• 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%

The Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have been discussing the concept of supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost through simplification of our public policy choices.

Solving simple poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market labor through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines is one example

We could be solving two dilemmas at once, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that could be as simple to administer.
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you really think nobody notices that when you can't intelligently respond to my posts you resort to personal attacks?
 
pinqy said:
Do you really think nobody notices that when you can't intelligently respond to my posts you resort to personal attacks?
Click to expand...

One - why should I care much what a bunch of faceless nobodies on a chat forum think? They should not much care what I think about them either.
I am not here to make friends...I am here to learn, teach and kill time.

Two - I already showed what a joke the BLS is when they say on one hand that 288,000 jobs were created and then turn around and say that 73,000 jobs were lost.
Those are facts (the joke part is my interpretation).

Three - although you are not rude (which I give you great credit for), the only time I see you on here is to correct people with your government techno-speak.
And my assumption is you do it to pad your ego...if not, then why not just post the data without putting others down (I am NOT referring to our dealings - just your dealings I see you have with others).

You could post 'for the record'.

But no...you always seem to do it in a confrontational way.

And usually when people do that, it is to make themselves feel better by trying to make others feel worse.

THAT is what I object to...not the information you post (I welcome that)...it's the way and the bias with which you post it.


Good day.
 
Slyfox696 said:
But you won't believe any reason they give anyways, so why bother? That's what you're not getting.

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?

Give myself a cookie because I read? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Both? Then again, does it really matter when you only want to believe one thing anyways?
Click to expand...

What do you want from me? Go bother someone else with your vitriol.
 
danielpalos said:
I have been discussing the concept of supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost through simplification of our public policy choices.

Solving simple poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market labor through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines is one example

We could be solving two dilemmas at once, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that could be as simple to administer.
Click to expand...
Yet apparently, all you have are words, with no details or plans.

I don't think things will work as well as you assume they will.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, this is a joke right? You've been pulling our legs for pages now....good one. :lamo
Click to expand...

it helps to have a clue and a Cause.

The study found that UI benefits:

reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;

kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;

made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”

have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
This is not any form of failed argument:
Click to expand...

So tell us how that multiplier effect is working today as we have stagnant economic growth and people collecting unemployment benefits for almost 2 years according to law? Do you have any idea where the money comes from to pay those unemployment claims? One would think that with record high unemployment and your claims along with Pelosi's that we would have a booming economy right now. Let's just make more unemployed because the record high numbers now just aren't enough
 
Conservative said:
So tell us how that multiplier effect is working today as we have stagnant economic growth and people collecting unemployment benefits for almost 2 years according to law? Do you have any idea where the money comes from to pay those unemployment claims? One would think that with record high unemployment and your claims along with Pelosi's that we would have a booming economy right now. Let's just make more unemployed because the record high numbers now just aren't enough
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, it only works as long as it is available; where do you believe they got the numbers for the study?
 
j-mac said:
Sure it is, and laughably so..:lamo
Click to expand...

why do you believe a positive multiplier effect is a failed argument, instead of merely resorting to fallacy?

have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
In case you missed it, it only works as long as it is available; where do you believe they got the numbers for the study?
Click to expand...

Have you considered the fact that many people are book smart and street stupid? I have no idea where the govt. got the numbers but apparently they came from the same place that stated that the stimulus program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%. Unemployment destroys incentive for a lot of people and therefore discourages people from working. Further too many people don't understand human nature and don't realize what people spend their unemployment insurance on
 
danielpalos said:
why do you believe a positive multiplier effect is a failed argument, instead of merely resorting to fallacy?
Click to expand...

Because it is theory and doesn't always work the way the books say, humans are involved not robots.
 
danielpalos said:
This is not any form of failed argument:
Click to expand...

That which is seen. Of course the people who collect the proceeds from the claims of unemployment spend them. Sure, they can buy groceries and cars, pay rent, etc. What you're not seeing though is that the people paying the premiums are not able to do these things with the money.

The government is not creating demand, it is transferring it.
 
Conservative said:
Have you considered the fact that many people are book smart and street stupid? I have no idea where the govt. got the numbers but apparently they came from the same place that stated that the stimulus program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%. Unemployment destroys incentive for a lot of people and therefore discourages people from working. Further too many people don't understand human nature and don't realize what people spend their unemployment insurance on
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree. Basic economics can be self-taught with enough practice with money. Means testing and subsistence programs do nothing to teach people how to be the best Capitalists they can be. Consider a hypothetical where EBT cards could be used with financial planners as well.
 
Conservative said:
Because it is theory and doesn't always work the way the books say, humans are involved not robots.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand your position; why do you believe Persons would have more problems with voluntary social transactions that enable mutually beneficial trade?
 
newpublius said:
That which is seen. Of course the people who collect the proceeds from the claims of unemployment spend them. Sure, they can buy groceries and cars, pay rent, etc. What you're not seeing though is that the people paying the premiums are not able to do these things with the money.

The government is not creating demand, it is transferring it.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why your line of reasoning is relevant in our Institution of money based markets. Why do you believe a private sector would be worse off with any increase on the circulation of money, to full employment of resources?
 
danielpalos said:
I agree to disagree. Basic economics can be self-taught with enough practice with money. Means testing and subsistence programs do nothing to teach people how to be the best Capitalists they can be. Consider a hypothetical where EBT cards could be used with financial planners as well.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question and you ignored it, where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits and what effect does that have on the economy? Further why hasn't two years of unemployment insurance generated the theory based results?
 
danielpalos said:
I am not sure I understand your position; why do you believe Persons would have more problems with voluntary social transactions that enable mutually beneficial trade?
Click to expand...

Because you don't understand human nature at all. You are better with robots
 
danielpalos said:
I am not sure why your line of reasoning is relevant in our Institution of money based markets. Why do you believe a private sector would be worse off with any increase on the circulation of money, to full employment of resources?
Click to expand...

Its comments like these that show you have no idea what you're talking about. None. Nothing but unresponsive horse**** in that response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom