On 05/08/2011 5:00 PM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth
causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs
lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs
just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government
only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu



Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to
stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed
itself with debt.

The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now.
China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings.

Yep. If China stops propping up the USD, Americans are going to wake
one day to 100% inflation in a day.

Happened in 1933, where gold was confiscated as it was linked to the
dollar at 1/20th of an ounce. After the executive order obtained the
gold at $20/oz, they devalued the buck to $35/oz. If you had gold not
sent to the government, your were laughing. But if you wanted to import
something you were hosed and inflation even in local goods rippled
through for well over a year....

They can't really do gold this time for Americans. But say wealth
confiscation tax might be possible. It is why some companies I follow
are splitting up and moving a good part of world operations offshore.
If offshore, and US ops loose money, if hey make a profit in China from
China made they don't have USA world tax.

Yep, US tax greed, ya, they can all share having nothing as business
moves out.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:12:00 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent
opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch


Darn it, I forgot to call you a moron. Oh well!

Actually, I hunted around it was The Who...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:46:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu

Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to
stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed
itself with debt.

Nobody cares what you think (and I use that term loosely with you).
The fact is that investors are FLOCKING to the US as the best haven
for their money.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:26:14 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 5:00 PM, BeachBum wrote:
On 8/5/2011 6:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 05/08/2011 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:20:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 12:19 PM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news)
when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth
causes
the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

I understand that. I didn't understand how 117K/mo of new jobs
lowered the
official unemployment rate if it takes at least 157K/mo of new jobs
just to
stay even.

However, someone else gave a plausible explaination. The government
only
counts
people who are actively looking for jobs. Those that aren't or gave up
are not
counted.

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Yep. I still count people unemployed for a year and still pounding out
resumes with no luck. A lot of people giving up, sad.

I would not doubt real unemployment without the fleabagger bull**** is
over 20%. And it is going to get higher. Freaking fleabaggers don't
realize Bernanke inflation is causing unemployment.

If a person earns/spends 20 units of stuff, 5% inflation be it food
costs or civic/state/fed taxes is next month 19 units....1/20th less
need for employment. The hidden costs of inflation.

Bernanke needs to stop his electronic counterfeiting (QE) as really it
is an inflationary tax on the worlds reserve currency. People are
catching onto this fraud.

Debts need to balance up and pay a fair rate. But hey, I profited today
in cherry picking some good stocks tha have already returned gains.
Lots of weak bottoms today.

Oh shut up. Nobody cares what a fool like you has to say.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110805-...ely-save-us-eu



Read an weep. Your biggest non-US Fed creditor just stated USA needs to
stop the fraud. Fleabaggers can blame the Chinese, but USA screwed
itself with debt.

The crazy little bitch advocates stifling free speech now.
China owns us now. We'd better heed their warnings.

Yep. If China stops propping up the USD, Americans are going to wake
one day to 100% inflation in a day.

Happened in 1933, where gold was confiscated as it was linked to the
dollar at 1/20th of an ounce. After the executive order obtained the
gold at $20/oz, they devalued the buck to $35/oz. If you had gold not
sent to the government, your were laughing. But if you wanted to import
something you were hosed and inflation even in local goods rippled
through for well over a year....

They can't really do gold this time for Americans. But say wealth
confiscation tax might be possible. It is why some companies I follow
are splitting up and moving a good part of world operations offshore.
If offshore, and US ops loose money, if hey make a profit in China from
China made they don't have USA world tax.

Yep, US tax greed, ya, they can all share having nothing as business
moves out.

Yep, you're stupid and another moron agrees with you. Call CNN!

In article ,
says...


wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent
opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch

Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about
your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:13:15 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.

nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:10:14 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 10:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

Clearly. It's better than 18K jobs added or even a negative number. I
guess you don't remember the US bleeding 700K jobs per month during
the last part of the Bush admin/beginning of the Obama admin.

Yep, the rise of unemployment started with Bernanke and the Democrat
congress of 2006. Go figure.

uh no. you're too stupid to understand the biggest components of the
debt are the

1. bush tax cuts of 2001
2. the bush tax cuts of 2003
3. bush's 2 trillion dollar iraq war

ALL from a GOP congress

not too bright are you? you've been told this before. but you're
incredibly dumb

On 06/08/2011 7:05 AM, X-Man wrote:
In ,
says...


wrote in message
...

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my recent
opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch

Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about
your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change.

Yep, no one expects you too. Your not smart enough to change.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On 8/6/11 5:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 06/08/2011 7:05 AM, X-Man wrote:
In ,
says...


wrote in message
...

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400, wrote:

In other words : Fuzzy math.

Well, I guess it is, but it's not any more misleading that it always
has been. So, I guess I'd say the new fuzzy math is the same as the
old fuzzy math. (Seems like there's a rock tune along the same lines,
but I can't recall which one.)

---------------------------------------------------

I'll see if I can get one of the Bob Dylan wannbies at my shop to write
something. :-)

BTW ... thanks for your reasoned and well presented rebuttals to my
recent
opinions posted here.
Goes to prove that rec.boats participants can still carry on a civil
discussion, even if they disagree.

Eisboch

Unlike me. I'll insult you, call you names and say nasty things about
your family if you don't agree with me 100%. That will never change.

Yep, no one expects you too. Your not smart enough to change.


Yup...you're even dumber than I thought.

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)