That is a given, but when you calculate the unemployment percentage you do not include those people. Those people are considered out of the work force, not unemployed. Voluntary unemployment is not included in the unemployment rates. You don't need to "spell" anything out, you need to learn the definition of unemployment and how it is measured.

But I appreciate you spelling it out for me.

Alright, fair enough. And so such people make up about 10% of the american population. Do you refute the idea that "freeloaders" are more reflected in this percentage than it is in the other 90%?

More so than the others? Yes a bit, but the idea of the unemployment rate is that those people are out there searching for jobs, and not trying to freeload. Part of those in unemployment have already been on unemployment long enough that their benefits have run out, thus getting nothing from the government in the form of unemployment pay. Then there are others not included in the unemployment numbers that are not searching for jobs and still getting benefits from the gov.

Freeloading off the government is a tough thing to measure.

Sorry to get off on the tangent, though I guess in a way it relates to the healthcare bill. I have quite a few problems with the bill, but none of them have any relation to people attempting to freeload off it.

By freeloaders, I mean someone who takes from the common wealth (or what you call it) but gives nothing back. It's of course not black and white, someone may live off the government, but they've already paid a lot of taxes in the past to make up for it. Still, if there are different shades of freeloader, they should be better represented in the percentage of the population who don't have a job.

If freeloaders (whatever they are) make up 5% of unemployed people in Norway and 3% of unemployed people in the states, judging by a comparison of 3% to 10% unemployment respectively, you could still say there are more freeloaders in the US.

The reason I brought it up is because increase in freeloaders is an argument I've often seen used against socialist politics. Indeed it's hard to say what a freeloader is or label them in any kind of statistics, but with Norway as an example socialist country, I wanted to show that there's little to indicate we have more freeloaders than the US. You're right that the stats don't show freeloaders, but I was using it as an indicator. To say unemployed = freeloader is of course a vast exaggeration.

It is needed only because our system has set it up that way. Surely, I have to deal with it since there isn't anything I can do to change it, but it doesn't mean I have to think it is a good system. Fractional reserve is one of the main causes of inflation, not just something that has to deal with it.

Regardless it's necessary. lol at any person in the [probably even upper middle] middle class or below getting a loan without the system we currently have set up. The fractional reserve doesn't really have anything to do with the economic problems we currently have.

It most definitely influenced the problems we have right now. More money is put into circulation based solely off "borrowing" from the Fed. That increase in circulation devalues the current money in the market, and while I agree inflation isn't really the issue at this point in history, the fact that the system allows for a virtually nonstop increase in the national debt is the issue.

It's the Fed Reserve's responsibility to control the money supply, not the banks. Not sure how you go about saying that it increases the national debt either.

Three words: Bush's third term.

If I have to explain how borrowing money from the Fed increases the national debt (they don't just give it out for circulation), then I'll have to remind myself to do it when I have time to type all of it out.

Obama has been spending the first year undoing what Bush has done, so I don't see how that translates to likening it to Bush's third term. He is doing it a little slowly for my tastes, but I'm pretty sure nearly everything he has done so far would be the opposite of what Bush would have done. People seem to forget just how much power the US president actually has. He is not an all powerful monarch who can come in and reorganize our entire government by his sheer will. He has channels he has to go through, people he has to attempt to persuade, and national security to keep track of. The big fix won't come in one freaking year.