I'll start off by saying that I pretty much find all government statistics fairly unwieldy: calculation problem.
But, I was wondering, if your logic compells you to gravitate importance to a (labour) unemployment rate, then why wouldn't the same logic compell you to look at some sort of (business) unemployment rate? Also, how do you guys think (if you could measure such a thing) such a rate would look like over the past century?
"Keynesianomics is a Ponzi scheme"
"You are correct in that Capitalism does not help with poverty, but it is only because it eliminates poverty altogether.."
Yes, we need to measure all those involuntarily employee-less businesses.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Are you asking how many businesses might be unemployed?
How would you define such a thing? Is a business considered unemployed when it has no clients? How long does it have to go without clients for? If a shop is empty for half the day, then is it considered 50% unemployed?
Or perhaps the unemployment rate of a business should be the proportion of time that staff have nothing worthwhile to do. That would be easy enough to measure for the civil service...
LanceH, I ask the same questions about how regular labour unemployment can be accurately measured. I have and offer no idea about how business unemployment could be measured. My question is purely theoretical.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap