Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't buy into unemployment rate. I prefer looking at growth in civilian labor force to job growth or losses in private sector (and discard government jobs which you can't do with unemployment rate). So, while unemployment rate would make for a great political tool for Bush era, it doesn't account for over six million fewer jobs that were created, even as jobs were added (and before counting the massive loss that ensued).
Take a look at November to December (2008) data above, for example, a loss of 636K in just one month. There is absolutely no reason, for any sane person, to call it good times, by simply looking at unemployment rate at 7.3% compared to 212K jobs added with an unemployment rate at 8.5%. Which of the two periods would you prefer?
For that matter, why did Bush and the republicans feel the need for a second stimulus in 2003 towards job growth when the unemployment rate was barely over 5%?
All of this but you havent yet responded to posting 88, showing we have actual job losses, how odd. (edit, Suncc49 reposted it right below #106 for your review)
Furthermore, this is absolutely no reason to look at ONE month loss and pretend its a pattern or a fair representation. But thats exactly what YOU are doing.
Here's the problem with this report -- the non-institutional working-age population went from 240.441 million to 240.584, a gain of 143,000 people of working age. But the number of employed people went down from 141.070 million to 140.681 -- a loss of 389,000. Adding the two, which is the correct way to look at it, the economy on a population-adjusted basis lost 532,000 jobs.
Courtesy of the Market Ticker Blog
Ok, so the actual number of employed people went down.
I don't buy into unemployment rate. I prefer looking at growth in civilian labor force to job growth or losses in private sector (and discard government jobs which you can't do with unemployment rate). So, while unemployment rate would make for a great political tool for Bush era, it doesn't account for over six million fewer jobs that were created, even as jobs were added (and before counting the massive loss that ensued).
Take a look at November to December (2008) data above, for example, a loss of 636K in just one month. There is absolutely no reason, for any sane person, to call it good times, by simply looking at unemployment rate at 7.3% compared to 212K jobs added with an unemployment rate at 8.5%. Which of the two periods would you prefer?
For that matter, why did Bush and the republicans feel the need for a second stimulus in 2003 towards job growth when the unemployment rate was barely over 5%?
Someone had to help his buddies. The crony capitalists got bailed out by both parties all at the expense of the working stiff.
Can you imagine if Bush was never voted into power? How different things would be? We would never be in the mess which Obama is busy cleaning up.
Don't underestimate voter stupidity. Bush was destined to be the President because this country had started to take things for granted based on growth and low to non-existent deficits since 1993. The complacency gave us Bush. And now that we're slowly getting out of the hole from that shock, there are plenty of idiots pushing for the same.
Wrong, you dont take money out of the economy, and then expect people to spend more.
Furhtermore, there are CBO reports that the stimulus will REDUCE the GDP beginning in 2 years.
I'd like you to link that CBO report.
Your presumption is false. The government didn't take money from the private sector, the monetary base was increased. Keynesians believe that in a liquidity trap, increasing the monetary base does not lead to crowding out the private sector; inflation nor higher interest rates. That's exactly what we have seen throughout this crisis -- and exactly the opposite of what the WSJ editorial pages predicted. Where are those bond vigilantes?
Quote:
MAY 29, 2009:
They have cause to be worried, given Washington's astonishing bet on fiscal and monetary reflation. The Obama Administration's epic spending spree means the Treasury will have to float trillions of dollars in new debt in the next two or three years alone. Meanwhile, the Fed has gone beyond cutting rates to directly purchasing such financial assets as mortgage-backed securities, as well as directly monetizing federal debt by buying Treasurys for the first time in half a century. No wonder the Chinese and other dollar asset holders are nervous. They wonder -- as do we -- whether the unspoken Beltway strategy is to pay off this debt by inflating away its value.
You don't seem to have a grasp on economics here....
Many jobs were vulnerable to the economic collapse and were quickly lost. Industries like Construction contracted quickly.... There was no possible way that a pace of 800,000 job losses a month could be maintained, because alot of the job cuts occurred as quick as possible.
Is 800 000 a magical number? First it's magic 100K, then magic 200K, then magic 500K then magic 800K, but then it can't get worse??? Which economic book did you learn that from? Of course it can get much worse, and it can stay worse. It can spread like a wildfire and infect all sectors of economy. Let's just be grateful that it didn't. No one knows how bad things would have been if Bush and Obama did not pull the trigger on the bailouts. It the banking industry had been allowed to collapse, other industries industries would have been left without funding, and we could have seen 20-30% unemployment.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-06-2012 at 09:01 AM..
Wrong, you dont take money out of the economy, and then expect people to spend more.
Furhtermore, there are CBO reports that the stimulus will REDUCE the GDP beginning in 2 years.
The stimulus took money out of the economy? You mean the money that the Fed created was taken from somewhere other than a computer program? If so, where was that money taken from?
Your presumption is false. The government didn't take money from the private sector, the monetary base was increased. Keynesians believe that in a liquidity trap, increasing the monetary base does not lead to crowding out the private sector; inflation nor higher interest rates. That's exactly what we have seen throughout this crisis -- and exactly the opposite of what the WSJ editorial pages predicted. Where are those bond vigilantes?
so what you are sying, is you didnt learn the last time I schooled you on this exact same thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
