More economic recovery:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12648347

 

The US unemployment rate fell slightly to 8.9% in February, down from 9% the month before.

It is the third month in a row that the jobless rate has fallen, with February's figure marking a near two-year low.

Employers added 192,000 jobs last month, the US Labor Department said, above market expectations.

Paul O'Neill, former US Treasury Secretary, described the data as "very positive".

A Labor Department statement said that most job gains were in manufacturing, construction, business services and transport.

State and local government slashed 30,000 jobs, the most since November as budget cuts continue to bite.

The data showed that the jobless rate for adult men was 8.7%, for adult women 8%, and for teenagers 23.9%.

The unemployment rate has come down from 9.8% in November.

____________________

I'll be the first to admit that this is not what the Obama Administration predicted or really wanted when they wanted unemployment to stay where it was when they were inaugurated. However looking at this, the unemployment figures appear to be showing more, and more effective, growth since the Administration's stimulus package has gone into effect. It makes me curious in fact whether or not a larger stimulus package would have had more effect. What do you guys think?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) How is it a libertarian paradise? Do you know any libertarians who favor it?

2) How is party inseparable?

4) In one fascist ideology, you mean. Fascism and antisemitism are not fused.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) There is no state, and guns are everywhere.

2) Read what the Soviets themselves wrote. The Party was Lenin's Vanguard in the real world, a select group of knights (herp a derp derp) who were gifted with far-seeing power to circumvent the course of Marxist history and to shift class struggle from the Bourgeoisie who displaced the Nobility to the Proletariat. The Soviet Union became identified with Party-States because it invented them.

4) Actually they are, but only one fascist regime went to full-fledged genocide.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) What libertarian desires a stateless society?

2) Okay, but that doesn't answer how party is inseparable.

4) How are they fused?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) As I understand it, libertarians want a society where government is meaningless and corporate bureaucracy runs everything.

2) Let me rephrase it: in the USSR, there was no non-Party organization bar the military. The Party was everywhere, to the point that you ate, slept, wore, breathed, and all that jazz Communist Party stuff. *That* is totalitarianism, *that* is what makes Somalia, which is the libertarian's paradise, the inversion of totalitarianism.

4) If your ideology wishes for a nationalist regime, Jews are one of the most widespread ethnicities in the world, and the blend of Judaism the religion with the Jewish ethnicity means that attempts to assimilate them have never worked in 2,000 years of trying (except in Kaifeng, China). For the good fascist this is as big a stumbling bloc as the recurrence of revolutions in agrarian societies is for a good Marxist.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) You understand libertarianism wrong, then. Government is necessary and corporate bureaucrazy (that was a typo but I like it so I'm keeping it) is relegated solely to the private sector in a libertarian paradise.

2) Only if you believe that party is central, however. What I'm asking is why party is believed to be central.

4) Okay, but that still isn't answering the question.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Which of course means corporate feudalism in the real world.

2) Sigh, I'll put it in See Spot Run rhetoric as you evidently can't grasp a point when not hammered: In the Soviet Union, the Party *was* the state. There was only one non-party group, and that one got purged every once in a while. I do not believe it was such, the Soviet leaders themselves did and killed thousands to make it such. Can you or can you not comprehend this when stated in simple English? It's not belief, the Purge and Terror of the 1930s to ensure the Party had no rivals is not "belief."

4) Actually it is answering the question, you don't like that answer, perhaps, but that is not the same thing.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) ...except it wouldn't. Feudalism wasn't something that incorporated the type of choice we're talking about.

2) Yes, but it's not an assertion that "Fascism requires party," nor does your primer here assert that.

4) Very well.