Jim Rogers: Government ‘Always' Lies, Tweaks Inflation and Jobless Data Read more on

'Unemployment and inflation rates are worse than the numbers that hit the newswires suggest because the government is able to tinker with the methodology to sugarcoat how bad the economy really is, says international investor Jim Rogers.

"The government lies about the numbers that they put out. Don't take your advice from any government, or you are going to go bankrupt," Rogers told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview when asked if unemployment rates will ever return to pre-recession levels.

The official unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent in November from 9.0 percent in October not due to strong gains in hiring by due to a shrinking labor force, as would-be job seekers quit looking for permanent work, the government reports.

Even so, the figure is probably much higher, Rogers adds.'


http://www.newsmax.com/StreetTalk/Rogers-Government-lie-Inflation/2011/12/06/id/420130

 

A non-story! There are numerous measures of unemployment available. Not happy with official figures? Use ILO measures etc etc etc.

The stuff on inflation is standard prance. Nothing of interest is presented in terms of methodological flaw.

 

I'd ask you to show unbiased factual proof that he is wrong - but I realize you appear to be practically allergic to stats/facts in your debates...so I shan't bother.

A typical Reimer post - full of bluster, anger and arrogance; completely absent on proof.


Why this Reimer guy thinks that by spewing forth bile without any actual proven, unbiased facts will convince anyone about his positions is a genuine mystery.

 

You might as well ask me whether I can prove Di wasn't bumped off by MI5. Its on that intellectual level!

Again, you fail to respond to the post. Is it easy to compare and contrast unemployment measures? Of course. Are the comments over inflation calculations just non-intellectual guff? Certainly, otherwise they fellows would be referring to empirical studies published in academic journal.

 

If you want to believe that the government inflation and unemployment numbers are true representations of these respective areas?

Go ahead.


Have a less bitter day.

 

BTW...

Reiver?

Why are your PM's turned off?



5:3 he won't answer...he hasn't yet.

 

Official unemployment is never going to be the measure of choice. We need a more fine-tuned 'actively seeking work' measure. However, you've gone for a conspiracy theory option. This is advertised by the inflation prance and the failure to back it up with scholarly research

 

I'm here to debate in the open. I see no point in the PM tool

 

Not suprised that the numbers are fudged. They started doing it under Clinton, Bush continued the new practice of under reporting unemployment figures, and the media have become accomplices in under reporting that and the inflation figures.

 

Try and support this comment with evidence. Please try and utilise a high brow source

 

Are you saying that the unemployment and inflation numbers are not fudged?

Yes or no?

 

See above.

 

More like you cannot take the truth that people are allowed to use in PM's that you know they cannot on the board...I would say.

Plus, I would guess you crave an audience and attention.


Have a nice day.

 

I'm saying that any one studying unemployment wouldn't use the official rate. Its not capable of measuring 'actively seeking work', even if definition changes (which with these measures actually can inflate or deflate estimates) do not exist. I'm also saying that the blubbering about inflation figures is conspiracy theory rant, as shown by the inability of those making that rant to refer directly to scholarly research

 

You have a strange attitude, but each to their own. Personally I only care about the quality of the argument. Its a shame that approach isn't more standard

 

High brow in this case being a university that receives large amounts of cash from the government IE it is a source with a conflict of interest.

 

The researcher is independent. His/her interests are dominated by getting published in top quality journals (ensuring then promotions etc). Are you seriously telling me that those top journals (numerous in number, covering both orthodox and heterodox perspectives) are all united in denying DA60 evidence? Crikey, that would be a particularly hardcore conspiracy theorist effort!

 

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

 

So where does your habit of constantly belittling others (and I am not referring to me) come into your 'quality argument' theory?

And if you do not believe you do that to others - I merely ask you to read 95+% of your posts?

 

Neither! Its a complete answer, demonstrating how unemployment measures are used and also the tosh utilised in the inflation measure rants, that you cannot respond to

 

Its not possible to belittle, with any flair, a quality argument.

 

I am saying they are united in promoting statism and a large government since it is from government that they get their paycheck.

 

I see once again you lack of exactitude is rearing it's head.

'be·lit·tle   [bih-lit-l] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -tled, -tling.
to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate; depreciate; disparage.
'
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belittle


So you are honestly saying that it is 'not possible' to 'belittle' a quality argument?


Ummm...if you actually believe that, then you are not REMOTELY as intellectual as you appear to want others to believe you are.

And I suspect you do not even understand what I am talking about.

 

So for the record:

Reiver says that on the question of 'are unemployment and inflation numbers fudged - yes or no'?

He says that the answer is neither.


Good to know.


Have a nice day.

 

That you're offering low powered conspiracy theory is obvious. Rational economic man, in terms of maximising lifetime income through promotion, informs us that this evidence would be available to DA60. That he cannot refer to evidence only describes that you're adopting a common strategy!