07-03-2005 22:19									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Hurray. Although, most demographers think that population growth adds about 150,000 to the working age group every month.

february saw: 251,000 new jobs created, and 97,000 jobs taken away. thats a net gaing of 153,000 jobs. so the real number of jobs created was 153,000. of the 150,000 people going into the labor, if you say that every month 150,000 people join the working age population, then 2/3rd of them would join the labor force, so thats 100,000 new people in the labor force, so unemployment went down by 50,000

is this correct, or have i double subtracted?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

	07-03-2005 22:49									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

And don't forget immigration either...

	07-03-2005 22:56									#123
	Increase Your PM Length

You have double subtracted

Population growth include immigration

	07-03-2005 23:01									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Gian, quit being a complete moron, presidents have very little effect on the economy, the crap in the 70's was because of OPEC and Iran.

	07-03-2005 23:04									#125
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Odin Gian, quit being a complete moron, presidents have very little effect on the economy, the crap in the 70's was because of OPEC and Iran.

I never said Presidents had much of an effect on an economy, but they at least steer where it goes with policy. And now there, don't insult people.

I love how you leftists have managed to take good news as bad. Is that what you guys do for a living? Wait.. those are lawyers.. never mind.

	07-03-2005 23:08									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia oerdins right, reagan was a crook and he put our economy in the shitter and he did nothing to stop communism and his only lasting legacy is the huge debt.

The Soviets were in economic trouble since the 1970's. Sure, Reagan's arms race hurried things along but the Soviets were a sinking ship with or without Reagan. Also Reagan's debt was the reason Bush Sr had to control spending and raise taxes which is the direct cause of the 1991 downturn. The one good thing Reagan did do economically was end the stagflation of the late 70's by jacking up interest rates.

Of course that tanked our economy along with much of latin America in the early 80's but it did stop the inflation.

	07-03-2005 23:13									#127
	Tired of ads?

Oerdin, no. The economy works in cycles, and after a period of expansion there is usually a slow-down or recession. That's why the 1991 recession occurred. Additionally, in the mid to later 80s there was large economic expansion.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

"Fable 8: Bush and Clinton Inherited a Future of High and Rising Deficits from Reagan

The supply-side turkey has come home to roost. [41]

It is a popular misconception that Presidents Bush and Clinton inherited large deficits "baked in the cake" from Reagan policies. When Reagan left the White House in January 1989, the fiscal outlook was expected to continue to improve rather than worsen. In that month, the CBO released its long-term forecast for the economy and the budget deficit.

Table 7 shows that the deficit was expected to continue to fall steadily to $110 billion and 1.5 percent of GDP by 1995.[42]These forecasts reflected in large part a continuation of the modest fiscal progress achieved during Reagan's second term. The CBO concluded that continued deficit reduction would occur even if Bush were to do nothing to improve the budget outlook and simply left fiscal policy on automatic pilot. In reality, the national debt was $622 billion higher than anticipated and as a share of GDP, the budget deficits were nearly 2 percentage points higher. Measured in real dollars, the 1990-94 period showed the worst five-year deficit performance in the post-World War II era. [43]"

	08-03-2005 00:23									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: You have double subtracted

so using the numbers i provided, do the correct math so i can see where i went wrong.

	08-03-2005 00:25									#129
	Remove this text

fez, from that same report

quote: National Debt. The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7. In the 1990s the debt has risen to 52 percent of GDP. The rise in the national debt in the 1980s was large and has imposed significant repayment costs on future generations.

from that same report, regans team forcasted a $700 billion loss of revenue due to the tax cuts. why didnt he cut spending? instead he increased the military budget by 44%, so when he was reducing intake, he was increasing outflow. irresponsibility. defense spending doesnt increase 44% because of an accident.

theres two ways of looking at it: a) too much spending causes debts, or b) not enough revenue causes debt.

reagan coulda done 4 things

1. keep taxes and military spending at levels before
2. decrease taxes and military spending
3. decrease taxes and increase military spending
4. increase taxes and increase military spending.

its all at how you look at it. cato says that it was increased spending, not decreased revenue that caused the deficit. like any sane person, i believe that debt is primairly caused when revenues decrease and spending either stays the same or increases. thats what reagan did.

in fact, reagans deficits worked against the anti-inflationary measures of the fed, prolonging the recession. it follows that once inflation is over with, the economy will pick up again. therefore, it was Volcker, not the tax cuts, that stimulated the economy.

heres another problem i have with the cato report

quote: Fable 5: Clinton's Economic Record Has Outperformed Reagan's Our economy is the soundest it's been in a generation.[38] The growth rate under Clinton has been 2.7 percent, half a percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983-89 expansion. Standard government forecasts predict a 2-2.5 percent growth rate through the end of the decade. Yet, if even the high end of that forecast proves to be accurate, the 1990s will be the lowest economic growth decade since the Great Depression and the second lowest in the 20th century.

what about productivty growht? 1981 - 1988 was 1.9%. thats an economic trend rate of 5.1% for reagan. 1993 - 1999 had 2.5% productivity gains, and averaged 3.8% gdp growth. thats an economic trend rate of 6.3%

	08-03-2005 00:36									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

CATO? they are a bunch of libertarian nut-jobs.

	08-03-2005 00:56									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Odin CATO? they are a bunch of libertarian nut-jobs.

They certainly have an agenda when it comes to economic policy, but they are for the end of the "war on drugs", so they aren't complete nut jobs... if they weren't evil right-wingers, they'd be all right.

	08-03-2005 01:52									#132
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: february saw: 251,000 new jobs created

262,000 jobs for February is the net number. Jobs were created and destroyed, and the result of that is +262,000.

	08-03-2005 03:04									#133
	Remove this text

Seasonally Adjusted

Unemployment Rate:
History 5.4% in Feb 2005

Change in Unemployment Level:
History +251,000 in Feb 2005

Change in Employment Level:
History -97,000 in Feb 2005

Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
History +153,000 in Feb 2005

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate:
History 65.8% in Feb 2005

Employment-Population Ratio:
History 62.3% in Feb 2005

Annual Averages

Unemployment Rate:
History 5.5% for 2004

Unemployment Level:
History 8,149,000 for 2004

	08-03-2005 03:10									#134
	Increase Your PM Length

dp

	08-03-2005 03:10									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Lawrence, you criticize a report yet you haven't really pointed out any problems. You have speculated on your own biases, but that's about it.

"in fact, reagans deficits worked against the anti-inflationary measures of the fed, prolonging the recession."

No it didn't. In fact the tax cuts though temporarily increasing deficits, helped shorten the recession. I love how you like to be a historical revisionist!

	08-03-2005 03:15									#136
	Put an end to popups!

quote: "in fact, reagans deficits worked against the anti-inflationary measures of the fed, prolonging the recession."

i love how that line comes directly from the report

	08-03-2005 03:17									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It didn't prolong the recession though. Additionally, these were more medium and long term steps. In the short term, it burns. Like in Argentina, steps that need to be taken may cause the economy to decline.. but these are steps they have to take for necessary, stable reform. The difference between me and you Lawrence, is I think about the medium and long terms... while you only think short term. Thus rendering your beliefs useless and unstable.

	08-03-2005 04:47									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: It didn't prolong the recession though.

economic theory says it does. if you want to discuss sociology, a field were everyone talks about their feelings and doesnt use any real models, then go ahead. but im talkin economics, and model explains very clearly that deficit govt spending: a) crowds out private enterprises, thus slowling down GDP and b) increases inflation, wiping out profits, thus slowing down GDP.

quote: Like in Argentina, steps that need to be taken may cause the economy to decline.. but these are steps they have to take for necessary, stable reform.

are you even familiar with the argentina problem? because if you are, you wouldnt have said that. argentina never took steps that caused the economy to decline in the short term. they only took steps that might cause the economy to decline in the long term.

you arnt thinking in any term, and you ignore half of my first post, so its obvious that youve lost.

	08-03-2005 04:50									#139
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia economic theory says it does. if you want to discuss sociology, a field were everyone talks about their feelings and doesnt use any real models, then go ahead. but im talkin economics, and model explains very clearly that deficit govt spending: a) crowds out private enterprises, thus slowling down GDP and b) increases inflation, wiping out profits, thus slowing down GDP. are you even familiar with the argentina problem? because if you are, you wouldnt have said that. argentina never took steps that caused the economy to decline in the short term. they only took steps that might cause the economy to decline in the long term. you arnt thinking in any term, and you ignore half of my first post, so its obvious that youve lost.

Economic theory does? Really?

Sometimes you can't take steps to get short-term growth because the situation was very bad and was sliding while you were there. Again I think you are not thinking about the medium or long terms. You have this inability about thinking of the future. Reagan's policies all in all led to a massive economic expansion.

You are just full of yourself. You aren't thinking in any reality. You are the one who lost.

Hopeless I say. You're a revisionist too.

	08-03-2005 05:02									#140
	Got spare money?

quote: Economic theory does? Really?

yep, it really does.

quote: Sometimes you can't take steps to get short-term growth because the situation was very bad and was sliding while you were there. Again I think you are not thinking about the medium or long terms. You have this inability about thinking of the future. Reagan's policies all in all led to a massive economic expansion.

oh right, because the economy under Bush I was soo much better. the only medium - longterm effect reagan had was a huge debt. reagans policies all in all bankrupted the country both morally and monetairly, slowed down economic recovery, as your source even says it does, and did not lead to economiic expansion. yeah, let me say it again. his tax cuts did not lead to economic expansion. and there is no direct evidence that it did.

your nose is so far up reagans ass you can see his empty brain

	08-03-2005 05:04									#141
	Suffering from ads?

I have said all I want. The long term effect of Reagan was an economic expansion of the 1990s. Reagan did not bankrupt the country either morally or monetarily. You are now speaking in emotional fallacies. Reagan had to push specific reforms that may have led to some downfall, but was good in the long term. It is like putting salt on wounds.. it may burn, but it'll heal.

You are the one with your nose up your own butt. I mean come on.. grow up dude. You aren't right about everything. And stop being a damn revisionist.

	08-03-2005 05:09									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: I have said all I want. The long term effect of Reagan was an economic expansion of the 1990s.

bull, the early 90s saw no such expansion - only after the republicans were gone did it expand again.

quote: Reagan had to push specific reforms that may have led to some downfall, but was good in the long term.

link?

quote: You are the one with your nose up your own butt. I mean come on.. grow up dude. You aren't right about everything. And stop being a damn revisionist.

theres nothing to be revised except to smash the personality cult that surrounds reagan and his lemming followers.

	08-03-2005 05:27									#143
	Remove this text

quote: The long term effect of Reagan was an economic expansion of the 1990s

<----- this smiley was made for fezcarlo

	08-03-2005 05:36									#144
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia bull, the early 90s saw no such expansion - only after the republicans were gone did it expand again.

It is called the economic cycle. After a period of economic expansion, you have a downturn.. it is natural. But you deny facts.

quote: theres nothing to be revised except to smash the personality cult that surrounds reagan and his lemming followers.

You cannot smash anything. All you do is smashing your own dignity.

	08-03-2005 05:37									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well...there goes another promising thread down the drain...

	08-03-2005 05:40									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

yeah, how long does it take these days until an economic thread turns into a Reaganfest?

	08-03-2005 05:48									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by pchang Your logic is entirely self serving. When the official unemployment number goes down, you rail (and rightly so) on its innacurracy because it doesn't count those who gave up on looking for work. On the other hand, when the REAL unemployment number goes down, you don't want to acknowledge the people who have given up looking for work but now change their minds and instead want to go on the official unemployment number. Frankly, I thought you would be better than this.

Your logic on the other hand, is theoretical.

Until you have interviewed every single one of these "people", and can get an exact number instead of just speculating on other peoples motives, then we'll talk.

Thanks.

	08-03-2005 05:52									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I just can't help it but the person in your avatar icon looks like me. I should just get my cheeks up a bit and get a look on my face like that dude. nose, eyes, shape, it's all the same.

I hope that's not you.

	08-03-2005 05:55									#149
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's teh glorious John Stewart!

	08-03-2005 05:58									#150
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

fine, who's John Stewart?