Forums | MacLife

I think it's extreme. The economic crisis is potentially disastrous, but at the moment things are still so much better than in the 30s it's hard not to laugh at the label.

(although I admit I cheerily posted the same link in a different thread)

Import tariffs on agricultural goods might have more to do with it than ethanol subsidies.

Both should go away.

I think I just heard Kev have a stroke.

I think the Asian demand for grain fed meat is a major driver of the grain price increases. I'd bet ethanol is a second or third place cause. That could change in short order though.

user wrote:

We're more like in emo right now.

As far as people getting food stamps, I don't see where that has anything to do with recessions or depressions. It has more to do with employers who don't want to pay people any wage that's worth a smurf. And 28 million people is less than 10% of the population. I notice the article quoted in the first post makes a big deal out of "the highest level since the '60's." Big deal. In the '60's 28 million was a much more significant percentage of the population. In fact, since the population on 07/01/1969 was about 200 million, 28 million was over 10% of the population at any time up until that point.

I don't remember the 60's ever being described as a Depression. But then, I slept through Economics class. I'll check for sure, just in case none of you economics geeks happens to know off the top of your heads.

Daniel wrote:

Well, the dollar was up today, and gold and oil were both down.  Let's hope this continues.

It won't.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

As far as people getting food stamps, I don't see where that has anything to do with recessions or depressions.

it's all their fault!

if they weren't collecting free money, we'd be able to pay corporations more money to provide the jobs that allow us all to put gas in the car that carries us across the myriad potholes and human sized cracks in the pavement we traverse to get to those lame jobs.

Indeed, 7.1% is exactly the same as the unemployment rate for the Euro area. (Both seem to be collected as according to ILO guidelines, so no discrepancy there.) I wonder what the difference in working hours is?

JakeTheTall wrote:

I don't know about EU numbers, but some noticeable portion of Americans have moved from the "unemployed" to the "not actively looking for work" column, so they don't show up in those numbers, but that's a bad sign.

I personally suspect that the high unemployment rate in the EU is mostly the result of a small number of countries (especially Italy and France) skewing the numbers.

I also suspect that the US measurement criteria are tighter than in the EU.

Link: With broader criteria, US unemployment is over 8%

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2008-04-02 11:46 am)

It'll become more crowded for a while until the floating doody chases them out.

freecat wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I don't know about EU numbers, but some noticeable portion of Americans have moved from the "unemployed" to the "not actively looking for work" column, so they don't show up in those numbers, but that's a bad sign.

What's the argument for counting people who aren't "actively looking for work" as unemployed?

Because it still meets the definition?