Unemployment rate drops to 7.4%

[AmazonTania]

Why do you think the issue is with the CES rather than JOLTS?
It makes no sense to think JOLTS is a more accurate indicator.

I'm not suggesting that. This is not the first time this has happened. In the 13 years of JOLTS reporting, this has only happened during the Financial Collapse and during the the collapse of the NASDAQ bubble. But these large divergences happened during an economic contraction. This is suppose to be an expansion of the economy. I could be wrong, and CES could be accurate but the jobs being created are consistent of an economy which is contracting, not expanding.

It could be the updated Beveridge Curve. The new normal beveridge Curve is not the same as it was before.

 

[Rshermr]

Apologies to those who were learning something before the intellectual lightweight sidetracked me. As I was pointing out that there was no way that the amount of jobs created justifies 200K on average. This is real easy to see, especially for anyone who believes these month to month JOLTS under-reporting is a mere coincidence.

Year 2010:

JOLTS averages 82.1K net hires a month. CES averages 85K NFP a month. That's a 3.5% divergence.

Year 2011:

JOLTS averages 176K net hires a month. CES averages 175K NFP a month. That's a 0.5% divergence.

Year 2012:

JOLTS averages 175K net hires a month. CES averages 183K NFP a month. That's a 4% divergence.

First 6 months of 2013:

JOLTS averages 139K net hires a month. CES averages 198K NFP a month. A 42% divergence

Either these fudgey gimmicks started in 2012 or much later during that month. Over the past 7 months there has been a dramatic imbalances with NFP data reporting.

Why do you think the issue is with the CES rather than JOLTS?
It makes no sense to think JOLTS is a more accurate indicator.

You have to understand, tania is a con tool. She is trying to push a con lie found in a number of right wing web sites that the gov ue numbers are wrong, and that employment is much higher than is being quoted by the gov. That has been explained, as I have said, in the following:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf
Now, I know that tania would like you to believe what is said in the ny post, but I tend to find that source not worth considering. Should it come from a better source, like, say, the bls, I could be persuaded to consider it seriously. Or the CBO would influence me. But the cbo buys the gov numbers as provided by the bls. Funny. Really simple explanation, with no hint of conspiracy, supported by the bls and the cbo. And Tanya is pushing a piece from the ny post.

 

[AmazonTania]

Apologies to those who were learning something before the intellectual lightweight sidetracked me. As I was pointing out that there was no way that the amount of jobs created justifies 200K on average. This is real easy to see, especially for anyone who believes these month to month JOLTS under-reporting is a mere coincidence.

Year 2010:

JOLTS averages 82.1K net hires a month. CES averages 85K NFP a month. That's a 3.5% divergence.

Year 2011:

JOLTS averages 176K net hires a month. CES averages 175K NFP a month. That's a 0.5% divergence.

Year 2012:

JOLTS averages 175K net hires a month. CES averages 183K NFP a month. That's a 4% divergence.

First 6 months of 2013:

JOLTS averages 139K net hires a month. CES averages 198K NFP a month. A 42% divergence

Either these fudgey gimmicks started in 2012 or much later during that month. Over the past 7 months there has been a dramatic imbalances with NFP data reporting.

Why do you think the issue is with the CES rather than JOLTS?
It makes no sense to think JOLTS is a more accurate indicator.

You have to understand, tania is a con tool. She is trying to push a con lie found in a number of right wing web sites that the gov ue numbers are wrong, and that employment is much higher than is being quoted by the gov. That has been explained, as I have said, in the following:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf
Now, I know that tania would like you to believe what is said in the ny post, but I tend to find that source not worth considering. Should it come from a better source, like, say, the bls, I could be persuaded to consider it seriously. Or the CBO would influence me. But the cbo buys the gov numbers as provided by the bls. Funny. Really simple explanation, with no hint of conspiracy, supported by the bls and the cbo. And Tanya is pushing a piece from the ny post.

Your source doesn't explain why there is a 42% divergence month to month. Using the formula provided, the gap doesn't even com close to being narrowed.

I'm using BLS own data. You're using a PDF which you can barely understand. Talk to me when you have a better understanding of what you are regurgitating.

 

[Rshermr]

Why do you think the issue is with the CES rather than JOLTS?
It makes no sense to think JOLTS is a more accurate indicator.

You have to understand, tania is a con tool. She is trying to push a con lie found in a number of right wing web sites that the gov ue numbers are wrong, and that employment is much higher than is being quoted by the gov. That has been explained, as I have said, in the following:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf
Now, I know that tania would like you to believe what is said in the ny post, but I tend to find that source not worth considering. Should it come from a better source, like, say, the bls, I could be persuaded to consider it seriously. Or the CBO would influence me. But the cbo buys the gov numbers as provided by the bls. Funny. Really simple explanation, with no hint of conspiracy, supported by the bls and the cbo. And Tanya is pushing a piece from the ny post.

Your source doesn't explain why there is a 42% divergence month to month. Using the formula provided, the gap doesn't even com close to being narrowed.

I'm using BLS own data. You're using a PDF which you can barely understand. Talk to me when you have a better understanding of what you are regurgitating.

Actually, I was not talking to you at all. You are a non feedback organism, producing your own graphs. Where, as an example, 200,000 shows as 20000000. Great job of building graphs. So, I could buy your analysis attempt, or I could listen to the definition by the bls. I think I will take the bls.

 

[AmazonTania]

You have to understand, tania is a con tool. She is trying to push a con lie found in a number of right wing web sites that the gov ue numbers are wrong, and that employment is much higher than is being quoted by the gov. That has been explained, as I have said, in the following:
http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st090300.pdf
Now, I know that tania would like you to believe what is said in the ny post, but I tend to find that source not worth considering. Should it come from a better source, like, say, the bls, I could be persuaded to consider it seriously. Or the CBO would influence me. But the cbo buys the gov numbers as provided by the bls. Funny. Really simple explanation, with no hint of conspiracy, supported by the bls and the cbo. And Tanya is pushing a piece from the ny post.

Your source doesn't explain why there is a 42% divergence month to month. Using the formula provided, the gap doesn't even com close to being narrowed.

I'm using BLS own data. You're using a PDF which you can barely understand. Talk to me when you have a better understanding of what you are regurgitating.

Actually, I was not talking to you at all. You are a non feedback organism, producing your own graphs.

Most individuals in he financial industry produce their own graphs. Its a very common practice. And just a tip, if you're not expecting a particular person to respond to you, it would probably be best if you don't mention said person by name.

Its common sense.

Where, as an example, 200,000 shows as 20000000.

There is nothing wrong with the graphs I have built, and none of my graphs have that large of a number. Guess you don't understand how to use excel or have no concept of what a decimal point is. All of the numbers are listed in thousands l b

Great job of building graphs. So, I could buy your analysis attempt, or I could listen to the definition by the bls. I think I will take the bls.

That's nice. Its already determined you don't have a head for anything financial or economical. That's a talent normally found in people who can at least think for themselves.

 

[Rshermr]

Your source doesn't explain why there is a 42% divergence month to month. Using the formula provided, the gap doesn't even com close to being narrowed.

I'm using BLS own data. You're using a PDF which you can barely understand. Talk to me when you have a better understanding of what you are regurgitating.

Actually, I was not talking to you at all. You are a non feedback organism, producing your own graphs.

Most individuals in he financial industry produce their own graphs. Its a very common practice. And just a tip, if you're not expecting a particular person to respond to you, it would probably be best if you don't mention said person by name.

Its common sense.

Where, as an example, 200,000 shows as 20000000.

There is nothing wrong with the graphs I have built, and none of my graphs have that large of a number. Guess you don't understand how to use excel or have no concept of what a decimal point is. All of the numbers are listed in thousands l b

Great job of building graphs. So, I could buy your analysis attempt, or I could listen to the definition by the bls. I think I will take the bls.

That's nice. Its already determined you don't have a head for anything financial or economical. That's a talent normally found in people who can at least think for themselves.

Sure, amazon. Before you make such statements, you should remember your expert explanation of how gas was refined in oil tankers. I could bring your statement forward. Simple copy and paste. And then we could look at true ignorance. And we could show how well you are capable of thinking for yourself.
I stand by what I said. Sorry you feel that your charts are meaningful. They are not. And neither are you.

 

[AmazonTania]

Actually, I was not talking to you at all. You are a non feedback organism, producing your own graphs.

Most individuals in he financial industry produce their own graphs. Its a very common practice. And just a tip, if you're not expecting a particular person to respond to you, it would probably be best if you don't mention said person by name.

Its common sense.



There is nothing wrong with the graphs I have built, and none of my graphs have that large of a number. Guess you don't understand how to use excel or have no concept of what a decimal point is. All of the numbers are listed in thousands l b

Great job of building graphs. So, I could buy your analysis attempt, or I could listen to the definition by the bls. I think I will take the bls.

That's nice. Its already determined you don't have a head for anything financial or economical. That's a talent normally found in people who can at least think for themselves.

Sure, amazon. Before you make such statements, you should remember your expert explanation of how gas was refined in oil tankers. I could bring your statement forward. Simple copy and paste. And then we could look at true ignorance.

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?

And we could show how well you are capable of thinking for yourself.
I stand by what I said. Sorry you feel that your charts are meaningful. They are not. And neither are you.

But you can't refute a single thing I have said. You never could. And each time you fail you go into one of your little ***** fits.

But as always, thanks for wasting my time. I could be discussing meaningful things with someone who matters.

 

[Rshermr]

Most individuals in he financial industry produce their own graphs. Its a very common practice. And just a tip, if you're not expecting a particular person to respond to you, it would probably be best if you don't mention said person by name.

Its common sense.



There is nothing wrong with the graphs I have built, and none of my graphs have that large of a number. Guess you don't understand how to use excel or have no concept of what a decimal point is. All of the numbers are listed in thousands l b



That's nice. Its already determined you don't have a head for anything financial or economical. That's a talent normally found in people who can at least think for themselves.

Sure, amazon. Before you make such statements, you should remember your expert explanation of how gas was refined in oil tankers. I could bring your statement forward. Simple copy and paste. And then we could look at true ignorance.

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?

And we could show how well you are capable of thinking for yourself.
I stand by what I said. Sorry you feel that your charts are meaningful. They are not. And neither are you.

But you can't refute a single thing I have said. You never could. And each time you fail you go into one of your little ***** fits.

But as always, thanks for wasting my time. I could be discussing meaningful things with someone who matters.

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?

See, amazon. There is another case proving why you are so dishonest. You did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. There was no discussion of distilling. And, me dear, gas is not distilled. Alcohol is, gasoline is refined. Different process.
Then, you did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. Ever. Lying again, of course. What you said was that gasoline was refined in an oil tanker. See why it is useless to discuss anything with you. You always get caught lying, then try to change the scenario. And always, you are completely innocent of error in your new scenario. Problem is, it is a lie. Always. So, lets look at what you actually said:

Gasoline is not manufactured either. The heating and transformation process of what is Crude Oil/Petro happens in an oil refinery in an oil tanker.

That is your quote, from post 189 in the thread cost-of-everythings-going-up-thanks-*******-obama. The EXACT QUOTE, simply cut and pasted.n

So, there you go. You did not refer to a distillery as an tanker.. What you said was that gasoline is produced in a refinery in an oil tanker. And you tried to say after that that you did not say it. But you did, Amazon.
And while you were at it, though the gov through NAICS codes calls the refining of gasoline manufacturing, and the oil companies themselves say they are manufacturers, you continue to say that refining gasoline from crude is NOT manufacturing. So, you have NO proof. Your own source, naics, sais it is manufacturing. But YOU believe it is not.

So, no big deal. Just correcting your lies. Look up integrity, me dear. And no, the oil tanker thing is not the only mistake on your part. Denying that Gasoline refining is not manufacturing is not the second. You have made a number of mistakes. Those are simly examples. And hey, you said you did not say what you did say. I just stated the truth.

So, back to ignore for you. I am sure you will have additional untruths to post about this subject shortly. Because that is what people without integrity do.

 

[AmazonTania]

Sure, amazon. Before you make such statements, you should remember your expert explanation of how gas was refined in oil tankers. I could bring your statement forward. Simple copy and paste. And then we could look at true ignorance.

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?



But you can't refute a single thing I have said. You never could. And each time you fail you go into one of your little ***** fits.

But as always, thanks for wasting my time. I could be discussing meaningful things with someone who matters.

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?

See, amazon. There is another case proving why you are so dishonest. You did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. There was no discussion of distilling. And, me dear, gas is not distilled. Alcohol is, gasoline is refined. Different process.
Then, you did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. Ever. Lying again, of course. What you said was that gasoline was refined in an oil tanker. See why it is useless to discuss anything with you. You always get caught lying, then try to change the scenario. And always, you are completely innocent of error in your new scenario. Problem is, it is a lie. Always. So, lets look at what you actually said:

Gasoline is not manufactured either. The heating and transformation process of what is Crude Oil/Petro happens in an oil refinery in an oil tanker.

That is your quote, from post 189 in the thread cost-of-everythings-going-up-thanks-*******-obama. The EXACT QUOTE, simply cut and pasted.n

So, there you go. You did not refer to a distillery as an tanker.. What you said was that gasoline is produced in a refinery in an oil tanker. And you tried to say after that that you did not say it. But you did, Amazon.
And while you were at it, though the gov through NAICS codes calls the refining of gasoline manufacturing, and the oil companies themselves say they are manufacturers, you continue to say that refining gasoline from crude is NOT manufacturing. So, you have NO proof. Your own source, naics, sais it is manufacturing. But YOU believe it is not.

So, no big deal. Just correcting your lies. Look up integrity, me dear. And no, the oil tanker thing is not the only mistake on your part. Denying that Gasoline refining is not manufacturing is not the second. You have made a number of mistakes. Those are simly examples. And hey, you said you did not say what you did say. I just stated the truth.

So, back to ignore for you. I am sure you will have additional untruths to post about this subject shortly. Because that is what people without integrity do.

Okay, so the best thing you have on me is referring to 'whatever turns Crude Oil into Gasoline,' as an oil tanker? Really?

 

[Rshermr]

So the best thing you have on me is that I referred to a distiller as a tanker? Really?



But you can't refute a single thing I have said. You never could. And each time you fail you go into one of your little ***** fits.

But as always, thanks for wasting my time. I could be discussing meaningful things with someone who matters.

See, amazon. There is another case proving why you are so dishonest. You did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. There was no discussion of distilling. And, me dear, gas is not distilled. Alcohol is, gasoline is refined. Different process.
Then, you did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. Ever. Lying again, of course. What you said was that gasoline was refined in an oil tanker. See why it is useless to discuss anything with you. You always get caught lying, then try to change the scenario. And always, you are completely innocent of error in your new scenario. Problem is, it is a lie. Always. So, lets look at what you actually said:

Gasoline is not manufactured either. The heating and transformation process of what is Crude Oil/Petro happens in an oil refinery in an oil tanker.

That is your quote, from post 189 in the thread cost-of-everythings-going-up-thanks-*******-obama. The EXACT QUOTE, simply cut and pasted.n

So, there you go. You did not refer to a distillery as an tanker.. What you said was that gasoline is produced in a refinery in an oil tanker. And you tried to say after that that you did not say it. But you did, Amazon.
And while you were at it, though the gov through NAICS codes calls the refining of gasoline manufacturing, and the oil companies themselves say they are manufacturers, you continue to say that refining gasoline from crude is NOT manufacturing. So, you have NO proof. Your own source, naics, sais it is manufacturing. But YOU believe it is not.

So, no big deal. Just correcting your lies. Look up integrity, me dear. And no, the oil tanker thing is not the only mistake on your part. Denying that Gasoline refining is not manufacturing is not the second. You have made a number of mistakes. Those are simly examples. And hey, you said you did not say what you did say. I just stated the truth.

So, back to ignore for you. I am sure you will have additional untruths to post about this subject shortly. Because that is what people without integrity do.

Okay, so the best thing you have on me is referring to 'whatever turns Crude Oil into Gasoline,' as an oil tanker? Really?

No, hardly amazon. that is the interesting thing. People who lie always try to make it seem like such a small thing. So, consider:
1. Saying that gasoline is refined in an oil tanker proves you to be really, really ignorant. Notice I did not say stupid. But it was ignorant. Which leaves anything you say subject to question.
2. What you posted was not information from ANY source. You simply made it up. From whole cloth.
3. The subject was not about where oil was refined. I said oil refining was a manufacturing process, and provided proof. You said it was not manufacturing, and provided NO proof. Just your word. And made the statement about the oil refinery in a tanker to suggest that making gasoline, as you would like to call it, was just a simple little process. So, me lying con, the issue is about trying to make a point with made up "facts". Which to anyone is a very dishonest thing. Very lacking in integrity.
3. your continued attempts to make your statement something different than what it was is again, very lacking in integrity. Spelled LYING.

So, amazon, no. It is absolutely true that this oil tanker subject is simply a pattern of dishonesty that you portray. But then, you know that. And you really do not care. And having now admitted that you have an agenda (which you had always denied before) explains a lot. Nothing new here. Completely obvious to all. But there you go.

 

[AmazonTania]

See, amazon. There is another case proving why you are so dishonest. You did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. There was no discussion of distilling. And, me dear, gas is not distilled. Alcohol is, gasoline is refined. Different process.
Then, you did not refer to a distiller as a tanker. Ever. Lying again, of course. What you said was that gasoline was refined in an oil tanker. See why it is useless to discuss anything with you. You always get caught lying, then try to change the scenario. And always, you are completely innocent of error in your new scenario. Problem is, it is a lie. Always. So, lets look at what you actually said:

That is your quote, from post 189 in the thread cost-of-everythings-going-up-thanks-*******-obama. The EXACT QUOTE, simply cut and pasted.n

So, there you go. You did not refer to a distillery as an tanker.. What you said was that gasoline is produced in a refinery in an oil tanker. And you tried to say after that that you did not say it. But you did, Amazon.
And while you were at it, though the gov through NAICS codes calls the refining of gasoline manufacturing, and the oil companies themselves say they are manufacturers, you continue to say that refining gasoline from crude is NOT manufacturing. So, you have NO proof. Your own source, naics, sais it is manufacturing. But YOU believe it is not.

So, no big deal. Just correcting your lies. Look up integrity, me dear. And no, the oil tanker thing is not the only mistake on your part. Denying that Gasoline refining is not manufacturing is not the second. You have made a number of mistakes. Those are simly examples. And hey, you said you did not say what you did say. I just stated the truth.

So, back to ignore for you. I am sure you will have additional untruths to post about this subject shortly. Because that is what people without integrity do.

Okay, so the best thing you have on me is referring to 'whatever turns Crude Oil into Gasoline,' as an oil tanker? Really?

No, hardly amazon. that is the interesting thing. People who lie always try to make it seem like such a small thing. So, consider:
1. Saying that gasoline is refined in an oil tanker proves you to be really, really ignorant. Notice I did not say stupid. But it was ignorant. Which leaves anything you say subject to question.
2. What you posted was not information from ANY source. You simply made it up. From whole cloth.
3. The subject was not about where oil was refined. I said oil refining was a manufacturing process, and provided proof. You said it was not manufacturing, and provided NO proof. Just your word. And made the statement about the oil refinery in a tanker to suggest that making gasoline, as you would like to call it, was just a simple little process. So, me lying con, the issue is about trying to make a point with made up "facts". Which to anyone is a very dishonest thing. Very lacking in integrity.
3. your continued attempts to make your statement something different than what it was is again, very lacking in integrity. Spelled LYING.

So, amazon, no. It is absolutely true that this oil tanker subject is simply a pattern of dishonesty that you portray. But then, you know that. And you really do not care. And having now admitted that you have an agenda (which you had always denied before) explains a lot. Nothing new here. Completely obvious to all. But there you go.

I really don't care about this off topic nonsense, so your words are wasted on me. Its amusing how verbose you can be on everything, except the subject matter, which is usually economics. Stick to being at being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Discussing BLS metrics isn't your cup of tea.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Rshermr]

Okay, so the best thing you have on me is referring to 'whatever turns Crude Oil into Gasoline,' as an oil tanker? Really?

No, hardly amazon. that is the interesting thing. People who lie always try to make it seem like such a small thing. So, consider:
1. Saying that gasoline is refined in an oil tanker proves you to be really, really ignorant. Notice I did not say stupid. But it was ignorant. Which leaves anything you say subject to question.
2. What you posted was not information from ANY source. You simply made it up. From whole cloth.
3. The subject was not about where oil was refined. I said oil refining was a manufacturing process, and provided proof. You said it was not manufacturing, and provided NO proof. Just your word. And made the statement about the oil refinery in a tanker to suggest that making gasoline, as you would like to call it, was just a simple little process. So, me lying con, the issue is about trying to make a point with made up "facts". Which to anyone is a very dishonest thing. Very lacking in integrity.
3. your continued attempts to make your statement something different than what it was is again, very lacking in integrity. Spelled LYING.

So, amazon, no. It is absolutely true that this oil tanker subject is simply a pattern of dishonesty that you portray. But then, you know that. And you really do not care. And having now admitted that you have an agenda (which you had always denied before) explains a lot. Nothing new here. Completely obvious to all. But there you go.

I really don't care about this off topic nonsense, so your words are wasted on me. Its amusing how verbose you can be on everything, except the subject matter, which is usually economics. Stick to being at being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Discussing BLS metrics isn't your cup of tea.

Funny when you get caught lying in your posts, it is off topic. Good deal, Amazon. And yes, indeed, everyone knows how much you think of yourself. Got it. And amazon, you do not DISCUSS bls stats. You simply put them into a self made chart, and call it truth. As does every con web site. As does moveon. But you do so with AGENDA, as do those agenda driven web sites. Which makes your posts of NO value. And which is why people with integrity bring forward articles from sites not agenda driven. And why economists opinions matter. And why my opinion, and yours, do not.

 

[Oldstyle]

yes, that's it, blame one man for the entire economy. We all know the repubs are doing all they can.

Just can't bring yourself to admit that Barry doesn't have a plan to fix the economy, can ya' Moonie? We've been treading water for 5 YEARS now. When will you progressives "man up" and see this President for what he really is...woefully unprepared for the job that he conned his way into not once but twice?

 

[Rshermr]

Speaking of agenda driven non feedback organisms.
Funny how the cons are avoiding the post by oldfart, which discusses the latest cbo numbers from this JULY. For the mentally challenged, that is just LAST MONTH. And the numbers are pretty good. What, the conservative talking point memo attacking the report is not out yet??

 

[Oldstyle]

Funny. You do not believe in studies proving, say, austerity is used heavily in europe are meaningless. Many, many impartial sources.

I never said I didn't believe in a study. I said one was not necessary. You really do not need a study for that, as the concept behind it is quite clear. I cannot imagine an economist of financial analyst wasting his or her time and money to commission a study about this. The government, sure. A private individual, never...

But you find a single source in a right wing rag, and use it as proof of your hypotheses. Funny. You really do like authoritative sources when they fit your agenda. But not when they do not. Got it.

Bill Gross from PIMCO and Keith Hall are not part of authority. I did not use them for my hypothesis, I used them to point out that I am not alone in pointing out government inaccuracies.

All the data I used to prove this has come from a primary source. If you don't like it, tough.

Have you taken any college economics classes? What you just said is really, really ignorant. Studies are accomplished commonly by folks with college doctorates. You know, actual knowledge of how to do a study. And if you think that austerity is not worth studying, then maybe you should walk around the streets of some of the cities in europe. You will quickly get a very different understanding. If your mind is open to anything new. Then you will find that some of the larger news sources will spend a few bucks working with those doing studies, to put out the findings of those studies. Then, of course, you could read what the officials of OECD are learning through their studies. No studies????? PLEASE. And no, private companies pretty much never spend a lot of money on studies. But they are major consumers of the information that comes from those studies.
You see, if you study economics at all, you will find that economies of countries are very dependent. So, you can be sure that officials in all countries, including our own, are quite interested in data from studies of austerity. OBVIOUSLY.

Relative to your source for your data, it simply says what you think of those looking at what you write. If you use the ny post, the findings will be doubted by many. And they will want to spend time vetting the information. Which is just plain poor form, me dear. If the information is true, it is available in impartial sources. And you will find no reason to use the ny post.

Rshermr taught economics in college as an undergrad so he knows all about this topic!

And if you believe THAT bit of self-delusion then you'll believe anything...

 

[Rshermr]

And another attack without any proof. Must be a con tool. And quite typical of non feedback organisms. Probably some dish washer who had a couple economic classes in his life who has an agenda based on spending all of his time in bat shit crazy con web sites and who only listens to an economist who is closely connected to the Koch brothers and is an admitted libertarian and a non admitted joke among econ professionals. Just a guess. Probably never made any sense of economics, has always had to resort to personal attacks because he is unable to ever, ever win a political argument. And resorts to lying and personal attacks to make up for his inability to discuss economic topics. Just a guess.

 

[Oldstyle]

Gee, Rshermr...I notice that not once in that nonsense did you deny claiming to have taught college economics as an undergrad. Funny how when I simply point out how ridiculous your claim is that I'm resorting to "lying and personal attacks". Then you make yourself truly absurd by doing it in a post that is nothing but personal attacks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I want these to be full time and higher paying jobs. That's a goal worth pushing for.

 

[AmazonTania]

No, hardly amazon. that is the interesting thing. People who lie always try to make it seem like such a small thing. So, consider:
1. Saying that gasoline is refined in an oil tanker proves you to be really, really ignorant. Notice I did not say stupid. But it was ignorant. Which leaves anything you say subject to question.
2. What you posted was not information from ANY source. You simply made it up. From whole cloth.
3. The subject was not about where oil was refined. I said oil refining was a manufacturing process, and provided proof. You said it was not manufacturing, and provided NO proof. Just your word. And made the statement about the oil refinery in a tanker to suggest that making gasoline, as you would like to call it, was just a simple little process. So, me lying con, the issue is about trying to make a point with made up "facts". Which to anyone is a very dishonest thing. Very lacking in integrity.
3. your continued attempts to make your statement something different than what it was is again, very lacking in integrity. Spelled LYING.

So, amazon, no. It is absolutely true that this oil tanker subject is simply a pattern of dishonesty that you portray. But then, you know that. And you really do not care. And having now admitted that you have an agenda (which you had always denied before) explains a lot. Nothing new here. Completely obvious to all. But there you go.

I really don't care about this off topic nonsense, so your words are wasted on me. Its amusing how verbose you can be on everything, except the subject matter, which is usually economics. Stick to being at being a glorified cheerleader for everyone else. Discussing BLS metrics isn't your cup of tea.

Funny when you get caught lying in your posts, it is off topic.

Its off topic because what equipment is used for turning crude into gas is clearly not relevant, not has any relation to the topic.

Grow up

Good deal, Amazon. And yes, indeed, everyone knows how much you think of yourself. Got it. And amazon, you do not DISCUSS bls stats.

What exactly do you think I did in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-10.html#post7654211

In was discussing the consistent underreporting of JOLTS numbers relative to the CES.

Also, what do you call what I did in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/306214-unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-4-a-11.html#post7660317

I outlined the M/M job reporting from both the CES and JOLTS, and showed how this large divergence is larger than its ever been in 5 years and the large amount ever.

I know you don't believe anything was discussed because when economic matters are discussed, it flies right over your head.

You simply put them into a self made chart, and call it truth. As does every con web site. As does moveon. But you do so with AGENDA, as do those agenda driven web sites. Which makes your posts of NO value. And which is why people with integrity bring forward articles from sites not agenda driven.

My going to take the time to figure out what that poorly constructed sentence meant. I'm just going to concentrate on the word AGENDA, simply because its in all capital letters.

Usually, those who cannot think for themselves have the biggest agenda. That's pretty much YOU in a nutshell.

And why economists opinions matter. And why my opinion, and yours, do not.

LMAO only economist opinions matter. Not those in the financial industry, Not entrepreneurs, not money market makers, not researchers, producers, consumers, analyst or people who are greatly effected by policies these economist support.

Spoken like mindless drone who never can think for ones self. Maybe you're so uneducated that you cannot decipher economic data for yourself, but many of us are not.