# Is the US economy getting better or getting worse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651 "2003-08-16T22:29:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/81 "2003-08-22T02:03:31Z")
There is no magic number, binky. You are whistling past the graveyard, which will soon be the resting place of dubya’s election chances. Your party is hosed, and you don’t even know it yet. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/82 "2003-08-22T02:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > The ‘magic number’ that indicates a healthy economy is 400,000. That number is now below 400,000. **Sam** The economy is NOT healthy. It is holding on. It is better than it was a year or two ago. But it ain’t healthy. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/83 "2003-08-22T02:30:48Z")
For Pete’s sake. You guys don’t really know anything about this, do you? You just want to go on about how bad the economy is. You have no understanding of what I’m talking about. I have vested interest in showing the economy is improving. I could care less who ‘benefits’ from it. All I’m doing is looking at well established benchmarks. These are the tools that corporations use to determine where to invest billions. They’re not spinning the data. The stock market rises and falls on these numbers. There is wide consensus on what they represent. This is Great Debates. If you disagree with the numbers, or think there are other numbers that are better representative of the state of the economy and its future, let’s hear them. Just repeating, “It’s BAD!” is not a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/84 "2003-08-22T02:43:21Z")
I meant, “I have NO vested interest”. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/85 "2003-08-22T02:58:55Z")
OK, **Sam** , answer me two questions: **1)** Seeing as how the economy is improving, would you advise your president to run on the slogan, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” and **2)** If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/86 "2003-08-22T03:47:55Z")
> [@](#): > > All I’m doing is looking at well established benchmarks. These are the tools that corporations use to determine where to invest billions. They’re not spinning the data. The stock market rises and falls on these numbers. There is wide consensus on what they represent. ] **Sam**. Since you’re a slave to old benchmarks, what would you say to Warren Buffet who, when asked about the market (which was about at botom in April), replied something to the effect that “where are the values?” That’s not his words. But it was his sentiments. Where are the values? The prices of stocks are incredible multiples of what their value truly is. Buffet was NOT buying into the Dow Jones or equities. He saw them as overpriced in April. I doubt that he would see them as any more of a bargain in a 20%+ run-up. And I understand that he may not be your hero, or even a market guru whom you respect. But truly, WHERE ARE THE VALUES? The economy is better than 3 months ago, according to the popular numbers bandied about in the press. I contend it is a chimera. Only time will prove one of us correct. Sorry for your incorrect reading of the current US bubble. ---
**Author:** ![Acco40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@Acco40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acco40)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/87 "2003-08-22T06:42:25Z")
Yes, the economy is getting better: corporations are stopping the bleeding, and are starting to make some money. This is reflected in the DJ which has been up lately. But look at the OP. **december** did not ask about the jobless rate, or any of these other factors. They are not pertinent subjects related strictly to the improvement of the market. Having said that, to ask the average person if they are better off now than four years ago is a no-brainer. Most people would probably say worse. Remember 9-11? That alone should nullify any blame Bush could receive for our hobbled economy, unless of course you can pin blame for 9-11 on Bush. The simple facts are these: _Job growth lags behind corporate profits._ Yes, however, corporations are beginning to streamline operations to the point that they are able to do more with less, and be more profitable. This means that many may not re-hire those they laid-off previously. This is great for stockholders; not so for Joe and Mary Worker. _The unemployment rate is improving._ This is true too until you remember that statistics can be bent all out of whack like a $2 whore. The fact is that many who are losing well-paying desk jobs are finding work doing menial labor just to make ends meet, and are not even filing for unemployment. This still aids the economy because Company X doesn’t have to pay a fat payroll anymore, and Company Y now can get slave labor from an astronomically over-educated and experienced individual. It doesn’t help Joe and Mary Worker though. From my viewpoint, many of my friends and I are heading back to grad school or tech school and getting out of the job market temporarily because the well-paying jobs are just not there anymore - it is simply too competitive. (It probably doesn’t help either that every waiter in Columbus has a college degree, but that’s for another post.) I’ll lick my wounds for two years and come out with a higher degree to set myself apart later… but I think a lot of people will have the same idea. Of course many of you up there in your ivory towers will poo poo my lowly “personal” experience. If only I had some money to invest like some of you, I’d be kicking ass. Turns out I don’t have a good job so that’s not happening anytime soon. This is the crux of the argument - if the numbers are improving, and the people are still feeling pain… is the economy really getting better? The job market sucks, but the economy is doing good (that does seem weird) - and will continue to get better, barring any random terrorist acts which could happen at any moment and instantly nullify any stupid opinions any of us well-intending Dopers have. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/88 "2003-08-22T06:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > For Pete’s sake. You guys don’t really know anything about this, do you? Out of curiousity, **Sam,** but what are _your_ credentials here? Do you have a doctorate in economic theory, or have written a dozen papers on international trade and the effects on local economies, or are secretly Alan Greenspan? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/89 "2003-08-22T07:14:37Z")
Nope. Aside from some economics in college, and a fair amount of personal study, I have no credentials. Nor did I ask for anyone else’s credentials. The fact is, the commentary coming from some other people in this thread seems to me to indicate that they really don’t have much of a clue about this stuff. Conflating economists with ‘the media’, saying that the new jobless claims figure shows things getting worse because 'it is not a positive number, saying that reading the key economic indicators is no better than reading tea leaves, saying that economics is ‘statistical crap’, etc. It sounds to me like ignorance and closed minds. Not by everyone, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/90 "2003-08-22T12:16:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grim\_Beaker \* > \*\*\*\*Evil Captor\*\*Google?! You’re kidding right? I just punched in physicists inaccurate predictions and got a slew of hits. Does that mean that physicists are usually incorrect? Relying on the contents of the first page of links returned by Google is like sticking your hand into a dump truck size pile of newspapers and then reading the op-ed sections clenched in your fist. It proves exactly _nothing_. > > [Ghostbusters: Dean Yeager] > Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. > [/Ghosbusters: Dean Yeager] > > C’mon **Evil Captor** , if you can’t do better than that just admit that you made an unsupportable statement and retract it. \*\* Grim Beaker, very first article on the list which you so glibly discount is one from an investment firm entitled “Why Value Investors Ignore Expert Predictions” and contains the following quote (mods, these quotes, long as they are, are very tiny excerpts of the original articles): > [@](#): > > It is therefore interesting to note that some of the most successful value investors of the past and present, on whom Leithner & Company’s approach to investment is based, pay no attention whatsoever to experts’ predictions and forecasts. Benjamin Graham, for example, stated that “the farther one gets away from Wall Street, the more scepticism one will find about the pretensions of stock-market forecasting or timing”. Peter Lynch, one the most successful funds managers of the last four decades, has disclaimed any ability to predict financial markets’ level or direction. Lynch has stated that market strategists “can’t predict markets with any useful consistency, any more than gizzard squeezers could tell the Roman emperors when the Huns would attack”. Similarly, Warren Buffett places no confidence in market forecasts and wastes no time on economic predictions: “if Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan were to whisper to me what his monetary policy was going to be over the next two years, it wouldn’t change one thing I do”. The second listing is an article from BBC News entitled "IMF Economic Predictions inaccurate and starts like this: > [@](#): > > The International Monetary Fund has a poor track record of successfully predicting financial crises, auditors have warned. > In particular, the much-watched World Economic Outlook was criticised for failing to sufficiently flag up potential trouble, a review by the General Accounting Office found. > > The review found that, of the 134 recessions that occurred in 87 developing countries between 1991 and 2001, the IMF predicted just 15. > > The Fund has been much criticised in the past for failing to warn of major economic crises such as the Asian financial meltdown in 1997-1998 and the Mexican peso devaluation in 1995. OK, Grim Beaker, if you want to continue your hand-waving you may do so, but you do so at the risk of looking very, very silly. I think I have shown convincingly that there is a widespread meme to the effect that economic forecasters are inaccurate, and that it is held by people who know a great deal about economics. You don’t like it, talk to the invisible hand. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/91 "2003-08-22T12:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **The fact is, the commentary coming from some other people in this thread seems to me to indicate that they really don’t have much of a clue about this stuff. Conflating economists with ‘the media’ … saying that reading the key economic indicators is no better than reading tea leaves …** Well, I guess we know your opinion of Peter Lynch. In saying we should respect the opinions of economic forecasters you are essentially making an argument to authority. I have just cited several widely acknowledged economic experts who say we should NOT respect the opinions of economic forecasters – another argument to authority, in essence. Whether or not my argument to authority trumps yours, it most certainly counters it. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/92 "2003-08-22T12:36:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > \*\*Well, I guess we know your opinion of Peter Lynch. In saying we should respect the opinions of economic forecasters you are essentially making an argument to authority. I have just cited several widely acknowledged economic experts who say we should NOT respect the opinions of economic forecasters… \*\* Peter Lynch said his approach to mutual fund management was to buy and sell a large number of companies in various sectors of the economy, based on his appraisal of those sectors. His record of success speaks for itself. He said he ignored the overall economy. In other words, he stayed fully invested in stocks all the time. That way he profited from the long-term growth of the the stock market. You’re not being consistent, **EC**. If you really believe that there’s no way to forecast the economy, then why are _you_ forecasting it? It seems inconsistent to claim that the economy will do badly but that it can’t be forecasted. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/93 "2003-08-22T12:53:39Z")
December, where have I said the economy will do badly? I’m pretty much in line with pantom’s economic future, i.e., corporations and their shareholders will continue to turn profits by increasing productivity (i.e., working the staff harder) and moving stuff offshore. Unlike pantom, I don’t think we’ll see a lot of jobs from all this economic health. Some corps will hire, but they’ll be swamped by all those other corps still cutting jobs. I do think that there will come a point where the U.S. market will present a problem as the middle class loses its discretionary income if these trends don’t change, but I don’t know when it will happen. Best bet to change the trend: vote the Dems into power. Stinky as they are, they at least understand that the economic health of the middle class is important to them. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/94 "2003-08-22T13:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > **December** , where have I said the economy will do badly? You wrote a while ago: > [@](#): > > I think things are actually worse than that – the number of jobs is actually declining. Businesses are succeeding by moving more of the ops offshore and by improving productivity so that when people leave they don’t have to be replaced. Period layoffs, etc., get the people to leave so that the number of employees stadily declines. > > The real level of economic distress is being masked by the fact that many people who have been laid off have found other work – at a fraction of the money they WERE making… Furthermore, in your most recent post you go on to make economic predictions, despite your claim that such predictions are impossible to make. E.g., you predicted: – continuing corporate profits – increasing productivity – moving stuff offshore – little growth in number of US jobs ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/95 "2003-08-22T15:26:54Z")
> [@](#): > > It is therefore interesting to note that some of the most successful value investors of the past and present, on whom Leithner & Company’s approach to investment is based, pay no attention whatsoever to experts’ predictions and forecasts. Benjamin Graham, for example, stated that “the farther one gets away from Wall Street, the more scepticism one will find about the pretensions of stock-market forecasting or timing”. He’s talking about predicting the STOCK MARKET. Not the overall economy. They are not the same thing. While the stock market does eventually move up when the economy improves, it is also affected by many other things - bond rates, interest rates, etc. Plus, individual stocks within the market do not track it 1:1 at all. > [@](#): > > The International Monetary Fund has a poor track record of successfully predicting financial crises, auditors have warned. > In particular, the much-watched World Economic Outlook was criticised for failing to sufficiently flag up potential trouble, a review by the General Accounting Office found. > > The review found that, of the 134 recessions that occurred in 87 developing countries between 1991 and 2001, the IMF predicted just 15. > > The Fund has been much criticised in the past for failing to warn of major economic crises such as the Asian financial meltdown in 1997-1998 and the Mexican peso devaluation in 1995. Note that they are talking about crises, which are generally unpredictable. NOT general, rational movement in the economy as a whole. Thinks like the real-estate bubble crash in Japan, or tech stock bubble crash in the U.S. Could something like that happen again and blow the predictions out of the water? Sure. But it would be _unpredictable_. Another major terrorist attack might do it. Deflation is still a risk, albeit a receding one. None of this has to do with the the main claim in this thread, which is that the leading economic indicators, which show the economy improving and the employment situation slowly improving, are useless because it’s just ‘statistics’, as opposed to your gut feeling and anecdotal evidence that the ecnomy is getting worse. That’s the worst kind of anti-scientific, biased nonsense. I could have said the same thing in the 90’s during the middle of the boom. My company went under (sunk by the Internet), my brother’s trade was devastated by the collapse of the tar sands projects. My mother lost her job during that period. SO WHAT? The local experience of selected people has nothing to do with the overall economic picture. What this all boils down to is you guys closing your eyes to the evidence and going, “lalalalalala” at positive news, because you WANT to believe that the economy is horrible and getting worse. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/96 "2003-08-22T16:02:39Z")
I think many of you guys are confusing the question “is the economy getting better” with “is the economy in good shape”. Sam has persented cold hard data that the former is true. The key economic indicators cannot be argued with. Now, whether or the economy is in good shape, especially from a political point of view (in terms of Bush’s reelection) is a much more subjective thing. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/97 "2003-08-22T17:19:44Z")
**Evil Captor** I myself am a follower of the Random Walk theory of investment. I believe it is highly unlikely that an individual can successfully out predict the market over the long term consistently. The first article you quote is about investors relying on the research created by company, and industry analysts for _investing_ purposes. 1. The market is _not_ the same thing as the economy. Beta is a quantitative measurement of an entities volatility relative to the overall group. In investing for example, a stock’s beta indicates how volatile it is relative to the overall market. 1. The stock market has a poor beta rating with regard to overall economic growth. The stock market is highly volatile and difficult to predict. An inability to consistently and accurately predict fluctuations in the market however does not by extension indicate that most professional economists are incorrect. How can this be so? Easy. Market valuations of stock are often based as much on psychological factors as they are on the actual value of the company, sometimes more so. If a company has had 30% annual growth over 5 years, potential buyers of that company’s stock may buy under the assumption that growth for the coming year will also be 30%. If the actual growth of the company turns out to be 20% and due to this the company’s stock falls in price by 50% does this mean that the company is tanking? No. It most likely means that the stock was subjectively overvalued by a group of investors. The drop in stock value says very little about the soundness of the company or it’s industry. 2. The failure of IMF economists to predict 119 recessions over a 10 year period across 87 countries says very little about the prediction rates of economists overall. If an NBA team has a free throw shooting average of .7 what does that indicate about the free throw shooting average of the other teams, or of the league overall? 3. If an economist predicts a 1.6% increase in retail sales for the next month and the actual increase in retail sales is 1.5% is that a “wrong prediction”? What if it’s 1.8%? Or 2%? What is the margin of error you’re using to determine the fail rate of economist predictions? > [@](#): > > I think I have shown convincingly that there is a widespread meme to the effect that economic forecasters are inaccurate, and that it is held by people who know a great deal about economics. Meme’s are ideas which percolate through cultures and populations to a various degree. The degree to which a meme is widespread says absolutely _nothing_ about the truthfulness of said meme. If, for instance, the flat earth hypothesis became a widespread meme it would say zip about how factual it is. 1. You haven’t shown that the meme (that economic forecasters are usually inaccurate) is widespread. A single report analyzing the performance of IMF recession predictions and another article regarding specific investors and their reactions to analyst reports does not constitute widespread. 2. Even if widespread you haven’t shown that it’s accurate (meme’s can be widespread and inaccurate) I will certainly agree that economists aren’t always correct. I will also agree that there is also an inherent amount of subjectively in the field of macroeconomics (seeing as how it’s essentially predictions regarding the aggregate results of choices made by a population). However, to be fair, I don’t think it’s possible for you to prove that economists are usually wrong. I believe you’ve set yourself up for failure for making a widespread statement that the available data just doesn’t support. Convince me of your argument. As a starting point you would need to provide me with a study which examines the predictions of a large cross section of professional economists over at least a decade, across a number of categories (retail sales, consumer confidence, housing sales, interest rates, etc.) as well as their overall quantitative predictions based on those categories. The study should indicate the actual historical measures of the categories in question so that the predictions can be measured against them. The study should, based on those comparisons, indicate the success and error rate for the predictions on a category by category (as well as overall) basis. Specifically, how many standard deviations away from the accurate prediction are economists predictions historically speaking? Are we seeing a majority of predictions clustered around what actually occurred or is the distribution much more widespread? Are the predictions better in some categories than others? How close are the overall predictions? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/98 "2003-08-22T18:22:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > For Pete’s sake. You guys don’t really know anything about this, do you? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > Aside from some economics in college, and a fair amount of personal study, I have no credentials. Thank you for confirming my hypothesis. > [@](#): > > Nor did I ask for anyone else’s credentials. No, you simply disparaged other people’s analysis when they disagreed with you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/99 "2003-08-22T20:12:29Z")
**rjung** , While anecdotes have their place in a debate, they are not a reliable basis to generate larger truths from. Now, you may take issue with **Sam Stone** ’s disparagement of those who are using anecdotes in this thread but do you think that the empirical data Sam has presented is of less importance when determining the answer to the OP (is the economy getting better/worse)? Simply speaking, on factual grounds (disregarding Sam’s presentation or verbiage), is Sam in error when he discounts individual experience compared with systematically compiled economic data? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651/100 "2003-08-23T00:51:11Z")
**rjung:** I hope you realize that you’ve just engaged in a classic _ad hominem_ argument. I present hard data, widely accepted, which supports my assertio that the economy is improving. Your response? To ask for my credentials. Since when do people need credentials to engage in debate on this board? Or is it only people who disagree with you that should be ignored unless they present their bona fides? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-economy-getting-better-or-getting-worse/195651.md?page=6)