The end of capitalism as we know it?

And we are still left with these facts:

etween 2000 and 2001, poverty rose to 11.7% of the population, or 32.9 million people, up from 11.3% and 31.6 million.

23.3 million people sought and received emergency hunger relief from our network of charities in 2001.

Soldiers executing POWs.

POWs held for years without charge.

Using 75% of the world's oil production.

Average unemployment rates in the past year have risen: in 2001, the rate was 4.8%, but jumped to 5.7% in 2002.

In the last decade, the average US household consumer debt (non-mortgage) has increased from approximately $8,500 to$14,500. (Federal Reserve Statistical Releases and U.S. Census Bureau)

According to the Federal Reserve, outstanding non-secured consumer debt rose from $355 billion in 1980 to$1.2 trillion in 1996 to $1.65 trillion in 2001 and is expected to exceed$2.2 trillion by 2004.
Thus far, your ad hominems have changed nothing. Congratulations! :)

Government statistics on poverty in the U.S. are absolutely meaningless. Our "underground economy" is HUGE. Many self-employed people in this country report only a very small portion of their actual income. The international underground drug trade is so large that at times it affects the fed's ability to regulate the economy! We have millionaires in this country who are listed as living in poverty. Money laundering in this country is big business. You don't live here so you don't know. The statistics are hogwash. I'm telling you that there is so much money flying around right now that making money in business is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ah, okay, I see how it works. Statistics which go against whatever you say at any given time are unreliable, regardless of the source. However, statistics which support whatever you say at any given time are reliable. Got it. Thanks for clearning that up.

Ah, okay, I see how it works. Statistics which go against whatever you say at any given time are unreliable, regardless of the source. However, statistics which support whatever you say at any given time are reliable. Got it. Thanks for clearning that up.
No, this is how it works:
Don't believe what you see with you own eyes, believe what the government tells you.

Good grief. We need some sort of test for membership. Seriously.

Did you see the new employment figures that were released today? Normally 6% unemployment is considered to be "full employment". We are now at 5.6%. That means we are 100.4% employed (you gotta love the government's logic).

Good grief. We need some sort of test for membership. Seriously.
I heard that this is in the works. The rumors are that the test is going to be based on reading comprehension and statistics. We are all going to miss you.
Best of luck,
hughes

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
You do know that the definition of unemployment was changed a few years ago, to make the numbers less scary. The people who weren't actively looking for jobs, who had been counted as unemployed before, were now dropped. So to compare, I've seen 5.5% unemployment under the new system equated to 7% under the old one. As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.

As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.
No matter how good things get, some people will be in between jobs, some people enjoy being laid off in the winter to get some time in Florida, and some people are unemployable for various reasons. To say that nobody believes this is certainly incorrect.

Last edited:
kat
Others are employed "under the table" and yet reporting unemployed for various reasons.

Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.

Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.
Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
hughes johnson said:
Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".
Quite so. But the fact that different opinions can be posted does not mean that all of them are correct. And your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.

russ_watters
Mentor
You do know that the definition of unemployment was changed a few years ago, to make the numbers less scary. The people who weren't actively looking for jobs, who had been counted as unemployed before, were now dropped. So to compare, I've seen 5.5% unemployment under the new system equated to 7% under the old one. As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.
I've never heard that before. Do you have a source?
Quite so. But the fact that different opinions can be posted does not mean that all of them are correct. And your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
Speaking of selective - Adam's one year data from three years ago is about the very definition of selctive. I don't think its denial though...

russ_watters
Mentor
Dissident Dan said:
That link does not adjust for inflation.
Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.

...your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
My views have no effect on the situation. I am unable to find help. There is a labor shortage. Is this somehow difficult for you to understand? What is it that you don't get? Are the numbers confusing to you? Do you know what a labor shortage is? Do you have some agenda that is clouding your perception of the facts? Do you know what supply and demand means? I can't imagine why you are having such difficulty with this. Is there something that I can do to help you understand better?

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Hah, you are unable to find help and I am unable to find a job! Maybe we should get together, except I wouldn't want to work for you and you wouldn't hire me on a bet.

russ_watters said:
Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.
Oops. Thanks for the correction. It shows a downturn from 2000-2001. Of course, I can't say what the causes are.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a thread about the president's handling of the economy.

I'm very interested in the idea of getting automation to the point at which people have to very little work.

russ_watters
Mentor
Dissident Dan said:
Oops. Thanks for the correction. It shows a downturn from 2000-2001. Of course, I can't say what the causes are.
Yes, there was a recession at about that time, a corresponding rise in unemployment and therefore a corresponding drop in income levels. Generally, every recession has such a drop (or at least a leveling off).

The difference in the 2000-2001 recession was 9/11 hitting just as the recovery was starting . That ended up severely slowing the recovery and led to the "jobless recovery" we hear so much about. But that's over now: unemployment was 5.6% in April, the 8th straigh month it decreased.

hughes johnson: You may have mentioned it earlier, and if I've missed it my apologies. But what kind of business are you in, I'm just curious?