David Rosenberg's Explanation Why The Real Unemployment Rate (U-3) Is 12%

Pretty much precisely what noted earlier today: "A couple of behind-the-scene facts: from October to February, an epic 700k people have left the work force. If you actually adjust for the fact that the labour force participation rate has plunged this cycle to a 27-year low the unemployment would be sitting at 12% today. Moreover the employment-to-population ratio — the so-called “employment rate” — stagnated in February at 58.4% and is actually lower now than it was last fall when “double dip” was the flavour du jour."

The widespread reaction to the jobs report today is uniformly positive. I think a dose of reality is really needed here. It may as well come from this pen. The headline print of +192k was in line with published estimates but following the slate of ISMs and the ADP report, the “whispered” number was closer to +250k. Of course, there were the upward revisions to the back-data that showed net gains of +58k so one could easily respond that adjusted for these, the topline did indeed meet these “whispered” estimates. The employment diffusion index jumped to a 13-year high of 68.2% from 60.1% in January, but beware of peaks and troughs in this index (i.e. it would have been a mistake to extrapolate the 17% low in this job dispersion measure at the March 2009 market trough).

Here is what I think is important: because of the winter storms, we really have to average out the past two months. So the January-February average for payrolls is +128k. Allowing for a similar reading in March that we received in February would generate an average increase for the first quarter of around 150k. That is little changed from what employment gains averaged on a monthly basis in the fourth quarter. So while we are seeing positive job growth, it is not accelerating even though we are coming off the most intense impact of the fiscal and monetary easing that was unveiled late last year. In other words, we are disappointed with what is still a lacklustre trend in net job creation, particularly in view of the peak stimulus we are currently experiencing.

What if Q1 is the peak for job growth? If you remember, we ended up with sub-3% GDP growth in the fourth quarter, which is about half of what we should be seeing at this stage of the cycle. And if we are generating jobs at a similar rate in the current quarter, barring a re-acceleration in productivity, growth again will be below 3% at a time when the consensus is closer to 3.5%. But more to the point — what if this represents the peak for the year? Because if there is one thing we do know, it is that this quarter contains all the incremental policy easing impact on the macro data.

What was particularly discouraging was the fact that both the wage number and the workweek were flat. Nominal wages, in fact, have been stagnant in three of the past four months. Weekly average earnings have also been flat or negative in three of the past four months. How on earth can these statistics possibly be viewed as bullish for the economy? The year-over-year-trend in average weekly earnings in the past three months has softened from 2.6% to 2.5% to 2.3% today. At the same time, it is probably reasonable to assume that surging food and fuel costs will bring headline inflation to, and possibly through, 3% in coming months. In other words, the growing risk of falling personal income in real terms, even with the positive growth in payrolls, is a glaring yellow light as far as the consumer spending outlook is concerned.

Aggregate hours worked only managed to tick up 0.2% in February after a flat January. That is total labour input — bodies and hours. So assuming a trend-like productivity performance, we are talking yet again about sub-3% GDP growth, which by itself is okay but considering the peak impact of all the fiscal and monetary steroids being administered this quarter, it is actually disappointing.

Yes, the unemployment rate dipped again to a 22-month low of 8.9% from 9.0% in January and the nearby high of 9.8% in November. This reflected a 250k risein Household employment — the third increase in a row — and a flat participation rate. A couple of behind-the-scene facts: from October to February, an epic 700k people have left the work force. If you actually adjust for the fact that the labour force participation rate has plunged this cycle to a 27-year low the unemployment would be sitting at 12% today. Moreover the employment-to-population ratio — the so-called “employment rate” — stagnated in February at 58.4% and is actually lower now than it was last fall when “double dip” was the flavour du jour.

All that matters in these employment reports is what the jobs environment means for income, because workers generally spend in the real economy. With credit harder to come by, and with fiscal policy soon to become more focussed on austerity, it is the income that the labour delivers that will prove to be the critical determinant of the economic outlook. So while the “spin” may be over near-200k headline payroll gains, another dip in the headline unemployment rate, the organic income backdrop can really only be described as tentative, at best, especially in real terms as gasoline prices make their way to $4 a gallon by the time Memorial Day rolls around.

I doubt that she's a "commie."

I would doubt that too if someone made such claim.

I certainly never said she was a commie.

I said she regularly spews commie propaganda, whether she understands that propaganda to be such or not.

She's been appropriately criticizing the policies of the commie-affiliated Romans that you cry for (indeed, more loyal to foreign communist nations).

As strange as it is to be saying these words to a conservative, we were always proud of ourselves in that we a the "country of laws, not men." This means in particular, that a robber falsely accused of rape should be defended and go free. For years now, great many people pile up on Wall Street nonexistent sins. Most people on these threads don't understand the words they are using.

Yes I don't like false accusations, whether it be an accusation of you or Goldman or my neighbor down the street. Yes, I will speak up against defamation. Sorry to see you can't even recognize the issue and don't bother to ask questions.

Yes I am concerned that the commies and fascists have succeeded in angering the public against capitalism and its prominent symbols --- Wall Street and business leaders (CEOs). Everytime that happened in history --- under the New Deal here, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Lenin and Social-Democrats in Russia --- nothing good came out of that.

People like fromLori, not only march to the commie and fascist music in attacking capitalism, but use this supposedly conservative web site to promote their agenda.

Since, as I said earlier, you make conclusions about me (erroneous, unsurprisingly) without asking any questions, this does not appear to be a discussion. Thank you for sharing your views. Have a good day, FamilyOp.

I said: you (a)consider that the unemployment figure reported is correct or not grossly misrepresented

TopQuark said “No, please reread my numerous posts on this thread to confirm that I never said such thing”

When people said the figure is distorted you staunchly opposed that. Sorry again. I should have used the words true and fair instead of correct. So do you deny that you believe the figure presented by BLS is true and fair and not materially misstated?

TopQuark said “If the language I use does not suffice, ask an attorney why it is so much harder to prove fraud than negligence, and why a judge would throw out an allegation of fraud if intent is not demonstrated by the accuser.”

All conservatives know the intent. Everybody knows the intent. To suppress the real figure of unemployment in order to support BHO’s political agenda. Are we going to simply believe whatever figure he throws at us?

TopQuark said “We had not one crisis but two related crises: a credit crisis and a housing bubble. No, the government has nothing to do with the failure of Lehman, which then startled lenders so much (reversal of too-big-to-fail) that they froze lending. At the same time, yes, the entire housing bubble was created by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1998 and its implementation by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters”

Thank you. The CRA, 98 did play a significant role in initiating the whole subprime crisis but what caused it to spiral and then sustained it over so many years etc etc? (rhetorical questions) These are issues over which most noted academics are still breaking their heads. I also do not see how this is related to BLS fudging the unemployment levels.

I said: you attempted to convince the members that there is no collusion on part of the BLS top level (in this case) or the top management in case of F&F,
TopQuark said “No, (i) I explained why I personally do not believe in such collusion, and (ii) requested accusers of such collusion to provide evidence of it”

You first say “No” that means you are open to the possibility of a collusion.
Then you say “I explained why I personally do not believe in such collusion”
OK so you are open to the possibility of a collusion but do not personally believe that it has taken place. Is that correct?

TopQuark said “requested accusers of such collusion to provide evidence of it”

You expect us to provide evidence of exactly where the BLS figure is incorrect in calculations, in estimations, in making reasonable provisions for biases so as to avoid any gross misrepresentation. Honestly, do you believe it is practically possible for us to provide any such form of solid evidence?

All we can provide you with is the intent, BHO has fudged figures to save his.. err… butt. Are we going to just sit back and watch him do so?

TopQuark said “As I mentioned earlier, there are statistical methods to detect bias during aggregation”

Yes we do have methods to detect bias *but* even those methods are under the control of the BLS because you make a reasonable provision for bias and that provision is controlled by, well, the higher ups at BLS. (an important estimate like adjustment for bias cannot and will not be left to the middle level)

TopQuark said ‘This is an exaggeration, but not too far from the truth. . One can indeed say and back up with documents: “At such an such meeting, A proposed to me that number X would not reflect well on administration’s efforts and it would be better if we changed it to 0.95X.” That’s how things are uncovered and proved in the court of law in the case of pharmaceutical, tobaco, asbestos companies -— dozens of times. Yes, people talk in the courtroom in terms of confidence levels, Student distributions, etc. Similar degree of technicality and sieving through e-mails to demonstrate intent was done in the case of Enron. You have seen how e-mails recently blew up into the faces of global-warming “scientists:” their owm, leaked e-mails condemned them. It’s difficult to conspire for too long without being detected.”

True but please appreciate the fact that Enron is not an example of a company that died because of unearthed emails, it died because of an inflated revenue attributed to non-existent contracts and heavy collusion with the auditors (Please note that the auditors were none other than Arthur Andersen, an ex big 4 employing people who no one would have earlier suspected that they could participate and connive in a fraud as big and shameful as Enron) The guilt of the directors of Enron was not proved on the basis of emails (email may have served as secondary evidence, the primary evidence was non-existent contracts)

In order to explain the state of BLS, the debacle that immediately comes to mind is the London School of Economics. It required an entire civil war in Libya to uncover the ‘fraud’ by its director. Please note that this fraud would never have been uncovered without the (unfortunate) civil war. A report in the Financial Times (print edition UK and Ireland) dated March 4, 2011 informs us that (i) There were only two professors who protested the acceptance of grant from junior Gaddafi mooted through a nonprofit registered in Switzerland (note the tax haven – Switzerland!) (ii) One dissenting professor named Mr. Halliday stated while addressing the dean that British experts in Libya have clearly indicated that it would be against the principles and interest of LSE to accept this donation (iii) the dean replied stating he had already invited a second opinion (note that the dean invited second opinion without the consent of the committee and then threw the results at the committee). This second opinion, the dean wrote back, says that there is no harm for LSE accepting this donation (iv) The article ends with the dissenting professor Halliday writing in his mail to the dean that he appreciates the deans decision to accept the donation and certain changes (the article does not specify what changes) made in the committee to safeguard the interests of LSE (v) Both dissenting professors submitted to the deans views in the end and ultimately there were no dissenting professors left.

TopQuark said “The question is whether they can and do get away with it, not whether they are motivated to do so”

Yes they can. As we see from the LSE example. It now appears these changes were merely to protect the deans butt. The dean has now made a shameful exit from the school.

I have taken the pains to deliberate and deliberate further to make you understand that the BLS can get away with manipulating the figures. Essentially because they have only needed to do so in the past couple of years. Why would it have been necessary to distort them when unemployment was not the hot topic?

Also because they will and are doing it by ‘playing safe’ i.e. by deciding the critical factors like confidence intervals, provision for bias in justifiable ways (ways justifiable only to BHO’s agenda, mind you, not to us).

If we say, that the figure is true and fair, we are playing into the hands of BHO however innocently and without intent.

Boil our conservative blood, rise and protest against the deliberately suppressed unemployment figure by BHO, please.

Hope this helps.

I am sorry but you are misusing terminology, which makes us difficult to understand each other. Apparently, in your mind "true and fair" and "not materially misstated" ere equivalent. They are not.

1. There is not such thing, as far as I know, as "fairness" of an estimator. If so, an estimate such as unemployment rate cannot be fair.

2. There is no such thing as "true" estimator or "true" estimate. Estimators are more or less accurate and/or precise. Previously, you and I used the word "accurate."

3. While qualities "accurate" and "precise" are those of an estimator, but "misstated" is not: it is a property of both the given number and the agent that gives that number.

I am sorry you appear to have missed entirely the lengthy portion of my previous post where I (i) stated that no one number can be accurate, (ii) gave an example where accuracy is not possible in principle, and said that (iii) most people who deal with unemployment numbers or other statistics understand those to be the "best shot."

At first, you were arguing against a straw man, that is, something I did not say. Now that I have actually said the opposite, you keep repeating the same argument. I am sorry, this does not make much sense.

You a free to mistrust my use of the terminology -- than please look it up on any textbook on mathematical statistics. Merely repeating the same thing is a waste of your time of mine.

One last comment: the questions you pose are of a type called "double-barrel questions." in survey research. It is impossible to answer them with Yes or No, which you appear to seek from me. To illustrate: "Do you believe that President is effective or he lost credence with the American public?" The respondent may be unable to answer the question with Yes or No: the president may be effective and still lose his credence with the public. Or, the credence is fine but the president is ineffective.

All conservatives know the intent.

Firstly, the statement is factually incorrect. I personally know enough people, conservative beyond any doubt, who don't "know" that intent.

Secondly, it is logically fallacious. Being old and common, this form of fallacy has its own name: argumentum ad potentiam (appeal to authority). To avoid the fallacy, you should demonstrate the existence of intent. If successful, the issue of what "all conservatives know" will become irrelevant.

Thirdly, it is irrelevant. As I already repeated numerous times, the question we were discussing was not whether "intent" may exist but evidence that it does exist. You speak now as if you have not read this in my posts before.

Everybody knows the intent.

Now you have added to the three difficulties above an unsupported generalization from the population of conservatives to the entire population. A researcher, whether in natural or social sciences, cannot do that in such a cavalier fashion (see Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; and most texts on "Research Methods").

If you see bent on demonstrating some kind of inconsistency in my posts, than please apply the same standard to yourself .

Are we going to simply believe whatever figure he throws at us?

Another case of the logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad stramineus homo (argument against a straw man).

Nobody has ever suggested that we should "simply believe."

The CRA, 98 did play a significant role in initiating the whole subprime crisis but what caused it to spiral and then sustained it over so many years etc etc? (rhetorical questions)

Since questions are rhetorical, they are not worthy of my effort.

But you do misunderstand what the 1998 modification of the CRA. It was not some isolated action taking place in 1998: it authorized a procedure that put continualpressure on the market.

But, since you asked only rhetorically, I already honored your remark more than I should have.

It does not help anybody, my friend, to pose rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. OK so you are open to the possibility of a collusion but do not personally believe that it has taken place. Is that correct?

YES, for crying out loud! Is this some kind of a game for you? I've repeated the same thing numerous times.

This looks more like an interrogation than a discussion.

You expect us to provide evidence of exactly where the BLS figure is incorrect in calculations, in estimations, in making reasonable provisions for biases so as to avoid any gross misrepresentation.

No, another straw man argument. And, I don't know why you are asking the question whether I requested X where I already said, numerous times and with examples, that I requested Y.

The previous posts have give numerous examples of evidence behind the alleged fraud. They occur routinely in our society and courts, as I also stated earlier.

If you don't want to or can't for whatever reason read my posts, that's fine. But don't request that I waste my time on merely repeating them.

BHO has fudged figures to save his.. err… butt. Are we going to just sit back and watch him do so?

Another straw man argument: nobody suggested what you said.

In fact I already stated the opposite several times: do not just sit; by all means, do provide evidence supporting your statement.

The debacle on Mars has the same level of relevance. Firstly, you yourself put "fraud" in quotation bars --- correctly, because it was not a fraud.

1. A logical error: when discussing detection of a fraud, you give as an example of something which is not a fraud.

2. A factual error; there was not fraud and no detection at the LSE.

True but please appreciate the fact that Enron is not an example of a company that died because of unearthed emails, it died because of an inflated revenue

One more argument against a straw man: I did not say that Enron died because of e-mails. I never even addressed hte question of why it died at all.

What did happen was that you posed the question of what kind of evidence may stand up court. I gave an example of e-mails being damning enough for Enron.

Judging by the examples you give, your impression of what BLS does and what the practice of statistics is are based on Stat 101. I have tried to tell you that this perception is inadequate.

If we say, that the figure is true and fair,

No, I am repeating for the tenth time: we are not saying that.

As I said in my previous post, I remain unconvinced by your arguments. My failure is more significant: you appear to have misread almost every word I wrote. I am sorry if I contributed to that unfortunate outcome.

This discussion appears to be less than productive, which is why I asked you in the preceding post: can we respectfully agree to disagree?

TopQuark said I am sorry you appear to have missed entirely the lengthy portion of my previous post where I (i) stated that no one number can be accurate, (ii) gave an example where accuracy is not possible in principle, and said that (iii) most people who deal with unemployment numbers or other statistics understand those to be the "best shot."

Sorry you appear to have missed entirely my previous posts where I stated that this is not about the accuracy of 8.9 to the last decimal but the deliberate suppression of the real rate of unemployment.

TopQuark said the questions you pose are of a type called "double-barrel questions." in survey research.

So much for the use of sophisticated terminology "double-barrel questions." Since you have anyway later in your post downgraded my understanding to that of Stat 101 , well, we 101 level and comparatively less intellectual mortals consider the questions I asked you as Open ended Questions Open ended questions do not require an answer in Yes or No.

So tell me, Where in any of my previous posts have I asked you to reply in or restrict your answer to yes or no?

Making statements like “It is impossible to answer them with Yes or No, which you appear to seek from me” where no such intent has been demonstrated by the author anywhere in any post is not a valid response and it is called logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad stramineus homo (argument against a straw man).

TopQuark said: I personally know enough people, conservative beyond any doubt,

There you go again. “I” personally know…. Gosh! On one hand you speak of validity and invalidity of arguments, factual and logical correctness and on the other hand this statement. Sorry to say, a statement that begins with I is irrelevant and holds no credibility to others.

It also goes against Judeo-Christian morality. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not Matthew 23.3

If you are keen to demonstrate logical fallacy in my posts, then please apply the same standard to yourself

I said The CRA, 98 did play a significant role in initiating the whole subprime crisis but what caused it to spiral and then sustained it over so many years etc etc? (rhetorical questions)

TopQuark said Since questions are rhetorical, they are not worthy of my effort. But you do misunderstand what the 1998 modification of the CRA. It was not some isolated action taking place in 1998: it authorized a procedure that put continualpressure on the market. But, since you asked only rhetorically, I already honored your remark more than I should have

Thank you for your unrequited effort. But you do misunderstand the question itself. It does not require a doctorate in economics to say that the CRA authorized a procedure that put continual pressure on the market. The subprime crisis is a complex economic phenomenon and a result of more than one inter-related factor in action. But since you have chosen to make an unworthy effort on a rhetorical question, I have honored your remark more than I should have.

TopQuark said It does not help anybody, my friend, to pose rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

Neither does it help anybody, my friend, to answer rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the question itself!

TopQuark said Is this some kind of a game for you?

No, we at level 101 call it a discussion, at best a debate. What do you call it at your level?

TopQuark said This looks more like an interrogation than a discussion

You ask others -

Was the Fed lying when Republicans were in charge? (Post 13 by TopQuark)

Can you tell me what indicates that these reports are a lie? (Post 13 by TopQuark)

You’ve founded these statistics. So have they or have they not been published? (Post 16 by TopQuark)

And when someone engages you, then it is interrogation. Perfectly in line with Judeo-Christian morality and practicing what you preach.

TopQuark said Firstly, you yourself put "fraud" in quotation bars --- correctly, because it was not a fraud.

You pick on my use of quotation marks, how representative of somebody who refers to others as displaying knowledge of Level 101. Fraud is defined as deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage (lay your hands on any dictionary and verify the definition). The PhD provided to junior Gaddafi is under investigation as fake and has been reported as a direct return gift from LSE in anticipation of and in response to the donation.

You said further A factual error; there was not fraud and no detection at the LSE

What a logically and factually correct statement to make. Please update yourself with facts first if you want to be taken seriously.

TopQuark said: The previous posts have give numerous examples of evidence behind the alleged fraud

What evidence are you referring to? There was only one general comment about asbestos, tobacco companies. You did not name a single company other than Enron. Asking others to provide substantial evidence and then throwing general statements and expecting them to be considered as numerous examples. Very productive, indeed

TopQuark said: I gave an example of e-mails being damning enough for Enron.

I explained in detail why e-mails are not damning enough, which you chose to conveniently ignore. E-mails are not sufficiently damning as the only piece of evidence. So follow your own advice -If you don't want to or can't for whatever reason read my posts, that's fine. But don't request that I waste my time on merely repeating them

TopQuark said can we respectfully agree to disagree?

You slammed the member who started this article, then in posts other than to me, spoke about everything except unemployment (to which this article pertains) and did not in a single reply specify clearly whether you believe the figure to be distorted or not.

In light of the above, I shall gladly take the Moral High Ground

I said If we say, that the figure is true and fair TopQuark said No, I am repeating for the tenth time: we are not sayingthat

All ten times you just said you are not saying THIS and THAT. And what is THAT. You have not given an answer anywhere of the ten times. You are only talking of the figure in terms of rounding up, recurring decimals and it being a statistical estimate and nothing about whether it is distorted or not

As all of the ten times you answered everything other than what is asked, for the eleventh time, do you believe in the figure of unemployment at 8.9 or do you believe that it is fudged? (At Stat level 101 this is an open ended question and does not restrict the answer to Yes or No)

This article among other things is about the rate of unemployment. You have accused the member who started this article of spewing commie propaganda. Let alone substantiating your accusation, you have conveniently ignored even a simple question yet. The onus is on you to substantiate that accusation. Otherwise you are violating even the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian morality

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (a fellow conservative)

You have initiated this exchange by presenting questions to me. I then answered them at length several times, with the best clarity I could provide. Regrettably, you find my replies inadequate no matter what they say.

In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies (e.g., double-barrel question that cannot be answered, appeal to authority, etc.). I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further. You don't even bother to verify and only use my words for new, equally baseless, accusations. This looks more like hunting on your part than discussion.

As I said in the previous post, to have a discussion, people should at least agree on the meaning of the words. In my opinion, you misuse both commonly used words (e.g. error, negligence and fraud) and the standard terminology (it was you, remember who brought up the Student distribution and confidence intervals, etc.) I asked you to verify both the former (with dictionaries, attorneys) and the latter (with the texts that I thought could be helpful. You don't bother to bridge the gap buy stopping even think about that for a moment. If you have no respect for what I write and/or me personally --- fine. But then say so once and stop wasting your time and mine, as I respectfully asked you before.

We both have expressed our opinions and arguments in lengthy posts. You think that my arguments are full of holes and I think the same of yours. Clearly, we cannot do anything more for each other, and other people reading this thread can make their own conclusions. Hence the ending of my previous post:

This discussion appears to be less than productive, which is why I asked you in the preceding post: can we respectfully agree to disagree?

You cannot, which is fine: disagree with me disrespectfully if you so chose. This does not change the fact that this discussion has not been even remotely productive for the last few rounds.

This exchange is over: make whatever conclusions, however damning you prefer, but I shall not contribute to it any further.

Perhaps, we'll find something in common on other threads. In the meantime, have a good day.

TopQuark said: You have initiated this exchange by presenting questions to me. I then answered them at length several times, with the best clarity I could provide.

You have answered everything at length except the question posed to you. e.g. you gave lengthy explanations of what double barrel questions and statistical estimates are, agency problem in PhD surveys but not a word on whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why.

TopQuark said: Regrettably, you find my replies inadequate no matter what they say.

Unfortunately this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand (for example, A says “How is the weather today?” and B says “You see the sun rises in the east and sets in the west because the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun and this cycle of revolution takes 365 days to complete.”)

TopQuark said: In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies

Are you sure you are referring to me? Coming from somebody who considers it a moral right to run from thread to thread, post to post without providing a shred of evidence and accusing patriotic loyal fellow conservatives of spreading commie propaganda, the statement does not hold any weight.

TopQuark said: I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further

There is only one instance of referring to sources. I was referred to Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; texts on "Research Methods" in post 188 You classify them as valid sources to explain whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why Unfortunately we have not requested you for sources to assist in the writing of a PhD thesis.

TopQuark said: This looks more like hunting on your part than discussion

Right. So you end up at every other thread without a shred of evidence accusing a straw man, also a harmless fellow conservative, and making tall accusations of spreading commie propaganda until you silence them into submission and then you turn around and simply because I engage you into a perfectly civil discussion about your views on the credibility of the rate of unemployment accuse me of hunting you! This is called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque a logical fallacy and a diversionary tactic; an attempt to defend oneself from criticism by turning the critique back. How very conservative of you! What a display of Judeo-Christian morality!

TopQuark said In my opinion, you misuse both commonly used words (e.g. error, negligence and fraud) and the standard terminology (it was you, remember who brought up the Student distribution and confidence intervals, etc.) I asked you to verify both the former (with dictionaries, attorneys) and the latter (with the texts that I thought could be helpful.

In your opinion and as evident in your previous posts, everybody apart from you lack the understanding of any terminology and is stuck at Level 101. Please cure the hangover before it gets the better of you.

TopQuark said This does not change the fact that this discussion has not been even remotely productive for the last few rounds.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand

TopQuark said: This exchange is over: make whatever conclusions, however damning you prefer, but I shall not contribute to it any further.

Thank you for the exchange. You chose never to answer the question posed simply avoiding the answer at every point in the discussion. While I do not care about your opinion on the level of unemployment, I do care for the fact that you make baseless accusations ad hominem and silence your fellow conservatives into submission. But when the tables are turned on to you and you are asked to substantiate your accusations you choose to throw in your towel and run Let alone provide any evidence, you have not the courage of your convictions to even answer the questions, you so rightfully pose to others.

And you consider yourself a conservative? An upholder of Judeo-Christian morality? Please spare us the shame of a hypocrite addressing himself as a conservative.

TopQuark said: Perhaps, we'll find something in common on other threads

Not a chance. I can never find anything in common with a hypocrite. Sorry

TopQuark said: If you have no respect for what I write and/or me personally --- fine.

I have been perfectly civil to you at every point in this discussion despite the fact that we disagreed on every single statement. While keeping an open mind I engaged you into a discussion and gave you every opportunity to share your views without forcing mine on you, making personal attacks or hurling expletives as we disagreed. After all this you say I showed no respect to what you write and to you personally. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

TopQuark said: You have initiated this exchange by presenting questions to me. I then answered them at length several times, with the best clarity I could provide.

TopQuark said: Regrettably, you find my replies inadequate no matter what they say.

TopQuark said: In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies

Are you sure you are referring to me? Coming from somebody who considers it a moral right to run from thread to thread, post to post without providing a shred of evidence and accusing people of spreading commie propaganda, the statement does not hold any weight.

TopQuark said: I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further

There is only one instance of referring to sources. I was referred to Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; texts on "Research Methods" in post 188 You classify them as valid sources to explain whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why. Unfortunately we have not asked you to for sources to assist in the writing of a PhD thesis.