NationStates Jolt Archive

The good news is oil prices today are down at 82$ I just drove past a gas station that I intend to stop at tomorrow as I need it. The price was below 3$. This was not a discount location but a BP (The one I prefer because they get very little of their oil from the Middle East). Along with that gold went up $34 so maybe those weird British guys on tv are right. The bad news is that the stock market and economy as a whole are F#CKED! So how do you see this news? Is the fact that oil and gas prices are going down helping to ease your tensions at this time? Personally I'm still terrified, but happy I can fill my tank for less. So long as I still have a job to buy the gas I'll be happy.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. We'll be lulled into a false sense of security and, just when we expect it least, the price of gas will skyrocket to untold heights. I have no faith that this will continue.

Oils and stuffs will be very cheap. Probably less than a dollar a gallons. So that is good news.

The bad news is that you still won't be able to afford it.

Of course it will continue. More people with less money means more people driving less which means less people buying gas which means lower gas prices.

Prices will keep going down because people will not be able to afford gas at any price.

I ride my bike around most of the time right now, so I don't give a shit how expensive oil is.

Of course it will continue. More people with less money means more people driving less which means less people buying gas which means lower gas prices.

Prices will keep going down because people will not be able to afford gas at any price.

And they won't have jobs to drive to. :p

Can anyone here hook me up with Nanatsu so I can investigate this further? :tongue:

But a very sudden drop is not good. :rolleyes:

And they won't have jobs to drive to. :p

So it's win win.

We're fucked four ways to Sunday.

sorry, but not having been successfully conned into equating a mode of transportation most people have to indenture themselves to in order to enjoy and binnifit from; with "freedom", i fail to see anything "good" about then "news" of the price of crude, fixed by the robber barons of today's world, and i don't mean the ones wearing turbans and abbas either, going down. far from it.

the sooner private automobiles, propelled by burning anything, become no longer practical for the vast majority who are currently economically coerced into indenturing themselves to them, the better for nature's cycles of renewal, and everything our own survival as a species depends upon from them.

and the sooner too, will develop the neccessary base of popular support for REAL environmentally friendly alternatives.

Can anyone here hook me up with Nanatsu so I can investigate this further? :tongue:

She's already hooked up. :D

She's already hooked up. :D

Then the economy is doomed! :eek2:

Then the economy is doomed! :eek2:

Perhaps, but I'm going to enjoy the good times while they last.

No such luck in Australia, any fall in world oil prices is cancelled out by our dollar getting absolutely hammered.

No such luck in Australia, any fall in world oil prices is cancelled out by our dollar getting absolutely hammered.

They just don't want to change the oil price here in NZ because they want to make as much profit as they can before they have to change it.

Though the fall in oil prices is a short term effect, the prices will return to their highs because people are still worried about the oil running out regardless.

No such luck in Australia, any fall in world oil prices is cancelled out by our dollar getting absolutely hammered.

I was going to say something comforting, but yeesh, 20% slip vs. ¥? Ouch. That's gotta be temporary, unless Australia has some sort of structural economic problem I haven't heard about.

While I cannot agree on the Oil Prices, I will agree that Nanatsu is Smexy. :p

No, I like the lower prices, but it won't help the economy very much...

I was going to say something comforting, but yeesh, 20% slip vs. ¥? Ouch. That's gotta be temporary, unless Australia has some sort of structural economic problem I haven't heard about.
It's a commodity currency, a very big chunk of our exports comes in the form of coal, various ores, uranium and so on. The Chinese (and Japanese) demand for those kept them buying Aussie dollars, which pushed ours higher and higher.

There are two scenarios from here: either the global downturn is somewhat moderate, or the Chinese growth program will require lots of commodities that go some way to replace those not used anymore for exports to the US, in which case it might stabilise in the 70c vs US dollar range.

Or we go into a long, drawn-out recession and the Chinese demand for our dirt drops significantly and for some time. In that case, think more 50c vs US dollar.

But right now you also have to keep in mind that the carry trade is unwinding. The Aussie dollar was a high-interest currency, and a lot of people were borrowing in Japan at low rates and investing it here at high rates. With people's appetite for risk drying up and everyone wanting their money close, they've been unwinding that. And finally, against the US dollar you've got the issue of a shortage of the stuff in the local region. The RBA has a swap agreement with the Fed, but for local investors who need US dollars there's still no way around paying high prices for them.

I wasn't afraid so no. Although if gas prices ever actually go down here that would be nice.

Actually, lower gas prices should lower the cost of other items (food for example) as transportation costs are lower.

Actually, lower gas prices should lower the cost of other items (food for example) as transportation costs are lower.
http://media.economist.com/images/20081011/CSR830.gif

It does. Haitians might be cautiously happy.

We're all going to die. You might as well sit back and watch everything fall apart.

We´re talking about something serious, ppl! FOCUS! I know I´m a sexy beyotch, but come on...


:$

We´re talking about something serious, ppl! FOCUS! I know I´m a sexy beyotch, but come on...


:$

:hail::hail::hail:

http://media.economist.com/images/20081011/CSR830.gif

It does. Haitians might be cautiously happy.

Wow, that really illustrates the commodities bubble quite well...I mean, that graph's structure looks almost identical to the NASDAQ in 1998-2000, even disturbingly so. I could literally place them one over the other and get a very similar structure.

Quite cool, in an eerie sort of way.

Can anyone here hook me up with Nanatsu so I can investigate this further? :tongue:

But a very sudden drop is not good. :rolleyes:

I'll check if she's taking applications.

We´re talking about something serious, ppl! FOCUS! I know I´m a sexy beyotch, but come on...


:$

No my love. You see the topic of oil prices was nothing but a clever ruse to talk about you. I'm happy I just got a new job and more cheese. Now I just need to increase sales while reducing labor (how I got this new job). I've managed to increase sales 22% while reducing labor 12%. All this means more money for my company and for me. While my 401k and my Roth IRA are taking a hit, my bottom line is looking good. Fuel prices go down and that will reduce the cost of my commute, as well as my product ordering due to decreased shipping costs. Fuel prices have a far reaching affect beyond the cost to fill your tank. The more fuel prices go down the better my ROI.

I'll check if she's taking applications.

I can tell you, right now, I ain´t taking any applications. :tongue:

It's a commodity currency, a very big chunk of our exports comes in the form of coal, various ores, uranium and so on. The Chinese (and Japanese) demand for those kept them buying Aussie dollars, which pushed ours higher and higher.

There are two scenarios from here: either the global downturn is somewhat moderate, or the Chinese growth program will require lots of commodities that go some way to replace those not used anymore for exports to the US, in which case it might stabilise in the 70c vs US dollar range.

Or we go into a long, drawn-out recession and the Chinese demand for our dirt drops significantly and for some time. In that case, think more 50c vs US dollar.

But right now you also have to keep in mind that the carry trade is unwinding. The Aussie dollar was a high-interest currency, and a lot of people were borrowing in Japan at low rates and investing it here at high rates. With people's appetite for risk drying up and everyone wanting their money close, they've been unwinding that. And finally, against the US dollar you've got the issue of a shortage of the stuff in the local region. The RBA has a swap agreement with the Fed, but for local investors who need US dollars there's still no way around paying high prices for them.

That makes sense. Even in a long recession I'd still rather be in the position of exporting gold, coal, & uranium rather than the US's major non-subsidized exports of, um, Management Skills and Brand Identity.

Big wooopdeeedooo.....

Gas is down, but the markets are down. There is a ton of unemployment, people are still loseing their homes.

I am tired of people saying this is a recession, when it's clear out denial that were heading for the D-word. Depression. But that's an evil word in the minds of all polticans and economists and they refuse to say it.

nothing will change, its a big clusterf**k that will take a long time to get out of

nothing will change, its a big clusterf**k that will take a long time to get out of

Agreed....

A lot of sour faces in the US and all over. And I am beginning to think it's not going to make a bit of diffrence who wins the election. One half of the nation will be with pitchforks if the other doesn't win.

I am tired of people saying this is a recession, when it's clear out denial that were heading for the D-word. Depression. But that's an evil word in the minds of all polticans and economists and they refuse to say it.
The difference is that we now have a bunch of things we didn't have in the Depression.

1) A clue. Back then they had no idea how an economy worked. Importantly, they raised interest rates in order to encourage people to put money into deposits, which of course only resulted in cutting off funds for investment. And because of high inflation earlier in the 20s, they thought they were due for a bit of deflation, which promptly came and nobody did anything about it for a decade.

2) Deposit Insurance. Banks failed in their thousands when the Depression started, and when they did, back then you lost everything. There was no FDIC, that money was simply lost. And that was a lot of people's grocery money.

3) Fiscal Policy. The idea back then was that the best way to help the economy was to run a government surplus. So they cut government spending wherever possible, resulting not just in a drop in investment (due to high interest rates) and consumption (people losing their jobs and deposits) but also government spending.

4) Free Trade. The final nail in the coffin was politicians signing the Smoot-Hawley Act, which put massive tariffs on imports. Other countries had no choice but to react with similar measures, and world trade fell significantly.

So all in all, given that GDP is made up of Y = C + I + G + NX, the government basically did everything it could to make the impact of the crisis worse. We understand that today, and even an extraordinarily bad crisis like this won't lead to the same outcome as the Great Depression.

The difference is that we now have a bunch of things we didn't have in the Depression.

1) A clue. Back then they had no idea how an economy worked. Importantly, they raised interest rates in order to encourage people to put money into deposits, which of course only resulted in cutting off funds for investment. And because of high inflation earlier in the 20s, they thought they were due for a bit of deflation, which promptly came and nobody did anything about it for a decade.

Wrong. We have a delusion that we understand the mechanisms that drive the economy, but we know almost as little about this as we do about dark matter. i.e that it might exist and not much more. In the 1920s people thought as you do now, that they understood how the economy worked. Try learning from history, instead of from some unsubstantiated collection of theory based on the untested and unverified principle of zero arbitrage.

2) Deposit Insurance. Banks failed in their thousands when the Depression started, and when they did, back then you lost everything. There was no FDIC, that money was simply lost. And that was a lot of people's grocery money.
And where does the money that insures the deposits come from? Besides which, it is not deposits (debits) that are the problem now, it is credit. Deposit insurance has no effect on this.

3) Fiscal Policy. The idea back then was that the best way to help the economy was to run a government surplus. So they cut government spending wherever possible, resulting not just in a drop in investment (due to high interest rates) and consumption (people losing their jobs and deposits) but also government spending.
And they have a better idea now? Yes - lets solve the credit problem - you know - the one caused by overextending credit, by the magical trick of creating more credit. The idea being to restore confidence in a system that is rotten to the core. Not the most brilliant plan I have ever heard of.

4) Free Trade. The final nail in the coffin was politicians signing the Smoot-Hawley Act, which put massive tariffs on imports. Other countries had no choice but to react with similar measures, and world trade fell significantly.
What planet do you live on if you really believe that there is free trade in international trade. Try selling cotton or orange juice to the USA and you will see just how free trade really is - or sugar or bananas to the EU.

So all in all, given that GDP is made up of Y = C + I + G + NX, the government basically did everything it could to make the impact of the crisis worse. We understand that today, and even an extraordinarily bad crisis like this won't lead to the same outcome as the Great Depression.

We understand nothing it seems. The economic system has, since at least 1000 AD gone through repeated cycles of growth and depression, and it will continue to do so while it depends on rolling credit for as long as it is possible to do so before confidence fails. Confidence has just failed. The credit doesn't roll any more - the result is an economic winter (or depression if you want to be euphemistic). Welcome to reality.

We understand nothing it seems. The economic system has, since at least 1000 AD gone through repeated cycles of growth and depression, and it will continue to do so while it depends on rolling credit for as long as it is possible to do so before confidence fails. Confidence has just failed. The credit doesn't roll any more - the result is an economic winter (or depression if you want to be euphemistic). Welcome to reality.

Nonsense, Commie. Capitalism is made of magic fluffy bunnies which, when unregulated, give off special anti-recession waves that prevent slumps. Clearly, whats happened here is that over many years the system has been infected by a destructive virus called regulation which has decimated the magical bunny population and thus destabilised the economy. In short, regulation is economic myxomatosis.

Nonsense, Commie. Capitalism is made of magic fluffy bunnies which, when unregulated, give off special anti-recession waves that prevent slumps. Clearly, whats happened here is that over many years the system has been infected by a destructive virus called regulation which has decimated the magical bunny population and thus destabilised the economy. In short, regulation is economic myxomatosis.

On the other hand it could be this. :rolleyes:

Wrong. We have a delusion that we understand the mechanisms that drive the economy, but we know almost as little about this as we do about dark matter. i.e that it might exist and not much more. In the 1920s people thought as you do now, that they understood how the economy worked.
And you base this on?

Try learning from history, instead of from some unsubstantiated collection of theory based on the untested and unverified principle of zero arbitrage.
Interesting that you would choose arbitrage, given that it's one of the most obvious cases of market mechanisms at work.

Not that it has a whole lot to do with macroeconomics, mind you.

And where does the money that insures the deposits come from? Besides which, it is not deposits (debits) that are the problem now, it is credit. Deposit insurance has no effect on this.
There are two ways in which the financial crisis will go into the real economy. In the Great Depression, one extremely big factor was banks failing and people losing their savings. At this point no one has suffered this fate yet, despite some very big banks going bust. Saying that deposit insurance has no effect here is just plain wrong.

Credit is the other path for the trouble to spread, but alone isn't enough to cause anything like the Great Depression. Fact of the matter is that wrong government policy over years was necessary to keep the economy down, even after a shock as big as the market crash and bank failures.

And they have a better idea now? Yes - lets solve the credit problem - you know - the one caused by overextending credit, by the magical trick of creating more credit. The idea being to restore confidence in a system that is rotten to the core. Not the most brilliant plan I have ever heard of.
Why would you accuse me of not learning from history, and then say that?

When consumer spending drops away, government spending can make up for it, if it goes to the right places. Tax cuts won't do it right now, but infrastructure investments have to be part of the plan. That's classic Keynes, which they didn't have during the Depression.

People will take care of their deleveraging by themselves, rest assured.

What planet do you live on if you really believe that there is free trade in international trade. Try selling cotton or orange juice to the USA and you will see just how free trade really is - or sugar or bananas to the EU.
You don't credit me with much, do you. Obviously trade isn't properly free. But it exists, and on the things that actually make a difference to developed countries, tariffs are either very low or eliminated entirely, and the same is broadly true for most other trade barriers. The Smoot-Hawley Act meanwhile imposed an across the board set of import barriers, motivated by the belief that this would somehow prevent American unemployment from rising. Instead it caused the opposite, which is what we now know and therefore are much less likely to repeat.

We understand nothing it seems. The economic system has, since at least 1000 AD gone through repeated cycles of growth and depression, and it will continue to do so while it depends on rolling credit for as long as it is possible to do so before confidence fails. Confidence has just failed. The credit doesn't roll any more - the result is an economic winter (or depression if you want to be euphemistic). Welcome to reality.
Maybe we should bet on it. You say US unemployment will reach 25%, I say it won't.

Deal?

And you base this on?
The simple fact that we don't agree amongst ourselves how the economy works and that we have no possibility of carrying out tests to determine which of the competing theories holds under controlled stressed circumstances. ie. We think we know a lot, but we have absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Economics is a great descriptive art, but science it is not.


Interesting that you would choose arbitrage, given that it's one of the most obvious cases of market mechanisms at work.
Which is of course exactly why I chose it. The mechanisms it is supposed to reflect are exactly those mechanisms that I am challenging our understanding of. Arbitrage, in the real world fails regularly (otherwise most investment banks would never have made any money at all, would they now), but economic theories choose to ignore this and treat arbitrage as perfect. A strange combination methinks.

Not that it has a whole lot to do with macroeconomics, mind you.
You can not separate economics that way, and in your heart you know it, despite all the BS you have been taught.

(Oh and by the way I am currently working as a market risk systems specialist in a large financial institution here in Brazil - and Brazil is doing pretty well in the current crisis)


There are two ways in which the financial crisis will go into the real economy. In the Great Depression, one extremely big factor was banks failing and people losing their savings. At this point no one has suffered this fate yet, despite some very big banks going bust. Saying that deposit insurance has no effect here is just plain wrong.
Deposit insurance would have had an effect in the "Great Depression" but is, as you recognise, irrelevant to the current crisis. So my claim that it has no effect now, is not wrong in any way. I do notice however, that you don't address the issue I raised of the source of the funds to settle these insurance claims. Print money?

Credit is the other path for the trouble to spread, but alone isn't enough to cause anything like the Great Depression. Fact of the matter is that wrong government policy over years was necessary to keep the economy down, even after a shock as big as the market crash and bank failures.
If you think that a complete credit freeze, which is what I see happening in the relative short term, will not cause anything like the Great Depression in the USA where the economy is 100% dependent on credit, then that is where we disagree. The disagreement could be over the credit freeze occurring or over the effects of this.


Why would you accuse me of not learning from history, and then say that?
Because that is exactly the policy that was imposed on the Latin American countries, resulting in hyper inflation and economic meltdown. Try looking at history in a broader than just the first world context. This time the US will not have a fall guy to take the punishment for it.

When consumer spending drops away, government spending can make up for it, if it goes to the right places. Tax cuts won't do it right now, but infrastructure investments have to be part of the plan. That's classic Keynes, which they didn't have during the Depression.
And which is just theory, and one that does not deal with inflation at that.

People will take care of their deleveraging by themselves, rest assured.
Yes they will, they will have to. And that is the cause of the Depression, a necessary evil however.


You don't credit me with much, do you. Obviously trade isn't properly free. But it exists, and on the things that actually make a difference to developed countries, tariffs are either very low or eliminated entirely, and the same is broadly true for most other trade barriers. The Smoot-Hawley Act meanwhile imposed an across the board set of import barriers, motivated by the belief that this would somehow prevent American unemployment from rising. Instead it caused the opposite, which is what we now know and therefore are much less likely to repeat.
I'll credit you with things when you demonstrate that you are aware of them. You still seem to think that there is something approaching free trade in the developed world. The only circumstances where there is anything that could even be remotely described as a rough approximation to the idea of free trade is internal trade in the EU. Everything else has barriers of some kind.


Maybe we should bet on it. You say US unemployment will reach 25%, I say it won't.

Deal?

What measure of unemployment do you propose to use for this bet? The US does not publish unemployment figures, they only publish the quantity of new claimants. Something to hide perhaps?

The simple fact that we don't agree amongst ourselves how the economy works and that we have no possibility of carrying out tests to determine which of the competing theories holds under controlled stressed circumstances. ie. We think we know a lot, but we have absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Economics is a great descriptive art, but science it is not.
Even if what you said were true, we have a good knowledge of what doesn't work. More advanced financial instruments notwithstanding, this situation is similar to the one following the share market crash in '29. We know how they reacted then, we have a lot of research into what these reactions caused. If nothing else, we'll be able not to make the same mistakes they made. And given that there are only few alternatives in the way of general policy directions (spend vs save, interest up vs down, etc), it's just extremely unlikely that we won't be able to react much better this time.

Which is of course exactly why I chose it. The mechanisms it is supposed to reflect are exactly those mechanisms that I am challenging our understanding of. Arbitrage, in the real world fails regularly (otherwise most investment banks would never have made any money at all, would they now), but economic theories choose to ignore this and treat arbitrage as perfect. A strange combination methinks.
The thing hedge funds and the like do in arbitrage markets is what economics describes would happen if such an opportunity exists. It's the perfect illustration that economics is correct when describing arbitrage.

That larger theories then assume that this process occurs all the time is an understandable simplification, given the short timeframes in which arbitrage opportunities disappear again.

You can not separate economics that way, and in your heart you know it, despite all the BS you have been taught.
Oh, if only I hadn't been taught anything! The lamentable quest for knowledge brought me down once more. Much better then to trust whatever pick-and-choose historicism tells me.

The point is that regardless of whether tiny arbitrage opportunities exist for funds to make money out of, provided they can mobilise large enough sums, a macroeconomic model will still say the same thing. The difference would be if economics somehow didn't take note of the processes that eliminate arbitrage and was actually wrong in terms of the behavioural inputs. It isn't, so your point is moot.

Deposit insurance would have had an effect in the "Great Depression" but is, as you recognise, irrelevant to the current crisis. So my claim that it has no effect now, is not wrong in any way.
It's not irrelevant at all, and I didn't recognise anything of the sort. I noted that no one had lost their savings in deposits yet, but that's due to the FDIC. If there is a crisis of confidence and people are likely to lose their savings if their bank goes bust, that's very clearly a major factor in a situation like the one we have now. So not only does the FDIC discourage bank runs and prevent some banks from failing, but if one fails, the people don't lose their money. That's two ways in which the institution significantly affects the way these things work out.

I do notice however, that you don't address the issue I raised of the source of the funds to settle these insurance claims. Print money?
So far the FDIC has wound down at least two retail banks without spending a penny. But should they have to spend some, the first source will be the premia paid by the FDIC's customers, ie the banks. That's stocked up with money from the treasury, which is likely to be borrowed rather than printed.

If you think that a complete credit freeze, which is what I see happening in the relative short term, will not cause anything like the Great Depression in the USA where the economy is 100% dependent on credit, then that is where we disagree. The disagreement could be over the credit freeze occurring or over the effects of this.
I'd say it's over both. A complete freeze is wildly pessimistic (optimistic? - sometimes it's hard to tell the motivations of people) on your part, and since people do in fact have jobs and do in fact have some equity, many will be able to tick over.

The point is that a credit crunch like this is a short-term shock. A few firms will go bust, others will cut back their investment. Those effects linger on for a while and will likely produce a recession that lasts perhaps as long as Obama's term, getting better as time progresses. But that's not a depression - that would require unemployment to shoot up to levels not seen since last time, and staying there for a decade. That sort of 'no hope'-scenario is not possible without the government making the sort of mistakes it made in the thirties, which I'm saying it is unlikely to do.

Because that is exactly the policy that was imposed on the Latin American countries, resulting in hyper inflation and economic meltdown. Try looking at history in a broader than just the first world context. This time the US will not have a fall guy to take the punishment for it.
You're ranting about something else.

South American countries used the printing presses to finance their spending, not just once, but continuously. That's hardly going to happen in the US. Even if it did, and the only way that would happen would be if people stopped taking their government bonds, at this point we're staring down the barrel of deflation, and printing a bit of cash might actually be just what the doctor ordered.

And which is just theory, and one that does not deal with inflation at that.
It's not just one theory, it's all the theories. Even the Austrians acknowledge this relationship, even if they think the government can't possibly get the timing right.

Neo-Keynesianism and the general macroeconomic synthesis do account for inflation as well, and it doesn't change the policy prescription in a recession. And if it's as threatening as this one, with deflation a real possibility, then causing rising price levels as a secondary effect is not exactly a chief concern.

Yes they will, they will have to. And that is the cause of the Depression, a necessary evil however.
How do you define a depression?

I'll credit you with things when you demonstrate that you are aware of them. You still seem to think that there is something approaching free trade in the developed world. The only circumstances where there is anything that could even be remotely described as a rough approximation to the idea of free trade is internal trade in the EU. Everything else has barriers of some kind.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2007/07-05/03.htm/twp-07-05-003.gif
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2007/07-05/03.htm/twp-07-05-004.gif
http://www.freetrade.org/images/image1.gif

Okay, I'll restate my point, even though I think you actually know exactly what I was saying and are just being intentionally difficult. Are we, or are we not going to see a repeat of this big spike in trade barriers leading to an ongoing reduction in the volume of global trade?

What measure of unemployment do you propose to use for this bet? The US does not publish unemployment figures, they only publish the quantity of new claimants. Something to hide perhaps?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Hmmm, I guess they don't have anything to hide. So there we go, I say it won't reach the levels we saw during the Depression, and I also don't think it will stay high (ie 10%+) for anything near as long. If you think either of these will happen, say so and we can let reality sort it out.

I don't drive. I did, however, get a ~$20,000 inheritance from Grandpa Ben (he died at the age of 91) a couple years ago, which went into mutual funds. They were worth around $27,000 until the economy used a Mimic Tarhiel (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Tarhiel) spell.

I can tell you, right now, I ain´t taking any applications. :tongue:

Right, so same time same place tomorrow? I believe our appointment is in between 1 and sweet salvation.

*snip*

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Hmmm, I guess they don't have anything to hide. So there we go, I say it won't reach the levels we saw during the Depression, and I also don't think it will stay high (ie 10%+) for anything near as long. If you think either of these will happen, say so and we can let reality sort it out.

I guess we fundamentally disagree. I simply do not buy the commonly sold idea that you can spend yourself out of a depression. But I have neither the time, nor the inclination at the moment, to debate this. Maybe another time.

However I do wish to draw your attention to the following which is carefully hidden in the analysis of the "unemployment figures" from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) -

They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Now who has what to hide? 6.1 % of US 'Civilian labor force' are unemployed counting only those that are actively seeking work. (Oh and 9.5 million is 6.1% while 1.4% is 2.2 million ??? - time to get out a calculator methinks)

Now who has what to hide? 6.1 % of US 'Civilian labor force' are unemployed counting only those that are actively seeking work.
That's how unemployment figures work though in every country. That's because people who don't have a job and don't seek one aren't counted as part of the labour force, and short of asking every one of them, I don't know how you could weed early retirees, housewives and -husbands and so on out.

It's worthwhile to keep an eye out on labour force as a proportion of population, but that's about as far as you can go.

Right, so same time same place tomorrow? I believe our appointment is in between 1 and sweet salvation.

Amen brother Liuzzo, amen.:D