Lose of Jobs might help Gillards greatest claim of low interest rates

Why are debating this issue of "low interest rates vs high unemployment" if YOU'RE the only one saying we have high unemployment.

Her "claim" is still correct because you're the only one saying we have "high" unemployment therefore there is no issue to be debated.

 

Could you say this in English please

 

I don't think any one really knows what our unemployment rate is, the way we measure it is ridiculous. Therefore it is impossible to compare it to overseas rates unless they used the same formula. Unemployment is inherent to capitalism.

 

The question is not 'low interest rates vs High unemployment'. The debate is how can rising unemployment rates, forcing lower interest rates be a good thing for the government to claim interest rates as a good thing? But I gather that is lost on you, with your continued attempts to debate the The wording of the OP.

As stated, you are simply trying your best to debate a logical fallacy. So, if you do not understand, you should stop trolling.

 

It is totally irrelevant to the debate. But As KT would like to consider, unemployment rates are only relevant, when you compare them to other rates. as posed by his question.

 

Governments around the world spend and inaudible amount of funds hiding real unemployment, I do agree.

But unemployment figures are so often used to indicate economic health, so, when unemployment puts pressure on other areas of the economy(in this case interest rates) How can anybody claim that lower interest rates are the making of the government? How can a government consider praising a government with 'interest rates'

Rising unemployment, shows that business are reducing their costs for the bad times. When it pressures interest rates, shows that the economic managers, consider The economy is slowing and thus put measures into play to stimulate the economy, LOWER INTEREST RATES.

Governments only influence on interest rates is, government spending.

 

There you go lying again

Where in your OP do you state "rising unemployment" I can't seem to find it. What I see is
"However, also claim High unemployment rates show"
"Are you glad that 27,000 job lose means it will get even lower?" ( Another made up statement )

Everybody claims "low interest rates" show how good an economy is going. However, also claim "High unemployment" rates show how bad they are going.

 

Again assume anything you like, You obviously have nothing to provide for the debate. In other words you are simply trolling

Point being?

Obviously, this QUESTION is made up, I posed it.

For you comprehension, a QUESTION followed by a QUESTION MARK, is not a statement.

So, you have nothing for debate. Either you have some answer or you are just attempting to flamebait(which if you do not know is also against the rules of the forum). Either answer the questions posed or move on. SO far it is making you look more like a child than anything else.

 

I have already provided my thoughts to this debate. But the simple fact is this debate is simply nonsense as you have made up “high unemployment”.

Your orinigal is about her claim that low rates means a good economy but high unemployment also means a bad economy. Who said we have high unemployment? You did. This debate is simply made up.

You've said the sole reason for it to be lowered is the 27,000 job lose, You mention nothing else. Which is incorrect but you still put the question out there “27,000 MEANS IT WILL BE LOWERED”.

My comprehension? LOL, You have said I made a “unsubstantial claim” in a earlier post, My claim was followed by a question mark dopey.

Trolling no? I just think if you're going to make up claims and statements you should be banned from this forum. You have nothing to back up “high unemployment claims” another petty attempt at the Government. This debate is made up...like your claims.

 

So you have provided nothing, then.

So please point to where I said 'her claim'.

Again you attempt subterfuge. That is not what is said at all, is it?

LOL... again, you do seem to have a comprehension problem. I have not made any claim at all.

Yes Trolling

As this entire debate was not directed at any government, perhaps you should really consider what you are debating, this comment was directed at the supporters of the current government, and any other government, who find themselves in the same situation.

Obviously, you have nothing to debate, so yes, YOU ARE TROLLING.

 

One keyword in this debate is “High unemployment” which is a "garry LIE"

Gillards greatest claim of low interest rates

So 27k jobs is the sole reason for it be lowered.

Clearly I have a straight foward question. You have “he wishes to claim” I have not indicated,claimed,opinion,stated anything,dont you see the “?”

No not trolling you're a liar.

Gillards greatest claim of low interest rates

I don't see anything to suggest “any other governent” BUT Gillard.

The debate which is based upon your own lie?

 

LOL.. that is two words. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, and your point? Actually Gillard does not claim it either. Perhaps you can try and construe that as a lie too.

Your assumption, not mine.

Yes, a direct comment to somebody else, who also wonders what the hell your on. However, If you had actually taken the time to read the Article, your question would have been answered. Perhaps, the entire comment should be posted,

LOL...even what you proclaim as being an attack on your question is wrong, due entirely the word "if". Comprehension problems, LOL... you seem to have a lot of them

Yes, trolling

As it is not her claim but YOURS, how can it be about, the government?

Now your just being obtuse.

LOL... Anything that rocks your boat. This debate, is not set on anything, but what people wish to say.

 

Ok nice one you got me mate, At the end of the day Garry you stated Australian “High unemployent” as a FACT,That is a LIE you have MADE UP.

The title of the thread clearly indicates “Gillards greatest claim of low interest rates”, If Gillard does not "Claim it" why do you suggest she does in title? LOL stop telling porkies.

My assumption? You don't mention anything else that would indicate why rates would be dropped now do you genius.

“If he wishes to claim” How does a QUESTION even HINT of being a CLAIM..moron, But then you go down and you say “my opinion” again does how a question become an opinion..Comprehension probelms or social?

Again I am not a little green monsters who lives under a bridge. That's just unfair.

Those words are clearly in the title of this thread that is her "claim", You've just called yourself a liar.

You did not mention any other government liarrrrrr.

This thread was started by a deceitful person who has made up certain statements. End of story.

 

let us look at the OP

What is untrue about his statement? That fact is, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. You are creating a strawman argument, in an attempt to say that you are not Tolling about, and that the OP is a lie. Fact is, that these are indicators of the health of the economy, Do you suggest that is untrue? If so why?

Comprehension problems?

Note that I only suggest so, Fact is that Gillard claims that the interest rates level show that the LIberals are wrong when they continued to claim that under a Labor government, interest rates are higher. So it would appear that you have absolutely NO understanding of what has been stated.

Oh, I see, you do have comprehension problems and problems reading as well.

Only a couple of times

The question does not become your opinion, and that comment is 'if you wish to claim' that it only consists of government layoffs, as you question asked, then you would be mistaken. Do you now claim that your question has some relevance to the subject matter? IF you can show that, I would be the first to admitt fault. As you simply wish to continually point to it as some sort of issue, means it has none.

But, This is not a lesson in comprehension. so if I am wrong, show me. Otherwise, again you have nothing to add to debate, and are TROLLING.

No, that is fair. So far, nothing to add to debate, but attempt at insult.

Again, whatever rocks your boat. Do you have something to add or not?

Again, comprehension problems

Well report me, it is against the forum rules to comment on the poster. If you consider that anybody has breached the rules, you should report them. But you can not, as you continue to breach the rules of the forum with every post here.

 

The fact is our country does not have “High unemployment”;whether you compare it to the last two governments or the world, Are you suggesting higher unemployment and interest rates under Howard ,and thats without a GFC,were better times for Australia?
Your article states
“The country’s jobs market has been surprisingly strong in recent months”
“5.2 per cent is still pretty close to full employment”

So where do you get this claim of “High unemployment” because any statistician would know that one month isn't enough data to suggest anything.

That is completely made up to defend your lies, You nothing in the OP to suggest what you have mentioned above. You state Gillard claims low interest rates, Not once in the OP do you even mention the Liberal government,Gillards claims interest rates level prove Liberal wrong. You have changed the subject to cover your own lies.

Where do you suggest Liberal government or Gillards claim low interest rates means Liberal is wrong like you are claiming now?. You are desperately trying to cover your lies.

No I don't have reading problems but I have problems with liars. You state nothing in the OP other then job loses = lower interest rates, Therefore you have lied in your OP which would make my claim about you being a liar correct.

The article list the states and I was wondering what impact the state loses have had,if any,which is relevant.But I have nothing to defend, I'm not the liar nor have I (sadly) try to cover them too.

Why would I report you. I will be replying to your posts more often in the future, you give me something to do during lunch.

 

So you can not comprehend. As stated
'Everybody claims low interest rates show how good an economy is going. However, also claim High unemployment rates show how bad they are going.' Which is a factual claim. Where does that claim say, that 'unemployment is high'? Or where does it say, that Gillard 'has High unemployment'?

As Asked, what is not correct about the statement? What is it, that I have suggested?

Where is it that I claim 'High unemployment'? As stated, I have claimed nothing of the sort.

So what are you attempting to proclaim, Howard's years had about 6%, that is close to full employment as well, according to your analysis.

No, not made up to defend anything, just point that Gillard does not make the same claim as Labor supporters.

No, I have not changed the subject. The subject, as in your debate, is are you a troll or not, So far, yes you are.

I did not say either, where any better than the other, it is you, who assumes, that I am a Staunch Liberal supporter. It is yo,u who assumes, this must be a debate of what party is right or wrong.

No, I do not say that at all. and you would again be incorrect. But think anything you want, I can not stop you.

Totally irrelevant, the fact that what state loses employment has nothing to do with national interest rates. complete fabrication on your own part, as to now, you had not read the article, which is obvious

Then obviously, you intend to continue trolling other threads, as well.

 

“claim High unemployment rates show how bad they are going”
Who's claiming high unemployment? While those statement are true it is not currently correct and does not eniterly reflect our current economic situation,We have low interest rates but not high uneployment, but reflects your opinion.

“Everybody claims low interest rates show how good an economy is going. However, also claim High unemployment rates show how bad they are going.”
This does not eniterly reflect on our economic status, We have low interest rates and low unemployment so this the high unemployment statement reflects your opinion.

Difference between 5.2% with a GFC and 6% without. The economy is currently strong.

You never said anything like that in your OP, You said Gillard greatest claim of low interest rates. So Yes you are trying to cover your own lies.

Again Garry where have you mentioned the Liberal government or Gillard claim proves Liberal wrong. You haven't because you know now what you have posted to be ridiculusly wrong and you are trying to cover your own lies.

Where I said this is Liberal vs Labor. You may be the worse liar on this forum. I have never mentioned Liberal vs Labor until your bought it up, genius.

Wow, That is incorrect huh? Very sad Gary ,if you can point out where you have said more then job loses is definate reason for it be lowered in the OP go ahead.

Job loses in a article about job loses is irrelevant is it? Oh ok LOL clown

It is very unfair to call me a troll, but you have been caught out as a liar.

 

So it is not a lie? But you continue to claim it is a lie, How can it be both? Or are you trying to show how smart you aren't?

Does it? You assume it does, but so far you have not correlated the two.

Actually, they are key indicators of how the economy is going. Just because you wish to try and make something, from the comment, that actually is not there, is not my problem. It seems to be yours. Fact is, that many economic observers and the governments of the day both look to these indicators, is entirely missed on you isn't.

Still trying to make a claim of what somebody else's opinion, because a statement you claim as a lie is also true, strawman. simply trolling and now attempting to justify it.

Oh, so there is a difference? Perhaps if we where not discussing YOUR reliance on the indicators, that might be a subject of debate. Here, totally irrelevant.

I never said a lot, I assumed, people would actually be able to think for themselves. I also assumed that people would actually have the ability to remember past their Labor handlers. I also thought, the people would be older than ten.

Seems I was wrong in one case.

What? Do you expect me to prove Liberal or Labor, wrong? Really, it has been explained to you, and you still expect it is about the parties?

What lies where they, when you admit

You attempt to try and justify you attack on the comment, does not contribute to lies. OR Does it actually contribute to your TOLLING and attempt to justify such.

Where? oh

AND

Who mentioned it?

LOL...that is your job.

LOL...suddenly it is not the state losses it is the entire article. what was it you TROLLED in with

Which yes, is totally irrelevant

Actually it is very fair when you state

you admit that you where wrong. You assumed that they say something, that is not actually true is it?

SO, yes, just trolling about as a TROLL

 

Gary, I said the statement was true but you are stating we have “high unemployment” by stating what you said in the OP, Now that is a lie isn't it because I can't find anything to indicate or suggest that.
How smart I arent? Now that's very harsh garry,Could you be a little bit funny when you try to insult me please.

Are you stupid..This country does not have high unemployment, so therefore it HAS to reflect your opinion.

GarRy, You have put two “key indicators” into a sentence but you cannot prove the “high unemployment” indicator is TRUE.
WHY are YOU using the “High unemployment” indicator. You have never told me WHY.

I believe their is a difference with 5.2% and a GFC and 6% without a GFC. This is a VERY good indicator and totally relevant, Here's another indicator overall yearly growth of a country.

You gave us two option (“So which is it?”) glad Gillard has low interest rates OR glad that 27,000 job loses means they will get lower.
First question : Yes
Second question : Are they actually being lowered because we lost 27,000 jobs that month? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this is the sole reason for them to be lowered so I think this is a lie.

My job? You have denied this yet you want me to point it out? Ok look at OP all i see “Are you glad that 27,000 job lose means it will get even lower?
No other reasons mentioned.

So a job lose question is irrelevant to a job lose thread?

Gary, You said those low interest rates and high unemployment were two key indicators.

Answer me this question, Why are you using the high unemployment indicator, when I can't find anything to suggest we have high unemployment or are heading towards high unemployment?

 

Point to where the OP states, Australia has 'HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT". Apparently yes, it is your lie.

The OP

You claim that this is a lie, but you also claim it is true. Which is it? That is the only statement, in the OP.

All questions, no statement. Where is it, that a question is a lie? I think you have no comprehension at all.

No, not harsh, only the truth.

Your assumption, of what my opinion is. So obviously, when you are told it is not my opinion, it must be a lie, because you say so.

What? do you think that once unemployment reaches a point it is no longer an indicator of economic health? AS the statement stands, that you agree is true

No, it is no indication of yearly growth at all. However, it is still totally irrelevant to the OP, as the size of the unemployment is only in question in your mind.

Yes, that is right. Seems, that you think it is about economic health at this time, NOT about the actual cause of low interest rates.

So you do think, the government controls interest rates?

Are you suggesting that there is no correlation between the two? See both can play that game.

Don't matter, Still your job to show NO correlation of the two.

LOL... Your understanding of what was said is.

Of what? Oh that is right, economic health. Yes that is what I said.

I am not, you are. As stated

which you agree is

So where is the statement, you proclaim is a lie? The questions? LOL

Perhaps your comment

should have been retained, until you actually had somebody explain to you what the debate was about.

So again, you have absolutely no idea what is to be debated, what the opinion of the OP really is and YOUR inability to comprehend what is said shows, first how smart you aren't and that your just Trolling.

 

Gary stop being your usual stupid self. Let use your own words “key indicators” of how the economy is going BUT THE FACT REMAINS GARRY IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST WE HAVE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT OR HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION.

Statements are true, They are apart of telling us how our economy is going BUT AGAIN SHOW US EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST WE HAVE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT OR ARE HEADING FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT..

Simply saying “27,000 MEANS it will be lowered” is a LIE, It is not CERTAIN it will be lowered like you have SAID, you slow headed cnt.

Gary you're a drop kick mate, You were wrong in the other thread which you ran away from and you've been caught out here.

Well garry it is not my assumption, it is fact. You have used a “key indicator” of high unemployment when there is NOTHING to suggest we have high unemployment so the only LOGICAL THINKING is that YOU think we have high unemployment.

But like anyone with a little bit of knowledge in statistics and economics one month is not sufficient to suggest anything,But you being a dropkick.. 5.1 to 5.2 Oh NOOOOOOO

We have both low rates and low unemployment which is a positive in both case of rate and economic health.

Only a twisted vile person would suggest I said that, youre a loser.

There is a relationship yes. But is it CERTAIN that they are going to be lowered BECAUSE OF THIS JOB LOSE...is this a case of big c0ck online because you have a small one in reality?

I never mention correlation that's you being your desperate self and trying to save face. There is no relationship to mention because you have made it quite clear that “since we have lost 27k jobs this month is it FACT that it will get lowered because of this”
Here's the correlation : Rates haven't changed nor is their evidence to suggest they are certain of changing.

So is job lose question irrelevant in a thread that has a link to job loses and mentions job loses?

GARRY DOGES THE QUESTION NO SURPRISE.
Garry there is no evidence to suggest using the “key indicator” of high unemployment, so again I ask WHY HAVE YOU USED IT.

The statements are true. But now you're being your desperate self trying to cover your bollocks, While true they are not correct in this debate, Because there is nothing to suggest high unemployment and soon as your empty head realizes the better.

You have proved nothing, You have reworded to suit your own argument or worse you have not answered the question..The big question was not answered and you're desperately trying to save face, You try to come off as a “intelligent person” but you are just an idiot with a dictionary.

 

Yes, where is the lie, YOU proclaim. You have already admitted that the statement is true, but still proclaim a lie, where is it?

I have not made that claim, you are stating that, perhaps you could show where in the OP it is claimed that Australia has 'HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT'.

I can not show you, YOUR claim. It is YOUR claim that I have stated such, yet you can not show, in the OP or anything I have said where I say what you are claiming. Just to remind you,

Where is the lie?

Perhaps, you should admit that this is a question and not a statement. IN IT"S ENTIRETY

What Thread? The one you tried to proclaim that the US only gave money to the banks? As everybody can see, you have caught nobody with your attempts at attacking the thread. You only show your own, inability to understand topics.

LOL... FACT...LOL, I have used 'Key indicators' to point to what I asked. It is you, who assumes, it states anything about what direction of the unemployment rate is. And it is also YOU, who assumes, you know what my opinion of what the unemployment rates is. The OP has nothing to indicate what the unemployment rate is, but you assume it does. You even agree that the statements are true, yet claim them to be a lie...LOL

LOL... You have not shown anything of what you proclaim to have. But hey, continue Trolling about, as this really had nothing to do with the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. As you continue to attribute it too.

LOL... So, I see. You really don't see the conundrum here. LOL. Talk about trapping anybody.

Yes, return of the desperate, but your previous comment and the continued proclamations throughout this thread, suggests it.

LOL... So this loss has not impact on interest rates, in YOUR OPINION, because you don't like the messenger? LOL

What you ignore both YOUR OWN QUOTES, to justify your own comment? LOL

LOL... your such the great analysis. Australia's government and economic experts should all come to you, for your professional opinion. FACT IS, the article is evidence, suggesting they will change.

Only to your part, as you continue to attempt to attack the OP, and not the subject. The fact you wanted to attempt to state it was a state government issue, shows the same.

You already are using it, So who cares that I have? YOU. as everybody can see, the comment goes both ways, except YOU. It is your problem deal with it.

The statements are true, but there not? They are not correct in the debate? It is your assumption, that the debate is about unemployment rates, Which it was not.

Yes, I have proved that you obviously can not read or comprehend what is said. I have reworded nothing, show where I have. What big question, YOUR claim I stated something that you, claim is a lie, but true.

Seems again, this comment shows more about the poster than where you attempt to direct it.