OUR unemployment rate

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This week it was announced that the current unemployment rate in my state ,South Australia is the lowest in Australia ,at 4.7%.

That sounds great,and it would be if it were true,which it isn't. The figure shows only those registered as unemployed. The real figure is probably closer to 12% or higher. (I worked for Social Security for 25 years.Those figures were always considered a joke.)

MY point? NEVER implicitly trust government figures of any kind.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/s...5839613377

[Zhalentine]

To go one step further, you should never implicitly trust any statistic; a lot of them are used misleadingly.

[Tiberius]

To go one step further, never trust the government.

Wait a sec...I've turned into Pippy! Argh!

*runs*

What I should have said was "never trust the government to do a good job". Private enterprise picks up where government fails. Governments do not create jobs, they limit them. Corporations are the only provably reliable creators of jobs.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but here in the UK business is heavily regulated, which means people with ideas have absolutely no encouragement to start a business of their own, and if they don't have the funds to do so then their idea will just end up at a dead end. The current Labour government have increased regulation on business, meaning there is less money to pay employees, meaning businesses can hire less people. They also opened the flood gates to immigrants, even when we don't have enough jobs for the naturalised citizens.

But that's socialist thinking for you...

[theblindferrengi]

Not entirely suprised, but 12.7% is on the low end of the unemployment rates from around the world. Alot of the official government figures in the United States are around 12.7%.

[fr0d0]

Public services are infinitely more trustworthy than any private enterprise could ever be. The only blight is politicians who are given power to assert selfish business pressure contrary to common sense.

[Tiberius]

Public services are controlled by government, which is held as an necessary institution, and by definition can always exist in some form (i.e. if they run out of money, they raise taxes, etc). They have no obligation to help anyone other than for the "trust" that people have in them. In a democracy, anyone can get elected and takeover, but I think you are intelligent enough to know that this never happens.

Private enterprise, on the other hand, is dictated by the consumers and share-holders. If they pull out, the business will fail. Private enterprise have everything resting on the happiness of their consumers. They do have an obligation to help people, as if they do not, they will not have enough consumers around to be a successful business anymore.

The only conceivable problem with this system is through government interference. Companies that fail their consumers are bailed out by governments, rather than follow the natural death they should rightly get. Take out the safety net that governments impose on business, reduce the amount of regulation of business by the governments (i.e get the government as far out of the picture as possible) and business will be where it should be, in a position of trust because without consumers, it will fail.

[fr0d0]

Unregulated business serves the owner who seeks ever unrealistic and unlimited profit for himself. From this position of power he exerts his influence on everything in his society. He uses politics to force his wants and creates an uneven playing field to sustain himself. Capitalist Government is purely this.

[Tiberius]

You cannot serve the owner without serving the consumer as well. No business model would work like that. If a business owner takes all the profit for himself and pays staff a low salary, they will complain and resign. No business can survive constantly re-hiring people and hope to have a steady source of income, and consumers are motivated by more than just quality of goods. A lot of consumers want to see a fairer market, and would oppose companies that treat their workers closer to slaves than employees.

Free market capitalism keeps the market separate from government, so you can forget your absurd notion of a business owner using "politics" to force what he wants. The government in free market capitalism does not contribute to any business, large or small, but neither does it hinder its growth if it is successful.

[theblindferrengi]

The government bailouts of big buisnesses is not just a handout to them to stay alive; first, the buisnesses are so large that they controll significant portions of the economy, and if they dissapeared, it would be like a vital species disapearing from the food web. Many companies directly depend on big buisness, and the majority of buisnesses indirectly depend on big buisnesses. Also, the nature of the government bailouts is misunderstood, they are not intended just to keep the existing companies alive. The government is purchasing large portions of buisnesses (controlling shares), and reforming the buisness so that it will become profitable by firing whoever needs to be fired, and cutting whatever needs to be cut. This in effect does the same thing that would happen if the big buisnesses were allowed to fail, but does so without the massive consequences to the economy.

This is how they are intended to work, and since the American president Bush Mush left, they have. Mush just sat back and ate pretzels instead of managing the bailouts properly.

[Tiberius]

Governments have no reason to buy shares in large companies. It wouldn't the "free market" if government had control over business in such a way. Markets do not require regulation...it was regulation that got business in trouble in the first place. If governments didn't get involved so much, we'd have more small-scale businesses and better competition, rather than favoritism.

To use your food-web analogy, some species would disappear, but that only leaves room for other species to take their place.