Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Artificial Gravity?
January 27th, 2010
If given a perfect conductor of infinite durability and duration with an unknown dynamic material nature of negligent mass and given any amount of required electricity, could one create gravity or a gravitational force? What level of required concentration (say in terms of Watts/m^2) would be necessary of the electricity? Would any type of protective or inert buffer layer be required depending on the density of the generated or required forces? Is it likely that such a mechanism would create any significant gravitational force or would such a mechanism merely be a ‘bad ass’ source of cancer to the typical human?
Adam Trotter / AVT
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Need Some Luck?
January 24th, 2010
In general, we can all use some good luck. However, typically if you reach a point where you really need some good luck or are relying on the manifestation of any beneficial luck, it most likely will not materialize. We all hear of times when good luck does appear. But, in reality, nobody talks a lot about their unlucky incidents.
In a nutshell, when you need luck it probably won't be there.
So for whatever such is worth, plan accordingly.
Adam Trotter / AVT
In general, we can all use some good luck. However, typically if you reach a point where you really need some good luck or are relying on the manifestation of any beneficial luck, it most likely will not materialize. We all hear of times when good luck does appear. But, in reality, nobody talks a lot about their unlucky incidents.
In a nutshell, when you need luck it probably won't be there.
So for whatever such is worth, plan accordingly.
Adam Trotter / AVT
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Report the True Unemployment Numbers or Nothing At All
January 18th, 2010
I have long wondered why the true unemployment numbers are not estimated and reported by any mainstream news source in the United States; neither the thousands of government bureaucrats nor any private media news sources seem interested in the actual amount of people that are currently unemployed.
In case you don’t know what I mean when speaking of the true unemployment numbers, when one receives unemployment compensation or applies for such anyhow, they are then counted as unemployed (unemployed illegal immigrants or employed undocumented workers never count as unemployed – btw, of course). However, if one does not become reemployed by the time any unemployment insurance compensation expires – typically six months or so, they are no longer counted as unemployed regardless if they remain unemployed albeit without any unemployment insurance benefits. After six months of not returning to the workforce, those workers are considered as people who are not interested in rejoining the workforce, or as the government labels them, “discouraged workers.”
Ok, so…, I can understand why the system of counting for the unemployment index was originally modified to count in this fashion [that is, only counting those that are currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits as being unemployed]. As I recall it was during the early 1980’s that President Reagan had the method of counting the unemployed changed to its current method. But back in 1980, much of the inflation and economic troubles appeared to be a likely result of perception and maybe not really based upon any concrete facts – although, arguably, it was that point in time when the dollar first came to be decimated in value, as it was during President Nixon’s administration less than ten years prior to 1980 had allowed the dollar to be traded under a variable exchange rate and therefore the dollar to no longer had a rigid exchange rate (and the people of the nation have paid for the successes and failures of the financial sectors ever since to our own detriment, no doubt).
Anyway, so we can see that the true number of unemployed is likely to be significantly larger than the reported numbers concerning unemployed U.S. workers. My question is then: if the mainstream media news sources are to report anything about the number of unemployed workers, why not try to gauge the real number of the unemployed portion of the workforce? Or, if they consider the current economic recession to be a result of nothing but perception and therefore don’t want to report anything negative, maybe, don’t bother to report anything at all concerning the U.S. unemployment numbers.
Please don’t to continue to feed us lies and bullshit over the airwaves concerning the number of people unemployed in the United States when such is clearly not true. The American people can handle the truth. When we can’t handle the truth, well…...
AVT
I have long wondered why the true unemployment numbers are not estimated and reported by any mainstream news source in the United States; neither the thousands of government bureaucrats nor any private media news sources seem interested in the actual amount of people that are currently unemployed.
In case you don’t know what I mean when speaking of the true unemployment numbers, when one receives unemployment compensation or applies for such anyhow, they are then counted as unemployed (unemployed illegal immigrants or employed undocumented workers never count as unemployed – btw, of course). However, if one does not become reemployed by the time any unemployment insurance compensation expires – typically six months or so, they are no longer counted as unemployed regardless if they remain unemployed albeit without any unemployment insurance benefits. After six months of not returning to the workforce, those workers are considered as people who are not interested in rejoining the workforce, or as the government labels them, “discouraged workers.”
Ok, so…, I can understand why the system of counting for the unemployment index was originally modified to count in this fashion [that is, only counting those that are currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits as being unemployed]. As I recall it was during the early 1980’s that President Reagan had the method of counting the unemployed changed to its current method. But back in 1980, much of the inflation and economic troubles appeared to be a likely result of perception and maybe not really based upon any concrete facts – although, arguably, it was that point in time when the dollar first came to be decimated in value, as it was during President Nixon’s administration less than ten years prior to 1980 had allowed the dollar to be traded under a variable exchange rate and therefore the dollar to no longer had a rigid exchange rate (and the people of the nation have paid for the successes and failures of the financial sectors ever since to our own detriment, no doubt).
Anyway, so we can see that the true number of unemployed is likely to be significantly larger than the reported numbers concerning unemployed U.S. workers. My question is then: if the mainstream media news sources are to report anything about the number of unemployed workers, why not try to gauge the real number of the unemployed portion of the workforce? Or, if they consider the current economic recession to be a result of nothing but perception and therefore don’t want to report anything negative, maybe, don’t bother to report anything at all concerning the U.S. unemployment numbers.
Please don’t to continue to feed us lies and bullshit over the airwaves concerning the number of people unemployed in the United States when such is clearly not true. The American people can handle the truth. When we can’t handle the truth, well…...
AVT
Sunday, January 17, 2010
33% True Unemployment Percentage in the U.S.? Estimating the True Current Unemployment Numbers in the United States.
January 17th, 2010
The possible true percentage of unemployed workers in the United States is roughly estimated by the calculations below. As the calculations show, the true possible unemployment percentages could range anywhere from twenty to fifty percent (20% to 50%). As shown in the calculations and supported by extraneous indicators not addressed herein, I would surmise the likely true percentage of unemployed U.S. workers to be approximately thirty-three percent (33%).
As a rough estimate of the current amount of unemployed U.S. workers:
Assumptions:
- Size of American legal workforce = 154, 287,000 http://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/labor_force.htm “not counting discouraged, institutionalized (students, convicts), or marginal workers”
- Initially ten percent (10%) unemployment remaining constant for two (2) years.
- Percentage falling off unemployment statistics each month and therefore no longer considered to be unemployed essentially equals number becoming unemployed each month, hence a constant 10% unemployed for the time period of the last two years.
- Average length of unemployment insurance benefits / length of time a worker is counted as being unemployed without reentering the workforce = six (6) months.
- No consideration is given for any worker that may file for unemployment more than once over the two year period calculated.
Number of Unemployed:
154, 287,000 x 0.10 = 15,428,700 = 10% = Number unemployed any given month and initial and final amount as well for the two year period.
Plus Those Newly Unemployed any Given Month:
15,428,700 / 6 = 2,571,450 = Number becoming unemployed any given month for the period which also equals the same amount that fall off unemployment and are therefore no longer counted as unemployed.
Plus Those No Longer Considered as Unemployed any Given Month:
15,428,700 / 6 = 2,571,450 = Number no longer considered as unemployed any given month regardless if they dont return to an employed status.
Say, 50% return to work during unemployment immediately after unemployment benefits end
2,571,450 x 0.50 = 1,285,725 actually return to work of those newly not being counted as unemployed
Say 20 % return to work (which is probably the most realistic number given the industries that have laid-off workers)
2,571,450 x 0.20 = 514,290
Say 80 % return to work (which is unlikely)
2,571,450 x 0.80 = 2,057,160
Equals Total Number Unemployed:
Therefore, total number unemployed for the last two years:
(workforce x 0.10) + (24 months x (newly unemployed/month – number returning to work)) =
If 50% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 1,285,725)) = 46,286,100 unemployed.
= 30% unemployed.
If 20% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 514,290)) = 64,800,540 unemployed.
= 42% unemployed.
If 80% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 2,057,160)) = 27,771,660 unemployed.
= 18% unemployed.
However, If 0.0% have returned to work after falling off unemployment or all become underemployed and could still be counted as unemployed, the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 0)) = 77,143,500 unemployed.
= 50% unemployed.
In case you don’t know what I mean when speaking of the true unemployment numbers, when one receives unemployment compensation or applies for such anyhow, they are then counted as unemployed (unemployed illegal immigrants or employed undocumented workers never count as unemployed – btw, of course). However, if one does not become reemployed by the time any unemployment insurance compensation expires – typically six months or so, they are no longer counted as unemployed regardless if they remain unemployed albeit without any unemployment insurance benefits. After six months of not returning to the workforce, those workers are considered as people who are not interested in rejoining the workforce, or as the government labels them, “discouraged workers.”
Anyway, so we can see that the true number of unemployed is likely to be significantly larger than the reported numbers concerning unemployed U.S. workers.
AVT
The possible true percentage of unemployed workers in the United States is roughly estimated by the calculations below. As the calculations show, the true possible unemployment percentages could range anywhere from twenty to fifty percent (20% to 50%). As shown in the calculations and supported by extraneous indicators not addressed herein, I would surmise the likely true percentage of unemployed U.S. workers to be approximately thirty-three percent (33%).
As a rough estimate of the current amount of unemployed U.S. workers:
Assumptions:
- Size of American legal workforce = 154, 287,000 http://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/labor_force.htm “not counting discouraged, institutionalized (students, convicts), or marginal workers”
- Initially ten percent (10%) unemployment remaining constant for two (2) years.
- Percentage falling off unemployment statistics each month and therefore no longer considered to be unemployed essentially equals number becoming unemployed each month, hence a constant 10% unemployed for the time period of the last two years.
- Average length of unemployment insurance benefits / length of time a worker is counted as being unemployed without reentering the workforce = six (6) months.
- No consideration is given for any worker that may file for unemployment more than once over the two year period calculated.
Number of Unemployed:
154, 287,000 x 0.10 = 15,428,700 = 10% = Number unemployed any given month and initial and final amount as well for the two year period.
Plus Those Newly Unemployed any Given Month:
15,428,700 / 6 = 2,571,450 = Number becoming unemployed any given month for the period which also equals the same amount that fall off unemployment and are therefore no longer counted as unemployed.
Plus Those No Longer Considered as Unemployed any Given Month:
15,428,700 / 6 = 2,571,450 = Number no longer considered as unemployed any given month regardless if they dont return to an employed status.
Say, 50% return to work during unemployment immediately after unemployment benefits end
2,571,450 x 0.50 = 1,285,725 actually return to work of those newly not being counted as unemployed
Say 20 % return to work (which is probably the most realistic number given the industries that have laid-off workers)
2,571,450 x 0.20 = 514,290
Say 80 % return to work (which is unlikely)
2,571,450 x 0.80 = 2,057,160
Equals Total Number Unemployed:
Therefore, total number unemployed for the last two years:
(workforce x 0.10) + (24 months x (newly unemployed/month – number returning to work)) =
If 50% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 1,285,725)) = 46,286,100 unemployed.
= 30% unemployed.
If 20% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 514,290)) = 64,800,540 unemployed.
= 42% unemployed.
If 80% have returned to work after falling off unemployment the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 2,057,160)) = 27,771,660 unemployed.
= 18% unemployed.
However, If 0.0% have returned to work after falling off unemployment or all become underemployed and could still be counted as unemployed, the total number unemployed:
(154,287,000 x 0.10) + (24 x (2,571,450 – 0)) = 77,143,500 unemployed.
= 50% unemployed.
In case you don’t know what I mean when speaking of the true unemployment numbers, when one receives unemployment compensation or applies for such anyhow, they are then counted as unemployed (unemployed illegal immigrants or employed undocumented workers never count as unemployed – btw, of course). However, if one does not become reemployed by the time any unemployment insurance compensation expires – typically six months or so, they are no longer counted as unemployed regardless if they remain unemployed albeit without any unemployment insurance benefits. After six months of not returning to the workforce, those workers are considered as people who are not interested in rejoining the workforce, or as the government labels them, “discouraged workers.”
Anyway, so we can see that the true number of unemployed is likely to be significantly larger than the reported numbers concerning unemployed U.S. workers.
AVT
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez Follows the Federal Reserve System’s Lead?
January 13th, 2010
The television news reported yesterday about the economic turmoil in Venezuela resulting from that nation’s president halving the value of the South American country’s currency (the bolivar) essentially overnight. I wonder if President Chavez has been studying the U.S. Federal Reserve System and decided to follow the lead of the Fed? Surely the value of the U.S. Dollar has also been halved over recent years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Venezuelan President figured that if it works for the United States, maybe halving the value of the nation’s currency would also work for Venezuela. However, unlike in the United States where decreasing the value of the currency artificially inflated prices and therefore for a long time held-off a falling Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and subsequently prevented any classification of our Nation being in any recession, in Venezuela it was ordered that prices were not allowed to rise to reflect the devalued Venezuelan currency thereby attempting to keep inflation under control – whether such threatened controls work in reality or not in that country remains to be seen.
Regardless of the real impact of the South American country's fiscal policy in this regard, at least the Venezuelan leader seems to care about his citizens to some extent anyhow by his fascist-like threats of legal actions and confiscations of businesses that raise prices – unlike here in the United States where our elected leaders only seem mostly to care about the well being of our bankers.
AVT
PS. Also see: Venezuela Devalues Bolivar: What Next?, by Allan Nichols, 13 Jan 10 http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/globalhome/industry/news.asp?articleid=321968
The television news reported yesterday about the economic turmoil in Venezuela resulting from that nation’s president halving the value of the South American country’s currency (the bolivar) essentially overnight. I wonder if President Chavez has been studying the U.S. Federal Reserve System and decided to follow the lead of the Fed? Surely the value of the U.S. Dollar has also been halved over recent years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Venezuelan President figured that if it works for the United States, maybe halving the value of the nation’s currency would also work for Venezuela. However, unlike in the United States where decreasing the value of the currency artificially inflated prices and therefore for a long time held-off a falling Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and subsequently prevented any classification of our Nation being in any recession, in Venezuela it was ordered that prices were not allowed to rise to reflect the devalued Venezuelan currency thereby attempting to keep inflation under control – whether such threatened controls work in reality or not in that country remains to be seen.
Regardless of the real impact of the South American country's fiscal policy in this regard, at least the Venezuelan leader seems to care about his citizens to some extent anyhow by his fascist-like threats of legal actions and confiscations of businesses that raise prices – unlike here in the United States where our elected leaders only seem mostly to care about the well being of our bankers.
AVT
PS. Also see: Venezuela Devalues Bolivar: What Next?, by Allan Nichols, 13 Jan 10 http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/globalhome/industry/news.asp?articleid=321968
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Where is It?
January 6th, 2010
When one seeks That which may complete themself, they should not forget to look in the most unlikely of places to find It. It might just be there.
AVT
PS. Related blog: On the quest to control any given situation, http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2009/07/of-quest-to-control-any-given-situation.html
When one seeks That which may complete themself, they should not forget to look in the most unlikely of places to find It. It might just be there.
AVT
PS. Related blog: On the quest to control any given situation, http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2009/07/of-quest-to-control-any-given-situation.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)