Ca. Sen. Barbara Boxer owns oil stocks!!! LOL!!!

[Zach]

"Ca. Sen. Barbara Boxer owns oil stocks!!! LOL!!!"

Wow, Tominator. You're right, why would a rich person want to own stock in oil companies? Hmmmm. There's no such thing as diversification right?

 

[Raspewtin]

<< Well first of all 'less unemployment' does not mean 'better.' I will spare you the lecture and just put it bluntly, 0 unemployment in a capitalistic system is bad. 0 unemployment for Europe, canada, australia, the US.. is a bad thing. >>




thanks for sparing the lecture yes but by less i didn't mean 0. and the relationship between unemployment and say stock values is somewhat arbitrary nowadays, based purely on the assumption that getting rid of human resources helps a company's profitibility. heck it seems like it might be worth it to employ extra people just to fire them when the stock needs a boost

 

[67gt500]

I'm not referring to securities. Unemployment much below 4% is entirely unsafe for our economy as a whole.

 

[etech]

OrByte
Here is one way of looking at it.

My understanding is that it may take up to 10 to 15 years just to develop the resources of ANWR. That is before any production actually reaches the States. Yes, we need to develop alternative energy sources and do our best to conserve.

But, can you guarantee that those alternative sources and energy conservation will be enough to supply our energy requirements in 10 years?
Can you guarantee the political stability of current sources even for next year?

We must do both, develop current forms of energy and form new sources of energy. I have never said differently.

I admit this site is biased, but there is still some information worth reading.
ANWR.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< I'm not referring to securities. Unemployment much below 4% is entirely unsafe for our economy as a whole. >>



Why specifically 4%? is 4.5% safe?

 

[67gt500]

because the 4% mark has appeared to be the lowest we can go without seeing inflation perk its evil little head.

4.5 is safe. 4 is safe, 3.9 begins to bring about worries. 2-3% is definitely too low.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< because the 4% mark has appeared to be the lowest we can go without seeing inflation perk its evil little head. >>



I didn't know it was that clean of a line. That's really interesting (no sarcasm intended) I heard there was a period in the 80s when unemployment fell below that figure w/o a significant increase in inflation.

 

[TimberWolf]

So, let's see if I understand this:

Bush and Cheney owned oil stocks, and it's positive proof that they're beholden to &quot;Big Oil&quot;.
Boxer owns oil stocks (during a regional &quot;energy crisis&quot, and it's &quot;shrewd investment strategy&quot; through &quot;diversification&quot;.

Got it.

'Round these parts, we call that a &quot;Double Standard&quot; . . .

 

[glenn1]

<< because the 4% mark has appeared to be the lowest we can go without seeing inflation perk its evil little head. >>



Might want to stop reading some of those older textbooks. NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflationary Rate of Unemployment) has been thoroughly discredited. The old &quot;maximum threshold&quot; for unemployment used to be 6%, and as unemployment steadily dropped through the 90s without even a hint of inflationary pressure (indeed, price pressures were often deflationary), the professors have been steadily revising the threshold down. Now, the supposed number is 4%. Why should we believe them at 4% when they were wrong at 6%? That's a 50% discrepancy....

NAIRU sounds nice as a theory and seems to make sense, but has a fundamental flaw - it assumes human capital is a commodity and a 'parity product', that is, all unemployed persons are equal, and disregarding skill sets and geography.