#26
Posted: 22/06/2007 01:29
Ja samo prenosim fakte pametnijih ljudi od mene. Inace, imas li kakav kontra-argument osim ove primitivno-mahalske,Podatci su od covjeka kojega citiraju i Bloomberg i Reuters. Citaj pazljivo (ako znas engleski)!
O nezaposlenosti:
What they did was redefine “unemployment.” They created a category of unemployed called “discouraged workers.” If you were unemployed and you’d given up looking because there was no work to be had, you were counted as a discouraged worker—but taken out of the unemployment count. They still counted you, at least, until the Bill Clinton Administration, when they said, "Well, we really need to define discouraged workers—so if anyone has been discouraged for more than a year, we’re just going to take them out of all the numbers, take them out of the workforce completely." In doing so, they knocked about 5 million unemployed out of the broader measures of unemployment. Today there are seven or eight unemployment measures that are published each month. The one they call U-3 is the popularly followed one. The broadest one right now is U-6, which is running up around 9%. But, as I mentioned, if you take out all the funny games that they’ve played with it, unemployment is really up around 12%. After the Kennedy Administration, of course, came Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. One of my clients was an economist at the Commerce Department during the Johnson years and he says that whenever Johnson got the GNP report, he would look at it—and if he didn’t like it, he’d send it back. And he would keep sending it back until the Commerce Department got it right! Then we had the Nixon Administration. Mr. Nixon did not like the Labor Department. He thought—I don’t want to get accused of any insensitivity here, but I am quoting the New York Times on this—Nixon thought there was a “Jewish cabal” at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
O inflaciji:
One of the prime examples of how the system has really degenerated over time is the CPI. There was a very deliberate effort in the early 1990s under the auspices of Michael Boskin, who at the time was the head of the Council of Economic Advisors, in conjunction with Alan Greenspan, who, of course, was Fed Chairman, to “fix” the CPI. The story, very simply, was that CPI was supposedly overstating inflation. The pitch was that if people go out to shop and find that buying a steak is getting expensive, they buy hamburger instead. Therefore, their cost of living is really less than it would be if they always had to buy a fixed basket of goods, which is what the CPI was originally designed to measure. That was the whole purpose of the CPI, to measure the change in the cost of a fixed basket of goods over time. You’d have a steak, a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, whatever. You’d price them out one year and then you’d price out exactly the same goods the next year. You’d look at the difference in the cost and that was your annual rate of inflation. It was a measure of how much the cost of a consistent and constant standard of living was going up. What Boskin and Greenspan argued was, “We should allow for substitution here because people can buy hamburger instead of steak, when steak goes up." The problem is that if you allow substitutions, you aren’t measuring a constant standard of living. You’re measuring the cost of survival. You can keep substituting down and have people buy dog food instead of hamburger. It happens. But that’s not the original concept behind the CPI. The reason substitution of the items in the CPI basket became a hot topic in Washington at the time—and it was talked about very openly—was because the CPI was (and is) being used to adjust Social Security payments to compensate for increases in the cost of living, and tamping it down would hold down Uncle Sam’s outlays.
Naprimjer, zašto bi se neko ko ima fakultet a odbije recimo posao vozača vodio kao nezaposlen? Taj čovjek je lijen a ne nezaposlen i kao takvog treba ga brisati sa liste nezaposlenih.
Neznam zasto bi prihvatio posao vozaca! Imam prijatelja u Svedskoj koji je otpusten i slijedeci posao nemoze biti ispod njegove skolske spreme (ima visoku)Ovo je argument koji to i nije,ovo je samo tvoja fikcija.
Inflacija u USA se mjeri na hiljadama različitih proizvoda i usluga koje i te kako uključuju i hranu i energiju.
Ciji si ti kad si tako pametan? Neznam sta radis, ali da sam ti sef odmah bi te otpustio sa preporukom da te nikad niko ne primi.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs? bojim se da je ovo za tebe pretesko!
O nezaposlenosti:
What they did was redefine “unemployment.” They created a category of unemployed called “discouraged workers.” If you were unemployed and you’d given up looking because there was no work to be had, you were counted as a discouraged worker—but taken out of the unemployment count. They still counted you, at least, until the Bill Clinton Administration, when they said, "Well, we really need to define discouraged workers—so if anyone has been discouraged for more than a year, we’re just going to take them out of all the numbers, take them out of the workforce completely." In doing so, they knocked about 5 million unemployed out of the broader measures of unemployment. Today there are seven or eight unemployment measures that are published each month. The one they call U-3 is the popularly followed one. The broadest one right now is U-6, which is running up around 9%. But, as I mentioned, if you take out all the funny games that they’ve played with it, unemployment is really up around 12%. After the Kennedy Administration, of course, came Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. One of my clients was an economist at the Commerce Department during the Johnson years and he says that whenever Johnson got the GNP report, he would look at it—and if he didn’t like it, he’d send it back. And he would keep sending it back until the Commerce Department got it right! Then we had the Nixon Administration. Mr. Nixon did not like the Labor Department. He thought—I don’t want to get accused of any insensitivity here, but I am quoting the New York Times on this—Nixon thought there was a “Jewish cabal” at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
O inflaciji:
One of the prime examples of how the system has really degenerated over time is the CPI. There was a very deliberate effort in the early 1990s under the auspices of Michael Boskin, who at the time was the head of the Council of Economic Advisors, in conjunction with Alan Greenspan, who, of course, was Fed Chairman, to “fix” the CPI. The story, very simply, was that CPI was supposedly overstating inflation. The pitch was that if people go out to shop and find that buying a steak is getting expensive, they buy hamburger instead. Therefore, their cost of living is really less than it would be if they always had to buy a fixed basket of goods, which is what the CPI was originally designed to measure. That was the whole purpose of the CPI, to measure the change in the cost of a fixed basket of goods over time. You’d have a steak, a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, whatever. You’d price them out one year and then you’d price out exactly the same goods the next year. You’d look at the difference in the cost and that was your annual rate of inflation. It was a measure of how much the cost of a consistent and constant standard of living was going up. What Boskin and Greenspan argued was, “We should allow for substitution here because people can buy hamburger instead of steak, when steak goes up." The problem is that if you allow substitutions, you aren’t measuring a constant standard of living. You’re measuring the cost of survival. You can keep substituting down and have people buy dog food instead of hamburger. It happens. But that’s not the original concept behind the CPI. The reason substitution of the items in the CPI basket became a hot topic in Washington at the time—and it was talked about very openly—was because the CPI was (and is) being used to adjust Social Security payments to compensate for increases in the cost of living, and tamping it down would hold down Uncle Sam’s outlays.
Naprimjer, zašto bi se neko ko ima fakultet a odbije recimo posao vozača vodio kao nezaposlen? Taj čovjek je lijen a ne nezaposlen i kao takvog treba ga brisati sa liste nezaposlenih.
Neznam zasto bi prihvatio posao vozaca! Imam prijatelja u Svedskoj koji je otpusten i slijedeci posao nemoze biti ispod njegove skolske spreme (ima visoku)Ovo je argument koji to i nije,ovo je samo tvoja fikcija.
Inflacija u USA se mjeri na hiljadama različitih proizvoda i usluga koje i te kako uključuju i hranu i energiju.
Ciji si ti kad si tako pametan? Neznam sta radis, ali da sam ti sef odmah bi te otpustio sa preporukom da te nikad niko ne primi.
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs? bojim se da je ovo za tebe pretesko!
