Peter_Puget

amazing! either a) your ego is so large you won't ever realize you have been exposed as a fraud, or b) you actually don't care because most folks won't bother sorting through the pile of dudu you have laid upon us since the beginning of this thread. Your increasing spitefulness makes me believes in option b. so, to summarize, it appears you went to the BLS site, picked some numbers (in some ways you refuse to divulge), concocted some bogus comparison between this and the previous recession, presented your "analysis" as if it was BLS sanctionned, refused to admit your little exercise was "validated" in your living room, and to top it all you had the gall to dismiss the CBPP report as unsubstantiated? did i get this right? please feel free to offer any bit that might clarify the sequence of events ... Increasing spitefullness?!?!? Come on Joe have I no shame? LOL Actually proving my argument was in refeence to past discussions about Europe. The clue was simply to read the bit where I thanked you for proving how Europe sucks. In your defense to the BLS issue, I would point out that the stats I showed earlier are in fact very esoteric so I am not surprised by your discomfort with them. Your report showed no detailed calculations. I must admit I am wary when earlier you used data thru 2004 to compare to my June 2005 data. Certainly a math wizard such as yourself know that when we are measuring recoveries in months, 6 months is very significant. So your record in this thread of misrepresenting facts clearly makes any links without detailed supporting docutmentation less valued than one of CJ@$#X's shit posts. Cheers, Peter

If Dieter produces sales of x per unit of salary, and Joe produces sales of y per unit of salary, if x>y Dieter is more efficent, and all other factors excluded, cheaper. It's those other factors, like restrictive labor laws that make Europe unattractive for employers. CJ your silliness never ceases to amaze me!

5.12?

CJ My love, you are again incorrect.

Hey CF123 - I even provided a link!

a man close to J_B's heart and soul. Praise for Mr. G

Ah the amazing output factoid. Again you make my argument for me. Make labor expensive and only the best labor will be used. Subsitutions will be made (thats capital goods replacing labor for you J_B) So what happens? Labor intensive industries leave (Alabama has a nice Mercedes plant doesn't it? Whoever made the Alabama post should really read more) Less people work. (read higher unemployment rates, less chance of rehire, and lots of African/Mid East laborers sitting on their hands unable to move into society.) Thanks again for showing how much Europe sucks.

Jim -Corporations don't pay taxes people do! As far as the link I said where you could get the data you'll have to do the calcs yourself beside didnt you say youd trust me this once?

I would only note that any profits would be in excess of salaries and stock option expenses. (leaving aside any valuation questions)

Ah J_B you are amazing. Nothing is hidden all is exposed. It is all revealed in the thread many posts above. Your postings do have a certain similarity to a certain Senator J. MCarthy.

so we are supposed to take your word for it? i am also free to point out that until you provide a link to the data you cited it doesn't mean anything (although even if you did I just don't see how it would negate the data throught hte end of 2004). you have this annoying habit of almost never substantiating (i.e. providing links to reputable sources) your saliant points. right, this is also what you said every few month for the last few years, but i have yet to read a single retraction from you once the complete data came in and proved you wrong .... every single time! That's crap. Even Forwaker has mentioned that I generally provide links. Your link by the way is not substantial at all. It is merely unsubstantuiated opinion. I generally try to provide the source data when we have been arguning economic data. You have never destoyed my argument ever. The best example was when you were using the incorrect inflator to indicate the loss in purchasing power. Saez himself was not supportive of your methodology. And this is from the guy holding himself out as Math. Please stop the insults as I said earlier you can simply ignore the data.

absolute crap Jim! J_B's post clearly showed data from a post I made before my post containing the business cycle. Your confusion is simply the result of fast reading or not undertanding the discussion in general. Again the data was merely used to prove that some good things are going on. A direct rejoinder to JoshK. I compared to the "miracle under Clinton" assuming it would show how my claimed "good thing" compared to what I assumed to be a well accepted "good thing". I to the style of discourse you "liberals" choose I can only repeat: I am rubber you are glue......

J_B - I already said where the data comes from you are certainly free to verify or disregard as you see fit. I would note that I did say that we were better off - see bold quote above. Also my point was that good things were happening. R_E_C_O_V_E_R_Y! CFXXX$ - You are priceless!

The last link you posted has no relevant date related to current statistics - it's just an explanation on a theory of business cycles. JBs linked article covers data through 2004. Things have substantially improved since then? Jim Jim JIm the data J_B claimed to be unspining was as of 2005. I would note that the bus cycle article is useful here as it cleaerly shows that we are in an area where the the slope is expected to be increasing, so the recovery has been improving and yes we are better off. CJXXX$ - I love ya!

Ah spin? Compare the date of J_B's link and my data. Then consider who's the spinner....

Well being on the N side of #2 doesn't seem to be the issue. What matters is being N of Stevens Pass. I say all these would be better placed in the NEW ROCK CLIMBING FORUM

By the way I posted the links because I thought the comments interesting and that they expressed a vision of the war that is not presented by the administration.

FW - He is all over the place. I would note that my statistics were meant only to illustrate a good thing that has happened in the past five years. Undeniably the early-mid 90s recovery was good. My intention was to show two things together! Josh for some reason brought in the late 90's. Go figure. Soulreaper your point is interesting I however did not bring the economy into the argument Joshk did. (See below) I merely responded to his question. Oddly he responded by bringing up the late 90s. Your point regarding indicators of prosperity not really being meaningful is comletely true in many cases and is a viewpoint I am sympathetic to. Take for example Joshk's late 90's example of being better off. True unemployment was lower, the bourses were hopping and yet...we were speeding towards a cliff. The bubble was about to break. This JoshK calls the better times.

Ya I am an idiot. link Links seem important here so I made a quick search looking for this info. If this source doesn't do it for you I know there are lots of other saying the same thing. Joshk one word: Paxil!

You've ceased to read any links posted by those opposing your viewpoints; I'm not sure why you expect anyone to go to extra effort to research your data and discredit you. I'm still curious what your point was with the 50k insurgents number; you've yet to clarify. Well just how do you know I have ceased doing anything? On this thread no links have been posted.

Yikes! Fucking clueless eh? For those interested check out the dates of the last recessions and then how many months we are into the current recovery...and then figure out just how the late 90s relate to my post. Go Josh GO!

Yet again PP gives us a turd sans attribution. Hmm er...try maybe the BLS. Hard one there! [EDIT FOR CFxxx544] BLS=Bureau of Labor Statistics this= June 2005 [End Edit]

Can't resist.... I'll triple respond comparing last recovery to this one: Unemployment rate Prior recovery: 5.8% This recovery: 5.0% Long term unemployment rate (15+ weeks) prior: 2.25%, which is 40% more than this: 1.58% average real weekly earnings from pre-recession high prior: -1.9% this: +0.25%

Via Bablefish:

Josh you and Cjxx324 often completely miss the point of my posts. You do however never stop spewing complete crap in response. To that I can only marvel at your idiocy and consistency - a rare combination.