• 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!

The world is fu**ed and utterly with no hope, or is it?

Is the world fu**** up? Is there any hope left?


  • Total voters
    43
Thats just the way things have become. Intellectual debate is about to die... Lets put up the gravestone and put 2007/2008 on it. (or maybe it happend before)

And in my day gumballs were a nickel. :roll:

You appear to have a severe case of nostalgic melancholia. I recommend strenous physical activity, sex, marijuana, or all of the above as treatment.
 
This crisis is America, remember that.. You are the ones loosing jobs in record speeds, not us.

Yet...still ahead of you. I don't know if you've noticed, but when the average American cries "crisis," it usually means the cable is out. Like other times, this is a hiccup and a wake up call to reform. And what has America always done well in any "crisis?" Reform.

Renewed energy sources, complete infrastructure overhaul ferom coast to coast in the works, oversight implementation.....America will be better than before on many levels when this is over. But Europe will be...Europe.

It's what we do. We strap on our work boots and go to work. There are a looooot of Americans that are looking forward to this getting worse because they know that it is that time again. We are looking for the car industry to get left out in the cold. We are looking for banks to re-define themselves.

Our isolationalism led to prosperity and peace for us. We embarked out into the world and involved ourselves with your problems (but this also repaid the debt owed for the meager support in our Revolutionary War.) We went back to our isolationalism to suffer through a Great Depression and had to look inward to emerge stronger. This led to prosperity and peace. But our isolationalism gave our enemies a false sense of power over us so we had to emerge to strike them down and we wound up involving oursleves ("meddling") in another European civil war. Instead of isolatating again, we recognized that our security depended on the stability and environments of foreign nations so we stayed in Europe's absence. We prospered. Post Cold War, the rest of the world was left in confusion and anger as the West celebrated the "End of History" and "victory" on the backs of the Americans.

Now we go through a recession and you preach about a "crisis?" As if there's no corner? This is just another step in history for us. It's you all that have always been looking towards us for salvation, aid, guidance, companionship, and defense.

And here you are giving sermons to America for not leading Europe into Africa. Maybe Europe should lead Europe somewhere other than internal civil wars and stagnation for a change. Let us lick our feeble wounds for a while. Say...fifty years? You think we'll emerge not being able to defend ourselves and relying on another to burden themselves over us?
 
Last edited:
So Iraq is now our fault?

.... I stated nothing about Iraq in the part you replied to. Iraq does not equal the world. It's but a country. I'm talking about international waterways, free trades, and protecting those partners who trade with you.

But as for Iraq....

Iraq was as much, if not more, your responsibility as it was ours. Or are you not aware that Hussein's great threesome supporters involved France, China, and the Soviet Union...not America? And wasn't Europe involved with ensuring that Hussein went back to his throne in 1991? And wasn't Europe instrumental in keeping the UN's oil-for-food scandal alive and well despite the humanitarian crisis left for American troops to deal with year after year?

Iraq will never be stable, you broke the country yes, I know that much, and now people live in missery there.. It is said that people were far more happy under Saddam. What does that tell you?

That Rumsfeld's war execution was pathetic? You see, for a person who claims to care about the suffering of the world, your pointless protest should not be that the tyrant had to fall, but that he fell without proper execution.

Instead, you imply that Iraqis need a bayonet in their face in order for it to meet your definiton of "stable." .....this would be Cold War prescription by the way. Some people were far more happy under Saddam. These would be the same people who enjoyed the Sunni side of Iraq. ...this would be the minority by the way. The fact is that Iraqis are breathing easy these days and they only have to find their way. The violence is at 2003 levels anymore and Iraqis are emerging from their petty tribal squabbling better for it.

But let's look at another situation. Somalia. We were all there (some of us personaly) and we were helping out until Somalis decided that they didn't want our help. We left. And what happened? They drove themselves straight to hell. And today, you scoff at our attempts for Iraqis (and the region), but actually think that Africans will welcome in the militaries? Or do you think the food shipments will make it to where they need to go without a hitch and the warlords will simply retire to clean living? The Mugabes will just head to Tahiti to bask in the sun?

If you truly mean what you have recently been stating about actually helping people, then you need to acknowlegde that this means that some people need killing. And the result of this will be that tribes (or clans) will discover a freedom they never had before. The result of this will either be immediate peace or immediate and temporary slaughter.





So now the media of the world reporting from Iraq is "dwindling sensationalist headlines"?

Um..yes. Or haven't you noticed the almost complete absence of news media as compared to before? There is no story with success. Failure, drama, and violence sells the papers and keeps the people tuned in.


Iraq isnt a success and the middle east looks far worse now than at any time before.....

Yet, the reality tells a different story. I can show you proof of positive change and first time happenings throughout the Middle East since 2004 if you wish. The Middle East appears worse only because before 9/11 nobody cared about what the Middle East was. The Middle East has always been this zoo of a mess. What's different now is that it no longer has "our" dictator instigating troubles and the status quo of oppression and radicalsim is being threatened by the new found voice of the modernists. ....Or you can keep concreted in your protests and deny clarity beyond the headlines just so that you can validate them.

But I suspect that until Iraq looks like down town Seattle or Paris you will refrain from calling it a success. Practicality is never the protestor's strong suit.

....why do you think nations such as Iran is so eager to get nuclear weapons?
1) Because they have been working on it for two decades.

2) Because nuclear weapons equals power.

2) Because the Majlis fears what sits on either side of their border and used it to foster the need for a strong anti-Western leader like Ahmenadejed.

Its because you are meddling down there, and they are afraid.. Why do you think Pakistan is worse than ever? Because everyone there is so pissed of with US actions in the middle east.. You are creating a deadly crisis and spreading hatred from the middle east across the world.. Madrid, London, India and so fourth is all because of your actions in the middle east, and attacks will only be more frequent in the future because of what you have done..

Dictators for the Middle East and salvation for Africans? Because Africans are less tribal? The Middle East is a powder keg that will either go off on its own or with an attempted guidance. Either way, it is going to blow and it is long over due.

You speak of meddling. I dream of a world where America's only lacking resource (oil) is unnecessary. Then we could simply shut the door and "not meddle" in your affairs. Do we meddle with France? I believe we deal with that government as well. Or how about China? Did we "meddle" with Hussein's ambitions in Kuwait or did we "meddle" by keeping him empowered under Western wishes...or did we "meddle" by eventually doiong what should have in the first place and take him out? Did we "meddle" with Hitler's ambitions? And didn't we "meddle" with Somalia by trying to feed them, yet here you are preaching about "meddling" everywhere else in Africa. It's funny how people pick and choose their occassions when "meddling" is and isn't acceptable. In other words, it is acceptable to meddle when Europe needs us, but not whenever others are suffering.

But meddling in the Middle East? The love affair for dictators is a French affair. And the ultimate blame as to why these tribes are smashed together within unnatural borders is a European affair. Everyone is so pissed, because they had found new life after the Cold War ended and are torn between European created nationalism where none existed before, historical tribal roots where they resent their governments, and rage over not being able to go back to the way things were over a century ago.

And Pakistan? Pakistan had been a mess long before 9/11. The recent terrorist attacks in India is over a matter of land dispute. Which happens to be the ultimate reason the entire Middle East is up in arms. Even Saudi Arabia should be divided into about 6 seperate nations according to tribe. Iraq in three. Turkey in two. etc.

America came late to the game and merely took over the posts when Europe withdrew into its shell. And I might add that we did it with less global disharmony and with less brutality. Its because despite our rarely supported coups, our message was different. We weren't coming to conquer and we weren't walking the world into a world war as our predecessors had. And after the Cold War ended, we found ourselves holding the bloody body bag. Europe washed its hands of what it largely created the moment it instigated a second world war.

Meddling? America did have that Shah thing though didn't it? Hell, even this came from the British bending the truth and using America. Be an honest protestor. Every war should have at least one.


Military conquest is not foreign aid..

And I'm dissapointing you? You're not dissapointing me at all. You seem to have forgotten all about Somalia. Foriegn aid went as far as the warlord ambushes. Military action had to get involved. And since all of Africa suffers from the "strong man," you think foriegn aid isn't going to need a degree of muscle to get it where it needs to go? Your thoughts about how things should be doesn't match with what practicality demands. Even Iraqis suffering northerners and southerners (non Saddam Sunnis) needed American troops on the ground to ensure delivery of UN shipments in the '90s.

Like I stated....writing a check or tossing change in the offering plate as if tithing isn't going to fix the African problem.

Thats because we had to rebuild and you didnt.. Dont you see that?

Were it this simple. Europe had the luxury of taking its time at our expense. With American treasure, an American military sitting in Germany, and the British quick enough to recover to aid us here and there, the rest of Europe needed fifty years just to show that Bosnia was still too much? And that later, Afghanistan just wasn't their problem?

Continental Europe took its time at our expense. It was a luxury we mistakenly allowed while entertaining European criticisms for everything we did.

The US came out of the ww2 better than before while Europe lay in ruin, now we have cought up and are waving to a stagnant US as we rush on by..

Hardly. Europeans have always deceived themselves. The French have been trying for decades to be America's equal by undermining foriegn policy issues repeatedly. And when has a German liberated anybody? Unemployement is always dismall. Immigration is getting worse. Your economy is worse off and will only recover long after we have. I don't know about "catching up," but you are certainly not rushing by.

If history is to be learned from, it will be America that emerges better than ever and Europe that walks itself into disaster looking for a hero.


In think its intellectualism which is really stagnant in the US, .... but US views on things are screwed up pretty bad.

Ah yes. The "elite" who fancy themselves superior enough to common folk that they would prescribe what is and is not for society. Intellectualism has its purpose. But without a dose of reality it becomes dangerous in application. I believe Europe has suffered quite a bit because intellectuals fostered ideas of how society ought to look like or be.

And many of us think the same thing about you. Intellectual habit is a matter that plaques both our civilizations. But we are breaking through ours. We change fast where it matters. We always have. And where it doesn't, we change as best and as fast as we can for a civilization that didn't simply cleanse the population when faced with the possibility of a new face. We don't mind changing. Europe always has. This newer false identity that Europe pretends to cling to reminds me of what Europe was doing before both of their World Wars. In the end, disaster will come.
 
Last edited:
Lets not forget that the pound and the Euro are dropping like rocks. WAHOO, time to go on vacation!
 
Lets not forget that the pound and the Euro are dropping like rocks. WAHOO, time to go on vacation!

Well if they only focus on the dollar falling they can pretend that their Europepean problems have equal companionship. It's always the same. Name a consistancy or a historical re-occurence and they will name a single American smaller event to make themselves feel better.
 
Yet...still ahead of you.

Yeah, for a few more months.. The US jobloss rate is now about 600.000 jobs every month.. In november you lost about 550.000.. I dont see Mercedez going bankrupt any time soon, but jobs at GM and Ford arent exactly that safe...
 
Yeah, for a few more months.. The US jobloss rate is now about 600.000 jobs every month.. In november you lost about 550.000.. I dont see Mercedez going bankrupt any time soon, but jobs at GM and Ford arent exactly that safe...
You can tell a dishonest use of statistics about job losses when the number of new jobs created or the change in unemployment is not stated.

Example: john lost $5000 gambeling Tuesday. But I forgot to mention he also won $15000 Tuesday and has a net gain of $100000 for the last month.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
 
Last edited:
Um..yes. Or haven't you noticed the almost complete absence of news media as compared to before? There is no story with success. Failure, drama, and violence sells the papers and keeps the people tuned in.

Obviously because the financial crisis in the US which is dragging the rest of the world down with it is far more important than you failings in Iraq.. :2wave:


Yet, the reality tells a different story. I can show you proof of positive change and first time happenings throughout the Middle East since 2004 if you wish. The Middle East appears worse only because before 9/11 nobody cared about what the Middle East was. The Middle East has always been this zoo of a mess. What's different now is that it no longer has "our" dictator instigating troubles and the status quo of oppression and radicalsim is being threatened by the new found voice of the modernists. ....Or you can keep concreted in your protests and deny clarity beyond the headlines just so that you can validate them.

Only place not ****ed up there is the Arab Emirates, that certainly isnt because of the US.. The parts that are most ****ed up and catching on fire now is because of the actions of the US in the middleeast lately. Of course, the main flamable is the Israel/Arab conflict like ever before, which has been cared about and main line in news the last 5 decades.


But I suspect that until Iraq looks like down town Seattle or Paris you will refrain from calling it a success. Practicality is never the protestor's strong suit.

Id be happy with what is was before rather than a bombed our hell hole with war freaks walking all around. Imagine the mental health aspects the next few hundred years in Iraq.

What about the infrastructure? Still worse off than it was when you got there, regular people aint even getting water. You are turning a relatively functional country into an African style hell-hole.

1) Because they have been working on it for two decades.

2) Because the Majlis fears what sits on either side of their border and used it to foster the need for a strong anti-Western leader like Ahmenadejed.

Listened too much to Bush again now? I am sure you have proof of these claims..

You speak of meddling. I dream of a world where America's only lacking resource (oil) is unnecessary.
You are stuck in the past, in traditional ways.. Why dont America spend 1 trillion in renewable energy instead of war in Iraq? You energy grid is completely ****ed up, and everything you do is add some ethanol(which takes away food supply). You see everything in the wrong way I dear claim..

Where are you and why are you thinking like you do?

Then we could simply shut the door and "not meddle" in your affairs. Do we meddle with France? I believe we deal with that government as well. Or how about China? Did we "meddle" with Hussein's ambitions in Kuwait or did we "meddle" by keeping him empowered under Western wishes...or did we "meddle" by eventually doiong what should have in the first place and take him out? Did we "meddle" with Hitler's ambitions? And didn't we "meddle" with Somalia by trying to feed them, yet here you are preaching about "meddling" everywhere else in Africa. It's funny how people pick and choose their occassions when "meddling" is and isn't acceptable. In other words, it is acceptable to meddle when Europe needs us, but not whenever others are suffering.
I hope you will meddle when you are needed and stop meddling where you arent needed. Iraq wes certainly not asking for you help...
Somalia was not the worlds most failed state before the US got involved down there..
Try meddling in the US for once, perhaps you could bring about real change. Your country is in SERIOUS decline. Your intellectuals are like our retards.

But meddling in the Middle East? The love affair for dictators is a French affair. And the ultimate blame as to why these tribes are smashed together within unnatural borders is a European affair. Everyone is so pissed, because they had found new life after the Cold War ended and are torn between European created nationalism where none existed before, historical tribal roots where they resent their governments, and rage over not being able to go back to the way things were over a century ago.

Past past past... All you talk about.. Whats your problem with looking at how things are? Whats you problem with looking towards the future?


And Pakistan? Pakistan had been a mess long before 9/11.
Finally we agree on something.. But now that mess has turned hostile because of your meddling and war in Iraq.. Thats about 150 million angry people..

The recent terrorist attacks in India is over a matter of land dispute. Which happens to be the ultimate reason the entire Middle East is up in arms.

Pakistan and India has been in conflict for a long time, let India and Pakistan resolve their problem and let the international community with diplomacy try to make sure they do not nuke each other or go into long term wars.


Even Saudi Arabia should be divided into about 6 seperate nations according to tribe. Iraq in three. Turkey in two. etc.
Says who? The US should then be at least 5 countries instead of one(southeast, northeast, west, centernorth and south),. Belgium should be 3 countries, Italy 2, Spain at least 3 and so on... Why does this matter?


America came late to the game and merely took over the posts when Europe withdrew into its shell. And I might add that we did it with less global disharmony and with less brutality.
:rofl

Its because despite our rarely supported coups, our message was different. We weren't coming to conquer and we weren't walking the world into a world war as our predecessors had.

That is exactly what you ARE doing, you are creating a scenario in the middle east that could easily spread, aside fro that the economic collapse in the US could lead to a new global war..


And I'm dissapointing you? You're not dissapointing me at all. You seem to have forgotten all about Somalia.

Not exactly.. You made it into the worlds most failed state, two spots ahead of Iraq, another nation you changed.


Like I stated....writing a check or tossing change in the offering plate as if tithing isn't going to fix the African problem.
I never said that.. I think Europe and the US must work toghether for the African problem to ever get solved. Militarily, economically, politically and integrationally.


Were it this simple. Europe had the luxury of taking its time at our expense. With American treasure, an American military sitting in Germany, and the British quick enough to recover to aid us here and there, the rest of Europe needed fifty years just to show that Bosnia was still too much? And that later, Afghanistan just wasn't their problem?

Continental Europe took its time at our expense. It was a luxury we mistakenly allowed while entertaining European criticisms for everything we did.

:rofl

So, the Marshall plan is the sole reason the well educated people of Europe managed to lift their ruined economy and catch up to the US in just a few decades and pass it by.. Is this what you are saying?


Hardly. Europeans have always deceived themselves. The French have been trying for decades to be America's equal by undermining foriegn policy issues repeatedly.

Funny you mention the French again, its just about the only western economy that is not in recession right now.

I don't know about "catching up," but you are certainly not rushing by.

You do know.. Europe was in ruin 60 years ago, the US was better of than any time before 60 years ago.. Now Europe have cought up, and we are certainly rushing on by, our politics is far more modern, yours is the same old Washinton corrupted crap. We are creating energy revolution while you wage wars to steal oil(to continue the old ways).. The European economy IS rushing by the US, we already have.. Our economy is about 4 trillion dollars larger than yours. Every thing over here is liberalized while in the US things are the same old ways, things just cant change over there. Intellectuals in Europe are now by far the most progressive, while such a term doesnt exists inthe US, your intellectuals are all people like stone age thinkers like those you see in your politics. Bla bla bla, etc etc etc..



If history is to be learned from, it will be America that emerges better than ever and Europe that walks itself into disaster looking for a hero.
And what is that history? You limited view on history which spans from 1938 until 1947?



Ah yes. The "elite" who fancy themselves superior enough to common folk that they would prescribe what is and is not for society. Intellectualism has its purpose. But without a dose of reality it becomes dangerous in application. I believe Europe has suffered quite a bit because intellectuals fostered ideas of how society ought to look like or be.

And many of us think the same thing about you. Intellectual habit is a matter that plaques both our civilizations. But we are breaking through ours. We change fast where it matters.

Then it certainly doesnt matter now..

The average idiots shouldnt control the average idiots, nor tell us how our society should progress...
Why should not the smartest people control where we go in the future?
 
You can tell a dishonest use of statistics about job losses when the number of new jobs created or the change in unemployment is not stated.

Example: john lost $5000 gambeling Tuesday. But I forgot to mention he also won $15000 Tuesday and has a net gain of $100000 for the last month.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

The 550.000 I am talking about NET change.. Including jobs gained and lost.

BBC NEWS | Business | US job losses surge in November
 
Last edited:
The unemployment rate rose from 6.7% to 6.9%... 0.2% of the US population is 600.000 people.. Happy now????

Unemployment rate is based only one the labor force population, not the entire population. Thus, the 600,000 derived from the total population based on the change in unemployment is a non-sequitur.
 
Unemployment rate is based only one the labor force population, not the entire population. Thus, the 600,000 derived from the total population based on the change in unemployment is a non-sequitur.
Are Stock-market day-traders considered labor?
 
Unemployment rate is based only one the labor force population, not the entire population. Thus, the 600,000 derived from the total population based on the change in unemployment is a non-sequitur.

Well.. The point here is that jobs are lost in record speeds in the US, not the technicalities.. The net change is what the BBC page says anyways, if not it doesnt really matter as long as unemployment is rising as fast as it is doing.. In March of next year the US will have a higher percentage of unemployed than the European Union(which include most of eastern Europe)..
 
Well.. The point here is that jobs are lost in record speeds in the US, not the technicalities.
But the technicalities are what matters!

Is this an anomaly or is it the average?
Is it projected to continue or not?
Is it just statistical a lie or not?

You seem happy to quote some statistic and then refuse analysis of it.

The net change is what the BBC page says anyways,
I still have yet to see ANY indication that its a NET loss. Do you know the difference between a NET loss of jobs and just a loss of jobs?

Perhaps I missed the part in the article, which is why I asked you to quote it directly where you think a NET loss is stated. You continue to fail on this part so I must assume you are lying or you misunderstood what the article was actually giving a statistic for.

if not it doesnt really matter as long as unemployment is rising as fast as it is doing.. In March of next year the US will have a higher percentage of unemployed than the European Union(which include most of eastern Europe)..
Now where did you get this info? Do you know how to cite sources to back your claims?
 
Last edited:
But the technicalities are what matters!

Is this an anomaly or is it the average?
Is it projected to continue or not?
Is it just statistical a lie or not?

The technicalities doesnt matter when we are talking about the US net loss of job.. The rate rose from 6.5% to 6.7%, that is the scary point.. Its far from average, and projected to worsen, not a statistical lie considering the US is in recession..

You seem happy to quote some statistic and then refuse analysis of it.

Thats a horrible lie, I did analyze it, but the technicalities wasnt important in this case.. The point was that the unemployment is rising fast, and it is..

I still have yet to see ANY indication that its a NET loss. Do you know the difference between a NET loss of jobs and just a loss of jobs?

You dont? Then you are blind, the unemployment rate rose from 6.5% to 6.7%, if that is not NET less, then I do not know what is, and especially considering the rate was around 4% last year you ought to start worry about this tendency.. Dont get stuck in technicalities just for matter of debate like many people in this forum do when they choose to overlook the broader context in favor of derailing the debates.

Perhaps I missed the part in the article, which is why I asked you to quote it directly where you think a NET loss is stated.

My bad sorry.. Maybe the 550.000 was not the actual net loss, but the change from 6.5% to 6.7% DEFINTELY is a NET LOSS::

You continue to fail on this part so I must assume you are lying or you misunderstood what the article was actually giving a statistic for.

You just choose to overlook the points here in favor of debating technicalities.. If you cant see the unemployment rate going up, then I do understand that the problem is more severe than first assume, especially if this is the general attitude in the US to conveniently overlook the broader picture to get stuck in technicalities.

Now where did you get this info? Do you know how to cite sources to back your claims?

Aboout US unemployment surpassing the European Union, that one was speculation based on the current tendencies.



Im sorry for just jawdroppingly crushing you in this round of post that I want to apologize for being so right all the time, AND I am not even going to mention or try to make you feel bad about it..
 
Its pathetic to see the direction the world is taking and the worst of it has happened during Americas "watch"..

Right, because the world was all peaches and cream before America's "watch."

Strangely enough, I see the goodly share of the world's problems stemming directly from the the aftermath of European colonialism. And I don't see many solutions, or even more than half-hearted attempts at solutions, coming out of Europe.
 
... the US net loss of job.. The rate rose from 6.5% to 6.7%,


Then you are blind, the unemployment rate rose from 6.5% to 6.7%, if that is not NET less, then I do not know what is, and especially considering the rate was around 4% last year you ought to start worry about this tendency..
please go read the TECHNICALITIES of the unemployment calculation. Its not a simple calculation where the only factors are the employed and unemployed. There are far more factors thus I do not find it compelling that you identify but ONE FACTOR that changes and you go on to presume that this one factor accounts for the change in the unemployment rate.

Dont get stuck in technicalities just for matter of debate like many people in this forum do when they choose to overlook the broader context in favor of derailing the debates.
When you don't understand the technicalities like what a NET loss is as opposed to a loss or that the unemployment rate is calculated on more than just a single factor then of course you will ignorantly write themm off as unimportant "technicalities".


My bad sorry.. Maybe the 550.000 was not the actual net loss, but the change from 6.5% to 6.7% DEFINTELY is a NET LOSS::
ok you are getting there. Now you need to show me why you think the job loss is the SOLE FACTOR for the change in the unemployment rate. The unemployment has MANY factors that contribute to its calculation... but I'm sure that's just a "technicality" to you.
 
Right, because the world was all peaches and cream before America's "watch."

Strangely enough, I see the goodly share of the world's problems stemming directly from the the aftermath of European colonialism. And I don't see many solutions, or even more than half-hearted attempts at solutions, coming out of Europe.

:lol::doh
Never said it was so good before, but compared with potential we are faring quite bad right now.

What you say is somehwat true, but I believe in neo-colonization as a solution to many problems in for example Africa, but with their cooperation in this case.
 
please go read the TECHNICALITIES of the unemployment calculation. Its not a simple calculation where the only factors are the employed and unemployed. There are far more factors thus I do not find it compelling that you identify but ONE FACTOR that changes and you go on to presume that this one factor accounts for the change in the unemployment rate.

When you don't understand the technicalities like what a NET loss is as opposed to a loss or that the unemployment rate is calculated on more than just a single factor then of course you will ignorantly write themm off as unimportant "technicalities".


ok you are getting there. Now you need to show me why you think the job loss is the SOLE FACTOR for the change in the unemployment rate. The unemployment has MANY factors that contribute to its calculation... but I'm sure that's just a "technicality" to you.

I give up.. You just dont get the points.. Read my last post again.. Slowly this time..
 
I give up.. You just dont get the points.. Read my last post again.. Slowly this time..

ahh i see. But I still believe you assume too much.

the jobless_rate/unemployment rate went from 6.5% to 6.7%.

Also lets put this in perspective:
attachment.php


Now lets take a look at what the dreaded unemployment rate actually means: Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow it looks like we aren't that bad off after all. :3oops:
 

Attachments

  • unemplyoment rate.jpg
    unemplyoment rate.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:
It seems we have made some progress since Homo Erectus.
It would be comforting if SETI had found something though.
 
Back
Top Bottom