Oops. Back in August, I said that I thought there was only about a 1 in 3 chance that unemployment would break the 10 percent barrier. I think it was a well-reasoned analysis, but sure did turn out wrong.
The data from the establishment survey -- which is completely separate from the household survey by which the unemployment rate is calculated -- wasn't quite as bad. This is the figure that the markets tend to trust more, which is one reason the Dow is slightly up today (although I do think it's somewhat overvalued and has been for a month or so). Still, even the "good" report had the economy shedding another 190,000 jobs.
Not that it necessarily means anything, but there's an odd symmetry to that graph: a period from January through August last year where the payroll deltas were bad, but fairly steady from month to month, and then an inverted peak where things were really awful, and now what looks to be another sort of plateau. January 2008 was the month when the payrolls figure turned negative, and they were at their worst in January 2009 -- if things indeed turn out to be symmetric, that would mean that January 2010 is the last month when the economy is still shedding jobs, and February when it starts creating them.
This stuff ought to be much more of a reason for Democrats to worry than whatever happened on Tuesday. Even if the jobs come back a little faster than expected once the employment picture in fact turns the corner, which I think is possible, voters are liable to be looking at an unemployment rate on the order of 9.5 percent as they go to the polls for the midterms.
11.06.2009
Unemployment Hits 10.2 Percent
@ 10:11 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
322 comments
Rough timing, but the recovery is in progress. Comprehensive healthcare's odds of passage in '09 take a big hit.
I disagree. The Chamber of Commerce is campaigning actively against health care reform. The AARP is campaigning for it. The AARP is more of an electoral "threat" to Congressmen. (Not to mention AMA and many major medical associations, who are also supporting reform.)
As far as unemployment affecting the 2010 elections is concerned, some people are aware that the GOP has held back the stimulus programs and continues to resist fundamental financial reform. These are good issues for the Dems.
@MikeMitchy
The flipside is the less people with a job, and the more peopl with a job whose medical coverage gets squeezed as their employer tries to cut expenses, the more people that worry about health insurance/health care.
Since the government can't solve the problem, it's time the people start facing unemployment with their own ingenuity:
http://bit.ly/ozqT6
(satire)
BTW Nate the key problem with your analysis was outlined by "NYC Economist" back in August. There was an offset hiden by the seasonal adjustments that are made based on historic trends, but those historic trends were based on assumptions that were unlikely to apply to summer of 2009.
@MikeMitchy,
I disagee. Unless the Dems are pathetically stupid (always a possibility), this increases the chance that comprehensive healthcare will pass, as everyone knows it will be popular with the public once-in-place-with-no-death-panels.
I think it's important to puncture the fantasy that Harry Reid wants a public option but is somehow being bullied by 40 Republicans. Centrist Democrats are on the take from the insurance industry (and related financial institutions) and do not *want* a public option - or any of a dozen alternative proposals which might work just as well, but which (by definition) would have the same impact on insurance industry profits. It became clear months ago that Reid et. al. are just looking for excuses.
On the other hand, hold an electoral gun to their head, and they may be forced to make populist economic concessions. So, good. Let 'em sweat. Only fear of the electorate can make any politician do what the population, rather than their chronies/buddies, wants.
I'm not suggesting that the Dems should move "left", except in so far as leftist policies are popular, or would be popular once implemented.
This is why you should stick to just polling statistics, Nate. You are horrible at analyzing economics and economic metrics. I think it's because you let your biases show up much more wildly than you do when you are going through survey data.
You and several others need to get this through your head right now. The election of Barack Obama last November wasn't an automatic ticket to a return of prosperity in America. His policies have every bit as much chance of keeping us as bad or making us worse off than what we've been in the years prior to his election.
I still think that postponed retirement is an overlooked issue with unemployment. The switch from pension plans to 401K-type plans is hitting now and many don't feel like they have enough to retire. Therefore, they stay longer which sets off a cascading effect. Manager delays retirement, asst. manager has to wait longer for the job, etc., which reduces number of job openings, which increases unemployment.
Here's what I said back in August when Nate made his prediction:
Richard said...
The only economist who predicted the current economic collapse before the collapse was Nouriel Roubini of NYU. He is a Keynesian and in no way is a conservative, free-market economist. He predicts unemployment going up to 10% by the fall and topping out at 11% sometime in 2010. In fact, he states that in real terms, unemployment is probably already at 15% due to discouraged workers and partially emplyed worker, who are not counted in official unemployment statistics (See here:http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/08/jobs-report-mortgages-unemployment-recession-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html)
I don't always agree with his solutions, but Professor Roubini always delivers a sound analysis of the economy and he's been doing it for a long time. If I had to bet, I'd rather go with his analysis/prediction of unemployment figures than Nate's.
August 10, 2009 11:51 PM
The American Empire is crumbling due to neglect and wholesale treason on the part of it's elected leaders. Obama certainly didn't start the ball rolling in this frightful direction, but he's certain accelerated the decline with these grandiose public initiatives and acquiesence to the banking cartel.
Okie hit on something I've been arguing for years but along slightly different lines...the effect of people sticking around in the workforce because they have to or are forced to...when people are working well into their 60s or 70s (or longer?!), it clogs up the natural cycle of employment and keeps more people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s from moving up and consequently the people below them from stepping in and even having a job.
Okie: you're on to something regarding postponed retirement. In my industry that is definitely the case. It is for ME!
But two forces awre conspiring to change that. First, the stock market has done pretty darn well for many months, so people are feeling more comfortable with their 401K's (even if they're not back to par).
Second, the bosses are planning to provide incentives to downsize the workforce, and they generally do that "at the top" -- the oldest workers who have vested claims to benefits (not necessarily "management").
Downsizing will thus be selective. They can live under the current budget if they shed the most expensive workers and hire new ones. That's a net plus for employment, from a statistical standpoint: retired workers are by definition not "unemployed."
the employment picture is being exacerbated by uncertainty created by the administration.
1. the healthcare plans tax labor and increase employer burdens - creating uncertainty around what the future cost of employees will be
2. the cap and trade plan will increase costs at some unknown rate
3. bush tax cuts expire next year as well, meaning tax rates are goign up.
4. Flavor of the day tax proposals by luminaries such as Podesta (VAT), Rangel, Pelosi etc. create uncertainty
I know Nate is not an economist and most of the idiots in congress are lawyers who only understand economics to the extent it affects their billing rates, but until we REDUCE uncertainty in the business community, employment will continue to lag. no business minded individual would create new investment without knowing what the pretax return would need to be to acheive the after tax hurdle rate. all this uncertainty is stifling decision making.
The only economist who predicted the current economic collapse before the collapse was Nouriel Roubini of NYU. He is a Keynesian and in no way is a conservative, free-market economist.
This isn't true. Well, the part about him being a Keynesian and a liberal, central-planning type economist is. But he wasn't the "only" economist to predict the current economic collapse. There were several more and several notable ones that hail from the Austrian School of economics. Read the work of Peter Schiff and Bill Fleckenstein around 2006 and early 2007 and see what they had to say.
He predicts unemployment going up to 10% by the fall and topping out at 11% sometime in 2010. In fact, he states that in real terms, unemployment is probably already at 15% due to discouraged workers and partially emplyed worker, who are not counted in official unemployment statistics
Actually, the "real" unemployment rate is guessed to be 17.5%, not 15%.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33713864/ns/business-personal_finance
Nate, looking back at your post from 9/4/09 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/what-todays-unemployment-report-means.html) it looks like the data has more or less returned to the curve labled "Projection from 6/09 data". Could you re-run that analysis and show the curves based on 9/09 and 10/09 data as well? I think that would make an interesting picture to illustrate some of the seasonalities that have been monkeying with the unemployment rate the past few months (auto layoffs, back to school teachers, etc.)?
About old people. Cradle to grave work isn't anything new. Yes, 70 is the new 65. Because:
1) It can be, physically.
2) People, generally, are living longer so retirement later is financially prudent.
My grandfather lived to 88. He was fully retired maybe 5 or 6 years, mostly because he physically had to. He semi-retired in his late 60's and slowly ramped down from there.
What happened last Tuesday was primarily because of this 'news' which workers felt long before the economists announced. The margin in Virginia and possibly the outcome in New Jersey were the result of the jobs miasma based on exit polling which showed the primary concern of voters was jobs.
Next spring will be the first opportunity to develop a realistic plan for this Depressions resolution ( At over 10% unemployment the Bush recession is now an official depression).
If Democrats continue to claim this jobless recovery will become a workers paradise based on a 2 year old law then almost certainly next November will be the end of the realignment as the democratic Congress will be fataly wounded though not yet lost.
On the other hand the last depression showed voters can be very patient with an administration actualy doing all it can to end a killing jobs market.
If it requires blowing up the un-democratic and conservative vehicle of the filibuster so be it - democrats won't survive without a robust Kensian attack on this Depression starting with a real Federal jobs program employing ever increasing numbers of workers in infrastrucure the private sector needs to boom once our investment tips the scale and consumers start coming back. There are plenty of roads, schools, rails, communications, windfarms and hydrogen fuel stations the government should build and has to build now. We have only fear to fear in preventing this necessary action.
Nate,
The key point here is to remember that, economically, employment lags behind the rest of the economy. Just because the economy is recovering overall doesn't mean that employment is getting better. It will get better, just not necessarily right this moment. In a few months, employment will probably improve.
Politically, it would be most advantageous for the Democrats if employment started improving in January-February 2010 so that there will be several months of improvement by the time of election day and independents will see exactly how empty and meaningless the Republicans' rhetoric is on the employment issue.
@russ: While I don't fundamentally disagree with you, two points.
First, you can bet that from a PR standpoint politicos and pundits will debate your term "Bush Depression." How much responsibility will be put onto Obama?
Second, while as I posted earlier the GOP basically kept the stimulus from being stronger than it is, I'm not sure how to "break the filibuster rule."
With hyperinflation looming and the dollar's dominance in question, the federal government is very limited in what it can do. The Fed is already buying it's own treasury bills. This number will likely soar past 12% in the next 10 months with credit shrinking at such an astonishing rate. The curtain has been abruptly peeled back on our phantom economy and there is no physical amount of stimulus that can stop it. Unless someone has 500 trillion dollars lying around.
Nate…
Your prediction was not wrong. If you said there was a one in three chance of something happening, and it happens, then you still predicted correctly. Same would be true if you had given the odds at one in a thousand, or even one in ten million.
Your prediction would have been incorrect only if you had said there was no chance of unemployment breaking the 10% barrier.
spacemonkee09,
I agree with much of what you're saying but fair warning: your rhetoric won't gain much traction in the hallowed halls of 538.
"a well-reasoned analysis"?
Come on. Please don't take this personally, but what analysis?
Here is what you wrote:
"Principally, I think these analysts may simply be underestimating how much impact last week’s numbers should have on our expectations for going forward."
In other words, you seemed to think that A single data point was a game changer.
This like saying well the roulette wheel came up on red again (the 4th in a row) so I'm putting my money on black for sure because it's got to hit now.
Or its like analogizing the economy to a sports game where fanatics claim that a single play was a momentum changer. As a die hard Cubs fans and having grown up in South Bend and graduated from ND it sure "feels" like that is true - but even if it is true, such an idea doesn't really apply to unemployment numbers. Does it? what's the science to that idea?
To be a statistical predictor at some point you have to move beyond playing with numbers and think about the underlying substantive processes and be willing to say I don't know. To make prediction without a giving a range seems to me like a classic failure to really understand variation.
You put up a chart in that August article comparing past recessions. Did you have consider the possibility that Reagan's Recession 1982-83 might have more to tell us. Indeed for many that lived through the laughable notion that Reagan would pass out surplus cheese as a response, 1991 and 2001 were hardly even really recessions.
Everybody has been saying that we thankfully narrowly averted another Great Depression; given that hyperbole, why would anyone making predictions not look at worser case scenarios than better case scenarios.
For goodness sakes, you were correctly suggesting that the economy would benefit from a payroll tax cut.
So now what does your "model" (aka number play) say, now. Have you given up? Where's Unemployment going?
If we want a main street solution how about, in addition to payroll tax holiday:
1. Move the 40 hour week to 35 which will encourage Employers to hire or not fire rather than pay overtime.
2. The government should just take over the home mortgage industry and offer 4% 30 years with 10% down, up to 2.5 times your average income for last three years and force the Banks to accept that amount for upside downers.
The Banks (financed by free money) have only now started getting their ducks in a row (like finding or "creating" the actual notes - the "show me the note" defense has been a thorn and they will start fabricating to get around it) and they have finally ramped up their McScrooge capacity so that they can actually really start foreclosing in earnest. I don't think we've seen anything yet. The hammer may really be going to coming down in December and January.
Mule,
I appreciate the warning but it's critical that Americans step outside their political bubbles and start examining the numbers. All indications point to a dramatic market contraction, or possibly an outright collapse. As a nation we've surpassed the debt/gdp ratio that sunk Argentina in the early 90s.
It strikes me that we're all talking "normal" political change and competition here. There is something to the street people movement, even if it's being supported and cheer-led by moneyed elites to deflect attention from themselves!
Long term unemployment, coupled with severe and growing inequality of incomes and wealth, could generate a new revolutionary politics from below. This is the argument made by Bruce Judson in his recent book "It Could Happen Here."
Juris…
Breaking or even changing the filibuster rule is now almost impossible. The last revision of the rule established the 60-vote cloture number, but also stipulated that any further change to the rule must be made by a two thirds majority of the Senate. So 67 senators have to agree for there to be any change in the filibuster rule.
Since the Senate is become more and more like the old House of Lords in England I would love to see its power limited. Best scenario would be that domestic legislation would not have to pass through the Senate for approval—its function would be strictly international and foreign affairs; tariffs and customs, declarations of war etc. In time this may happen, but I expect it would take well over a hundred years.
There are many tools to fight inflation available. The #1 tool being the interest rates that are currently at around 0%. This is the same tool that Volker used to fight off skyrocketing inflation that got its kick start from the gas crisis in the late 70's and back then the interest rate was already starting at a much higher rate.
Deflation would be our greatest worry right now.
Nate,
Rather than throwing in the towel and saying people will be throwing in the towel to national unemployment rates, stick to the saying, politics is local.
Some analysis of local unemployment trends in the competitive districts/states would be of interest.
@Pragmatus. I have a suspicion that they could work around the two-thirds rule, but I dunno.
What I don't see anytime soon is support for a constitutional amendment that would accomplish what you suggest. Any such effort would take years. And it would devolve to a small-state, large-state argument about the very nature of federalism.
Also, while I realize that there have been changes in the past regarding the Senate (including moving to direct election), I think there is a purpose to a bicameral legislature (and one in which each house responds to different "interests") that was well articulated by James Madison in the Federalist.
spacemonkey…
If your dire predictions of 12% unemployment or a savage relapse of our economy comes true then the country will elect a Republican Congress and president in 2012. They will then choke off illegal immigration, institute massive high-end tax cuts, cut off all federal stimulus money, and when monster financial institutions totter towards bankruptcy they will let them fail.
The tax-cut money will be just enough for the superrich to build peasant-proof enclaves where they will be able to live out their lives playing polo and lamenting the fact that there are no longer any cheap Hispanics around to do their menial work for them.
I appreciate the warning but it's critical that Americans step outside their political bubbles and start examining the numbers. All indications point to a dramatic market contraction, or possibly an outright collapse. As a nation we've surpassed the debt/gdp ratio that sunk Argentina in the early 90s.
I agree 100%. Just don't be surprised or discourated when you encounter a virulent response disputing your claims that dismisses you as a "fringe lunatic" or "teabagging idiot."
Deflation would be our greatest worry right now.
Seriously, l_d_o_f, share with me what you are smoking and/or drinking. If you had even a basic understanding of the money supply and where it presently stands, you wouldn't waste keystrokes making such an absurd statement.
If FDR had let the fearmongers deter him we would have never cut unemployment by half before Pearl Harbor and when we were attacked we would have needed to apologize for wasting our adversaries ammunition when they attacked us. He piled up much mroe debt relative to the economis size than we have now.
Future prosperity and national strength demands a a massive stimulus now. We can provide it through a federal jobs program or through total mobilization for a war. Most would prefer a jobs program.
At the end of the 40's national debt was MUCH higher realtive to the economies size than it is today. we should buy more of our own debt - we are in a fight for our economies survival and we whould be willing to bet that we will win! after we followed this prescription in the last Depression we experienced the greatest prosperity growth in human history. Thats what our largest debt accomplished. The bigest growth in human prosperity in the worlds history.
What should we call this depresion - it started on Bush's watch and it bloomed into the definitive 10% unemployment of a depression before Obama's first budget was effected. It's Bush's depression.
How to blow up the filibuster? It's not even a formal rule. It was first adopted to mollify violent southern secessionists. We don't need to follow this old reactionary custom any longer than the senate chooses.
Liberal Defender,
Raising interest rates would be the natural course of action but what rate would be sufficient to curb the inflation tsunami headed our way? In the late 70s, Volker had to adjust the rates to a startling 20% after the money supply had been increased by just 13% 2 years earlier. Fast forward to 2009 and the money supply has been increased by close to 120 %! What kind of rates can suck up an excess of such cash liquidity ? 35%, 40% on car and auto loans in climate of shrinking consumer credit? I don't see how the power-at-be can combat this catch 22 situation without destroying the dollar in the process. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. combat inflation with ridiculous rates or monetize the debt to such a degree that the dollar is worthless.
The tax-cut money will be just enough for the superrich to build peasant-proof enclaves where they will be able to live out their lives playing polo and lamenting the fact that there are no longer any cheap Hispanics around to do their menial work for them.
Holy sh#@#$! Who's going to cut my grass in my gated community arcerage? Oh wait, I've got kids. No problem, carry on.
Plus we've still got the Irish, right?
P.S. True story.
Politically, double digit unemployment hurts the Dems in two ways: (1) the unemployment itself and (2) more proof that the Porkulus was a complete waste of $800 billion apart from the unemployment insurance extensions.
Economically, there is no prospect of any substantial employment growth on the horizon. Government removing investment capital by borrowing and then wasting it on increased government spending has never created economic growth or caused a net creation of jobs. Every temporary make work government job is more than offset by jobs lost or not created by pulling investment capital out of the system.
Businesses create jobs during a recession by reducing the cost of labor and/or overhead so they can free up money to hire more workers.
Government can assist in this process by reducing the costs it inflicts on business so more money can be freed up to hire workers. Unfortunately, our current government is going in the opposite direction and increasing the costs if inflicts on businesses by increasing government borrowing, regulation and mandates.
Business also decides whether to hire based upon its projections of the cost of labor and overhead in the future.
The prospect of Obamacare mandates on insurance and on business to obtain insurance substantially raises the prospective cost of labor.
The prospect of Cap & Tax spikes the expected cost of energy overhead and all indirect energy costs in buying overhead goods and services.
The prospect of higher business taxes to pay for the enormous spike in government spending further reduced expected profits which can be used to hire more workers.
Thus, business is looking to the future and considering potential future layoffs rather than hiring.
What the government should be doing is reducing taxes and as many regulatory burdens as possible which are increasing the costs of doing business to free up money to hire workers.
Compare the job growth during the first two Reagan Administrations with the first two FDR Administrations.
Of course, a course of action reducing the role of government in the economy would be an anathema to the Party of Government. Thus, the economic course leading to judgment day at the polls in 2010 is pretty much set and unalterable.
I appreciate the warning but it's critical that Americans step outside their political bubbles and start examining the numbers. All indications point to a dramatic market contraction, or possibly an outright collapse. As a nation we've surpassed the debt/gdp ratio that sunk Argentina in the early 90s.
Are there any indications besides the debt/GDP ratio? I fully agree that a huge debt is causing and will continue to cause massive problems, which is why it was so important to finally get rid of the supply-side Republicans. I always thought that if news would only report deficits as "mandatory loans" people might not be so blase about them.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure I see the indicators that we're headed for a massive collapse. Employment losses continue but have clearly slowed. The stock market is returning and GDP has started growing again. (Which, of course, is the way you fix debt/GDP ratios.) We're obviously not out of the woods, things obviously aren't hunky-dory - but it certainly seems like things are qualitatively better now than they were six months ago.
I'm not even saying Obama had anything to do with it, I think it's just the normal cycle of business, but I really can't agree with the looming collapse theory.
Indeed, I would point out that the last time unemployment hit 10% was during Ronald Reagan's term. It peaked immediately after the midterm elections in November 1982 at 10.8%, but by November 1983 was down to 8.5%, and 7.2% by the time Ronnie was up for re-election in 1984.
And, of course, in terms of debt/GDP, it is worth noting that no Democrat since World War 2 has ever presided over an increase in debt/GDP (in either of their terms), while every Republican since 1972 has increased the debt/GDP in every single one of their terms. So history is on Obama's side here.
It's a shame that the stimulus was so watered-down, or else we could've seen these numbers going positive sooner. It's funny that the Republicans are the ones who blocked anything that would improve the economy, but they're the ones who'll benefit because it will be seen as the Democrats' fault. Hooray for the low-information voter!
@Tree: you can bet that in GOP policy circles they are cheering the latest jobs numbers.
Ragan cut unemployment by a realtively trifling 5% in 8 years. FDR cut unemployment by over 15% in 8 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Reagan had an oil shocked economy to deal with but no loss in consumers abilities like the loss of most families prime asset - their home. This depression is like 1932's in that the consum3er has no ability to pull himself up by his bootstraps having lost masively in his prime asset.
It's amazing how long and succesfully conservatives have fabricated their revision of what happened under FDR's stewardship. Unemployment was well recovered - to pre crash levels - before World war II.
Mule said...
"Just don't be surprised or discourated when you encounter a virulent response disputing your claims that dismisses you as a "fringe lunatic" or "teabagging idiot."
and
"Seriously, l_d_o_f, share with me what you are smoking and/or drinking. If you had even a basic understanding of the money supply and where it presently stands, you wouldn't waste keystrokes making such an absurd statement."
In the same f**king post. Too funny!
What we're overlooking in this entire mess is that this downturn is completely bipartisan in nature. When you have two criminal enterprises like the Clinton and Bush families running things for so long, this is the likely consequence. Just examine what occurred with the legalization of derivatives thanks to Clinton advisor Larry Summers. Or the passage of Gramm-Leech-Billey, folowed up the job-killing monster NAFTA. Then we had Bush appointing that worthless hack Chris Cox to the head of the SEC. Henry Paulson pleading with Congress to extend the leverage ratios of the many infamous investment banks. And finally Bush bailing out the finance industry with hundreds of billions of dollars with very little oversight. Sadly, President Obama has laid down with the very same scoundrels who created this mess. Summers, Geithner, etc.
Blogger Tree said...
"It's a shame that the stimulus was so watered-down, or else we could've seen these numbers going positive sooner."
True, but much of it has yet to take effect. We could yet see some very positive effects.
Also to the Republicans who prattle about the "waste" of the stimulus:
Why are you so opposed to tax cuts?
Late to previous post. Bears repeating.
Peter Wolf said...
you know what's really petty and juvenile MR? Trolling....that real does make you look like an arse.
Mule Rider responded,
Explain to me how anything I said above fits this criteria:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
I was on-topic and hardly being controversial or inflammatory. And I'm certainly not trying to get an emotional response or disrupt the normal flow of conversation. If anything, your attempt to "call me out" fits that definition more closely. I was just stating an opinion that I think the Nate/538 v. SV LLC thing is a bit overblown...and people look paranoid and shallow when they dwell on something that really is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
You know Mule, I've gotten accustomed to ignoring you. But what the hey, It's morning here on the west coast, I'm into my first cup of joe. Let me break down your questions and statements one by one.
Explain to me how anything I said above fits this criteria:
This is your standard distraction technique or the the equivalent of playground moron saying "Oh yeah? Prove it!". I could dig up a multitude of examples this defense from this website that you use but, suffice to say, I'm not going to bother. Those of us who post here regularly will most certainly back me up on this. I suspect you were that kid who got picked on in the playground as a child. Seems only natural that you cultivate such a defense mechanism.
Wake me in 2012
Mule's under Davy's skin.
Let's examine the language you consistently use. For simplicity's sake, I'll just focus on the two posts you've already made here and leave it to the interested reader to juxtapose them to the multitude of other offensive posts you have dumped on this site for the past couple of years.
The paranoia [indicating that all of us who are interested in this topic are paranoid] on the left [indicating that you are not] about a potentially fraudulent pollster is hilarious. I'll admit that their continued display of incompetence is pretty damning, though. But my advice? [an indication of your false belief in superior reasoning skills] Ignore them and don't use their material for any of your analysis. If people ask why, then by all means tell them it's because you think they cook the books [reasonable assessment].
But these sleuthy [incorrect, we've been totally open and even loud about this], cat-and-mouse nerd games [we consider that a compliment] are really petty and juvenile [an obvious example of inflammatory words which you purport not use]. And it makes those of you so aggressively engaged [me vs. all of you] in the debate look every bit like a 5-star douche [blatantly provocative language that unfortunately many of my friends here often fall for].
Oh, I have more.
I was on-topic and hardly being controversial or inflammatory. And I'm certainly not trying to get an emotional response or disrupt the normal flow of conversation. [Okay, even you have to admit that's absolute bullshit given your history]. If anything, your attempt to "call me out" [precisely what you want] fits that definition more closely. I was just stating an opinion that I think the Nate/538 v. SV LLC thing is a bit overblown...and people look paranoid and shallow when they dwell on something that really is irrelevant [you obviously know we already think you are irrelevant].
It's no secret, Mule, that you hate Nate. He's successful; he's on TV, he's published, he's a nerd that made it good and he has a following of like-minded individuals that agree with him. You don't have that. You're insanely jealous and resentful. WE GET THAT. Face it, you are a troll. An insecure keyboard critic who got beat up on the playground. There is no need to continually drag the rest of us down to your level of discourse because everybody eventually figures you out.
Now in case you think I enjoy this smackdown of you, think again. I actually hope it makes you think about the way you communicate here and somehow you'll read your previous posts and draw some useful conclusions from it. For example: why do you NEED to try to belittle us? If you think that being an internet site bully makes you a bigger man, hell, I'll take you on any day.
I mean what final result do you get out of posting your rants here and enabling your 'No Fair! Nate's Cheating! schoolyard rhetoric? Do you envision Nate finally sayin, 'Wow, Mule was right. I'm a complete douche.' and then the rest of us will fall into place and bow down to you like lemmings?
We don't want to "call you out". We want you to go away. That kind of discourse is petty and distracting. I'll be the first to say that rarely, (and I mean rarely) I have agreed with something you say (I think your response was to blow coffee onto your computer screen).
I think you would do better here to formulate your arguments in less combative language and more cogent points. I think you'll find that more useful and productive.
Two final points.
The original stimulus bill was necessary to keep states from going bankrupt. But since states are limited Constitutionaly to keeping a balenced budget and since they can substitute funds freely and fund only projects they would have done any way the first stimulus did 'no more' than keep states from going bankrupt. Even if it created one million new jobs the last stimulus created only one quarter of what has been lost in the Bush depression so it's scale was entiresly too small.
Finaly will the jobs market rebound in time to prevent a disasterous return of economics based on the faith that enriching the CEO and large cap corporations is all needed to grow an economy? If the jobs market has rebounded by next spring just do nothing. Of course the optimists may prove wrong again - as they havetiome and again been proven wrong recently.
If jobs prospects are still dismal next spring peg spending on federal jobs to the unemployment rate. As unemployment improves jobs spending in the next cycle can decline. This seems a sensible program based on need and a program that will decline autonmatically. But if we do nothing rest assured republicans will probably control Congress and the oval office soon.
I expect the spending on a federal jobs program would increase for two years and then - largely because of the jobs program - the need and its size would decline. But I wouldn't bet our future prosperity on that forecast. Those anticipating improvement shouldn't bet the entire country's future on a prediction either!
russ said...
Reagan cut unemployment by a realtively trifling 5% in 8 years. FDR cut unemployment by over 15% in 8 years.
Between 1981 and 1989, the unemployment rate started in the high single digits, rose to 10.8% in 1982 and fell to 5.4% when Reagan left office, which is just above full employment.
During FDRs first two terms, the unemployment rate stayed above 15% for nearly the entire time until WWII hit, putting Americans into temporary military jobs. The private unemployment rate without a military draft did not drop to full employment until the second Truman Administration when international trade was freed up and labor union power was curbed by a GOP Congress.
@bleepful
It's an ongoing thing. You're on my list of trolls as well I believe.
the list of trolls ... you'd be bored without us.
BDP for Christs sake. Don't you use google before just make stuff up.
Unemployment peaked at 25% shortly after FDR took over. By 1940 it was down to 15%. So, no he didn't cut it by 15%. He only cut it down 10% in his first two terms.
Lots of good comments here -
Bad employment numbers should make health care reform more urgent. Cutting the cost of hiring a new worker would be of paramount importance.
Blogger Payne had some odd things to say, but the most cogent was that businesses don't like uncertainty - which is another reason to get health care reform passed QUICKLY and not wait.
It was pointed out the Republicants have been sitting on some of the stimulus funds, Once that money kicks in, it'll generate more jobs, and that'll help the employment numbers. We may see faster recovery once the Republicants are out of the way.
Okie mentioned postponed retirement and its relationship to 401(k)'s. Yeah, IRAs, 401s, all those other "retirement investment" vehicles that we were supposed to use instead of pensions and Social Security - it was a dumb idea to begin with, and we're seeing the results of it now. Stock market tanks,and people can't retire - and the ones who did retire get close to starving - and the whole purpose of it was to make investment bankers richer. Dumb, dumb, dumb. (And the righties still want to privatize Social Security. We know who holds their chain.)
russ noted, "What happened last Tuesday was primarily because of this 'news' which workers felt long before the economists announced." Possibly true. That may be why the conservatives and Republicants got their butts kicked in the Congressional elections. People want someone at the federal level who will actually do something, not just sit on their hands and say The Market Gods will handle it.
Another day, another workplace mass shooting. The satellite trucks and national feeds are all rushing from Fort Hood to Orlando. And common sense (plus predictable media hysteria) would probably indicate some relevance of those two horrible events to the topic of this thread.
But you're all numbers guys... is there/ has there been shown to be... an ACTUAL correlation between high unemployment and societal violence?
I would expect to start seeing an uptick (holiday/seasonal stuff and all) next month. Let's hope this figure is the turnaround.
filistro,
Actually, there have been some analysis lately showing murders have been down since the economic downturn.
I don't know if any study of mass shootings rising has been done tbh.
filistro, there are too many instances of numbers supporting that.
Just type this into Google.
murder rate down since recession
Mr de Palma
I appreciate that you believe the professioanl prevericaters who minimize FDR's accomplishments. I gave Reagan credit for cutting unemployment by about 5% (about 2% above full employment as defined by economists under FDR, Ike, JFK and LBJ.) But you might at least tell me why the graph showing FDR's employment level rose to above that before the crash of 1930 by 1940 - two years before Pearl Harbor - was inacurate. By the way - that was much more than a 15% cut in unemployment.
Roosevelt began with over 25% unemployment. He brought us to pre crash levels of employment before Pearl Harbor. Minimizing the greatest job creation period in the country's history is not good for conservatives credibility.
LDF:
Much of the drop in the unemployment rate between 1933 and 1938 was because of government make work jobs like the CCC. In 1937, unemployment spiked when FDR cut back on the make work jobs and the released workers could not find private employment. Even with the make work jobs, unemployment stayed above 15%.
Between 1939 and 1940, the country was gearing up for WWII and created temporary military jobs. The private job market did not return to full employment until the troops returned home and found private employment in the late 40s, about 15 years after the advent of the New Deal.
This was the longest spell of double digit unemployment in United States history.
The plain fact, IMO, is that a big number of those lost jobs are never coming back. Look at the stock market and ask yourself why it's rising while unemployment continues to rise, too. The answer is that big corporations have gone international for BOTH cheap labor and growing markets. GM car sales in China are booming, and the cars are made in China. Profit for GM; bupkis for Michigan workers. This is the future.
It gets worse. As laid off workers lose health insurance from their employers, the cost for those who still have it will continue to rise (as it has been for a decade now), both because the insurance pools are smaller, and because emergency room care (which is all many will be left with) is notoriously inefficient. This will increase premiums for the insured to cover the "pro bono" expenses of the hospitals.
State and local taxes will also have to rise to cover the additional costs to hospitals receiving municipal support. If health care reform goes down, every one if the insured will be hit with cost increases which will almost certainly match, if not exceed, what the cost of health care reform would be. Even the insurance company report a month ago noted that although they thought premiums would go up in reform passed, it would go up MORE if it didn't.
And medical care will not be better, it will be WORSE as emergency rooms become even more overloaded than they are now.
There is really no way, if the economic trends of today continue without change, that a very large number of Americans is about to become impoverished. You can cut taxes on the rich to zero -- how will that get small businesses (which are started by the middle class, not those who benefitted from the last round of tax cuts) going, even if banks were willing to lend to them, which right now they're not because they can make more money playing the markets and brokering mergers between big corporations? It will not get GM to close down its factory in China and build a new one in Detroit, because the labor rates in China are still far cheaper AND they can make sales there without having to worry about tariffs and shipping costs.
I really see only one hope: a massive tax on energy production that is so big that corporations cannot pass all of it on the consumers, and will thus be FORCED to make drastic cuts in how energy is produced and in the emissions which result. This would create a demand for new technologies which would provide jobs at all levels of skills. It's already happening in Europe, where the Russians have convinced the EU that it cannot rely on them for a steady supply of energy and must figure out alternative ways. It's part of the reason the EU is recovering from the recession faster than is the USA.
But there's not much time to waste. The Chinese may work cheap but they're just as smart as we are, and they can read the handwriting on the wall, too. Plus they don't have in their political arena a major party which doesn't CARE if millions of Americans are impoverished. If they decide there's money to be made inventing cheaper and cleaner energy, they don't have an oil industry to throw around billions convincing voters to drill for oil instead of developing wind farms and better batteries. They'll just do it, and Americans will sink further and further into poverty.
We actually have a President who understands all of this. What we don't have is a political atmosphere that will allow him to do something about it...so far. We'd better get one soon.
@Pragmatus
The last revision of the rule established the 60-vote cloture number, but also stipulated that any further change to the rule must be made by a two thirds majority of the Senate.
I'm not sure about this, unless it happened pretty recently. During the reign of Bush II, the Repubs threatened to eliminate the filibuster rule for judicial appointments, if the Dems didn't allow votes on George II's nominees. It was a credible threat, because the Repubs had about 52(?) senators, and all it would take was a majority vote to change the Senate rules. Was this altered recently?
"All indications point to a dramatic market contraction, or possibly an outright collapse. As a nation we've surpassed the debt/gdp ratio that sunk Argentina in the early 90s."
All indications? Such as? I mean, if you're think we're going to turn into Argentina real soon, i'd say you don't know economics as well as you think you do.
Mule Rider said:
"
Seriously, l_d_o_f, share with me what you are smoking and/or drinking. If you had even a basic understanding of the money supply and where it presently stands, you wouldn't waste keystrokes making such an absurd statement."
Are you seriously going to make the argument that deflation is not a bad sign?
filistro,
When people have lost everything, they have nothing left to lose. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The country is littered with adolescents masquerading as adults, and when they finally catch wind that their luxury lifestyle has evaporated, there will be hell to pay.
liberal defender... I'm not sure I would classify murder as "societal violence"... at least not in my own personal lexicon.
Murder is usually a very personal, targeted crime. I'm thinking more of "rage against the system" crimes like mass shootings, transportation sabotage, arson etc, that people commit against strangers.
One's first impulse would be to assume those crimes would likely increase during times of soaring unemployment... but I wonder if anybody's looked into it in depth.
The exact percentage may be wrong, but your trending data is right. We have seen unemployment fall in my state (MN) recently. I am actually proof of this, having recently been laid off and then rehired in about a month. The tax credits for housing the government has put in place has helped a lot. We will probably see more stimulous dollars at work either right before or when spring hits.
There is also the Bloomberg employment poll suggests that employers are getting ready to hire more workers. I don't see unemployment below 9% for a while, but going from 10% to around 9% is a positive and could bode well for the Democrats for the 2010 election. If people perceive that things are getting better, then they generally don't want to upset things.
However, it is a full year before the elections and a lot could happen between now and then.
@BDP
Your figures are correct. On the advice of traditional economists who believed that the US needed to balance its budget in the late 30's, FDR began to scale back New Deal programs before the market was ready to handle an influx of new workers. This effect caused a resurgence in unemployment and arguably prolonged the Depression (from which America was steadily recovering by 1937).
The lesson here is that you can't give up on a Keynesian recovery model when things are just starting to improve.
Mr DePalma might explain why policemen teachers, soldiers, road crews etc. are not realy employed. These government worker are not inviolved in make work and they do go to stores and support private enterprise job growth. And that can make for a jobs recovery! Nor are these government jobs make work projects.
Make work? Building roads, schools, wind farms, telecomunications lines - including Internet II, high speed and other rail lines, wind farms, smart electric grids and internet over powerline for rural area - these will make work. They will make work for the private enterprise that needs them to grow optimaly but can't accomplish them without federal authority and scale.
The last time we made such work as these capital infrastructure improvements the prosperity of the world soared. It will again if we seize this oopportunity!
@Persuter: Your analysis of the unemployment numbers under Reagan is correct but misses a critical point, which is that until late 1982, the Fed kept interest rates at a very high level in order to fight inflation. Business were discouraged from borrowing to start new enterprises because money was so expensive. In fact, if Reagan hadn't undertaken a drastic stimulus program in spite of the huge deficits it caused, unemployment would have been significantly worse. (Reagan? Stimulus program? What else do you think his massive and unfunded defense buildup was?)
Once the Fed began to aggressively cut rates, business began to expand and unemployment fell. NEVER fail to omit this vital point when analyzing Reagan's economic policies, or else you'll be told it was the tax cuts, which had almost no effect on growth at all until the Fed's rate cut.
slasher14 said...
The plain fact, IMO, is that a big number of those lost jobs are never coming back. Look at the stock market and ask yourself why it's rising while unemployment continues to rise, too. The answer is that big corporations have gone international for BOTH cheap labor and growing markets.
The job growth never fully recovered after 2000, either. This has been happening in earnest for a full decade somewhat masked, and perhaps exasperated, by the real estate bubble. The world has become too economically mobile, for a number of reasons, to maintain the wealth concentration formerly enjoyed here via prior methods of relying heavily on physical location. *shrug*
Slasher, that's a simplistic analysis. the tax cuts were an integral part as teh lower marginal rates increased the long term incentives to invest. Monetary policy alone cannot inflate the economy. That's fallacious reasoning.
Doom and gloom. Such pessimism. Here's the reality:
Obama is a lame-duck a year in. The economy is going be better around about the time the republicans get elected in a landside. Both sides will claim credit (as always) but Obama will end up being a one-termer largely based upon the failure of health-care reform attempts. Could be Hillary, could be republican. In any case we will have moved beyond the whole green-energy, carbon footprint, global warming fad and toward a path of basic "non-utopian" economic growth. The next president or the one thereafter will generally be regarded as good by the population. It's all going to be OK.
Jacob said...
@BDP: Your figures are correct. On the advice of traditional economists who believed that the US needed to balance its budget in the late 30's, FDR began to scale back New Deal programs before the market was ready to handle an influx of new workers. This effect caused a resurgence in unemployment and arguably prolonged the Depression (from which America was steadily recovering by 1937).
The lesson here is that you can't give up on a Keynesian recovery model when things are just starting to improve.
The Keynsian theory claims that government borrowing investment capital and then spending that money will create demand for private goods and services and thus demand for private workers to meet that demand. This effect should theoretically take place very quickly.
However, there was no sign of a surge in private employment following surges in government borrowing and spending during the New Deal, the Japanese lost decade and now in 2009 as predicted in the Obama January white paper.
The fundamental fallacy of Keynsianism is that robbing Peter Private Sector to pay Paul Government Spending will cause Paul to create more jobs than will be lost by Peter. Given that government has demonstrated itself to be a particularly inefficient employer, the result of robbing Peter to pay Paul is usually a net loss in jobs as the jobs lost by Peter will outnumber those created by Paul.
This is what happens when you elect liberal pansies instead of proper socialists.
Where's the CCC?
Where's the WPA?
Where's the PWA?
We could have built a whole new rail system and gotten millions of people employed in all sorts of things. But as usual, bipartisan and liberal pansyism prevails.
Are you seriously going to make the argument that deflation is not a bad sign?
No, I'm not. I agree that severe deflation is a bad sign...
HOWEVER, the evidence shows that we've seen very little actual deflation over the last couple of years.
Look at what commodity prices have done the last two or three years....things like crude oil, sugar, wheat, etc. They've skyrocketed, albeit with some violent up-and-down swings. Not all of those increases have yet been felt by the consumer, and a grossly expanding money supply means that commodity prices will be under more pressure (to the upside) in the next few years.
Seriously, though, show me where deflation has been a problem. A negligible drop in the CPI over a couple of quarters doesn't count as a "deflationary problem."
10.2% unemployment is certainly bad and worse than was expected.
I believe unemployment will improve a bit ahead of the 2010 mid-term elections (as employment is a lagging indicator when looking at the major metrics of macro economics).
Still, I can't imagine it will be much better than 9.5% or so, and if this is the case, look for the Democrats to lose a good 20-30 seats easily.
Remember that when the Republicans took the House and Senate in 1994 the ecomony was in relatively good shape.
How does this effect passage of PelosiCare and Cap and Trade, I wonder?
Probably doesn't help.
> Seriously, though, show me where deflation has been a problem.
It has been largely a thwarted issue.
Keynesian policy is often a stop-gap measure that produces very little to any long term prosperity. It's a bridge more or less for a private sector in distress. Pulling forward scarce future resources to stimulate a fundamentally "zombie" economy is nothing but feelgood desperation IMHO. Put away the defibillator paddles when you examine that the wordlwide derivative black hole totals close to 1.4 quadrillion. Even the slightest disturbance (say 5%) of this powderkeg could trigger an economic meltdown. The margin for error is very small and the resources are not available to cleanse the toxic balance sheets of these various institutions.
Shrinker, thanks for the backhanded compliment. I am assuming you are not a business person. So without intending to sound condescending, let me expand on my original post.
if you increase the cost of something through taxation, the effect is to reduce the demand for that item. that's obvious from efforts to tax cigarettes and gasoline to discourage consumption.
If you increase the cost of employing someone through employer mandates/surcharges/taxes related to 'healthcare reform', the effect will be to depress demand for that labor and therefore employment.
If you increase the cost of energy via cap and tax, that will ripple throughout the economy and raise the cost and consequently, reduce the demand, for those goods and services impacted by cap and trade, thereby reducing employment.
These are not wild, controversial theories, and they are employed by both sides of the ideological divide, so it just follows common sense.
Uncertainty effects business because, suppose you want to earn a 10% after tax return on your investment and assume the tax rate is 33%, that would mean the pretax return needs to be 15%. However, if there is possiblity the tax rate will go up to 50%, that means you need a 20% return and you might choose not to investor invest your money overseas where the tax regime is less punitive.
There is enough uncertainty in investing and running a business without the Federal Govt throwing gobs of additional potential changes at the market
@slasher
You are correct that we are moving to a service society rather than a manufacturing society. Wall Street is just the new Vegas. They care nothing for America. This is unfortunate as most Americans, I suspect, would like to have something more useful to do to define temselves than work a check-out register at Wal-Mart.
We need the renewable energy programs that Obama has talked about. But it will take more than talk.
Depressions cause spectacular criminals, perhaps, but not crime waves. Murder rates are down. domestic abuse is up, however. Likely mental illness will escalate along with other forms of escape in the taxonomy of the greatest theoretical prognosticator of deviance rates -the illustrious Robert Merton.
russ said...
Mr DePalma might explain why policemen teachers, soldiers, road crews etc. are not realy employed. These government worker are not inviolved in make work and they do go to stores and support private enterprise job growth. And that can make for a jobs recovery! Nor are these government jobs make work projects.
1) You can accomplish the same spending and far more job creating investment by simply cutting tax rates.
2) There is no need to cut teachers or police. There is an enormous and largely non-productive bureaucracy who could and should either take a substantial pay cut or be terminated. Taking money out of private sector capital needed to create jobs to subsidize Dem SEIU workers is an incredible waste of resources, although Obama very likely considers using our money to buy Dem votes a great personal investment that will be contributed back as campaign contributions for his 2012 re-election campaign.
Colorado Springs has repeatedly threatened to fire teachers and police if the voters did not approve tax increases and we have repeatedly told them no. The city always ends up sparing the teachers and police and cuts elsewhere.
Make work? Building roads, schools, wind farms, telecomunications lines - including Internet II, high speed and other rail lines, wind farms, smart electric grids and internet over powerline for rural area - these will make work. They will make work for the private enterprise that needs them to grow optimaly but can't accomplish them without federal authority and scale.
1) The Obama Administration has identified roughly 30,083 make work jobs paid for with $16 billion of our money at $531,186 per job.
2) The vast majority of these jobs had nothing to do with building useful infrastructure. Go look at the government lists.
3) The money spent on genuinely useful infrastructure can be accomplished by the private sector for a helluvalot less than $531,186 per job.
@Walker
Still, I can't imagine it will be much better than 9.5% or so, and if this is the case, look for the Democrats to lose a good 20-30 seats easily.
30 seats would still leave the Dems with a majority. And I'd expect most of those loses wold be in Blue Dog districts, people who vote with the Repubs anyway. That would provide an opportunity to get some real Dems in those seats in 2012, when the economy is still more improved.
Remember that when the Republicans took the House and Senate in 1994 the ecomony was in relatively good shape.
True, but after the 8 years of George II, no one any more believes the Republicants know a thing about the economy. This is the Bush Depression we're under, if you recall.
How does this effect passage of PelosiCare and Cap and Trade, I wonder?
(I assume you mean "health care reform", because there is no such thing as PelosiCare - unless you live in some warped alternate reality). I think it improves chances for both. Bad economic times mean that businesses will be wanting ways to lower costs, and rational health insurance regulation will help that.
Cap and trade will have minimal impact, other than being a book to corporations that are efficient and innovative, who will be able to sell their carbon chits - thus encouraging even more efficiency and innovation.
It has been largely a thwarted issue.
How is this contradictory with what I said? Whether it potentially was a problem that was "thwarted" or an even an issue to begin with, we agree that deflationary pressure is not a problem as of right now. That's what I was saying to ldof, who said that deflation should be our greatest fear/worry.
The modern economy is just too damn complicated, too reliant on dedt leveraging, too reliant on speculation, and inter-connected with other global economies, for tradional Keynesian prime-the-pump policies to work.
If it still worked today (and I don't think it ever really worked) Japan would not have suffered their decade-long L-shaped recession in the 90's. That was Keynes on steriods and all it did was prolong the misery.
This gets me to thinking about how so many of the tradional ways we've grown accustomed to looking at things, either from the Left or the Right, have become obsolete in our modern age.
Why do we think that a 'one size fits all' national health care plan would work when most American citizens have the choice of hundeds of cable channels at any one given time or thousands of iPhone apps?
Or why do we think that national economic policies first cooked up in 1933 will work in 2009?
Nate was wrong about predicting where unemployment was going and he's a very smart guy. He was also wrong on The Great Global Warming Challenge of 2009.
The world is just too complex for'experts' to manage and control.
We need to set into place policies and practices that respect the sheer immensity and complexity of the world we all live in.
In the same f**king post. Too funny!
@Jacob,
I acknowledge there is irony in making a post warning someone else of the dismissive treatment they might receive while offering a helping of it myself, but I can't help but chuckle at the irony of some of the radicals in here who lambast conservatives for their "hateful" behavior while in the same post offering a litany of (hateful) insults for people they don't like using phrases such as "fucking retard," "clueless asshole," etc.
Well said Walker. After a year of watching this website it appears some rationality is finally beginning to creep into the posts.
@Walker
Fair points in general. Although since we don't know what those policies would be, we must to some degree tinker with existing ideas to create new ones.
But although single payer systems work fine in modern economies, no one has proposed a "one size fits all national health care plan."
It's one thing to actually oppose such a concept, but to equate it with a choice-expanding plan is just dishonest.
How is this contradictory with what I said? Whether it potentially was a problem that was "thwarted" or an even an issue to begin with, we agree that deflationary pressure is not a problem as of right now.
The pressure remains. It has just been balanced, so far. That's why it's not easy to see...if you don't want to see it. The evidence for this is in that inflation isn't double digit as you'd otherwise expect it to be given the current Fed policies and the $500 billion spending (although not all of that is in play yet) in the stimulus bill.
@Mule
Well I think it's been established that vitriol knows no party. But you right wing radicals do the exact same thing.
It's all ironic I suppose.
Whoa, looks like MR got pwned earlier. Somebody read you right.
The pressure has remained and has been so far balanced, that's why it's not easy to see...if you don't want to see it.
Oh, I fully agree that things have been relatively balanced, so far. But the side effects often come long after the initial, or even final, dose.
The evidence for this is in that inflation isn't double digit as you'd otherwise expect it to be given the current Fed policies and the $500 billion spending (although not all of that is in play yet) in the stimulus bill.
I don't think very many people "expect" inflation to be of the double-digit variety right away. It takes time, my friend. You'll see. Or maybe you are the one who doesn't want to see it.
wv: ansuz - what you get in response to questunz
I don't get the argument about how WPA etc. projects aren't 'real' work. My kids and I all went to schools built partly or solely by WPA projects. We used WPA-built libraries. Etc. These are real goods, produced by people who would, without those programs, have not been producing anything. The argument for laissez-faire capitalism based on the redefinition of goods to include only ones produced by it is purely circular. It has about as much weight as the old Socialist Realist arguments that capitalist goods are an illusion, lampooned in The Master and Margarita, IIRC.
I especially liked the observation that since you can't elevate the conversation that need to drag us all down to your level. Spot on Mule spankin'.
Whoa, looks like MR got pwned earlier. Somebody read you right.
Hah. That's all I can say...LOL.
Nobody pwned me anywhere in this thread, but you've got some people who are as obsessive about shouting me down as they claim I am about Nate.
I just ignore 'em now, as I'm about to do with you.
In the current recession, Black women have lost almost twice as many jobs as a share of population than White women. I show this with today’s employment report here: http://www.familyinequality.com.
@Payne:
I've been a businessman for 30 years. One of the things that is most hurting employers is the cost of providing health insurance to employees. Reduce health care costs through the shorts of reforms moving through Congress, and this will help revitalize American business.
Interesting that you seem to equate various forms of taxation. Yes, if you increase the cost to the consumer - for instance, cigarette taxes - you'll hurt demand. But if you raise certain other taxes - for instance, taxing after-expense income for businesses - you actually encourage investment, because businesses will want to reinvest in their company to avoid having that income taxed.
If you increase the costs of certain goods and commodities - carbon-produced energy, for example - you encourage investment in alternatives. In this particular case, you also save enormous quantities of money in the long run by reducing damage to the environment that will have to be dealt with, not to mention improving general health (reducing health care costs further), avoiding millions of unnecessary deaths, etc. - all of which is quite stimulative.
It always amuses me that righties see "tax cuts" as the panacea for everything. Recession? Cut taxes, so people have more money to spend (if they're not employed, it won't help them much to have lower taxes). Inflation? Cut taxes, so businesses will invest more to create more goods to soak up the excess cash. Economy too tight? Cut taxes, to drive down interest rates. Interest rates too low? Just cut taxes on general principle.
After a worldwide collapse that disproved the voodoo economics of supply-siders, why are we still hearing this nonsense?
We haven't really seen inflation because a large portion of the funds is sitting in a vault, waiting to be dispersed as soon as the economy shows signs of a rebound. It usually takes 20 to 24 months, before you see the tangible effects of inflationary policy.
If well-meaning people on both sides took the time to look at our problems with "fresh eyes" and are also willing to maybe kill a few, favorite sacred cows, I actually think there is a lot of sensible things we could get accomplished.
What it would mean is saying NO! to the collective agendas of the anti-taxers, the public employee and teachers unions, the Wall Street corporate interests, etc.
Just cut taxes on general principle. I agree.
I don't think very many people "expect" inflation to be of the double-digit variety right away.
Of course not...because of the huge deflationary pressures. :)
And hey, inflation could eventually dip into the 10%+ range. Yeah, that sucks. Welcome to the suckage of a recession. *shrug*
It takes time, my friend. You'll see.
Yes, just as in the end I came to see that Strategic Visions LLC was Nate's Waterloo.
Or you are a bitter, clueless, sadsack tool.
Or you are a bitter, clueless, sadsack tool.
Still can't respond without the insults, can you?
As a bitter, clueless, etc. person, I guess I'm just not worth the time and effort of conversation. You are free to ignore me, and I urge you to make the most of that freedom from henceforth.
Rest assured, I'll extend you the same courtesy.
Still can't respond without the insults, can you?
That's hardly insulting you. You've been [accurately] labeled worse. :P
Shrinkers-
First you invert the logic. tax code causes distortions to the market in allocating capital etc., a la housing market and tax subsidies for mortgage interest and implicit (or rather explicit) fed guarantee of fannie and freddie debt. so your 'raising the tax rate actually increases investment' theory is misguided. perhaps that money would be better returned to shareholders, no?
Second, i applaud your faith that these 'reforms' will actually accomplish what the proponents say they will, given many of the crisis you further lay out in your post are not attributable to the invisible hand of the market, but rather the distortions caused by the visible hand of our omniscient and omnipresent federal govt. Its obvious to anyone other than an ideologue that the cost estimates and impacts of this 'reform' are wildly inaccurate and unforeseen.
It always amuses me to see someone promote the panacea to our economic problems is to further concentrate wealth and power in washington and our federal govt after they have done such a wonderful job managing social security, fannie mae, freddie mac, medicare, the defense dept etc.
I can only assume you are a businessman in the same sense that exelon is in the power business, you are probably another rent seeker looking to siphon off wealth from the general public by promoting public policy that benefits your business.
@shrinkers-
I also note how you sidestepped the tax example and the effect on investment. you really don't get it. please tell me what business you are in because i would love to be on the other side of a commercial transaction with you.
That's hardly insulting you. You've been [accurately] labeled worse.
That you agree those prior statements about me are true says more than enough.
Anyway, as I've reiterated over and over, I'm not exactly all that concerned with earning the approval of anonymous radical cowards on some random website.
smackdown
Oh I like this one, too:
Mule Rider is 538's cyber bully. You really did get beat up on the playground as a kid, didn't you?
@Payne -
Hee hee! I see Poe's Law is at work, extended to conservatives in general, not just fundies. For a minute there, I was about to take your post seriously :)
I'm way late on this thread (some of us still have jobs, thank the Maker!), but it seems that everyone has missed one of the biggest players in the game in their analyses.
The U.S. economy is no longer the only big fish in the pond.
I look for the U.S. economy to be helped to its feet by a world economy that is recovering substantially faster than ours is. Outside of China, that is, since they tie their currency to ours. But interestingly, with China tying its currency to ours, our product will start to look more and more attractive just as China's does!
Businesses ALWAYS respond to demand with increased employment, but this time the demand will come, not from us at first, but from the rest of the world.
I still maintain that by the next election, unemployment will have dropped significantly.
Anyway, as I've reiterated over and over, I'm not exactly all that concerned with earning the approval of anonymous radical cowards on some random website.
... and we still don't believe you now anymore than we believed you all those other times you got your knickers in a knot, pouted, and threw feces about how badly your inane opinions and childish behavior were recieved.
@Sacto Joe
I look for the U.S. economy to be helped to its feet by a world economy that is recovering substantially faster than ours is.
Interesting point. All them countries with socialist health care and socialist employment policies are going to recover faster than we do, and help pull us out. Hmmmm.
... and I forgot, all those countries that have higher tax rates than us. Really interesting, that.
Mule Rider is 538's cyber bully. You really did get beat up on the playground as a kid, didn't you?
Nope. Growing up, I neither got bullied or did any bullying...just a normal amount of back-and-forth teasing between adolescents.
I'm not a bully now, nor am I a target of being bullied. I'm physically imposing (6'5"), so you'd better be quite the bruiser to strike fear in me.
... and we still don't believe you now anymore than we believed you all those other times you got your knickers in a knot, pouted, and threw feces about how badly your inane opinions and childish behavior were recieved.
Hey, I've got a great life right now. Great job, great friends, comfortable living, etc.
Occasionally venting by engaging in anonymous schoolyard taunts is no indictment of my real life. But you keep believing whatever makes you feel good.
If you being condescending towards me through this anonymous forum helps you sleep at night, go right ahead.
The world economy, aside from China and India, is in a much worse situation that the U.S. as surprisingly as it sounds. The IMF has been doling out SDRs to a few countries in Eastern Europe with it's close eye on Western Europe. It's no coincidence that many European institutions were the entities gobbling up our AAA rated MBS since the annual return was so lucrative.
I've given you ample opportunity to either back off your incindiary comments or come out from behind the veil and visit me here in person to see that I'm a sane, rational person who lives a somewhat ordinary but generally very happy life, working at a nice job with nice friends and doing lots of cool things.
But you prefer to live in an imaginary world where whatever you make up about me is true. I can't change that. So why should I care what you think about me if you don't want to see for yourself? Again, I don't need you or your ilk's approval.
Occasionally venting by engaging in anonymous schoolyard taunts is no indictment of my real life.
So that's just who you are and don't feel any urge to curb it? So you are indeed exactly who we say you are. But you expect everyone to celebrate that deep down you are a childish turd? I guess that expectation is just part of your anti-social turdish nature. :/
Some of the lunatic fringe always like to talk about how reality has a liberal (or in some cases conservative) bias.
Nope, reality is just reality. And a lot of you in here don't get out enough to see what it really is.
So keep saying what you want about me. I know that you know deep down there is a disconnect between what you say in here and what the real world says.
I'm behind you mule. Radical lefties won't quit until the silence you or initiate you into the cult.
So keep saying what you want about me. I know that you know deep down there is a disconnect between what you say in here and what the real world says.
Your words.
"Occasionally venting by engaging in anonymous schoolyard taunts is no indictment of my real life."
Coming here to do that is an indictment on you, the quality of your personality.
That you claim to have some fabulously happy life otherwise doesn't make that better, it makes it worse. :/
And yet another lively informative thread deteriorates into a discussion about whether Mule Rider is being a Naughty Blogger.
Say what you will about the guy... he's clearly smart enough to push your buttons over and over and over.
Personally I think Nate pays Muley to increase the hit count here... just as I'm certain that Rahm Emanuel is paying Orly Taitz to file her nutbag lawsuits to make conservatives look bad.
Mr Depalma:
Tax cuts in times of great insecurity are not spent to materialy improve lives - they are hoarded to be used for things like groceries in the very likely case of disaster. Windfalls are not spent in our times so they will not spur consumption or help buisnesses grow. In the abscence of consumer spending buisnes will just lay off workers and use any tax windfalls as the equivelant sort of larger emergency fund.
Your claims that the last stimulus is not being used for capital improvements is specious. First much of it is used for capital improvement - especialy if you count teachers retained as capital improvement. Admitedly retaining firemen and police is a harder sell but they are necesary to preserve capital. But most of those monies directed to be spent by states is used for roads and schools so your argument is just unsuportable. But as I have said the first stimulus bills primary effect was to keep states from bankruptcy.
We need to spend money on real improvements to infrastructure to save the countries economy. we can spend it on real infrastructure. Your belief that we won't spend money on real infrastructure is simply your own belief in the bad nature of any society.
We must do more than throw a few weeks groceries at America's hurting consumers in the form of tax cuts. They need jobs - not tax gimmicks
Hey Mule, if you insist on being a stereo-typical Anonymous anti-social fuckup may I suggest you take it to somewhere more appropriate, appreciated, and expected.
spackemonkee09 said...
"The world economy, aside from China and India, is in a much worse situation that the U.S. as surprisingly as it sounds. The IMF has been doling out SDRs to a few countries in Eastern Europe with it's close eye on Western Europe. It's no coincidence that many European institutions were the entities gobbling up our AAA rated MBS since the annual return was so lucrative."
I'm not convinced. I was in Europe just a few weeks back and things seem to be bustling. What do you base your opinion on, other than an obvious bias against the IMF? And the "gobbling up" of our MBS's is SO old news!
Anyway, if I'm right we'll find out soon enough.
Mule Rider-
you really think reality doesn't have biases? conservatism has a natural advantage in the human psyche. People, being animals, hate being in debt (servitude) and hate being taxed (diminished resources). Forget for a minute about matters of patriotic sacrifice and altruism and keynesian economics and the usefulness of credit cards or government-funded interstate systems. at a gut level fiscal conservatism and classical liberal economics while always have a head start at a gut level.
Dwight's about to cry I think
Thanks, filistro. I've always liked you and apologize for the times I've been a "naughty blogger" towards you.
Dwight, I'm not arguing this any further. I'm clearly being non-combatant today, yet you insist on escalating and inflaming the rhetoric. I'm satisfied just doing one of your *shrugs* and moving on with my day.
Talk about something more productive than me - and there is plenty - otherwise, I have nothing left to say. I don't think I could be any more passive than I am right now.
mule wins
you really think reality doesn't have biases?
That wasn't what I was trying to hint at with that innocuous comment. It was more a strike in defense of myself at people who insist on being condescending and typing over and over and over on here - as if they're trying to convince themselves - that people like me are just worthless, self-loathing toads who live a horrible life.
My point was that they can't possibly make heads or tails of what my life really is like and that I'm incredibly happy and peaceful living it. That's my reality, not the opinion of an anonymous angry blogger/commenter.
russ, you weirdo. Gummint shouldn't oughtta be building infrastructure, 'specially not in a time of recession. What we should do is cut taxes, and let the free market build schools and roads and bridges and new internet capacities. Private police and fire departments, that's what we need! Fact, the ancient Romans had it right, let the guys with a few bucks raise their own armies.
And we need to deregulate food production, dammit, that'll lower costs for the consumer so they can finally afford to eat on the minimum wage we won't be paying them.
That's the way to help the 10% unemployment rate we got. Get rid of the minimum wage, so we can hire people at $1.50 an hour. We can employ a whole bunch more people that way.
Damn socialist labor laws. Free enterprise would take care of everything, if we gets get gummint out of the way.
Thanks, bleepul, although I'm not trying to win, per se. Don't know why some people can't just ignore me or make a couple of gratuitious snaps at me and let it go at that.
As you alluded to above, it's like they want to either silence you or bring you into the cult. Makes me think of the Borg on STNG:
We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.
wv: ousep - Aesop's cousin?
Mule, if it helps any, I've been ignoring you :)
thanks shrinkers ... you are 100% right. get government out of the way. You should check your peppermint mocha latte ... it's messing with your spelling
Dwight, I'm not arguing this any further. I'm clearly being non-combatant today,
That today doesn't represent a lowpoint in posting for you is all the more evidence that you are posting on the wrong internet site.
Mule Rider-
I believe you do have a happy life.
a kind anonymous gesture is far more potent than an angry anonymous one.
Hey Muley... I was the one who actually first taught you the meaning of the word "pwned", all those many months ago.
Do you remember? I do, and I still have the scars to prove it ...LOL
Despite our occasional dustup, I do find you interesting and oddly likeable. In fact I recently tried to model a minor character in something I'm writing on my impression of what I think you might be like in real life.
My editor said it was an "inconsistent character" and made me scrap it. Go figure.
You might want to check out 4chan, too, bleepul...assuming you aren't actually coming from there. :D
Urie
Defining liberalism as the misunderstood Adam Smith did - as a defense of the gretest good for the greatest number - as a call for improvement in the material well being of the poor and middle class - says nothing about what government spends. In Smith's time the Lords of the Universe who controlled English government were not about to do a fig for the middle class or the poor. To increase the material condition of the average man required reducing the expenditure of government in Smiths day because the government cared only to improve the lives of the elite at the expense of everyone else.
Todays conservatives are direct descendantds of the Tories and still spend and tax, when they have the purse, in a reverse Robin Hood design. Most the average man - where the real wealth of Nations resides - would have been much better off if President Bush had not had authority to shape spending and taxes. We would have been better off with less government than with Bush's increased corporate welfare - particularly the cruel tax on young people required to fight his oil cronies war in Iraq. War is the ultimate big government boondogle.
It is possible for government to spend money for the common man's improvement - instead of for the elites further enrichment. It is rare because most have little time or for whatever reason don't become involved in political controversy. For the elite politics is necesary to defend their lifestyle.
In times of defaltionary spiral governemnt must spend money on the little guy or face ruin. we are in such a time!
4chan is sooo 2008
I hate treading into these dangerous waters but I will nonetheless. You cannot cut taxes without reducing the size of the government and it's public sector appendages. This was Bush's greatest error in that he cut taxes for the upper quarter while continuously doling out more funds for domestic and military spending. The so-called 'conservative' president grew the size of the government more than the Great Society architect Lyndon Baines Johnson!
what we're currently witnessing is the bureuacracy and it's public sector appendages are on the cusp of cannibalizing the non-millionaire tax-paying majority of the citizenry. Just look at the madness that's transpiring in California. A 10% increase in the state income tax was levied on the citizens of California. When will the madness end? Public employees are valuable accessories to the citizenry but accessories nonetheless. You cannot draw blood from the stone. What will be the breaking point?
I told Nate he was wrong the day he posted it.
I put up no less that 4 different posts explaining that he was misreading seasonal factors that were helping his argument, but would soon turn strongly against his argument as we entered the months (like October) where seasonal adjustments are virtually non-existent.
Despite that, I found his post refreshingly honest and gracious. A good analyst always admits a mulligan and figures out how to get it right next time.
I was even conservative in my assumptions. I had not assumed it would peak past 10% this year.
Now, let me articulate what I think is the obvious silver lining for Democrats.
You blew past 10% now, and not next Spring. That gives you more time to recover.
It is perversely ironic, but jobs being lost now, are likely to be recovered more quickly. Companies are likely cutting too deep at this point in the recession, and will recognize that in the Spring, which sets up the chance that unemployment starts to fall fairly fast by this time next year.
It creates the possibility that unemployment falls by half a point or more in the months prior to the election.
Unemployment will still be bad, but the perception that things are improving at a rapid clip will help Democrats.
@shrinkers,
Thanks. I'm glad you realize the futility of these conversations. Hope you have a great day!
@urielthebright,
Thanks. Right back at ya! And from this anonymous guy, I hope you have a great day!
@filistro,
Wow! I'm flattered. Have a good one!
...now the downside of this.
Health Care Reform of the flavor that progressives propose is effectively dead.
The public option is dead. Stone cold dead.
If Blue Dogs had an inkling of faith that the economy was getting ready to hit an inflection point and job growth would soon be positive, they might see enough runway to believe the economy will not be as important 11 months from now.
It will be.
No self-preserving Blue Dog can vote for Pelosi-care. She is so unpopular and increasingly delusional. Thoroughly delusional.
She must envy Dick Cheney's approval ratings at this point.
Pelosi is frightening enough to endure solo. Every Blue Dog can see it now, their face next to Pelosi's in a brutal campaign ad--10 months from now.
Shivers.
A bill that is palatable to blue dogs cannot get past the house progressive caucus, which means no bill can pass the house--which means there is no bill.
It is over.
This means Nate was first right on the public option, then wrong on it.
It is dead.
Mule, spare people the faux victim hood. Here's what Mule used to be like on here. This is why he has the respect of nobody. We used to have to deal with his outbursts every day.
Mule Rider said...
You shitbags sure give me a good laught. Nothing like getting a bunch of insults from some left-wing beat-offs to make me feel like I've done my duty.
I hope I piss you all off something sore. That's my duty on here. And what's sad is you douchnozzles don't even see how bad I make you look.
You are embarrassing to the human race. You were the wads your mothers should have swallowed...or spit in the toilet. Either way, doesn't matter.
November 10, 2008 7:43 PM
Mule Rider said...
I NEVER said Barack was muslim, hated America or was a terrorist.
I called him liberal. I won't deny that, and it's true.
But you told an absolute LIE about those other things, and if given the chance, I'd kick your miserable ass.
To a bloody pulp, you vaginal belch.
@Juris -
You are sligthly delusional. Every survey shows that independents overwhelmingly think the Stimulus is a flop.
The GOP did nothing to hold it back it was moderate Dems who held it back.
Remember how many moderate Dems voted against it?
@Dwight -
Something tells me that losing a job is not going to make anyone crave government run health care.
If that were the case, why has support gone down as unemployment has gone up?
Your theory is defeated.
Besides, most people have COBRA anyway. This was one aspect of the stimulus that had bipartisan support.
Democrats are deep in it now...deep.
You have 10 months to change the dynamic. You had better start soon.
@russ
Defining liberalism as the misunderstood Adam Smith did ...
Important points. A bit of insight just hit me ...
Conservatives want (or say they want) "small government". What they want, clearly, is for the government to get out of the way of the oligarchy, so there can be a return to the time of feudal serfdoms and indentured servitude. Instead of manor-lords, we've got corporations, instead of dukes and counts we have CEOs and shareholders. Conservatives want that form of rule.
A representative democracy can hem in the power of the moneyed oligarchy. In a nation where We the People rule, the manor-lords have much less power, even if they are rich. This is, at its core, the reason for the "small government" meme. The oligarchy does not want to be governed, and certainly not by the serfs.
This is also the reason for pressing the meme that the government can't do anything right. If we actually believed that government can be (not necessarily "is", but even merely "can be") a force for good, we might actually use its power to restrict the ability of wealth to rule without consequence.
The only thing I haven't yet figured out is why so many of the most vulnerable in society choose to go along with these memes. Perhaps it simply is the divide-and-conquer, keep-them-scared strategy, pitting straights against gays, majorities against minorities, "safety" against "terrorists", < whatever goes here > against "socialism". And then casting Big Government as something that will support, enable - or at least, coddle - those scary "others".
But really, to think the oligarchy will protect you from your fears? Really?
So, to return to this actual thread, whyever would anyone think a 10% unemployment rate should encourage people to want to strengthen the rule of the oligarchy by putting them back into power - when it was they who created the conditions for the 10% unemployment rate to begin with? Doesn't it make more sense to support the people who don't want to keep us as impoverished serfs?
Well there's a post the Skeptic's Health Journal Club on how researchers in Australia accidentally created a mouse virus that if it had been a human virus would have had the potential to wipe out civilization. So I guess that's at least something to look on the bright side about.
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/
Russ-
All that is true and understood, my point, in the context of reality having political biases, was humans as creatures don't like taxation or debt at a psychological level because of their resource implications. We're totally on the same page in terms of the actual role of government, I promise.
The douchenozzle part is funny.
@MPM
Health Care Reform of the flavor that progressives propose is effectively dead.
The public option is dead. Stone cold dead.
Every two weeks or so, the righties say this, and the MSM picks it up. Oddly enough, it keeps on not being true. As has been noted, facts seem to have a liberal bias.
By the way, a question - "MidPoint"? Between what and what? Conservative and really really really really conservative?
@MidPointMan;
It's refreshing to see someone go so clearly out on a limb.
You've just said "...no bill can pass the house - which means there is no bill".
Therefore, if there is a bill OF ANY STRIPE that passes the House then you've just jumped out of a plane without a parachute.
That plane had better be sitting on the ground or you're dog-meat.
Shrinker,
We live in an oligarchy. Big business loves big government so it can freeze out upcoming compeitition. This synthesis had occurred many moons ago. Government and corporations are one in the same. Even Obama is a product of this cozy corporate environment.
@PDM ...
That's just stupid. H1N1 is a bigger threat than some smallpox researcher ever being able to carry out that experiment. Stop reading that garbage.
The douchenozzle part is funny.
What about vaginal belch? Doesn't that scream comedy more than anger? Even if it is dark and insulting comedy.
How can they think I'm serious when using language like that?
Geez!
I am not a believer in conservative ideas, because they believe the "free market" will cure everything ideology which just does not pan out. But the conservatives are right on one point. The unemployment albatross hangs on the Democratic necks.
Public option is finished. Cap and Trade is finished. It hurts me (I am an environmental scientist and realize the damage we are doing), but we are not going to be able to do this in the current political environment.
The Progressive caucus will go for a smaller bill, what happened in 93-94 will scare them enough to do so.
As for bipartisanship, it is dead. Except perhaps for financial reform. Expect that to be the big push come January / February. And by the looks of it, its going to be a populist bill.
yeah ... it's all funny.
@spackemonkee09
We live in an oligarchy. Big business loves big government so it can freeze out upcoming compeitition.
What you're talking about there is fascism, where government is run by and for business interests. Yes, I agree, that is the sort of "government" that George II was running up until last year. Republicans do tend to want to "run the country like a business" (Bush actually used that as a campaign meme in 2000), and this is the very sort of thing they mean.
It is funny to see the very people (i.e., Republicans) who encourage this form of government telling us we should be leery of "big government". It's part of the "look over there so you won't see what I'm doing with my left hand" technique.
Anyway, this is a powerful argument in favor of campaign finance reform - disallow corporations from giving to any candidate, contributions from individuals only, and sane limits on the amount that can be contributed. Or maybe publicaly-financed campaigns.
The idea of a small government comes from the fear that the government becomes too big to be checked. There is some justification for wanting a small government. But in our paranoia about small government we go to the other extreme.
People really need to stop thinking of ideologies and start thinking practically at solutions to problems
I know people aren't going to want to hear this, but we need to divert that stimulus money to small and medium-sized businesses and their workers instead of temp projects that will do SQUAT to improve the state of employment.
http://democratictribune.com
Did Globalism kill the need for healthy consumers in this country?
Nope - the fact that we have an internet and smaller transport costs hasn't ended the need for consumers if - and here is where some globalists get lost - you give a fig about our own selfish interests as Americans.
We need other countries to prosper too, of course. first on the list of countries we need to promote growth, however, is Mexico and Canada. We should have such a list because we live here. Unless we are prosperous our notions about 'free trade' or any other ideals will be observed only as the rest of the world sees fit. And I guarantee that the rest of the world is not all that sacrificial when it comes to promoting globalist gospel.
About Japans Keynsian interlude - They were being run by hide bound conservatives who were hobbled by a late start but their efforts absolutely prevented worse disaster:
Richard Koo of the Nomura Research Institute*. In this, he explains how the combination of falling asset prices with high indebtedness forces the private sector to stop borrowing and pay down debt. The government then inevitably emerges as borrower and spender of last resort. Because the Japanese government knew this at least, the country suffered a prolonged recession rather than a slump.
It has long been argued that the US could not suffer like Japan. This is wrong. It is true the US has three advantages over Japan: the destruction of wealth in the collapse of the Japanese bubble was three times gross domestic product, while US losses will surely be far smaller; US non-financial companies do not appear grossly overindebted; and, despite efforts by opponents of marking assets to market, recognition of losses has come far sooner.
@DEM_in_Virginia
Public option is finished. Cap and Trade is finished.
That's old news. The right wing and MSM were saying that months ago. But apparently, someone forgot to tell the Congressional Dems, because they keep moving these things forward. SInce they're dead, though, I suppose we'll call them "zombies" when Obama actually signs the bills....
@Shrinkers
If they can sign it then great. The politicians take a stand on principle than on vote count. Somehow I do not see that happening.
I will be more than happy to be proven wrong though:)
"when Obama actually signs the bills" then we can file lawsuits challenging his legal standing as "President" and whether he is even a natural-born citizen.
Damn people here let Mule get the better of them way to often.
As I've said before, think of his posts like a Scalia dissent. They may be angry and wrong-headed but they're thoroughly entertaining and good for provoking debate. Often even intelligent debate.
It also helps that bleepul's doing his best Clarence Thomas with fawning and misunderstood praise of whatever Mule has to say.
Also, unemployment means that a plan to make health care cheaper and more transportable is dead? Seriously?
It means the Democrats need to do a better job of selling health care.
The public option lives! This would be the absolute worst time to give up on it.
Oh Jebus now Chucky is back! And this thread was getting pretty long already.
How many times do you birthers have to be proven wrong before you'll give up?
What you're talking about there is fascism, where government is run by and for business interests. Yes, I agree, that is the sort of "government" that George II was running up until last year. Republicans do tend to want to "run the country like a business" (Bush actually used that as a campaign meme in 2000), and this is the very sort of thing they mean.
Actually , we're running the same type of government under a different flag. You seem to forget that Obama pushed out the primary loanholders who were holding Chrysler's debt. He completely ripped up their contract and bullied them into finally relenting. That my friend is fascism. Republican. Democrat. I don't think it matters anymore.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/06/house-health-care-vote-may-be-delayed-sources-say/
Jacob:
No one has PROVEN in a court of law that Obama was born in Hawaii. He continues fighting any and all lawsuits (to the point of directing DoD to revoke deployment orders) just so that question does NOT get litigated.
@payne: You need to understand something about taxes. The top marginal income tax rate has almost NO effect on investment, because major long-term investors don't invest for income, but for capital gains. Consider that the top marginal income tax rate in the United States was over 90% for a generation after WWII, during which time the country experienced an enormous boom in investment and production.
The top capital gains tax rate has ALWAYS been significantly lower -- in the post-WWII period it was 25% and only went up during for a brief period during the Vietnam War. When Reagan took office it was 20%; when he left office it was 28%, because Reagan was a man who evaluated policy in terms of his own experience, and as an actor he had paid such heavy income taxes that he limited the number of movies he made each year. Capital gains were not his problem. It seemed perfectly reasonable to him that income and capital gains be treated the same for tax purposes. (To me, too, but that's not the point of this discussion.)
I realize that you're probably not a multi-millionaire and that your long-term investments are sitting in tax-sheltered IRAs, and that what truly concerns you is the money you take home each week, which is affected by the income tax rate. But with all due respect, the amount of money you (and I) have to invest in new enterprises is chump change. The money that major players have to invest is used to acquire whole companies, and is done with the knowledge that when the time comes to "cash out," the tax rate they'll pay is the capital gains rate, NOT the rate that Reagan lowered.
Which is why Reagan's tax cuts failed to jump-start the economy in 1981 or 1982. What did so was something far more important the the top marginal income tax rate -- the cost of money.
Nobody is fighting lawsuits. They are getting thrown out and those making the claims are being laughed at.
I understand getting clobbered in the polls is tough for some people Charles but man up and deal with it like an adult and stop trying to make excuses for it.
What excuses?! GOP won New Jersey AND Virginia, in case you missed it. Maine 1 also won!!!
Hey Jacob,
I just want to be entertained while I work. Your posts are boring. Long live the Mule Rider.
@DEM_in_Virginia
The idea of a small government comes from the fear that the government becomes too big to be checked.
The people who wrote our Constitution were well aware of the dangers of unchecked government. That's why we have 3 independent branches, two separate legislative chambers, regular and scheduled elections, a limited executive, a judiciary that is supposed to be outside of political pressures, etc., etc.
The idea was to keep the power to govern in the hands of the people. Yes, the people can make mistakes - but within every six years (the term of a Senator), the entire government can be peacefully overthrown and replaced. In theory - every single elected official can be booted within that time frame.
The question isn't between large vs small government. It is between repressive vs responsive government. The government should be the size it should be, to fill the needs and roles that We The People decide for it.
This "big government is bad" meme is false, and has been used destructively. Small government can be far worse. The only thing that is proper is government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and, in truth, size does not matter, regardless of what the guys who prefer small ones tell you. :)
Hopefully, we'll all now get to have an active discussion about how to pull ourselves out of this economic mess. Even the administration itself seemed to take the approach that 'The Market Will Fix It'. Meanwhile, more than 1-in-10 of our fellow Americans can't even find a simple job to pay the bills.
From a pure political standpoint, everyone can learn a lot from McDonnell. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Let all Americns finally, FINALLY, talk about Jobs, Jobs, JOBS! Its long overdue.
Charles, you've been making these childish claims prior to the recent elections. I was referring to Nov. 4th when Republicans lost the last branch of Govn't they controlled.
Back to the vote on Obamacare, now it may happen SUNDAY:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/hoyer-house-health-care-bill-218-votes/story?id=9013981
So Charles,
In answer to my question then, never? No matter how much evidence is presented?
If somehow some vengeful and misguided birther judge ignored all of the relevant evidence and ordered Obama to PUBLICLY release confidential information such as the long-form birth certificate, the birther movement would ask for someone else.
So if somehow you personally got to see the long form, what proof would you ask for next?
Or would you claim it's a forgery?
A conspiracy?
Since nothing will placate you people, what would the next line of attack be?
liberal_defender_of_freedom:
Last time I checked, there are more REPUBLICANS on the Supreme Court than Democrats . . .
Good grief. I should have realized Charles is a birther.
Charles, here's a place that's much more suited to you.
Look, Charles, there are others of Your Own Kind!
Jacob:
I never said "never" and I can't speak for my "people" (especially since some of YOUR people still think that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand).
filistro:
No thanks, I enjoy it here just fine.
The Republicans hold the Supreme Court.
Nice.
Well, YOU were the one who claimed that the Republicans lost the last branch of Govn't that they controlled last November. Apology accepted.
Your people=birthers, I'm not trying to lump rational conservatives in with them.
I never claimed to be a "truther."
So if not never, then what would it take to convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Personally, I think that if you and Orly Taitz had a time machine and could personally witness Obama's birth in Honolulu in 1961, you still wouldn't believe it.
Geez, the personal argument with Mule does down, adn Charles shows up? Coincidence?
Please, people, don't let the thread be entirely hijacked. I'm gonna respond to Chas (and that statement will, of course, lead Charles into trying to taut me - watch, he'll respond to this post, I betcha!) and I recommend others do likewise.
Honestly, it's the equivalent of the teabaggers at town hall meetings, standing up and screaming incoherently in the hopes of shutting off conversation.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Still, I can't imagine it will be much better than 9.5% or so, and if this is the case, look for the Democrats to lose a good 20-30 seats easily.
Remember that when the Republicans took the House and Senate in 1994 the ecomony was in relatively good shape.
That seems quite reasonable to me, Walker. The Democrats will retain their majority in the House in 2010 but it'll drop back to around 2006 levels. The Senate is probably going to look a little better for the Democrats, but we'll still probably lose a few seats. Pretty typical and expected of a first midterm.
If the economy completely tanks or health care reform doesn't pass, then that'll change things, but at this point both of those don't look very likely. IMHO, of course.
Typo. I meant I'm not gonna respond to Charles.
Jacob:
The original LONG FORM birth certificate signed by the doctor.
Wouldn't many of these progressive social initiatives be much more palatable if the public wasn't be drained by various fees and taxes?
Property tax, cell phone tax, gasoiline tax, air breathing tax. LOL
Then on top of it you have the DoD wasting billions of dollars on god knows what. The corporate welfare speaks for itself. the habitual shakedown by the unions and other lobbying groups. Everywhere you look the nation is beset by thankless parasites, who are in no mood to cease their rampant consumption.
Oh man, these Birthers again ? Pretty please with sugar on top, can we talk about "real issues" ?
uriel -
I should have summarized better. Liberals should be for less government in ordinary times because the (currently big corporate) elite interests who usualy run government won't spend money to help anyone but themselves while they will tax the poor to death. We would be best served with a negative income tax to go along with a gurantee of health care as the rest of the industrialized world enjoys. we should then harp on any and all spending for buisnesses welfare. That would be a very lean government as buisnesses welfare consumes most government resources.
As for defaltionary spirals - only the suicidal don't spend money to bolster consumers in these times.
what do you have against gasoline tax ? Spacemonkey ?
I don't like that we're doubledipped with a federal AND state tax on gasoline. And sometimes there is a vast discrepancy from state to state.
Back to Obamacare (WH statement released this afternoon):
"The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a bill that represents a critical milestone in the effort to reform our health care system. H.R. 3962 will provide needed insurance reforms for Americans with insurance, expand coverage for those who do not have insurance, lower costs for families and businesses, and begin to reduce the Nation’s deficit. It meets the President’s criteria for health insurance reform: it assures that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care that is there when they need it and does so without adding a dime to the deficit."
What about "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions"?
OBAMA: YOU LIE!!!
What I can't stand is how the media skews this data. Every month that these results come out, they make a big announcement, "Unemployment Highest in 26 Years.", But the month before, it was also higher than it has been in the past 26 years.
Also, they think the cumulative unemployment is a accurate benchmark for how well our economy is doing. But in fact, the better benchmark is Real GDP. And rGDP is increasing. By definition, we are out of the recession.
In addition, the rate at which we are losing jobs is decreasing. That is a good sign for economists.
I love it when this board devolves to name calling and i-know-you-are-what-am-i witty repartee.
Strips away the thin veil of smugness to reveal the angry navel gazers.
Has it occurred to none of you that maybe, just maybe (as Robert Reich recently said) if Obama had made job creation a priority instead of health care, he might be crowing about decreased joblessness from the Rose Garden, not (as cnn so delicately put it) visiting Congress for some arm twisting?
A classic case of misplaced priorities. He could be sitting atop a nice stack of small achieved goals, but instead squandered the massive amount of political capital in his possession on Cap and Trade (which Barbara Boxer just killed with alarming stupidity) and a health care bill that, if it has any truly good effects, they won't be felt until 2013.
Astounding missteps in a usually very adept politician.
What do you progressives think about about letting the housing market contract to their intrinsic values, so the average joe can actually afford a home without being signing off on some devious ARM agreement? Yes, the banks would be wiped out but shouldn't have they seen the writing on the wall? Privatize the profit but socialzie the risk? Doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
Truthfully, it's time to stop with the infrastructure stimulus spending and divert that money to small and medium-sized businesses. If we don't get this economy producing jobs soon, the only thing those bridges will be good for will be providing something for the unemployed to sleep under.
http://democratictribune.com
Post a Comment