risk tariffs, the FED wants economic stability and consistency, a BLS data point is not going to sway the FED outside a massive multiple standard deviation outlier that correlates with OTHER economic data. They do not make decisions based solely on the BLS number, Trump is a dictator and thinks firing people will get him a different result, well it will not and I actually think his dictator approach is a risk alarm to the FED and it would not shock me that they are more apprehensive to move based on the scorched earth approach Trump has.
The starting point is still the same. Yes, I agreed with him firing her because of the bad misses she has had, and more than once. Being late before with them like she had to scramble to get her college thesis done or something. This is her entire job and she cannot get it done correctly or in a timely manner. These things come in all month long. Then she has been accused more than once of releasing the numbers early to some folks on Wall Street.
So, yes he should have fired the whole bunch for bad numbers.
You said I was wrong about how far off the numbers were. Until you can at least agree on that, it is hard to have a good faith discussion with you about it. Because, again, your hatred for Trump clouds every discussion you enter.
@wallstreetcappers
The starting point is still the same. Yes, I agreed with him firing her because of the bad misses she has had, and more than once. Being late before with them like she had to scramble to get her college thesis done or something. This is her entire job and she cannot get it done correctly or in a timely manner. These things come in all month long. Then she has been accused more than once of releasing the numbers early to some folks on Wall Street.
So, yes he should have fired the whole bunch for bad numbers.
You said I was wrong about how far off the numbers were. Until you can at least agree on that, it is hard to have a good faith discussion with you about it. Because, again, your hatred for Trump clouds every discussion you enter.
I said the reason he fired her as a blame for his rate cuts was wrong, I also said that given this projection is not NUMBERS that is wrong. The BLS does not create the numbers, they tabulate and read surveys so the head of the BLS was not wrong, wrong would be if you control the variables and the data and are the creator of the data and that is not the case.
It would be like saying the head of the national weather service getting fired for predicting hurricane season to have 3-5 tropical storms and we have 10 instead, the BLS projections are so useless it is almost industry humor. When you have to revise data for 2-3-4 months because the BLS is waiting on surveys to trickle in, the value these provide is pretty much muted.
Numbers matter...which numbers the absurd useless projections or the first print or second revision or third revision?
@Raiders22
LOL
I said the reason he fired her as a blame for his rate cuts was wrong, I also said that given this projection is not NUMBERS that is wrong. The BLS does not create the numbers, they tabulate and read surveys so the head of the BLS was not wrong, wrong would be if you control the variables and the data and are the creator of the data and that is not the case.
It would be like saying the head of the national weather service getting fired for predicting hurricane season to have 3-5 tropical storms and we have 10 instead, the BLS projections are so useless it is almost industry humor. When you have to revise data for 2-3-4 months because the BLS is waiting on surveys to trickle in, the value these provide is pretty much muted.
Numbers matter...which numbers the absurd useless projections or the first print or second revision or third revision?
You started by saying the numbers were not that far off. Then claimed you didn’t say it.
If you can never get past the initial starting premise, there is no need to cloud the issue with other things. The point I made was the numbers were absurdly off.
You have to admit to that before you can move on to trying to justify why they were off so badly, and have been off by her before; why they have been late; why she has leaked them early. All of this matters. Yes, Trump was right to fire her. But he should have fired them all. Some of us rely on those numbers every month for decisions that need to be made. A lot of us have been pointing out for months now that the jobs numbers and the economic activity are not lining up. This is a huge concern. Then when ‘Too Late’ says he cannot rely on the data coming from them — that matters.
So, yes, Trump should have fired her for multiple reasons — not just for the latest debacle.
But to start the topic up you have to admit how badly she has been doing her job and that the latest report just amplified it.
@wallstreetcappers
You started by saying the numbers were not that far off. Then claimed you didn’t say it.
If you can never get past the initial starting premise, there is no need to cloud the issue with other things. The point I made was the numbers were absurdly off.
You have to admit to that before you can move on to trying to justify why they were off so badly, and have been off by her before; why they have been late; why she has leaked them early. All of this matters. Yes, Trump was right to fire her. But he should have fired them all. Some of us rely on those numbers every month for decisions that need to be made. A lot of us have been pointing out for months now that the jobs numbers and the economic activity are not lining up. This is a huge concern. Then when ‘Too Late’ says he cannot rely on the data coming from them — that matters.
So, yes, Trump should have fired her for multiple reasons — not just for the latest debacle.
But to start the topic up you have to admit how badly she has been doing her job and that the latest report just amplified it.
@THEMUGG This is just another example of your Harris bias, I have no idea what you are even trying to suggest as to your original statement. Public service is not the same as owning a private corporation. Harris in her position(s) were to serve the public, not serve as chairman or CEO of a corporation..even if you oddly suggest that all Harris did in her public service was negative and liberally biased (which you have suggested) it is STILL a position of public service. You are strongly biased against Harris, so how would you be able to have a reasonable conversation about her that is constructive? If you want to fall back to the public speaking stuff that is fine, Trump is by far the worst as a public speaker vs Harris and there are volumes of examples to show this but if you want to talk about PUBLIC SERVICE as you did we can discuss that, she has more time in public service than Trump I have no idea how you can try and suggest otherwise.
You are strongly biased against Trump, so we're even there. Trump may be a rambler but there's no worse public speaker than Harris. When your speeches are referred to as a "word salad" that puts you in a category all your own. While I don't put Harris in the same league as other lib scum like Schiff, Schumer, Biden, etc., I feel fortunate she's not potus.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG This is just another example of your Harris bias, I have no idea what you are even trying to suggest as to your original statement. Public service is not the same as owning a private corporation. Harris in her position(s) were to serve the public, not serve as chairman or CEO of a corporation..even if you oddly suggest that all Harris did in her public service was negative and liberally biased (which you have suggested) it is STILL a position of public service. You are strongly biased against Harris, so how would you be able to have a reasonable conversation about her that is constructive? If you want to fall back to the public speaking stuff that is fine, Trump is by far the worst as a public speaker vs Harris and there are volumes of examples to show this but if you want to talk about PUBLIC SERVICE as you did we can discuss that, she has more time in public service than Trump I have no idea how you can try and suggest otherwise.
You are strongly biased against Trump, so we're even there. Trump may be a rambler but there's no worse public speaker than Harris. When your speeches are referred to as a "word salad" that puts you in a category all your own. While I don't put Harris in the same league as other lib scum like Schiff, Schumer, Biden, etc., I feel fortunate she's not potus.
Hot Forum Topics
