The Fix for the Economy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward. [/quote]

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

62

cockney wrote:
"I would be almost certain that your bank invests globally and your Insurer sells your risk to an underwriter that is globally linked.

Add into that the fact that your local providers of produce are almost definitely reliant in some way on importing raw materials or exporting their produce to a wider market than just your local area and you are probably not as local as you thought you were."

I can’t disagree. Still, it’s as much as I can do to keep it local.

“If you are prepared to go back to a medieval standard of living then you can get things as local as you like (I sometimes romantecise that this would be nice) other than that, start thinking of yourself as a member of the human race living on Planet Earth first and an American a distant second.”

I can’t disagree with this either, and I romanticize about it too!

One of the concerns I have is that we don’t have global standards for the laws governing production/labor.

63

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

[/quote]

Is it coincidence when the mercury is high and the temp is high?

You have seen a relationship but have the cause and effect the wrong way round. Of course there is a feedback loop in the economy. Bad economy = less jobs = economy drops further but the cause is the economy not the jobs. Fix the economy and the jobs come back.

64

[quote]suruppak wrote:
cockney wrote:
"I would be almost certain that your bank invests globally and your Insurer sells your risk to an underwriter that is globally linked.

Add into that the fact that your local providers of produce are almost definitely reliant in some way on importing raw materials or exporting their produce to a wider market than just your local area and you are probably not as local as you thought you were."

I can’t disagree. Still, it’s as much as I can do to keep it local.

“If you are prepared to go back to a medieval standard of living then you can get things as local as you like (I sometimes romantecise that this would be nice) other than that, start thinking of yourself as a member of the human race living on Planet Earth first and an American a distant second.”

I can’t disagree with this either, and I romanticize about it too!

One of the concerns I have is that we don’t have global standards for the laws governing production/labor.[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem, however lots of big companies when they move into new countries actually raise the standards. I work for a Business Process Outsourcer. The labour laws in Mexico are actually tighter than in the US (though the pay rate is obviously lower.)

Globally we try to stick to the same processes and standards regardless of if they exceed what is required by local law.

65

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more. [/quote]

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay.

66

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay. [/quote]

I do blame both, but more so the people. They should not have done it. They have the final say and should have been smart enough not to do it.

67

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay.

I do blame both, but more so the people. They should not have done it. They have the final say and should have been smart enough not to do it.
[/quote]

Key difference: The governement’s policy and associated sanctions forced a sea-change in lending, who obtained loans, etc. It forced lenders to offer credit. I agree, no one forced people to sign-up for loans they couldn’t pay. But had the government not enacted this idiotic policies, the damage would have been far, far, FAR less. Why? Fewer forclosures, fewer homes sitting empty, No housing market crash. PEOPLE hurt themselves, in most cases. Governments and backward policies like this hurt everyone.

68

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

Is it coincidence when the mercury is high and the temp is high?

You have seen a relationship but have the cause and effect the wrong way round. Of course there is a feedback loop in the economy. Bad economy = less jobs = economy drops further but the cause is the economy not the jobs. Fix the economy and the jobs come back.[/quote]

No my friend, I believe you have them backwords.

69

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay.

I do blame both, but more so the people. They should not have done it. They have the final say and should have been smart enough not to do it.

Key difference: The governement’s policy and associated sanctions forced a sea-change in lending, who obtained loans, etc. It forced lenders to offer credit. I agree, no one forced people to sign-up for loans they couldn’t pay. But had the government not enacted this idiotic policies, the damage would have been far, far, FAR less. Why? Fewer forclosures, fewer homes sitting empty, No housing market crash. PEOPLE hurt themselves, in most cases. Governments and backward policies like this hurt everyone.
[/quote]

It is still ultimately the peoples responsibility, whether or not government does idiotic things.

70

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things. However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise. Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy. You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves. If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay.

I do blame both, but more so the people. They should not have done it. They have the final say and should have been smart enough not to do it.

Key difference: The governement’s policy and associated sanctions forced a sea-change in lending, who obtained loans, etc. It forced lenders to offer credit. I agree, no one forced people to sign-up for loans they couldn’t pay. But had the government not enacted this idiotic policies, the damage would have been far, far, FAR less. Why? Fewer forclosures, fewer homes sitting empty, No housing market crash. PEOPLE hurt themselves, in most cases. Governments and backward policies like this hurt everyone.

It is still ultimately the peoples responsibility, whether or not government does idiotic things.[/quote]

Jesus.

71

I’m calling troll, this can’t be real

72

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

Is it coincidence when the mercury is high and the temp is high?

You have seen a relationship but have the cause and effect the wrong way round. Of course there is a feedback loop in the economy. Bad economy = less jobs = economy drops further but the cause is the economy not the jobs. Fix the economy and the jobs come back.

No my friend, I believe you have them backwords.

[/quote]

So in your model, we create a load of loss making jobs, this then creates wealth that stimulates the Economy. Any chance you could explain how?

73

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

Is it coincidence when the mercury is high and the temp is high?

You have seen a relationship but have the cause and effect the wrong way round. Of course there is a feedback loop in the economy. Bad economy = less jobs = economy drops further but the cause is the economy not the jobs. Fix the economy and the jobs come back.

No my friend, I believe you have them backwords.

So in your model, we create a load of loss making jobs, this then creates wealth that stimulates the Economy. Any chance you could explain how?[/quote]

I would love to Blue, but first what do you mean by “loss making jobs?”

74

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
shookers wrote:
This is so backwards it’s amazing. Protectionism never has and never will be the solution, only the problem.

You should make goods where they may be made at the lowest cost. Every person should conduct business in which they have a competitive advantage

I am not sure how protectionism is the problem? We have no protection at all and we have the worst economy since the 30’s.

Products should be made where it makes sense to make them. It would not make sense to grow bananas in Minnesota, and sometimes it just does not make sense for America to produce certain things.

However, that is not competitive adavantage, and referencing my first post, products made in foreign countries are typically not cheaper than those produced domestically.

The economy is in collapse because the housing market collapsed. That’s the prime mover here. That’s the first domino to fall. That happened because our government, in it’s wisdom, decided that all American’s, whether they can afford it or not, deserved the home the wanted. And lenders were made to lend to those they’d never lend to otherwise.

Start there. Then move on to unions. The fact that Detroit has spend a certian amount of union dollars for every auto produced kind of puts limits on any kind of production cost savings that can realized, don’t you think? I’m sure you’re a union guy.

You’re probably throwing a tantrum and looking to go Hoffa on someone. Good for you. Just know that unions have a place and have done some good things. But they are also a shield that inferior, unambitions, unproductive workers hide behind. And it’s detroying our ability to move forward.

Acutally, I am not at all a union guy. I will defend the UAW, but I do not back them.

Prowl, are you from Michigan?

Since you mentioned the housing market, there is some blame that can be put on the government, but majority needs to be place on the consumer themselves.

If it was not for their personal attitude of, “I want it and I want it now,” they should have used common sense and spent outside of their means or used the floating interest to justify buying a home they should have never bought in the first place. I blame the people more.

Blame both. But the govenment forced lenders to lend to people that obviously could not pay.

I do blame both, but more so the people. They should not have done it. They have the final say and should have been smart enough not to do it.

Key difference: The governement’s policy and associated sanctions forced a sea-change in lending, who obtained loans, etc. It forced lenders to offer credit.

I agree, no one forced people to sign-up for loans they couldn’t pay. But had the government not enacted this idiotic policies, the damage would have been far, far, FAR less.

Why? Fewer forclosures, fewer homes sitting empty, No housing market crash. PEOPLE hurt themselves, in most cases. Governments and backward policies like this hurt everyone.

It is still ultimately the peoples responsibility, whether or not government does idiotic things.

Jesus. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, I can’t believe you told me essentially the same thing twice with the same outcome.

75

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

[/quote]

where are you getting this knowledge? You have no idea what an economy is and how to strengthen it.

76

[quote]dhickey wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
Regarding jobs and the economy, I guess the Unemployment Rate is no longer used to determine the strength of the economy. An “Economy Rate” is now used to determine the strength of the jobs.

Way to miss the point. The height of a mercury column in a glass tube is used to measure the temperature, this doesn’t mean that you can change the temperature by adjusting the height of mercury in a glass tube.

I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

where are you getting this knowledge? You have no idea what an economy is and how to strengthen it.[/quote]

Which knowledge in particular?

77

[quote]J Eldred wrote:
I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

where are you getting this knowledge? You have no idea what an economy is and how to strengthen it.

Which knowledge in particular?

[/quote]

Jobs dictate economy
Unemployment causes a weak economy

I don’t think you know the difference between causation and correlation.

78

[quote]dhickey wrote:
J Eldred wrote:
I think you are missing the point. When the unemployment rate is low, the economy is strong. In contrast, when the unemployment rate is high, the economy is weak. I guess this is mere coincidence.

I also suppose Roosevelt had it all wrong when he enacted the New Deal to produce jobs, among other things, for the masses because of an unemployment of 25% and even higher in some sectors. This was, and still holds true today, because jobs dictate economy.

where are you getting this knowledge? You have no idea what an economy is and how to strengthen it.

Which knowledge in particular?

Jobs dictate economy
Unemployment causes a weak economy

I don’t think you know the difference between causation and correlation.[/quote]

Well since you do not believe me, I will cut and paste it directly from Wikipedia what it says about the umemployment rate and the state of the economy (though I used my own words in an earlier post):

“The unemployment rate is also used in economic studies and economic indexes such as the United States’ Conference Board’s Index of Leading Indicators as a measure of the state of the macroeconomics.”

79

Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting

You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.

xoxo

80

[quote]shookers wrote:
Where does it say cause, not correlation? It doesn’t. No economist in the world supports the crap you’re spouting

You fail, you’re wrong, admit it or leave.

xoxo[/quote]

Why does it have to be word for word? It plainly says it is a leading indicator to the state of macroeconomics.