PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment Rate



tpeichel
08-03-2012, 03:00 PM
With the stimulus Obama predicted 5.6% employment rate
With no stimulus Obama predicted 6.0 % employment rate
Actual unemployment rate 8.3%
If the labor participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be 11%
Tell me why I should believe Obama when he predicts his plan over the next four years will help the economy grow?

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/080312jobschart1-600x306.jpg

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 03:02 PM
Well it can be argued that unemployment dropped in his tenure, predictions are never exact and rarely correct and hindsight is 20/20.

I would say you should never believe anyone who predicts anything. Take it into account, sure, but no one knows the future, not even the President.

habsheaven
08-03-2012, 03:09 PM
How many jobs is Romney's campaign promising in his first term, 12 million? Who wants to wager Romney hits that goal?

shrewsbury
08-03-2012, 03:15 PM
unemployment dropped?

5.6 to 8.4 doesn't seem like a drop to me, even after they fixed the math in his favor, it has risen.

stimulus only stimulated those Obama liked and the price of precious metals

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 03:27 PM
unemployment dropped?

5.6 to 8.4 doesn't seem like a drop to me, even after they fixed the math in his favor, it has risen.

stimulus only stimulated those Obama liked and the price of precious metals

So unemployment was at 11%, as you said, and is now at 8.3%...how is that not a drop?
He started at 11%, not 5.6% that was a projection, an arbitrary and imagined number that never actually existed. Using his projection as his starting point to say unemployment rose is number fixing, not using the actual, existing numbers.

tpeichel
08-03-2012, 03:35 PM
So unemployment was at 11%, as you said, and is now at 8.3%...how is that not a drop?
He started at 11%, not 5.6% that was a projection, an arbitrary and imagined number that never actually existed. Using his projection as his starting point to say unemployment rose is number fixing, not using the actual, existing numbers.


11% would be the unemployment rate if millions of unemployed were still be counted as unemployed. After a person stops looking for work, the unemployment rate no longer counts them as one of the unemployed. Here's a graph of the labor participation rate. If you're not working you're not paying taxes and simply consuming whatever the government can collect from taxpaying citizens and pass on to you. This is the really scary chart.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=3366

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 03:39 PM
Ok...than what shrew posted is incorrect.

Or conservatives are using a bunch of contradictory numbers to prove a point that doesn't exist.

tpeichel
08-03-2012, 03:54 PM
Ok...than what shrew posted is incorrect.

Or conservatives are using a bunch of contradictory numbers to prove a point that doesn't exist.

The red dots are the actual unemployment rates. They have been roughly 3% higher than Obama has predicted, but as mentioned previously, that is only because they calculate the rate strangely. Comparing his predicted rate of 5.6% to the 11% using the same labor participation as when he took office and you realize how clueless these guys were.

I scoffed when these clowns came up with a plan to solve our problem of too much debt with even larger quantities of debt, but the Obama cheerleaders always tried to shout me down. There are only two ways to get rid of debt, pay it down with surplus (annual trillion dollar deficits anyone?) or default and make the people who made the bad bets suffer.

We refuse to do either and just keep digging the debt hole deeper. Obama has already said he's going to continue the same strategy and he's not going to go after the banksters since "they didn't break any laws". I imagine that Romney won't be all that much different.

shrewsbury
08-03-2012, 03:57 PM
no, wickabee, it means what i posted was right on.

when did those numbers change and the formula change? when Obama took office

look at the graph and use your head instead of thinking you need to be anti conservative, there is no conspiracy theory

we went from 63% americans working when he took office to under 59%, how is that an improvement, that would mean 4% less are working, my numbers made him look better at 2.8

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 04:00 PM
The red dots are the actual unemployment rates. They have been roughly 3% higher than Obama has predicted, but as mentioned previously, that is only because they calculate the rate strangely. Comparing his predicted rate of 5.6% to the 11% using the same labor participation as when he took office and you realize how clueless these guys were.

I scoffed when these clowns came up with a plan to solve our problem of too much debt with even larger quantities of debt, but the Obama cheerleaders always tried to shout me down. There are only two ways to get rid of debt, pay it down with surplus (annual trillion dollar deficits anyone?) or default and make the people who made the bad bets suffer.

We refuse to do either and just keep digging the debt hole deeper. Obama has already said he's going to continue the same strategy and he's not going to go after the banksters since "they didn't break any laws". I imagine that Romney won't be all that much different.

Oh I agree the stimulus plans in both the US and Canada have done little-to-nothing to fix the economy. However you have to decide which sets of numbers you want to use. Where was unemplyomen at when he took office as opposed to now? Where was/is the "labour participation" rate? Are the two converse? As in if unemployment is 11% does that make the labour participation 89%?
You can't mix the numbers up. Use one set or the other, or use both but only in relation to the same number, unemployment then vs now and labour participation then vs now. Otherwise you're just being confusing. If that's what you want, fine, but it doesn't make much of a point.

tpeichel
08-03-2012, 04:54 PM
Oh I agree the stimulus plans in both the US and Canada have done little-to-nothing to fix the economy. However you have to decide which sets of numbers you want to use. Where was unemplyomen at when he took office as opposed to now? Where was/is the "labour participation" rate? Are the two converse? As in if unemployment is 11% does that make the labour participation 89%?
You can't mix the numbers up. Use one set or the other, or use both but only in relation to the same number, unemployment then vs now and labour participation then vs now. Otherwise you're just being confusing. If that's what you want, fine, but it doesn't make much of a point.

It is confusing, but that is the government's doing. You can still look at labor participation and the unemployment rate separately and put two and two together to figure out that the unemployment rate would be even worse if the official statistics still counted the millions of people who are no longer even looking for work.

It's also not hard to figure out that if we're getting ready to go into a double dip recession, that it really is just a fancy way to say that we've been in a depression the entire time and it's simply been hidden by the government deficit spending trillions of dollars over the last four years in an attempt to replace the decreased consumer spending of those who cannot take on anymore debt.

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 05:05 PM
It is confusing, but that is the government's doing. You can still look at labor participation and the unemployment rate separately and put two and two together to figure out that the unemployment rate would be even worse if the official statistics still counted the millions of people who are no longer even looking for work.

It's also not hard to figure out that if we're getting ready to go into a double dip recession, that it really is just a fancy way to say that we've been in a depression the entire time and it's simply been hidden by the government deficit spending trillions of dollars over the last four years in an attempt to replace the decreased consumer spending of those who cannot take on anymore debt.

That's fair, but this seemed like a bit of an Anti-Obama thread. If you're going to criticize the guy, that's fine. On this issue, he deserves it. But with that said, if you are going to criticize him, make it a fair criticism. Quoting several different sets of numbers against each other to call it worse than it actually is is not only underhanded, but unnecessary in this instance. His record in this area is bad enough on its own, no need to further confuse people to make it sound worse than the reality.

EDIT:
What's the determination for those out of work who are no longer even working? That seems to be way too vague a term in way too large a population to keep track of. Do retirees count in that? That would artificially inflate the number. What about the people who don't have to work? Are they included in that stat? That would artificially inflate numbers. Housewives? Students?

What is that stat actually counting?

shrewsbury
08-03-2012, 05:09 PM
it is worse than reality, people just haven't woke up yet.

Obama was in ohio talking about the jobs he created, the unemployment rate in lorain county rose again

not a bash on Obama, who ever was the president and claiming this junk would get the same treatment from me. just like i don;t agree with a lot of christians, i don't agree with a lot of conservatives.

Wickabee
08-03-2012, 05:27 PM
it is worse than reality, people just haven't woke up yet.

Obama was in ohio talking about the jobs he created, the unemployment rate in lorain county rose again

not a bash on Obama, who ever was the president and claiming this junk would get the same treatment from me. just like i don;t agree with a lot of christians, i don't agree with a lot of conservatives.

I'm not claiming you're anti-Obama. Maybe I should have put "Anti-President thread"? Either way this seems like anti-whatever and the numbers are being jumbled to confuse. I'm not necessarily saying that was the intention but Page 1 is full of numbers compared against each other that make no sense.

You say if it was at the level it was at when he took office, it would be 11%.
You say it's now 8.3% but because he projected 5.6% it's actually an increase from that 5.6% to 8.3%, completely ignoring the reality of 11%

So, if:
Was = 11
Projected to be = 5.6%
Turned out to be = 8.3%

You should be looking at the 11 and the 8.3. The 5.6 is imaginary and arbitrary and doesn't say anything but Obama couldn't live up to his own self-imposed goals. It's still a 2.7% drop, not a 2.7% increase.
I'm going solely on the numbers I've been given here.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 09:49 AM
That's fair, but this seemed like a bit of an Anti-Obama thread. If you're going to criticize the guy, that's fine. On this issue, he deserves it. But with that said, if you are going to criticize him, make it a fair criticism. Quoting several different sets of numbers against each other to call it worse than it actually is is not only underhanded, but unnecessary in this instance. His record in this area is bad enough on its own, no need to further confuse people to make it sound worse than the reality.

EDIT:
What's the determination for those out of work who are no longer even working? That seems to be way too vague a term in way too large a population to keep track of. Do retirees count in that? That would artificially inflate the number. What about the people who don't have to work? Are they included in that stat? That would artificially inflate numbers. Housewives? Students?

What is that stat actually counting?

Here is the methodology:

Who is not in the labor force? Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include:



Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS?
Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?

These questions form the basis for estimating the number of persons who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be "marginally attached to the labor force." These are persons without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as "marginally attached to the labor force," individuals must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. "Discouraged workers" are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of four reasons:



They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
They had previously been unable to find work.
They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
Employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 10:02 AM
I'm not claiming you're anti-Obama. Maybe I should have put "Anti-President thread"? Either way this seems like anti-whatever and the numbers are being jumbled to confuse. I'm not necessarily saying that was the intention but Page 1 is full of numbers compared against each other that make no sense.

You say if it was at the level it was at when he took office, it would be 11%.
You say it's now 8.3% but because he projected 5.6% it's actually an increase from that 5.6% to 8.3%, completely ignoring the reality of 11%

So, if:
Was = 11
Projected to be = 5.6%
Turned out to be = 8.3%

You should be looking at the 11 and the 8.3. The 5.6 is imaginary and arbitrary and doesn't say anything but Obama couldn't live up to his own self-imposed goals. It's still a 2.7% drop, not a 2.7% increase.
I'm going solely on the numbers I've been given here.

You can throw out the 5.6% prediction as an empty political promise, but we should look carefully at the 6.0% unemployment rate that a normal recovery had predicted (without a stimulus).

These numbers clearly show that the set of policies employed over the last four years have been detrimental to employment and economic growth as evidenced by the current unemployment rate, labor participation rate and weak GDP numbers. Will four more years of similar policies produce different results or is the President willing to look at what has happened and drastically alter course?

habsheaven
08-04-2012, 10:30 AM
You can throw out the 5.6% prediction as an empty political promise, but we should look carefully at the 6.0% unemployment rate that a normal recovery had predicted (without a stimulus).

These numbers clearly show that the set of policies employed over the last four years have been detrimental to employment and economic growth as evidenced by the current unemployment rate, labor participation rate and weak GDP numbers. Will four more years of similar policies produce different results or is the President willing to look at what has happened and drastically alter course?

This number is irrelevant. It to is a "prediction" based on a "normal" recovery. This recession was anything but normal. Obama is doing a good job with what he has had to work with. Any non-biased observer can see that. I am sure the American people will see that come November too.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 11:02 AM
This number is irrelevant. It to is a "prediction" based on a "normal" recovery. This recession was anything but normal. Obama is doing a good job with what he has had to work with. Any non-biased observer can see that. I am sure the American people will see that come November too.

The "experts" in the Obama administration did not understand that you cannot solve a problem of too much debt with even larger mountains of debt. Is it really that surprising that the economy hasn't recovered? Why should they get a pass for being economically inept?

0% interest rates have had horrible effects as well, driving up energy and food costs, killing institutional pensions returns, and crushing fixed income seniors. On the plus side, the policies have helped protect the banksters from having to realize the losses on their bad investments. Is that what you mean by doing a good job with what he has to work with because most of the economic policy decisions have been focused on helping the banks stay solvent.

shrewsbury
08-04-2012, 11:21 AM
wickabee, i never said 11%

i said he started around 5.8 percent with the new number game, it is now at 8.something

unemployment has risen according to the new math, and the number of people working has dropped

either way you look at it, more people are not working, this is my main issue with any president, this and taxes, and spending

and thinking about maybe I am anti president, because I haven't agreed with any of them, since I started caring.

duane1969
08-04-2012, 12:42 PM
So unemployment was at 11%, as you said, and is now at 8.3%...how is that not a drop?
He started at 11%, not 5.6% that was a projection, an arbitrary and imagined number that never actually existed. Using his projection as his starting point to say unemployment rose is number fixing, not using the actual, existing numbers.


Unemployment was not at 11% when Obama took office. In fact, according to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, it never hit 11
%. The reality is one of those funny little quirks that get left out by both sides when looking at unemployment numbers. Obama detractors like to use funny math to get "real numbers". Obama supporters like to look at the high number and then look at now and say "See! unemployment is down!!!"

The reality:
Obama took office in Jan 2009 - Unemployment was at 7.8%
October 2009 - Unemployment peaked at 10%
Currently unemployment sits at 8.3%

So under Obama's reign unemployment sits at a net gain of .5% Overall that doesn't seem too bad.

Here is the problem. True unemployment of working-age people sits at around 36% which is the highest number since the early 1980's, a stat that you will NEVER hear on liberal mainstream media. A big chunk of the decline in unemployment numbers during Obama's administration is credited to people who have given up looking for work. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are unemployed AND looking for work. If they loose hope and quit looking then they don't get counted anymore.

You want to know what thought REALLY scares Obama and Co.? Imagine this. The current unemployment rate is at 8.3% meaning that about 27.7% of unemployed people are not counted because they are not looking for work. If just 15% of those people registered for job service help and started looking for work then the unemployment rate would skyrocket to 12.3%. If 1 in 4 of those people starts looking for work then that number jumps to 15.22%. Want to guess what happens to Obama's reelection hopes if that happens?

That is the reason that Obama has fought so hard to maintain or increase welfare spending and extended unemployment benefits. As long as people are happy to sit home cashing checks then they aren't looking for work and the unemployment number remains static or declines. As soon as the government supplements stop coming then people hit the streets looking for work and the unemployment rate skyrockets.

Wickabee
08-04-2012, 01:06 PM
You can throw out the 5.6% prediction as an empty political promise, but we should look carefully at the 6.0% unemployment rate that a normal recovery had predicted (without a stimulus).

These numbers clearly show that the set of policies employed over the last four years have been detrimental to employment and economic growth as evidenced by the current unemployment rate, labor participation rate and weak GDP numbers. Will four more years of similar policies produce different results or is the President willing to look at what has happened and drastically alter course?

Ok I read, "Throw out the one imaginary number that doesn't exist and never did. It's useless. But look closely at this other imaginary number that doesn't exist and never did."

How does that make sense.

Shrew. If I misread your post, I apologize. What is the 11% referring to then?

and just so you all know. It really looks like you guys are just starting to throw out random numbers here.

habsheaven
08-04-2012, 01:48 PM
Unemployment was not at 11% when Obama took office. In fact, according to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, it never hit 11
%. The reality is one of those funny little quirks that get left out by both sides when looking at unemployment numbers. Obama detractors like to use funny math to get "real numbers". Obama supporters like to look at the high number and then look at now and say "See! unemployment is down!!!"

The reality:
Obama took office in Jan 2009 - Unemployment was at 7.8%
October 2009 - Unemployment peaked at 10%
Currently unemployment sits at 8.3%

So under Obama's reign unemployment sits at a net gain of .5% Overall that doesn't seem too bad.

Here is the problem. True unemployment of working-age people sits at around 36% which is the highest number since the early 1980's, a stat that you will NEVER hear on liberal mainstream media. A big chunk of the decline in unemployment numbers during Obama's administration is credited to people who have given up looking for work. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are unemployed AND looking for work. If they loose hope and quit looking then they don't get counted anymore.

You want to know what thought REALLY scares Obama and Co.? Imagine this. The current unemployment rate is at 8.3% meaning that about 27.7% of unemployed people are not counted because they are not looking for work. If just 15% of those people registered for job service help and started looking for work then the unemployment rate would skyrocket to 12.3%. If 1 in 4 of those people starts looking for work then that number jumps to 15.22%. Want to guess what happens to Obama's reelection hopes if that happens?

That is the reason that Obama has fought so hard to maintain or increase welfare spending and extended unemployment benefits. As long as people are happy to sit home cashing checks then they aren't looking for work and the unemployment number remains static or declines. As soon as the government supplements stop coming then people hit the streets looking for work and the unemployment rate skyrockets.

Here we go again. Picking and choosing which numbers to look at. No one credible cares what the unemployment rate was when Obama took office. He took office as the economy was starting to NOSEDIVE. Since his policies have had a chance to be implemented and start producing results the unemployment numbers have been getting better, and the actual jobs numbers have been improving. And the extension of unemployment benefits are designed to keep people fed and contributing to the economy.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 02:21 PM
Here we go again. Picking and choosing which numbers to look at. No one credible cares what the unemployment rate was when Obama took office. He took office as the economy was starting to NOSEDIVE. Since his policies have had a chance to be implemented and start producing results the unemployment numbers have been getting better, and the actual jobs numbers have been improving. And the extension of unemployment benefits are designed to keep people fed and contributing to the economy.

He won election by promising that he had a plan to turn the economy around. Why shouldn't we analyze how the economy performed before we decide to give him a shot at another four years?

Claiming the unemployment numbers are getting better is the reason you have to look at the participation rate. (As if 8.3% is in any way positive.) The participation rate is the key number because if less people have jobs, less people are paying taxes, and then we have to borrow more money.

duane1969
08-04-2012, 02:25 PM
Here we go again. Picking and choosing which numbers to look at. No one credible cares what the unemployment rate was when Obama took office. He took office as the economy was starting to NOSEDIVE. Since his policies have had a chance to be implemented and start producing results the unemployment numbers have been getting better, and the actual jobs numbers have been improving. And the extension of unemployment benefits are designed to keep people fed and contributing to the economy.

The only people who don't care are the Obama apologist who make excuses for him. If we were talking about a conservative president then you would be all for taking the numbers from day 1 as a starting point. You only make an excuse of the economy taking a nosedive because it is Obama. That would not be an acceptable excuse if McCain were president.

Wickabee
08-04-2012, 02:35 PM
The only people who don't care are the Obama apologist who make excuses for him. If we were talking about a conservative president then you would be all for taking the numbers from day 1 as a starting point. You only make an excuse of the economy taking a nosedive because it is Obama. That would not be an acceptable excuse if McCain were president.
So this has nothing to do with Bush? The economy wasn't failing or even obviously about to in '08?

Man rewriting history is easy.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 02:39 PM
Here we go again. Picking and choosing which numbers to look at. No one credible cares what the unemployment rate was when Obama took office. He took office as the economy was starting to NOSEDIVE. Since his policies have had a chance to be implemented and start producing results the unemployment numbers have been getting better, and the actual jobs numbers have been improving. And the extension of unemployment benefits are designed to keep people fed and contributing to the economy.

I think you're going to have a difficult time convincing most people that the economy is improving. The last few summers the administration has trumpeted "recovery summer", but this recovery has been historically weak and lengthy.

The reality is that without the trillions in deficit spending, GDP would be negative since the calculation for GDP is:

G + C + I + (Exports - Imports)

G = Government Spending
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investments

You'll notice that debt is not taken into account which is a major problem with GDP. (Debt shows up in the future when you have to pay back the money owed by taxing productive citizens who then do not have the money to use for Consuming or Investing.) It's kind of like the demand that was pulled forward in the Cash for Clunkers and the various government programs designed to prop up home prices. Sure they spurred demand in the short-term, but it simply decreased long-term demand.

duane1969
08-04-2012, 02:50 PM
So this has nothing to do with Bush? The economy wasn't failing or even obviously about to in '08?

Man rewriting history is easy.

Wow I guess you just can't please some people. I even came to Obama's defense and said the 11% number was false.

OK I give. Obama is God. We should just elect him president of the world for the next 5000 years because he has clearly done so much to make our economy and society better. I have a great idea, let's all give Obama another blank check so he can spend another $4 trillion dollars to not create jobs, not balance the budget, not fix the economy, not lower gas prices, not improve international relations, not unify our country and when he proves to be just as impotent as always we can blame Bush for that too!!

Jeez, 4 years of incompetence, lies, divisive politics and class warfare and all anybody can come up with is "It's Bush's fault!"

Wickabee
08-04-2012, 02:56 PM
Wow I guess you just can't please some people. I even came to Obama's defense and said the 11% number was false.

OK I give. Obama is God. We should just elect him president of the world for the next 5000 years because he has clearly done so much to make our economy and society better. I have a great idea, let's all give Obama another blank check so he can spend another $4 trillion dollars to not create jobs, not balance the budget, not fix the economy, not lower gas prices, not improve international relations, not unify our country and when he proves to be just as impotent as always we can blame Bush for that too!!

Jeez, 4 years of incompetence, lies, divisive politics and class warfare and all anybody can come up with is "It's Bush's fault!"

Wow, take an inch and you tell me I went a mile. The economy was already failing in 08, but I guess we can blame Obama for that. Bush spent 7 years looking for Osama and never found him, but hey, "Mission Accomplished!" right?

You're right, all Republicans are completely infallible and Obama wants you speaking Arabic.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 04:22 PM
If there is positive economic data I'm willing to look at it, but simply saying that this or that is improving is not going to fly. We've been told for years that things are getting better, but I have yet to see the economic data that backs it up.

If you have solid evidence that the economy is improving, post it and I'll take a look at it. Even with our massive government spending, GDP has been anemic and current estimates are that it will continue.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20100101&d2=20120804

habsheaven
08-04-2012, 04:37 PM
The only people who don't care are the Obama apologist who make excuses for him. If we were talking about a conservative president then you would be all for taking the numbers from day 1 as a starting point. You only make an excuse of the economy taking a nosedive because it is Obama. That would not be an acceptable excuse if McCain were president.

Nice try, but you're wrong. I am a REALIST. I don't cherrypick my stats and ignore the reality.

JustAlex
08-04-2012, 04:50 PM
Why is it that the two CANADIAN members on here are making more sense on American Economics than the American members?

Weird.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 05:24 PM
Why is it that the two CANADIAN members on here are making more sense on American Economics than the American members?

Weird.

What isn't making sense for you? I'll see if i can clarify.

Wickabee
08-04-2012, 05:39 PM
If there is positive economic data I'm willing to look at it, but simply saying that this or that is improving is not going to fly. We've been told for years that things are getting better, but I have yet to see the economic data that backs it up.

If you have solid evidence that the economy is improving, post it and I'll take a look at it. Even with our massive government spending, GDP has been anemic and current estimates are that it will continue.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20100101&d2=20120804

I'm not saying there is positive data. You guys are saying there's negative data, but every time I tell you your numbers don't add up to your conclusion, I get a completely different set of numbers or told to look at one non-existent number and not another non-existent number or given a completely different equation. Make up your minds and get the math right before you start this. At the very least, make sure you can explain your point (I'll concede that may be the problem instead of intentional confusion).


Why is it that the two CANADIAN members on here are making more sense on American Economics than the American members?

Weird.

The fact that our economy is currently blowing yours (and most's) out of the water makes more snese now, doesn't it.

tpeichel
08-04-2012, 06:22 PM
The fact that our economy is currently blowing yours (and most's) out of the water makes more snese now, doesn't it.

It has a lot to do with debt. Have you had to commit trillions of dollars to try and keep your banks from failing?

Wickabee
08-04-2012, 06:36 PM
It has a lot to do with debt. Have you had to commit trillions of dollars to try and keep your banks from failing?

No, our banks weren't as greedy and conniving as yours were. Also, government regulations worked wonders. We also had FAR fewer people buy houses on sub-prime mortgages that they couldn't afford once the interest rate went up 0.0001%

Basically we, as an entire nation, were just smarter about our money than you, as an entire nation, were. We have one of the better economies going right now WITH socialized health care BECAUSE OF banking regulations and a population that was a little smarter with their money.

JustAlex
08-05-2012, 08:19 AM
The fact that our economy is currently blowing yours (and most's) out of the water makes more snese now, doesn't it.
Yes it does.


No, our banks weren't as greedy and conniving as yours were. Also, government regulations worked wonders. We also had FAR fewer people buy houses on sub-prime mortgages that they couldn't afford once the interest rate went up 0.0001%

Basically we, as an entire nation, were just smarter about our money than you, as an entire nation, were. We have one of the better economies going right now WITH socialized health care BECAUSE OF banking regulations and a population that was a little smarter with their money.
We can only dream of having government regulations on banks and Wall Street, that's something BOTH parties seem to be very much against.

I wonder why.....Oh wait, no I don't, I know exactly why they do it...

tpeichel
08-05-2012, 07:04 PM
Yes it does.


We can only dream of having government regulations on banks and Wall Street, that's something BOTH parties seem to be very much against.

I wonder why.....Oh wait, no I don't, I know exactly why they do it...

We have plenty of regulatory agencies, but alot of them are just as corrupt as the banksters. Though I do support putting Glass-Steagal back in place.

Did you need any clarification on some of the information I posted earlier?

shrewsbury
08-05-2012, 07:40 PM
how about this link to clarify thing with EU?

http://news.investors.com/article/621034/201208031859/real-unemployment-much-higher-than-white-house-claims.htm?src=HPLNews