NP - The Myth of a Jobless Recovery

[Phillip Greenlief]

in the film, THE CORPORATION, corporations themselves qualify as psychopaths, when examined by your basic psych intake ...

sent from phillip's iPhone

On Jan 9, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the #1 occupation for psychopaths? That's right, you guessed it--CEO. According to a recent study reported in the SF Chronicle yesterday.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This is probably saying the same thing but it seems to me a person could define "recovery" any old way they wanted.   If you base the numbers on the stock market and GNP or a couple other indicators,   who cares about jobs and median family income?   Or you could count everything but assign different rankings to each factor.  Or you could use the numbers from the above to automatically project job creation with no evidence.
> 
> And then too,   what does "recovery" mean in terms of end result -  are  we recovered back to where we were at some peak economic performance?  Or back to some kind of average for the last couple decades or century or whatever?
> 
> I think we're still economically ailing.   What would we be if we had 1% unemployment (due to self-sufficient farming and handi-man/barter stuff or something)  and the stock market was crashing?  I'll bet there are those who would consider that a serious, serious depression.
> 
> 
> Bekah
> 
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 10:22 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > We can define and measure recovery, itz not rocket science, we simply
> > look at the charts and graphs and there it is;  or there it isn't.
> > itz so easy,  that even an economist can do it.
> >
> > But not all recoveries look alike because not all recessions look
> > alike. The one the US is now recovering from, while not unique, is
> > uncommon.  It is a major financial crisis recovery.
> >
> > And, it is common to have a slow, pathetic to moderate, recovery, one
> > that moves back to natural unemployment slowly, after such a crisis.
> > That's what we have.
> >
> > Some call it a jobless recovery and this phrase is not accurate,
> > although the nitty gritty splceres of date aind indicators may make
> > arguements about the particulars....but it does say something about
> > the recovery from these kinds of financial crises, that is, they are
> > not easily shaken off and they do damage to employment, damage that
> > takes up to a decade, in the best of circumstances (ours is not the
> > best but relatively very good), or longer to repair. Of course, for
> > some workers, and groups, the dmage can not be repaired. There are a
> > hundred variables, some of them singular and local, but the nutz and
> > boltz of it are simple enough.
> >
> >
> > So, how tro avoid this next time? We can't. WE might try what the
> > Brits are doing, or whatever, but in America we like risk and we will
> > take the chances, de-regulate and find ways to make money.
> >
> > The good news is that those in debt are being helped and those who
> > have lotz of money are bing taxed to help them. A good policy, if kept
> > in check,  in the long run.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130109/6cd0f947/attachment.html>