Regarding economic prognostications, a wise economist once told me this: "Economists are to the economy as meteorologists are to .... meteors."
If you sense a disconnect between what Our Leader is saying about improved unemployment figures and what your lyin' eyes tell you, this, from a journalist friend in Massachusetts, should clear it all up for you:
Abbott and Costello Discuss the UNEMPLOYMENT figures
>
>
> *COSTELLO:* I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
> *ABBOTT*: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* That many people are out of work?
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 16%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* You just said 9%.
>
> *ABBOTT:* 9% Unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Right 9% out of work.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 16%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 9%...
>
> *COSTELLO:* WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
> *ABBOTT:* 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
> *COSTELLO:* IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You
> have to look for work to be unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, you miss my point.
>
> *COSTELLO:* What point?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those
> who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
> *COSTELLO:* To who?
>
> *ABBOTT:* The unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* But they are ALL out of work.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who
> are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you
> are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* So if you're off the unemployment rolls, that would count as
> less unemployment?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
> *COSTELLO:* The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise,
> it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
>
> *COSTELLO:* That would be frightening.
>
> *ABBOTT:* Absolutely.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways
> to bring down the unemployment number?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Two ways is correct.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Correct.
>
> *COSTELLO:* And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Bingo.
>
> *COSTELLO:* So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and **the
> easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.***
> *
> *ABBOTT:* Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> *COSTELLO:* I don't even know what the hell I just said!
Either does the professional political class.
If you sense a disconnect between what Our Leader is saying about improved unemployment figures and what your lyin' eyes tell you, this, from a journalist friend in Massachusetts, should clear it all up for you:
Abbott and Costello Discuss the UNEMPLOYMENT figures
>
>
> *COSTELLO:* I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
> *ABBOTT*: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* That many people are out of work?
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 16%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* You just said 9%.
>
> *ABBOTT:* 9% Unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Right 9% out of work.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 16%.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, that's 9%...
>
> *COSTELLO:* WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
> *ABBOTT:* 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
> *COSTELLO:* IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You
> have to look for work to be unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, you miss my point.
>
> *COSTELLO:* What point?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those
> who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
> *COSTELLO:* To who?
>
> *ABBOTT:* The unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* But they are ALL out of work.
>
> *ABBOTT:* No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who
> are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you
> are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
> *COSTELLO:* So if you're off the unemployment rolls, that would count as
> less unemployment?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
> *COSTELLO:* The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise,
> it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
>
> *COSTELLO:* That would be frightening.
>
> *ABBOTT:* Absolutely.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways
> to bring down the unemployment number?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Two ways is correct.
>
> *COSTELLO:* Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Correct.
>
> *COSTELLO:* And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> *ABBOTT:* Bingo.
>
> *COSTELLO:* So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and **the
> easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.***
> *
> *ABBOTT:* Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> *COSTELLO:* I don't even know what the hell I just said!
Either does the professional political class.
It looks like your journalist friend's little parody has got it wrong at least insofar as the Mobocracy does actually know very well the nature and purpose of the Marxian lies they are carefully spewing out.
ReplyDelete