It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Eventually what happens to one happens to all.
When the Government continues to support and fund the most insidious causes, to allow another extension would be a drop in the ocean of their indebtedness.
Per capita is a term adapted from Latin phrase pro capite meaning "per (each) head" with pro meaning "per" or "for each", and capite (caput ablative) meaning "head." Both words together equate to the phrase "for each head", i.e. per individual or per person. The term is used in a wide variety of social sciences and statistical research contexts, including government statistics, economic indicators, and built environment studies.
What a load of derailing gobbledygook. Hello, we were discussing economic stimulation, not hiring economists. I know that is your thing, derailing with babble. I saw you the last 2 days derailing one of my threads with ATSer evil incarnate. I am not getting into that time consuming trap with you. For now, I will entertain myself at your expense.
Yea, when it comes to building automobiles, space shuttles, working with atom smashers, and working out nation's economies, I let others think for me. Tell me, are you so awesome and smart that you designed your own microwave, or programmed a chip for your car to get better gas mileage? BTW are you an economist? No? Then perhaps they, along with Physicists, car designer, and computer programmers know more than you and I, yes?
"they don't ask economist permission to do so"? That is so ridiculous, of course they don't, why would anybody. That's not the function of an economists. But you already know that, and this is a trap. Damn I fell into it. Moving on.
The other great thing about math is you can display mathematical facts in a pie chart. Thus it becomes a mathematically factual pie, not a banana cream or apple pie. Please expose the lie you see and enlighten us with all the details of why it's a lie. Your ball.
And you have yet to specifically challenged any of the bullpuckey I have supplied, thus you are full of hot air. All these paragraphs of nothing. No alternate conclusions, no contradicting facts, no supplying any of your own facts, not even a point. You brought this thread nothing, and you sucked me in to bring nothing too. I won't do this with you again.
And you finish with trying to take me to task on a sarcastic exaggeration? Don't talk to me anymore, you are too weird for me. Good day.
I would like to know what basic math has to do with this? Actually, I have some basic math that might help you. Take a look at this*:
1975 Per Capita GDP: American GDP (1.62 trillion) for 1975, adjusted for inflation, would equal 6.32 trillion dollars in 2009 CPI (Try it yourself). Due to the lack of public information for American population levels in 1975, we will have to derive it from info available now. So, between 1980 and 1981, American population levels have grown ~3 million to 229,465,744 people, so subtract 6 years (multiplied by 3 million) to 1975, I estimate the American population to be (1985 population - 18 million=) 211,456,744 people.
Warning: it is important to note the limitation of GDP when comparing the living standards of countries. These income figures are computed using the current exchange rates. By definition, exchange rates are biased as they are based on the prices of traded goods and nontraded goods are ignored. These may not reflect the real standard of living. For example, in 2002, US per capita GDP of $36,000 and that of China was about $1000. This does NOT mean that the living standard of a typical American was 36 times that of a Chinese. Realistically, Americans may be only three times as well off as Chinese, due to low prices in China. Also, the World Bank report argues that for example, Americans live in spacious houses and less polluted environment than the Japanese, even though per capital income leves of both countries were about the same in the early 1990s.
In 1975, US trade surplus was about $12 billion, but that would be the last time in the 20th century that the United States had a trade surplus. In 2008, the US export amounted to $1.84 T, but imports were about $2.52 T. Thus, we had a trade deficit of about $700 B(X - M = T ). China has now replaced Mexico as our second largest trading partner. (Canada is our largest trading partner.)
Accuracy and reliability
The rate of change of GDP is a major factor influencing policy action to stabilise the economy (as noted in the article on macroeconomics). Errors in the calculation of GDP can damage the economy as businesses and consumers make adjustments to their behavior in response to an erroneous figure. (The damaging Lawson boom in the Britain in the late 1980s was largely attributable to such an error  ). Since it takes time for action in response to news of the GDP growth rate to take effect, the regulatory authorities and commercial organisations tend to react to early estimates, which are often subject to substantial revision. (The average revision to Britain’s quarterly growth figures between 1961 and 2001 was 0.2 per cent as compared to an average growth rate of 0.6 per cent, but the discrepancy was much greater in the late 1970s when a 1.7 per cent year-to-year reduction in GDP was later revised to a rise of 2.7 per cent). Attempts have been made to assess the accuracy of the components of GDP statistics , but since GDP data is compiled from thousands of inputs, it is not possible to do a complete check. Some indication of its reliability is, however, possible by comparing GDP estimates that have been compiled in different ways. The United States GDP is calculated separately from incomes data and from production data, and the difference is termed the "statistical discrepancy" . Since the early 1990s that discrepancy has been substantial, with the real income measure growing faster than the real product measure.  (In 1993 the statistical discrepancy peaked at 1% of GDP, and over 7 years the income measure grew at an average annual rate of 4.3% and the product side measure at 4.0%). Estimates of statistical discrepancies for other countries are available from an United Nations database . Different countries have adopted different practices in allowing for the statistical discrepancy in their published statistics.
Despite the careful documentation of theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of social welfare and progress, its use in the course of time has not changed. Information about GDP growth has a significant influence on decision-making by individuals, businesses and governments. In fact, politicians and macroeconomists become noticeably nervous when there is little or no GDP growth. Unfortunately, the use of GDP must be regarded as a serious form of information failure.
2008 Per Capita GDP - 1975 Per Capita GDP = Wealth Difference $47,819.55 - $29,887.91 = $17,931.64
Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.
In turns out that for the 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income (a higher rate presumably because of progressivity hitting the second wage-earners income) in taxes works out to be $22,374.
Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by darkelf
It most definitely IS a hand out. Nobody has been FORCED to breed. Someone should really think about finances before they decide to breed. Forcing other people to care about your broken condom is unfair. It IS a hand out.
Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by LostNemesis
This is what the state is about. Children are control over us. With children, they are able to take your paycheck.
Speak for yourself because my kids aren't in control over me. And what exactly is that fuzzy logic you are using about, "With children, they are able to take your paycheck."? Who, the state? What the hell state are you living in? Nobody takes my check and I have 3 kids.
Nemesis = yes
Lost = Definitely!
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Talk about stupid! How many smart cookies would it take to get it through your thick head that if unemployment benefits, (financed through taxes), and food stamps, (also financed through taxes), are the highest stimuli for the economy, that the economy is in serious trouble. If the best the federal government can do in terms of stimulating the economy is to use tax dollars to give to unemployed and poor people to spend, then the economy is not going to get better through government fiscal policy.
Originally posted by bentai22
Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by darkelf
$1200 a month child support from previous marriage
$1100 a month alimony from me
$1400 a month unemployment
$3,700 a month total WITHOUT WORKING A DAY!
So lets put this into perspective:
I make $3,500 a month working a 40 hour work week busting my ***
She makes more than I do a month and not doing a damn thing but partying and who knows what else.
So yes, child support, unemployment and alimony are ALL HAND OUTS!
How much does she spend to keep a roof over the kids head? How much is the grocery bill? How much does she require for childcare? How about keeping the kids clothed? There would be a reason you're required to supply $1100 per month in alimony. Is her monthly mortgage say.......$1900?
I'm a man and I can say that if she has 3 children, she works everyday without a day off 12 hours minimum.
If unemployment is $1400 per month, the cost of living must be extremely high. Unemployment usually is a couple hundred dollars less than the actuall mortgage or rent.
What happens if her ex husband loses his job and is unable to pay the child support? Has he been able to now?
The grass always looks.........we all know the rest.