Bear's Den

Rejoice! Unemployment is down! Or is it?

2011-12-05T09:52:00.000-05:00

Unemployment is finally going DOWN! Lets celebrate!!!---... wait a minute... what's this? Hmmm.... The number of new jobs has generally been less than 100k / month, the number of new unemployed has been generally greater than 300k per month for some time. Yet the unemployment rate goes down? How does that work, exactly?

Oh, yeah! If you're unemployed, and so discouraged that you are no longer looking for work, you are not counted! THAT is how the number of unemployed people can go up, but the rate goes down. The actual percentage of the available US workforce that is not working (not working to me is unemployed, but I'm kinda unsophisticated) is actually ~23%

Not strange statistics either, the US Government used to report the 23% number back in 1994, it contains long term unemployed, er sorry, 'discouraged workers' (greater than 6 months w/o a job) plus what BLS calles U6 - U6 has the headline number (what we see in the papers and called U3) plus the 'short term discouraged workers'. There are other details, but that's the general idea. So whats the situation?

Right now, every month, more people loose jobs than get jobs. Since we do not count the 'discouraged workers' as as unemployed' and there was such a high surge of newly minted 'discouraged workers' this month the reported unemployment rate went down.

And the markets rallied on this information, looks like they'll rally again today. Are we really so stupid a citizenry as to simply believe media hype, suck up the 'happy happy joy joy' headlines, and drive the heard towards the imaginary bliss of some sort of employment recovery?

The evidence says yes - and we will get exactly what stupid people have gotten (and deserved) since the beginning of time.

Singularly Appropriate Quote

2011-08-20T07:28:00.000-04:00

“We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home.

We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people.” –Ronald Reagan

When its right, there's nothing else to say!

Enjoy,
--
Bill Sadler

Is Fanatically Opposed to Fanaticism an Epimenides Paradox?

2011-02-15T13:48:00.000-05:00

Well? Is it? I use it for the motto of my personal website (http://bill.sadlerhome.com) and it has the feel of the Epimenides Paradox. Epimenedies? The Cretan who said, "All Cretan's are Liars."? Sigh, where is modern education these days...

Epimenides' paradox is not actually a paradox, anyhow. It carries the false assumption of its own truth (as does every statement) but it isn't, therefore, it tastes like a paradox, and is fun to roll around on the metaphorical tongue, but doesn't contain any actual contradiction.

But what about 'Fanatically opposed to fanaticism" - Simple, really. If you are fanatically opposed to fanaticism, then, the fanatic statement, "I am Always opposed to fanaticism" must come under criticism. If, you are opposed to all cases of fanaticism, EXCEPT for opposition to fanaticism, then the statement is an accurate description of the situation.

So here's a restatement - I categorically 100% and always oppose all forms of fanaticism, with the only exception being opposition to fanaticism itself.

It's not hard to see why, fanatics, having already judged everything by their fanatical notions, cannot admit even to obvious facts in opposition to their position. Basically, it doesn't allow you to admit you are wrong about your fanatical ideas, and is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. It seems to me that everyone should be fanatically opposed to fanaticism, especially with respect to themselves.

If you can't admit you're wrong, you can never grow.
--
Bill Sadler

Preparedness

2011-02-10T14:42:00.000-05:00

Proverbs 22:3 - The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

Pretty simple statement, not one of those that we need to dispute very much. We should see dangers coming, and hide ourselves from it! Do we then take action? What about trusting the Lord? What about not testing the Lord? We are told to work (Genesis 3:19) and we are told not to test the Lord (Matthew 4:7). Trusting in the Lord does not mean sitting back and doing nothing, we are to work our whole lives. If we see danger approaching we are to be prudent and do something about it. So what form does 'something' take? This is a much longer question. Too long for a short post, so I've created a major topic called 'preparedness'. I will be filling it in over the next few days and weeks with items and articles about potential scenarios, responses, and items that I think are prudent from the standpoint of being 'prepared'.