STUDY PROVES TOM KUNICH SPECTACULARLY RIGHT. AGAIN.

with John B wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 10:25:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 23:33:47 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:20:52 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:16:40 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:46:44 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 11:22:48 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 5:40:35 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 5:02:28 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:20:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 7:27:21 PM UTC-8,
Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2020 6:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-8,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2020 9:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 3:09:49 PM
UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2020 4:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 12/23/2020 2:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

*SKIP*
But what is incorrect with the IMF's theory?
There's nothing wrong with IMF or theory (rather methodology),
that's not the point. Question is, what are data sources that GDP
is derived from? I can see: more or less regulated (required and
voluntary) bookeeping reporting, taxes moving to and fro (yes,
sometimes taxes flow backwards, like literally), and unknown amount
of guesswork. Care to add more? Unfortunately, I can't point,
right now, at what SNA2008 has to say about it -- to much work.
*SKIP*
I'm not sure what you are talking about. One must assume that every
agency that calculates GDP does it by some method that satisfies
their objectives.

That's wrong. Methods of data muddling are rather thoroughly described
by SNA2008. What it doesn't seem to discuss are data sources -- half of
hour of grepping yields nothing. Printing those seven handred pages and
reading it with a marker is beyond my resources right now (maybe never).

It should be noted though, while assumption itself I consider to be
wrong it goes straight to right conclusion, what isn't stated though.

Point is: garbage in -- strawman out. Unfortunately, I can't clear
that gap in reasoning. Probably, should call it a night then.

Perhaps you are missing the point that GDP is simply a means of
assessing something in contrast to something else.

This hardly makes any sense. IOW, GDP is grand total of specific
data-set produced according SNA2008 (right now, this may change for
forth time any moment); as of SNA itself, here comes another quote,
subchapter C. 'Uses of the SNA', (turns out this division is) paragraph
1.27:

The main objective of the SNA is to provide a comprehensive
conceptual and accounting framework that can be used to create a
macroeconomic database suitable for analysing and evaluating the
performance of an economy. The existence of such a database is a
prerequisite for informed, rational policymaking and
decision-taking. Some of the more specific uses of the SNA are
described in the following sections.

Then GDPs over different data-sets may be compared (sources of data-sets
may or may not be different though; being them distant in time or space
is irrelevant), what makes sense after all. What doesn't make sense is
wielding assorted strawpeople and waving them in all directions.

*SKIP*
A misspelled word there "collectible" should have been spelled
"knowledgeable".

Probably Thai English is deviating from other Englishes. But English is
a bitch anyway, so it's normal.

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:25:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 15:39:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:22:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Since the illegal drug trade and other illegal activities
are not probable because they deal in cash and so income
cannot be proven exactly how to you suppose the government
is going to tax these things?

They just confiscate the money or the property. It's called "civil
forfeiture" or "assets forfeiture".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+or+asset+forfeiture

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 13. Title 26 Seizures for Forfeiture
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-007-013

Trump Signs New Law To Protect Innocent Small Business Owners From IRS
Seizures
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/10/trump-signs-new-law-to-protect-innocent-small-business-owners-from-irs-seizures/

In some cases, it's not even necessary for a crime to have been
committed. I know of one case where all charges were dropped, but the
arresting agency still kept the seized property. When the case
finally went before a judge, the judge invented a new principle called
"crimes committed by property". Sometimes, the seized assets are sold
by the arresting agency before a judge or jury reaches a verdict on
the crime. If something you own is suspected of having been purchased
with funds potentially derived from the commission of a crime, the
police can confiscate the property, and never bother bring charges for
the crime.

But, to some extent, isn't that true in most places?

I don't know. Most of my personal experience is in the US. I've been
to a few other places, but have not had to deal with confiscation
through normal legal channels.

If you buy a car
which is later determined to have been stolen that you don't get to
keep the car just because you claim to have bought it in good faith.
Do you?

As far as I know, the law says that stolen and lost property belongs
to the original owner. From what I've personally experienced,
recovered stolen property belongs to the local sheriff's property
department to do with as they see fit. I've had that experience twice
and it baffled me. When I discussed it with my attorney, he advised
me not to pursue the matter as my chances of recovering anything is
minimal. Various friends and relatives have also had similar
experiences. My stepmother went to visit her sister in Canada and
decided to pay for the airplane tickets in cash. Despite having a
bank withdrawal receipt, having too much cash was considered
sufficient for the pre-TSA airport police to declare that the money
was probably obtained by illicit means and detain her at the airport.
The only way we could get her released was to pull some strings. When
the barrage of phone calls from attorneys and government officials in
high places slowed, she was given back her cash, and escorted to her
airplane with a substantial escort.

For what it's worth, I have been in the position of having purchased
what later appeared to have been previously stolen. Oddly, in all
cases, it was many months after the insurance companies have settled
the loss with the original owner. The last thing that either the
original owner or the insurance company wanted to see was the stolen
item. The original owner would be required to return the money to the
insurance company and the cost to the insurance company to deal with
the exchange and resultant paperwork would probably not be desirable.
I was advised to leave things as they were. Note that insurance
payments settlements are NOT taxable.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 11:32:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:25:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 15:39:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:22:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Since the illegal drug trade and other illegal activities
are not probable because they deal in cash and so income
cannot be proven exactly how to you suppose the government
is going to tax these things?

They just confiscate the money or the property. It's called "civil
forfeiture" or "assets forfeiture".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+or+asset+forfeiture

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 13. Title 26 Seizures for Forfeiture
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-007-013

Trump Signs New Law To Protect Innocent Small Business Owners From IRS
Seizures
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/10/trump-signs-new-law-to-protect-innocent-small-business-owners-from-irs-seizures/

In some cases, it's not even necessary for a crime to have been
committed. I know of one case where all charges were dropped, but the
arresting agency still kept the seized property. When the case
finally went before a judge, the judge invented a new principle called
"crimes committed by property". Sometimes, the seized assets are sold
by the arresting agency before a judge or jury reaches a verdict on
the crime. If something you own is suspected of having been purchased
with funds potentially derived from the commission of a crime, the
police can confiscate the property, and never bother bring charges for
the crime.

But, to some extent, isn't that true in most places?

I don't know. Most of my personal experience is in the US. I've been
to a few other places, but have not had to deal with confiscation
through normal legal channels.

If you buy a car
which is later determined to have been stolen that you don't get to
keep the car just because you claim to have bought it in good faith.
Do you?

As far as I know, the law says that stolen and lost property belongs
to the original owner. From what I've personally experienced,
recovered stolen property belongs to the local sheriff's property
department to do with as they see fit. I've had that experience twice
and it baffled me. When I discussed it with my attorney, he advised
me not to pursue the matter as my chances of recovering anything is
minimal. Various friends and relatives have also had similar
experiences. My stepmother went to visit her sister in Canada and
decided to pay for the airplane tickets in cash. Despite having a
bank withdrawal receipt, having too much cash was considered
sufficient for the pre-TSA airport police to declare that the money
was probably obtained by illicit means and detain her at the airport.
The only way we could get her released was to pull some strings. When
the barrage of phone calls from attorneys and government officials in
high places slowed, she was given back her cash, and escorted to her
airplane with a substantial escort.

Out of curiosity, how much money was your stepmother carrying? Here
you are limited as to the amount of cash you can be carrying into the
country. If you are carrying 20,000 US$, or the equivalent in any
foreign currency, or more, you must report it to customs nor can you
carry large amounts of Thai currency out of the country.

The reasoning is, of course, that those engaged in unlawful activities
much prefer payments to be made in cash.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 06:03:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 11:32:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:25:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 15:39:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:22:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Since the illegal drug trade and other illegal activities
are not probable because they deal in cash and so income
cannot be proven exactly how to you suppose the government
is going to tax these things?

They just confiscate the money or the property. It's called "civil
forfeiture" or "assets forfeiture".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+or+asset+forfeiture

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 13. Title 26 Seizures for Forfeiture
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-007-013

Trump Signs New Law To Protect Innocent Small Business Owners From IRS
Seizures
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/10/trump-signs-new-law-to-protect-innocent-small-business-owners-from-irs-seizures/

In some cases, it's not even necessary for a crime to have been
committed. I know of one case where all charges were dropped, but the
arresting agency still kept the seized property. When the case
finally went before a judge, the judge invented a new principle called
"crimes committed by property". Sometimes, the seized assets are sold
by the arresting agency before a judge or jury reaches a verdict on
the crime. If something you own is suspected of having been purchased
with funds potentially derived from the commission of a crime, the
police can confiscate the property, and never bother bring charges for
the crime.

But, to some extent, isn't that true in most places?

I don't know. Most of my personal experience is in the US. I've been
to a few other places, but have not had to deal with confiscation
through normal legal channels.

If you buy a car
which is later determined to have been stolen that you don't get to
keep the car just because you claim to have bought it in good faith.
Do you?

As far as I know, the law says that stolen and lost property belongs
to the original owner. From what I've personally experienced,
recovered stolen property belongs to the local sheriff's property
department to do with as they see fit. I've had that experience twice
and it baffled me. When I discussed it with my attorney, he advised
me not to pursue the matter as my chances of recovering anything is
minimal. Various friends and relatives have also had similar
experiences. My stepmother went to visit her sister in Canada and
decided to pay for the airplane tickets in cash. Despite having a
bank withdrawal receipt, having too much cash was considered
sufficient for the pre-TSA airport police to declare that the money
was probably obtained by illicit means and detain her at the airport.
The only way we could get her released was to pull some strings. When
the barrage of phone calls from attorneys and government officials in
high places slowed, she was given back her cash, and escorted to her
airplane with a substantial escort.

Out of curiosity, how much money was your stepmother carrying?

In 1995(?), I think it was $4,000 in mostly $100 bills. That would be
$6,800 in todays inflated dollars. I don't recall what she had in her
purse, but my guess(tm) is about $300. She had difficulties dealing
with credit cards, travelers checks, bank drafts, etc and thought the
cash would simplify things.

Here
you are limited as to the amount of cash you can be carrying into the
country. If you are carrying 20,000 US$, or the equivalent in any
foreign currency, or more, you must report it to customs nor can you
carry large amounts of Thai currency out of the country.

The reasoning is, of course, that those engaged in unlawful activities
much prefer payments to be made in cash.

Note that there is no limit to how much cash you can take with you
when leaving the USA as long as you declare it:
https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/
I've hear rumors that if the balance in your checkbook is sufficiently
large, it counts as part of the $10,000 limit.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 19:22:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 06:03:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 11:32:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:25:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 15:39:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:22:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Since the illegal drug trade and other illegal activities
are not probable because they deal in cash and so income
cannot be proven exactly how to you suppose the government
is going to tax these things?

They just confiscate the money or the property. It's called "civil
forfeiture" or "assets forfeiture".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+or+asset+forfeiture

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 13. Title 26 Seizures for Forfeiture
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-007-013

Trump Signs New Law To Protect Innocent Small Business Owners From IRS
Seizures
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/10/trump-signs-new-law-to-protect-innocent-small-business-owners-from-irs-seizures/

In some cases, it's not even necessary for a crime to have been
committed. I know of one case where all charges were dropped, but the
arresting agency still kept the seized property. When the case
finally went before a judge, the judge invented a new principle called
"crimes committed by property". Sometimes, the seized assets are sold
by the arresting agency before a judge or jury reaches a verdict on
the crime. If something you own is suspected of having been purchased
with funds potentially derived from the commission of a crime, the
police can confiscate the property, and never bother bring charges for
the crime.

But, to some extent, isn't that true in most places?

I don't know. Most of my personal experience is in the US. I've been
to a few other places, but have not had to deal with confiscation
through normal legal channels.

If you buy a car
which is later determined to have been stolen that you don't get to
keep the car just because you claim to have bought it in good faith.
Do you?

As far as I know, the law says that stolen and lost property belongs
to the original owner. From what I've personally experienced,
recovered stolen property belongs to the local sheriff's property
department to do with as they see fit. I've had that experience twice
and it baffled me. When I discussed it with my attorney, he advised
me not to pursue the matter as my chances of recovering anything is
minimal. Various friends and relatives have also had similar
experiences. My stepmother went to visit her sister in Canada and
decided to pay for the airplane tickets in cash. Despite having a
bank withdrawal receipt, having too much cash was considered
sufficient for the pre-TSA airport police to declare that the money
was probably obtained by illicit means and detain her at the airport.
The only way we could get her released was to pull some strings. When
the barrage of phone calls from attorneys and government officials in
high places slowed, she was given back her cash, and escorted to her
airplane with a substantial escort.

Out of curiosity, how much money was your stepmother carrying?

In 1995(?), I think it was $4,000 in mostly $100 bills. That would be
$6,800 in todays inflated dollars. I don't recall what she had in her
purse, but my guess(tm) is about $300. She had difficulties dealing
with credit cards, travelers checks, bank drafts, etc and thought the
cash would simplify things.

Again only out of curiosity, was $4,000 considered a lot of money in
1995? About 120,000 baht, I don't think it was here. About that period
I bought my wife her first car, I think about 300,000 baht, or about
$10,000, depending on the exchange rate at the time, and that was
considered "quite a bit of money" at the time then.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:09:16 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Again only out of curiosity, was $4,000 considered a lot of money in
1995?

The limit of $10,000, above which one was required to declare, was the
start of a "lot of money". $4,000 was not a large amount, but more
than what the typical traveler was expected to be carrying. That was
the key to this mess. They decided that since this was more than
"normal", there must have been some crime involved. The standard
procedure was and still is, grab the money first, and find a suitable
crime later. I'm fairly certain that had we not pulled the necessary
strings immediately, the cash would have instantly disappeared.

About 120,000 baht, I don't think it was here. About that period
I bought my wife her first car, I think about 300,000 baht, or about
$10,000, depending on the exchange rate at the time, and that was
considered "quite a bit of money" at the time then.

About $19,000 for an average new car in the US in 1994 to 1996.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/18/business/average-car-price-20000-not-quite-it-seems.html

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/2/2021 9:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 06:03:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 11:32:36 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:25:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 15:39:38 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:22:47 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Since the illegal drug trade and other illegal activities
are not probable because they deal in cash and so income
cannot be proven exactly how to you suppose the government
is going to tax these things?

They just confiscate the money or the property. It's called "civil
forfeiture" or "assets forfeiture".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+or+asset+forfeiture

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 13. Title 26 Seizures for Forfeiture
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-007-013

Trump Signs New Law To Protect Innocent Small Business Owners From IRS
Seizures
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/10/trump-signs-new-law-to-protect-innocent-small-business-owners-from-irs-seizures/

In some cases, it's not even necessary for a crime to have been
committed. I know of one case where all charges were dropped, but the
arresting agency still kept the seized property. When the case
finally went before a judge, the judge invented a new principle called
"crimes committed by property". Sometimes, the seized assets are sold
by the arresting agency before a judge or jury reaches a verdict on
the crime. If something you own is suspected of having been purchased
with funds potentially derived from the commission of a crime, the
police can confiscate the property, and never bother bring charges for
the crime.

But, to some extent, isn't that true in most places?

I don't know. Most of my personal experience is in the US. I've been
to a few other places, but have not had to deal with confiscation
through normal legal channels.

If you buy a car
which is later determined to have been stolen that you don't get to
keep the car just because you claim to have bought it in good faith.
Do you?

As far as I know, the law says that stolen and lost property belongs
to the original owner. From what I've personally experienced,
recovered stolen property belongs to the local sheriff's property
department to do with as they see fit. I've had that experience twice
and it baffled me. When I discussed it with my attorney, he advised
me not to pursue the matter as my chances of recovering anything is
minimal. Various friends and relatives have also had similar
experiences. My stepmother went to visit her sister in Canada and
decided to pay for the airplane tickets in cash. Despite having a
bank withdrawal receipt, having too much cash was considered
sufficient for the pre-TSA airport police to declare that the money
was probably obtained by illicit means and detain her at the airport.
The only way we could get her released was to pull some strings. When
the barrage of phone calls from attorneys and government officials in
high places slowed, she was given back her cash, and escorted to her
airplane with a substantial escort.

Out of curiosity, how much money was your stepmother carrying?

In 1995(?), I think it was $4,000 in mostly $100 bills. That would be
$6,800 in todays inflated dollars. I don't recall what she had in her
purse, but my guess(tm) is about $300. She had difficulties dealing
with credit cards, travelers checks, bank drafts, etc and thought the
cash would simplify things.

Here
you are limited as to the amount of cash you can be carrying into the
country. If you are carrying 20,000 US$, or the equivalent in any
foreign currency, or more, you must report it to customs nor can you
carry large amounts of Thai currency out of the country.

The reasoning is, of course, that those engaged in unlawful activities
much prefer payments to be made in cash.

Note that there is no limit to how much cash you can take with you
when leaving the USA as long as you declare it:
https://clearitusa.com/u-s-customs-cash-limit/
I've hear rumors that if the balance in your checkbook is sufficiently
large, it counts as part of the $10,000 limit.



The abuses of 'civil forfeiture' [translation: Theft by
abuse of office] are myriad, publicized and of long
duration, some thirty or so years and yet nothing has
changed. It's almost as if the beneficiaries have no
incentive to end that party...

https://capitalresearch.org/article/...reform-part-2/


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:33:14 AM UTC-8, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 10:25:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 23:33:47 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:20:52 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:16:40 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:46:44 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 11:22:48 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 5:40:35 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 5:02:28 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:20:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 7:27:21 PM UTC-8,
Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2020 6:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-8,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2020 9:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 3:09:49 PM
UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2020 4:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 12/23/2020 2:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
*SKIP*
But what is incorrect with the IMF's theory?
There's nothing wrong with IMF or theory (rather methodology),
that's not the point. Question is, what are data sources that GDP
is derived from? I can see: more or less regulated (required and
voluntary) bookeeping reporting, taxes moving to and fro (yes,
sometimes taxes flow backwards, like literally), and unknown amount
of guesswork. Care to add more? Unfortunately, I can't point,
right now, at what SNA2008 has to say about it -- to much work.
*SKIP*
I'm not sure what you are talking about. One must assume that every
agency that calculates GDP does it by some method that satisfies
their objectives.
That's wrong. Methods of data muddling are rather thoroughly described
by SNA2008. What it doesn't seem to discuss are data sources -- half of
hour of grepping yields nothing. Printing those seven handred pages and
reading it with a marker is beyond my resources right now (maybe never).

It should be noted though, while assumption itself I consider to be
wrong it goes straight to right conclusion, what isn't stated though.

Point is: garbage in -- strawman out. Unfortunately, I can't clear
that gap in reasoning. Probably, should call it a night then.
Perhaps you are missing the point that GDP is simply a means of
assessing something in contrast to something else.
This hardly makes any sense. IOW, GDP is grand total of specific
data-set produced according SNA2008 (right now, this may change for
forth time any moment); as of SNA itself, here comes another quote,
subchapter C. 'Uses of the SNA', (turns out this division is) paragraph
1.27:

The main objective of the SNA is to provide a comprehensive
conceptual and accounting framework that can be used to create a
macroeconomic database suitable for analysing and evaluating the
performance of an economy. The existence of such a database is a
prerequisite for informed, rational policymaking and
decision-taking. Some of the more specific uses of the SNA are
described in the following sections.

Then GDPs over different data-sets may be compared (sources of data-sets
may or may not be different though; being them distant in time or space
is irrelevant), what makes sense after all. What doesn't make sense is
wielding assorted strawpeople and waving them in all directions.

*SKIP*
A misspelled word there "collectible" should have been spelled
"knowledgeable".
Probably Thai English is deviating from other Englishes. But English is
a bitch anyway, so it's normal.
*CUT*

GDP, as I've been saying is a means of approximating the income for the coming year in order to approximate taxes being received. In an of itself it isn't informative except to stock traders who can guess more accurately about areas of the economy likely to grow more than the average. The growth of GDP which is determinable can lead to very close approximations of how long it would take to force a balanced budget until it would not be required to force that balance.

On 1/3/2021 11:06 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:33:14 AM UTC-8, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 10:25:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 23:33:47 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:20:52 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:16:40 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:46:44 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 11:22:48 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 5:40:35 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 5:02:28 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:20:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 7:27:21 PM UTC-8,
Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2020 6:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-8,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2020 9:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 3:09:49 PM
UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2020 4:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 12/23/2020 2:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
*SKIP*
But what is incorrect with the IMF's theory?
There's nothing wrong with IMF or theory (rather methodology),
that's not the point. Question is, what are data sources that GDP
is derived from? I can see: more or less regulated (required and
voluntary) bookeeping reporting, taxes moving to and fro (yes,
sometimes taxes flow backwards, like literally), and unknown amount
of guesswork. Care to add more? Unfortunately, I can't point,
right now, at what SNA2008 has to say about it -- to much work.
*SKIP*
I'm not sure what you are talking about. One must assume that every
agency that calculates GDP does it by some method that satisfies
their objectives.
That's wrong. Methods of data muddling are rather thoroughly described
by SNA2008. What it doesn't seem to discuss are data sources -- half of
hour of grepping yields nothing. Printing those seven handred pages and
reading it with a marker is beyond my resources right now (maybe never).

It should be noted though, while assumption itself I consider to be
wrong it goes straight to right conclusion, what isn't stated though.

Point is: garbage in -- strawman out. Unfortunately, I can't clear
that gap in reasoning. Probably, should call it a night then.
Perhaps you are missing the point that GDP is simply a means of
assessing something in contrast to something else.
This hardly makes any sense. IOW, GDP is grand total of specific
data-set produced according SNA2008 (right now, this may change for
forth time any moment); as of SNA itself, here comes another quote,
subchapter C. 'Uses of the SNA', (turns out this division is) paragraph
1.27:

The main objective of the SNA is to provide a comprehensive
conceptual and accounting framework that can be used to create a
macroeconomic database suitable for analysing and evaluating the
performance of an economy. The existence of such a database is a
prerequisite for informed, rational policymaking and
decision-taking. Some of the more specific uses of the SNA are
described in the following sections.

Then GDPs over different data-sets may be compared (sources of data-sets
may or may not be different though; being them distant in time or space
is irrelevant), what makes sense after all. What doesn't make sense is
wielding assorted strawpeople and waving them in all directions.

*SKIP*
A misspelled word there "collectible" should have been spelled
"knowledgeable".
Probably Thai English is deviating from other Englishes. But English is
a bitch anyway, so it's normal.
*CUT*

GDP, as I've been saying is a means of approximating the income for the coming year in order to approximate taxes being received. In an of itself it isn't informative except to stock traders who can guess more accurately about areas of the economy likely to grow more than the average. The growth of GDP which is determinable can lead to very close approximations of how long it would take to force a balanced budget until it would not be required to force that balance.


I asked this last week but I'll ask again.

Why?

Since neither party gives one good god damn about balancing
anything then why would they care what revenue projections
say? Revenue projections are never met, especially not for
tax increases, because humans are agents not widgets;
behavior changes.

GDP is necessarily a backward glance at the recent past.
Show me a guy who accurately predicts trends in regulatory
burden, currency strength, commodity prices and
international economic positions a year out and I'll show
you a guy in finance who's worth many multiples of anyone in
government.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 14:08:16 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2021 11:06 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:33:14 AM UTC-8, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 10:25:20 +0700, John B.
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2021 23:33:47 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:20:52 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:16:40 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:46:44 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 11:22:48 +0200, Eric Pozharski
wrote:
with John B
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 5:40:35 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 5:02:28 PM UTC-8, John
B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 09:20:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 7:27:21 PM UTC-8,
Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2020 6:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 24, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-8,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/23/2020 9:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 3:09:49 PM
UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2020 4:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 12/23/2020 2:04 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
*SKIP*
But what is incorrect with the IMF's theory?
There's nothing wrong with IMF or theory (rather methodology),
that's not the point. Question is, what are data sources that GDP
is derived from? I can see: more or less regulated (required and
voluntary) bookeeping reporting, taxes moving to and fro (yes,
sometimes taxes flow backwards, like literally), and unknown amount
of guesswork. Care to add more? Unfortunately, I can't point,
right now, at what SNA2008 has to say about it -- to much work.
*SKIP*
I'm not sure what you are talking about. One must assume that every
agency that calculates GDP does it by some method that satisfies
their objectives.
That's wrong. Methods of data muddling are rather thoroughly described
by SNA2008. What it doesn't seem to discuss are data sources -- half of
hour of grepping yields nothing. Printing those seven handred pages and
reading it with a marker is beyond my resources right now (maybe never).

It should be noted though, while assumption itself I consider to be
wrong it goes straight to right conclusion, what isn't stated though.

Point is: garbage in -- strawman out. Unfortunately, I can't clear
that gap in reasoning. Probably, should call it a night then.
Perhaps you are missing the point that GDP is simply a means of
assessing something in contrast to something else.
This hardly makes any sense. IOW, GDP is grand total of specific
data-set produced according SNA2008 (right now, this may change for
forth time any moment); as of SNA itself, here comes another quote,
subchapter C. 'Uses of the SNA', (turns out this division is) paragraph
1.27:

The main objective of the SNA is to provide a comprehensive
conceptual and accounting framework that can be used to create a
macroeconomic database suitable for analysing and evaluating the
performance of an economy. The existence of such a database is a
prerequisite for informed, rational policymaking and
decision-taking. Some of the more specific uses of the SNA are
described in the following sections.

Then GDPs over different data-sets may be compared (sources of data-sets
may or may not be different though; being them distant in time or space
is irrelevant), what makes sense after all. What doesn't make sense is
wielding assorted strawpeople and waving them in all directions.

*SKIP*
A misspelled word there "collectible" should have been spelled
"knowledgeable".
Probably Thai English is deviating from other Englishes. But English is
a bitch anyway, so it's normal.
*CUT*

GDP, as I've been saying is a means of approximating the income for the coming year in order to approximate taxes being received. In an of itself it isn't informative except to stock traders who can guess more accurately about areas of the economy likely to grow more than the average. The growth of GDP which is determinable can lead to very close approximations of how long it would take to force a balanced budget until it would not be required to force that balance.


I asked this last week but I'll ask again.

Why?

Since neither party gives one good god damn about balancing
anything then why would they care what revenue projections
say? Revenue projections are never met, especially not for
tax increases, because humans are agents not widgets;
behavior changes.

GDP is necessarily a backward glance at the recent past.
Show me a guy who accurately predicts trends in regulatory
burden, currency strength, commodity prices and
international economic positions a year out and I'll show
you a guy in finance who's worth many multiples of anyone in
government.


But is the nation's GDP used to determine taxes as seems to be
alleged? While it is a yardstick of a nation's dev elopement it
certainly isn't a measurement of what taxes should be. In fact, I
would think that if taxes were reduced then GDP might go up :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.