That Guy - 2/9/2006 4:58 PM
Andrew2004az - 2/8/2006 8:58 PM
Well it looks like i am going to have to get you going on unemployment, seems to me the economy is very healthy and growing just fine. If you notice democrats no longer try and bash the economy and use it against the republicans why? because they cant the economy is doing great. No more lying corporations that existed during the unregulated clinton administration, so now we have real figures instead of inflated lies. Anyways democrats wont win the white house untill they can take back congress, and with people like John kerry and my favorite Ted Kennedy the democrats have a long way to go, both of them especially Kennedy are just an embarrassment i have no idea how he gets elected.
Your ability to back up your argument that the economy is doing well is laughable at best.
-Democrats aren't using it to bash Bush (do you think the fed uses this indicator to adjust their open market operations?)
-No more unregulated lying corporations (the bubble of the 90's wasn't due to a lack of regulation, but rather a dangerous convergence of interests among the corporate players and those that were intended to oversee them. It's no coincidence Arthur Andersen was responsible for the accounting of both Enron & Worldcom)
-Real figures instead of inflated lies (do you care to share ANY of these figures to back up your point?)
I'll reference this post:
To be quite honest, I'm neither bearish or bullish on the economy right now. Not only that, but I refuse to believe that the president (any president) is largely responsible for the failures or successes of the economy because of inherent inability of fiscal policy to really impact the economy without a complementary monetary policy which is controlled by the Fed.
Unemployment figures are pretty meaningless as well due to the definition of labor force. It's difficult to understand what it means since the single percentage number is actually a representation of a fraction in which both the numerator and denominator are changing in both directions at variable rates.
I would love to see what was used as the labor force population figures over the past 5 years in order to get a complete picture of what this figure really means. Is the labor force today larger or smaller than it was in 2000? Intuitively, one would say Yes, but I suspect the number of discouraged workers that removed themselves from the labor force between 2000 and 2002 makes it possible that its smaller.
The formula is actually very simple.
Number of employed people divided by the number of people in the labor force.
The trickiness comes in with how you define them. How many hours a week do you have to work in order to be considered employed? Is it 20, 30 or 40 hours a week? There is no allowance for those that are underemployed.
The labor force includes all those either employed or actively seeking employment. Which means dicouraged workers (workers who would work or have worked, but have given up looking for a job either because Bush is a terrible president or they are waiting for liberal handouts dependent upon your viewpoint) are not included in this number.