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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (365140)	1/2/2008 8:40:21 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571689

"It's obvious you thought you did when you spun the unemployment numbers by not counting population increase." I pointed it out because I wasn't just going to wave my hands and pretend it didn't happen. "Therefore, it's pointless to say that the GDP and the number of jobs overall in the late 1930s matched that of the late 1920s." No it isn't. It points to recovery. GDP had matched 1929 by 1936. By 1941, when we entered the war, it was well above it. However, job growth was still slow. "Funny how the GDP is well above the Clinton boom and unemployment numbers are well below 5% even though the population increased since Bush took office." Yet when you look at the total number of people employed and not just the rate, you find that we have only recently exceeded the number of people employed at the start of the recession. With the Bush administration, you can't take the numbers at face value. Now a conclusion is that there is something bogus about the numbers. Or maybe that magic has occurred. Which ever.