OK, fair enough. So, you disagree that it was waste. Now, if you don't mind please, tell me exactly how it was a benefit, and money well spent. As far as government contracts, i.e. Haliburton and the like, you're preaching to the choir my friend. I've been writing about those scams and kick-backs for over 6 years now. And, no need to preach to me about the medical and health care industry, I know first hand how those scams and kick-backs work. My wife just spent 4 days in the hospital, two of which were of no need, and got a bill yesterday for over $21,000. Over $7,000 was for room and board, in nasty filthy rooms. I can also write pages on the scams and kick-backs that cover 9 1/2 years of medical treatment concerning my ex-wife that died 5 years ago yesterday.
I have written many pieces on government no-bid contracts, including those that mention $400 hammers that can be purchased at any hardware store for less than $30.00. The list is a very long one that covers everything from $400.00 toilet seats to over $90,000 to ship less than $5.00 worth of screws. Again, you're preaching to the choir on this one my friend.
I will agree that some very beneficial technology and innovations have come from the NASA programs. But, who's to say that we would have never had those, had it not been for NASA? Using the techologies and innovations gained from the NASA programs, present a very weak argument when talking about the enormous amount of wasteful spending associated with that agency. I have already mentioned a few of them, i.e. looking for water on the surface of Mars.
Yes, we both agree to the enormous waste associated with the two failed and perpetual ridiculous wars, and the contractors involved which scam and steal from us taxpayers.
When we're forced, through government dereliction of duty and mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars, to fund such projects as the two that went to the bottom of the ocean, it's nothing short of more government waste at a time when we can least afford it. I call it waste, you can call it anything that you like. But, the bottom line remains the same, waste is when no measurable benefit reached those that foot the bills, i.e. the taxpaying citizens of this country.
Can you give me at least one benefit, across the board, that ALL of us gained from the two failed attempts to launch those rockets? Again, if not waste, do you have a word that would best describe your opinon as to the failed attempts?
Since we're talking about the waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars, I have a long list of such if you'ld like to read it. The list includes such items as the care and support of illegal immigrants, subsidies paid to big oil companies and rich farmers, and the ridiculous and outrageous pensions and retirement benefits paid to members of Congress.
Have you ever wondered exactly how ALL of us directly gain and benefit from monetary foreign aid packages, much of which falls into the hands of corrupt foreign governments, and even some going to terrorists?
Now, back on topic, my opinion is that most of NASA is unnecessary, wasteful spending, and has absolutely nothing to do with our military, nor anything to do with national security. An example would be exploring the far reaches of the universe. That, in my opinion, falls into the catagory of "nice to know information" when data is sent back to earth. While it might be beneficial to science, it doesn't put food on my table, nor does it allow me to pay my mortgage. I can think of many more important and urgent needs to spend taxpayers' dollars on.
I haven't gotten to Bernanke's testimony this past week, but budget cuts were testified to cost 200,000 jobs. This is a whole other issue, GDP multipliers but at least he brought home reality that government workers are people, workers, earning wages, salaries.
Although it's a pretty sad day when the sanest commentary on the economy is Bernanke, but lately that's what appears to be happening.
To me this is no surprise. Generally it seems the IMF charter is to make sure no nation on Earth has a middle class. Continually demanding social safety nets, wages, retirements be slashed....but when it comes to FIRE or any of these free flows of capital they are more than happy to help.
I think your articles are key critical to point out so much of the social unrest is really about globalization as well as global labor arbitrage.
NASA generates a lot of technology that is used in industry and generates jobs. So, they are the least of my worries. Social security is actually solvent. The biggest "wastes" are letting private, for profit, health care industry gouge the U.S. on prices. The U.S. pays anywhere from 2x to 8x more than any other industrialized nation on medical care and this is the great untold story of "health care reform"....the ones who won were the health care sector lobbyists. The privatization of the military through the form of contractors and the general use of contractors by government is also another huge waste area.
NASA probably needs to be revamped, but organizations like NASA, DARPA, government funded research arms, these organizations really do bring value to the U.S. and also plain do generate jobs long term.
Not saying that blowing up a rocket and screwing up a launch isn't really bad news and why I mentioned they seem to be using antiquated technology..
but something like $30k for a refrigerator...the entire "virtual fence" for border technology, ask any engineer out there and in 5 minutes they could have told you that technology was not feasible for deployment in the field....so from the onset, that entire contract was bogus. Pure politics, complete waste of U.S. taxpayer funds.
SAIC I believe got a $2 billion dollar contract for merging databases from the FBI and not one line of usable code was written.
There are tons of these contracts, huge, not a single thing is delivered and the companies they get them....clearly "insider trading", i.e. lobbyists and politics versus a contract for a project that is feasible or that the contractor can actually deliver.
Accenture is another one of these who has their corporate headquaters in the Cayman's, pays no taxes, cannot engineer their way out of a paper bag....
Halliburton, good god, they completely ripped off the government, so many examples and hearings,I think a book could be written on all their contractor ripoffs.
Right now, in Afghanistan, we have contractors subcontracting and guess who ends up getting the money? The Taliban, literally the U.S. is funding the enemy by privatization and subcontracts.
Finally scale. The problem is people zero in on one piece of waste, usually reacting emotionally instead of comparing the numbers.
That's why I highlighted the numbers, contracts are over $500 billion each year. How does that number compare to $1 billion?
OK. Again, what do we call it? I'll let you label it. I believe you to be capable of putting a label on such government spending at a time when our economy is in the tank, debt is in astronomical figures, and the general public is down to their proverbial last dollar.
Yes, in my opinion, NASA is a waste at present. Of course, I will exclude NASA projects and activities connected to our military and national security.
What kind of waste, you asked? Well, in my opinion, it's nothing short of "In Your Face" waste. We borrow money each and every day just to fund government and to support two senseless deadly costly wars. We borrow money each and every day to fund Social Security, government assistance programs, and the give-aways some call foreign aid. And, ontop of that, we borrow money to look for water on the surface of Mars, explore the far reaches of outer space, and to send telescopes into space to look at distant stars.
Meanwhile, back here on the ground, we have approximately 27 million citizens either out of work, under-employed, or working for close to poverty wages. We have close to 44 million on food stamps, some living in shelters and tent cities, and college grads moving back home to live with parents. We have roads and bridges in bad need of repair and ungrading, teachers and police officers being layed-off due to declining tax revenue, public services being cut, and school lunch programs for the poor without adequate funding. We have many many citizens too poor to get proper health care, the elderly making choices between buying medicine or buying food, and the gap between the cost of living and real wages continue to widen.
Now, please explain to me why two failed "non-national security non-military project" NASA rockets sent to the bottom of the ocean, was not waste of taxpayers' dollars. If not waste, please attach a label to the funds used for the failed project.
I bought my home in 2007. The lender was a company called MORTGAGE I.T. out of Charlotte NC. Somewhere in the paperwork it said something about MERS, I know that. My home is now a Freddie Mac backed (owned?) home being handled by Bank of America's servicing division that I've been trying to get a HAMP modification on for over a year. Yadda yadda -- you've heard my nightmare story in a million differrent versions already, I'm sure, so I'll spare you the agonizing details.
You say above "the banks kept a record of these changes on their own system, which ... therefore invalidates the lien on the property entirely."
So, to my questions:
1) Are investors reluctant to do modifications on loans that have been transferred because they already realize the titles are tainted? Is that what is gumming up HAMP works -- loans that have been transferred through MERS are anathema?
2) Do loans that have been illegally transferred (which I understand to mean transferred without being properly filed and recorded with local county clerks with required fees being paid) really become nullified and there is no actual mortgage any more? The owner of the note has actually relinquished title to the property to the borrower?
3) If MORTGAGE I.T. was my lender, but Freddie Mac now owns my loan, but there is no legal record of transfer in my county clerk's office, DO I OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR???
4) I know my home has some kind of MERS number, and a reference to MERS in the actual NOTE; I know Freddie Mac lists my home as 'one of theirs'; when I look up my loan number in MERS it lists my servicer as Bank of America and my owner as Bank of America. I thought this might be because of the buy-back settlement between BoA and Freddie in December, so I inquired in January and was told Freddie is still my 'investor.' WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN TO ME, A DISTRESSED, ORDINARY, HOMEOWNER???
5) What can I do to find out about transfers of my note? Just go to the county clerk's office and ask to see all the records about my property since I bought it?
6) If the note has been forfeited by this type of illegal transfer, can I sue to recover all payments I've made to my alleged 'servicer'?
7) Holy MERS, Batman .. does this turn the tables on the bank entirely?
I believe the unemployment rate is becoming more meaningless primarily because all of this is based on non-institutional civilian population and I think that's a skewed metric. I think U-6 is becoming more meaningful. The numbers at this point which have more validity are payrolls, or the number of jobs. The survey is more robust to tally these up.
147k are all of the people not locked up, not serving in the military, not in a nursing home, in a mental hospital and so on who are over age 16. That includes retirees.
It's actually low this month, more around 200k a month. the labor force grew by 60k this month. that said, it's all about the participation rate, which is very low.
Labor participation rate that low means there are assuredly people who want and need a job who have given up and are not counted anywhere.
Another problem is the civilian non-institutional population is derived from the 2000 Census, which is now 11 years old as a base. Then they extrapolate out the monthly growth, but using 2000 as a base I've yet to understand why they would do that..
for if non-institional civilian population is way off, all other ratios are way off.
R.O., your response to me within the trade forum’s discussion of “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage” was:
. . . . “Firstly, it's rude to put someone's name over and over again in a comment, when the comment authors are listed. This is why user's names are listed and there is a reply button. There are over 1300 people on this site who are registered, active users and we also have many anonymous comments.
Secondly, I linked to the posts, written by me, on Phantom GDP in the comments already. I'll link to it again, Productivity, Phantom GDP, Jobs & Outsourcing.
Thirdly, this original post is very weak in content, continually promoting one concept, with little analysis, and is quite old. Therefore comments will be locked on this thread.
If you wish to participate, please comment appropriately on some of many posts on trade, GDP, offshore outsourcing, globalization, insourcing, labor arbitrage...there are over 4500 posts on this site”.
I regret that you perceive my addressing you by your name as rudeness. I don’t know or believe that I should be concerned if the name is actually your “legal” or a “pen” name. I thought it was an act of common courtesy and respect to address you by your published name. I had no reason to believe you did not want to be mentioned. I did not seek any advantage or intended to insult anything or anyone by addressing you by name. I only meant to be respectful.
I wasn’t aware that the title of your message, “See Phantom GDP link” was itself a link. I now tried to use it as a link but it didn’t work for me. Possibly the fault is due to my poor knowledge or skill as an internet user?
I left clicked upon the title and nothing happened. When I right clicked on the title, a menu appeared. Using the menu I clicked upon “open”; then upon “open in new tab” and finally upon “open in new widow”; in each of these cases couldn’t reach the site you’re referring too.
Would you credit me with Googling and I believe finding reading and fully considering the site based upon the phrase you provided?
My topic of course concerns a single concept. Why would we wish to complicate the discussion of a single concept by introducing other unrelated concepts?
The only response to your opinion that a posted topic is very weak and contains little analysis should come from others than posts’ authors themselves.
The age of a concept is not germane to its validity.
You have determined to lock out further comments to a thread because you do not approve of the concept or although the discussion is civil, the manner or style of its discussion does not meet your standards? Within a free market of ideas, do not concepts eventually flourish or perish dependent upon their own merits? If a concept or the discussion is unworthy of consideration, wouldn’t it die naturally?
So if unemployment has decreased by about 10%, the average person would think that the number of unemployed people has decreased by about 10% too.
But that isn't the case, is it?
All this is so confusing.
And how much is employment improving for the long-term unemployed, the ones who need a job th most?
It kills me when I read that employment of immigrants has been increasing. It's a disgrace that no major economist or politician has called for a moratorium on immigration of any kind. There's no reason to be admitting the siblings and parents of prior immigrants by the hundreds of thousands each year "just to be nice" as we've been doing for decades.
I could care less about extended family reunification when there's so many people out of work. And what about all those temporary workers that we don't need either?
Simply insane. And that we all put up with it is even worse. Oh yeah and I'm a racist for saying all this too, according to the people whose tender consciences compel them to support giving away other Americans' jobs to people from overseas. I'm waiting for the day these morally superior folks volunteer to give away their own jobs to a needy and worthy immigrant.
I'll be writing more details on this report. As everyone knows the BLS now is a major puzzle to see where the adjustments are, if a mon-to-mon comparison has any validity or clue in to what's going on...
but bottom line, while it's great to see 192,000 jobs, I frankly expected much more from other economic reports....
and to make matters worse, it's doubtful this was even enough to keep up with population.
So, we have all sorts of politicians acting like this crisis is over, not even close! Not even a dent really in the jobs crisis.
I'll write up more details in another post after I can dig them out.
waste is giving bonuses on contracts w/o one line of usable good or work, take your "virtual fence" as a good example, or Halliburton (pick one).
You can claim NASA is a waste, but what type of waste is that? In other words, are they failing because they cannot get the funding to properly update all of their technology?
Each case is different and that's the point, one has to look at this case by case.
We have an entire government that's corrupt, political favors driven, they don't do "real management" for what makes sense.
Two failed attempts, and $Millions lost, is not waste? Ok, what do we call it? Are you saying that it was money ( taxpayers' money ) well spent? I wonder, with all of the dire "citizen" needs here on the ground, could that money ( taxpayers' money ) have been put to use for a more beneficial purpose?
In my opinion, the non-military/defense spending by NASA is waste, especially at hard economic times like we're presently experiencing. So, we have multi-$millions to spend on looking at atmospheric changes and the effects of solar radiation? WOW !!
I guess that it all boils down to priorities. By the way, was that not borrowed money that was spent to send the rocket to the bottom of the ocean, for the second time?
Exactly where do we draw the line concerning wasteful spending? Are we not over $14Trillion in debt, and counting? Are state governments cutting back services and laying-off teachers and police officers? Do we not have close to 44 million citizens on food stamps? Do we not have infrastructure in need of repair and up-grading? And, playing around in space is a priority? Who would've thunk it?
More I get the impression NASA is working with some seriously outdated technology. Watching the shuttle take off was like watching a garbage can be jettisoned out into space. Think about it, that's from the 1980's. The probably need complete redesigns with modern technology, ICs, microprocessors, components.
Did you see this report is manipulated? It's really not good to have the GAO put any bias, whatsoever, in a report and this has some. They should be pristine, not corruptible, no bias.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite is in the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt, NASA officials said Friday.
The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA's Glory satellite lifted off around 2:10 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The $424 million mission is managed by the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
A duplicate is now scheduled to fly from Vandenberg in 2013.
NASA suffered a similar mishap two years ago when a satellite that would have studied global warming crashed into the ocean near Antarctica after launching from the same kind of rocket that carried Glory. Officials said Friday that Glory likely wound up landing near where the previous satellite did.
"We failed to make orbit," NASA launch director Omar Baez said Friday. "Indications are that the satellite and rocket ... is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere."
Shadow stats has it's own problems. There are a host of statistics and more importantly, the raw methods that make the difference. I look into these almost every day and a huge activity is to find the missing unemployed and point out the limitations from each economic report. That said, I've seen incorrect data on shadowstats...
even inaccuracies on the methods being used by the BLS/BEA etc.
so the only way, IMHO to figure out how to read these things is learn about the underlying assumptions, methodologies.
I don't go by the government numbers - they have become mostly propaganda at this point - they don't count people as unemployed if they have been out of work long term and various other fudges.
It's been so bad, often on these reports I put "hasn't everyone in America been fired by now"? So, when tomorrow's unemployment report comes out, I'll be focusing in on the CES survey, or how many actual new jobs are there and even per sector.
It's the most solid metric to say, ok, there were x jobs added with the largest survey.
Also, I cover the JOLTS survey on this site and it shows what you are saying, there is something like 10 people per each job actually open.
It's really horrific.
All this report indicates is a "sniff in the air" things may have improved. Shouldn't be weighted at all like even the monthly unemployment reports.
As time goes on and people continue to be out of work for time well beyond the limits to collect unemployment, of course the numbers will drop. It in no way means there are more jobs or less unemployed, just that many people simply can't collect it anymore and drop out of the system.
It doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out how bad it is when businesses post openings on Craigslist or in newspapers and get more candidates overnight than they can even consider.
OK, fair enough. So, you disagree that it was waste. Now, if you don't mind please, tell me exactly how it was a benefit, and money well spent. As far as government contracts, i.e. Haliburton and the like, you're preaching to the choir my friend. I've been writing about those scams and kick-backs for over 6 years now. And, no need to preach to me about the medical and health care industry, I know first hand how those scams and kick-backs work. My wife just spent 4 days in the hospital, two of which were of no need, and got a bill yesterday for over $21,000. Over $7,000 was for room and board, in nasty filthy rooms. I can also write pages on the scams and kick-backs that cover 9 1/2 years of medical treatment concerning my ex-wife that died 5 years ago yesterday.
I have written many pieces on government no-bid contracts, including those that mention $400 hammers that can be purchased at any hardware store for less than $30.00. The list is a very long one that covers everything from $400.00 toilet seats to over $90,000 to ship less than $5.00 worth of screws. Again, you're preaching to the choir on this one my friend.
I will agree that some very beneficial technology and innovations have come from the NASA programs. But, who's to say that we would have never had those, had it not been for NASA? Using the techologies and innovations gained from the NASA programs, present a very weak argument when talking about the enormous amount of wasteful spending associated with that agency. I have already mentioned a few of them, i.e. looking for water on the surface of Mars.
Yes, we both agree to the enormous waste associated with the two failed and perpetual ridiculous wars, and the contractors involved which scam and steal from us taxpayers.
When we're forced, through government dereliction of duty and mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars, to fund such projects as the two that went to the bottom of the ocean, it's nothing short of more government waste at a time when we can least afford it. I call it waste, you can call it anything that you like. But, the bottom line remains the same, waste is when no measurable benefit reached those that foot the bills, i.e. the taxpaying citizens of this country.
Can you give me at least one benefit, across the board, that ALL of us gained from the two failed attempts to launch those rockets? Again, if not waste, do you have a word that would best describe your opinon as to the failed attempts?
Since we're talking about the waste of taxpayers' hard earned dollars, I have a long list of such if you'ld like to read it. The list includes such items as the care and support of illegal immigrants, subsidies paid to big oil companies and rich farmers, and the ridiculous and outrageous pensions and retirement benefits paid to members of Congress.
Have you ever wondered exactly how ALL of us directly gain and benefit from monetary foreign aid packages, much of which falls into the hands of corrupt foreign governments, and even some going to terrorists?
Now, back on topic, my opinion is that most of NASA is unnecessary, wasteful spending, and has absolutely nothing to do with our military, nor anything to do with national security. An example would be exploring the far reaches of the universe. That, in my opinion, falls into the catagory of "nice to know information" when data is sent back to earth. While it might be beneficial to science, it doesn't put food on my table, nor does it allow me to pay my mortgage. I can think of many more important and urgent needs to spend taxpayers' dollars on.
I haven't gotten to Bernanke's testimony this past week, but budget cuts were testified to cost 200,000 jobs. This is a whole other issue, GDP multipliers but at least he brought home reality that government workers are people, workers, earning wages, salaries.
Although it's a pretty sad day when the sanest commentary on the economy is Bernanke, but lately that's what appears to be happening.
To me this is no surprise. Generally it seems the IMF charter is to make sure no nation on Earth has a middle class. Continually demanding social safety nets, wages, retirements be slashed....but when it comes to FIRE or any of these free flows of capital they are more than happy to help.
I think your articles are key critical to point out so much of the social unrest is really about globalization as well as global labor arbitrage.
Great post.
NASA generates a lot of technology that is used in industry and generates jobs. So, they are the least of my worries. Social security is actually solvent. The biggest "wastes" are letting private, for profit, health care industry gouge the U.S. on prices. The U.S. pays anywhere from 2x to 8x more than any other industrialized nation on medical care and this is the great untold story of "health care reform"....the ones who won were the health care sector lobbyists. The privatization of the military through the form of contractors and the general use of contractors by government is also another huge waste area.
NASA probably needs to be revamped, but organizations like NASA, DARPA, government funded research arms, these organizations really do bring value to the U.S. and also plain do generate jobs long term.
Not saying that blowing up a rocket and screwing up a launch isn't really bad news and why I mentioned they seem to be using antiquated technology..
but something like $30k for a refrigerator...the entire "virtual fence" for border technology, ask any engineer out there and in 5 minutes they could have told you that technology was not feasible for deployment in the field....so from the onset, that entire contract was bogus. Pure politics, complete waste of U.S. taxpayer funds.
SAIC I believe got a $2 billion dollar contract for merging databases from the FBI and not one line of usable code was written.
There are tons of these contracts, huge, not a single thing is delivered and the companies they get them....clearly "insider trading", i.e. lobbyists and politics versus a contract for a project that is feasible or that the contractor can actually deliver.
Accenture is another one of these who has their corporate headquaters in the Cayman's, pays no taxes, cannot engineer their way out of a paper bag....
Halliburton, good god, they completely ripped off the government, so many examples and hearings,I think a book could be written on all their contractor ripoffs.
Right now, in Afghanistan, we have contractors subcontracting and guess who ends up getting the money? The Taliban, literally the U.S. is funding the enemy by privatization and subcontracts.
Finally scale. The problem is people zero in on one piece of waste, usually reacting emotionally instead of comparing the numbers.
That's why I highlighted the numbers, contracts are over $500 billion each year. How does that number compare to $1 billion?
OK. Again, what do we call it? I'll let you label it. I believe you to be capable of putting a label on such government spending at a time when our economy is in the tank, debt is in astronomical figures, and the general public is down to their proverbial last dollar.
Yes, in my opinion, NASA is a waste at present. Of course, I will exclude NASA projects and activities connected to our military and national security.
What kind of waste, you asked? Well, in my opinion, it's nothing short of "In Your Face" waste. We borrow money each and every day just to fund government and to support two senseless deadly costly wars. We borrow money each and every day to fund Social Security, government assistance programs, and the give-aways some call foreign aid. And, ontop of that, we borrow money to look for water on the surface of Mars, explore the far reaches of outer space, and to send telescopes into space to look at distant stars.
Meanwhile, back here on the ground, we have approximately 27 million citizens either out of work, under-employed, or working for close to poverty wages. We have close to 44 million on food stamps, some living in shelters and tent cities, and college grads moving back home to live with parents. We have roads and bridges in bad need of repair and ungrading, teachers and police officers being layed-off due to declining tax revenue, public services being cut, and school lunch programs for the poor without adequate funding. We have many many citizens too poor to get proper health care, the elderly making choices between buying medicine or buying food, and the gap between the cost of living and real wages continue to widen.
Now, please explain to me why two failed "non-national security non-military project" NASA rockets sent to the bottom of the ocean, was not waste of taxpayers' dollars. If not waste, please attach a label to the funds used for the failed project.
I bought my home in 2007. The lender was a company called MORTGAGE I.T. out of Charlotte NC. Somewhere in the paperwork it said something about MERS, I know that. My home is now a Freddie Mac backed (owned?) home being handled by Bank of America's servicing division that I've been trying to get a HAMP modification on for over a year. Yadda yadda -- you've heard my nightmare story in a million differrent versions already, I'm sure, so I'll spare you the agonizing details.
You say above "the banks kept a record of these changes on their own system, which ... therefore invalidates the lien on the property entirely."
So, to my questions:
1) Are investors reluctant to do modifications on loans that have been transferred because they already realize the titles are tainted? Is that what is gumming up HAMP works -- loans that have been transferred through MERS are anathema?
2) Do loans that have been illegally transferred (which I understand to mean transferred without being properly filed and recorded with local county clerks with required fees being paid) really become nullified and there is no actual mortgage any more? The owner of the note has actually relinquished title to the property to the borrower?
3) If MORTGAGE I.T. was my lender, but Freddie Mac now owns my loan, but there is no legal record of transfer in my county clerk's office, DO I OWN MY HOME FREE AND CLEAR???
4) I know my home has some kind of MERS number, and a reference to MERS in the actual NOTE; I know Freddie Mac lists my home as 'one of theirs'; when I look up my loan number in MERS it lists my servicer as Bank of America and my owner as Bank of America. I thought this might be because of the buy-back settlement between BoA and Freddie in December, so I inquired in January and was told Freddie is still my 'investor.' WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN TO ME, A DISTRESSED, ORDINARY, HOMEOWNER???
5) What can I do to find out about transfers of my note? Just go to the county clerk's office and ask to see all the records about my property since I bought it?
6) If the note has been forfeited by this type of illegal transfer, can I sue to recover all payments I've made to my alleged 'servicer'?
7) Holy MERS, Batman .. does this turn the tables on the bank entirely?
I believe the unemployment rate is becoming more meaningless primarily because all of this is based on non-institutional civilian population and I think that's a skewed metric. I think U-6 is becoming more meaningful. The numbers at this point which have more validity are payrolls, or the number of jobs. The survey is more robust to tally these up.
147k are all of the people not locked up, not serving in the military, not in a nursing home, in a mental hospital and so on who are over age 16. That includes retirees.
It's actually low this month, more around 200k a month. the labor force grew by 60k this month. that said, it's all about the participation rate, which is very low.
Labor participation rate that low means there are assuredly people who want and need a job who have given up and are not counted anywhere.
Another problem is the civilian non-institutional population is derived from the 2000 Census, which is now 11 years old as a base. Then they extrapolate out the monthly growth, but using 2000 as a base I've yet to understand why they would do that..
for if non-institional civilian population is way off, all other ratios are way off.
R.O., your response to me within the trade forum’s discussion of “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage” was:
. . . . “Firstly, it's rude to put someone's name over and over again in a comment, when the comment authors are listed. This is why user's names are listed and there is a reply button. There are over 1300 people on this site who are registered, active users and we also have many anonymous comments.
Secondly, I linked to the posts, written by me, on Phantom GDP in the comments already. I'll link to it again, Productivity, Phantom GDP, Jobs & Outsourcing.
Thirdly, this original post is very weak in content, continually promoting one concept, with little analysis, and is quite old. Therefore comments will be locked on this thread.
If you wish to participate, please comment appropriately on some of many posts on trade, GDP, offshore outsourcing, globalization, insourcing, labor arbitrage...there are over 4500 posts on this site”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I regret that you perceive my addressing you by your name as rudeness. I don’t know or believe that I should be concerned if the name is actually your “legal” or a “pen” name. I thought it was an act of common courtesy and respect to address you by your published name. I had no reason to believe you did not want to be mentioned. I did not seek any advantage or intended to insult anything or anyone by addressing you by name. I only meant to be respectful.
I wasn’t aware that the title of your message, “See Phantom GDP link” was itself a link. I now tried to use it as a link but it didn’t work for me. Possibly the fault is due to my poor knowledge or skill as an internet user?
I left clicked upon the title and nothing happened. When I right clicked on the title, a menu appeared. Using the menu I clicked upon “open”; then upon “open in new tab” and finally upon “open in new widow”; in each of these cases couldn’t reach the site you’re referring too.
Would you credit me with Googling and I believe finding reading and fully considering the site based upon the phrase you provided?
My topic of course concerns a single concept. Why would we wish to complicate the discussion of a single concept by introducing other unrelated concepts?
The only response to your opinion that a posted topic is very weak and contains little analysis should come from others than posts’ authors themselves.
The age of a concept is not germane to its validity.
You have determined to lock out further comments to a thread because you do not approve of the concept or although the discussion is civil, the manner or style of its discussion does not meet your standards? Within a free market of ideas, do not concepts eventually flourish or perish dependent upon their own merits? If a concept or the discussion is unworthy of consideration, wouldn’t it die naturally?
Respectfully, Supposn
I see this figure was 147,000 for February.
I can't tell you how many times I've read that the labor force grows by about 125,000 each month.
Is 147,000 a blip or is this higher number the more typical and "new normal" figure?
So if unemployment has decreased by about 10%, the average person would think that the number of unemployed people has decreased by about 10% too.
But that isn't the case, is it?
All this is so confusing.
And how much is employment improving for the long-term unemployed, the ones who need a job th most?
It kills me when I read that employment of immigrants has been increasing. It's a disgrace that no major economist or politician has called for a moratorium on immigration of any kind. There's no reason to be admitting the siblings and parents of prior immigrants by the hundreds of thousands each year "just to be nice" as we've been doing for decades.
I could care less about extended family reunification when there's so many people out of work. And what about all those temporary workers that we don't need either?
Simply insane. And that we all put up with it is even worse. Oh yeah and I'm a racist for saying all this too, according to the people whose tender consciences compel them to support giving away other Americans' jobs to people from overseas. I'm waiting for the day these morally superior folks volunteer to give away their own jobs to a needy and worthy immigrant.
I'll be writing more details on this report. As everyone knows the BLS now is a major puzzle to see where the adjustments are, if a mon-to-mon comparison has any validity or clue in to what's going on...
but bottom line, while it's great to see 192,000 jobs, I frankly expected much more from other economic reports....
and to make matters worse, it's doubtful this was even enough to keep up with population.
So, we have all sorts of politicians acting like this crisis is over, not even close! Not even a dent really in the jobs crisis.
I'll write up more details in another post after I can dig them out.
waste is giving bonuses on contracts w/o one line of usable good or work, take your "virtual fence" as a good example, or Halliburton (pick one).
You can claim NASA is a waste, but what type of waste is that? In other words, are they failing because they cannot get the funding to properly update all of their technology?
Each case is different and that's the point, one has to look at this case by case.
We have an entire government that's corrupt, political favors driven, they don't do "real management" for what makes sense.
Two failed attempts, and $Millions lost, is not waste? Ok, what do we call it? Are you saying that it was money ( taxpayers' money ) well spent? I wonder, with all of the dire "citizen" needs here on the ground, could that money ( taxpayers' money ) have been put to use for a more beneficial purpose?
In my opinion, the non-military/defense spending by NASA is waste, especially at hard economic times like we're presently experiencing. So, we have multi-$millions to spend on looking at atmospheric changes and the effects of solar radiation? WOW !!
I guess that it all boils down to priorities. By the way, was that not borrowed money that was spent to send the rocket to the bottom of the ocean, for the second time?
Exactly where do we draw the line concerning wasteful spending? Are we not over $14Trillion in debt, and counting? Are state governments cutting back services and laying-off teachers and police officers? Do we not have close to 44 million citizens on food stamps? Do we not have infrastructure in need of repair and up-grading? And, playing around in space is a priority? Who would've thunk it?
More I get the impression NASA is working with some seriously outdated technology. Watching the shuttle take off was like watching a garbage can be jettisoned out into space. Think about it, that's from the 1980's. The probably need complete redesigns with modern technology, ICs, microprocessors, components.
Did you see this report is manipulated? It's really not good to have the GAO put any bias, whatsoever, in a report and this has some. They should be pristine, not corruptible, no bias.
In today's news :
WASHINGTON (AP) - A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite is in the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt, NASA officials said Friday.
The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA's Glory satellite lifted off around 2:10 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The $424 million mission is managed by the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
A duplicate is now scheduled to fly from Vandenberg in 2013.
NASA suffered a similar mishap two years ago when a satellite that would have studied global warming crashed into the ocean near Antarctica after launching from the same kind of rocket that carried Glory. Officials said Friday that Glory likely wound up landing near where the previous satellite did.
"We failed to make orbit," NASA launch director Omar Baez said Friday. "Indications are that the satellite and rocket ... is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere."
Shadow stats has it's own problems. There are a host of statistics and more importantly, the raw methods that make the difference. I look into these almost every day and a huge activity is to find the missing unemployed and point out the limitations from each economic report. That said, I've seen incorrect data on shadowstats...
even inaccuracies on the methods being used by the BLS/BEA etc.
so the only way, IMHO to figure out how to read these things is learn about the underlying assumptions, methodologies.
I don't go by the government numbers - they have become mostly propaganda at this point - they don't count people as unemployed if they have been out of work long term and various other fudges.
Instead I would look at:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
It's been so bad, often on these reports I put "hasn't everyone in America been fired by now"? So, when tomorrow's unemployment report comes out, I'll be focusing in on the CES survey, or how many actual new jobs are there and even per sector.
It's the most solid metric to say, ok, there were x jobs added with the largest survey.
Also, I cover the JOLTS survey on this site and it shows what you are saying, there is something like 10 people per each job actually open.
It's really horrific.
All this report indicates is a "sniff in the air" things may have improved. Shouldn't be weighted at all like even the monthly unemployment reports.
As time goes on and people continue to be out of work for time well beyond the limits to collect unemployment, of course the numbers will drop. It in no way means there are more jobs or less unemployed, just that many people simply can't collect it anymore and drop out of the system.
It doesn't take a genius to quickly figure out how bad it is when businesses post openings on Craigslist or in newspapers and get more candidates overnight than they can even consider.
Pages