Re: OT Sold It!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Max Dodge" <max340@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:4l3Wj.7994$jk1.7890@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> "TBone" <NoWay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:4828b5ee$0$20179$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sorry to burst your bubble Max, but you are incorrect.  You have heard
of 
>> the current recession, right??  As for the unemployment numbers, they
are 
>> completely bogus at this point in time as they are based on assumptions

>> that have not been valid for years.
>
> Tbone, the numbers I used compared two "bogus" sets, according to you.
As 
> such, BOTH sets are subject to the same inaccuracies. Therefore, the 
> nearly 10% unemployment of 1982 an 1983 STILL are double what they are 
> now.

Just because the number is doubled doesn't mean that the number of people 
were doubled and there is no way to know how accurate this number even is.

Times are very different now and the assumptions used to create this
number 
are far more invalid now then they were 20 + years ago.  They are based on

people in the work force employed long enough to collect unemployment 
insurance and if a person doesn't find a job by the time it runs out, they

are determined to be no longer looking for work and are no longer included

in that number.  I wonder how many people were removed from the counted
work 
force during the crash at the beginning of Bush's first term that were
never 
added back.

>
> The inflation rates are not subject to your claimed inaccuracies, and we

> still haven't hit the nearly 15% of the early 1980's.

The difference is then it was inflation and now it is stagflation which is

far worse.

>
> The "current recession" is subject to much debate. Recession implies
that 
> the economy is shrinking. Currently the economy is NOT shrinking, it 
> simply isn't growing at the rate which it has the past several years. If

> you have studied history or economics, you know that economic growth 
> cannot continue unabated or rampant inflation follows. Usually something

> intervenes, such as a "readjustment". Such is exactly the case this
time.

Bull****.  The economy was hardly raging at any time during the Bush term 
and much of that was due to the housing bubble and the recovery of the
crash 
in 2001.

>
> Believe what you'd like, but the facts speak for themselves. The economy

> showed about 1% growth in the first quarter, unemployment is hovering 
> around 5%, and inflation is around 6%. None of these are anywhere near
as 
> bad as the early 80's.

You are comparing apples to cars.  The growth in the economy can be and 
usually is fudged to make it look better than it really is unless it
really 
is good and even then....  Until another census is taken, nobody has any 
idea how accurate those unemployment numbers really are and that number
also 
doesn't take into account the number of people who lost a job and were 
forced to take another one at half of their previous pay.  Inflation isn't

as big of an issue as stagflation which we are currently dealing with. 
The 
biggest indicator of the weakness in the economy is the commodities
markets. 
Even with re****ts of excesses like in oil, the price not only doesn't go 
down as they should, they set new records which shows that the people in
the 
know see how bad things really are and keep putting their money where they

feel it is safest, regardless of re****ts.

-- 
If at first you don't succeed,  you're not cut out for skydiving