Jump to content

Talk:Misery index (economics): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Lowellt - ""
Lowellt (talk | contribs)
Line 14: Line 14:
This is complete and total bullshit. Okun should've lived in shame for his entire life for calling himself an economist. The fact of the matter is inflation at a relaxed and natural rate simply doesn't matter. It's only when it's accelerated and outweighs the increase in wage that it becomes a problem. The rule of thumb is one percent of cyclical unemployment (any percentage point above the natural rate of unemployment, which is now between 4 and 5 percent) is 67 times more harmful to our GDP than one percent of inflation. So let's look at it like this: Let's say for a given four years, President A has an unemployment rate of 6 percent and an inflation rate of 4 percent (on average). His misery index equals 10. Now, the next president, President B gets elected for the next 4 years, and his average unemployment rate is 3 percent, and average inflation rate is 9%. His misery index equals 12. In reality, President B has enjoyed a much more prosperous economy. GDP growth is at a much larger rate than President A, which really means the economy is TOO prosperous (because unemployment is lower than 4%). This whole misery index idea is a complete waste of intellectual effort. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.114.154.215|68.114.154.215]] ([[User talk:68.114.154.215|talk]]) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This is complete and total bullshit. Okun should've lived in shame for his entire life for calling himself an economist. The fact of the matter is inflation at a relaxed and natural rate simply doesn't matter. It's only when it's accelerated and outweighs the increase in wage that it becomes a problem. The rule of thumb is one percent of cyclical unemployment (any percentage point above the natural rate of unemployment, which is now between 4 and 5 percent) is 67 times more harmful to our GDP than one percent of inflation. So let's look at it like this: Let's say for a given four years, President A has an unemployment rate of 6 percent and an inflation rate of 4 percent (on average). His misery index equals 10. Now, the next president, President B gets elected for the next 4 years, and his average unemployment rate is 3 percent, and average inflation rate is 9%. His misery index equals 12. In reality, President B has enjoyed a much more prosperous economy. GDP growth is at a much larger rate than President A, which really means the economy is TOO prosperous (because unemployment is lower than 4%). This whole misery index idea is a complete waste of intellectual effort. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.114.154.215|68.114.154.215]] ([[User talk:68.114.154.215|talk]]) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== What about DEflation ==
== What about Deflation ==


I suppose they never thought about what to do when there is deflation do we add it to the index because it's bad or do we add it as a negative number - take it away - that seems wrong because it would then erase the amount added to the index by unemployment? --[[Special:Contributions/79.64.184.100|79.64.184.100]] ([[User talk:79.64.184.100|talk]]) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose they never thought about what to do when there is deflation do we add it to the index because it's bad or do we add it as a negative number - take it away - that seems wrong because it would then erase the amount added to the index by unemployment? --[[Special:Contributions/79.64.184.100|79.64.184.100]] ([[User talk:79.64.184.100|talk]]) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 15 July 2009

Umm, why is President Bush Jr. ranked 5th before Truman, if the indicated average in the table is higher for his term? Besides, I went to the site and took the data, and the average (calculated by summing up the 67 months starting Jan 2001 and ending Jul 2001) is now 8.04 for President Bush. Did I calculate it right? If so, shouldn't the table be updated? Bravada, talk - 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per a BusinessWeek blog, the original Misery Index was invented by Arthur Okun. Please see http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/

Is there a source for the Misery Index-crime rate claim? Jamiem 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last entry is fast becoming out of date (14 months old). Unemployment is down to 4.7% (US Average). Can we update this? talk 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I noted this, and have taken a stab at calculating a current figure (as of 04 April 2008) for G. W. Bush. I am not certain if my calculations are done the same as the others. I calculated a monthly inflation rate for each month from Consumer Price Index data [1], then took that number, e.g., 1.00324, to the 12th power to calculate an effective annual rate, then subtracted 1 from that number, then multiplied by 100 for a percentage figure that goes from 0 to 100 (it can be and was in several instances a negative number). Then for each month I added the Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rate [2] percentage (a number like the inflation rate like 1 percent) to come up with the monthly MI. Then I averaged them over the entire period. This number comes out to be 8.01, with a minumum of -4.2 in November of 2005 (no other President presided over a month of deflation?) and a maximum of 20.8 in September of 2005.Weyandt (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current inflation statistics are too cooked to make a historical comparison even remotely meaningful. If GWB used the same methods of calculating CPI as were used in Clinton years, it'd be over 10%. 70.61.22.110 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Newt[reply]


This is complete and total bullshit. Okun should've lived in shame for his entire life for calling himself an economist. The fact of the matter is inflation at a relaxed and natural rate simply doesn't matter. It's only when it's accelerated and outweighs the increase in wage that it becomes a problem. The rule of thumb is one percent of cyclical unemployment (any percentage point above the natural rate of unemployment, which is now between 4 and 5 percent) is 67 times more harmful to our GDP than one percent of inflation. So let's look at it like this: Let's say for a given four years, President A has an unemployment rate of 6 percent and an inflation rate of 4 percent (on average). His misery index equals 10. Now, the next president, President B gets elected for the next 4 years, and his average unemployment rate is 3 percent, and average inflation rate is 9%. His misery index equals 12. In reality, President B has enjoyed a much more prosperous economy. GDP growth is at a much larger rate than President A, which really means the economy is TOO prosperous (because unemployment is lower than 4%). This whole misery index idea is a complete waste of intellectual effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.154.215 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Deflation

I suppose they never thought about what to do when there is deflation do we add it to the index because it's bad or do we add it as a negative number - take it away - that seems wrong because it would then erase the amount added to the index by unemployment? --79.64.184.100 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama getting a pass?

Anyone tracking the misery index during this administration. Seems to be headed above 13.57%, driven just by actual unemployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowellt (talkcontribs) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]