That sinking Dollar feeling again! M9 prices?

Nobel Peace Price to Obama

Nobel Peace Price to Obama

It should be noted that the Nobel Peace Price is 10.000.000 NOK, - increasing in value, in $, day by day....
 
The dollar seems to have stopped falling and has stayed above NOK 5,60 the last week or so. But news of how things are in USA now reaches European media. Like, that unemployment in USA really isn't only 10%. But comparative to more like 21%, the way most European countries run their domestic unemployment statistics. That between 10 and 20% of all credit cards issued in USA are 'in the red'. Many Americans have credit card debt that are too large to pay back. Ever! That several hundred thousand Americans loose their jobs. Every month. That the rate of job losses does not seem to stop. Foreclosures continue. That 39.000 are homeless in New York City. Many of whom are children. It sure is bad over here, but not this bad.
 
Gold $1,500 by 2010!!!!

Gold $1,500 by 2010!!!!

There are predictions gold will hit $1,500 an ounce by late 2010, just around the time I plan to buy a new m9. I wonder if $7,000 will be enough ?
 
The dollar has kept stable at NOK 5,66 lately, but with a US unemployment rate of more like 21,4% compared to how unemployment was registered in USA earlier and how it is registered in most European countries, and 'US disposable income' that have fallen with 3,4% the last 12 months, the market of M9s in USA will not be as hot as it might be.

Nor will a M9 purchase be hot for me. Like many; I have been laid off and will have to depend on 'unemployment benefits' from the government. The upside is all the spare time I can spend on photography...
 
Tom, as a former CFO and later CEO I resent that! Although mostly true. I think we can also look at American manufacturers like Really Right Stuff as models of innovation.

Further, the price of electronic components keeps dropping. A full frame sensor and the associated electronics could conceivably result in a cheaper M-10. Each generation of Nikon and Canon has increased capabilities and lowered prices. I would expect this could more than off-set changes in international currency.
 
This NYT article is interesting. Note that they don't use the official US unemployment rate of 9,2%. But NYT take the official income statistics for describing the truth. Do they?
 
"Unemployed" is not an entirely reliable metric.
"Not, or no-longer looking" is less reliable, but more accurate than given credit for.
Then there are those working in the "shadow" or gray economy--a very large and fast growing sector. Surely this last category overlaps some with the other two, but adds to the numbers of economically vulnerable people and is significantly under counted (not officially employed, not legal residents, not paying taxes, etc.)

Of course none of these indicators of employment means one whit to those of my countrymen who do not believe in data; or worse, in statistics--that Satanic manipulation of numbers promulgated by evil doers (probably Canadians 😉) in order to destroy our freedoms and take away our guns.
 
MartinL said:
"Unemployed" is not an entirely reliable metric.
"Not, or no-longer looking" is less reliable, but more accurate than given credit for.
Then there are those working in the "shadow" or gray economy--a very large and fast growing sector. Surely this last category overlaps some with the other two, but adds to the numbers of economically vulnerable people and is significantly under counted (not officially employed, not legal residents, not paying taxes, etc.)

Of course none of these indicators of employment means one whit to those of my countrymen who do not believe in data; or worse, in statistics--that Satanic manipulation of numbers promulgated by evil doers (probably Canadians 😉) in order to destroy our freedoms and take away our guns.
Click to expand...

Between 43.2% and 85.4% of statistics are less than 60.3% accurate.

Cheers,

R.
 
MartinL said:
"Unemployed" is not an entirely reliable metric.
"Not, or no-longer looking" is less reliable, but more accurate than given credit for.
Then there are those working in the "shadow" or gray economy--a very large and fast growing sector. Surely this last category overlaps some with the other two, but adds to the numbers of economically vulnerable people and is significantly under counted (not officially employed, not legal residents, not paying taxes, etc.)

Of course none of these indicators of employment means one whit to those of my countrymen who do not believe in data; or worse, in statistics--that Satanic manipulation of numbers promulgated by evil doers (probably Canadians 😉) in order to destroy our freedoms and take away our guns.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that most long term unemployed in USA do not have any advantage of reporting themselves as unemployed. Simply because it does not qualify them for any 'unemployment pay' or other social wellfare programs. In most European countries you qualify for lavish (you could rake in 45,000 $ per year for two years here in Norway in unemployment pay...) unemployment pay programs. Still unemployment, officially, is only 3,5% here in Norway, right now, but increasing. Even though it includes people who have given up looking for a job, this figure does not tell the whole story. To my view, there is just as many unemployed hidden away in other social programs. Which means that the 'real' unemployment here in Norway is closer to 7%.

The highest unemployment rate we have had here in Scandinavia in modern times was 18% in Finland in the early 90'. It was solved by huge public investments in cell phone developments (Nokia) and lavish 'early pensions' for a few hundred thousand workers. All financed by borrowing money, a debt that Finland still struggles to pay down.
 
Last edited:
Olsen said:
To my view, there is just as many unemployed hidden away in other social programs. Which means that the 'real' unemployment here in Norway is closer to 7%.
Click to expand...
IMO, progressive econo-geeks would call that "sustainable" since it would also include a sector that is "unemployable," or those who are not officially disabled but are psychologically, geographically, or legally on the social margins. That Norway's 'real' figure (7%) is so low is a tribute to the country's social structure and values (not to mention, oil.)

Finland has its troubles, but not so troubled that it falls from its leadership in equitable education distribution (an area i'm more familiar with than macro economics.)
 
MartinL said:
IMO, progressive econo-geeks would call that "sustainable" since it would also include a sector that is "unemployable," or those who are not officially disabled but are psychologically, geographically, or legally on the social margins. That Norway's 'real' figure (7%) is so low is a tribute to the country's social structure and values (not to mention, oil.)

Finland has its troubles, but not so troubled that it falls from its leadership in equitable education distribution (an area i'm more familiar with than macro economics.)
Click to expand...

Unemployment much higher than 5%, officially (that would be 10% by my reckoning) is not politically possible in Norway (and Sweden or Denmark), to my view. It will turn the political landscape up side down. The 18% in Finland created an hostile atmosphere between politicians and the people unpresedented in Scandinavia. The politicians really had to focus on solving the unemployment problem.
 
Olsen said:
And. What the hell is 'equitable education distribution'...? I am just wondering...
Click to expand...

Following is just a snip. Added emphasis is mine. In USA, enormous differences in children's access to quality in education including what is best referred to as "opportunities to learn." These include qualified teachers, sufficient books and libraries, facilities, and so forth--all of these are empirically demonstrated and are not the sum of impressions.
"Finland's primary education system has been the envy of the Western world ever since the country's 15-year-olds began acing international literacy, mathematics and science assessment tests several years ago."​
Finnish children do not begin primary school until they are seven years old. But from the age of eight months, all children have access to free, full-day daycare and kindergarten. Finland has had universal access to daycare in place since 1990, and of all preschool since 1996. Primary-school teachers all have master's degrees, and the profession is one of the most revered in Finnish society."​
 
MartinL said:
Following is just a snip. Added emphasis is mine. In USA, enormous differences in children's access to quality in education including what is best referred to as "opportunities to learn." These include qualified teachers, sufficient books and libraries, facilities, and so forth--all of these are empirically demonstrated and are not the sum of impressions.
"Finland's primary education system has been the envy of the Western world ever since the country's 15-year-olds began acing international literacy, mathematics and science assessment tests several years ago."​
Finnish children do not begin primary school until they are seven years old. But from the age of eight months, all children have access to free, full-day daycare and kindergarten. Finland has had universal access to daycare in place since 1990, and of all preschool since 1996. Primary-school teachers all have master's degrees, and the profession is one of the most revered in Finnish society."​
Click to expand...

Yes, this test is well known. And discussed. As such, there is little difference between the school systems between the Scandinavian countries. The largest difference between Finland and the others is the number of immigrants in the schools. It is the latter that sets the standards for the education systems in just any country in Europe. Finland has only accepted a fraction of immigrants compared to other European countries. That is about to change, - Finland now have to accept more immigrants, and with it, lower ratings on education tests.

Correction: Day care is not available to all. The capacity does not meet demand, - and it costs money. More typical will be that a child in Finland - as elsewhere in Scandinavia, will have access to childcare only for periods of the years between 8 months and when they start school. In Finland, children start school first at 7 years, while the other Scandinavian countries children start school at 6. This is because it makes it easier - and cheaper, for parents to have their children attended for.

Further: Teacher competence has been high in Finland, along with the status of the job, but along with developments in the rest of the world, Finland faces problems hiring educated teachers in the future. - This just a few points I have managed to read of the debate following this report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom