To: microhoogle! who wrote (566994 ) 4/20/2004 4:07:55 PM From: Kenneth V. McNutt Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 Murali...facts for you... OECD Standardised Unemployment Rate Falls to 6.9% in December 2003 In the Euro area, the standardised unemployment rate remained at 8.8% in December 2003, 0.2 percentage point higher than a year earlier. For the United States, the standardised unemployment rate was 5.7% in December 2003, 0.2 percentage point lower than the previous month and 0.3 percentage point lower than a year earlier. For Japan, the standardised unemployment rate was 4.9% in December 2003, 0.3 percentage point lower than the previous month and 0.6 percentage point lower than a year earlier. Over the twelve months to December 2003, the standardised unemployment rate rose in France from 9.1% to 9.5% and in Germany from 9.0% to 9.2%. In Canada, the standardised unemployment rate was 7.4% in December 2003, 0.1 percentage point lower than a year earlier. In October 2003, the standardised unemployment rate in Italy was 8.4%, 0.5 percentage point lower than a year earlier and the standardised unemployment rate in the United Kingdom was 4.9%, 0.2 percentage point lower than a year earlier. (My observation-as you can see the Socialist States have much higher unemployment than the US.) The unemployment rate in Canada, except for the oil recession 0f the seventies and the Carter years, has always been higher than that of the US. Sometimes as high as 4/5% higher. I see no proof it was easier to get a job in Canada the last couple of years, as their unemployment has been consistently higher than the US. The unemployment rate in the US is now equal to the average of all 8 Clinton years, including the 4% anomaly of Y2K and the unprecedented acceptance of the Internet during his terms. The highest unemployment under Bush was 6.3% at the beginning of the Clinton recession. The similar highest figure under Clinton was 7.3%. These are facts. Go BLS at Google. Persons employed in the US are at an all time high, and more to come in the ensuing months. Average unemployment in the US for at least 50 years has been accepted to be between 5% and 6%, but some became spoiled by the unsustainable 4% during the latter Clinton years. Of course Clinton was not wholly responsible for the recession as Greenspan reacted to swiftly, and too strongly in raising interest rates. IMO. The economy had no time to absorb the new conditions, and therefore fell into recession. To this day I cannot understand Greenspan's actions. Hope this helps. KM