why yes, RLK does get published. He's worked at different careers, but I think he was a college professor a few years ago before retirement. I think he taught economics. My memory fails me. I've only seen him published on a web site that I think publishes mainly college professors.
and maybe I should take your advice and systematically store information on my hard drive with sources so that I can show it to people. Perhaps I should not be an amateur propagandist any more and be more professional about it. But I remember seeing a chart in the WSJ that listed unemployment rates all the way back to 1870. I was shocked by it. The author was telling us in that article that after 1967 the unemployment rate was elevated on historical standards. He used the chart to prove this. It really opened my eyes. I see you quoted 1921 figure at 11.7%, you have that chart in front of you. And I remember that in 1920 it was 1.0% and it went all the way to 12 in just one year. It jumped around. But on average it was normally between 3.0 and 3.5% from 1870 to 1970 if we merely exclude the 1930-1945 period. We haven't seen it under 4.0% since before 1970. And before 1970 we never went more than 4 years with it not going under 4.0%. It's like night and day when you compare post-1970 to pre-1970 in unemployment numbers.
But I want to tell you also dear that you look ravishing tonight. I am forever captured by your beauty. It is my deepest disappointment in life that you don't like me.
Your memory, of whatever article / chart you once saw, is inaddequate. I don't do web searches, as I prefer books, and yes, I went and pulled a book with this info, from my library. I could, of course, cross refference it all for you, but these ARE the figures.
In 1920, the total population of the USA was 106,492,000, the unemployed ( and do bear in mind that tallies of these things weren't as good as they are today )were 2,132,000 strong. There were 3,411 strikes.
Unemployment figures for '21 ... 11.7%,'22 ...6.7%,'23 ... 2.4%,'24 ... 5.0%,'25 ... 3.2%,'26 ... 1.8%,'27 ...3.3%,'28 ...4.2%,'29 ...3.2%.Since this decade emcompasses a BUBBLE, it is not " usual ", nor a normative sequential of data any more than the ear following, of the GREAT DEPRESSION is. That's the point though; all BUBBLES and collapses ( and there have been many ! ) are what make up our overview of what is . The late '40s and early '50s had their own glictches, what with servicemen returnong. The 1960s were a mini version of the Roaring Twenties' ebulance, the '70s had their ;ows, the '80's bounched back, with Reagan's tax decrease, and on and on. Yet, YOU make outrageous, broad brushed statements, which are tottaly inaccurate and spurious.
RLK was " published " by some college blog/website ? BFD ! That's NO source to quote. Anyone and everyone can prattle just about anything on those things and that isn't being " published " !
Insulting me and calling me names, get's you nowhere; shabby, smarmy, patently obvious lying flattery, results in more of the same. Why don't I " like you " ? I don't suffer fools lightly and scorn those who pretend to know what they're talking about, when their abject lack of knowledge is so astoundingly glaring and easy to refute. Facts matter, words mean things, and you aren't man enough to deal honestly in this discourse.
You haven't the foggiest idea what I look like. You should realize that I'm better versed in these facts and this topic, than you are, though. ; ^ )