I never said the Saturn started off slow.  You did.  Neither started off slow... the PS1 started off fast matching the Saturns pace.  Thereby making it irrelevent in the thread that was in discussion. 

Since it was about consoles who started off doing much worse then the console beating them, then made a comeback.

Also questioning someones economic knowledge when they've shown in the past they've had a lack of such knowledge totally appropriate when said person starts talking about the economy.

I wish I was wrong this often then.

Oh geez louise, I just realized. I didn't say that you thought the Saturn started out slow. Try reading next time. You claimed that the PS1 started out fast at the gate and then we had a huge debate where I kept saying it didn't and you never provided a good counter-point. I'm not looking to have the debate again, but all I'm saying is that you've been wrong before so you shouldn't call other people out for something. Unless of course you want me going to every sales history thread you post in and claiming you're not credible because of a couple of posts you made.

Well if you'd like to argue you were right i'm ready to hear it.

Though I think it's fairly hard to disagree that sony was really in the crap at the time having to massivly restructure and all that aftewords.

Your dollar now will worth $0.50 in 2 years.

I don't make posts in sales history threads often because I know shit about predicting sales.

I think I've done a total of two.  I completly missed the ball on Wii Fit.

And I hit White Knight Chronciles right on the head... which I generously never brought back up to Max King of the Wild who was insisting much more unrealistic sales numbers.

Furthermore, basing a company's overall health by it's stock price (that's rapidly plunging and plunged faster then Nintendos and Microsofts) is a very big mistake.

It would be like me judging sales of games based on box art covers.  And if I judged the sales of games based on box art covers then yeah... I'd want you to come back at it with me cause it's a stupid practice.

I actually want to know if he's taken any time since then to learn something knew or if he's going with the same goofy logic.

Well that's fine. Did you read Akuma's post? If it included stock numbers I could see why you'd be sceptical. I didn't read it since I didn't really care, but I assume you did.

And I hate the spellcheck on this site.

There is a spellcheck on this site?

Yeah I read his post.   The first one had to do with the DOW.

The problem really isn't that so much as the whole post is basicallyanything you would here on your average media day from the Whitehouse spokesman.

I'm wondering if he actually understands what he's saying or if he's just going with what he's read.

I mean he even throws in the usual "Same people who were fine with the republicans" dance he throws in every economic conversation... when these people aren't ever in these threads and don't seem to exist... outside of like... Halogamer.

While his 2nd and 3rd ones are base speculation that aren't points so much as hopes.... since he refrences numbers that haven't been reached but apparently aren't as bad as they were.

The only stat he has in there is consumer spending... which is more stabilized then anything... though a very fragile stablizing due to it being based on consumer mood.  Not any increase in the economy's actual performance.

Whether or not the economy is bottoming or out... nobody really can say now with any confidence.  It's all balancing on a wire right now.  Consumer Spending could freefall again eaisly if consumer mood is hurt by some disaster... which may or may not manifest depeneding.

If you ask me, the real answer to how the econmy is doing is "I don't know... check back in half a year."