There is an Edit link when I first post, and that Edit link remains BUT ONLY UNTIL SOMEONE POSTS A REPLY TO MY POST.

For example, I can still edit my reply titled "Yes, but how?", and I will be able to edit this reply titled "Edit link?" but only UNTIL SOMEONE POSTS A REPLY UNDER THIS.

I don't know about permissions, but the system as it works for me makes sense in that it's kinda unfair if I post a reply and then my reply makes no sense after the comment has been redacted.

I thought probably you could click a button and maybe open my post up to edit or, more likely, vanish it. Then I could repost my redaction wherever it would end up - which still would be a little confusing in that people would not have context for your remark (paraphrased) "Folks, I do not know where this 'gender test' is coming from." (Context was my quote from the Christian Science Monitor opinion page that suggests, not a statutory gender test, but a gender test that voters may apply as a result of this brouhaha of media misdirection and actual or alleged sexual indiscretions ... or worse.)

Michael Collins has made valid points about political campaign law, drawing important distinctions that are ignored by mainstream media and probably not understood by most EP followers. Also, EP does from time to time touch on campaign finance reform as essential to necessary reform of economic policies ... but I don't think that EP is going to descend to the level of gossip or 'liberal versus 'conservative' sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing or the other media crapola that we are all happy to avoid but cannot completely ignore.

BTW: Banning of trolls is appreciated! Also appreciated is that I have not been banned for some unfortunate approaches I have taken in my comments.

Great report. I'm glad to see that someone besides myself is using the underemployment rate regarding JOLTS. "If one takes the official broader definition of unemployment, or U6, currently at 15.8%, the ratio becomes even worse, 8.2 unemployed people per each job opening."

Another issue is that the number of part-time jobs in the JOLTS report. I have not seen the full-time/part-time jobs breakdown. Of those 3 million jobs, a large percentage could be part-time positions. In fact, the unemployment rate for those seeking full-time work is 9.7%, while for those seeking part-time work the unemployment rate is much less at 6.3% http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t10.htm.

Keep up the great work. No one in the MSM is accurately presenting unemployment. The 9.1% spiel is simply the best case scenario.

I don't seem to be able to redact my comment at this point, and I don't want to withdraw the main thrust of it - which wasn't about gender politics or sexual behavior!

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO CHANGE THE TITLE TO "Economic as well as political consequences: Strauss-Kahn", DELETE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH, AND, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR QUOTE.

(Or, delete my entire comment, and I'll post it in redacted form.)

Actually, although I have seen the name Weiner lately in the ubiquitous media background, it hasn't interested me enough to look into it. I don't watch TV news and I have no idea who Anthony Weiner is or the nature of allegations against him. THAT'S how little I care about that lumpen junk!

I quoted John Klotsche to introduce - NOT the Strauss-Kahn case but - ECONOMIC and POLICY issues arising from consideration of Strauss-Kahn, how the media may be manipulated to create profiteering opportunities in trading, and, issues related to destabilizing effects of such profiteering.

Primarily, I am discussing the consequences of the blend of prurient interest and celebrity cultism of the public, sensationalism and distractionism of mainstream media, and, opportunities that those create for profiteering manipulation of markets in paper of all kinds. These have consequences for consideration of policy issues and also for investment decisions of individuals.

No one has commented on the primary subject matter of my comment, so I guess I should not have used the quote that I did. I used that quote because it seemed to tie my thoughts into the related discussion of the John Edwards case. (Both about politico-economic consequences associated with phenomena cited.)

My intent was to draw discussion toward topics of economic policy.

Of course, rape is about psychopathology relating to power relationships and should not be confused with healthy sexual activity.

MSNBC is reporting that today's increase in the stock market index is in part the result of “benign unemployment numbers”.
They actually used the word "Benign" - are they on another planet, or just a different planetary economic class?
Even NDD over at Bonddad is concerned about unemployment not boding well for the economy.

How about the Strauss-Kahn case? John Klotsche writes in opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor (June 5, 2011)
 

Christine Lagarde is the right choice to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the IMF, and not just because of her experience. Women are more effective communicators and aren't libido-led leaders, like Anthony Weiner.

What is troublesome in the Strauss-Kahn case, and perhaps in many others, is this: suppose that a person would happen somehow to know just one day in advance that the incident would take place. That person with accounts, leverage (margin or connections) and access to exchanges could likely have parlayed a $100,000 play in Greek government bonds into something like  perhaps $300,000 or more within 48 hours! This is an oversimplified account, and a much more detailed analysis by Forest Cookson is available at

DebateRX.com (May 2011): Deep doings at the IMF

which speaks in these terms:

"... making hundreds of millions of dollars or losing a similar amount.  I can afford a bribe of one million dollars for the maid to make up this story."

Of course, this is 'conspiracy theory', but -- again quoting Mr. Cookson:

"[N]othing is simple and ... all events have at least one underlying conspiracy."

IMO, something like the Strauss-Kahn scenario could be done by people who are organized to do such things for surely not more than $100,000. Are there people in this world, in New York City, who do things like this, perhaps even specialize in things like this? Hmmm ... what do you think?

What about the ephemeral news item about some guy (connected into 'Wall Street') who allegedly bragged to a woman (with whom he was allegedly intimately involved outside of any marriage) that he knew the day before the Deepwater Horizon explosion that he was about to make a fortune playing BP short, and was certain enough of his insider information that he was already celebrating his big win at the tables of Casino Financial Capitalism?

For example, back in the Kennedy administration, knowing in advance about a government news release about anti-trust actions in communications cases, allegedly allowed some people to make a fortune overnight playing AT&T short.

I believe that ALL derivatives in paper, that is paper built on paper (as opposed to commodities) -- even such simple derivatives as ordinary futures -- are essentially forms of gambling prone to 'THE FIX'. To some extent, this is true even in the case of commodities, as shown in the notorious De Angelis vegetable oil case (1963), that destroyed the hoary reputation of, and forced reorganization of American Express. Is there gold in Fort Knox?

People worry about paper money - even though money is less paper and more digital these days - but they should IMO worry more about all the other forms of paper (digital) commodities. Trading in paper is inherently risky and always subject to 'THE FIX'. That's why there are great profits to be made! That's why it can't happen without considerable governmental regulation. That's why it's imperative to aggressively pursue corruption in high places (and low) and not get side-tracked into People-Magazine-type stuff about politicos (not that politicos should be above the law but we should observe the law, including the part about innocent until proven guilty and the part about not speculating on a pending case).

I don't know anything about the facts of the Strauss-Kahn case, although I have formed an impression that, as it stands now, it's she-said-he-did. So, it's a pending case and should not be discussed. I only discuss it here as an example of how confused matters can become in a corrupted world system of finance-capitalism and how problematic it therefore is to accept numbers (averages over time) as the basis for economic decisions.

Rampant huge speculation in currency markets may constitute just the tip of the iceberg. No wonder people like to have actual gold, silver and platinum buried in a safe buried under the basement!

Requirements for a healthy free economy: (1) effective aggressive regulatory activities by stable government trusted by the people; and, (2) transparency in and systematic controls over possible corruption undermining the activities and the government.

Really, what's essential is integrity and trust - not the same as the appearance of integrity or as blind trust in government.
 

Commerce is impossible without an environment of mutual trust.

I agree with your points about the dangers of corporatism ... intermingling of corporate and state power ...

BUT, how do I go about boycotting Cisco routers if I am to use the internet?

Boycott Cisco routers. Money is the only thing they understand. I just wish we could boycott our government too for aiding and abetting the Cisco investigation.

Cisco + Government power = scary

It was Mussolini who said fascism is the combining of corporate and government powers.

This case is a good example of fascism.

The US government prosecutes nobody on Wall St. for our economic collapse, yet when Cisco decides they want to have someone arrested, the US government jumps into action. Just who is running this country?

I was volunteering to teach a free ESL group, and I met a student who had come from Mexico to work at construction labor (probably paid under the table). A serious working man, his thing was to try to send as much money to his extended family back home to be able to pay for as many kids to go to school as possible.

He explained it this way: it wasn't that he really preferred to be in the U.S. or that he could not survive in Mexico. It was just that the tuition for even one kid in Mexico was greater than what a man could conceivably earn there. He himself could barely read Spanish, let alone English. All he had ever done was hard work.

I don't know if he was legal or not. Never asked.

We could probably try to give enough money to Mexico that at least their K-6 or K-8 would be free ... but would that money ever filter down to the ground where people live? Anyway, what that would cost the taxpayer would probably be less than the costs associated with illegal immigration.

...and no-holds-barred analysis.