One thing's for sure: The U.S. economy is booming

[igloo]

This recovery's not broken

Larry Kudlow (archive)

March 6, 2004 | Print | Send

Following the release of the softer-than-expected February jobs report, the major media outlets would almost have us believe that employment is falling back into recession. It most certainly is not. Though the latest Labor Department release showed a gain of 21,000 non-farm payrolls -- well below expectations -- this honest increase represents the sixth-straight month of gains for a total of 364,000 new jobs. It's not prime rib, but for the newly working it's certainly not chopped liver.

Meanwhile, the important unemployment rate -- almost ignored nowadays -- continues to hold at 5.6 percent, a historically low tally. In fact, the Labor Department's household survey -- which counts the number of all Americans who are actually working -- now stands at 138.3 million, an all-time high. The previous peak came way back in January 2001 at 137.8 million. Since the end of 2002, 1.8 million more people have gone back to work. Another impressive number.

There continues to be much debate and confusion about the importance of this household survey, from which the unemployment rate is determined, and the corporate payroll survey, which is rising, but at a slower-than-hoped-for pace. Economists have traditionally focused on the unemployment rate as a measure of economic health. But in this political season, the softer payroll survey has received the lion's share of coverage.

Virtually no one cites the increase in the entrepreneurial army of self-employed and independent contractors who have gone to work at lower tax rates, enabling them to keep more of what they earn. This is why the unemployment rate quickly fell from 6.3 percent when the Bush tax cuts were implemented last spring to 5.6 percent today. The media are trying to discredit this drop as it is scored in the more promising household survey, rather than the more pessimistic payroll tally.

But what matters is the vast 94.4 percent of the working population who are laboring and prospering. Prospering. Family net worth, according to latest Federal Reserve release, has soared to a record high of $44.4 trillion, driven mainly by rising stock market and home prices. This, of course, represents the investor class -- today's most powerful electoral voting bloc.

One thing's for sure: The U.S. economy is booming. Outsized profit gains at lower investment tax rates have produced a boom in business-capital spending. Consumers are also keeping spending at a relatively steady 3 percent to 4 percent pace. A variety of job-linked variables, such as manufacturing factory orders, work weeks and delivery times are all rising rapidly. All these suggest that new job creation is on the way.

In the hard goods sector, commodity indexes have been white hot. Much of this is commercial-business-driven demand from the China surge and the U.S. recovery. Going forward, rising profits and prices will attract new capital and new investment -- meaning that someone will have to go to work to complete the production process and meet rising world commodity demands.

Wall Street economist Joseph LaVorgna cites the sharp recovery in withheld tax receipts in February to their highest year-over-year gain since July 2001. These daily Treasury reports are "a statistically significant predictor of non-farm payrolls." From a decline rate of 5 percent in early 2002 these receipts climbed to a 3.5 percent growth rate last month.

Job outsourcing continues, as it has for 20 years. But so does job in-sourcing. Putting the two together, net outsourced jobs are actually less than they were in the early 1980s. The outsourcing argument is way overrated.

Rapid productivity gains from greater business efficiency, automation and technology applications have temporarily slowed new job creation. But in the fourth quarter of last year, 4.1 percent real GDP growth finally outpaced 2.6 percent output-per-hour productivity. So non-farm payrolls increased by 179,000. Assuming that productivity levels off around 3 percent to 3.5 percent, with an expected 5 percent GDP gain, new jobs will be in strong demand.

In other words, as the economy hums, new jobs will be created. In the past two decades, while the U.S. economy grew around 3.5 percent annually, a net of 38 million new jobs were created. Comparatively, in Europe, the unemployment rate continues around 9 percent. That's because old Europe doesn't produce much at all anymore. The United States is not Europe.

One thing this economic recovery does not need is a spate of new tax hikes coupled with tall protectionist trade barriers, as proposed by Sen. John Kerry and the Democrats. Penalizing consumers who love high-quality, low-cost imports, and punishing successful earners and investors who are accumulating wealth to fuel new business start-ups and new job creation, will surely sink the economic ship.

As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. No matter what the political spin, this recovery is surely not broken.

[mr mahs]

Richard Nixon once said

"Smart liberals (if there are any lol) go into journalism..."

&

"Smart Conservatives go into Finance"

All this hogwash about the economy is a political spin on what people don't understand. It's been discovered in the late 90's that we are switching from a manufacturing driven labor force to a service driven nation hence the manufacturing sector slowdown and build up in the service sector.

Now outsourcing is unfortunate for anyone who experienced it but the end result is a downpaymnt from our domestic companies for a newly discovered market. Now imagine for a moment that these people being employed overseas take those monies from those jobs and purchase american products. Can you imagine how many dell computers will be sold in India? How about american automobiles? That'sthe beauty of globilization and to take a isolationists stance on trade will only hurt us in the long run.

Here's a good example of outsourcing as a positive occurence..

A Jan. 30 report in the Wall Street Journal illustrates how this works, using the case of a computer mouse manufacturer called Logitech. It sells a wireless mouse called Wanda for about $40 that is assembled in China. Of the $40, China gets only $3. The rest goes to suppliers, many based in America, which make components for the mouse, and to domestic retailers. The biggest component of Logitech's cost is its marketing department based in Fremont, California, where the staff of 450 Americans makes far more than the 4,000 Chinese who actually manufacture the product.

Don't fight globilization, it's like standing at the ocean edge and yelling at the tide to stop coming in.......

[normalnoises]

Job data bad news for Bush

21,000 new jobs in U.S. last month far below forecast But election rival Kerry has his own

worry ... Nader

TIM HARPER

WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—For the second consecutive day, U.S. President George W. Bush's nascent re-election campaign found itself back on its heels, this time over a pathetic job creation report.

The monthly job report showed only 21,000 jobs were created in the United States last month, far below the 125,000 most private economists had anticipated, delivering another blow to the incumbent president's credibility.

Successive polls here have ranked jobs as the Number 1 concern of American voters and the first Friday of each month, when job figures are released, is fast becoming a key recurring date for the Republicans in the 2004 campaign.

The White House came under fire last month when it predicted 2.6 million jobs would be created this year only to have Bush immediately distance himself from the forecast.

To meet that increasingly fanciful goal, the U.S. economy would have to create 300,000 jobs a month for the rest of the year.

The U.S. unemployment rate remained at 5.6 per cent but job growth under Bush during the past nine months was roughly half what would be needed merely to keep pace with population growth.

The jobs figures came as Bush continued to face criticism from firefighters and families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks for using images of the carnage that killed nearly 3,000 people in his re-election ads.

At a campaign stop in Louisiana, Democratic challenger John Kerry tied the issues together. The Massachusetts senator said the U.S. president was trying to "scare America'' and "change the subject" by using images of the terrorist attacks.

"You understand why he's doing that," Kerry said at a rally in New Orleans. "He can't come out here and talk to you about jobs. He can't come out here and talk to you about protecting the environment. He can't talk to you about balancing the budget."

The Bush campaign again refused to apologize for the ads yesterday.

Bush is to visit a memorial to the victims Thursday in Long Island's Nassau County, one of New York's suburbs, before attending a fundraiser that night in East Meadow, N.Y, his spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were grappling with new polling figures that appear to confirm some of their worst fears.

Though the poll for Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs showed Bush and Kerry in a virtual dead heat, independent candidate Ralph Nader drew a surprisingly strong 6 per cent support, again raising the spectre of a spoiler role for the consumer advocate.

The poll of 771 registered voters, conducted Monday through Wednesday, showed Bush with 46 per cent of committed support and Kerry with 45 per cent.

It also shows Bush's job approval rating sticking stubbornly at 48 per cent, virtually unchanged from a month ago.

Nader, who entered the race Feb. 22 over Democratic pleas to stay out, won only 2.7 per cent of the vote in 2000 when he ran under the Green party banner.

This year, without party backing, he faces an uphill struggle to have his name placed on the ballot in many states. In 2000, he was on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C.

In an interview on John McLaughlin's One on One to air this weekend, Nader says "liberals'' are prepared to give Kerry a free ride because of the "Anybody but Bush" mentality in the Democratic party.

"(That's) another way of saying to John Kerry: `We're not going to demand any mandates. We're not going to look at your issues and your positions, because it's anybody but Bush, and you're anybody,'" Nader said.

"He's going to get a free ride. That's not good for him. It's not good for exciting the public or turning out new voters or putting the Republicans on the defensive."

The AP-Ipsos poll margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1078528211387&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

Job data bad news for Bush

21,000 new jobs in U.S. last month far below forecast But election rival Kerry has his own

worry ... Nader

TIM HARPER

WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—For the second consecutive day, U.S. President George W. Bush's nascent re-election campaign found itself back on its heels, this time over a pathetic job creation report.

The monthly job report showed only 21,000 jobs were created in the United States last month, far below the 125,000 most private economists had anticipated, delivering another blow to the incumbent president's credibility.

Successive polls here have ranked jobs as the Number 1 concern of American voters and the first Friday of each month, when job figures are released, is fast becoming a key recurring date for the Republicans in the 2004 campaign.

The White House came under fire last month when it predicted 2.6 million jobs would be created this year only to have Bush immediately distance himself from the forecast.

To meet that increasingly fanciful goal, the U.S. economy would have to create 300,000 jobs a month for the rest of the year.

The U.S. unemployment rate remained at 5.6 per cent but job growth under Bush during the past nine months was roughly half what would be needed merely to keep pace with population growth.

The jobs figures came as Bush continued to face criticism from firefighters and families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks for using images of the carnage that killed nearly 3,000 people in his re-election ads.

At a campaign stop in Louisiana, Democratic challenger John Kerry tied the issues together. The Massachusetts senator said the U.S. president was trying to "scare America'' and "change the subject" by using images of the terrorist attacks.

"You understand why he's doing that," Kerry said at a rally in New Orleans. "He can't come out here and talk to you about jobs. He can't come out here and talk to you about protecting the environment. He can't talk to you about balancing the budget."

The Bush campaign again refused to apologize for the ads yesterday.

Bush is to visit a memorial to the victims Thursday in Long Island's Nassau County, one of New York's suburbs, before attending a fundraiser that night in East Meadow, N.Y, his spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were grappling with new polling figures that appear to confirm some of their worst fears.

Though the poll for Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs showed Bush and Kerry in a virtual dead heat, independent candidate Ralph Nader drew a surprisingly strong 6 per cent support, again raising the spectre of a spoiler role for the consumer advocate.

The poll of 771 registered voters, conducted Monday through Wednesday, showed Bush with 46 per cent of committed support and Kerry with 45 per cent.

It also shows Bush's job approval rating sticking stubbornly at 48 per cent, virtually unchanged from a month ago.

Nader, who entered the race Feb. 22 over Democratic pleas to stay out, won only 2.7 per cent of the vote in 2000 when he ran under the Green party banner.

This year, without party backing, he faces an uphill struggle to have his name placed on the ballot in many states. In 2000, he was on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C.

In an interview on John McLaughlin's One on One to air this weekend, Nader says "liberals'' are prepared to give Kerry a free ride because of the "Anybody but Bush" mentality in the Democratic party.

"(That's) another way of saying to John Kerry: `We're not going to demand any mandates. We're not going to look at your issues and your positions, because it's anybody but Bush, and you're anybody,'" Nader said.

"He's going to get a free ride. That's not good for him. It's not good for exciting the public or turning out new voters or putting the Republicans on the defensive."

The AP-Ipsos poll margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1078528211387&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Negative Liberal spin on the pay roll survey. Check the household survey numbnuts.. Then again it isn't the Dewey Decimal System so don't hurt yourself in finding out the facts...

Here's a question ya waste of skin...

How would YOU improve the already low unemployemnt rate?

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Negative Liberal spin on the pay roll survey. Check the household survey numbnuts.. Then again it isn't the Dewey Decimal System so don't hurt yourself in finding out the facts...

:laugh: :laugh:

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Negative Liberal spin on the pay roll survey. Check the household survey numbnuts.. Then again it isn't the Dewey Decimal System so don't hurt yourself in finding out the facts...

Here's a question ya waste of skin...

How would YOU improve the already low unemployemnt rate?

ending capitalism, embracing socialism, end sweatshop labor by US corporations in other countries, force US companies to employ ALL americans living in the US and divide the wealth equally.

Then kick scumbags like you out of the US.

so much for your war profits

[pattbateman]

Richard Nixon once said

"Smart liberals (if there are any lol) go into journalism..."

&

"Smart Conservatives go into Finance"

its weird that i am a finance major?????

[normalnoises]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Technical information:

Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 04-338

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is

http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EST),

Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, March 5, 2004.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2004

Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February, and the

unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics

of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment levels in most

of the major industries were little changed over the month.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was 8.2 million in February, and the

unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted. Both measures

are below their recent highs of June 2003. Unemployment rates for the major

worker groups--adult men (5.1 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), teenagers

(16.6 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (9.8 percent), and Hispanics or

Latinos (7.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month. The unem-

ployment rate for Asians was 4.7 percent in February, not seasonally adjusted.

(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment-

population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs--

declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of

2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5

million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See

table A-1.)

The number of persons who work part time for economic reasons edged down in

February to 4.4 million, seasonally adjusted. This category includes persons

who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time

because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-

time jobs. (See table A-5.)

About 7.2 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) held more than one job

in February. These multiple jobholders represented 5.3 percent of the total

employed, down from 5.6 percent a year earlier. (See table A-13.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In February, about 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor

force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)

These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job

sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however,

because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the sur-

vey. There were 484,000 discouraged workers in February, also about the same

as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,

were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs

were available for them. The other 1.2 million marginally attached had not

searched for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See

table A-13.)

- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)

______________________________________________________________________________

| Quarterly | |

| averages | Monthly data |

|_________________|__________________________| Jan.-

Category | 2003 | 2003 | 2004 | Feb.

|_________________|________|_________________|change

| III | IV | Dec. | Jan.1/ | Feb. |

_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status

|____________________________________________________

Civilian labor force.....| 146,628| 146,986| 146,878| 146,863| 146,471| -392

Employment.............| 137,647| 138,369| 138,479| 138,566| 138,301| -265

Unemployment...........| 8,981| 8,616| 8,398| 8,297| 8,170| -127

Not in labor force.......| 74,885| 75,290| 75,631| 75,298| 75,886| 588

|________|________|________|________|________|_______

| Unemployment rates

|____________________________________________________

All workers..............| 6.1| 5.9| 5.7| 5.6| 5.6| 0.0

Adult men..............| 5.8| 5.5| 5.3| 5.1| 5.1| .0

Adult women............| 5.2| 5.1| 5.1| 5.0| 4.9| -.1

Teenagers..............| 17.5| 16.3| 16.1| 16.7| 16.6| -.1

White..................| 5.4| 5.1| 5.0| 4.9| 4.9| .0

Black or African | | | | | |

American.............| 11.0| 10.7| 10.3| 10.5| 9.8| -.7

Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |

ethnicity............| 7.8| 7.1| 6.6| 7.3| 7.4| .1

|________|________|________|________|________|_______

ESTABLISHMENT DATA | Employment

|____________________________________________________

Nonfarm employment.......| 129,820| 130,002| 130,035|p130,132|p130,153| p21

Goods-producing 2/.....| 21,718| 21,676| 21,668| p21,688| p21,663| p-25

Construction.........| 6,738| 6,766| 6,774| p6,808| p6,784| p-24

Manufacturing........| 14,410| 14,340| 14,324| p14,311| p14,308| p-3

Service-providing 2/...| 108,102| 108,326| 108,367|p108,444|p108,490| p46

Retail trade.........| 14,912| 14,915| 14,876| p14,936| p14,949| p13

Professional and | | | | | |

business services..| 16,023| 16,114| 16,159| p16,149| p16,159| p10

Education and health | | | | | |

services...........| 16,594| 16,705| 16,731| p16,743| p16,756| p13

Leisure and | | | | | |

hospitality........| 12,120| 12,172| 12,192| p12,211| p12,202| p-9

Government...........| 21,560| 21,549| 21,544| p21,538| p21,559| p21

|________|________|________|________|________|_______

| Hours of work 3/

|____________________________________________________

Total private............| 33.6| 33.7| 33.6| p33.8| p33.8| p0.0

Manufacturing..........| 40.2| 40.6| 40.6| p40.9| p41.0| p.1

Overtime.............| 4.1| 4.4| 4.5| p4.5| p4.5| p.0

|________|________|________|________|________|_______

| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100) 3/

|____________________________________________________

Total private............| 98.2| 98.7| 98.4| p99.0| p98.9| p-0.1

|________|________|________|________|________|_______

| Earnings 3/

|____________________________________________________

Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |

total private..........| $15.41| $15.45| $15.45| p$15.49| p$15.52| p$0.03

Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |

total private..........| 517.67| 520.55| 519.12| p523.56| p524.58| p1.02

_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

1 Beginning in January 2004, household data reflect revised population

controls used in the Current Population Survey.

2 Includes other industries, not shown separately.

3 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.

p=preliminary.

- 3 -

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+21,000) in February,

at 130.2 million, seasonally adjusted. Since August 2003, payroll employment

has risen by 364,000. (See table B-1.)

Construction employment declined by 24,000 in February, partly offsetting a

large increase in January. Since last March, construction employment has risen

by 123,000. In February, job losses were spread throughout the component in-

dustries.

Manufacturing employment was about unchanged over the month; the pace of job

losses in this sector has slowed in recent months. Since August, job losses in

manufacturing have averaged 16,000 a month, compared with an average loss of

62,000 for the first 8 months of 2003. In February, a small employment gain in

durable goods manufacturing was offset by a continuing decline in nondurable

goods.

Within the financial activities sector, securities, commodity contracts, and

investments added 4,000 jobs in February. While employment in the securities

industry has grown by 18,000 since last August, credit intermediation (which

includes mortgage banking) has lost 22,000 jobs over the same period.

Employment in retail trade was little changed in February. Since October,

employment in this industry has shown no net change.

Within professional and business services, employment in temporary help

services rose by 32,000 over the month, after a small loss in January. Since

April 2003, the temporary help industry has added 215,000 jobs.

Private education and health services employment was little changed in

February but increased by 291,000 over the past 12 months. Within health

care and social assistance, hospitals lost 5,000 jobs in February. This

partly offset a gain of 10,000 in social assistance employment, which was

concentrated in child day care services. Within government, state government

added 20,000 jobs in February, largely in state education.

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private

nonfarm payrolls was unchanged in February at 33.8 hours, seasonally adjusted.

The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 41.0 hours, and has risen by

0.9 hour since last July. Manufacturing overtime was unchanged in February at

4.5 hours, but has increased since last summer. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory

workers on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 percent to 98.9 in

February (2002=100). The manufacturing index increased by 0.1 percent

over the month to 94.2. (See table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private

nonfarm payrolls rose by 3 cents over the month to $15.52, seasonally adjusted.

The increase for January was 4 cents, as revised. Average weekly earnings rose

by 0.2 percent in February to $524.58. Over the year, average hourly earnings

increased by 1.6 percent, and average weekly earnings increased by 1.9 percent.

(See table B-3.)

______________________________

The Employment Situation for March 2004 is scheduled to be released on

Friday, April 2, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).

Employment Situation Explanatory Note

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age

Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment

Table A-5. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Table A-6. Selected employment indicators

Table A-7. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment

Table A-9. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment

Table A-10. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

Table A-11. Unemployed persons by industry, not seasonally adjusted

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Table A-13. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

Table B-2. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

Table B-4. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted

Table B-5. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

Table B-6. Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

Table B-7. Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted

Text version of entire news release

Access to historical data for the "A" tables of the Employment Situation Release

Access to historical data for the "B" tables of the Employment Situation Release

Table of Contents

Last Modified Date: March 05, 2004

Snake eyes. You lose!

does THIS sound like "spin" to you?

Research does wonderful things to ones' mind mrlost, iglost and batelost. You ought to try it sometime.

By the way, this information provided did not come from a dot org, it came from the US government so batelost, did your finance professor show you this?

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by normalnoises

ending capitalism, embracing socialism, end sweatshop labor by US corporations in other countries, force US companies to employ ALL americans living in the US and divide the wealth equally.

Then kick scumbags like you out of the US.

so much for your war profits

this is PURE hippie propaganda bullshit,

what is the point of busting your ass if you do not have the oppertunity to make money and live a prosperous life

people would end up being bums and the compitition would be gone

no fun

what war profits

i am 21, i own no securities of any sort

my parents are cops who have a government pention

where in your contorted mind do you see my 'war profits'

you half the people in this country are republican (give or take) and i guarantee the same amount of liberals get this war profit you speak of

i do not know where is comes from, i guess its one of those things you libs just want to be true to justify your insanity?!?!?!?!?????

fuck that shit

socialism does not work asshole

its been tried and it doesnt seem to work

wasnt iraq socialist?

[normalnoises]

Man, you are so naive you can't distinguish the difference between sarcasm and seriousness.

and I care less about Porky and Piglet, OK?

And I see your racism, homophobia and arrogant ignorance stems from them. I bet they had their share of beating up blacks, hippies and gays, not to mention little league baseball players and planting illegal substances.

Did u read the post directly above yours mr finance major? It's the government speaking to you, not a dot org.

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/editpost.php?action=editpost&postid=2078699

[pattbateman]

dude, you do not know my parents, dont accuse them of beating minorities.

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by normalnoises

Man, you are so naive you can't distinguish the difference between sarcasm and seriousness.

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/editpost.php?action=editpost&postid=2078699

how can i tell if i cannot hear you say it?????

who knows with you, i figured thats what you would really want?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

ending capitalism, embracing socialism, end sweatshop labor by US corporations in other countries, force US companies to employ ALL americans living in the US and divide the wealth equally.

Then kick scumbags like you out of the US.

so much for your war profits

Yeah right:laugh:

Socialism??? Divide the wealth equally? :laugh:

Take my earnings because you are a lazy sack of shit....

Yeah, That works in Europe....with their double digit unemployemnt and stagnant growth....

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

Man, you are so naive you can't distinguish the difference between sarcasm and seriousness.

and I care less about Porky and Piglet, OK?

And I see your racism, homophobia and arrogant ignorance stems from them. I bet they had their share of beating up blacks, hippies and gays, not to mention little league baseball players and planting illegal substances.

Did u read the post directly above yours mr finance major? It's the government speaking to you, not a dot org.

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/editpost.php?action=editpost&postid=2078699

If I were a cop I'd club you like a seal...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

Snake eyes. You lose!

does THIS sound like "spin" to you?

Research does wonderful things to ones' mind mrlost, iglost and batelost. You ought to try it sometime.

By the way, this information provided did not come from a dot org, it came from the US government so batelost, did your finance professor show you this?

What does it say? Doesn't it just illustrate a already low unemployemnet rate of 5.6%...

Stick to tie dying shirts...

When you come off your PCP high take another look at the data you googled and the interpretation from Mr Kudlow....

Meanwhile, the important unemployment rate -- almost ignored nowadays -- continues to hold at 5.6 percent, a historically low tally. In fact, the Labor Department's household survey -- which counts the number of all Americans who are actually working -- now stands at 138.3 million, an all-time high. The previous peak came way back in January 2001 at 137.8 million. Since the end of 2002, 1.8 million more people have gone back to work. Another impressive number.

There continues to be much debate and confusion about the importance of this household survey, from which the unemployment rate is determined, and the corporate payroll survey, which is rising, but at a slower-than-hoped-for pace. Economists have traditionally focused on the unemployment rate as a measure of economic health. But in this political season, the softer payroll survey has received the lion's share of coverage.

Virtually no one cites the increase in the entrepreneurial army of self-employed and independent contractors who have gone to work at lower tax rates, enabling them to keep more of what they earn. This is why the unemployment rate quickly fell from 6.3 percent when the Bush tax cuts were implemented last spring to 5.6 percent today. The media are trying to discredit this drop as it is scored in the more promising household survey, rather than the more pessimistic payroll tally.

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by mr mahs

What does it say? Doesn't it just illustrate a already low unemployemnet rate of 5.6%...

Stick to tie dying shirts...

When you come off your PCP high take another look at the data you googled and the interpretation from Mr Kudlow....

Meanwhile, the important unemployment rate -- almost ignored nowadays -- continues to hold at 5.6 percent, a historically low tally. In fact, the Labor Department's household survey -- which counts the number of all Americans who are actually working -- now stands at 138.3 million, an all-time high. The previous peak came way back in January 2001 at 137.8 million. Since the end of 2002, 1.8 million more people have gone back to work. Another impressive number.

There continues to be much debate and confusion about the importance of this household survey, from which the unemployment rate is determined, and the corporate payroll survey, which is rising, but at a slower-than-hoped-for pace. Economists have traditionally focused on the unemployment rate as a measure of economic health. But in this political season, the softer payroll survey has received the lion's share of coverage.

Virtually no one cites the increase in the entrepreneurial army of self-employed and independent contractors who have gone to work at lower tax rates, enabling them to keep more of what they earn. This is why the unemployment rate quickly fell from 6.3 percent when the Bush tax cuts were implemented last spring to 5.6 percent today. The media are trying to discredit this drop as it is scored in the more promising household survey, rather than the more pessimistic payroll tally.

"Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment-

population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs--

declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of

2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5

million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See

table A-1.)

The number of persons who work part time for economic reasons edged down in

February to 4.4 million, seasonally adjusted. This category includes persons

who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time

because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-

time jobs. (See table A-5.)

About 7.2 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) held more than one job

in February. These multiple jobholders represented 5.3 percent of the total

employed, down from 5.6 percent a year earlier. (See table A-13.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm<<<Does that look like google to you, Mr Lost?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by normalnoises

"Total employment was down in February to 138.3 million, and the employment-

population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and older with jobs--

declined to 62.2 percent. The ratio was at or near that level for most of

2003. Over the month, the civilian labor force decreased by 392,000 to 146.5

million, and the labor force participation rate fell to 65.9 percent. (See

table A-1.)

The number of persons who work part time for economic reasons edged down in

February to 4.4 million, seasonally adjusted. This category includes persons

who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time

because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-

time jobs. (See table A-5.)

About 7.2 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) held more than one job

in February. These multiple jobholders represented 5.3 percent of the total

employed, down from 5.6 percent a year earlier. (See table A-13.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm<<<Does that look like google to you, Mr Lost?

Read the stats lost one....

Meanwhile, the important unemployment rate -- almost ignored nowadays -- continues to hold at 5.6 percent, a historically low tally. In fact, the Labor Department's household survey -- which counts the number of all Americans who are actually working -- now stands at 138.3 million, an all-time high. The previous peak came way back in January 2001 at 137.8 million. Since the end of 2002, 1.8 million more people have gone back to work. Another impressive number.

[marksimons]

it depends what you mean by unemployment rate.

there are loads of varients on it...

and erm... it's one of the most easily manipulatable things around... or so I remember from hearing heated discussions on the radio when blair was talking about employment some point last year.

as ever.

lies damn lies and statistics.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

it depends what you mean by unemployment rate.

there are loads of varients on it...

and erm... it's one of the most easily manipulatable things around... or so I remember from hearing heated discussions on the radio when blair was talking about employment some point last year.

as ever.

lies damn lies and statistics.

Easy buddy.... This isn't "Save the Whales", your feeble mind couldn't understand the logistics and statistics of the American economy... Now you can say what you want about "Big Bad Corporate America" but even in a recession our economy pumps out & employs more then the entire EU in a robust cycle....

I guess "Socialism" and participating in a "Welfare State" really does work... :laugh:

Run along your food stamps are waiting....

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Easy buddy.... This isn't "Save the Whales", your feeble mind couldn't understand the logistics and statistics of the American economy... Now you can say what you want about "Big Bad Corporate America" but even in a recession our economy pumps out & employs more then the entire EU in a robust cycle....

I guess "Socialism" and participating in a "Welfare State" really does work... :laugh:

Run along your food stamps are waiting....

:laugh:

[marksimons]

fuck it. I don't give a shit.

I really don't.

we'll see what happens a few years down the line...

anyway, the british economy is fucked as well, just like yours, we've got a ridiculous amount of consumer debt, crazy govt borrowing and it all seems rather unsustainable...

gonna be messy...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

fuck it. I don't give a shit.

I really don't.

Dismiss what you don't understand....

[marksimons]

I understand, I just don't give a shit right now.

the greatest trick economists pull is making you think it's complicated.

when it's not, really...

but I really don't give a shit. I've got better arguments to have then going too and fro over stupid, pointless statistics that really don't mean shit, as they can be interpreted in so many different ways and manipulated in so many different ways.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

I understand, I just don't give a shit right now.

the greatest trick economists pull is making you think it's complicated.

when it's not, really...

but I really don't give a shit. I've got better arguments to have then going too and fro over stupid, pointless statistics that really don't mean shit, as they can be interpreted in so many different ways and manipulated in so many different ways.

Keep telling yourself that....

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Keep telling yourself that....

marksimons is such a blowhard clown it is unreal.....

The problem with this subject for him is that he can't provide google-search bullshit innaccurate babble....