Low Unemplyment, Here's why that's bad. - Page 2 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Miscellaneous > General Chit-Chat
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2018, 02:39 PM   #26 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
Where did I say total unemployment to 0%. That would be dumb.

I said cyclical unemployment. As in unemployment caused by a recession - you know, recessions, the things that our monetary and fiscal policies are there to control or reduce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
I agree, but I didn't say that, nor do I take everything my teachers say as gospel.

I'll be 41 this year, I don't take anything anybody says for gospel. I explained why I would take his word over some guy here - that's it.

You guys will argue anything just to say, "suck it," to somebody.
well, the post that you responded to initially made the point that "positive unemployment is good for the economy" and you said "according to who? not US policy, because they want 0% cyclical unemployment (stagnation in the numbers) "

I asked for clarification, we went around, I posted up that the direct goal in black and white from the fed that says "the goal is maximum employment, which is not a static or easily quantifiable number"...the maximum employment is based on many things and gyrates with numerous other economic factors.

I wasn't arguing just to say 'suck it', hence the guy. I was genuinely curious where you were getting that information as it was surprising to me to hear.


how about this: How do you define 0% cyclic unemployment? strictly as simply downturns in the economy? The policy goals of the fed aim to 'smooth out the waves' of capitalism, not halt them all together. the wording of the fed is pretty clear that neither 0% unemployment (what I thought you were referring to, and thought you were referencing with the 'theoretically possible' comment) nor a single target number (0% cyclic per your provided clarification) are policy goals.

If you want to improve future students going through that class, maybe strike up the conversation with your professor to clarify that answer to the test and see if he can get deeper into it in the future. We all might learn something.


is that better than telling him to fuck off?
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 02:41 PM   #27 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlKann View Post
I know nothing about economic policy, but reading comprehension tells me that 0% cyclical unemployment is not the same as 0% unemployment.
also why I asked for clarification. what does your reading comprehension tell you the quoted fed policy of 'we shoot for a floating target' mean?

so getting a 'suck it' seems appropriate to a 'you are just one dude, I don't care to engage' response
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 02:57 PM   #28 (permalink)
I'm a little angel
 
Entropy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4395
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 22,080
Send a message via ICQ to Entropy Send a message via AIM to Entropy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Provience View Post
well, the post that you responded to initially made the point that "positive unemployment is good for the economy" and you said "according to who? not US policy, because they want 0% cyclical unemployment (stagnation in the numbers) "

I asked for clarification, we went around, I posted up that the direct goal in black and white from the fed that says "the goal is maximum employment, which is not a static or easily quantifiable number"...the maximum employment is based on many things and gyrates with numerous other economic factors.

I wasn't arguing just to say 'suck it', hence the guy. I was genuinely curious where you were getting that information as it was surprising to me to hear.


how about this: How do you define 0% cyclic unemployment? strictly as simply downturns in the economy? The policy goals of the fed aim to 'smooth out the waves' of capitalism, not halt them all together. the wording of the fed is pretty clear that neither 0% unemployment (what I thought you were referring to, and thought you were referencing with the 'theoretically possible' comment) nor a single target number (0% cyclic per your provided clarification) are policy goals.

If you want to improve future students going through that class, maybe strike up the conversation with your professor to clarify that answer to the test and see if he can get deeper into it in the future. We all might learn something.


is that better than telling him to fuck off?
First, I e-mailed the professor for further info or reading and we'll see what he has to say. I almost linked him to this, cause I think he would enjoy it and get along fine, but decided against it.

Second, let me start over with a better explanation as it obviously wasn't as intuitive as I thought. The original post said:

Quote:
According to economic theory, these three types of unemployment are proven to be healthy for forward innovation, mobility and economic growth:

Structural Unemployment. This unemployment type is often due to technological change or the absence of demand for the workers that are available. Historically, we’ve seen this in the advent of the automobile. The demand for horse-drawn buggy assemblers plummeted as the demand for automobile mechanics increased.
Frictional Unemployment. This occurs when people voluntarily move between cities, jobs and careers. If someone you know recently walked away from practicing law to pursue their dream of making it big on Broadway, that’s an example of frictional unemployment. Less of a leap but still applicable is someone who just moved to a new city for their spouse, and they’re still looking for employment.
Cyclical Unemployment. When the economy experiences a recession — which some economists argue is a good thing — and workers are laid off, there is cyclical unemployment.
My problem is with the first statement which says that "economic theory" says that, "these three types of unemployment are proven to be healthy".

It includes cyclical as one of three types of unemployment.

Our monetary/fiscal policy as described to me has, among its goals, the purpose of reducing the blows of a recession and eliminating cyclical unemployment... the folks that are out of work because of the recession.

Now, I'm ranging out in my old assed memory here, but keynesian theory - the one that our fiscal and monetary policy came from, is not a fan of cyclical unemployment (or keynesian unemployment). You can read a bit about that here, cause I had to make sure I wouldn't be talking completely out of my ass.

Economic Perspectives: Cyclical (Keynesian) Unemployment

So, I asked the question... What theory supports that? Our current economic principles, based on keynesian theory, don't support that, in my opinion - based on a very recent and fresh class on the subject - which I actually paid attention in, because I thought it was fascinating.

Finally, my frustration was with the pedantic nature of arguments on here as a result of the accepted culture of contrariness. If somebody said, "pussy is great," somebody else will come along to argue that tits are better. It is always doom and gloom. If somebody said they won the lottery, somebody else would say, "you'll just blow it and end up dead."

I'm interested to see what my professor comes back with, if anything.
__________________
Quote:
We're women...we know evil. We invented evil
Quote:
...the vagina is a warm, moist and tropical area.
Entropy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 03:10 PM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
howyadoin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Member # 84132
Location: Arizona-It's a dry heat!
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
First, I e-mailed the professor for further info or reading and we'll see what he has to say.
It's irrelevant, if he was someone who worked in and was productive in the economy, his input would be valid. I can tell you from personal experience that I had two econ professors in college and they were both absolutely ignorant of real world economics. Studying economic theory doesn't give you practical knowledge period.
__________________
Debating economics with Screwloose is like asking a homeless dude for stock advice.
howyadoin is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 03:21 PM   #30 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,442
Don't get me wrong, i'm not above being pedantic and contrarian but this stuff is interesting to me so I hope he responds. i'm curious where he is basing it off, especially considering it is a 'testable comment' and not something that came about from discussion and was more philosophical allowing for leeway.

using keynsianism as a basis for thought, while dominant, is also just one of the competing principles and why this stuff is determined through groups of several people with divergent ideas. some volatility is good, too much is bad. quantifying it more than that is as futile and difficult as trying to decide what the 'proper' level of taxation is. some is good, too much is bad. drawing a hard line is as poor of policy as price fixing, so teaching and testing to the ideal that no unemployment due to economic volatility would be good is poor instruction, in my opinion. volatility is what drives growth, creation and the ability to change a rung on the economic ladder for the population.

too much is obviously unpredictable and predictability in the system inspires confidence and confidence is required for health.
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 04:38 PM   #31 (permalink)
I'm a little angel
 
Entropy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4395
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 22,080
Send a message via ICQ to Entropy Send a message via AIM to Entropy
Quote:
Originally Posted by howyadoin View Post
It's irrelevant, if he was someone who worked in and was productive in the economy, his input would be valid. I can tell you from personal experience that I had two econ professors in college and they were both absolutely ignorant of real world economics. Studying economic theory doesn't give you practical knowledge period.
Oh look, the doom and gloom argumentative brigade is still here...

Whatever, man.

I had bbq for lunch.

You should look up Adjunct Professor. You should also check into a better school...
__________________
Quote:
We're women...we know evil. We invented evil
Quote:
...the vagina is a warm, moist and tropical area.
Entropy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 04:56 PM   #32 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Lil Uzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6359
Location: Pond
Posts: 15,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by howyadoin View Post
It's irrelevant, if he was someone who worked in and was productive in the economy, his input would be valid. I can tell you from personal experience that I had two econ professors in college and they were both absolutely ignorant of real world economics. Studying economic theory doesn't give you practical knowledge period.
Actually, I have to completely agree. My old dorm fiend of 1978 went on to get his pH D and was/is/will be an economics professor. Any question I ask him about economics he says " don't kn ow bro, I'm all touchy feely shit theroy". He has never had a real long term responsible job outside of academic safe house zoning. Just my $0.02. I think economics is a like a rapidly mutating virus, it can change and adapt. we are always behind the viral curve. Dr Uzi has spoken
__________________
not surprized yer confused yer face was burried in the pillow pretty deep as gizim drunk as you were
Lil Uzi is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 06:14 PM   #33 (permalink)
Registered User
 
jptbay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Member # 35005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 770
Send a message via MSN to jptbay
The new tax cuts are going to fund higher wages. Prices won't go up.
jptbay is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 06:44 PM   #34 (permalink)
Registered User
 
comeonstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member # 49939
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 5,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by howyadoin View Post
It's irrelevant, if he was someone who worked in and was productive in the economy, his input would be valid. I can tell you from personal experience that I had two econ professors in college and they were both absolutely ignorant of real world economics. Studying economic theory doesn't give you practical knowledge period.

I have to disagree with the idea here. Simply working in the workforce doesnt not give me a great understanding of macro economics. I would argue that 98% of the workforce has very little to no understanding of the whole picture. The professor cannot relate to your personal feelings on the subject. The way the economy affects you can have absolutley nothing to do with the BIG picture. However as someone who has a career of studying and teaching a subject, he is quite qualified to have a valid opinion on the subject.
comeonstart is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2018, 06:58 PM   #35 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Lil Uzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6359
Location: Pond
Posts: 15,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by comeonstart View Post
I have to disagree with the idea here. Simply working in the workforce doesnt not give me a great understanding of macro economics. I would argue that 98% of the workforce has very little to no understanding of the whole picture. The professor cannot relate to your personal feelings on the subject. The way the economy affects you can have absolutley nothing to do with the BIG picture. However as someone who has a career of studying and teaching a subject, he is quite qualified to have a valid opinion on the subject.
"it takes a village"
__________________
not surprized yer confused yer face was burried in the pillow pretty deep as gizim drunk as you were
Lil Uzi is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 03:49 AM   #36 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 69,497
4% unemployment is normal, 3% is a hot economy, more than that and we're into overheated teritory and there's often a recession right around the corner.

Quote:
Why You Don't Want Zero Unemployment
The only way an economy could have a zero percent unemployment rate is if it is severely overheated. Even then, wages would probably rise before unemployment fell to absolute zero.

The United States has never experienced zero unemployment. The lowest rate was 2.5 percent, in May and June 1953. That's only because the economy overheated due to the Korean War. When this bubble burst, it kicked off the Recession of 1953.
https://www.thebalance.com/natural-r...trends-3305950

Google "Optimum unemployment rate". Most economist feel that 3-4% is healthy.
__________________
Yesterday is History
Tomorrow is a Mystery
and Today is a Gift
That's why they call it the Present

—Eleanor Rososevelt
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 05:26 AM   #37 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Member # 77578
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 2,097
Send a message via AIM to XJben
So the taxes I have to pay for welfare and deadbeats will continue to decrease as more people are working?

Yea...I didn't think so.
__________________
I don't own an XJ
XJben is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 05:38 AM   #38 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 69,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJben View Post
So the taxes I have to pay for welfare and deadbeats will continue to decrease as more people are working?

Yea...I didn't think so.
Gotta pay for those corporate tax cuts somehow....

__________________
Yesterday is History
Tomorrow is a Mystery
and Today is a Gift
That's why they call it the Present

—Eleanor Rososevelt
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 06:13 AM   #39 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Member # 70825
Location: Nacogdoches, Texas
Posts: 11,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
Gotta pay for those corporate tax cuts somehow....

First off, after the tax cuts were implemented the govt received record breaking tax revenues.

Second, where do you think corporations you apparently hate so much, get the money to pay their taxes in the first place?
__________________
Every time Hillary coughs, a demon gets his horns.
void_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 12:54 PM   #40 (permalink)
I'm a little angel
 
Entropy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4395
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 22,080
Send a message via ICQ to Entropy Send a message via AIM to Entropy
Alright, if you want to understand this stuff better, this is what my professor sent me:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/ar...rojections.htm


From the article:
"BLS defines full employment as an economy in which the unemployment rate equals the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), no cyclical unemployment exists, and GDP is at its potential. The full-employment assumption links BLS projections to an economy running at full capacity and utilizing all of its resources."

The point is, cyclical unemployment is from a f-ed up economy. If it is there, you're missing on some cylinders and things aren't running tip top. In other words, it would be dumb to have a goal of anything BUT having 0% cyclical unemployment, because it would be like having a goal of running an 8 cylinder engine on 7 engines. Since cyclical unemployment is an indicator of a downturn or recession, it is a signal to the feds that they need to do something. Their goal is to have that at 0%.

I am largely paraphrasing what my prof has said in the past and what I think I know here. He emphasized in this e-mail that economists and politicians are going to look at these things differently. Also, we're talking about the Fed Reserve and the FOMC policy here, and what they're going to try and accomplish based on what criteria - not some congressman at a podium.

Hope that clarifies/helps/provides some interesting info.

That is not my prof in the video.
__________________
Quote:
We're women...we know evil. We invented evil
Quote:
...the vagina is a warm, moist and tropical area.
Entropy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 02:12 PM   #41 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,442
interesting. conversely, and going off the video example of 5% being full employment, if unemployment is at 3% would that be a -2% cyclical indicating overworking and loss of freedom to move and/or labor shortage?


so then the next paragraph from the FED after the one quoted above of

Quote:
n setting monetary policy, the Committee seeks to mitigate deviations of inflation from its longer-run goal and deviations of employment from the Committee's assessments of its maximum level. These objectives are generally complementary. However, under circumstances in which the Committee judges that the objectives are not complementary, it follows a balanced approach in promoting them, taking into account the magnitude of the deviations and the potentially different time horizons over which employment and inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with its mandate
can be reasonably interpreted as aiming for 0% cyclical, though a true 0 is not easily predicted or quantifiable in a living economy.

eh...I guess I can buy that. thank you for providing the feedback and references.
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 06:46 PM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Member # 52361
Location: Tucson,AZ
Posts: 4,080
Labor participation rate is all that matters

The "unemployment" numbers have been tweaked and watered down to keep the show going, did you mow a lawn or have a yard sale last month? You're employed. Been unemployed for 24 months? You are no longer seeking work, you have chosen not to participate.

If you stripped away the ebt cards and section 8, the soup lines and hoovervilles of 1930 would be blown away. Watch out when the music stops. This country is a dead man walking, so is just about every other country that's been printing money like mad for 10 years
PROJECTJUNKIE is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 06:53 PM   #43 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 69,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by PROJECTJUNKIE View Post
Labor participation rate is all that matters

The "unemployment" numbers have been tweaked and watered down to keep the show going, did you mow a lawn or have a yard sale last month? You're employed. Been unemployed for 24 months? You are no longer seeking work, you have chosen not to participate.

If you stripped away the ebt cards and section 8, the soup lines and hoovervilles of 1930 would be blown away. Watch out when the music stops. This country is a dead man walking, so is just about every other country that's been printing money like mad for 10 years
Yer the kinda guy that pisses in the campfire, ain'tcha.

__________________
Yesterday is History
Tomorrow is a Mystery
and Today is a Gift
That's why they call it the Present

—Eleanor Rososevelt
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 07:04 PM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Member # 52361
Location: Tucson,AZ
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
Yer the kinda guy that pisses in the campfire, ain'tcha.

Well, I wouldn't tell you it's raining

Tick tock

Make sure your receivables are paid
PROJECTJUNKIE is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2018, 07:28 PM   #45 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Member # 101407
Location: 'Murica
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by PROJECTJUNKIE View Post
Labor participation rate is all that matters

The "unemployment" numbers have been tweaked and watered down to keep the show going, did you mow a lawn or have a yard sale last month? You're employed. Been unemployed for 24 months? You are no longer seeking work, you have chosen not to participate.

If you stripped away the ebt cards and section 8, the soup lines and hoovervilles of 1930 would be blown away. Watch out when the music stops. This country is a dead man walking, so is just about every other country that's been printing money like mad for 10 years
Numbers don't lie. That's why Liars use them.

It's just pandering to the crowd you want.
Elvis38 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2018, 04:43 AM   #46 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Haole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5859
Location: Here!
Posts: 108,056
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Provience View Post


https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

maximum employment is NOT 0% unemployment; further, 0% unemployment is not, and has never been, a stated goal of the US Monetary Policy
Your link doesn't proof "has never been".
__________________
Ka 'aina uluwehi, ko kakou
kuleana.


- The lush life-giving land, our personal responsibility.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Darlington County Chapter
Haole is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2018, 04:50 AM   #47 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Haole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5859
Location: Here!
Posts: 108,056
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
4% unemployment is normal, 3% is a hot economy, more than that and we're into overheated teritory and there's often a recession right around the corner.



https://www.thebalance.com/natural-r...trends-3305950

Google "Optimum unemployment rate". Most economist feel that 3-4% is healthy.
Reading fail. Ir wasn't the employment rate that cause the recession, it was the rapid change in the employment rate. It's math, you typicall fail at that. And a single incident isn't an "often".
__________________
Ka 'aina uluwehi, ko kakou
kuleana.


- The lush life-giving land, our personal responsibility.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Darlington County Chapter

Last edited by Haole; 06-08-2018 at 04:51 AM.
Haole is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2018, 05:31 AM   #48 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Don.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Member # 533258
Location: Western SD
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
I agree, but I didn't say that, nor do I take everything my teachers say as gospel.

I'll be 41 this year, I don't take anything anybody says for gospel. I explained why I would take his word over some guy here - that's it.

You guys will argue anything just to say, "suck it," to somebody.
Don't confuse arguing with debate. You're old enough that you should know that eggheads are good for Monday morning quarterbacking because there is no real risk of failure for them.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach college.

Most of the profs I had went directly from attending college to teaching it. Reality doesn't occur in academia. The good ones are the ones that profess for hobby and have a day job in the area they instruct. They're rare, but they're out there.
Don. is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2018, 05:48 AM   #49 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Benzz0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member # 22923
Location: Richmond, Va
Posts: 27,738
Just reading the "It was Obama's legacy that did this"
__________________
كافر

Last edited by Benzz0; 06-08-2018 at 05:49 AM.
Benzz0 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2018, 08:07 AM   #50 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Provience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Member # 138976
Location: Thurston County, WA
Posts: 28,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haole View Post
Your link doesn't proof "has never been".
feel free to find a legacy statement from the fed stating otherwise
__________________
up is difficult, down is dangerous

freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want

keep your head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums
Provience is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.