Ace, I can't quite get a grip on your point of view here. I pointed out the flaws in your Grocery example, to which there was no response. Are you suggesting that companies shouldn't embrace technology as part of their business model?

I am still waiting on your rebuttle about technology killing jobs. Or you can continue to pick and choose the arguements that best suit you.[/quote h

 

I have given my reply, you may have skipped over it, or simply dismissed it. When "technology" was first introduced the machines used were muscle machines and required a large number of workers to produce them. The technology now is/are mind machines and do require the same number of workers to produce the 'machines' as the workers they displaced. That is why your "theory", and it is obviously theory since other studies can counteract it, was good in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We now can increase the level of production but the workers do not have a enough money to buy stuff, or they don't have any money at all. As the recession hit companies became much more efficient and found with technology they could actually increase or maintain production with fewer workers. If there are no jobs for them there will be no demand for the now efficiently produced goods.

 

This is what I am talking about, you are not reading what I said. The whole concept applies to "mind machines" as well as any other innovation.

Ace, the impression you're giving me is we should not innovate advanced technologies for our industries, which is ludicrous.

 

In brief, on net balance, machines, technological improvements, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of work.

 

See post #69.

I think we have gotten a little circular. You dismiss what I post, so it doesn't matter.

I think we have gotten a little circular. You dismiss what I post, so it doesn't matter.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Ace. He is posting valid points and you keep ignoring them and apparently you're having a hard time rebuattling them. Now you are saying he is dismissing what you post.

Unemployment aid applications near a 4 year low.

How do applications fall and people receiving aid increase? Existing applications being processed I guess?

How do applications fall and people receiving aid increase? Existing applications being processed I guess?

 

Correct. Though the AP uses cryptic terms in this release it is first time applications that are down. Sort of like the Captain of the Costa Concordia saying that the good news is the water is coming in slower.

 

The news of January was 240K new jobs IN A MONTH.

 

The news here is that first time applications are down to only 358K PER WEEK.

 

So the per month math of these supposedly good news numbers is this when looked at on a full month basis:

 

Newly unemployed 4.5 x 358K = 1,611,000 NEWLY unemployed workers each month.

 

The net of new jobs vs. newly unemployed is over 1 million a month to the downside.

 

The statistics reflect the fact that more people are out of work and taking longer to find work.

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

 

Average weeks of being unemployed is up over 4 and 1/2 weeks from a year ago. It was 35.5 Now it is over 40. So year to year 2012 is now worse than 2011 if you are newly unemployed. it is taking an additional month on top of what was over 6 months already - to find a new job. That is the impact of 1.6M people joining the unemployed ranks each month.

 

Lets see the victory lap for that extra 4 1/2 weeks of being out of work from a year ago.

Wow

An interesting unbiased statistic. Retail gasoline sales.

 

Author does a good job of analyzing possible reasons for much lower sales, including better overall fleet gas mileage.

 

But gasoline sales have plummeted in the last few months.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-gasoline-consumption-tanking

Inflation is taking a toll, even though Bernanke wouldn't agree. The broadest measure of the money supply is called M3. According to estimates at Shadowstats.com, until the financial collapse of '08, M3 was continuously increasing at a rate anywhere from 5 to 15 percent annually.

 

The Fed's rapid monetary expansion has led to the decline of the dollar in currency markets. From June 2001 to March 2011, the dollar has depreciated 40 percent relative to the euro. During this time, the U.S. spot price of oil has increased 348% in terms of dollars. In terms of euros, those same oil prices increased 167%.

 

Consider the impact that this has had on gasoline prices. Let's say that the current price of gasoline is $4 per gallon. Oil costs are 68 percent of the price of gasoline. That means that oil costs make up $2.72 of the $4 gasoline price. The dollar's depreciation relative to the euro in the last decade was 40 percent; and 40 percent of $2.72 is $1.09.

 

Therefore, if the dollar had held steady with the euro, we would be paying roughly $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline that now costs us $4. Gasoline prices would be 27 percent lower today if the dollar had held its value relative to the euro over the last decade.