The 15% Unemployment Bet

[gogo]

Its not fair to single out Bush and company. Its a disease that can afflicting the body of man at any time. Socialism. We have allowed the use of force (laws) to make slaves of some for the benefit of others. Once we make the laws, the parasites will flourish. We are now suffering the logical consequences of feeding those parasites.

Atlas is shrugging.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[safe]

The public changed from "saver" in the Reagan Era to "spender" in the Clinton Era. By 1992-93 the culture had changed.

What needs to happen (once all this pork gets spent and the government becomes bankrupt) is to get back to the old model of being a "saver" and not a "spender".

We need to break the cycle of spending, borrowing, then spending some more... and breaking addictions involve painful things like unemployment.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[gogo]

There must be a middle ground somewhere that makes the population at large healthy and safe.
I don't think it can be total privatization or total socialism, it has to be something in between to succeed.

The government has a monopoly on the use of force. This is legitimate as long as its used to protect individual rights. As soon as you expropriate that function to force some to be slaves to others, the parasites exploit the mistake and grow virulent. That is the history of society in a nutshell. There is no middle ground. Charity has to be voluntary. Government's monopoly on the use of force must not be used for any purpose other than the protection of individual rights. Socialism, in all its forms, is a disease upon mankind.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[TPA]

The market system in the US was never really given a chance.

For example, there was this guy who had a monopoly on all the trains back before automobiles and trucks. He basically could charge whatever he wanted and oppress everyone. So, the government interfered and broke him up. No chance for a market solution like a boycott or competition from a new means of transport.

An example of free market working:

Large companies hired employees to work for low wages in a harsh environment. They could do what they wanted because so many people needed the jobs. The market solution was Unions. It was difficult at first, lots of violence etc... but it worked (Unions are a bad thing now). The government was not a part of this solution.

I wonder what it would be like now if over the last 150 years, government had stayed out of everything.

Could a market solution be used for all the problems encountered? Could all of the problems be worked out of them by now?

 

[gogo]

As a society we need to take care of people who are for example mentally or psychologically not capable of taking care of themselves. If you believe in no charity then what, do you suggest that these people should just be left to die?

So, you conclude that voluntary charity = no charity? I don't see that when I look into the soul of human nature.

If you trace the rest of your examples back to who was using force against who, you will find a parasite using government force to violate someone's indivdual rights. It is the legitimate function of the government turned 180 degrees. You only have to look far enough to find this is the root.

 

[safe]

I'm betting that the trillions of dollars being wasted now will mean that "official" unemployment stays below 15%.

Had free markets ruled the day then unemployment would be much, much higher... in other dips it shot up to 25% or above.

We are going to use the "Japan Model" and try to mute the downturn... but that ruins the future.

So a bet on a 15% or less unemployment is sort of a bet on failure in the big picture.

I love being ironic...

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[gogo]

I'm in agreement that we haven't had anything even closely resembling free markets in all of the 20th century, or now.

I think safe might be onto something in his suggestion that government meddling might keep the "official" unemployment under 15%, but that it would be mortgaged on the future.

If we had free markets all along I don't think we'd see these magnitudes in the swings.

any absolutes need to be examined before assumed correct. Radical anything seems to be the problem these days.

I agree about examination wholehartedly, but reality is an absolute, and we must be radical about not denying the absolutes of human nature and reality.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[swbluto]

Him, if Safe wants an absolute "official" number, he should probably choose one whose definition hasn't changed if he is to imply that the economy was significantly worse based on a figure whose methodology was significantly different than the modern one.

Safe, you could at least stay safe by staying consistent. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[safe]

Safe, you could at least stay safe by staying consistent. :lol:

If I didn't stick to the "official" government figure we would never have anything to bet on because everyone would have their own opinion about things.

Imperfect a number as it is... the governments "official" number is what we go with for this bet.

Rules are rules.

 

[swbluto]

Safe, you could at least stay safe by staying consistent. :lol:

If I didn't stick to the "official" government figure we would never have anything to bet on because everyone would have their own opinion about things.

Imperfect a number as it is... the governments "official" number is what we go with for this bet.

Rules are rules.

There are adjustments that can be made between figures from two different time periods where there exists some real difference. One example is GDP, where you wouldn't go around saying, "the GDP isn't going to dip below $1,000,000" based on some figure from the 1850's! The correction for this is "Real GDP" which bases everything on a single measurement standard. So, perhaps, you should base your figures on a "Real Unemployment" rate if you're to imply figures 80 years ago are comparable with modern ones. Maybe the government has such figures? Or maybe corrections to the past ones? If not, oh well, our loss.(Everybody's gain, however, since consumer confidence would take an even worse hit... :lol

 

[safe]

So, perhaps, you should base your figures on a "Real Unemployment" rate if you're to imply figures 80 years ago are comparable with modern ones.

I looked at those past statistics as my own guideline and that's where I got the lower number of 15% in order to make it "sporting".

Had I picked 20% then no one would have dared to bet against me.

At 15% there's about a fifty - fifty chance it could be above or below... so that makes for a bet that is more fun.

The current rate is 7.2% and I expect that it will get to about 13% before the end of the year...

 

[swbluto]

I'm willing to bet it'll be closer to 11% than 13%. So, is the bet on?

 

[safe]

I'm willing to bet it'll be closer to 11% than 13%. So, is the bet on?

Wow, a "side bet"... hmmmm... if I took your bet then all I have left to win against is the "over 15%" crowd... that's not leaving me much room to win.

No, I'll pass on that... I want to still win if it's around 11%.

Anyone else want to take his bet?

All the folks betting on the "over 15%" should "double up" on this one because if you win the "over 15%" you automatically win the "over 11%" bet.

It's a no brainer.

(demand "double honor" points if you win at under 11%)

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[safe]

John Williams, shadowstats.com, on the unemployment rate

If we could admit opinions then you would have already won... :wink:

 

[TPA]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/06/the-other-unemployment-rate-139/

 

[EMF]

Merrill Lynch Says Actual Unemployment Rate is 13.9%

http://www.mhmonline.com/nID/6764/MHM/pNum=1/viewStory.asp

unemployment rate misses is the vast degree of “underemployment” as companies cut back on the hours that people who are still employed are working. Those hours have declined 1.2% in the past 12 months, according to Rosenberg.

The BLS still categorizes people as employed even if they are only on a part-time basis. The number of part-timers has ballooned nearly 70% in the past year as a result of deteriorating economic conditions, according to the study.

Perhaps most distressing, is that when the poor conditions for employment is taken into account, Rosenberg found that the ‘real’ unemployment rate has actually climbed to 13.9%, an all-time high for the period he studied, and up from 13.5% in December and 11.2% a year ago.