truejedi
My point about Red was he SHOULD have pointed out that 2007 had nothing to do with the Obama Admin. A much better defence than saying "show its not the lowest in history."
You
You got all defensive for no reason.
And no, that still wouldn't make this Red's fault, because a.) the effect on the graph would still be exactly the same and b.) DS would still be responsible for either screwing up or attempting to lie. The claim that the graph was used as "propaganda" would be perfectly reasonable either way; "LOL@Obama Administration" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.
You, meanwhile, are completely ignoring what DS did and why he might have done it, which - again - is retarded because it's what prompted Nemesis to respond. You're not doing yourself any favors by continually refusing to acknowledge this.
truejedi
Who cares if its not the lowest in history? Its been 80 years.
This isn't complicated, TJ, and if you're going to backpedal some more you may as well concede you were wrong to begin with.
^Classic. Even I couldn't fit that much bullshit and nonsense into one post. Its posts like this that would never make me consider puttimg Faunus on ignore, regardless of how many times he tries to involve himself in a conversation regarding a topic he knows nothing about. Bravo, sweet prince. Bravo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10239002.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8499693.stm
Those are recent. There is a continuing trend.
Originally posted by AutokratThis is not only an inevitable result of Obama's expansion of the public sector, but the administration's and bernanke's constant manipulation and misrepresentation of the unemployment stats. This effect on the market has been constant for over a year, almost everytime unemployment statistics come out. I made a hefty profit o the triple leveraged etfs thanks to the market tanking on Friday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10239002.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8499693.stm
Those are recent. There is a continuing trend.
Damn; according to the UN, 10% of the global population controls 85% of the world's capital.
"'We use the term in its long-established sense of net worth: the value of physical and financial assets less debts. In this respect, wealth represents the ownership of capital."
"The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past-events/2006-events/en_GB/05-12-2006/
Originally posted by AutokratYup. You would love "wall street".
Damn; according to the UN, 10% of the global population controls 85% of the world's capital."'We use the term in its long-established sense of net worth: the value of physical and financial assets less debts. In this respect, wealth represents the ownership of capital."
"The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past-events/2006-events/en_GB/05-12-2006/
Originally posted by AutokratThat's the central theme of economics. How humans take scarce resources and how they use them efficiently, or not, to satisfy their needs.
It really hits home why my economic textbook opens up with the line in every chapter."Resources are limited. Human wants are unlimited."
Every single chapter, begins with that line.