Decoupling

[Kidlicious]

You're argument is that it's nonsense to even mention the difference in the key rates between the two nations. You specifically used the word nonsense.

I'm not saying it's definative. You're saying that if has nothing to do with the issue.

[Kidlicious]

me:

"Right, but if the difference is because of interest rates and the fed has been lowering them more than the BoC then why is the US in recession and Canada not?"

you:

"You are both talking nonsense."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're argument is that it's nonsense to even mention the difference in the key rates between the two nations. You specifically used the word nonsense.

I'm not saying it's definative. You're saying that if has nothing to do with the issue.

You are a twit, kid. It is an extremely poor, secondary measure. It is forward looking (therefore subject to forecasting uncertainties), and as has already been stated is subject to the different mandates that the BoC and the Fed have.

Looking at central bank rates is the dumbest possible metric of this. Looking at output and labour market statistics (which are statements about what has already happened, and which can easily be brought to the same measurement definition) is key. There are other measurements as well, but in no reasonable analysis would central bank rates be important.

But this is about the level of discourse that I expect from you, you maroon.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You are a twit, kid. It is an extremely poor, secondary measure. It is forward looking (therefore subject to forecasting uncertainties), and as has already been stated is subject to the different mandates that the BoC and the Fed have.

Looking at central bank rates is the dumbest possible metric of this. Looking at output and labour market statistics (which are statements about what has already happened, and which can easily be brought to the same measurement definition) is key. There are other measurements as well, but in no reasonable analysis would central bank rates be important.

But this is about the level of discourse that I expect from you, you maroon.

Like I said facts are bothersome things aren't they. The fact is that key interest rates have moved the same way. The central banks have acted in unison. If the rates were only determined by different mandates then the central banks would not tend to make similar policy decisions.

Seriously, I'm having a hard time believing that you are this stupid. You are just being more obtuse than I've ever ****ing seen anyone act.

[Kidlicious]

Also the very evidence that you presented tends to show that high correlation continues at least up until 2001.

[KrazyHorse]

Also the very evidence that you presented tends to show that high correlation continues at least up until 2001.

No, unless by "high" you mean "existent but much, much lower than previously"

[KrazyHorse]

me:

"Right, but if the difference is because of interest rates and the fed has been lowering them more than the BoC then why is the US in recession and Canada not?"

you:

"You are both talking nonsense."

Kid, pick a direction of causation and stick with it. You glorious ******.

[KrazyHorse]

And with that, welcome to my ignore list. You join the illustrious company of such people as Ben Kenobi.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Uh....I salready said that there was a mesa, Colon. Pay attention. The question is why the correlation coefficient got far smaller. Which it did, as is easily visible. Stop embarrassing yourself.

A graph with the GDP growth data I managed to find. Of course this doesn't disprove correlation was tighter before but bar a period in 2003-04 it seems a good correlation regardless.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Colon, this is seriously the most obtuse I've ever seen you be.

You're being pretty bad yourself. As far as I can tell Canada's and US' labour market headed into the same direction after the new economy bubble, except Canada's growth decelerated by a smaller magnitude and reaccelerated by large magnitude (this isn't the first time something like this happened). People have offered a perfectly viable explanation for this but you just won't have it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And with that, welcome to my ignore list. You join the illustrious company of such people as Ben Kenobi.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


A graph with the GDP growth data I managed to find. Of course this doesn't disprove correlation was tighter before but bar a period in 2003-04 it seems a good correlation regardless.

Yargghhhhh.

Are you deliberately being an idiot?

Get the data from earlier, put it on the same chart. Look at how well it correlates. Compare to how well it correlates now. How the **** are you going to make a comparison if you don't even look at the data from before the change?

How ****ing dumb can you be?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
People have offered a perfectly viable explanation for this but you just won't have it.

No, they haven't.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, Colon: here's the actual numbers:

correlation coefficient 1970 to 1994 (real annual gdp growth rate) 0.746

correlation coefficient 1995 to 2007 (real annual gdp growth rate) 0.360

[Kidlicious]

I was thinking this is a troll, but he's put too much effort into this.