Happy Diwali folks!

G have you seen this?

Thanks for that. It's always good to get American feedback on this blog – it keeps everybody focused on the real issues, rather than mouthing off about cultural differences like a yappy dog, the mascot of 51st staters.

Hey 24K, I believe 'Foundation X' is a major importer of absinthe. A few bottles are always behind the Lords' bar. Their premium brand is 'Bullion', which gives off a golden hue, rather than the traditional iridescent blue. Obviously, the meeting arranged with Foundation X is to ensure that the Christmas party is well supplied.

What do you think Ozzy?

Goin' home, late last night
Yeah Suddenly I got a fright
Yeah I looked through the window and surprised what I saw
Fairy boots were dancin' with a dwarf, all right now!

Obama so tightly controls his mouth he's probably forgotten what it feels like to speak off the cuff. I doubt there's a lot going on inside his head, anyway. The myth about him being a brainiac scholar are way over the top. He's no dummy, but he's hardly the genius his apologists like to portray him as.

One thing that is difficult to determine about White House statements and speeches – are the American people hearing the President or his advisers? It would be wonderful if the President suddenly deviated from the prepared speech and spoke his mind – the shocked stares from his team would be worth a few more points on his popularity scale.

Simple, honest gestures build bridges and stop a nation from rioting.

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)

That is to say, there are far more than 41 million people hurting. But you already knew that.

Just as one example, Obama could've declared a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. But he didn't. Instead he talked about measures that could be taken to ensure the viability of the bankers. He is concerned with the financial well-being of bankers, not human beings (for, as we know, bankers are not human.)

3-5% is about right. If employment ever got near to full those who own businesses would start to cry shortage. The one time we would HAVE to have a national wages policy is if we had full employment. How else would they keep wages low? The lower unemployment gets the harder it is to keep wage costs down.

During the last decade we had 5% unemployment but the government couldn't encourage east european workers to come here fast enough.

Optimal employment for those who employ is high enough to mean there is a ready supply of workers to fill the shoes of anyone who demands a raise, but not so much that anyone suggests increasing taxes.

One issue with unemployment has been troubling me for some time, and that is the apparent inability of the MSM and, consequently, of the jabbering masses to distinguish between "full" employment and "optimum" levels of employment.
There seems to be an assumption that the ideal state of affairs would be for everybody to be employed , all of the time. From my limited research (like yourself, I am no economist!) it would appear that an optimal level of employment, leaving room and opportunity for some manoueverability and flexibility in the labour market, would be somewhere in the region of 3-5%.
If I have guaged this correctly, it would appear that, in order for a structured economy to function efficiently, some 3-5% of the available workforce can expect to find themselves unemployed at the best of times!
It might be argued that, instead of castigating the unemployed as workshy and feckless, we might owe some of them a favour for shouldering a neccessary burden! Try selling that to a MSM with a nice line in demagoguery.

It should be noted, however, that no two economists seem able to agree on a figure for optimal unemployment. Keynes seems to favour zero; at the other end of the scale, 14% is touted. Bloody economists… a plague on all their houses!

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Theories_of_unemployment#gen4