So that's it for the election.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nay. America is extraordinarily unfucked.

We have 8% unemployment.

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Agreed.

It's the only number that makes sense to use. First of all, labor force participation rate is highly misunderstood. Tanzania and Rwanda are among the global leaders in labor force participation -- it's not always a good thing when LFP is up. Second of all, you can't start guessing who are and aren't discouraged workers, and you certainly can't fault the economy for failing to integrate citizens that have stopped searching for employment in order to retire early, return to education, or brush up on the historicity of Jesus (I kid). It is only natural that following a major economic downturn, labor participation will decline -- and it's not always a bad thing.

Anyway, our labor participation rate is still higher than the UK's was in 2007, pre-crisis, and they've managed to avoid mass hysteria and barter systems -- so I think we should be cool.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Agreed.

It's the only number that makes sense to use. First of all, labor force participation rate is highly misunderstood. Tanzania and Rwanda are among the global leaders in labor force participation -- it's not always a good thing when LFP is up. Second of all, you can't start guessing who are and aren't discouraged workers, and you certainly can't fault the economy for failing to integrate citizens that have stopped searching for employment in order to retire early, return to education, or brush up on the historicity of Jesus (I kid). It is only natural that following a major economic downturn, labor participation will decline -- and it's not always a bad thing.

Anyway, our labor participation rate is still higher than the UK's was in 2007, pre-crisis, and they've managed to avoid mass hysteria and barter systems -- so I think we should be cool.

So to be clear, you're supporting argument is to compare the economy of Tanzania (23.333B USD nominal GDP) and Rwanda (6.179B USD nominal GDP) to the United States of America (15.094T USD nominal GDP)? And you can do that with a straight face? It's like comparing GE to Suzie's lemonade stand down the street.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So to be clear, you're supporting argument is to compare the economy of Tanzania (23.333B USD nominal GDP) and Rwanda (6.179B USD nominal GDP) to the United States of America (15.094T USD nominal GDP)? And you can do that with a straight face? It's like comparing GE to Suzie's lemonade stand down the street.

No, the point is to demonstrate that labor force participation isn't necessarily demonstrative of a thriving economy. There are a wide variety of factors that impact LFP -- it's not a linear relationship.

You ignored the comparison to the UK, for example.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, the point is to demonstrate that labor force participation isn't necessarily demonstrative of a thriving economy. There are a wide variety of factors that impact LFP -- it's not a linear relationship.

You ignored the comparison to the UK, for example.

Sure I'll address the UK whose UE jumped to a new normal 8% in 2008. Also could you tell me what the UK GDP was for the last two quarters. You said they're doing fine so I'm going to guess Q1 GDP around 1-1.5% and Q2 GDP of 1.25-1.75%. Good muddle through numbers not a double dip for sure.

Let me know when you pull UK 2012Q1 and 2012Q2 GDP and post it here to support your everything is fine across the pond theory.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure I'll address the UK whose UE jumped to a new normal 8% in 2008. Also could you tell me what the UK GDP was for the last two quarters. You said they're doing fine so I'm going to guess Q1 GDP around 1-1.5% and Q2 GDP of 1.25-1.75%. Good muddle through numbers not a double dip for sure.

Let me know when you pull UK 2012Q1 and 2012Q2 GDP and post it here to support your everything is fine across the pond theory.

Where are you getting an 'everything is fine across the pond' theory? I didn't cite their current LFP rate -- I cited their 2007 LFP rate.

Our current LFP is higher than Britain's 2007, pre-crisis LFP -- when they logged 3 straight quarters of > 1% GDP growth.

It's also extremely disingenuous to act like 1.75% GDP growth is the high range of "doing fine". The UK hasn't had a quarter of > 1.7% GDP growth since the 80s. 1.75% quarter GDP growth is absolutely, once-in-a-decade (if that) superlative for the UK. Anything 0.8-1.2 has historically been a quality quarter.

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

Actually it's not the same number unless you were born after 1994. Are you only 18 years old? Under Bill Clinton long term discouraged workers were removed from U3, the big flashy number you see every month on headlines. Dig deeper:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

You think the official unemployment numbers are accurate at all? Someone drops off the unemployment rolls due to being unemployed for too long, and suddenly they don't count. Doesn't seem like an accurate statistic to me.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I hate mitt personally and with a passion, but this is 100% true. the 8% is obomber rhetoric at its finest.