http://www.trafford.com/07-2440

Dear Sirs and Mesdames,
This subject, in my mind, is the most immediate most urgent and serious matter confronting the Human Race. Despite the fact that many great minds, philosophers, politicians, academics and economists, have all created eminent careers based on their knowledge and understanding of how free enterprise, national economies and the human race interact, they have all failed to admit the obvious. It is glaringly obvious that we have large swathes of the human race that do not have access to money; it is that simple.
Therefore we need a system of economy that literally accommodates the needs and aspirations of every human being. A system that will not rely on taxing others' in order to provide all the multifarious forms of infrastructures, as well as our human and social obligations. A system of taxation in which the haves are continually being pressured to claw back those taxes from the have-nots. We must face the fact, once and for all; this system can never provide all human needs and infrastructures.
We have allowed right-wing ideology to dictate the terms and even if or when large swathes of populations may be fed and housed or have health needs addressed. We tolerate the fact that we have millions of working poor who will never earn enough to meet all of life's basic costs. Many of these are struggling to raise families the bedrock of our future. Those who work lead the most precarious of lives.
Precarious, because their work and income has become the plaything of corporate power, which moves production to lower waged economies. This makes the executives and the shareholders richer but at the cost of the misery they leave behind. Wages go down, but not prices, or costs of living, and the formerly free "social wage entitlements" are removed.
This is the "rationalized" world directed by Corporate Power and implemented by our Governments, the world of "user pays".
Take it or suffer the consequences. The Government calls this "work choices". Hear the Corporate applause? The consequences are total destitution for some; they could buy none of life's essential services.
Complete and total destitution for many unless they work, no shelter, no food, no health care, and no education, none of life's necessities.
So we need a system, which provides equal opportunity and care for all, overlaid with free enterprise. At the same time we can put in place a fair and equitable industrial relations system that eliminates employer employee antagonisms.
Our democracy is in serious trouble. Rich people and corporations channel funds into political parties in order to achieve their own commercial or ideological ends cleverly bypassing democratic inputs. It is happening in all democracies but that does not make it "worlds best practice" or "right". We can correct that quite easily. We make so-called free trade agreements under which corporations are exempted from government regulation that control workers rights, pay and working conditions. Is this democracy, is this really necessary, should corporations have such unbridled power, where will it end?
Introduction of The Universal Economy will immediately and substantially impact and improve such questions as Poverty, provision of universal education, health care, pensions, unemployment, housing and all public infrastructure (roads bridges schools hospitals etc). None of this will require the imposition of taxation.
The concept of The Universal Economy will be easy to introduce, because it benefits everyone, everyone will want it to work. It will be hardest to implement in third world nations, not impossible, just slower to implement. It will kick start economies wherever it is introduced.
This is a concept for the twenty-first century. Put to one side traditional thought processes and embedded conventions see only the greater-good and benefit of mankind then you will support this enterprise with the open heart and mind it deserves. Adopt this concept for the good of humanity.
Give your support, not money.

Yours Faithfully, THOMAS W ADAMS.

"Thanks Jake, I've enjoyed the conversation."

Me too.

"I don't know of anyone who is smart enough, or who works hard enough, to be worth 100 million dollars per year,"

I just ran across an article in a newspaper from '06 (don't ask) that you may find interesting, and may address what you state above in part. The columnist was speaking about difficulties in understanding or agreeing on issues with economic situations, whether at the household level or that between nations or anything in between. The writer referred to one Alan Fiske, a UCLA anthropologist who I know nothing about other than from this column.

FIske proposes four different commonly used and often competing models for transactions and arrangements:

1.) Communal sharing. Basically the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thinking.

2.) Equality Matching. All contribute with equal effort or other measure. In a household, perhaps the daily chores are rotated to different members.

3.) Authority Ranking. There is a head, and a hierarchy perhaps below. The head decides or delegates to officers below, you obey who is above. Could be in a family, military, civilian government, or corporation.

4.) Market Pricing. Supply and demand in some kind of marketplace rules what things are worth relative to each other.

The idea is that there are often disagreements or misunderstandings in philosophy, specific situations, cultural expectations, etc. as to what model may be appropriate or is currently operating.

In your example of large compensation for individuals, I tend to think number 4 is the best way to look at it, and would suggest usually a basic philosophical difference with one who would disagree with that.

And just as an aside regarding the particular marketplace for executives, I have heard of the criticism that the market is not free. The best support for this seems to be the idea of the Interlocking Directorate, but then I think it becomes a matter of showing specifically that such a Directorate exists, by naming names, etc.

Thanks Jake, I've enjoyed the conversation.

By the way, I don't know of anyone who is smart enough, or who works hard enough, to be worth 100 million dollars per year, and yet many CEO's and fund managers are rewarded with enormously excessive compensation without regard to performance - Even when their bad decisions run the companies into the ground. Countrywide's CEO would be one recent example of this, and history is littered with many more.

Let me say this in closing Jake. You said in an earlier comment that you would vote Republican because you thought that the Democrats were Socialists, and there may be some degree of truth to that. Not really in the current Democratic leaders, as many of them are DINO's, but in the policies advocated by the more progressive Democrats, an argument could be made for that. They don't want to end all private corporations, they just want to rewrite the rules to make them more accountable and better world citizens, a little less psychopathic in their behavior.

But, on the other hand, unrestrained capitalism and corporate greed may be even more devastating in the long run to our country, our government, and the 230+ year experiment with this democratic republic called America. Under the current rules of the game, corporations will never do the right thing for their employees on their own, because it is simply not as profitable, and a corporation is a machine built to compete and produce as much profit as possible.

So, what we need to do is find a way to let corporations do what they do best, make profits, and relieve them of the responsibility of caring for employees, a job that they really aren't suited for and don't want anyway. The only way to do that is to set up a strong safety net of government social programs to help workers, used and discarded by the corporate machines. A Living Wage and payroll deductions for Social Security Retirement and Disability, Universal Health Care, Totally Free Higher Education and Wage Compensation for periods of underemployment, are the things that will unleash the power of the corporation, and the power of the individual, without the unwanted negative effects on people.

If this is ever to happen, and I don't think that we have much time left to accomplish it, the current crop of corporate-owned politicians must be replaced or marginalized, because they have been placed, and are maintained in power, to protect the machine that is currently out of control and headed into the abyss, pulling us along with it.

Right now, those politicians equate to most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats holding office today. Some semblance of balance must be achieved, and in my humble opinion, it better happen pretty damned soon, if we are to avoid the catastrophic effects of a brewing social/economic "Perfect Storm"!

"At 90% you would still keep 100 million out of a billion, I know I would still work pretty hard for that, "

Perhaps you would still find an incentive despite a 90% rate, but there is another way to look at it. Presumably, all else equal, you need double the value that you provide to produce double the income. If it's simply time on a task as a matter of value, there is less reward for the additional time than otherwise, when you consider the additional tax. One would tend to think of a cut off point for "optimum" reward, as opposed to "maximum" reward, which would inevitably lead to health problems and a lack of balance in life.

You are OK by me Mike, I wanted to say. You have been charitable, fair at least mostly, made concessions, etc. This is not always the case with other contributers, so thank you for that.

The top few per cent pay the most taxes because they control the lion's share of the wealth in this country, and with the rigged market and corporate structure that we have today, they can limit their tax rate to 15%. OK, lounging by the pool was a dramatization, but think Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, professional athletes, movie stars and so on.

When I said approaching 100%, I mean into the 90% range for those who make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars per year. At 90% you would still keep 100 million out of a billion, I know I would still work pretty hard for that, and it would incentivize new business start-up, as you could give the money to the government or a charity at tax time, or you could put it into new business expenses, R&D, or education.

The extra revenue collected by the government could be returned to state and local government, used to start paying down the debt, strengthen Social Security, provide universal health care, develop and implement an effective climate change/energy strategy and a host of other job producing activities for both the private and public sectors.

If we had a government that wasn't controlled by the corporations and the very wealthy, who only seem to be interested only in maintaining their stranglehold on our democracy, "We, the People" could decide where the extra revenue would be best spent. We could actually develop a system that helps people up, instead of the one we have now that holds people down.

Mike, you make some good points. I would only point out a few things here. The phrase "tax cuts for the rich", which yields hundreds of thousands of hits when googled BTW, should properly read "tax *rate* cuts for *taxpayers*". The current tax code on income remains progressive. The top one percent of the tax returns yield 35 percent of the income tax revenue, up from 23 percent in 1985. The bottom fifty percent of returns yield 4 percent of the income tax revenue, down from 7 percent in 1985.

And there remains the increase in tax receipts after the cuts were put into effect. Unlike many Republican pundits, I don't claim cause and effect (it would be quite dubious to do so), but the corralation of the two does lend support to the idea that when you tax something you impose a disincentive on that thing, and that by reducing taxes you may in fact increase reciepts by removing that disincentive. If I were wealthy or aspired to be and my potential tax rate on income neared 100%, I would not be very stoked about generating income for myself, an activity that ordinarily ripples through the economy.
ANd I think your "lounging by the pool" characterization would be quite off base for many of the people you call wealthy.

Yes Jake, there is a sweet spot between 0% and 100% that generates maximum receipts, and it is a progressive scale that starts near 0% for the poor and approaches 100% for the very, very wealthy.

This model was in effect after WWII and built this country. It has been chipped away, until it has been nearly reversed now. We have now reached a point where we are no longer building this country, but selling it to the highest foreign bidder.

The investor class lounging by the pool waiting for the check to be direct deposited into their account, now pays tax at the rate of 15%, while many of those working for a paycheck, struggling to make ends meet, with over 4% inflation last year and wages rising less than 1%, are paying twice that percentage in taxes.

Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the world, demonstrates this by comparing his tax rate to that of his secretary. I know that there is risk involved in investing, well shown by the last few days in the market, but there is also risk involved, as you well know, in selling your services to a corporation or other entity for a pay check.

It's unlikely that those investor class individuls who make their money in the stock market will actually lose all their money in the market, though some idiots have, but, those who work for a living risk losing their job and all their income on a daily basis.

There are some who are advocating the "Fair Tax", Orwellian NewSpeak for a regressive consumption tax, which if implemented, would ensure that the very wealthy would never pay taxes again. And the sad part is, many in the middle and lower income scale are buying into it. Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, is a supporter of it.

Yes, I would agree that China's leadership has failed its people, and I also think that America's leadership has failed its people.

"The explosive expansion is stressing the entire ecology and social system there. The country would have been better served by slower, more gradual sustainable growth, more easily assimilated and should be mostly financed from within China."

I tend to agree. Would we also agree that China's leadership has failed it's people in this regard?

"Jake, the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is pure voodoo economics. "

Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?

"If that were true, if we just cut taxes to "zero" the government would have more money than it could spend. "

And of course that is not true. They would collect zero, just as they would if the rate were 100%. The Laffer Curve theory, which is widely debated, suggests that there is some "sweet spot" between 0% and 100% that would provide the maximum reciepts.

"If tax cuts worked as you say, Bush wouldn't have doubled the debt since he has been there."

This ignores spending. Bush, congress actually, has been spending quite a bit as you know. As for the debt as a percentage of GDP, the national debt certainly did *not* double under Bush. It went from about 58% of GDP at the end of Clinton to about 65% currently, and may be decreasing. Think of how many families are in debt for more than 65% of their income. Anyone who just got a mortgage on a house is in debt for much more than that.

Don't get me started on the National Asset. No one wants to talk about that. :-)

What kind of stimulus package, if any, would you like to see passed Jake?

Jake, the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is pure voodoo economics. If that were true, if we just cut taxes to "zero" the government would have more money than it could spend. If tax cuts worked as you say, Bush wouldn't have doubled the debt since he has been there.

No one said anything about repealing the Bush tax cuts, although I do favor that, as the average person benefits very little from those tax cuts.

What I asked you was, what does extending the cuts past 2010, or making them permanent, have to do with an economic stimulus package to avoid or lessen the effects of a recession?

",,, China, they would still be riding bicycles, they would not be competing with us …"

Just curious, if you would have been in favor of policies that would have maintained China in the dark ages.

No Jake, I wouldn't advocate keeping China in the dark ages, but the huge and rapid influx of capital and construction of manufacturing infrastructure into the country, has been detrimental both to the environment and to many of the people of the country.

The explosive expansion is stressing the entire ecology and social system there. The country would have been better served by slower, more gradual sustainable growth, more easily assimilated and should be mostly financed from within China.

"They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent!"

If they are repealed, you and I will both pay more in taxes.

"As if this would do anything to stimulate the economy! "

I am not claiming cause and effect, but income tax reciepts increased quite a bit after the cuts, causing a marked decrease in the budget deficit, especially as a percentage of GDP.

"The Bush tax cuts, that benefited primarily the wealthy anyway,"

Those who say this often only consider the dollar amount saved by the "wealthy", and don't consider the percentage. The wealthy still pay a higher percentage based on higher income, and poor people don't pay very much at all. *Everyone* who pays income taxes has gotten a break, and as a percentage difference, it's actually less for some of the higher brackets. I am far from wealthy, but have saved thousands of dollars over the years the cuts have been in effect, about a 30% reduction overall. You probably have too.

If people vote with their pocketbook, and I generally don't, voting for someone who will repeal the cuts will directly cost you money.

"It certainly isn't a fear for me, and shouldn't be a fear for any rational person."

So are you saying that they shot their wad on 911, as far as hitting us on our own land?

"Islamic radical terrorism is like any other type of extremist behavior, whether it's IRA terrorists, or Christian fundamentalist terrorists, the best way to deal with it, is not with the military, but with good intel and good police work, including international cooperation between law enforcement agencies, policy review and, yes, diplomacy, "

I would agree with a lot of this, that it's part of the solution, but I would not rule out the use of the military. I would say again to read "The Pentagon's New Map". At least look for the free essay version available on the net.

"…the bumper-sticker GWOT - Global War On Terror, …"
"…used to control the American people through fear …"

You say this as though Islamic terrorism *isn't* a threat. You are saying that it is *not* a legitimate fear?

It certainly isn't a fear for me, and shouldn't be a fear for any rational person. Bush and the Republicans have blown this threat out of any realistic proportion for political gain. FDR said that we don't have anything to fear but fear itself, and he was right.

The only method available to Bush and the Republicans to sell themselves to the American people and maintain power, is by playing the fear card. "Be afraid, be very afraid. The terrorists will get you, and your kids. Vote for us, we'll save you!"

Rudy Gulliani can't get a complete sentence out of his mouth that doesn't contain "9/11" somewhere in it, and some of the other Republican candidates are just about as bad. In the face of overwhelming agreement of people on both sides that Gitmo should be closed, Romney want's to double it's size.

Discarding the ideals that made America great, and dismissing habeus corpus, the Geneva conventions and resorting to kidnapping, redition and routine torture, is not the solution, but just another problem for our credibility in the world that we will have to hopefully overcome later.

Islamic radical terrorism is like any other type of extremist behavior, whether it's IRA terrorists, or Christian fundamentalist terrorists, the best way to deal with it, is not with the military, but with good intel and good police work, including international cooperation between law enforcement agencies, policy review and, yes, diplomacy, as individual terrorists don't blow themselves up because they "hate our freedom" regardless of what the Idiot-In-Chief says. More likely, it's because they would like more freedom for themselves.

"And while you may or may not choose to deny it, I don't know, we are facing a global energy emergency in Peak Oil, Global Warming, Water Shortages, Looming Global Food Shortages and a litany of other problems."

You aren't trying to blame Bush on these things are you?

Jake, I'm not blaming Bush for causing the problems, but I do blame him for not taking any appropriate steps to try and mitigate the problems. Instead, he lied to us in the 2000 campaign and then proceeded to make the problems worse with bad policies.

Jake, just look at the idiocy being displayed by the conservative Republicans in congress today as regards a proposed "stimulus package" to deal with the possible recession - They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent! As if this would do anything to stimulate the economy!

The Bush tax cuts, that benefited primarily the wealthy anyway, aren't due to expire until 2010. How could extending or making them permanent be construed as a stimulus? A stimulus package needs to target those who will spend the money now, to have any effect in the near term.

Those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, in my opinion, are one of the reasons why we are in the mess that we are in now. But, according to these fools, even though it doesn't work, but it does benefit the wealthy investor class, give us more of it, and make it permanent.

My explaination was incomplete: Mutual funds periodically distribute dividends and capital gains, at which point the NAV is then adjusted down, but the holder of the fund has the option to reinvest the distribution.

"401K accounts do not receive dividends"

Not true. Any mutual fund, 401K designated or not, that has stocks with dividends contained therin will have the NAV price of the fund adjusted upward to account for the dividends.

"plan administration costs."

Usually waived in 401K plans, very small in any case regarding index funds.

"And depending on when you bought in, like before the tech bubble burst, you could actually have lost a lot of money, but then, thats the market."

I agree with you there.

Jake I was actually being generous on the 2.2% return in the above example. 401K accounts do not receive dividends and it also did not factor in any plan administration costs. And depending on when you bought in, like before the tech bubble burst, you could actually have lost a lot of money, but then, thats the market.

"...the bumper-sticker GWOT - Global War On Terror, ..."

BTW, I generally agree with the above characterization. Suggested reading on this would be Stephen Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map". We have challenges ahead no matter what side is in power.

"If after the November 2000 elections, and the subsequent December appointment of George Bush to the presidency by the Supreme Court, if you had $107,900 in your 401K account, and on January 1, 2001, you had placed that money into an account that was indexed to the DOW and had left it there until today, you would have $124,660. That is an increase of only $16,760 in slightly over 7 years, or less than $2,394/year, or about 2.2%/year."

The market was already in a significant decline then. And you ignore dividends in your formula. You can go back through history and find much worse performances over seven year periods. The market was flat through most of the seventies.

Also, people don't typically drop big lump sums in on a particular date. Instead like you and me, they dollar cost average at regular intervals, which helps lower the average cost of the portfolio while protecting against volatility. Had you done that, you would have bought stocks at relatively cheaper prices during the earlier part of the period you mention, especially after 911, and you would have gotten more shares that way.

"The Bush government has borrowed and spent more during his presidency than all the others in history added together"

Untrue. You are correct in terms of dollars, but not in terms of percentages. FDR was the biggest borrower and spender in terms of GDP. Of course we had WWII going on. The budget deficit was over 120% GDP then, today it is Much lower than that and has actually been trending down. Same with the National Debt.

"And while you may or may not choose to deny it, I don't know, we are facing a global energy emergency in Peak Oil, Global Warming, Water Shortages, Looming Global Food Shortages and a litany of other problems."

You aren't trying to blame Bush on these things are you?

" Global War On Terror"

"…used to control the American people through fear …"

You say this as though Islamic terrorism *isn't* a threat. You are saying that it is *not* a legitimate fear?

"For instance, the emergence of China is a product of corporations seeking higher profits through cheap labor and using government to make it happen. "

This also ignores the constant demand of individual consumers for cheaper products.

Profitability is a relative term. Often it's a matter oftrying to *maintain* a profit level as opposed to increasing it. I know people in small business that work overseas, and for them it's a matter of survivability.

",,, China, they would still be riding bicycles, they would not be competing with us …"

Just curious, if you would have been in favor of policies that would have maintained China in the dark ages.

"We currently have a net negative savings rate for the first time since the Great Depression."

What is your speculation as to the reason for this? Myself, I think we would have to begin by looking at the individuals involved. Spending less than you earn is a key component in personal finance, and I support mandatory coursework in public schools for this.

"The housing bubble and mortgage debacle is leading to the first national drop in property value since the Great Depression,"

Its *already* happened, the drop that is. Do you think individual consumers have any culpability in this? I remember water cooler conversations extolling houses as a "great investment" when in fact they are an expense.

" not to mention failure of financial institutions"

That is a forecast you are making, you are entitled.

"The value of the dollar has dropped drastically"

With no end in sight, right? Rarely are there trends that go on and on and on and don't correct vis a vis other factors.

"Yet you must feel strongly about the differences between them, as you have said that you will probably vote for the Republican that you believe has the best chance to beat the Democratic candidate. Tell me why."

As I already stated I favor Capitalism over Socialism. Generally, Democrats wish to take us closer to the latter.

BTW Jake, when I told you to go back and pull the charts and graphs of stock market performance over the last thirty years or so, and compare past results with the latest period, I was speaking more about the subject of volatility rather than earnings, and I realize that I was not very clear about that.

But, since you brought up the subject of earnings, look at it this way:

If after the November 2000 elections, and the subsequent December appointment of George Bush to the presidency by the Supreme Court, if you had $107,900 in your 401K account, and on January 1, 2001, you had placed that money into an account that was indexed to the DOW and had left it there until today, you would have $124,660. That is an increase of only $16,760 in slightly over 7 years, or less than $2,394/year, or about 2.2%/year.

Now, I think that you would consider 2.2%/year to be a pretty dismal return on any investment in your portfolio!

I think there is some degree of chaos in the economy at the micro level, but at the macro level, it is strongly directed by corporations and government policy, and today, those two are the same.

For instance, the emergence of China is a product of corporations seeking higher profits through cheap labor and using government to make it happen. Without the huge influx of western corporate investment in China, they would still be riding bicycles, they would not be competing with us for scarce oil supplies, and we would not be the biggest debtor nation in the world. Well, we might still have been the biggest debtor nation through NAFTA, another example.

You said, "In "my view" we may be in for or already be in a "rough spot" of some kind."

I think that a "rough spot" is a huge trivialization of the situation that we find ourselves in today. I believe that ship of America has just begun to slice open her hull on the iceburg of economic disaster as the fools at the helm continue ahead at full speed. And the band plays on while Bush says the economy is in great shape.

We currently have a net negative savings rate for the first time since the Great Depression.

The housing bubble and mortgage debacle is leading to the first national drop in property value since the Great Depression, not to mention failure of financial institutions.

The trade deficit is approaching a trillion dollars a year.

We have ceased to be the "Bread Basket of the World", and have now become a net food importer.

The value of the dollar has dropped drastically compared to other currencies like the Euro and the Canadian dollar. When Bush took office the American dollar was worth about 1.6 Canadian dollars. We now have relative parity with the Canadian dollar, and a similar drop against the Euro.

The Bush government has borrowed and spent more during his presidency than all the others in history added together. This bunch of fiscally irresponsible conservatives have raised the debt ceiling nearly every year, and we are fast approaching ten trillion dollars in debt.

And while you may or may not choose to deny it, I don't know, we are facing a global energy emergency in Peak Oil, Global Warming, Water Shortages, Looming Global Food Shortages and a litany of other problems.

And the above list doesn't even consider Afghanistan and the illegal war and subsequent illegal occupation of Iraq for the last five years, nor the bumper-sticker GWOT - Global War On Terror, used to control the American people through fear and subvert their constitution.

I know I have left a few things out, but later on, I'll tell you how I really feel!

Jake, I'm not saying that we have never had good Republicans, but the last good Republican president, in my opinion was Eisenhower. He warned in his farewell address of exactly the problems we find ourselves in today.

You say, "that giving Democrats or Republicans credit or blame is shortsighted." Yet you must feel strongly about the differences between them, as you have said that you will probably vote for the Republican that you believe has the best chance to beat the Democratic candidate.

Tell me why.

Here's another view I have: Economies are chaotic systems much like weather. There are cyclical things that happen on the micro and macro level, and they all kind of bump into each other. It's challenging enough to show cause and effect for past events, such as if a butterfly flapping here caused a thunderstorm there, let alone to make future predictions.

"it wasn't the "GDP Crash" that ushered in the Great Depression."

You could be confusing cause and effect. Stock market declines are often a reflection of traders having doubts about the future of the economy as reflected by GDP. That's why it's a leading indicator.

"why don't you give me something that reflects your views, as I have given you?"

I'm not sure what you mean. In "my view" we may be in for or already be in a "rough spot" of some kind. It's "my view" that giving Democrats or Republicans credit or blame is shortsighted. What about the emergence of China? Globalization vis a vis techological advancements? The still fairly recent failure of Soviet style communism and the current emergence of those nations as serious competitors? The perhaps a bit less recent emergence of European countries who had their infrastructures devistated by WWII and now compete? What about over 150 million workers in the US, and even more consumers, and all of the collective activities associated with them? What about the emergence of radical Islamist terrorism? WHat about local and state government officials, those in most large cities being mostly Democrats? Don't factors like these perhaps matter more than politicians in DC who you think may have diabolical intentions?

I never said that the stock market was the economy, but it wasn't the "GDP Crash" that ushered in the Great Depression.

Now Jake, why don't you give me something that reflects your views, as I have given you?

"it is a very bad sign when American financial institutions are going hat-in-hand, begging for bailout from foreign entities and governments, and selling large shares of the companies to them. I expect that it will get worse, much worse in the near future."

Two things on this, I agree at least in part that it's worrisome, but I would be more worried if they *couldn't* get anyone to buy shares. The fact that they do shows that someone has some faith in the future of the economy.

"Corporations now write the laws, and Fascist enabler Republicans pass them. "

I think this is an oversimplification, and if we examined the examples in detail I think we we would see that.

"Corporations should not have the same status as people."

What legal status do you think corporations should have? I think that's a pretty good discussion right there. Myself, I am not sure.

"Go back and pull the charts and graphs of stock market performance over the last thirty years or so, and compare past results with the latest period."

First, the stock market isn't "the economy", GDP is. As a leading indicator, the losses in the last half year or so may indeed portend recession or some kind of slowing.

Regarding stocks though, you need to look at it long term. The Dow on 12/31/98 finished at 7,908.25. On 12/31/08 it was 13,197.35. After ten years, it rose 5,289.10, or about 67%, or 6.7% a year. Add a couple percentage points for dividends paid by those companies and you are pretty near th 9-10% expected long term anual reaturn.

This is not to say recent events in the equities markets are not troublesome, but remember too that a lot of that volatility is from emotion.

Jake, I understand market volatility, and that nothing can be determined by its performance in any given day. However, we are seeing more and more days like this lately, and it is a very bad sign when American financial institutions are going hat-in-hand, begging for bailout from foreign entities and governments, and selling large shares of the companies to them. I expect that it will get worse, much worse in the near future.

Unrestrained capitalism, unchecked corporate power can be as destructive as any totalitarian form of government. Ever since Reagan, in my opinion one of the worst presidents we have had, Bush of course is the WORST EVER, democracy has been in a downward spiral, with people having less and less say in their government, and ever dwindling rights that were supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

Corporations now write the laws, and Fascist enabler Republicans pass them. Examples are, energy policy written by energy companies, bankruptcy laws written by credit and banking companies, prescription drug bill written by big pharma, and the list goes on and on.

The government should not be in the business of passing laws that benefit and insure profits to corporations, it should be passing laws that promote life, liberty and the general welfare of the people. This is a far cry from what is happenning in our corporate-controlled government today.

Corporations should not have the same status as people. A major part of our revolution was fought over unrestrained corporate power, remember the Boston Tea Party and the East India Company. Now, since its founding, this country has made mistakes in allowing corporate power and money to dictate the actions of our government, and the people, while shut out of the process, are paying a very dear price. Without REAL CHANGE it will only get worse. We are suffering taxation without representation, as nearly all the Republican representatives, and many of the Democrats owe there seats to corporate interests, not WE THE PEOPLE.

In my opinion, most the problems I see with our country, both economic and social, are deep-rooted in backward-looking, conservative or neo-consevative policy. Deregulation and lack of regulation or enforcement, a bedrock conservative policy, is at the root of many of our present problems including the latest and greatest, the housing bubble and mortgage securities problems.

In my opinion, FDR didn't just save America, he saved capitalism from itself, and now, backward conservative policy is rolling back all the safeguards and setting the stage for another Great "Bush" Depression, the likes of which this country has never seen before. Go back and pull the charts and graphs of stock market performance over the last thirty years or so, and compare past results with the latest period.

The last time Republicans controlled all braches of our government, they ripped it out by the roots - the Great Depression, and the Bush period has been no different. I just hope that the 2006 elections and the coming 2008 elections can turn the boat around in time, but I am not very optimistic regarding our chances, in light of the magnatude of the problems facing us and the time left in which to solve them.

"the market was down "

The equities market is seen as a leading indicator of the economy as a whole. But it is volatile, so what ever it does on a particular day is of less importance thatn what it has done over longer periods. for individual companies, analysts often use a 50 day moving average to gauge an overall trend and to remove the "noise" of volatility.

The market is down a good bit since the summer, which does not bode well.

Mike, for all of it's faults, I think Capitalism is the system we should have. I don't like Socialism, I believe it destroys the incentive and creative spirit of the individual, even though there may be good "intent". Genarally speaking there is little for some one who believes as I do me to like about Democractic platforms. There may be some other wild cards at work though, regarding individual candidates for office or a specific issue.

We can continue this tomorrow afternoon if you like, I'm turning in.

Yes Kem, at one point today the market was down over 300 points. I think it closed down about 270.

Jake, since you think much of it is out of their hands, can I assume that you want another Republican president to be elected more for social reasons or more for economic policy reasons?

Well, the economy took seveal bad hits again today. Check it out.

"I would suggest to you that many economists DISAGREE as well"

Yep, I said it almost exactly as above earlier in the discussion, that they disagree and they are always wrong eventually.

"I think you would agree that policies and agendas implemented by the president can have a great deal of impact on the economy, would you not?"

Of course they can, I said that I think the impact is widely exagerrated, not nonexistant. I think much of it is out of their hands.

Jake, you said, "I think the president's influence on the economy to be widely exaggerated, and many economists agree."

I would suggest to you that many economists DISAGREE as well, as do I. Many of the things you mentioned above, high energy prices, trade deficit, the real estate bubble, current jitters in the equities markets, can be influenced by legislation passed by the congress and signed into law by the president.

The veto is one of the presidents most powerful tools in preventing legislation harmful to the economy from being made law. And as I have mentioned earlier, the executive branch has enormous power in appointing staff for all federal agencies, as well as controlling funding for those agencies.

Bush even appointed the new head of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. I think you would agree that policies and agendas implemented by the president can have a great deal of impact on the economy, would you not?

"So, can I assume that you are basing your prediction of an overdue recession soley on the average or mean time between recessions? "

Only in part. There are other problems that need working out. High energy prices, trade deficit, the real estate bubble, current jitters in the equities markets sugjest fears of recession, but those guys are psycho sometimes.

My own field and geographic area looks pretty good though, if the general economy doesn't get too bad, I ought to be OK getting another job soon.

So, can I assume that you are basing your prediction of an overdue recession soley on the average or mean time between recessions?

P.S. I have to step out and take care of some business for a couple of hours, but I will be back.

We have been in expansion with no peak declared as of yet for 84 months. Since 1945 the average expansion period is 57 months. We are therefore overdue, all standard disclaimers apply.

You didn't answer the question Jake.
Why do you think that we are "overdue" for a second one during the Bush 7 years?

Mike, here ar some numbers. I don't claim them to be accurate:

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

That was a *record* period of expansion Mike, and not typical.

Jake, there were NO recessions during the 8 years that Clinton was in office, so why do you think that we are "overdue" for a second one during the Bush 7 years?

"Jake, do you think that the "overdue" recession is going to be harder and deeper than previous recessions, more like a depression?"

I have no idea.

"How many recessions did we have during the eight years of the Clinton administration?"

It would not take you long to find out something about this yourself Mike. It looks like there are some controversies regarding the short one in 2001. Many people think it happened too close to Clinton's leaving office for it to be Bush's "fault". Myself, I think the president's influence on the economy to be widely exaggerated, and many economists agree. I was just reminded of this from a peice on NPR recently. I think you and I and the *millions* of people like us have a lot more to do with the economy, good or bad.

Jake, do you think that the "overdue" recession is going to be harder and deeper than previous recessions, more like a depression? How many recessions did we have during the eight years of the Clinton administration?

Mike, recessions are a normal part of the business cycle, and it's been around six years since the last one. Of course, we only have government statistics and their interpretation to tell us, anything else is guesswork.

Well Jake, since this thread is about an article on "Recession", and you don't want to hijack it to something else, why do you say, "but we are overdue for a recession."

"Well Jake, your reply was another very predictably vague and uninformative response."

Which I made by *your* request. Your lack of gratitude is noted, I think we should just go back to the BLS stuff if that's how you feel.

Well Jake, your reply was another very predictably vague and uninformative response. Are there none of those issues I mentioned or perhaps some other that you are actually passionate about, and if not why do you even bother commenting here?

Those are not just my opinions about Bush JAKE. The only opinion I gave was, his administration is a disaster. The rest are FACTS. ~~~FACTS~~~ How could anyone who actualy can "think", is rational, has any sense of common sense and has an IQ of at least 80, think otherwise???

KEM, you are entitled to your opinion on Bush, and I'll repeat that you did good in those threads I mentioned.

He twisted it MIKE. He cannot admit a wrong.
He debated that other issue there were three of them on the subject.

Jake, by all standards, the Bush administration has been a disaster for seven years. For just one of several criminal and impeachable offenses, Bush altered the NIE reprt to insure the Senate voted to authrize he could attack Iraq "as a last resort" if Saddam didn't give up his WMDs.

Saddam didn't have any to give up, and Bush knew it. When Bush took office, the fiscal surplus was $300 billion and the the GDP was 2.5%. Now we are broke and owe China over 9 trillion dollars. Our generals say our army is broken and it is. And you say things are going along fairly well. Do you actually live on this planet? Where in hell is your brain living? Can't you see the obvious, the facts, the truths? Or are you actually insane and realize it and are lonely for friendship?
Were you sexually molested as a child? What is wrong? Tell us, maybe we can help you.

Please don't mention "critical thinking", like THERZAL did just awhile ago. That's the ONLY time I have ever heard that phrase used by anyone in my life. You and THERZAL. He's doing the same EXACT thing you are doing on another thread here. He's the ONLY one there who is correct and he claims that I'm a barbarian. I'm not, if I was, I'd go look for him and say, "Hi there Thurz."

Mike, I am lukewarm on Bush and Iraq. I think we have had a pretty decent economy for most of his term, with weak areas as is always the case, but we are overdue for a recession. Health care is a mixed bag, I can tell you of my experience with a severly busted foot if you would like. In the primary I will probably vote for the Republican candidate that I think has the best chance of beating the likely Democrat nominee. I don't think we should hijack this thread with any more about these issues though.

And having told you the above, I will remind you that they are my own *opinions* and in no pssible way could have any bearing on the *facts* surrounding BLS data reporting, but you are all smart enough to know that already. Got it?

I will also tell you that I personally find discussions of political matters where everyone is in harmonious agreement to be incredibly useless and boring. In my opinion if you feel strongly about something you should actually welcome dissent and the opportunity to debate.

"Why do you bring up another long ago thread and use one sentence in an attempt to show all that I'm a rat? "

KEM, I must have been unclear. I was *complimenting* you. I was expressing my admiration. I was saying it was good of you to stick to your guns against some people who had disagreed with you. I didn't even participate in those threads, you had much better knowledge about it than I. This was about whether we should have used the bomb or not, and whether we let Paerl Harbor happen. Remember? There were several different threads I think, I was just lurking. Is this clear now?

No nspire, I would actually like to see Jake share some of his opinions about the real issues affecting America and the world today. How does he really feel about the last seven years of the Bush administration, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the direction of the economy, the health care crisis, and who he would like to see in the White House in 2009 and why. It is a waste of everyones time getting involved in the minutiae of the BS coming from the BLS. It's hard to have meaningful dialogue when one of the participants won't share their true feelings.

MIKE & KEM -- Are you two trying to ride JAKE?

I can see it coming now,

Jake says,
"I also have some evidence that you use the code name THERZAL here JAKE. Same MOI with word usage."

And your best evidence for that would be?

I also have some evidence that you use the code name THERZAL here JAKE. Same MOI with word usage.

Perhaps NSPIRE meant, that indeed you are a horse's ass Jake and a saddle would be useful.

JAKE. Why do you bring up another long ago thread and use one sentence in an attempt to show all that I'm a rat?

We diaagreed on that issue also and you used your same type of logic and wierd thought process to prove that you again, were the only one who knew anything. You totally ignored facts and data given by experts on the subject. We disagreed, and again you were rude and obnoxious. Stow it JAKE, you can attack me personally, but you are also attacking the many others here whom I agree with.

Now here is a breaking story that says Bush-hating leftist George Soros funded the infamous Lancet/Johns Hopkins study that concluded at the time of it's release that 650000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the US invasion.

Do I think this means we should scrap the study because of the association with George Soros, assuming it's true? No. It perhaps should be scrapped for other reasons though.

Very brave of you nspire, your great personal courage to state that is nspiring.

BTW KEM, I remember *you* sticking to your guns against long odds regarding certain WWII items, such as our use of the bomb and whether we "let" Pearl Harbor happen. That was admirable of you.

There is an old (possibly true) saying that :

if enough people call one a horse's ass,
than it might be about time to start looking for a saddle

"JAKE with your critical thinking formula, did it ever occur to you, That you ALONE here think the BLM data is accurate?"

Actually, my "critical thinking formula" would expressly forbid me to consider such a thing, that something would be true merely because most people seem to think it is true. That is a Logical Fallacy called "Appeal to Popularity".

Appeal to Popularity:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

You *really* should read the whole Nizkor site KEM. Really, you should.

JAKE with your critical thinking formula, did it ever occur to you, That you ALONE here think the BLM data is accurate? You alone are correct, the several other bloggers who have answered you, have given excellent opinions, based upon sensible thinking and common sense and the valued opinions of ohter experts are ALL wrong. Perhaps your critical thinking is too critical an ignores theclearly obviious. Keep thinking bud. It isn't just this subject ou stannd almost alone on.

If 48 say "UP" and 2 say "DOWN" You will be one of the 2%. I believe that makes you feel both good and superior. ___ Strange.

jungleboy, I took some time to look at the site. I found it tough to navigate. For example, the page had a link to what was supposed to be something on exclusion of discouraged workers, but actually went to a list of layoff annoucements.

Now I do glean from it that it is primarily discussing how the makeup of the unemployed number should be defined. There is nothing wrong with such a discussion. If you think people on SS disability should be counted as part of the work force, or discouraged workers who no longer actively work, that is fine, those points are worthy of debate.

"When you find your self up against the greatest odds, don't you question your direction?"

I *constantly* question my direction and beleifs, but not merely because the odds may be long, as you put it.

"We want only to convert you to a free thinker, is that so bad? "

That's funny, I thought that's what *I* was doing. :-)

I don't know exactly what you mean by free thinking, but I can tell you that when I learned the principles of Critical Thinking, that the experience was quite liberating. In fairly short order I changed my opinion on any number of things, and today find myself constantly questioning the things I beleive. For most things, you should have reasons to beleive them based on facts, and it shouldn't be too hard to express that to others.

"The burden of proof for your assertion that the government unemployment data is accurate is on your shoulders."

Now I think it's fair to question your honesty. I have specifically denied the above allegation that I asserted anything as you say. I very recently wrote this:

"Exactly what contentions are you claiming that *I* am making? In linking to the BLS sites, I simply show you what the BLS says, not I."

I also wrote this:

"Since I have made no positive assertions as fact that the above are true, there is no Burden of Proof on me to do as you ask."

See that RSJ? But you just went ahead and repeated this idea that I asserted something, without showing that I did. You did this before too. You aren't going to do this again are you?

Since you are interested in this point, I will clarify for you and everyone else here: I have no specific reason to disbelieve the BLS employment numbers, so I tend to believe them. But this is in no way a positive assertion that the numbers are, in fact, accurate.

OTOH, the specific charges of BLS fraud and the lack of evidence for that remains a glaring problem here.

" I can only conclude that you can't independently verify the BLS statistics or the methodology of collection, "

No one can independently verify the numbers, the "point" was dubious from the start if for no other reason than this.

" failed to provide any logical reason why we should trust you or the BLS unemployment statistics. "

No one has to trust me or the BLS, you merely have to back up charges of BLS fraud with evidence.

"Case closed."

Not really, there remain unsubstantiated charges against the BLS here that should either be substantiated or retracted.

"Jake, you seem to have a problem with the word 'fraud.' "

Hardly the case. Based upon the unsubstantiated accusations that have been made here regarding the BLS, I am assuming the most diabolical definition.

"You also hilariously think that the BLS with its "thousands of government drones" is incapable of indulging in fraud."

I have written nothing that should make you think the above, and you should know better. I merely used the phrase "thousands of government drones" when I posed a question to you as to if these drones are equivalent of Bush.

Fraud is a crime committed by an individual or conspiracy of individuals, and to the extent that the BLS is composed of individuals it is theoretically possible for fraud to come from the BLS. No one here has yet provided any evidence of such fraud.

The various examples you give of governmental "fraud" are not all settled as fact, they are subject to debate, and the have no bearing whatsoever on the honesty of BLS reporting.

" yet you naively think the Dept. of Labor, headed by Bush loyalist Elaine Chao, and the BLS, are somehow exempt from this pattern of deception."

Nowhere have I said anything like this. I merely demand to see proof of any specific deception that you would accuse the BLS of.

"This is why I asked you to provide independent evidence to back up your extraordinary claim that the BLS figures on unemployment, and the method of collection of such data, are accurate."

Guess what RSJ? This is an unreasonable request. I *already told you* that I haven't asserted anything about the accuracy of the BLS reports. Besides, I doubt if it's possible for anyone to do this. From what I can tell, the BLS polling and reporting services are unique, and no one is trying to duplicate them independently in any way.

"you may discover the truth."

KEM, what did *you* think of that site?

Jake, you seem to have a problem with the word 'fraud.' Here's the Oxford Dictionary Fifth Edition definition of the word: "1. Criminal deception. 2. A dishonest artifice or trick. 3. A person or thing not fulfilling what is expected of it."

You also hilariously think that the BLS with its "thousands of government drones" is incapable of indulging in fraud.

Let's see, the EPA has thousands of employees, yet that didn't stop former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman from fraudulently telling New Yorkers after 9/11 that the air around Ground Zero was safe, based on an EPA report that was rewritten by the White House and a lie. FEMA also has thousands of employees, yet that didn't prevent them from lying about the conditions in New Orleans post-Katrina. The Pentagon has thousands of employees, yet they lied about conditions at Abu Ghraib prison, among other things. The Justice Department has thousands of employees, yet it also has deceived the public. The Executive Branch has thousands of employees, yet a senior member of that establishment was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice in the leak of Valerie Plame's name. For that matter, Bush himself said a few years ago that his government was not wiretapping without a warrant and then last year admitted it had been. All of this fits very easily into the definition of fraud presented above, and you can read all the details here at CD. As well as the other examples I've included in previous comments, the list goes on and on of the Bush Administration's willingness to commit fraud when it's to their advantage, and yet you naively think the Dept. of Labor, headed by Bush loyalist Elaine Chao, and the BLS, are somehow exempt from this pattern of deception.

In light of this mountain of evidence of governmental fraud, it is plain stupid to believe anything from the Bush Administration. This is why I asked you to provide independent evidence to back up your extraordinary claim that the BLS figures on unemployment, and the method of collection of such data, are accurate.

Your postings so far have been nothing but 'snide, slide and deride,' smugly dismissing the comments of others and insisting on proof from them while offering none of your own.

Now your latest bit of distraction is this silly 'burden of proof' link. I guess you think if you just toss around enough of this extraneous rhetorical nonsense you'll obscure the central point. The burden of proof for your assertion that the government unemployment data is accurate is on your shoulders.

Taking into account your useless bit of pompous drivel, "If I felt like it, I could find experts who would disagree," I can only conclude that you can't independently verify the BLS statistics or the methodology of collection, and so have failed to provide any logical reason why we should trust you or the BLS unemployment statistics. Case closed.

"I will try." Don't do it, you may discover the truth.

"I'm sorry if you were offended by it."

No problem Mike.

jungleboy I will try to get to your link soon, I am slinging some resumes now. And watching a lttle fuh'ball too.

Jake, I only wished you well on your job search.
The other comment wasn't a joke, it was merely helpful advice on securing and maintaining continued employment.
I'm sorry if you were offended by it.

O.K. I give, its not "fraud". They make the laws. But this is the answer, I believe, to your set of questions regarding unemployment figures and them being truthful or not.

http://www.timesizing.com/2uedefns.htm

Its a long read but I think you can handle it.

We all argue here to learn from each other. I've learned something. I've learned how long the government has been faultily reporting employment figures. Can we all find the answer?

When you find your self up against the greatest odds, don't you question your direction? If you know the truth then why ask? To argue with a fool makes two, what side are you on?

If you are in need, ask politely, people will surely give. If you demand, you can rot in hell.

We want only to convert you to a free thinker, is that so bad? Attachment is your only devil. Mine too!

"Good luck on your job search."

Thanks.

"I think they are hiring greeters at Wal-Mart, just don't argue with the customers."

Classy. I reveal a personal detail about my life where I didn't have to, and you make a joke about it.

Burden of Proof:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

"Unlike yourself, I responded to your comments in toto,"

Actually you completely ignored my responses to that post. You went on a cut and paste frenzy, showing *opinions* of economists. You were supposed to be showing *fraud* on the part of the BLS. And then you completely ignored two long responses I made to that outburst, showing the above statement to be wrong. Did you not see them? Why did you not respond to them?

Your statement mining performance showed the quotes without the context we may have gotten from seeing the full interviews. They included mere *opinions* of certain economists, and nowhere showed *fraud* on the part of the BLS. I said this already though, and you ignored it.

I'll repeat in one case just for fun: Alan Goolsbee states "[T]he unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as 'not in the labor force.'"

So Goolsbee has the *opinion* that those on Social Security *disability* should be included as part of the work force. If I felt like it, I could find experts who would disagree with him. Myself, I would raise the question as to why someone who is *disabled* should be considered part of the workforce. WHat do you think about that point?

That he would then use the term "cooking the books" regarding that classification is pure hyperbole on his part, and in no case should we take it that fraud has been commited.

But all of the quotes were matters of *opinion* and nowhere indicated *fraud*, do you see that? Acknowledge this please. If you would like, pick your favorite quote from that post and we can parse it out.

"Since we know that the Bush Administration misled the public about Saddam Hussein's WMD program and used forged documents to present the fraudulent case that he was seeking aluminium tubing to make a nuclear device, why should we trust them in any other area to tell us the truth? "

Question: Do you *actually* think, as others here seem to, that BLS=GWB? BLS with it's thousands of government drones? If so, why?

"The only 'evidence' to back up any of your contentions is your own opinion and the BLS site itself,"

Exactly what contentions are you claiming that *I* am making? In linking to the BLS sites, I simply show you what the BLS says, not I. I never had to do that regarding the original claim about who gets counted as unemployed.

"So, here's your challenge:"

"a) Provide multiple sources independent of the BLS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Bush Administration, or its ideological allies, proving that their unemployment data is accurate."

"b) Provide proof independent of the BLS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Bush Administration, or its ideological allies, that the surveys are actually undertaken in the manner that the BLS describes and that the information is reliable."

Since I have made no positive assertions as fact that the above are true, there is no Burden of Proof on me to do as you ask. Challenge denied.

RSJ, look at this claim very carefully:

"…only those collecting unemployment are counted as unemployed,…"

It is a *very specific*, positive assertion of *fact* as to what "they", the BLS, count. This assertion was made early in the thread and prompted my first post. It is incumbent upon those who claim something to be true to provide the evidednce. Read that last sentence one more time. It is a well extablished doctrine that is centuries old, the *Burden of Proof*. This is a *key* point for you and others here to understand.

Nowhere has anyone shown *any* evidence *whatsoever* that the above statement is in fact true. No one, not ever. Now for a quick review, when the statement was first made, I asked for evidence. That's *all* I had to do. In fact, I could have, in the absence of said evidence, positively asserted "You are wrong", and left it at that.

It's like if someone said, "There are extra terrestials on earth" without showing proof, I can just say, "no, there aren't".

Get it?

Now the fact that on my own initiative I came up with BLS data in direct contradiction to the above is completely peripheral to the point I just laid out. It was an "extra credit" activity on my part that was *not required*. *No where*, not in this entire thread, do I specifically make a claim, like is made in the original statement, that the BLS assertions are true. It is the BLS that is doing that, not I. I simply put it out as a counter point, a demonstration of what those who support the original statement may have to overcome in fufiling their *Burden of Proof* to support the original assertion.

Get it? And the same goes for those who positively assert that the BLS fraudulently cooks the books. The *Burden of Proof* is on them to support these assertions, not me.

The requirement for Burden of Proof is established dogma for Critical Thinking and Debate that have been established for centuries. They apply equally to those on all sides of an issue, and *no one* is at liberty to violate them. Do not try to shift the Burden of Proof to me.

There are plenty of websites out there, many geared towards beginners, that help to explain the well established Fallacies of Logic such as shifting Burden of Proof, please check them out.

Jake, you are a king-high sophist, responding to quotes out of context and then demanding proof from others. You display all of the reprehensible characteristics of an ardent neocon: stay on the offensive to the point of absurdity and then heartily pat yourself on the back for having 'tore up' whoever you've been debating. You must be popular at parties, should you ever happen to be invited to one.

Unlike yourself, I responded to your comments in toto, and I included a statement from a respected University of Chicago professor of economics who said, "the government has cooked the books"; a well-known analyst of the employment industry writing in Business Week who said "it becomes clear that the real economy is vastly different from the one painted by the government's numbers"; an overview of the economic situation from The New York Times which stated,"some economists consider the low unemployment rate misleading"; an expert with over 25 years experience who says that unemployment is much worse than the official number suggests; and, something you carefully ignored in your responses, a former US government Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Janet Norwood, admitting that the BLS numbers on unemployment are misleading.

Since we know that the Bush Administration misled the public about Saddam Hussein's WMD program and used forged documents to present the fraudulent case that he was seeking aluminium tubing to make a nuclear device, why should we trust them in any other area to tell us the truth? As Paul Bramscher aptly put it: "If Bush & Co can lie about reasons to go to war, and get away with it, lying about the economy is child's play in comparison."

The only 'evidence' to back up any of your contentions is your own opinion and the BLS site itself, which proves nothing. If the BLS is perpetrating a fraud for political purposes, then self-serving documents on their website cannot be accepted as truthful and, consequently, are not proof that their statistics are accurate.

So, here's your challenge:

a) Provide multiple sources independent of the BLS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Bush Administration, or its ideological allies, proving that their unemployment data is accurate.

b) Provide proof independent of the BLS, the US Dept. of Labor, the Bush Administration, or its ideological allies, that the surveys are actually undertaken in the manner that the BLS describes and that the information is reliable.

I think he is missing people skills for even walmart.

I think he is missing people skills for even walmart. How would one give him a job description?

"'Paper' is not made of 'sand'? How to I 'sand' with 'paper'? Goddamit! I know what 'paper is!", jakenewton asks the interviewer.

MIKE BIN SC - _ L O L _

Suit yourself Jake.
Good luck on your job search.
I think they are hiring greeters at Wal-Mart, just don't argue with the customers.