Before Biden spins the jobs numbers?

Todays jobs numbers are actually the opposite of good, they show what an overhang of the Revolution making trillions of new dollars we have. It is just one one more sign that the coming recession/depression will be very bad, outlooks from the pros have been getting darker over the last few months because the news keeps getting darker.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Presidents are sitting ducks- all of them. Good things happen on their watch, and bad things happen on their watch.

Unfortunately, a lot of the things that do happen on their watch, happens and those in power are going to get credit for the good things that just naturally happen, and the same goes for things that happen when negative things happen beyond their control- THEY GET THE BLAME FOR IT!

In this case, Trump's last year in office was mired with lay-offs and restaurants and other businesses going out of business- DIRECTLY CAUSED BY THE SHUTDOWN- NOT HIS FAULT!

And in Biden's case, during his first year in office, and while the nation was recovering from the Pandemic, naturally PEOPLE WENT BACK TO WORK- and so the new-hirings and New Jobs and employment numbers skyrocket faster than they have ever risen during any presidency before. NOT REALLY BECAUSE BIDEN MAGICALLY MADE THAT HAPPEN.

But if we are going to blame things on president's for things that happen beyond their control, we must give them credit for the good things that happen on their watch as well!

Trust me- it all evens out in the end.

Other wise we are all just pissing into an electric fan and getting ourselves all wet TO PLAY POLITICAL SPORTS!

Let's try to be better sports about this OK?
Click to expand...

Fair enough....well said.

For the record - I did not 'blame' anyone for the numbers.
I simply pointed out what they were.
And tried to head off the inevitable spin job that the present, POTUS followers would attempt to foister onto us.

Were I to blame anyone?
I would blame the American voter.
97+% of them.
For being so STAGGERINGLY gullible, ignorant and arrogant...that they keep electing one, useless prick after another.
Though steadfastly refusing to take the slightest responsibility for each of these TOTALLY, useless pricks that they are responsible for electing.
Whilst also...ignoring the number one culprit for the lethargy that has enveloped the U.S. economy since 2002 (overall).
And that is the Federal Reserve.

But considering 90+% of Americans have not got a frigging clue about macroeconomics?
Let alone the Fed?
Even though - astoundingly - they actually think they do?
I should be - and am not - surprised.
 
Last edited:
McRocket said:
Fair enough....well said.

For the record - I did not 'blame' anyone for the numbers.
I simply pointed out what they were.
And tried to head off the inevitable spin job that the present, POTUS followers would attempt to foister onto us.

Were I to blame anyone?
I would blame the American voter.
97+% of them.
For being so STAGGERINGLY gullible, ignorant and arrogant...that they keep electing one useless prick after another.
Whilst ignoring the number one culprit for the lethargy that has enveloped the U.S. economy since 2002 (overall).
And that is the Federal Reserve.

But considering 90+% of Americans have not got a frigging clue about macroeconomics?
Even though - astoundingly - they actually think they do?
I should - and am not - surprised.
Click to expand...

America is now the land of the ignorant coward.

This is bad for us.
 
McRocket said:
Fair enough.

For the record - I did not 'blame' anyone for the numbers.
I simply pointed out what they were.
And tried to head off the inevitable spin job that the present, POTUS followers would attempt to foister onto us.

Were I to blame anyone?
I would blame the American voter.
97+% of them.
For being so STAGGERINGLY gullible, ignorant and arrogant...that they keep electing one useless prick after another.
Whilst ignoring the number one culprit for the lethargy that has enveloped the U.S. economy since 2002 (overall).
And that is the Federal Reserve.

But considering 90+% of Americans have not got a frigging clue about macroeconomics?
Even though - astoundingly - they actually think they do?
I should - and am not - surprised.
Click to expand...

You're not speaking to this point - but you're alluding to something I have felt for a long time.

We're simply not informed enough to make solid voting decisions. The issues are all so complex - not just economic, but foreign policy & the rest. It's too much for all of us, who are busy trying to make ends meet, raise families and just survive.

When I hear things during campaigns like "who would you rather have a beer with," I kind of roll my eyes, but also shudder a bit. Really? We're electing the leader of the free world...and it comes down to who we'd rather have a beer with? Would we feel the same about choosing a brain surgeon?
 
BartenderElite said:
You're not speaking to this point - but you're alluding to something I have felt for a long time.

We're simply not informed enough to make solid voting decisions. The issues are all so complex - not just economic, but foreign policy & the rest. It's too much for all of us, who are busy trying to make ends meet, raise families and just survive.

When I hear things during campaigns like "who would you rather have a beer with," I kind of roll my eyes, but also shudder a bit. Really? We're electing the leader of the free world...and it comes down to who we'd rather have a beer with? Would we feel the same about choosing a brain surgeon?
Click to expand...

Well said.

But that is my point.
Anyone who will/cannot take the time to learn about the issues that matters?
SHOULD NOT VOTE.

This ridiculous blather about 'it is your duty to vote' was created by politicians.
Because they know that most people are clueless about the issues.
And the more clueless they are?
The easier it is to con them into voting for them.

I say it is our Constitutional duty to NOT vote unless we fully understand the issues at hand.


And BTW - if someone held an open mind?
They could learn about the economy, the Fed and foreign policy matters in a few hours on the net.
At most.

And it requires an open mind and doing one's research, through unbiased sources.
And NOT the MSM.

But as long as the ignorant masses use the MSM (ALL of it - both sides) or biased websites/opinions to 'teach' themselves?
They will forever be ignorant.
 
McRocket said:
Well said.

But that is my point.
Anyone who will/cannot take the time to learn about the issues that matters?
SHOULD NOT VOTE.

This ridiculous blather about 'it is your duty to vote' was created by politicians.
Because they know that most people are clueless about the issues.
And the more clueless they are?
The easier it is to con them into voting for them.

I say it is our Constitutional duty to NOT vote unless we fully understand the issues at hand.


And BTW - if someone held an open mind?
They could learn about the economy, the Fed and foreign policy matters in a few hours on the net.
At most.

And it requires an open mind and doing one's research, through unbiased sources.
And NOT the MSM.

But as long as the ignorant masses use the MSM (ALL of it - both sides) or biased websites/opinions to 'teach' themselves?
They will forever be ignorant.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who quoted Zerohedge. Too funny.
 
Jarred said:
So you realize I am nothing, ¡comprendo!
Click to expand...

meanwhile......if you get your head out of your ass you are free to respond regarding the Pale Faced Pedophile's executive order from January of 2021 which answers the question you acted like you wanted an answer to........
 
Concart said:
ROTFLMFAO!!! You just linked to zerohedge.

You are dismissed from any further economic discussions. That Tyler Durdin is quite the prolific writer.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Click to expand...

Strawman.

The numbers ZH used - that I was referring to - were from the BLS.
That is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Which is a government department under the DOL.
Or is that too 'right wing' for you.
You senile, old goat.


Oh...and it's Tyler Durden.
Not Tyler Durdin.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Concart said:
Actually, this number is ideal.
Click to expand...

What kind of Pro-Biden BS is that?
:laugh:
Tell us all EXACTLY - using unbiased links to data to backup your point - why a DROP of 321,000 jobs in October is 'ideal'?
I GUARANTEE that you cannot.
You are too stupid and ignorant to piece together such a cogent on this matter.

Job growth has slowed. There is a much greater potential for a soft landing at this point.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah.
Get that from your buddy, down at the bar...did you?
Or a Ouija board chat with your dead father you was (probably) even stupider then you are?

The labor participation rate is not terribly meaningful,
Click to expand...

:laugh:

'Understanding the Labor Force Participation Rate
The labor force participation rate is an important metric to use when analyzing employment and unemployment data because it measures the number of people who are actively job-hunting as well as those who are currently employed. It omits institutionalized people (in prisons, nursing homes, or mental health facilities) and members of the military.

It includes all other people aged 16 or older and compares the proportion of those who are working or seeking work outside the home to those who are neither working nor seeking work outside the home.

Because it accounts for people who have given up looking for work, this may make the labor force participation rate a somewhat more reliable figure than the unemployment rate. The unemployment numbers do not take into account those who have given up looking for work.

Some economists argue that the labor force participation rate and unemployment data should be considered together in an effort to better understand an economy’s real employment status.'

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp


it has changed little since a large drop as boomers began to retire.
Click to expand...

You call this 'changed little'?

fredgraph.png

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART


And if your moronic theory about 'baby boomers retiring' was true?
Then why did the labor force participation rate stop dropping (temporarily) in 2013?
The Baby Boomer generation is from 1946 to 1964.
The later Boomers were only 49 in 2013.
Which is THE PRIME money making period for most people.

If your IDIOTIC theory were true?
The LFPR would not have stopped dropping until 2024...at least.
DUH!!!!

You are SO, full of shit.
You know NOTHING, substantial about macroeconomics.
Except whatever nonsense you hear from CNBC analysts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top