1. #9721
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I've seen nothing neocon about Romney.
    He wants to increase the military budget and he has thrown out some pretty strong words regarding Iran and Russia. Now, much like just about everything else, what he would ACTUALLY do in office is a big unknown, but I don't think he'd keep the military status quo.

    I prefer the Ron Paul ideas regarding our military footprint, with a little bit of Reagan mixed in to keep them honest.
    I certainly lean this way, but I think there's a middle ground that is appropriate.

    Plus the reality is that the shrinking of the military would have to be done gradually or you'd give a nasty shock to an economy that can't absorb it.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  2. #9722
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    He wants to increase the military budget and he has thrown out some pretty strong words regarding Iran and Russia. Now, much like just about everything else, what he would ACTUALLY do in office is a big unknown, but I don't think he'd keep the military status quo.

    I certainly lean this way, but I think there's a middle ground that is appropriate.

    Plus the reality is that the shrinking of the military would have to be done gradually or you'd give a nasty shock to an economy that can't absorb it.
    I still don't see anything neocon about Romeny, but that seems to usually be decided by the cabinet appointments.

    I'd rather us shrink our base footprint around the world, and stick to a cruise missiles from a far method. It's not always effective, I know... but it's certainly cheaper.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  3. #9723
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I still don't see anything neocon about Romeny
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. I tend to ignore labels like this because they don't have universally agreed upon definitions.

    Are you denying he hasn't stated he wants to increase the military budget?
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  4. #9724
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. I tend to ignore labels like this because they don't have universally agreed upon definitions.

    Are you denying he hasn't stated he wants to increase the military budget?
    Well, without a doubt you could detect some neocon in Bush.

    I just don't see Romney the same way.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  5. #9725
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    Well, without a doubt you could detect some neocon in Bush.

    I just don't see Romney the same way.
    Trust me Romney is a Zionist, he puts Israel on a pedestal, just like all of our politicians.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  6. #9726
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Lots of people HAVE given up looking for work and more accurate measurements of the unemployment rate would show it higher. But at the same time things ARE moving in the right direction.

    Just as an aside, Canada created 52,000 jobs in September. Canada is 1/10th the size of the US, so it would be the same as the US creating about 520,000 jobs. Those are the numbers that the US SHOULD be putting up for a full recovery. Instead, the US gets these anemic ~150K numbers every month. It's still progress, but the slowness of the recovery just shows how weak the underlying fundamentals of the US economy really are, and how big picture things need to change in the long run.
    Not really a fair example. We Canadian's avoided much of the nonsense you guys went through when it came to the economy collapse because you know, we actually had banking regulations.

    That's the other thing that always annoys me when I hear Republican's saying "The Economy is weak! Why hasn't Obama fixed it yet!" I'm sorry, you are expecting miracles if you think ANYONE could fix a collapse comparable to the great depression not only in 4 years but with that small of a stimulus package. That package was designed to stop the 750k jobs that were being lost a month and make sure the Auto industry didn't completely collapse in on itself. He accomplished that. Now people who listen to Rommney actually are saying "We need more of the same policies that caused the collapse in the first place!" I'm sorry, are you insane?

  7. #9727
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I don't know how unemployment numbers are generated and neither do you and neither does Diurdi.

    I'll just wait and see what people that actually do have to say about it.
    Do you know if there is a difference between the way the 8% was generated and the new 7.8%?

  8. #9728
    Quote Originally Posted by Juno86 View Post
    Not really a fair example. We Canadian's avoided much of the nonsense you guys went through when it came to the economy collapse because you know, we actually had banking regulations.

    That's the other thing that always annoys me when I hear Republican's saying "The Economy is weak! Why hasn't Obama fixed it yet!" I'm sorry, you are expecting miracles if you think ANYONE could fix a collapse comparable to the great depression not only in 4 years but with that small of a stimulus package. That package was designed to stop the 750k jobs that were being lost a month and make sure the Auto industry didn't completely collapse in on itself. He accomplished that. Now people who listen to Rommney actually are saying "We need more of the same policies that caused the collapse in the first place!" I'm sorry, are you insane?
    Actually, I am Canadian too. Banking regulations did help Canada, but what also really helped was the Liberal government fixing the budget problems in the 1990's and carrying that forward through different economic hits like the tech bust, 9/11, SARS. But what also kept Canada up is that we are a resource-based economy and there is still demand for that, and so we keep our jobs, our tax revenues keep coming in, and our hosuing market hasn't collapsed.

    But still, the US should be producing at least twice as many jobs in a recovery. They aren't because of the policies and the corporate takeover of gov't really starting since Reagan. There are fundamental things in their economy that will have to be changed or else the next recovery will be even slower.

  9. #9729
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I prefer the Ron Paul ideas regarding our military footprint, with a little bit of Reagan mixed in to keep them honest.
    Ron actually denounced Reagan foreign policy. Iran Contra and Iraq being the top recipient of US aid, is the complete opposite of Ron Paul. It's like asking to withdraw all troops and increasing their numbers at the same time. Ron Paul mixed with even a little Reagan on foreign policy, is not Ron Paul at all.

  10. #9730
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    Just as an aside, Canada created 52,000 jobs in September. Canada is 1/10th the size of the US, so it would be the same as the US creating about 520,000 jobs. Those are the numbers that the US SHOULD be putting up for a full recovery. Instead, the US gets these anemic ~150K numbers every month. It's still progress, but the slowness of the recovery just shows how weak the underlying fundamentals of the US economy really are, and how big picture things need to change in the long run.
    The Canadian economy and the US economy aren't amenable to being compared like that.

    The vast majority of Canada's growth is fueled by the oil and mining sectors in Saskatchewan and Alberta, making those provinces basically recession-proof unless something happens to resource prices.

    Here in Saskatchewan, literally 90% of our GDP comes directly or indirectly from oil or potash/uranium mining, and another 6% is farming.

  11. #9731
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    Actually, I am Canadian too. Banking regulations did help Canada, but what also really helped was the Liberal government fixing the budget problems in the 1990's and carrying that forward through different economic hits like the tech bust, 9/11, SARS. But what also kept Canada up is that we are a resource-based economy and there is still demand for that, and so we keep our jobs, our tax revenues keep coming in, and our hosuing market hasn't collapsed.

    But still, the US should be producing at least twice as many jobs in a recovery. They aren't because of the policies and the corporate takeover of gov't really starting since Reagan. There are fundamental things in their economy that will have to be changed or else the next recovery will be even slower.
    I do agree, it was the tough 90's with the Liberals that fixed a lot of the issues we would have seen as well as the American's when it collapsed. I think you are downgrading the amount banking regulation actually played in this thing. I mean, seriously name one Canadian bank that collapsed because of it? None! Simply because we had no banks who had their fingers in the stock market pie.

    Yes, during a recovery it would be optimal to be making as many jobs as possible. No argument, but when you consider the size of the stimulus applied to the size of the hole and then a congress that does its UTMOST ability to block any recovery after said problem. I'm amazed he's getting jobs created right now at all considering how much of a cock-block the congress has been.

    No argument about resources, thanks to the Oil sands, Western Canada where I live has more certainly not been ailing on the economy issue. Then again, we've kinda always been a resource based economy. The interesting part will be in the next 50 years when we will have to be shifting from that economy to a more information economy with the rest of the G8 countries.

  12. #9732
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I don't know how unemployment numbers are generated and neither do you and neither does Diurdi.

    I'll just wait and see what people that actually do have to say about it.
    "I don't know how these numbers are generated and they're definitely worthless jobs and possibly being manipulated".

    Keep packing that internet with more bullshit.

  13. #9733
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    "I don't know how these numbers are generated and they're definitely worthless jobs and possibly being manipulated".

    Keep packing that internet with more bullshit.
    What I don't get, is why these numbers are scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to. Unless people are saying they were generated a different way, the bad numbers were generated the same way as these.

    I did not have a problem when the same parameters resulted in negative numbers, why would I suddenly not trust them? What changed?

  14. #9734
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    What I don't get, is why these numbers a scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to. Unless people are saying they were generated a different way, the bad numbers were generated the same way as these.
    Oh come on, you know exactly why.

  15. #9735
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    What I don't get, is why these numbers are scrutinized, when they were compiled the same way as the bad numbers they get compared to.
    Because the seemingly huge gap between the report of the NFP numbers and the separate Household Survey is weird. Possibly a sample that isn't representative of the population or problem with the software that does seasonal adjustments.

  16. #9736
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Because the seemingly huge gap between the report of the NFP numbers and the separate Household Survey is weird. Possibly a sample that isn't representative of the population or problem with the software that does seasonal adjustments.
    Are we comparing NFP numbers to previous NFP numbers? I think it is wierd to compare NFP numbers to Household Survey if they are generated differently.

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 06:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Oh come on, you know exactly why.
    But, that's generalizing. Diurdi responded in a way that doesn't assume the seemingly obvious.
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-05 at 06:55 PM.

  17. #9737
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Are we comparing NFP numbers to previous NFP numbers? I think it is wierd to compare NFP numbers to Household Survey if they are generated differently.
    The NFP says how many new jobs were created, while the Household Survey asks people if they're employed/unemployed. "Only" 114K new jobs were created, while 870,000 more people were employed than previously. Revisions of previous periods play into this some, but a lot has to do with seasonal adjustments and stuff.

  18. #9738
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The NFP says how many new jobs were created, while the Household Survey asks people if they're employed/unemployed. "Only" 114K new jobs were created, while 870,000 more people were employed than previously. Revisions of previous periods play into this some, but a lot has to do with seasonal adjustments and stuff.
    Because they measure two different things. Why would you assume it's the result of weirdness and not the different things the two are measuring? Both seem positive as well...

    The drop from 8%+ to 7.8% is the result of comparing two time periods of the same study.

  19. #9739
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Because they measure two different things. Why would you assume it's the result of weirdness and not the different things the two are measuring? Both seem positive as well...

    The drop from 8%+ to 7.8% is the result of comparing two time periods of the same study.
    Household survey is considered to be less accurate than the NFP number. Additionally, the new jobs that were added were mostly bad (part time or government).

    The fact is that the NFP increase is lower than population growth.

    The reason the markets didn't respond enthusiastically to the report is that they mostly care about the NFP.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-10-05 at 07:06 PM.

  20. #9740
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    If you count all jobs filled as new jobs, you'd be counting all promotions and their fill in, as 2 new jobs. Even though only one new person got hired. The NFP and Household survey differ, because they messure two different things.

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 07:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Household survey is considered to be less accurate than the NFP number. Additionally, the new jobs that were added were mostly bad (part time or government).

    The fact is that the NFP increase is lower than population growth.
    At least we can stop with numbers being wierd crap? I agree, these numbers should be better than they are. Am glad we are heading in a positive direction...

    Anyone else want to explain why the job increase in these numbers should be scrutinize now that they appear to be getting better?
    Last edited by Felya; 2012-10-05 at 07:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •