More M2 cash money in 2012 than 2009

[Rickoshay75]

According to the US debt clock, clicking away the actual seconds,

Not Found ... ock.org%2F

On this day and second in 2009, the M2 money supply was $7.510 trillion

On this day and second in 2012, the M2 money supply is $9.727 trillion

Meaning that there is $2.217 trillion MORE M2 money supply in 2012 and that much more money in the people's hands. Add that to the 5 million more income tax payers and that gives us a more realistic view of the present economy. not the doom and gloom recession we have been led to believe.

M1 Money supply includes all coins and currency; checking accounts, and (NOW) Accounts.

M2 Money supply that includes M1 in addition to all time-related deposits, savings deposits, and non-institutional money-market funds.

[Demimonde]

[ChuckF]

[SR71]

He's such a nudzh. Again with the blithely ignorant feigning, Polyanna routine? Rick, you need to work on your act, it's getting a little threadbare.

[chunksmediocrites]

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

The professor must know it too.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by SR71

He's such a nudzh. Again with the blithely ignorant feigning, Polyanna routine? Rick, you need to work on your act, it's getting a little threadbare.

Blame the facts, not me. I only record it.

[chunksmediocrites]

Your conclusions do not correspond to your data.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Meaning that there is $2.217 trillion MORE M2 money supply in 2012 and that much more money in the people's hands.

Problem 1: An increase in M2 is in part simply an indication that the government has issued more money. An ability to print money has little to do with economic health.
Problem 2: What money in which people's hands? Money that corporations are sitting on in record amounts does little to stimulate the economy. Wealthy people investing money has a much lower stimulating result on the economy, compared to consumer spending- the actual engine of the US economy. Which remains down.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Add that to the 5 million more income tax payers

Problem 1: I'm going to take an educated guess and say you figured out the total US population had increased by 5 million, and you have now translated that to mean 5 million more taxpayers. That is not accurate. Children born during this period are dependents, not taxpayers. Immigrants to the US may be taxpayers; some number of teens in that time entered the workforce; some formerly in the workforce have retired. Again, the number is not clear.
Problem 2: More taxpayers means very little when the unemployment levels from 2009 to 2011 are relatively flat and definitely high. Jan 2009 unemployment was 7.8%; it spiked up to 10.1% in Oct 2009. In Nov 2011 was 8.6%. More taxpayers also means little when wages have stagnated, and the shift in jobs is toward part-time, low- or no-benefit jobs.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

and that gives us a more realistic view of the present economy.
not the doom and gloom recession we have been led to believe.

Your evidence regarding M2 again does not support your conclusion; it is not a significant data point.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Blame the facts, not me. I only record it.

Your conclusions are not facts. And not supported by the data.

You have a history of mangling data. A lot. And then reaching unsupported conclusions. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your response is non-sequiturs, shrugs, denials, or weak-ass puns.

You aren't recording facts. You're attempting to build data to support your conclusions, and then ignoring any data to the contrary. And usually doing a poor job of interpreting the data you do use, especially when it involves math. Why you would then think you should ever touch economics I don't know, I guess there are enough other idiots who know fuck-all and start with conclusions that maybe the noise will obscure your personal brand of idiocy.

Since this low-jumping on your part has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, you carry at least a lion's share of blame for your own ignorance. Please tell me you are a teenager or have someone else cut your meat for you, at least then I could understand why you are absolutely shit at what you are doing here. Unless what you are doing here is performance art of what an ignoramus does on the internet.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Your conclusions do not correspond to your data.

Problem 1: An increase in M2 is in part simply an indication that the government has issued more money. An ability to print money has little to do with economic health.
Problem 2: What money in which people's hands? Money that corporations are sitting on in record amounts does little to stimulate the economy. Wealthy people investing money has a much lower stimulating result on the economy, compared to consumer spending- the actual engine of the US economy. Which remains down.

Problem 1: I'm going to take an educated guess and say you figured out the total US population had increased by 5 million, and you have now translated that to mean 5 million more taxpayers. That is not accurate. Children born during this period are dependents, not taxpayers. Immigrants to the US may be taxpayers; some number of teens in that time entered the workforce; some formerly in the workforce have retired. Again, the number is not clear.
Problem 2: More taxpayers means very little when the unemployment levels from 2009 to 2011 are relatively flat and definitely high. Jan 2009 unemployment was 7.8%; it spiked up to 10.1% in Oct 2009. In Nov 2011 was 8.6%. More taxpayers also means little when wages have stagnated, and the shift in jobs is toward part-time, low- or no-benefit jobs.

Your evidence regarding M2 again does not support your conclusion; it is not a significant data point.

Your conclusions are not facts. And not supported by the data.

You have a history of mangling data. A lot. And then reaching unsupported conclusions. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your response is non-sequiturs, shrugs, denials, or weak-ass puns.

You aren't recording facts. You're attempting to build data to support your conclusions, and then ignoring any data to the contrary. And usually doing a poor job of interpreting the data you do use, especially when it involves math. Why you would then think you should ever touch economics I don't know, I guess there are enough other idiots who know fuck-all and start with conclusions that maybe the noise will obscure your personal brand of idiocy.

Since this low-jumping on your part has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, you carry at least a lion's share of blame for your own ignorance. Please tell me you are a teenager or have someone else cut your meat for you, at least then I could understand why you are absolutely shit at what you are doing here. Unless what you are doing here is performance art of what an ignoramus does on the internet.

I bring up subjects and you automatically debunk them. Is it that you resent being told anything and have to get even, or is it that you're against all good news because it helps Obama in the long run.

You need me more than I need you because my posts wake you up, enable you to think, stimulate a response.

[Crumb]

It's because you are wrong.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

I bring up subjects and you automatically debunk them.

Merriam-Webster

de·bunk
verb : to expose the sham or falseness of

Stop shitposting bunk and I'll stop debunking.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Is it that you resent being told anything and have to get even,

I dislike weak-tea, superficial analysis built to fit conclusions. I dislike your shitposting of repeated pollyanna threads about how well the economy is doing based on poor data, broken links, inaccurate quotes, poor or shoddy math... it is the opposite of sharing information. The only information you are sharing is that you are really inadequate in your basic skills, and impart information poorly, and dis-information middling well.

Getting even for you being a waste of time and forum space? Sure. But here's the thing: I'm giving you feedback (albeit more harshly as you fail to learn from your mistakes), because I like this forum, and like to read things people think about many subjects. If they aren't droll shitposters. I don't give interesting or funny or insightful posters a ration of shit, because I like the content they provide, what they bring to the table. If you stop shitposting and act like you have a brain, then my vitriol will be in serious check.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

or is it that you're against all good news because it helps Obama in the long run.

I would be very happy to see the economy turn around, and for the country and the world to prosper. I certainly have no problem with Obama or his administration or this Congress taking credit for any improvements in the US economy, if they were responsible for those improvements. But believe me, if Obama's economic advisors thought a higher M2 number was something to tout, they would be touting the fuck out of it. And I don't need pollyanna bullshit from any source, including you.

You repeatedly have complained about the economic gloom and doom that you think is overstated; fucking link to it. Show where the performance of our economy has been misrepresented.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

You need me more than I need you because my posts wake you up, enable you to think, stimulate a response.

How you came to that conclusion is also not clear. I can smell some garbage to stimulate the same response to reading your posts. I was unaware we were measuring our relative strength of need for each other; I am pretty sure I am willing to forgo that supposed need. You should test that theory by shutting the fuck up.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

You need me more than I need you because my posts wake you up, enable you to think, stimulate a response.

You are seriously over rating your usefulness.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are seriously over rating your usefulness.

You did respond, you know, so I'm not entirely useless...

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

It's a fact, not fancy, here check it out for yourself.

CompuServe Search

[The Lone Ranger]

You might find the history of the Weimar Republic to be interesting and perhaps even enlightening.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

It's a fact, not fancy, here check it out for yourself.

CompuServe Search

If I had debated what the amount of the M2 money supply was, you might have a point. What I clearly- in your own words- debunked was your conclusions you believe that data supports; yet that data does not support your conclusions. At least not as a single data point. But I'll look at how you represented the data in a minute.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Meaning that there is $2.217 trillion MORE M2 money supply in 2012 and that much more money in the people's hands. Add that to the 5 million more income tax payers and that gives us a more realistic view of the present economy. not the doom and gloom recession we have been led to believe.

Your conclusion is not supported. That there are 5 million taxpayers is not shown. That additional M2 = a more realistic view: compared to what view? What "gloom and doom" analysis are you referencing?

As I pointed out, one of the contributors to M2 is the US federal government printing money:

When one has $2.9 trillion in costless AUM (because if the cost is breached, one just doubles down, especially if one prints the money), it is not all that surprising to generate $77 billion in profits in one year (think of the hubris emanating from that particular year end letter), or even $385 billion in profits in the past 10 years. Yet it is still a stunning number considering the rest of the $2 trillion hedge fund industry lost about 10% in 2011. Which is why we all bow down to what is without doubt the world's most lucrative and profitable generator of P&L in history: the Federal Reserve, which for the second year in a row has printed (pun intended) over $70 billion in profits.

While you're at it, maybe you can tell me how you linked to 2009 in the debt clock.

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

On this day and second in 2009, the M2 money supply was $7.510 trillion

The variables for the past I see offered are 2000, 2004, 2008. 2009, 2010, 2011 are not listed. And the 2008 debt clock says M2 is 7.53 trillion currently. If you go to the URL and change the 2008 to 2009, you get a 404 error.

Which means your calculation on how rapidly the M2 has grown is actually over a longer period, because you flubbed the year.

An error in your data as represented, as well as in your conclusions. What a surprise.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by SR71

He's such a nudzh. Again with the blithely ignorant feigning, Polyanna routine? Rick, you need to work on your act, it's getting a little threadbare.

Is all this a way of telling me you don't like me? Well, no matter, I like you the way you are, so...

--- don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me, stay little valentine, stay. Each day is valentines day. Courtesy of Ella Fitzgerald.

[Jerome]

Ever wonder why they stopped publishing the M3 number?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Meaning that there is $2.217 trillion MORE M2 money supply in 2012 and that much more money in the people's hands. Add that to the 5 million more income tax payers and that gives us a more realistic view of the present economy. not the doom and gloom recession we have been led to believe.

Hey dummy, if there is not commensurate increase in actual wealth then that is nothing but inflation, a buttfuck to the working class.

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent | CNSnews.com

So far, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 83 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

During the same period, the price of ground beef has gone up 24 percent and price of bacon has gone up 22 percent.

Unless the working class is earning this percentage more they have been buttfucked.

[erimir]

Hey hey hey!

These aren't his numbers.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Is all this a way of telling me you don't like me? Well, no matter, I like you the way you are, so...

--- don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me, stay little valentine, stay. Each day is valentines day. Courtesy of Ella Fitzgerald.

No Rick, I still adore you. Don't worry, I'll never leave you. We're like this, Rick. (that's me on top)

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

Hey hey hey!

These aren't his numbers.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

[erimir]

I was talking about Rickoshay

[Goliath]

"Theorem": You have all the money you need.

"Proof": Let M denote the amount of money you have, and let N denote the amount of money that you need.

Let A=(M+N)/2 be the average of M and N.

Then, 2A=M+N.

Multiplying both sides by M-N, we have 2A(M-N)=(M+N)(M-N).

Distributing, we have 2AM-2AN=M2-N2.

Rearranging, we see that M2-2AM=N2-2AN.

Adding A2 to both sides, we have M2-2AM+A2 = N2-2AN+A2.

Factoring, this becomes (M-A)2=(N-A)2.

Taking the square root, we obtain M-A=N-A, and hence M=N.

QED, bitches!

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Angakuk (to Rickoshay75)

You are seriously over rating your usefulness.

This seriously cannot be overstated.