“Any differing views”, asks economist Karm Farrugia (July 6) when asserting that he has always taken the fatidical figure of “3,000” as “the floor above which real and marginal analysis can effectively approach reality”.

But, of course!

So, here goes: “3,000” unemployed in relation to what? The potential comparative permutations are indeed endless. Do you take 3,000 as actually registering as unemployed? Or 3,000 as a figure out of thin air? Is it  3,000 in relation to the actual labour supply or the potential one? Will it be 3,000 in relation to the whole population as it is now or at which point in time?

And 3,000 of what ages, that is, youth unemployment or the general overall unemployed? And what do you consider as “reality”? Are you making some consideration of potentially quite a few of those 3,000 who would, in fact, be working in the underground, cash, dark, or whatever economy?

Economic and economists’ statements can be indeed very dangerous... or ambiguous.