All,

Seems like only "happy talk" is allowed about the US economy. But all the happy talk in the world won't change the real situation.

For the economist Chris who says that unemployment is 4.7% -- I assume you got that number from the BLS, right? Here's another number from the BLS: the unemployment rate is 8.7%. Your number is the U3 number. Mine is the U6 number, or the broadest measure. And on top of that, the BLS readily admits that it drops people out of the rolls who have been unemployed for a long time and not collecting unemployment insurance. So the real number of unemployed can conservatively be raised 1 or 2% above the U6 number. This would be 10-11% unemployment. Why do we need a huge influx of labor if we really have 10-11% unemployment? If you don't even know this about the BLS report, and econ is your job (its not mine), then why should we take you seriously at all on this topic?

Also, the inflation number is ridiculous. The government readily admits it plays around with the CPI numbers too. For instance, if a TV set is $300, but it has improved technology, the govt. will say that the "real" cost of the TV is only $225 dollars, "adjusting" for improved quality. But you still pay $300. This is called "hedonic" adjustment. Also, the CPI excludes food and energy costs due to "volatility". In other words, these costs fluctuate month to month. But so what, all prices fluctuate. And by volatility, they mean prices fluctuate around some set value. But what if that set value is actually rising, and rising fast, as in oil prices? Who really thinks oil is going back down to $20-30 per barrel? You see, the numbers are fudged. And the government admits it. Inflation is very much understated by the govt., to reduce its COLA adjustments to Social Security recipients and to keep the party going on Wall Street. If the real inflation rate is truly 5-6% a year, who really cares if wages are rising at 3.5%? You're still losing ground. GDP is overstated by a fudged inflation number too. And if all the illegals, both low skilled and high skilled, are allowed in to depress wages, as is the strategy, wage numbers won't go anywhere either, and if they do, they will still lag behind inflation. The question is only by how much. Also, any real wage number that doesn't adjust for increased taxation and increased debt obligations, personal and governmental, is silly. Totally meaningless. Where are the math nerds on that one? Why can't we get that number?

Foreign central banks are slowly dumping the dollar, and have publicly stated their intentions to, as the say, "diversify" their reserves. Who will buy all our debt (central banks buy govt bonds to earn interest on the dollars they hold)? Resource producers, such as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other want to trade their resources for euros, or rubles, etc. The asians are creating a common currency, like the euro,which could challenge the dollar and remove part of its use internationally (the ACU, or asian currency unit).

Lets face it, the US is and has relied on debt for its growth, outsourcing manufacturing to low wage countries to try to hide its monetary inflation and debt. The thing that holds it all together is a strong dollar used as the world reserve currency. Strong dollars mean low commodity prices, and higher purchasing power to buy all the foreign-made goodies. Other countries would hold onto our dollars and government bonds as assets, money in the bank, if you will, and a safe haven in a troubled world. But the dollar is losing its strength rapidly. Commodity prices are soaring, and those foreign made goodies are costing more all the time. Central banks which hold dollars are seeing their money in the bank shrink in purchaisng power, and they want a way out. And now, no matter how far the dollar falls, our trade deficits with the rest of the world will not shrink, but actually increase, since we import so much of our prosperity. We are getting poorer. So is the rest of the world that keeps our dollars. And they are looking for a way out. With the euro, the ACU, gold, and other options which will be created, they will have it. And we will get their poor in return. With the remaining purchaisng power of their dollars, they will buy up companies and controlling interests in natural resources, companies, and our debts. And we will, and are beginning to, lose our sovereignty.

This is the real situation. The rest is happy talk. Listen, if you are going to tell me that America has a strong economy and we are a prosperous nation, you won't get an argument from me. I'm not going to play the all or nothing game. But the rot is setting in. Our debts are soaring. We have an aging population with the staggeringly high unfunded govermental liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.And the bulk of our immigrants are low-wage dregs who will permanently do the work that teenagers used to do in the past. Look at the countries our past immigrants came from, and see how they are doing today. Now look at the countries where we are getting our current immigrants from, and see how they are doing today. Take notes. Compare. This is the future.

I also said that the Wall Street crowd and the large commercial banks really run the country. If they didn't, how can the Congress and White House try to ram through a plan to vastly expand immigration and legalize all who came here illegally, when it is opposed by 80% of the population? I don't know what a Trilateralist is, or an Illuminati for that matter. Maybe you can come up with some kind or real argument next time.

And for those who enjoy large foreign populations, I suggest this radical, but simple idea--get a passport! That way, you can see huge foreign populations, enjoy their culture and food, drop some of those increasingly worthless dollars around, and feel good that you helped the poor, starving natives. Then you can come back to America and work those extra pounds off by mowing your own lawn! See, its all very easy.

Posted by: Melda Laure on May 23, 2006 1:00 PM

I'm with the posters above who can't get excited about the deadly scourge of Mexican/Central American immigration. This alarm has been sounded before in our country's history, and with the same sort of caterwauling about the refusal of the (new) immigrants to assimilate to American culture. And yet the Republic survived, and survived, and survived again.

Hey, but maybe if Steve Sailer and Michael Blowhard and Lou Dobbs yell about it every five minutes instead of every ten, people like us will become interested due to sheer information overload. Kind of like a buffer overrun. Worth a try, right, guys?

Posted by: Questioner on May 23, 2006 5:39 PM

"I'm with the posters above who can't get excited about the deadly scourge of Mexican/Central American immigration."

Previous waves of immigration consisted of Europeans. Is this distinction something that Questioner regards as unimportant?

Posted by: Hugh on May 23, 2006 6:52 PM

Thanks Jonathan and Chris.

I don't want to be disrespectful but Melda Laure's post was one of the most worthless things I have read on this blog.

Posted by: grandcosmo on May 23, 2006 10:32 PM

If you don't even know this about the BLS report, and econ is your job (its not mine), then why should we take you seriously at all on this topic?

Michael likes things civil here, so I will only respond by saying that if you presume to assume what I do and do not know without either asking or any knowledge of who I am, perhaps you should drink a tall glass of STFU (again, Michael, apologies, but one asshole deserves another). I will be happy to debate with people about why the CPI is adjusted or the unemployment rate is measured as it is, but HOW DARE YOU tell me what I know, as if economists don't know where the numbers come from and are in some sort of asinine conspiracy.

Posted by: Chris on May 24, 2006 2:10 PM

Sorry about that last post, I don't want to be like that. It was very rude. Apologies. (I guess I see why this issue brings out the worst in people).

But I do hope people can see that on this issue, as on other economic ones, reasonable people (who aren't just naifs and fools who don't know about the super-secret real statistics) can disagree without being pawns or conspirators.

But, again, my tone was uncalled for.

Posted by: Chris on May 24, 2006 2:37 PM

I think we all deserve a big round of applause for showing how to be civil while discussing charged and vexed issues! Passions will run high. And if reasonable people can't disagree, then I'm quitting blogging right now. What would be the point?

Anyway, my own small contribution to the discussion is to ask a question: What do you (we, etc) want? I get a little surprised by the way disussions about immigration policy nearly always revolve around questions of morality-and-righteousness or economics, and almost never around what you (we, one, etc) want. Morality-and_righteouesness: Well, in my view, a case could be made that we should let everyone in, but a case could also be made that tough love would do the world more good (as in force Mexico to reform itself rather than lean on us as an escape valve). As for econ: I've seen studies saying that high Mexican immigration is a net plus, and others saying it's a net drag, but neither figure is huge. So as far as I'm concerned, those two discussions turn around and around in circles. The discussion about what we want seems to me to break us out of that circle. After all, we generally know what we want and what we don't want. (I'm down on crowding, and I'm down on dramatic ethnic re-writings, for instance.)

So: what do we want?

Actually, what really interests me here is why Americans are so shy about asserting what we want ... I'm not sure how to answer this question ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 24, 2006 2:47 PM

I happen to favor an extreme tightening of the immigration laws but it a) looks like it is not going to happen this go-round and b) would not be enforced anyway.

My main reason for this is cultural not economical. However I think the rise of political correctness in the USA in the last 30 years has reached a point where there cannot be a national debate on the cultural implications of runaway illegal immigration from Mexico, Central and South America without the anti-immigration side being labeled as heartless bigots or worse. So those forces (with the exception of a few national figures) just shrink away from actively debating the issue and thus cede the issue to the other side. Anti-immigration sentiment still shows up in polls by large numbers but the people answering the polls seem to be content to leave it at that.

Posted by: grandcosmo on May 25, 2006 3:39 AM

casinos gambling for fun and money is the sence of gamblers life online casinos choose the casino bonuses you want before gambling online casino casino games rules, tips, jokes is first you must read before gambling online

Posted by: Matthew on June 8, 2006 1:41 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?