• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

danielpalos said:
It may be, because I am talking about lowering our tax burden through public policy choices that are market friendly; what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Your lack of clarity.
 
danielpalos said:
what is unclear about this?

I am talking about lowering our tax burden through public policy choices that are market friendly
Click to expand...

It is too vague…too broad. There is no way to tell which policy choices you have in mind nor what you consider to be market friendly.

That's your trouble… you keep using broad terms that are not specific enough to figure out what you mean.
 
pinqy said:
It is too vague…too broad. There is no way to tell which policy choices you have in mind nor what you consider to be market friendly.

That's your trouble… you keep using broad terms that are not specific enough to figure out what you mean.
Click to expand...

I think you are merely quibbling as a diversion due to your lack of understanding of the concepts. I usually just ask for a glossary of the concepts involved.

Market friendly could means public policies which rely more on market based metrics than on command economics in a vacuum of special pleading.
 
danielpalos said:
what is unclear about this?

I am talking about lowering our tax burden through public policy choices that are market friendly
Click to expand...
That position is fairly clear, yes.

But it assumes many things:
  1. That one can define "market friendly",
  2. That one can use that definition of "market friendly" to then make public policy decisions.
  3. That said public policy choices will reduce our tax burden.
  4. That reducing our tax burden in this way has no unreasonable negative effects.

Assuming all of these things are true, your position would be reasonable.

I dislike assumptions, especially when based on other assumptions.
 
The Mark said:
That position is fairly clear, yes.

But it assumes many things:
  1. That one can define "market friendly",
  2. That one can use that definition of "market friendly" to then make public policy decisions.
  3. That said public policy choices will reduce our tax burden.
  4. That reducing our tax burden in this way has no unreasonable negative effects.

Assuming all of these things are true, your position would be reasonable.

I dislike assumptions, especially when based on other assumptions.
Click to expand...

What if market friendly means the opposite of command economics, for comparison and contrast?

Market friendliness in public policies implies a positive multiplier effect as a form of "profit" from any investment in our Institution of money based markets and our form of Capitalism.
 
danielpalos said:
What if market friendly means the opposite of command economics, for comparison and contrast?
Click to expand...
If that is how you define "market friendly", then we can use it as a hypothetical starting point.

danielpalos said:
Market friendliness in public policies implies a positive multiplier effect as a form of "profit" from any investment in our Institution of money based markets and our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...
How does it imply a positive multiplier effect?
What is a positive multiplier effect?
How is said positive multiplier effect "a form of profit from any investment in our Institution of money-based markets and our form of Capitalism", and what does that last bit mean?

I ask the last because although your words have meaning individually, in that sentence they seem to have none.
 
The Mark said:
If that is how you define "market friendly", then we can use it as a hypothetical starting point.

How does it imply a positive multiplier effect?
What is a positive multiplier effect?
How is said positive multiplier effect "a form of profit from any investment in our Institution of money-based markets and our form of Capitalism", and what does that last bit mean?

I ask the last because although your words have meaning individually, in that sentence they seem to have none.
Click to expand...

Because it should take rational choice theory into consideration. Promoting the general welfare should mean investing in the general welfare to provide for the general prosperity in our republic; it should be what supply side economics should always be good for.
 
danielpalos said:
Because it should take rational choice theory into consideration. Promoting the general welfare should mean investing in the general welfare to provide for the general prosperity in our republic; it should be what supply side economics should always be good for.
Click to expand...
What are you replying too?
 
danielpalos said:
sorry, i thought you were interested in discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
Click to expand...
If I don't know what you're arguing about, how can I respond in order to discover this apparently highly important (and capitalized) "Truth".
 
danielpalos said:
does it really matter, if diversions are usually considered fallacies?
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about?

Fallacies can be used as diversions, but I would suspect that truth would make a more diverting diversion.

How does that have anything to do with what we're talking about though?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Then why should they take the time to provide numbers we've known were coming for decades which you won't believe?
Click to expand...

Yep, why be honest about what is driving the drop in UE numbers when you can simply sing to the choirs...So, you're telling me that the administration shouldn't bother with me, because I am an opponent of theirs...Nice...I thought that the President once elected was supposed to work for all of us, not just those that agree with him....

Umm, it was reported right along with the jobs numbers, at least in most reports I've seen...
Click to expand...

Well, good for you...Give yourself a cookie...Tell me, which was emphasis in the reports you've seen as more responsible for the UE number coming down? The 288K number? or the 809K number?
 
Further about the numbers that should be looked at along with the 288K in context...

The US economy has delivered two minor shocks in a week, prompting concerns that bond tapering by the Federal Reserve may be doing more damage than expected.
Non-Farm Payrolls data released on Friday shows that the workforce shed 806,000 jobs in April, a stunning drop that cannot plausibly be blamed on the weather. Wage growth and hours worked were both flat and the manufacturing hours per week fell.
This follows news earlier in the week that the economy to a halt in the first quarter. Growth plummeted to 0.1pc and is now well below the Fed’s “stall speed” indicator. Analysts blamed this on the freezing polar vortex over the winter.
Yet the jobs data confirm a disturbingly weak picture. The headline unemployment rate fell to 6.3pc but that was only because the labour “participation rate” plummeted back to a modern-era low of 62.8pc, last seen in 1978 when there were far fewer women in the workforce. The rate for males is the lowest ever recorded at 69.1pc.
The jobs market is highly volatile – and is often revised later – but the data are a warning that the US recovery may be losing momentum. Lakshman Achuthan, from the Economic Cycle Research Institute, said the trend was already weakening long before the cold weather. “We see a failure to launch. We’re decelerating, not accelerating, and that is a big concern,” he said.

Shocking US jobs data impugns recovery, Fed tapering - Telegraph
Click to expand...

When you have an administration that actually with a straight face blames weak economic numbers on "the weather" you really have to work to suspend disbelief....
 
Helix said:
monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say haw many jobs were lost.

Or how many are part time seasonal.

Or how many people stopped looking for work.

Not enough info for rage or rejoice.
 
j-mac said:
Further about the numbers that should be looked at along with the 288K in context...



When you have an administration that actually with a straight face blames weak economic numbers on "the weather" you really have to work to suspend disbelief....
Click to expand...

What should also be looked at is the fact that despite the 288K number (which is calculated differently then much of the other employment info), the number from the actual survey of roughly 60,000 shows a DROP in the number of working Americans in April of 73,000.

This report was a lousy one...not good.
 
DA60 said:
What should also be looked at is the fact that despite the 288K number (which is calculated differently then much of the other employment info), the number from the actual survey of roughly 60,000 shows a DROP in the number of working Americans in April of 73,000.

This report was a lousy one...not good.
Click to expand...


I fully agree DA, but yet, Obama, when these numbers came out took to the Rose Garden to tout them as good news...So, really more lying to the people.
 
j-mac said:
I fully agree DA, but yet, Obama, when these numbers came out took to the Rose Garden to tout them as good news...So, really more lying to the people.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, EVERY POTUS would probably do the exact same thing...especially considering ALL the major headlines about it tout it as well.
I have yet to see one major media source even mention the fact that 73,000 jobs were actually lost...people need to remember that the way the BLS guesstimates the number of job gains per month is TOTALLY different then how it does many of the other aspects of the report.

The fault is the ignorant media more then the POTUS in this case (and I am no fan of Obama as POTUS). If the former would do their jobs and dig into the numbers just a tad and report things accurately then the latter would not be able to say what he did.
 
DA60 said:
What should also be looked at is the fact that despite the 288K number (which is calculated differently then much of the other employment info), the number from the actual survey of roughly 60,000 shows a DROP in the number of working Americans in April of 73,000.
Click to expand...
With a margin of error for the change of +/-400,000 (90% confidence level). The +288,000 was with a margin of error for the change of +/- 94,578
This is why the household survey is not the official employment measure...it's much less accurate. It is broader, as the official jobs numbers exclude agriculture, the self-employed, and others not on a formal payroll. And there's no choice but to use the household survey for unemployment and other labor force data.

Keep in mind, too, that the reference period for the household survey is the week that contains the 12th. So just that one week for each month. The establishment survey uses the reference period of the pay period that contains the 12th, so that's going to cover a larger time period.
 
pinqy said:
With a margin of error for the change of +/-400,000 (90% confidence level). The +288,000 was with a margin of error for the change of +/- 94,578
This is why the household survey is not the official employment measure...it's much less accurate. It is broader, as the official jobs numbers exclude agriculture, the self-employed, and others not on a formal payroll. And there's no choice but to use the household survey for unemployment and other labor force data.

Keep in mind, too, that the reference period for the household survey is the week that contains the 12th. So just that one week for each month. The establishment survey uses the reference period of the pay period that contains the 12th, so that's going to cover a larger time period.
Click to expand...

You have proven to be INCREDIBLY biased and your opinion on this means almost nothing to me.

The BLS use all kinds of creative math and guesstimates (like Net Birth/Deaths models) and other 'models' to come to their conclusions.

They claim on one hand that 288,000 jobs were created...and then on the other that 73,000 jobs were lost.

The BLS is a joke. They do FAR more harm to America then good by twisting the numbers to make the flawed positions of those with power seem more successful then they really are (IMO).

Please keep your (supposed) ex-bureaucratic, trained minion opinions to yourself (as far as telling me is concerned)...I have no interest in them until you open your mind.
You only pop your head up around here to spew forth your bureaucratic Mumbo jumbo to (I assume) pad your own ego.
'Oh look, a commoner who I can make look silly by showing them my vast knowledge of government trained-minion double-speak and technical blather...how fun.'



Good day.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Yep, why be honest about what is driving the drop in UE numbers when you can simply sing to the choirs
Click to expand...
But you won't believe any reason they give anyways, so why bother? That's what you're not getting.

So, you're telling me that the administration shouldn't bother with me, because I am an opponent of theirs
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying no one should bother taking the time to explain something to a person who admits they'll just call the person explaining a liar anyways.

It doesn't matter what is said or what the reason would be, you would just call them a liar. Your opinion is basically worthless and you aren't interested in facts which don't conform to your preconceived notions. So why waste time with you?

Well, good for you...Give yourself a cookie.
Click to expand...
Give myself a cookie because I read? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Tell me, which was emphasis in the reports you've seen as more responsible for the UE number coming down? The 288K number? or the 809K number?
Click to expand...
Both? Then again, does it really matter when you only want to believe one thing anyways?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom