Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: orkrious who wrote (233768)	4/5/2003 8:09:07 PM
From: Terry Maloney	Respond to of 436258

ork, no problem, they've come up with other rationales in the meantime. <g>

To: orkrious who wrote (233768)	4/5/2003 8:18:10 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

That's agitprop, like much else in the media these days... I don't see how that constitutes an "admission" of anything, even in paraphrase, let alone in actual quotation. Did you read the (poorly written) article? Moral legitimacy? LOL! The left is without moral legitimacy here, as Christopher Hitchens has ably pointed out. The very people who insisted that we storm into Kosovo to prevent genocide are vehemently opposing this action, when for good or ill it can be justified on the same grounds. They are simply blinded by their hatred of George Bush. I can't take the left seriously anymore, Hitchens and a few others excepted.

To: orkrious who wrote (233768)	4/5/2003 8:32:44 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 436258

see who is advertising it very trust worthy source

To: orkrious who wrote (233768)	4/5/2003 11:30:04 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 436258

Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq Uh, does that mean the UN WON'T help us rebuild Iraq, complete the occupation, and install a demoRatic government?

To: orkrious who wrote (233768)	4/6/2003 11:05:19 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 436258

Unemployment - From Peter on the FOOL Spinoff from thread: Unemployment Rate v. Initial Claims boards.fool.com glorioski: If people get disgusted and give up looking, or they find a few hours of work, they are not counted as unemployed. boards.fool.com I've been thinking about this for some time and have decided that this tends to make the unemployment rate useless as an indicator during long recessions. One would expect that many unemployed persons would become discouraged and stop actively searching for a job during a long recession. Looking without finding is excruciating. If many foks give up looking the unemployment rate goes down. So it occurred to me that looking at total employment might be a much better indicator. Just now I found this graph: data.bls.gov The recession starting in the first quarter of 2001 just jumps out at you and is getting worse rather than better. This graph is for the last ten years. Can any one find a longer-term graph? Oh, here is a table for data from 1919 to present. data.bls.gov You have to make some choices. I chose: Not seasonally adjusted 01 ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS 000000 Total nonfarm All years I would love to see a graph of this data superimposed on GDP by year. Here is a sample. Year Avg Non-Farm Employment (1000's) 1927 29962 1928 29986 1929 31324 1930 29409 1931 26635 1932 23615 1933 23699 1934 25940 1935 27039 1936 29068 1937 31011 1938 29194 1939 30603 1940 32361 1941 36537 1942 40106 1943 42434 1944 41864 1945 40374 1946 41652 Notice the dramatic decline from 1929 to 1933 followed by an equal rise from 1933 to 1937, a one-year pullback, and then a big jump from 1938 to 1943. From this point-of-view the depression ended in 1933. Here is the span of time that doomed Bush I to a single-term: 1988 105209 1989 107884 1990 109403 1991 108249 1992 108601 1993 110713 Total employment could tell the tale for the economy and Bush II. Peter