Puzzled

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same "logic" applies to any asset price; do you think that your stock portfolio should fall to 2009 levels because that is what is "realistic"?

You don't have to live in your stock portfolio. If he thought that's what stocks should be at he could sell his stocks and leave the stock market. He'd make a ton of money selling everything at the height of the "stock bubble".

Originally posted by Eladar
Unemployment is down because once you are unemployed long enough, you are no longer considered unemployed. You could have 100% unemployment, then after a short period of time have 0% unemployment as long as no one ever got a job.

I wonder how anyone can believe a thing the government says. I see that many do. Lol!

I see the "holding your breath until you turn blue" defense is still available.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You don't have to live in your stock portfolio. If he thought that's what stocks should be at he could sell his stocks and leave the stock market. He'd make a ton of money selling everything at the height of the "stock bubble".

When might that be?

You don't have to own a home either.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see the "holding your breath until you turn blue" defense is still available.

I see that instead of dealing with the issue, you still prefer to make personal attacks.

How was my statement incorrect?

Originally posted by no1marauder
When might that be?

You don't have to own a home either.

Now's a pretty good time - if stocks are really inflated. Remember when the DOW went over 10,000 and it was in the news? It's over 15,000 now. Highest it's ever been.

IF stocks are overpriced, they could come tumbling down at any moment. Sell them now.

But they don't represent personal property so it doesn't really matter.

If you don't own a home you gotta pay rent and you are guaranteed to lose money that way. So that's not a good financial decision.

Originally posted by Eladar
I see that instead of dealing with the issue, you still prefer to make personal attacks.

How was my statement incorrect?

I'll let somebody else waste their time pointing out the grotesque error in your statement (0% unemployment because people are out of work too long? LMAO!); you won't pay any attention to the actual figures because they come from the government and, of course, you can't trust the government.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Now's a pretty good time - if stocks are really inflated. Remember when the DOW went over 10,000 and it was in the news? It's over 15,000 now. Highest it's ever been.

IF stocks are overpriced, they could come tumbling down at any moment. Sell them now.

But they don't represent personal property so it doesn't really matter.

If you don't o ...[text shortened]... and you are guaranteed to lose money that way. So that's not a good financial decision.

If you do own a home, you still need to pay rent, it's call a property tax.

Renting has its positives. You tie up less money. You don't have to make repairs. You can move at any time and not have to worry about selling the property.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll let somebody else waste their time pointing out the grotesque error in your statement (0% unemployment because people are out of work too long? LMAO!); you won't pay any attention to the actual figures because they come from the government and, of course, you can't trust the government.

Does the government take people off the unemployement statistic simply because they've been unemployed too long?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Now's a pretty good time - if stocks are really inflated. Remember when the DOW went over 10,000 and it was in the news? It's over 15,000 now. Highest it's ever been.

IF stocks are overpriced, they could come tumbling down at any moment. Sell them now.

But they don't represent personal property so it doesn't really matter.

If you don't o ...[text shortened]... and you are guaranteed to lose money that way. So that's not a good financial decision.

That's a big "IF".

Renting can be a perfectly reasonable financial decision depending on how much a monthly mortgage payment would cost v. the rent and whether the home price is expected to rise. There are millions of people who suffered foreclosures in the last few years who would have been better off renting.

Originally posted by Eladar
Does the government take people off the unemployement statistic simply because they've been unemployed too long?

No.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a big "IF".

Renting can be a perfectly reasonable financial decision depending on how much a monthly mortgage payment would cost v. the rent and whether the home price is expected to rise. There are millions of people who suffered foreclosures in the last few years who would have been better off renting.

That's because they didn't buy the house, they got a loan with the house as collateral. That's one of the tricks rich people use to screw less rich people - the capitalist gets half the payments AND the house in the end if he can keep the person who owes him money desperate enough.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's because they didn't buy the house, they got a loan with the house as collateral. That's one of the tricks rich people use to screw less rich people - the capitalist gets half the payments AND the house in the end if he can keep the person who owes him money desperate enough.

Absent that "trick", most people wouldn't be able to afford the house in the first place. So where does the "screwing" come in again?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No.

So you are saying that what I've said is totally impossible?

Assuming that all of the people unemployed received government benefits and were no longer looking for work. Would there be 100% unemployment even though no one has a job?

Originally posted by Eladar
Unemployment is down because once you are unemployed long enough, you are no longer considered unemployed. You could have 100% unemployment, then after a short period of time have 0% unemployment as long as no one ever got a job.

I wonder how anyone can believe a thing the government says. I see that many do. Lol!

Has the way the government calculates unemployment changed significantly over the past couple of years?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Has the way the government calculates unemployment changed significantly over the past couple of years?

Of course not. It has always been this way as far as I know. It is all smoke and mirrors. Reality does not matter. Propaganda is the only thing that matters.