If you could pass one Law...

[Biscuit_AQ]

If you could pass one law,nation-wide or any other scale, what would it be? No laws simply erasing existing legislation. It can be as cracked out as you want it to be, or as mundane.

I'm trying to think of one now, I'll post when I do.

[TJPatriot]

"Every time you have sex outside of wedlock, you must go into a corner, alone, and sit there for 15 minutes without human contact."

Man, that is sooo a law a 19 year old male would make!

[Jwaksman]

I'm breaking the rules - I'd get rid of laws. We already have far, far too many laws in this country.


We tell people what they can and cannot do, when they can do it, and with whom. We have Republicans that want to be your father, and Democrats that want to be your mother, and we have raised generations of Americans that are simply children. Responsibility is one of the values that our country has relied on, and we just have far too many irresponsible people now.

[Zat0pek]

I'd call it the pain-in-the-ass felony. I actually proposed this to a DA at the end of an internship doing misdemeanor prosecution in law school.

I got so frustrated seeing guys constantly cycle through the system for petty crimes - small theft, small criminal damage to property, simple assault, simple battery and the like. But because they were always misdemeanors, these guys never did much (usually no) time. They sucked resources but never had any real consequences and were just a huge pain in the ass to everyone - their neighbors, employers, cops, everyone.

So, here's the deal: Four midemeaner convictions (I could be flexible on the number, just picked this one based on experience) in a twelve month span and BAM! you get charged with a felony for simply being a royal pain in the ass to everyone. Pile up enough petty stuff and it finally becomes serious. Call it a "straw that broke the camel's back" felony.

[Filipe]

I've had an idea to equip people with guns that shoot suction cup darts. When you're driving around and someone does something dumbassed, you shoot their car with one of the suction cup darts. When enough darts accumulate on the back of their car, they get pulled over.

[Biscuit_AQ]

I like Zat's idea (good to hear from you again) and it seems workable, maybe if you could add something about judges discretion on the number, within a range.

Jwak, I agree we have too many laws, and that the responsibilty touted by so many is just an empty word now. What would be the first laws to go if you were in charge?

[Jwaksman]

Hmmm... I feel like a kid in a candy store :D


I'm not sure how to get it down to one. I think I'll start with three, and maybe I'll be able to narrow it down:


1) Any law banning a consensual sexual act done in private. So, this refers to all sodomy laws, etc. This also refers to examples of 18- and 16-year olds having consensual sex and one of them getting sent off to jail (I know someone who got sent to jail for several years when he was under 20 for having sex with a 15/16 year old). This is way different from a 40 year old and a 12 year old. Our courts need to use judgement to tell the difference between a real rape (which probably deserves a stronger penalty than it gets now) and a healthy act between consensual actors.

2) Laws banning marijuana. I emphasize medical marijuana here. It is a medicine that helps a lot of people with chronic injuries. Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Also, if it was sold by regular companies it would be much safer and in much lower doses. Not to mention the huge sums of money that criminal thugs and terrorists make off the inflated prices caused by our drug prohibition.

3) Any law that allows public organizations to hire/accept people on the basis of race. What private companies do is their own affair, but in order to end the racial tension in this country we need a government that refuses to accept the idea that whites are inherently different from blacks.

[78Champ]

I would enact a law that made it illegal to become Title IX compliant by eliminating programs.

JW

[Filipe]

I would enact a law that made it illegal to become Title IX compliant by eliminating programs.

JW

There was an article about Title IX compliance in the OU paper on Friday. The OU Athletic Department apparently just found out that if in an email survey there wasn't a lot of interest in certain sports, they didn't have to provide them to comply with Title IX.

I kind of want to use Title IX against the University for having such rules on the outdoor track as:

1. Students (non-athletes) and staff may only use the outdoor track from 7am-2pm

2. Students (non-athletes) and staff may only use lanes 5-9.

I don't know if Title IX applies in this instance though. I want to just use equal protection under the law for this one--so I guess the 14th Amendment. I'll pull that if I get in trouble for using lane 1 at 3:30 pm.
2.

[TrackDaddy]

Any law that allows public organizations to hire/accept people on the basis of race. What private companies do is their own affair, but in order to end the racial tension in this country we need a government that refuses to accept the idea that whites are inherently different from blacks.Are these "private" companies publicly owned?

[TJPatriot]

Are these "private" companies publicly owned?

I didn't have a lot of time to absorb Business administration. But wouldn't a general rule of thumb be that all corporations are "public" and all partnerships/sole proprietorships are "private"?

[Jwaksman]

For the purposes of the laws I'm talking about a corporation is private. The reason is that any citizen can choose whether or not they want to invest and/or be a part of the corporation.

The point I was making, though, is that the government cannot be discriminatory any more. The government cannot have laws saying "whites and do this and blacks can do that" because that presupposes that some people are "white" and some are "black" - which is an attitude that we have to get rid of. As long as government assumes we're all different, so too will most people assume that we are all different.


And, King99, you have to realize that in some cases that is not possible. Some schools try inventing sports (like women's equestrian, or rowing) and offer scholarships and even advertise in the campus newspaper and they still can't get enough girls to try out to fulfill Title IX. It's easy for gigantic state schools to get enough girls, but smaller schools often have problems. You can't have a law someone simply cannot follow.

[Zat0pek]

And, King99, you have to realize that in some cases that is not possible.

Did king99 post on this thread and I missed it?

[78Champ]

Did king99 post on this thread and I missed it?

I do believe the space cadet was refering to me.

My point is, that you have programs in existence before Title IX was enacted that are now being eliminated to make the school Title IX compliant. They should bascially be exempt. If they want to eliminate for budgetary reasons that is fine, but they shoud not then count that towards compliance. Add female programs and then if they don't have the numbers to support them they can use that in their numbers towards compliance. For example, start a female Badminton team and budget for a typical varsity squad (say 15), if the numbers don't pan out you still get credit for the 15 females since you attempted to field the team.

Any new male program added subsequent to Title IX's enactment requires a female counter-program.

JW

[KenA55]

I'd balance Zat's legislation against mine, which would require prosecutorial decisions to first pass through a citizen panel who's job was to prioritize all incoming business against a fixed and tight budget, weeding out the truly petty and innocuous stuff. The budget would cover the entire cost of the system including incarceration expense. That budget would not, under any circumstances, be padded by booking fees, court fines, prison industries, and such- those monies would revert to the general treasuries. That budget could only be raised by public referendum, not by legislative action.

That way all of the general PIA's (pains you know where), which is about 99% of us, at least in somebody's eyes, don't end up felons because we aggravated the wrong people. Only a truly RPIA would be singled out as being of high enough priority to qualify for such royal treatment at great expense.

[mzungu]

to start this new lounge on the right foot, i want to agree with jwaksman on two of his propositions.
not that i see any value in the stuff, but i see no reason why society should continue to pay the extraordinary, destructive burden of enforcing marijuana possession and trafficking penalties. in all of human history, in 5,000 years of recorded use, no one has died of marijuana use per se. it is probably less harmful than tobacco both individually and especially as a society (400,000 deaths vs. none), in part because tobacco smokers smoke many more cigarettes per day. marijuana has various possible medicinal uses and certainly this country relied on its plant for multiple, non-drug uses since the founding of european settlements here. moreover, according to dan baum, marijuana is primarily grown in this country, a source of profits for rural residents, and is not generally involved in violence, unlike the cocaine trade. the cost to society of incarceration, trials, and sentencing, plus lost wages, lost productivity is astoundingly high.

i also agree that most anti-sex laws, including consensual sex with a minor where there is a relatively small age difference, should be abandoned, primarily on the principle of consensual vs. non-consensual circumstances where consent is understood to be possible for 'normal' teenagers, contra present law.

I disagree that government should turn a blind eye to the actual existence and consequences of racism, primarily against african americans, in this society. if race does not physically exist, but is merely a social construct, that means that it is particularly well-suited to government intervention, in so far as there is a social construct that has real, measurable, bad effects on identifiable groups of the population, and government can at the very least enforce procedures that measure how different population groups are treated, and further, take steps to end this differential treatment.

[RKramden]

Here's one...make it a crime to file frivolous lawsuits...like the people suing McDonald's for making them fat. They should not only have to pay the court costs but also the attorney fees of the defendant. Too many people are "sue happy" hoping to strike it rich.

[KenA55]

Here's one...make it a crime to file frivolous lawsuits...like the people suing McDonald's for making them fat. They should not only have to pay the court costs but also the attorney fees of the defendant. Too many people are "sue happy" hoping to strike it rich.

I proposed that all civil court business be conducted in the nude by all parties, a number of years back- the idea hasn't caught on yet. I suppose there are those who would simply see that as all the more reason to file that lawsuit, though. And I suppose some people might find themselves getting sued all the time.

[TrackDaddy]

For the purposes of the laws I'm talking about a corporation is private. The reason is that any citizen can choose whether or not they want to invest and/or be a part of the corporation.

The point I was making, though, is that the government cannot be discriminatory any more. The government cannot have laws saying "whites and do this and blacks can do that" because that presupposes that some people are "white" and some are "black" - which is an attitude that we have to get rid of. As long as government assumes we're all different, so too will most people assume that we are all different.LOL

Same ol' Jwaks...after being effectively buckled by a single sentence question, he fails the test of substantive response.

I missed you, bro. :cool:

Many of the "private" companies that you suggest should be able to legally discriminate are essentially publicly owned.

So, once again (sigh), you were half right.

There's no room in this country for systemic mainstream quotas...public OR PRIVATE.

But Hootie can have his golf course.

Err...that is when Tiger's done trashing it.

[78Champ]

I proposed that all civil court business be conducted in the nude by all parties, a number of years back- the idea hasn't caught on yet. I suppose there are those who would simply see that as all the more reason to file that lawsuit, though. And I suppose some people might find themselves getting sued all the time.

Filed my first lawsuit today:

JW v. Heide Klum

JW

[Jwaksman]

TD, it's simple. If it is a company that is owned by private individuals (either directly, through stock, or whatever) then it can follow whatever hiring policies it wants - even if it wants to be discriminatory against race (e.g. AA). It's generally in the best financial interests of private companies to act this way (for fear of a Jesse Jacksonesque boycott). If an organization is run by the government, however, it should not discriminate. There is absolutely zero chance that our attitudes towards race will be any different as long as the government treats whites and blacks differently. If the parties are going to be our parents, then let them atleast make good examples for us and acknowledge that there is no difference between people of differing skin color.

[Biscuit_AQ]

what about a law mandating at least 30 miles per gallon on all street legal civillian vehicles?

[Brumund-Smith]

I would like to see the tax on cigarettes raised to about $15 a pack, with all the extra tax dollars doing to the schools. If not, I would like to see cigarettes banned in all public places. Also, throwing a cigarette butt on the ground would be considered littering, and that person would receive a $500 fine (or whatever it is for littering; I have no idea).

[Jwaksman]

That will just lead to cheaper, flimsier cars that will lead to many more highway deaths. Every year cars are becoming more and more fuel efficient through the forces of the free market - with large numbers of Americans wanting smaller cars for both economic & environmental reasons. The gigantic SUV's that are sold now get better mileage than the average car got only 20 years ago.


Of course, if all you're worried about is the environment then greater fuel efficiency in cars really has a negligible effect. First, keep in mind that a lot of cars already have efficiencies over 30 miles per gallon, so only a fraction of cars are even affected. Most cars that are affected will be boosted from, say, 25 mpg to 30 - only a small change in the grand scheme of things. Also, people will drive more, as many Americans drive less to try to save money on gas. The less it costs to drive a mile (via greater fuel efficiency) the less the incentive to find an alternative mode of transportation. Then, of course, cars make up a small minority of anthropogenic pollution sources. And, finally, humans only make up a fraction of global pollution. One big volcano does more global warming than all the cars driven by all humans on the planet over an entire decade.


You're really talking about negligible public good, at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and billions of dollars in economic efficiency. It's definitely not worth it...

[Jwaksman]

I would like to see the tax on cigarettes raised to about $15 a pack, with all the extra tax dollars doing to the schools. If not, I would like to see cigarettes banned in all public places. Also, throwing a cigarette butt on the ground would be considered littering, and that person would receive a $500 fine (or whatever it is for littering; I have no idea).



Speaking from a city where cigarettes cost about $8 a pack already - raising prices anymore will have almost no effect at all. Very few people buy cigarettes from stores. Most cigarettes are brought illegal from other states and indian reservations and sold at intermediate prices (like $4 a pack, or so). A lot of stores just stopped selling cigarettes, because they know that very few people pay retail prices anymore.


Also, I'm not sure if you know this, but this "extra tax dollars going to schools" thing never works. Cigarette companies lost a massive civil trial in 1998 that led to them paying approximately $250 Billion to various states and the federal government over a period of time. This money was supposed to go to things like schools and anti-cigarette advertising & education. And, of course, that's what it went to for about a year or so. Now, all that money is going to pay for out-of-control health care programs and welfare. My own Governor, George Pataki, recently used a bunch of the cigarette money to plug up the state's budget deficits.

[Biscuit_AQ]

That will just lead to cheaper, flimsier cars that will lead to many more highway deaths. Every year cars are becoming more and more fuel efficient through the forces of the free market - with large numbers of Americans wanting smaller cars for both economic & environmental reasons. The gigantic SUV's that are sold now get better mileage than the average car got only 20 years ago.


Of course, if all you're worried about is the environment then greater fuel efficiency in cars really has a negligible effect. First, keep in mind that a lot of cars already have efficiencies over 30 miles per gallon, so only a fraction of cars are even affected. Most cars that are affected will be boosted from, say, 25 mpg to 30 - only a small change in the grand scheme of things. Also, people will drive more, as many Americans drive less to try to save money on gas. The less it costs to drive a mile (via greater fuel efficiency) the less the incentive to find an alternative mode of transportation. Then, of course, cars make up a small minority of anthropogenic pollution sources. And, finally, humans only make up a fraction of global pollution. One big volcano does more global warming than all the cars driven by all humans on the planet over an entire decade.


You're really talking about negligible public good, at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and billions of dollars in economic efficiency. It's definitely not worth it...


I can agree with some of your points, but the thousands of deaths prediction strikes me as hyperbole.

[Jwaksman]

There have actually been a number of studies that show how many lives are lost each year to mileage laws. The current CAFE standards are estimated to cause cars to weight 500 pounds less than they would otherwise - and lighter cars mean more deaths. Estimates for the number of deaths caused each year from these standards range from about 2000 to 4000 - with over 10,000 "serious injuries" caused as well. Estimates are that a raising of the standard from 27.5 to 40 mpg would kill an additional 5000 to 9000 Americans on the highway per year. There are a number of studies showing the same thing - just Google it.

[Biscuit_AQ]

Do any of these studies take into account how many of these lighter vehicle fatalities come from collisions with much heavier vehicles?

[Jwaksman]

They do. Here (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.4ee7b57ef1e8e9ed304a4c4446108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef 9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a _viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=5e17bf6be4daff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=full_view) is a good study done by the Natoinal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 1997. They break down crashed into six different categories (one being collisions with "light trucks", like SUVs) and measure the effect of the great decrease in car size since the 1970's. They estimate several hundred extra deaths per year, per any 100 pound decrease in the size of the average car. Seeing as how the average car size dropped 1000 pounds between 1975 and 1985 alone, that lines right up with the data that I gave you before of several thousand deaths per year.

[Zat0pek]

That will just lead to cheaper, flimsier cars that will lead to many more highway deaths.

Jwaks has a point (egad!). Go back and look at the cars that were built in this country when the speed limit was 55. They were crap. Any manufacturer will only build to meet the demands placed upon the product. Jack up the speed limit, and engines and transmissions had to be engineered to whole new set of specs and had to be higher quality. One big reason German autos have been held to such high standards is the perfomance demands of the autobahn.

You NEVER get an INCREASE in quality of ANYTHING by REDUCING standards of performance. This is true be it cars, government, education or morality.

[Brumund-Smith]

Also, I'm not sure if you know this, but this "extra tax dollars going to schools" thing never works. Cigarette companies lost a massive civil trial in 1998 that led to them paying approximately $250 Billion to various states and the federal government over a period of time. This money was supposed to go to things like schools and anti-cigarette advertising & education. And, of course, that's what it went to for about a year or so. Now, all that money is going to pay for out-of-control health care programs and welfare. My own Governor, George Pataki, recently used a bunch of the cigarette money to plug up the state's budget deficits.

I know that stuff never works, which is why I'm making it a LAW. Wouldn't it be great if that actually DID work?

[Kalaby]

One big volcano does more global warming than all the cars driven by all humans on the planet over an entire decade.

A couple of points:

1) You are correct in stating that our impact on the environment (though not inconsequential) can be overwhelmed by the impact of a single natural event such as a volcanic eruption.

2) Though this doesn't have much to do with the main issue being debated over the last few posts, I'll point out that over the course of a couple of years, a massive eruption generally cools the planet. Though you are correct that there is a warming effect in the months immediately following the eruption.

[Jwaksman]

The warmest year since accurate global temperatures have been taken (the 1880's) was 1998 - with levels about 1/10th of a degree Kelvin above what they were last year. It is generally accepted that this was due primarily to volcanic activity.

[minibee]

If I could pass one law, I'd make rape a crime punishable by death. Public execution, preferrably hanging.

or castration.

[Filipe]

If I could pass one law, I'd make rape a crime punishable by death. Public execution, preferrably hanging.

I agree with this 100%. I'd also have kidnappings have a much worse punishment than there are. I hate any crimes that involve children. In most cases, I would say life in prison. However, if there is rape or any form of abuse, then automatic death.

[Brumund-Smith]

I agree with this 100%. I'd also have kidnappings have a much worse punishment than there are. I hate any crimes that involve children. In most cases, I would say life in prison. However, if there is rape or any form of abuse, then automatic death.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by 'any form of abuse.' Are you saying that somebody who comes home drunk one night and hits his wife should get automatic death? Now, I'm not exactly defending those people, but isn't a week in jail (for a first offense) enough?

[TJPatriot]

Now, I'm not exactly defending those people, but isn't a week in jail (for a first offense) enough?

Not if they do it again.

[Filipe]

You're going to have to explain what you mean by 'any form of abuse.'

I was talking about that in the context of kidnappings.

[SteveU]

LOL

Same ol' Jwaks...after being effectively buckled by a single sentence question, he fails the test of substantive response.

So, once again (sigh), you were half right.
.

I'm going to pick on you here a second to illustrate a point in my civility quest ... Even something as mild as this, to call someone half-right and that he "fails the test."

For what I want at DyeStat, that's still a shade harsh and personal. Can't we say we just disagree with someone, state our point and get on with it? I realize we want our words to have weight and reveal our personality, but most of you on this thread know how quickly these things can escalate. I warned a few of you, jwaks and mzungu, against this.

Well, you've both done well here ... let's all walk that fine line and be respectful. We're never going to come CLOSE to all agreeing here, so let's realize that and not even try. Just respect and express. Thanks

[Sebrle]

If I could pass one law, I'd make rape a crime punishable by death. Public execution, preferrably hanging.

Unfortunately (un)reasonable doubt would greatly minimize the number of individuals castrated by a noose in accordance to this law, look how rigid it is to zap an ax murderer under the current legal system. At least prison justice took out Dahmer…

[minibee]

I feel spousal and child death (by abuse) is one of the most preventable crimes out there. There are always absolute tell-tale signs, but unfortunately, the court demands that a woman actually turn her husband in order for him to recieve punishment. The reason that they're beaten is because they are so submissive. In most cases, there's no way they'll turn them in, because they believe they deserve it. I would change the laws surrounding this, as well as the laws surrounding the punishment. Over half of the guys who are put into jail for beating their wives return to them. It's simply not acceptable. They don't deserve any woman after that.

[mzungu]

first of all, there are many deaths caused by pollution, roughly 2-5ths of which, i believe, is caused by cars. (below lists 2 million deaths/year in the world due to pollution). (UN figures)
http://www.catpress.com/bplanet9/enumeri.htm

Addendum: the UN study actually cites 2.7 million deaths per year due to air pollution, 1.8 million of those due to indoor air pollution (primarily cooking inside in developing countries--you should see what it's like where the women cook; very smoky!). http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1998/en/pdf/hdr_1998_ch4.pdf

second, much of the fuel economy increase could be carried out by simply including the SUV's within the CAFE, thereby simply levying an additional cost on those who seek to drive SUV's. the democrat in the following debate (which provides the source of jwaksman's talking points here) points out that in projecting a move from 27 to 40 mpg, only 2% of the increase is to come from reducing weight. hence, there is a very small loss of safety.
the following has the debate pro and con without too many facts getting in the way.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec01/fuel_7-31.html

third, "Current miles per gallon standards [CAFE Standards] require 20.7 mpg for SUVs and other light trucks, and 27.5 mpg for cars. Closing the "light truck loophole", or raising the miles per gallon standards for SUVs and light trucks to the same level as cars, would save American consumers $27 billion at the gas pump and save over one million barrels of oil a day", Daniel Becker, Director of Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Team."

fourth, scientists have designed a test SUV with this fuel economy, so it would be possible to do so. they did so in part by saving weight, but if republicans really want to save lives from accidents, then they can require some of the safety equipment used in auto racing, such as roll bars and safety cages. Moreover, the increases in average speed on highways from 55 to 65 dramatically increase energy consumption and energy of collisions. a car going 70 mph has, i believe, very nearly twice as much kinetic energy as a car going 50 mph. If the republicans wanted to cut highway deaths, they would enforce lower speed limits. Lighter vehicles can be made much safer than they are now, and they are safer than they were in the past.

[Zat0pek]

first of all, there are many deaths caused by pollution, roughly 2-5ths of which, i believe, is caused by cars. (below lists 2 million deaths/year in the world due to pollution).
http://www.catpress.com/bplanet9/enumeri.htm

Without a doubt, that is number that someone just pulled out of their...um...out of thin air.

That is not to say that pollution isn't bad, that the environment doesn't need a good scrubbing, that we don't need to be much better stewards, etc. But I'll wager a months salary that if you dig into the data - if there is any - behind the numbers on that chart, you'll find it laughable to attach any degree of statistical reliability to it.

Just part of the innumeracy of this culture. Just use a number, everyone accepts it and nods their head earnestly that, yes, that's a very bad thing and we need to do something about it.

[mzungu]

asserting innumeracy when you haven't checked into the numbers is equally illogical. but first, they are from a united nations study (and it does not concentrate on the u.s.--don't worry), and second, i'm not finished with my post, so be patient.

[KenA55]

I have less of an issue with pollution and fuel, but I definitely do take issue with the number of vehicles so tall you can't see over/through to assess the oncoming roadway well. I'd love to see a standard vehicle height requirement that you either meet or pay commercial vehicle roadway use taxes, as a way to keep the profile down like it used to be. The low but heavy vehicle is even safer than the high but heavy suv, much less likely to roll.

[mzungu]

on an issue much debated earlier, from the NYTIMES,

"Beginning in the mid-1990's, pay increases for most workers slowly but steadily outpaced the rate of inflation, improving the living standards for nearly all Americans. But an unexpected reversal last year in those gains has set off a vigorous debate among economists over whether the decline is just a temporary dip or portends a deeper shift that may cause the pay of average Americans to lag for years to come.

Even though the economy added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and produced strong growth in corporate profits, wages for the average worker fell for the year, after adjusting for inflation - the first such drop in nearly a decade.

"Pay increases are not rebounding, even though the factors normally associated with higher pay have rebounded," said Peter LeBlanc of Sibson Consulting, a division of Segal, a human resources consulting firm.

The problem is not with the jobs themselves. Most economists dismiss as overblown the widespread fear that the number of jobs will shrink in the United States because of foreign competition from China, India and other developing nations. But at the same time many of these economists argue that the increasing exposure of the American economy to globalization, along with other forces - including soaring health insurance costs that leave less money for raises - is putting pressure on wages that could leave millions of workers worse off.

"We're in for a long period where inflation-adjusted wages will be under acute pressure," said Stephen S. Roach of Morgan Stanley. "That's a most unusual development in a period of high productivity growth. Normally, real wages track productivity."

But some economists are more optimistic, saying that the wage sluggishness is temporary and that real wages have slipped only because a sudden spike in oil prices has briefly left workers behind the curve. These economists assert that wage stagnation will end soon, as normal growth brings a tighter labor market.

"What we're seeing now is not atypical; employers can't pay the wage bill to keep up with the oil price increase," said Allan H. Meltzer, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University. "I think the long-term trend will be that wages will right themselves and look like productivity growth on average."

The most commonly used yardstick of wages - the Bureau of Labor Statistics' measure of nonsupervisory private-sector workers, covering 80 percent of the labor force - fell 0.5 percent last year, after inflation. Real wages for these workers are now lower, on average, than two years ago. A broader measure, the employment cost index, which includes supervisors, managers and most government workers, dropped 0.9 percent."

[Jwaksman]

The New York Times is getting out of control. There have been recent reports of their editorial editor contacting "rogue" Republicans to try to get them to write a piece attacking Delay. When they say they want to defend Delay, the NY Times doesn't contact them back. That's crossing the line...


And, mzungu, if you read through the article you posted you'll see that a lot of economists agree that the wage issue is normal. The high oil prices have caused a lot of inflation, which means that even though nominal wages have gone up solidly, the real wages are technically stagnated.


12 months ago all those economists said that it was normal for job growth to rise only after six or nine months of economic expansion and you refused to accept it. Now you are quoting an article that mentions offhandedly how many jobs have been added in the past year.


The questions is, twelve months from now, when real wages are way up, will mzungu mention it?

[KenA55]

I would change the laws surrounding this, as well as the laws surrounding the punishment. Over half of the guys who are put into jail for beating their wives return to them. It's simply not acceptable. They don't deserve any woman after that.

So how would you change it? Have government start telling people who they can and can't date, live with?

In the overwhelming majority of domestic abuse incidents, the woman is the initial and primary physical antagonist. They generally aren't arrested unless there are serious, clear and unmistakeable injuries to the man. Should we begin putting them away on his say-so regardless? For a long time, since they don't deserve any man after that? On the other hand, the man will get taken away in the vast majority of these cases based on nothing other than her say-so. Whether she has any injury or not, in order to diffuse the immediate situation. In many of these cases he's guilty of nothing more than self-defense, blocking her blows. Often the 'assault' involves nothing more than his raising his voice back to her raised voice, but by law that constitutes assault since it had the potential to frighten her. His pounding his fist or even open hand into a wall in frustration constitutes assault also, for the same reason.

So basically, we're using domestic assault law as a means to stop arguments, and the vast majority of these arrests lead to guilty pleas because of the cost of defense in trial and the greater penalties if found guilty.

On the other hand, I've seen real domestic assault also, though that's certainly much less common. A neighbor, a black belt and instructor in karate, reached the limit of what he could take of her screaming at him, and thrust both hands into her mouth and in an instant ripped much of her facial skin from her skull by spreading her lips apart horizontally. It took a lot of sutures to put her face back together.

Now if that's the sort of thing you're talking about, we're in complete agreement. But let's first recognize that the vast majority of domestic assault involves cops using arrest to stop arguments that may or may not have really gotten out of hand in any physical way, and most of these guys end up convicted.

[Kalaby]

In response to those that prescribe the death penalty for the crimes of rape or kidnapping (assuming the crime does not also result in the death of the victims), I could never agree with the punishment. To me, no matter how heinous the original offense is, you have effectively escalated the situation by putting the perpetrator of the crime to death. A life term without the possibility of parole is the appropriate sentence in my opinion.

[mzungu]

the New York Times isn't getting "out of control" in asking republicans to write articles asking Tom DeLay to step down, because what they are reacting to is the fact that, according to published reports, republicans are speaking IN PRIVATE TO REPORTERS ON CONDITION OF ANONYMITY about their discontent with DeLay (half a million to his wife and daughter from his pac, russian-funded trips leading to his voting for the russians and against providing air cover to u.s. troops in the former yugoslavia, graft involving a shakedown of native american casinos being closed and then re-opened (there's a whole book about this), using the homeland department for political purposes, and on and on) and the times is (if you are reporting correctly) merely asking that they go on the record about it, rather than speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

regarding the drop in real wages, you were just announcing they were going up, and they had gone up for nearly a decade. of course, oil prices have an effect on our economy, but oil prices picked up predictably after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, just as they did in 1991 when the war-mongering started. I included the section with some analysts denying the significance of the drop, because I want to give fair accounts of the issues where there is justifiable disagreement. credibility is only advanced by acknowledging when the economy is not doing what we have been saying that it is doing. you have said that outsourcing and other negative pressures on the u.s. economy are in fact positive pressures, and that they will lead to higher wages, yet the data at the moment has a decline in real wages despite economic growth. my belief is that the explanation is not higher oil prices, but rather government tax policies directed to tax labor and not capital, government policies undermining union power, and corporate policies overvaluing management and undervaluing labor.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, the point I was making was that there is absolutely no way that the NY Times would ever fish for editorials trying to make Dems look bad - and there's no way that even you would deny that. Nancy Pelosi is coming under serious charges that mirror those being leveled against Delay but can you ever imagine, in a million years, the New York Times looking for people to attack her? Absolutely not. And why wasn't the NY Times interested in an editorial by a Republican trying to defend Delay? I, personally, think that Delay broke the rules. I also think Pelosi broke the rules. But I certainly want to hear the other side to see if, maybe, I'm wrong. The NY Times isn't interested in hearing the other side, they're only interested in hearing the Democrats' side.


As for wages, as I said before, we currently have high inflation. Oil prices are always rising, but they have nearly doubled in a matter of a couple of years. The last time oil prices rose this fast was in the 1970's, and inflation was even higher back then. At one point in the 1970's the real interest rate was actually negative, meaning that you would actually lose money (in real terms) by putting it in the bank. We're nowhere near inflation levels like that, but it exists.

But what that also means is that at some point inflation will slow. Economic factors, over the long haul, always move in one general direction. There are always ripples in the line, but they even out in the end. So, if inflation is rising very quickly now, this means that at some point it has to become very low. This means that even a small nominal wage increase will mean a large real wage increase. I fully expect wages to continue to grow steadily over the next year, during which it is most likely that oil prices will drop. Remember, in 1974 everyone thought that oil prices were going to skyrocket into infinity. Instead, prices ended up dropping significantly. They dropped so low that even now, oil prices are lower than they were during the Oil Crisis.


At worst, oil prices cannot rise too much higher. We have the technology to convert coal into oil, and the cost of such a conversion is constantly dropping as new technology is created. At some point it will become economic beneficial for companies like GE to tap into this technology and create oil on a large scale. Since the US is blessed with a practically infinite supply of coal (enough to last us for several centuries, atleast) this means that oil prices have a certain ceiling that they cannot pass.


Whenever inflation rises cool down, the real wage will go up quickly. And then, I'm sure, you'll have another statistic to complain about in your perpetual struggle to prove that the American economy is horrible...

[KenA55]

I've no problem with a law allowing the victim of rape to kill the convicted rapist without fear of penalty; but as far as the government handling it, no thanks, want no part of it. If the victim wants that, she's got to go do it herself. If she can't bring herself to do it herself, then why should we?

If you want two eyes for an eye, or two teeth for a tooth, then go on get 'em yourself.

[mzungu]

jwaksman, your last comment crosses again into the ad hominem mode, which we were leaving behind on the old website. i'm not going to get into a debate about democratic ethics when the point of your remark was so transparent, try to paint the democrats as equally bad, especially one of the chief critics of republicans, to distract from the real and proven charges against delay, who has after all been reprimanded three times in one year by the house ethics committee, for OTHER charges. The Times is always running pro and con articles about various issues, so, yes, they do solicit op-eds from republicans against democrats.

the general pattern of an economic recovery is:
1) initial slow growth for months, if not years,
2) one or two quarters of rapid growth at roughly 5% GDP,
3) consistent 3+% GDP growth for three to seven years, with the occasional blip at 2% or lower, and possibly one negative quarter.
4) unemployment takes a while before consistently lowering for several years until stabilizing from 3-5%.
5) external shocks, such as oil price rises, will alter the calculus somewhat,
6) wages will not rise immediately, but will delay awhile, just as companies will not immediately start re-hiring.

government will affect a number of factors here, particularly having to do with the speed of recovery and how rapidly jobs increase, depending on how it uses deficit spending. bush used deficit spending very badly with the tax cuts, because they were not targeted to job creation or industry creation, contra clinton. by shifting more of the tax burden off the rich, they sustained the failed, disproven trickle down economics of the 1980s, which caused massive deficits and increases in the rich-poor disparity, as well as preventing any increase in real wages for the lower-half.

[mzungu]

key fundraiser for $10 million republican campaign to defeat hillary clinton in her re-election effort for senate in 2006 married his gay lover in massachusetts. apparently, the republican party in public hates gay marriage and in private has no problem about tying its status to a gay man married to another gay man. apparently his marriage is not undermining the institution of marriage.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/04/12/politics/p075020D58.DTL

one of the most famous of the republican hitmen, david brock, openly gay, working for the spectator and writing a popular, scandalous book on anita hill, repudiated his former articles for the lies they were, and turned to work for democrats. i don't know that i want his help.
from slate:
"We know, well before picking up Brock's book, that an appallingly well-financed hard right was obsessed with smearing Clinton, and that a large proportion of Clinton's hard-right accusers failed to conform to hard-right notions about morality, being either adulterers, homosexuals, or begetters of aborted fetuses."

[Kalaby]

key fundraiser for $10 million republican campaign to defeat hillary clinton in her re-election effort for senate in 2006 married his gay lover in massachusetts. apparently, the republican party in public hates gay marriage and in private has no problem about tying its status to a gay man married to another gay man. apparently his marriage is not undermining the institution of marriage.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/04/12/politics/p075020D58.DTL


I'm not even going to get into a commentary about the infinitely corrupt business of political fundraising because both parties are equally guilty of foul play IMO. However, lets extend the sentiments of your post to the Dems and ask if they shouldn't refuse all contributions from "Big Oil"???

[mzungu]

yes, but only if they are anti-big oil. in general, and returning now to the topic of the thread, I'd like to see a law that mandates public financing and free and equal airtime (possible because of public ownership of the airwaves and there have already been requirements for a certain amount of newscasting, equal time exclusive of commercials, and so forth), for all candidates for public office(including the rich who would like to self-finance, such as bloomberg and perot), with thresholds for minimum support to winnow down the candidates to a manageable level. this would have various merits: 1) it would reduce graft (in combination with a law excluding public officials after their terms in office for, say, 3-5 years from employment by entities directly affected, according to some threshold, by legislation--this would be complex and at least would start with lobbying organizations) and legislation not in the public interest, and 2) it would clear the way for a greater range of candidates from different economic classes.

[jaygray]

My one law would be to legislate that David Lee Roth be forever the only lead singer for VH.

[mzungu]

the band just wasn't the same when sammy hagar took over. but we did get the benefit of that california girls album from roth post vh.

[MoMo]

sorry, waksman, but your textbook rules for predicting oil prices don't hold in today's world.

the huge growth of the indian and chinese economies -- sucking in oil and other energy supplies like a drunk at a free bar in the desert -- is bringing essentially permanent change to the energy market we have long known. we'll never see $1.39 gas again.

and that means inflation won't be dropping anytime soon, either.

[Kalaby]

Agreed that $1.39 gas is probably gone for good. Many are calling for $100/barrel oil over the next few years. Ultimately this will be a good thing in the long run since it will force us off of oil more quickly than we would have had prices remained a bit more stable. Though in the interim it's pretty painful for the consumer. On a related note, I'm personally driving less frequently in recent months due to the higher gas prices, though not everybody has that choice.

[TrackDaddy]

I'm going to pick on you here a second to illustrate a point in my civility quest ... Even something as mild as this, to call someone half-right and that he "fails the test."

For what I want at DyeStat, that's still a shade harsh and personal. Can't we say we just disagree with someone, state our point and get on with it? I realize we want our words to have weight and reveal our personality, but most of you on this thread know how quickly these things can escalate. I warned a few of you, jwaks and mzungu, against this.

Well, you've both done well here ... let's all walk that fine line and be respectful. We're never going to come CLOSE to all agreeing here, so let's realize that and not even try. Just respect and express. ThanksYikes! :eek:

Sorry, Steve... point taken.

And although I am MORE THAN WILLING to abide by the guidelines, I must respectfully say that I think that is somewhat extreme.

I mean saying that some is "half right" and "fails the test" is over the top?

Honestly, I had no idea.

But I respect the job your trying to do, Steve, and I will be on my best behavior. ;)

I apologize to Jwaks and to my fellow Loungers.

[TrackDaddy]

That's the inherent problem with the legal system, period.Hi Layla.

[mzungu]

it's hard to predict near term oil prices without knowing the value of the dollar and whether there will be a second war in the middle east beginning close to the midterm elections in 2006 or in the presidential election year of 2008. if no further mideast wars from our side, then i can see oil prices levelling off below $75, maybe even closer to $60, for a while, because increased iraqi and other oil production prompted by high prices will, i believe, eliminate the gap between daily demand and supply for the time being. however, the general future trend does seem upward over the next thirty years, with possible declines below $40 since the present prices are largely speculator rather than supply driven, imho.

[Jwaksman]

My point, which was not responded to, was that oil prices have a ceiling. At a certain point there will be alternatives. Nuclear fission, or fusion, or coal conversion. Prices cannot continue to rise at the current rates.

And, mzungu, don't try to pretend that you weren't bashing the economy right from the start of the recession. You were complaining about the low GDP growth, and then when that starts going off the charts you now say that you were expecting it...

Inflation is up now, but it will slow. There are always bumps and jostles in markets, but they always even out. In the long run, wages have to rise. If real GDP is increasing this quickly, then wage rises will have to follow a priori.

Also, another thing to remember, is that real wage increases are always under reported. This has to do with an accepted error in inflation measurements. That error comes from the fact that inflation measurements take into account products that may increase in quality over the years. For example, if there is a 2000 Honda Accord that costs a certain amount, and a 2005 that costs a different amount, the inflation calculator will treat these as equal objects, and determine the rise in price. However, there is also a rise in quality, meaning that there might actually not be a real rise in the price at all. Even Keynesian economists (as well as even most economists further to the left) acknowledge this.

[SteveU]

Yikes! :eek:

Sorry, Steve... point taken.

I mean saying that some is "half right" and "fails the test" is over the top?

.

Not over the top, but just the type of thing that can escalate after a while ... maybe that wouldn't have, and I'm not going to respond to something that mild every time I see it ... but just consider my option ... and I'm not just speaking to TD, but everyone. You can be strong with your point without that.

Now if you know the other person well enough to know they won't react, then take a chance...

After all, TD, WWJD? ;)

[mzungu]

because presidents and their adherents cite economic changes as proof of the essential worth of their policies, it is rational to take them up on their claims by praising them for a good economy and blaming them for a bad economy. of course, external forces and normal economic moves are going to affect this, so it seems better to compare the economy and their specific moves to past events. hence, it is coherent for me to blame bush for the sloth of the economic recovery and the areas where it is weaker than desired, in so far as he has been throwing around sufficient government resources, qua deficit spending and tax cuts, to have a significant effect on the economy. the recovery was slower and weaker than the clinton recovery, as evidenced by the fact, for instance, that the unemployment rate four years in had barely declined, whereas four years into the clinton administration it had fallen substantially. income inequality had increased under bush, but decreased under clinton. and so forth. the economy is growing, which is positive, but the impact on workers has been much less positive than under clinton, and i believe that is due largely to their different policies. oil prices, for instance, are not merely an external shock when the price increase is temporally tied closely to the iraq war.

[Jwaksman]

You argued that unemployment rates were meaningless because they were tied to participation rates, and not just employment. That was when the unemloyment numbers looked good. Now that they've stagnated (at a very healthy level, no less) you now say that they are a good barometer of the economy. Which one is it? Make up your mind?


You argued that oil prices will remain high and go higher because of increased oil consumption and India and China. Now you say that they are high because of Bush's war in Iraq. Make up your mind.


There is no question that the economy is healthy now. Be honest with us. Will you admit that the economy is healthy before we have a Democratic President? Is there a level of economic health that you would actually admit that the economy is in good shape, while we have a Republican in the white house?

[mzungu]

You argued that unemployment rates were meaningless because they were tied to participation rates, and not just employment. That was when the unemloyment numbers looked good. Now that they've stagnated (at a very healthy level, no less) you now say that they are a good barometer of the economy. Which one is it? Make up your mind?


You argued that oil prices will remain high and go higher because of increased oil consumption and India and China. Now you say that they are high because of Bush's war in Iraq. Make up your mind.


There is no question that the economy is healthy now. Be honest with us. Will you admit that the economy is healthy before we have a Democratic President? Is there a level of economic health that you would actually admit that the economy is in good shape, while we have a Republican in the white house?

I have no problem making up my mind. by reading carefully, you will note that MoMo or someone else referred to higher demand in China and India as the reason that oil prices would continue to increase, and I said that oil price pressures from those nations will continue to increase for many years as their growth rates continue to be at 5+%. however, as far as I can tell, there was no DRAMATIC change in those countries during the oil price runup. hence, the doubling in oil prices cannot be explained by reference to china and india. A few dollars up, perhaps, but not a doubling. the war in iraq is largely responsible for the short-term runup in oil prices. long-term, china and india will be a factor, but not causing a doubling within two or three years. we are not very near to crossing the line where other means of energy currently available and politically/environmentally suitable are more economically feasible. at $100/barrel, oil would still probably be much cheaper/energy yield than the others. of course, had reagan and bush continued the clean energy research begun under carter, it would be a different story.

I never said that unemployment rates were MEANINGLESS, but that they were not the whole story. labor force participation rates and unemployment rates have to be looked at together. currently, i do not know what the labor force participation rate is, but i do know that unemployment rates have stabilized between 5.2% and 5.4% (as of last month's stats), which is considerably higher than in most of clinton's second term. when I recently cited white house statistics about the economy as proof that jersey_guy was wrong when he stated that the economy was rolling, I was right. The economy is not rolling. It's improving with some back steps along the way, as it always does after a recession, but more slowly and with less general benefits than some previous recoveries. The fact is that bush has mishandled the deficit and the economy. Every single step has been directed to help the rich, such as the drive to eliminate the estate tax, or what i call the aristocracy tax, which affects just the top 0.3% of estates, as the democratic congressman said--not family farmers but paris hilton. this will cost $290 billion over the next ten years. If bush had done nothing, no tax cuts, no aristocracy tax cuts, no Medicaid drug bill, no Iraq war, our economy would really be rolling FOR EVERYONE.

[mzungu]

oil price rises from 1970-2005 from the u.s. energy department.

from 2002, after price declines following 9/11, prices have now tripled to $56, during most of which time we had the buildup to iraq (the buildup to the first Iraq war, not the war itself, first saw a massive runup in oil prices), and prices have increased from about $25 to $56 from the start of the Iraq war to the present.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

[Jwaksman]

That website is in nominal dollars. It's obvious that oil prices were much higher in the mid-to-late 1970's than they are now. As for the current spike in oil prices, I think this is an example of other countries taking advantage of the oil cartels. First of all, the Middle East only provides about 30% of US oil. This means that the only way for oil prices to go up 50% are for oil prices in countries like Russia and Venezuela to go up 50% also.

Speaking of Russia, they are arguably a bigger cause that Iraq. The Russian government, basically, re-nationalized their oil giant, and oil exports from that country have gone way done because of it. That would have been a huge jar to the oil prices with or without a war. Either way, I think the oil cartels are using the Iraq War as an excuse to run oil prices way up. And oil companies are doing the same.

Remember, oil prices have risen from about $25 a barrel to about $50 a barrel - that's barely more than 50 cents per gallon. Gasoline prices have gone up much more than 50 cents per gallon, which is something that doesn't make sense to me.

As for the unemployment rate, it's actually in a pretty good spot. The ideal unemployment rate is around 4.5%. During the late part of Clinton's term, unemployment was too low. That helped to stunt economic growth and was one of the factors that led to the recession of 2000. An unemployment rate of 5.2% is something that any president can live with, and is definitely FAR lower than average rate of unemployment since World War II.

[mzungu]

yet the clinton era, with unemployment below 4%, saw better consistent growth and much better job growth than the bush administration has seen. part of the issue is that REAL unemployment is much higher than the official figure, which means that there is significant flexibility in a job market where the official figure has 3% unemployment. there will always be ten million or more able-bodied workers over and above the 3% or whatever unemployment rate, who are not counted because they are longer-term unemployed for whatever reason. Hence, job creation can continue at a rapid rate under those circumstances even where unemployment remains the same--labor force participation increases; thus the last stat was higher under clinton than it is now.

the fact remains that the oil price runup from about $25 to $56 coincides precisely with the Iraq war. Remember that this is a period of just over two years; thus, real increases, factoring in overall inflation, are not much different than the nominal dollar figures. But the point is that the prices HAVE more than doubled during the Iraq war, and this is no coincidence, because prices always go up dramatically during major Middle East wars, such as the 1990-1 period after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Bush administration, composed entirely of oil executives in the first term, did something that created record oil profits, just as they did in the Bush senior administration. Now the explanation of the price increase can be the Iraqi war, for the most part, because of history and because middle east oil is a higher percentage of WORLDWIDE oil production than of American imports, and American demand does not determine oil prices. Moreover, agreements such as OPEC extend Middle Eastern oil pricing conditions to other major producers, such as Nigeria, and non-OPEC nations are not in the business of discounting their oil prices, since the world demand is just slightly lower than total world daily production at the moment.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, come on now - no more of this deceptive, dishonest language. Your first sentence:

"yet the clinton era, with unemployment below 4%, saw better consistent growth and much better job growth than the bush administration has seen"


Now, anyone reading that sentence would think that Clinton spent most of his time with unemployment rates under 4%. Actually, unemployment was below 4% for only FOUR MONTHS in all 8 years that Clinton was in office - September through December of 2000 - WHICH LED RIGHT INTO THE RECESSION.


Right now we have data through March of 2005. In March of 1997, at the EXACT SAME POINT in Clinton's 8 years in office, we had THE EXACT SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. The rate was 5.2% in March of 1997, and it's 5.2% now.


The unemployment rate did not get consistently under 4.5% until 1999, just one year before the recession.


And it is an economic fact that overemployment is an economic problem. Total factor productivity goes way down and overall GDP will actually drop, despite a larger pool of employed workers. This is called Okun's Law, which is taught in most introductory Economics classes. This causes the real wage to drop, at the same time that less-profitable industries begin to lay off workers. So, you have decreased employment and decreased wages, which is the prescription for a serious recession. This overemployment of 1999-2000 was one of the two major causes of the Recession of 2000 (along with the Internet bubble burst).



Now, as for oil prices. As I said before, oil prices are run by cartels. Even if Middle Eastern nations produced 50% of the world's oil, which they don't, they still couldn't raise prices nearly this much on their own. Other countries would raise their prices half as much, increasing output, and greatly increasing profits. What is going on is that oil drilling companies and oil trading companies are taking advantage of the public perception of oil and the Iraq War's effect on it, and raising prices together - reaping huge profits. Remember, countries like OPEC and Russia want the US out of the middle east. They are using oil prices as one of the ways to try to get the US out.


Oil is not traded in a free market, so its prices are more often set based on politics than on actual free market laws.

[mzungu]

the details of your second point are debatable but in any case you agree with my claim, which was that the iraq war is the cause of most of the doubling in oil prices since the beginning of the war.

regarding unemployment, i didn't have all the clinton era figures handy and i was setting a figure based on your own comments. i do remember clearly this fact, that republicans, supporting high unemployment because it reduces wage pressures, that is, it reduces worker power to influence wage and job conditions, had long argued that the 'natural' unemployment rate, the rate below which the economy would turn south, was significantly higher than both the rate that held for years under clinton and the rates held consistently in certain other non-communist countries. I also know that while unemployment in May 1997 might as you say have been 5.2%, that represented a dramatic drop in four years, whereas for Bush there was an increase and then a decrease, leaving stagnation or worsening. However, 5.2% is actually misleading, because during most of 1997, the rate was well below 5%, so I'll expect that from Bush's economy as well:
" 82 , 1997 Nov , 4.30000
83 , 1997 Oct , 4.40000
84 , 1997 Sep , 4.70000
85 , 1997 Aug , 4.80000
86 , 1997 Jul , 5.00000
87 , 1997 Jun , 5.20000
88 , 1997 May , 4.70000
89 , 1997 Apr , 4.80000
90 , 1997 Mar , 5.50000
91 , 1997 Feb , 5.70000
92 , 1997 Jan , 5.90000"


unemployment was 8% prior to clinton's taking office, it was just 5% at the end of 1996, and there were twenty-four months total in his presidency when unemployment was below 4.5%, including a number of sub 4% months, including two months in 1999, nearly two years before the recession.

By contrast in the Bush administration, unemployment started at 4.7% or lower (it was 3.7% in December 2000, and January 2001 was an exception, February was lower and so on until May or about the time bush's policies started having an effect), rose to 6.5%, remained consistently at 6% avg. for a long period, and then finally declined to 5.2%. Unemployment really grew after Bush's policies started to take effect. In the Clinton administration there was a dramatic drop in unemployment for the first 7 years of his presidency. Essentially it was all good for everyone, rich and poor, during those years.
http://www.econstats.com/IMF/IFS_USA1_67R__.htm

[mzungu]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Medical Money Pit
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 15, 2005

A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about a health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: a few years of good data led many people to conclude that H.M.O.'s and other innovations had ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.

But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990's proved temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly, and our health care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we do, while getting better results.

Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: somebody is sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system, which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.

In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.

But in any case, Britain isn't the country we want to look at, because its health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only 40 percent as high as ours.

The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany or Canada - but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's - and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)

Let me rattle off some numbers.

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.

What do we get for all that money? Not much.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.

A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services - we have lots of M.R.I.'s - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only average, or even below average. There's also direct evidence that identical procedures cost far more in the U.S. than in other advanced countries.

The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than their counterparts abroad - but they don't actually receive more care. The title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."

Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors' salaries: although average wages in France and the United States are similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts. Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain with the pharmaceutical industry.

Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.

In my next column in this series, I'll explain why the most privatized health care system in the advanced world is also the most bloated and bureaucratic.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

[Jwaksman]

I pointed out your deceptive language so that hopefully you will either apologize or agree to be less deceptive in the future. Stop being so defensive and just say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used language that suggested that unemployment rates were lower than they were." And yet you did it again - the 5.2% unemployment rate in March of 1997 was NOT a high anomaly. Rather, it was tied for the second lowest unemployment rate at any point in Clinton's 4 1/2 years. For Bush, this is tied for his lowest unemployment rate - since we were also at 5.2% in January. It seems like the records are pretty similar in this respect.


Also, as many posters here have pointed out repeatedly, showing that the economy was healthy under Clinton does not lead to the logical conclusion that the decisions made since then were wrong. It would be a lot easier for the economy to be humming at even faster rate now if we invented another Internet. And, even the most ardent Clinton supporter wouldn't hesitate to acknowledge that, by far, the largest cause of the 1990's economic boom was the Internet. And, the only thing Clinton had to do with that was having a Vice President who claimed to have invented it...


Finally, I don't understand what you think that Clinton did that Bush did not. Clinton passed a large tax cut to boost the economy, he started a unilateral war without any immediate threat to America, and he passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Why don't you ever criticize these things?


You have to learn to be consistent on the issues. I criticize Clinton for passing the Defense of Marriage Act. And I criticize Bush for pushing for the Gay Marriage Ban. I view both of these actions as equal, and I don't feel the need to define my views by the "R" or "D" next to their names.

[mzungu]

I think it's fair to say that you paid little or no attention to my above posts, which show that the unemployment rate in 1997 averaged well under 5% and that while you repeatedly have claimed there is no difference in success between clinton and bush to the extent that both had unemployment rates of 5.2% at some point during the first year of their second term, there is an enormous difference between inheriting a rate of 3.7/4.7% and raising that to 6.5% before lowering it back to a rate still higher than you took office at 5.2-5.4%, vs. inheriting a rate of 8% and lowering that to 5.2% and averaging under 5% for that year.

clinton passed tax increases on the wealthy, whereas bush lowered their taxes, early in office and again and again (the estate tax or aristocracy tax as i like to call it on the top 0.3% of estates, with large exemptions bringing the total tax rate for these estates to just 18%, and much of these estates has never been taxed before because they haven't faced the tax on house sales, for instance). when clinton passed tax cuts, they were targeted to spur the economy in healthy ways, whereas bush's only redistributed income to the wealthiest by decreasing their tax burden as a percentage of the total tax burden. clinton entered a war in the former yugoslavia that had been raging for many years already and that had resulted in genocidal conditions, massive refugee problems, and so forth; with relatively minimal u.s. casualties and relatively small u.s. costs, his move limited and then ended the war, and finally led to the peaceful overthrow of milosevic's government. pretty big contrast to the massive body counts, us and iraqi, massive costs, and different circumstances and results of the iraqi invasion, which violated the principles of so-called just war theory. this isn't the sanctification of clinton. nowhere have i made that comment. but considering that he had to face a republican house after 1994 and that farce of an impeachment/scandals over matters of no consequence whatsoever, sexual peccadilloes, he was the best president we've had in a long time. the defense of marriage act, in my opinion, is a scandal, as are various other measures. but that hardly provides political cover for bush, since bush went beyond clinton to try to set a constitutional amendment.

[Jwaksman]

AGAIN with the deceptive language. Let's break it down:

mzungu:
"the unemployment rate in 1997 averaged well under 5%"

Truth:
The average unemployment rate for the 12 months of 1997 was 4.94%. That's not even close to "well under 5%"

mzungu:
"inheriting a rate of 3.7/4.7% and raising that to 6.5% before lowering it back to a rate still higher than you took office at 5.2-5.4%"

Truth:
The lowest unemployment rate under Bush was 4.2%, in the month that he was inaugurated. By September of 2001 the unemployment rate was already up to 5% - and no one with an economics degree would try to suggest that a President is responsible for unemployment rates in the first 8 months in office. Then we had that thing called 9/11, which sent unemployment rates up to 5.9% by April of 2002. Rates peaked at 6.3% (not 6.5%), and are now back to 5.2% and steadily dropping. They should be under 5% by the end of the year.

mzungu:
"vs. inheriting a rate of 8% and lowering that to 5.2% and averaging under 5% for that year."

Truth:
The unemployment rate hasn't been at 8% since 1984. When Clinton took office it was at 7.3% and was already steadily dropping. It hit 6.5% during his first year in office. Obviously, none of that was due to any policies of his. Also, as I pointed out before, Clinton's unemployment rate throughout his 5th year averaged 4.94%. Through the first three month's of Bush's 5th year we're averaging 5.27%. Not exactly a Black-And-White difference.




As I mentioned before, there was also this thing called The Internet that helped out the economy in the 1990's. The fact that the economy is nearly as good after a bursting bubble and 9/11 as it was in the thick of the Internet Boom is nothing but a testament to the power of tax cuts and the wonderful work of Alan Greenspan at the Fed.


It's an economic fact that tax cuts help economies grow - you would learn this in an introductory economics course. The only question is how to cut taxes - not whether to cut them at all.

[Dyenimator]

... that law would make it illegal for Jwaksbaugh and mzungu to debate.

[SteveU]

jwak and mzungu, you're getting into a private, increasingly personal and somewhat off-topic debate ... people might appreciate it if you took it somewhere else or moved on.

The original topic has become somewhat lost. This thread may be ready for closure unless there are more posts responding to the topic. Really, you 50+ members might want to start something new that's on your mind.

Another option for mzungu and jwaksman .... their own thread? I'm serious ... if you limit it, I'm not going to say one thread of these guys debating is cluttering up the board. If others want to read or participate, they can, or they can just not read it.

[kingofxc25]

there are a lot of laws that i would like to make, but keeping it semi-track related i make one banning obesity
if you started becoming obese then u would be sent basically to a fat camp and forced to work off that lard, i kno it seems harsh but i think that obesity is an epidemic in america, now of course there would be exceptions to the law but yea...
hope i dont offend anyone, i dont mean too

[kingofxc25]

I don't know how this could be at all Constitutional. Technically, people have a right to be Obese if they like. The idea of Government telling me what to or what not to eat is really scary, far too intrusive. AIDS is an epidemic also, should we ban sex? How about Cancer? What do we do there?
the question didnt say it had to be constitutional, and if u could make a law to help prevent or deter AIDS or Cancer go for it

[Jwaksman]

I have an idea... what if we take all the annoying cellphone talkers and put them all in the same room?

... what if we take everyone who steals something and cut their hands off?


... what if we take all the stupid people and force them to sit in a jail cell and take the SAT over and over again until they break 1400?




I bring up absurd examples to prove a more serious point. Our government exists for one purpose: to protect the rights of our citizens. Our right to life, to property, to the pursuit of happiness, etc. It does not exist to tell people how to use those rights. It should not tell us what color our hair should be, what jobs we should have, or what weight we should be at. If you want that - move to North Korea. I'd like to have one country on this planet that is atleast reasonably free...

[kingofxc25]

I have an idea... what if we take all the annoying cellphone talkers and put them all in the same room?

... what if we take everyone who steals something and cut their hands off?


... what if we take all the stupid people and force them to sit in a jail cell and take the SAT over and over again until they break 1400?




I bring up absurd examples to prove a more serious point. Our government exists for one purpose: to protect the rights of our citizens. Our right to life, to property, to the pursuit of happiness, etc. It does not exist to tell people how to use those rights. It should not tell us what color our hair should be, what jobs we should have, or what weight we should be at. If you want that - move to North Korea. I'd like to have one country on this planet that is atleast reasonably free...
haha sum of those are good ideas... but really there are certain people whether u agree or not who eat to a point where it is unhealthy and that is where the government should come in and stop them from possibly hurting themselves, doesnt the government interfere with suicidal people, i think that this should be something that the government and you would take seriuosly, obesity is a curable problem, but if we just go on like there is nothing wrong then it will just increase, and if u think or country is only reasonably free than u are mistaken we have so many freedoms that people take for granted

[Jwaksman]

... like the freedom to not have government tell you what you can and cannot eat? Let me ask you a question - I'm sure you've seen some of those couples getting married that you know shouldn't be getting married. You know that they're going to end up getting divorced some day, causing great distress to not only them but to their whole families. So, should we have a Marriage Commission, that would have the ability to refuse their ability to become married?


Even Stalin & Hitler couldn't have imagined a society where you couldn't buy junky food unless an Eating Commission approved you. That is really, really scary.


Just because you think that something is a bad thing to do, doesn't mean that you have the moral authority to force your ideas on everyone else. Your morality isn't more important than that of a fat person's.

[kingofxc25]

i can make whatever law i wanted just as u did and as steveu said just disagree and move on it is pointless to argue on an internet thread it will get you nowhere, if trying to get people healthy is a bad law than hey itll never get passed so dont worry about it

[harrier12]

I'd make it illegal to drive without having been certified by an actual driving instructor and having passed a real driver's test, in both cases by someone who knows enough about competent driving to teach proper technique. I've seen too many accidents caused by high schoolers and my fellow collegians, who thought a modified Honda Civic gave them carte blanche to join the century club, and they wound up wrapping it around a telephone pole or putting it over the side of one of the canyon roads around here.

It frustrates me to know that there are kids getting their licenses w/o ever learning about threshold braking, downshifting an automatic, contact patch, sight points, proper maintainance, etc. And let's face it, the low license fee isn't doing much to deter incompetent drivers either, but since I can only pass one....

[Dyenimator]

I'd make it illegal for people to drive Honda Civics. I see too many of these on the roads these days. Drive a real car, please.

[TrackDaddy]

One new law that would allow ME (using my choice of methods) to make prison a place that people would truly never want to return to.

And by word of mouth, gravely fear ever 'visiting' in the first place.

[mzungu]

steveu, don't worry, i have two books to finish and a defense against a commentary to write for a couple weeks from now, so i can't waste my time over nitpicking and unfactual debates. suffice it to say that if jwaksman had looked through the link of unemployment data, he'd see that monthly unemployment hit 6.5% during the bush presidency, that unemployment at the beginning of 1993 was 8.0%, that unemployment in 1997 did average under (but not well under) 5%, that it was under 5% for 3 of 4 quarters that year, and that unemployment in December 2000 and January 2001 was 3.7%/4.7%, as I said.

I would be careful, trackdaddy, about passing laws that would bring torture or other inhumane conditions to prisoners, because deterrence has simply never worked, because it is wrong to inflict purposeless suffering (you've got them in prison already, so no crime prevention, and the deterrence angle does not work, as statistics show, plus the state is then rightly equated with the criminals or understood to be worse, to punish far in excess of the crime), because torture is unreliable and weakens the criminal justice system by undermining the notion that it is really just (undermining the civil power--these were critiques rendered when torture was originally limited in the 18th century and again in the 1989 cia handbook), because it would make no distinction between different crimes, because it would not take account of errors and racial disparities in the enforcement and sentencing of suspects, and because it would result in making the prisoners even worse when they returned to society, as many of them would unless you universalized the death penalty or the extremely costly life imprisonment.

[MoMo]

I'd make it illegal for people to drive Honda Civics. I see too many of these on the roads these days. Drive a real car, please.


I'd make it illegal for people to drive anything BUT a Honda Civic. We'd save enough gas to END the energy crisis and to bring prices down low, and because ALL cars would be small, the horrible accidents between Big-Adze SUVs and little subcompacts would be a thing of the past. Also, automatic transmissions (which waste gas) should be banned, and people should learn how to drive the good old-fashioned way.

[Kalaby]

steveu, don't worry, i have two books to finish and a defense against a commentary to write for a couple weeks from now, so i can't waste my time over nitpicking and unfactual debates. suffice it to say that if jwaksman had looked through the link of unemployment data, he'd see that monthly unemployment hit 6.5% during the bush presidency, that unemployment at the beginning of 1993 was 8.0%, that unemployment in 1997 did average under (but not well under) 5%, that it was under 5% for 3 of 4 quarters that year, and that unemployment in December 2000 and January 2001 was 3.7%/4.7%, as I said.

The numbers you post do not agree with official BLS numbers.

Using BLS numbers (for simplicity I'm assuming a 4-year January-December period for a presidential term):

Clinton I: 6.00%
Clinton II: 4.41%
Dubya I: 5.51%
Dubya II: 5.27% (for period January-March 2005)

In first 51 months of Clinton's presidency: 5.96%
In first 51 months of Dubya's presidency: 5.50%

As most know, unemployment continued to trend steadily downward throughout Clinton's second term. For the entirety of his second term, the average unemployment rate was a very low 4.41%. Overall for his 8-years in office, Clinton's average unemployment rate was 5.20%. In order to match that for his full two terms, Dubya needs to see an average of 4.87% for the remainder of his second term.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can play with these stats any way you please to try to prove a point that paints "your guy" as better than "the other guy".

[TrackDaddy]

Mzu...

I wouldn't resort to torture.

But a full 8 hours of very demanding manual labor would be required. Most days to the point of exhaustion.

Consequently, there'd be far less time available for basketball, weightlifting, TV and the filing of frivolous lawsuits that tie up our judicial system.

No conjugal visits, no food variety (just what is needed to sustain life), nothing to drink but water, no movies, no cigarettes, no free time...period.

No mail (except legal correspondences from attorneys), no phone calls, no visitors, no chewing gum, no rights.

And just to be clear...I don't consider punishment to be a fullproof deterrent to crime. But deterrence does have it's place. For example, I'm sure there are laws that those in Lounge don't agree with but are afraid to break merely because of the potential consequences. But my reasoning is not only to deter, but to TRULY punish. TO Make SUFFER. And there is a way to make life conditionally more demanding depending on the specifics of the crime. Just as sentences differ.

In the words of famed former Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams...

"I'd have them busting rocks."

[Jwaksman]

The official employment statistics are from the Bureau of Labor & Statistics. These are the numbers that get published every month in the newspapers, and THE official statistics for economics data in this country. You might find some different numbers on paulkrugman.com, but these numbers are the real ones.


The unemployment rate has not hit 8.0% or higher since January of 1984. The highest unemployment rate under Clinton was 7.3%, in January of 1993. The highest under Bush was 6.3% in June of 2003.


Just go to www.bls.gov and look it all up yourself...

[MA Coach]

and people should learn how to drive the good old-fashioned way.


AGREED!!! Then they'd realize how much more fun driving could be too!

-did I just sound like a commercial?

[leighpeas]

One new law that would allow ME (using my choice of methods) to make prison a place that people would truly never want to return to.

And by word of mouth, gravely fear ever 'visiting' in the first place.
Wouldn't it be more Christian to make prison a place of TRUE rehabilitation?

...although I think some people deserve the Judas Cradle.
How sick.

[Kalaby]

The official employment statistics are from the Bureau of Labor & Statistics. These are the numbers that get published every month in the newspapers, and THE official statistics for economics data in this country. You might find some different numbers on paulkrugman.com, but these numbers are the real ones.


The unemployment rate has not hit 8.0% or higher since January of 1984. The highest unemployment rate under Clinton was 7.3%, in January of 1993. The highest under Bush was 6.3% in June of 2003.


Just go to www.bls.gov and look it all up yourself...

Just following up on the 6.3% mark in June 03; the unemployment rate has been on a steady downward trend since that point in time. Time will tell if that trend continues or reverses itself at some point in the future.

[TrackDaddy]

Wouldn't it be more Christian to make prison a place of TRUE rehabilitation?Isn't that what you got from my suggestions?

Busting rocks IS rehab.

A TRUE expression of endearment and long term love meant to curb counterproductive behavior.

First, in consideration of the actor's victim; and secondly, for the potential recovery of said perpetrator.

Sup Leigh.

[harrier12]

I'd make it illegal for people to drive anything BUT a Honda Civic. We'd save enough gas to END the energy crisis and to bring prices down low, and because ALL cars would be small, the horrible accidents between Big-Adze SUVs and little subcompacts would be a thing of the past. Also, automatic transmissions (which waste gas) should be banned, and people should learn how to drive the good old-fashioned way.

Exactly. Volkswagen Jetta TDI w/5 spd-here I come!

[xcrider]

Mzu...

I wouldn't resort to torture.

But a full 8 hours of very demanding manual labor would be required. Most days to the point of exhaustion.

Consequently, there'd be far less time available for basketball, weightlifting, TV and the filing of frivolous lawsuits that tie up our judicial system.

No conjugal visits, no food variety (just what is needed to sustain life), nothing to drink but water, no movies, no cigarettes, no free time...period.

No mail (except legal correspondences from attorneys), no phone calls, no visitors, no chewing gum, no rights.

And just to be clear...I don't consider punishment to be a fullproof deterrent to crime. But deterrence does have it's place. For example, I'm sure there are laws that those in Lounge don't agree with but are afraid to break merely because of the potential consequences. But my reasoning is not only to deter, but to TRULY punish. TO Make SUFFER. And there is a way to make life conditionally more demanding depending on the specifics of the crime. Just as sentences differ.

In the words of famed former Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams...

"I'd have them busting rocks."

Absolutely. No torture or inhumane actions, but give them a small cell, clean, bare, simple plain food, hard labour that might help offset some of their cost to the taxpayers. Our local state prison decided to remove some more violent video games from the prison. Why do they have video games in the first place? "Make little rocks out of big rocks all day..." Doyle Lawson

[Zat0pek]

Mzu...

I wouldn't resort to torture.

But a full 8 hours of very demanding manual labor would be required. Most days to the point of exhaustion.

Consequently, there'd be far less time available for basketball, weightlifting, TV and the filing of frivolous lawsuits that tie up our judicial system.

No conjugal visits, no food variety (just what is needed to sustain life), nothing to drink but water, no movies, no cigarettes, no free time...period.

No mail (except legal correspondences from attorneys), no phone calls, no visitors, no chewing gum, no rights.

And just to be clear...I don't consider punishment to be a fullproof deterrent to crime. But deterrence does have it's place. For example, I'm sure there are laws that those in Lounge don't agree with but are afraid to break merely because of the potential consequences. But my reasoning is not only to deter, but to TRULY punish. TO Make SUFFER. And there is a way to make life conditionally more demanding depending on the specifics of the crime. Just as sentences differ.

In the words of famed former Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams...

"I'd have them busting rocks."

I like the way you think, TD. Punishment can also be constructive. I'm all for using prison labor to save taxpayers money and contribute to society. 8 hours of hard, physical labor followed by evening required classes.

[TrackDaddy]

followed by evening required classes.Hadn't thought of that.

I concur.

[Kalaby]

Where would you send the class troublemakers??? LOL j/k.

I generally agree with TD and Zat on this issue. You could think of it as constructive punishment that ultimately benefits both society and the inmate.

[leighpeas]

Isn't that what you got from my suggestions?

Busting rocks IS rehab.

A TRUE expression of endearment and long term love meant to curb counterproductive behavior.

First, in consideration of the actor's victim; and secondly, for the potential recovery of said perpetrator.

Sup Leigh.

Yeah, I finished the thread. Sorry 'bout that, TD, you are very very right.

[mzungu]

i would support zat's idea for 8 hours of hard labor following by required evening classes, if the hard labor were economically productive (not rock breaking) and taught usable skills. but that's a far cry from the idea td presented.

[mzungu]

UNEMPLOYMENT Rate [ IFS code : 67R.. ]
,,USA
,, Units: Percent per annum (1)
,, From: Prices, Production, Labor
,, ES Source: International Financial Statistics
, Month , 1993 to Aug 2004
1 , 2004 Aug , 5.40000
2 , 2004 Jul , 5.70000
3 , 2004 Jun , 5.80000
4 , 2004 May , 5.30000
5 , 2004 Apr , 5.40000
6 , 2004 Mar , 6.00000
7 , 2004 Feb , 6.00000
8 , 2004 Jan , 6.30000
9 , 2003 Dec , 5.40000
10 , 2003 Nov , 5.60000
11 , 2003 Oct , 5.60000
12 , 2003 Sep , 5.80000
13 , 2003 Aug , 6.00000
14 , 2003 Jul , 6.30000
15 , 2003 Jun , 6.50000
16 , 2003 May , 5.80000
17 , 2003 Apr , 5.80000
18 , 2003 Mar , 6.20000
19 , 2003 Feb , 6.40000
20 , 2003 Jan , 6.50000
21 , 2002 Dec , 5.70000
22 , 2002 Nov , 5.60000
23 , 2002 Oct , 5.30000
24 , 2002 Sep , 5.40000
25 , 2002 Aug , 5.70000
26 , 2002 Jul , 5.90000
27 , 2002 Jun , 6.00000
28 , 2002 May , 5.50000
29 , 2002 Apr , 5.70000
30 , 2002 Mar , 6.10000
31 , 2002 Feb , 6.10000
32 , 2002 Jan , 6.30000
33 , 2001 Dec , 5.40000
34 , 2001 Nov , 5.30000
35 , 2001 Oct , 5.00000
36 , 2001 Sep , 4.70000
37 , 2001 Aug , 4.90000
38 , 2001 Jul , 4.70000
39 , 2001 Jun , 4.70000
40 , 2001 May , 4.10000
41 , 2001 Apr , 4.20000
42 , 2001 Mar , 4.50000
43 , 2001 Feb , 4.60000
44 , 2001 Jan , 4.70000
45 , 2000 Dec , 3.70000
46 , 2000 Nov , 3.70000
47 , 2000 Oct , 3.60000
48 , 2000 Sep , 3.80000
49 , 2000 Aug , 4.10000
50 , 2000 Jul , 4.20000
51 , 2000 Jun , 4.10000
52 , 2000 May , 3.80000
53 , 2000 Apr , 3.70000
54 , 2000 Mar , 4.30000
55 , 2000 Feb , 4.40000
56 , 2000 Jan , 4.50000
57 , 1999 Dec , 3.70000
58 , 1999 Nov , 3.80000
59 , 1999 Oct , 3.80000
60 , 1999 Sep , 4.10000
61 , 1999 Aug , 4.20000
62 , 1999 Jul , 4.50000
63 , 1999 Jun , 4.50000
64 , 1999 May , 4.00000
65 , 1999 Apr , 4.10000
66 , 1999 Mar , 4.40000
67 , 1999 Feb , 4.70000
68 , 1999 Jan , 4.80000
69 , 1998 Dec , 4.00000
70 , 1998 Nov , 4.10000
71 , 1998 Oct , 4.20000
72 , 1998 Sep , 4.40000
73 , 1998 Aug , 4.50000
74 , 1998 Jul , 4.70000
75 , 1998 Jun , 4.70000
76 , 1998 May , 4.20000
77 , 1998 Apr , 4.10000
78 , 1998 Mar , 5.00000
79 , 1998 Feb , 5.00000
80 , 1998 Jan , 5.20000
81 , 1997 Dec , 4.40000
82 , 1997 Nov , 4.30000
83 , 1997 Oct , 4.40000
84 , 1997 Sep , 4.70000
85 , 1997 Aug , 4.80000
86 , 1997 Jul , 5.00000
87 , 1997 Jun , 5.20000
88 , 1997 May , 4.70000
89 , 1997 Apr , 4.80000
90 , 1997 Mar , 5.50000
91 , 1997 Feb , 5.70000
92 , 1997 Jan , 5.90000
93 , 1996 Dec , 5.00000
94 , 1996 Nov , 5.00000
95 , 1996 Oct , 4.90000
96 , 1996 Sep , 5.00000
97 , 1996 Aug , 5.10000
98 , 1996 Jul , 5.60000
99 , 1996 Jun , 5.50000
100 , 1996 May , 5.40000
101 , 1996 Apr , 5.40000
102 , 1996 Mar , 5.80000
103 , 1996 Feb , 6.00000
104 , 1996 Jan , 6.30000
105 , 1995 Dec , 5.20000
106 , 1995 Nov , 5.30000
107 , 1995 Oct , 5.20000
108 , 1995 Sep , 5.40000
109 , 1995 Aug , 5.60000
110 , 1995 Jul , 5.90000
111 , 1995 Jun , 5.80000
112 , 1995 May , 5.50000
113 , 1995 Apr , 5.60000
114 , 1995 Mar , 5.70000
115 , 1995 Feb , 5.90000
116 , 1995 Jan , 6.20000
117 , 1994 Dec , 5.10000
118 , 1994 Nov , 5.30000
119 , 1994 Oct , 5.40000
120 , 1994 Sep , 5.60000
121 , 1994 Aug , 5.90000
122 , 1994 Jul , 6.20000
123 , 1994 Jun , 6.20000
124 , 1994 May , 5.90000
125 , 1994 Apr , 6.20000
126 , 1994 Mar , 6.80000
127 , 1994 Feb , 7.10000
128 , 1994 Jan , 7.30000
129 , 1993 Dec , 6.10000
130 , 1993 Nov , 6.20000
131 , 1993 Oct , 6.40000
132 , 1993 Sep , 6.40000
133 , 1993 Aug , 6.60000
134 , 1993 Jul , 7.00000
135 , 1993 Jun , 7.20000
136 , 1993 May , 6.80000
137 , 1993 Apr , 6.90000
138 , 1993 Mar , 7.40000
139 , 1993 Feb , 7.80000
140 , 1993 Jan , 8.00000

[Kalaby]

Nobody is arguing about the stats. It was simply pointed out that you should go to the definitive source (BLS) because there seemed to be discrepancies between your source and the BLS.

[mzungu]

the discrepancies are probably due to one being quarterly and the other being monthly. in any case, here is a link (see p.13) to a graph, probably based on quarterly. it doesn't matter to me whether it's 8% or 7+% at the beginning of clinton's presidency. the point is that unemployment consistently fell during the entire two terms of clinton, whereas it has risen a lot and fallen a little (still well above what he inherited) during the bush presidency. that is, clinton's averaged higher in the first term because he inherited a very high unemployment rate from bush's father. but clinton produced declines the whole time.
http://www.mortgagebankers.org/present/2005/cref/Economic%20Outlook%20Doug%20Duncan,%20MBA.pdf

[mzungu]

here are the quarterly numbers, which are just a seasonally adjusted average of the monthly numbers--there's probably no actual discrepancy:
UNEMPLOYMENT Rate [ IFS code : 67R.. ]
,,USA
,, Units: Percent per annum (1)
,, From: Prices, Production, Labor
,, ES Source: International Financial Statistics
, Quarter , 1993 to 2004 qtr 2
1 , 2004 qII , 5.50000
2 , 2004 qI , 6.10000
3 , 2003 qIV , 5.53300
4 , 2003 qIII , 6.03300
5 , 2003 qII , 6.03300
6 , 2003 qI , 6.36700
7 , 2002 qIV , 5.53300
8 , 2002 qIII , 5.66700
9 , 2002 qII , 5.73300
10 , 2002 qI , 6.16700
11 , 2001 qIV , 5.23300
12 , 2001 qIII , 4.76700
13 , 2001 qII , 4.33300
14 , 2001 qI , 4.60000
15 , 2000 qIV , 3.66700
16 , 2000 qIII , 4.03300
17 , 2000 qII , 3.86700
18 , 2000 qI , 4.40000
19 , 1999 qIV , 3.76700
20 , 1999 qIII , 4.26700
21 , 1999 qII , 4.20000
22 , 1999 qI , 4.63300
23 , 1998 qIV , 4.10000
24 , 1998 qIII , 4.53300
25 , 1998 qII , 4.33300
26 , 1998 qI , 5.06700
27 , 1997 qIV , 4.36700
28 , 1997 qIII , 4.83300
29 , 1997 qII , 4.90000
30 , 1997 qI , 5.70000
31 , 1996 qIV , 4.96700
32 , 1996 qIII , 5.23300
33 , 1996 qII , 5.43300
34 , 1996 qI , 6.03300
35 , 1995 qIV , 5.23300
36 , 1995 qIII , 5.63300
37 , 1995 qII , 5.63300
38 , 1995 qI , 5.93300
39 , 1994 qIV , 5.26700
40 , 1994 qIII , 5.90000
41 , 1994 qII , 6.10000
42 , 1994 qI , 7.06700
43 , 1993 qIV , 6.23300
44 , 1993 qIII , 6.66700
45 , 1993 qII , 6.96700
46 , 1993 qI , 7.73300

[Kalaby]

the discrepancies are probably due to one being quarterly and the other being monthly. in any case, here is a link (see p.13) to a graph, probably based on quarterly. it doesn't matter to me whether it's 8% or 7+% at the beginning of clinton's presidency. the point is that unemployment consistently fell during the entire two terms of clinton, whereas it has risen a lot and fallen a little (still well above what he inherited) during the bush presidency. that is, clinton's averaged higher in the first term because he inherited a very high unemployment rate from bush's father. but clinton produced declines the whole time.
http://www.mortgagebankers.org/present/2005/cref/Economic%20Outlook%20Doug%20Duncan,%20MBA.pdf

Many things can be offered up pro and con as it relates to the numbers for Bush or Clinton or any other president in order to build a case for or against the individual that's being examined. That is where it can move from objective to subjective very quickly.

At the end of the day, if you want to make the most general argument without political spin on either side, Bush needs to average about 4.9% for the rest of his second term in order to match Clinton's overall 8 year numbers.

[Zat0pek]

i would support zat's idea for 8 hours of hard labor following by required evening classes, if the hard labor were economically productive (not rock breaking) and taught usable skills. but that's a far cry from the idea td presented.

I think breaking rocks could be very productive if it meant saving the taxpayers dollars. "Breaking rocks" is a term that is both literal and figurative when you talk about prison labor. In the past, yes, it meant exactly breaking rocks. I use it more figuratively, to describe physically very demanding, hot, dirty, hard work. There could be a number of jobs that fit that bill that prison labor could be used for that would accomplish that goal. The work should be: (1) physically exhausting; (2) highly unpleasant; and (3) save the taxpayers some money by having prison labor perform it.

As for the required classes, as a young intern in a DA's office if a convicted defendant didn't have a high school diploma, I would always ask the court to impose as a sentencing or probation requirement that the defendant be required to complete GED courses and obtain a GED. Judges almost always agreed to it and it was really hard for a defendant to object to it.

And the notion that many people can be rehabilitated is sheer folly. All you can do is provide them the opportunity and tools to rehabilitate themselves.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, every month when all the newspapers and newschannels summarize the economic picture, and talk about the employment numbers, unemployment rate, etc. they ALL use the OFFICIAL Bureau of Labor & Statistics Data.


I'm sure you can find websites that make up data that is more appealing to your political causes, but they mean nothing in an objective sense.


The Bureau of Labor & Statistics numbers are very accurate, with HUGE numbers of people polled. The Payroll survey actually involves direct calculation of over a million jobs, meaning that the extrapolation to the entire nation is very accurate. Even the Household survey involves the calling of SIXTY THOUSAND homes per month.

That is a big reason why those are the official numbers. In fact, your argument that the numbers that you presented are off because they are quarterly instead of monthly is hilarious - since that doesn't make the slightest logical or mathematical sense. That argument would make sense if THE OFFICIAL numbers were quarterly and YOURS were monthly. See, quarterly numbers smooth things out. Example:

BLS Data:
April, 2003 - 6.0%
May, 2003 - 6.1%
June, 2003 - 6.3%

That represents the highest point of unemployment during Bush's term. That is where we can up with the 6.3% number. Now, if we average it out to the whole quarter we end up with 6.13%, since the extreme points are averaged out.

Moving on, some of the data on your website is just way out of whack from reality. Take the first quarter of 2004. Your data says 6.1% when the real data is 5.67%. I'm not sure how they messed that up.


Either way, you can't just search the internet for data that seems favorable to your cause. Use the official data, otherwise you are just intentionally misleading people.

[Jwaksman]

And, mzungu, you may not think that it matters whether Clinton entered with a 7+% unemployment rate or an 8+% unemployment rate, but the reason it matters is because it shows your bias. You went out and found that numbers that looked the best for Clinton's cause. If the numbers on that website said that Clinton actually walked in with a 6+% unemployment rate, you would have ignored them and crowed about the official numbers, which would have made Clinton look better. You specifically went out and looked for whatever numbers made your guy look the best.


The problem with this is that the ends do not justify the means. Trying to win an argument at all costs means that your first care is winning the argument itself (which is irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things) rather than trying to figure out the truth for yourself.

Why not just use the official data, and bite the bullet if it turns out that the data corrects your original argument? Why not try to determine the truth, rather than trying to hammer leftist dogma down our throats?



By the way, I'm no longer calling mzungu and momo liberals, since they aren't. John Stuart Mill was a liberal, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, and I am a liberal. mzungu and momo are leftists, which is different. I think that word better suits our situation.

[KenA55]

The truth is you don't need to crunch endless numbers to see the difference between a long-term thriving economy and one that's stagnated and stalled out over time. Simply look at the gov't revenue intake picture, and long-term market valuations.