Just want to you to know I managed to get registered today. I remember the JC economy in the 70′s. While they were trying to teach me Kaynes economics at Purdue (you can’t have recession and inflation at the same time), we had 17% home mortgages, 15% inflation, and double digit unemployment. That cured me of EVER voting for a Democrat for President again.

They could have double this “unemployment” and it wouldn’t bother the “unemployed”.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Rick on February 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM

No. They call it climate change now. That way it does not matter. They are always right.

The “Eurozone” celebrated its best unemployment rate ever — at 7.4%. Three weeks ago, they announced a further improvement — to 7.2%

This post is misleading as it creates the impression that most EU countries are around 7-8% unemployment. In fact
7.2% is simply the mean average of an index of 27 countries. There are three categories of EU countries to consider:

1. Countries with open economies at around 4% unemployment i.e. the UK, Ireland, Holland Luxembourg, Austria etc.

2. Countries with said heavy-handed economic regulation typically at around 8-10% unemployment i.e. France, Germany, Spain, Greece etc.

3. Countries with astronomical unemployment sometimes 15-20%, usually poor East European states still recovering from 50 years of Communism i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia etc.

But for libs, it’s intentions that matter. Results are never talked about.
-thekingtut on February 28, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Unless of course it’s your liberal OPPONENT’S results, such NAFTA

Amazing, isn’t it? This dude I was working with last week said “I know how to work the system, I pick up a flight that I know will have bad weather delays, then pick up another flight for the next day, the first trip will be so late because of the weather that the company will hafta pay me overtime for the next day’s trip.” Clever, in a sneaky sort of way. But then he says “I just can’t understand why out Profitsharing is going down.” Duh.

If a Dim takes the WH I’m afraid this will be our future.

Erockk on February 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM

They do keep preaching about change but won’t say exactly what. Maybe this is what they really mean.

More details and a 2008 projection here:

In order to keep the “official” unemployment rates low, the folks at the BLS dreamed up new categories of workers such as “marginally attached”.

Classification U-6 is how unemployment actually feels to the average Joe on the street. On a seasonally unadjusted basis, that figure is close to 10%.

By the time the reported unemployment numbers get to 6.5% or higher, I am looking for line U-6 to head towards 14%

The recession of 2008 is going to be both long and nasty. In order to shore up falling profits as consumer spending declines, look for increasing numbers of mass layoffs in 2008.

A handy chart here too.

The best site for correct economic data, Shadowstats, has an additional explanation in this example from 2004.

The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

What would happen to the economy of Germany if we pulled all of our troops out of Germany? You can say the same for any other country where we are stationed.

Not that Nixon didn’t deserve a ration of crap, he did but of course the same despicable liberalism went berserk then as now without alternative media to counter the insanity.

Nixon was a genius but Goldwater would have been better.

You know, every single time I see Jimmy Carter’s kisser, I keep wondering what the hell was going through people’s skulls back then that they elected this yoohoo to the Presidency. But then again, I am now wondering the exact same thing as related to B.O.

pilamaye on February 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Deja vu? Rightly so. Jimmy’s campaign slogan was,

“A leader, for a change!”

Sound familiar? The end result will be, too.

In 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, the then 6% (average) unemployment rate was considered OK, on the grounds that it meant there was “a reserve of workers ready to be retrained for new jobs” (quote from Robert Reich, then-Treasury Secretary). And the MSM applauded him, and Clinton, for their “foresight” and for “keeping the economy from becoming overheated”. By comparison, in 2004, when we averaged 4.75% unemployment, the very same MSM (principally the Washington Post and the New York Times were busy excoriating the Bush Administration for “not doing more to ensure full employment“.

So who was right?

Actually, both administrations were. (I know- I just agreed with the Clintonistas, so H**l will freeze over any minute now.) An average of 5-6% of the workforce uncommitted (i.e., available) has always been considered optimum in event of new industries opening up or increases in demands for production/services from existing ones. By those lights, our present situation is “just about right”, and 2004 we were a little low in the “ready workers” department. Reich and the MSM were perfectly right in saying in 1996 that 5-6% unemployment was OK for those reasons.

Which makes their present criticism of the present unemployment rate not only transparently political, but also lacking in any sort of even theoretical justification by their own preferred theories of macroeconomics.

Therefore, since they have now proven that they are perfectly willing to contradict themselves for political gain, we are now perfectly justified in asking them,

“So, which time were you lying, 1996, 2004- or today?”

Or just ignoring everything they say henceforth, on the working assumption that it will be a lie. Because they have proven that they regard that as a legitimate method of delivering the “news”.

cheers

eon

If a Dim takes the WH I’m afraid this will be our future.

Erockk on February 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM

But, but, but, they’ve got high hopes, they’ve got high hopes…they’ve got high apple pie in the sky hopes!

You! I tell her. She doesn’t like it.

This is a great post showing the difference between economies. 5% is full employment. Things are not perfect in this economy, but it isn’t so bad that the government is the solution (I don’t think it would ever be that bad). The solution is the American people. . . not the government.

Thanks for the post.