I would call both seasons good, but you would have to factor in defense and special teams. Even then you could dominate the whole game in every statistic and still fall short in the game, but more times than not your indicators are good for the whole season. I see where you are trying to go with this but outrushing your opponent is a great indicator. As consumer confidence would be a good indicator. You asked the man what he thought a good economy looked like. He gave you indicators, but even then they might not tell the whole story. My head hurts!!

Machiavelli Wrote:I would call both seasons good,

Exactly! Even though rushing and passing yards are down. Even though they had few first downs, even though they scored fewer points. They were still a good team. But if you employ the logic togc does, the 2004 team wasn't a good team.

Now apply this back to our discussion of the economy. If I ask what makes an economy good, and all we get are indicators, or all we get are unemployment is higher than in '96, real wages are lower than in '96 we still haven't been told what classifies a good economy.

Simply because indicators aren't as good as 7 years ago doesn't mean the current economy is bad. togc would have us believe because some indicators aren't as good as '96 that equals a bad economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:Unemployment is one decent indicator. When the number goes up, that's bad. When it goes down, that's good. In the last seven years, it's gone up. In the prior eight years, it went down.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Inflation is another good indicator. When it goes up, that's bad. When it stays low, that's good. In the last seven years, it's gone up. In the prior eight years, it went down.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infla...ation.aspx

Another indicator is the housing market. Currently, it's in shambles and is predicted to get much, much worse. And before you get all worked up about it, I do not blame the Bush administration for this one. I put a lot of the blame on the predatory lending practices that put so many gullible people in this position.

Housing prices have been overinflated for too long, and too many people have subprime mortgages. I was actually impressed that Bush made the announcement to offer relief in the form of tax breaks and the ability to refinance.

Consumer Confidence is also an indicator. When it goes up, that's good. When it goes down, that's bad. In the last seven years, it's gone down. In the prior eight years, it's went up.

Real wages are another indicator. Average compensation compared to productivity has gone down in the last seven years. That's bad.

I think this is where TOGC answered what a good econmy is. IMHO.

I'm forced to disagree. He provided broad generalizations of indications of a bad economy. There is nothing in there to note what constitutes a good economy.

A legit answer would provide some specifics. For example, he said real wages are an indicator. He said they've dropped and and that's bad. Well how much can real wages drop and the economy still be considered good. If real wages have dropped by .25 cents for example, then he would appear to be saying that indicates a bad economy.

Put another way. If I asked you Mach what makes a good football team would you say:

"A rushing game is a good indicator. If rushing yardage goes up that's good. If it goes down, that's bad.

Another good indicator is passing yardage. If that goes up it's good, if that goes down it's bad.

First downs allowed are another good indicator. If a team allows more first downs, that's bad, if they allow fewer that's good."

Now has any of that told me what makes a good football team? No. Because as I illustrated with my USC football analogy, their 2004 team decreased in every statisitical category from their 2003 team. Would you call them a bad football team? I'm confident you wouldn't.

Hopefully this illustrates to you just why togc really didn't answer the question.

Good analogy and spot on I might add....

Still No. 1

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:I would call both seasons good,

Exactly! Even though rushing and passing yards are down. Even though they had few first downs, even though they scored fewer points. They were still a good team. But if you employ the logic togc does, the 2004 team wasn't a good team.

Now apply this back to our discussion of the economy. If I ask what makes an economy good, and all we get are indicators, or all we get are unemployment is higher than in '96, real wages are lower than in '96 we still haven't been told what classifies a good economy.

Simply because indicators aren't as good as 7 years ago doesn't mean the current economy is bad. togc would have us believe because some indicators aren't as good as '96 that equals a bad economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would also agree. If you were to take the analogy a bit further....consider the Chicago Bears defense of 1985, it could be argued maybe the best defense of all time. To measure all subsequent defenses against this defense, and if they are not equal to or better, claim that "obviously these are not good defenses" would be in error. There have been some very good defenses that weren't quite as good as that 1985 Bears defense.

The fact is that the 1990s were some of the best economic times ever in U.S. history and everyone knows that an economy over time will be peaks and valleys - not a straight line. Indeed, it is a lucky President that is in office during a surging economy as he is not asked to "fix things" that quite frankly, is beyond a President's power to fix.

I will say however, a concern of mine is the gap that appears to be growing between the haves & have-nots. If the "have-not" percentage of the population becomes too large, you start seeing lots of unrest and the "haves" start walling themselves in to keep the undesirables away.