Comments: How Crazy Are Right-Wing Corporate Zillionaires? This Crazy

"If you make serious mistakes in the private sector, you'll lose your job, or, if you're in a position of responsibility, you might lose other people's jobs.

This makes it sound like those "in a position of responsibility" don't lose their jobs when they make a mistake, only their underlings.

Posted by Happy Jack at October 6, 2012 09:12 AM

REAL CRAZY!!!!! CONSERVATIVES/REPUBLICANS........
( One could replace "crazy" with any one of these..... crackbrain, lunatic, fool, fruitcake, loony, maniac, nut, nutcase, nutter [British slang], psycho, psychopath, sicko, wacko.....no malice intended....they are pathetic....)

"Meet The Conservatives Who Think Today’s Job Numbers Are A Conspiracy"
By Aviva Shen on Oct 5, 2012 at 9:35 am

here

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/

continued......

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 6, 2012 10:11 AM

continued....

AND... If anyone is interested in reading the whole article about "Global Warming as Mass Neurosis".....

( you are warned... it may cause your head to spin!! )

here

http://www.nevilleawards.com/gw.shtml

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 6, 2012 10:16 AM

I think it is important to recognize that Welch and Co. have a more realistic view of climate change than many liberals. As Naomi Klein pointed out, climate change IS a threat to the economic system by way of it's fundamental challenge to the notion of limits. It exposes "externalities" as a fatal flaw to classic economic theory.

Liberals try to imagine some frictionless green capitalism bringing on a New American Century. They hope to organic garden their way out of the coming conflict.

Posted by troutsky at October 6, 2012 10:46 AM

I think it is important to recognize that Welch and Co. have a more realistic view of climate change than many liberals. As Naomi Klein pointed out, climate change IS a threat to the economic system by way of it's fundamental challenge to the notion of limits. It exposes "externalities" as a fatal flaw to classic economic theory.

Liberals try to imagine some frictionless green capitalism bringing on a New American Century. They hope to organic garden their way out of the coming conflict.

Posted by troutsky at October 6, 2012 10:47 AM

In fairness to Welch, the jobs numbers ARE pure bullshit.

Posted by Pepe at October 6, 2012 11:41 AM

Pepe: Agreed.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 6, 2012 12:28 PM

Pepe: 2 thumbs up. Anyone care to guess what they will be two weeks before the election?

Posted by par4 at October 6, 2012 12:54 PM

For a look at the real numbers go to
Shadowstats.com

Posted by Bill Jones at October 6, 2012 01:28 PM

What sort of moron believes the Labor Dept numbers?
For a look at the real numbers go to
Shadowstats.com

Posted by Bill Jones at October 6, 2012 01:29 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand, this is NOT about the BLS numbers. BLS uses certain parameters and methodology to derive the numbers. One can argue about or disagree with their methodology /processes. That is NOT the issue. The issue here is whether the administration asked the BLS to cook the data and change the numbers as claimed by Jack Welch and other conservatives and Republicans.

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 6, 2012 03:46 PM

Rupa Shah: Asking the right question determines the right answer=determining the "right parameters" produces the "right statistical numbers".
THAT, my friends, is how the game is played.(lies, damn lies, and statistics)

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 6, 2012 04:07 PM

One should never look for honesty in The American form of governance, especially in an election year. Such an endeavor wastes YOUR time, burdens YOUR good nature, and will lead YOU astray.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 6, 2012 04:17 PM
their methodology /processes

They don't have to ask the BLS to cook the books - the books are well done already.

It's all sleight of hand. The BLS figures are no longer meaningful metrics on the state of the economy.

Posted by Pepe at October 6, 2012 05:38 PM

Jon. I love you, man. You are the man. but IMO you really need to read some of the skeptics on global warming. To move to the next level, I mean.

Posted by indirecteffect dude at October 6, 2012 07:23 PM

Having read that all the national academies of science agree that climate change (global warming) is a serious problem that could make the planet earth uninhabitable if something isn't done and fast, spending time we don't have to read anti-science "skeptics" is just so absurd. IMHO

Posted by knowdoubt at October 7, 2012 08:33 AM

I do agree with commenters that our govt tells lies, some awful lies and many times with the help of MSM, tells lies by omission. HOWEVER, I would not declare a party/agency guilty unless proven otherwise. I really would like to see the evidence that something wrong has been done. And I DO TRUST some people to tell the truth as I am no statistician nor am I an expert on honesty of various govt agencies.

here

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/06/joseph-stiglitz-tells-jobs-truthers-the-idea-of-a-conspiracy-is-literally-absurd/

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 7, 2012 09:38 AM

Rupa Shah: I had seen that article yesterday. Perhaps Mr. Stiglitz is correct in his statement. I'm sure he believes so. Should he be right then it certainly is some good news for the nation. I absolutely have NO proof one way or the other.
I do have two work-a-holic brothers that haven't worked steady for 2 1/2 years. They haven't mentioned a change as of our last conversations. I know they are always looking for work, they can't afford not to, although one may have stopped out of frustration.
My take is that these numbers come from gov. employment services.
Should one apply for unemployment insurance or actually obtain a job from a gov employment office then one is counted. While BLS may well be accurate from that pool of information or from Social Security Accounts doesn't necessarily reflect the true reality on Mainstreet.
Since these numbers are ALWAYS up graded or down graded after a few days, and if I may point out, this VERY report contains elements of an up grade for the last couple of month's reports, then that alone lends the atmosphere of a "Razzle Dazzle", and it happens EVERY time. Add to that, WE are a month away from a presidential election, one which seems particularly full-o-lies, more so than others past,(hard to believe such an accomplishment could be possible, perhaps the quality of lies is down grading lately or the liars are more inept) then I need more than just a "Trust Me" from the administration to get me to stand up and cheer.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 7, 2012 12:58 PM

@Mike Meyer

I had no idea as to how BLS collects data and analyses it and gives us the numbers so I checked it our ( NOT in great detail ). It has lot of information and some graphs are very interesting ( I specifically looked at the unemployment section ).

here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 7, 2012 01:18 PM

I do not know why the link does not open the correct page but if you copy and paste the URL ( if interested in reading ), it will take you to the correct page....
ps Sorry about that though I used the same URL for the link!!

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 7, 2012 01:25 PM

There's a slash after "Statistics" in the link.

Posted by godoggo at October 7, 2012 01:31 PM

@godoggo

Thanks a ton.... though, I do not know HOW that happened because I pasted the same URL twice and the top one, I made a link.... thanks again... I did not notice that slash ( I AM a very poor observer ).

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 7, 2012 02:54 PM

I am a survey statistician, so familiar with both the general principles underlying the estimates and with the BLS. One can argue for a long time about whether the numbers produced by the BLS accurately reflect the "true" unemployment (and personally I believe that they seriously underestimate it). But the definitions used at BLS have been around for a long time and do not change month-to-month, so this month's numbers are consistent with what they have always reported. The idea that there is some sort of conspiracy to make the president look good at the BLS is simply nuts.

Posted by Jean at October 7, 2012 09:01 PM

Jean: I agree with seriously underestimated.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 7, 2012 09:08 PM

to knowdoubt:
That's what I used to think.

Posted by indirecteffect dude at October 7, 2012 09:11 PM

Unemployment numbers are interesting to me since they line up somewhat with inflation. If you find economies with low unemployment and low inflation, generally they are tax-haven islands with lots of gambling and prostitution. It's kind of fitting that there have been meetings in Vegas.

I could give examples about power trips and scapegoating in the private sector but I assume those stories are everywhere, with the similar inflections of racism and stress-induced hysteria. So instead, I'll just note that my old boss hated being a supervisor so much after 15 years as a worker that he convinced himself building a wall in front of a fence was a good idea. It's the institutional roles that are the problem, not the lack of education of the workers.

Posted by Lewis at October 8, 2012 02:10 AM

to IED: It has got nothing to do with your thinking it is just a fact that All the National Academies of Science have concluded that climate change (global warming) is real and mostly man made and we have very little time left to reverse it, if we still can. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Certainly, you can disagree with their scientific conclusions, but to suggest that they have concluded something else is well,______ you fill in the blank. Disagreeing with their conclusion is one thing, but suggesting your personal "thinks" or conclusions changes what they have concluded is just wrong. The statement I made is simply a fact and has nothing to do with your beliefs or thoughts. Pleeeeze.

Posted by knowdoubt at October 8, 2012 07:19 AM

Rupa Shah: THANX-I clicked the link YOU provided. It showed me enough to know that I'd have to be in the room looking at the same books as BLS. I give it 50/50 odds that its as honest an attempt as possible from BLS. 100/1 odds it not accurate.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 8, 2012 01:55 PM

@ Mike Meyer

I am glad you found the link helpful.
I do understand that there are great variations in "regional" unemployment. Speaking for myself, I have general idea but not specific idea as to how the economy is affecting different states and different regions in the same state. I personally do not know anyone who is unemployed at present but I have had family members who were unemployed ( during Bush yrs... PhD professionals ). And here is what a commenter wrote in an article in Think progress......

"Meet The Conservatives Who Think Today’s Job Numbers Are A Conspiracy"

Bobbie Barnhill · Cincinnati, Ohio
Here in Cincinnati, there have been at least 10 huge job fairs in the last month, including a separate one for veterans. We have a new casino opening downtown, The Reds, and the Bengals. Tons of music events, and a waterfront that has seen lots of new restaurants, and bars open.That is just here in Southwestern part of the state. Instead of trying to tear us apart, why don't you people work together!
Reply · 111 ·
· Friday at 6:46am

AND, sadly, the general impression about govt employees is that they are lazy ( and corrupt ). From my personal experience with Federal employees ( at FAA, Customs dept, Dept of Agriculture, IRS, I found them to be very helpful, patient and most of all getting back to me when they said they would. I wish people had more faith in our govt than what one reads about. That is not to say, corruption does not exist or that one should overlook it or one should stop fighting to eliminate it.

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 8, 2012 04:31 PM

Rupa Shah: Well and good that things are shaping up in Ohio. As for Govt. Employees or anyone for that matter, I try to look upon people as good and honest until I see otherwise. Quite frankly I've run across the other side of that coin before where they aren't so helpful, kind and honest, in which I've been lied to, and even threatened, but no one from BLS though.
In this case its the SYSTEM and the manner of data collection on employment/unemployment that I don't trust, not the employees of BLS so much.
Should someone hire me to work in a field, grove, packing house or a shop somewhere, I'm POSITIVE the boss doesn't inform the BLS immediately of that hire. If such a job were brokered through some gov. office such as an employment office, then yes, maybe.
Were I to be removed from said field, grove, etc. with no application on my part for unemployment insurance or some other aid or relief then I doubt BLS would know, record, or bother about my employment status. Thus IMHO, large swaths of the working population are ignored.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 9, 2012 12:58 PM

Mike: there are two BLS surveys, one asking household members about their employment status and another asking employers about changes in number of employees on their payrolls. Both have screener questions to define what they mean by "employed," "looking for a job,""full-time," etc, all of which are surprisingly slippery concepts, and especially so when the economic climate is pushing people into non-traditional employment situations (euphemistically speaking). The problem is not so much that these surveys are missing their intended target, it's that their target (employed vs. unemployed numbers) is increasingly elusive. In your example, if the job is something temporary and/or off the books (e.g. no social security or no benefits are paid), then it is indeed entirely possible that it is missed by the surveys.

On the other hand, this whole thing has provided the media another few days during which they can avoid talking about substantive issues and instead highlight the "differences" between Obama and Romney ("the number is too high!", "the number is too low!"), so mission accomplished!

Posted by Jean at October 10, 2012 07:40 PM

Jean: Again-agreed, a distraction from problems without solutions, from wars without end, AND, say how's about that GITMO.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 10, 2012 10:32 PM

Quick reply to John's last comment in the previous post: 1st of all, several of the countries that you counted among Obama's "6 wars" were grouped together by Cole as war number 5, Romney's "little wars," so that's a little bit deceptive.

2nd, when you're comparing an incumbent to a challenger there's no choice but to compare words to acts (Obama would obviously come off way better if we compared words to words), and when someone is being deliberately vague, interpretation in necessary. That Romney would like to return troops to Iraq, from which Obama did withdraw them, and leave open the option of reneging on withdrawal from Afghanistan, etc. strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of his words. Certainly his general theme is that Obama is insufficiently hawkish, and he's apparently surrounding himself with neocon advisers.

Look, I'm naive enough to be surprised and disappointed by the way Obama has broken his promises in the areas of "security" and foreign policy. His economic policy is pretty much what I expected, and has at least avoided austerity, unlike a lot of other countries, and it's clearly less bad than what Romney wants. But it looks like what Romney wants in foreign policy is worse, too.

Posted by godoggo at October 11, 2012 12:33 AM

Oh, something I forgot to add: one of Cole's big themes lately is that there's no evidence that Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons or and that it's quite reasonable for them to try to develop nuclear power. He really doesn't strike me as the war cheerleader that others here portray him as.

Posted by godoggo at October 11, 2012 12:39 AM

Which one is really the lesser of two evils? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 11, 2012 05:58 PM

Anyone who reads the WSJ and expects to get unbiased reporting, let alone valid SCIENTIFIC analyses, is totally mistaken.
WSJ's understanding of science is at the level of creationism and witch doctors.

Posted by garcol euphrates at October 12, 2012 11:33 AM

Anyone who reads the WSJ and expects to get unbiased reporting, let alone valid SCIENTIFIC analyses, is totally mistaken.
WSJ's understanding of science is at the level of creationism and witch doctors.

Posted by garcol euphrates at October 12, 2012 11:54 AM

@Mike Meyer - It isn't the question of lessers, although, they are both lesser. It's a question of who is the more effective evil. I'm with Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report and calling out Obama as the more effective evil.

And my earlier point wasn't that I agreed with Welch that the books were cooked for election shenanigans. The books have always been cooked. It wasn't just this last report. The SGS alternative hasn't budged from >20% for a while now.

Posted by pepe at October 13, 2012 02:21 PM