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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (498722)	11/25/2003 9:36:59 PM
From: FastC6	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Perot predicted the big sucking sound back in 1991....nobody listened.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (498722)	11/25/2003 10:56:45 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

why do you nitpick arguments that we both know to be true? ROTFL. Liz, you've been hanging out with AS too long. If you consider conclusively disproving your claim TWICE to be "nitpicking" and STILL believe your claim to be true, then you are as hopeless as he. And you go on with even more displays of economic illiteracy. Well here we are with a very unlikely pickup to this labor crisis, very low wages ... Reread my two previous posts. I've already disproved this "low wage" lie twice - no need to do it again. Message 19536938 Message 19537242 You act as if all is well and this 8% GDP number is some kind of monumental economic achievement! Monumental? Nah, Reagan did better a couple times. But Clinton sure didn't. bea.gov The fact is there are more bankrupcies [sic] and more unemployment than ever ... Oh, not another "fact", Liz. Now I have to prove you wrong again. The FACT, Liz, is that even on an absolute basis, the numbers of unemployed people in this cycle peaked a good 7% lower than the worst of the last recession, 9.36 mil in June vs 10.04 mil in June of '92. And that recession didn't even remotely compare to the economic malaise Reagan inherited from Carter. And remember, the labor force is MUCH larger now than in any previous downturn, so forget comparing unemployment RATES. You should be careful throwing around phrases like "more than ever" without first checking the facts. As for bankruptcies, surely you know that non-business filings reflect much more than the economic cycle - things like sociological changes that have made personal BK filings a more acceptable option for people, marketing by the legal community to sell it as an option, and "innovations" in the consumer credit industry that have made it easier for people who have gone through BK to get credit again. Non-business BKs have been rising at a rapid clip for at least 22 years, including during Clinton's two terms when they rose from 900k in 1992 to 1.4 million as the Clinton-New Paradigm bubble grew in 1998. The number was 1.5 million in 2002 (the latest data I could find), hardly higher in recession than in boom-times. Surely you don't think this proves your "the economy still sucks" argument. Let's talk about business BKs, then. Do you know what the average annual business BKs were the last two years? 39.3k. And they were lower in 2002 than in 2001, 38.5k vs. 40k. Do you know what the average number was while Clinton was in office? 49k. Furthermore, Clinton never had a year below 44k until 1999, when capital seemed to grow on trees due to the bubble. Business BKs aren't even rising, Liz, much less even remotely approaching records. abiworld.org Two more strike-outs, Liz. How many more at bats do you want?