Page 107 of 194 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109117157 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,070 of 1936

Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

  1. #1061
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    It is the Feds to provide credit when the markets are unable to provide it for themselves. Strong corporations with quality balance sheets couldn't get the credit required to run their day to day operations.

    For example, GE was terrified at the notion they would have to liquidate assets as a means of funding various operations as the commercial paper market essentially locked up. Therefore, it is the Fed's job to step in as lender of last resort when credit markets fail to function properly.
    Well we are going to have to disagree on this one. I don't accept them bailing out gamblers ... most of whom ripped the country off with their insanity. Especially with their junk backing loans. GE gets no love either. Jack Welch and his factory barges ... Immelt and his export of advanced technology. Should have let them sink.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  2. #1062
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    As I've already stated if you want the term for a year ... I'll accept the "effective" bailout amount for a year.
    The amount shown in table 9 is the total amount loaned, not for a year, but for the entire span associated with the audit (2007-2010).

    Now when I quote 40 trillion instead of 16 trillion in loans will you call it a conspiracy? As I don't see where you get 40 trillion.
    It could have been even greater than $40 trillion, but i have no way of knowing unless i have access to the durations of TAF, TALF CCFF, etc....

    (from the GAO report):

    For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.
    And I'd like a response as to why it's not secret.
    reserve-bank-credit-Jan-2011.jpg

    111.jpg
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-08-11 at 02:33 AM. Reason: the graph was incorrect
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #1063
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The amount shown in table 9 is the total amount loaned, not for a year, but for the entire span associated with the audit (2007-2010).



    It could have been even greater than $40 trillion, but i have no way of knowing unless i have access to the durations of TAF, TALF CCFF, etc....

    (from the GAO report):




    reserve-bank-credit-Jan-2011.jpg

    111.jpg
    Table 8 is the correct amount of loans. Table 9 is the term adjusted amount.

    16 Trillion is correct. The note on table 9 explains it

    Table 9 should be correct based upon the note at table 9 ... dollar amounts are term adjusted for a year ... with deviation for loans paid before the original loan maturity date. You don't need the duration as it is already adjusted for in Table 9

    PDCF and TAF

    Table 8 aggregates total dollar
    transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but
    does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in
    the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight
    PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30
    business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300
    billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30
    days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month
    period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction
    amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the
    total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made
    loans for periods longer than overnight.
    Table 9
    To account for differences in the terms for loans that were outstanding,
    we multiplied each loan amount by the number of days the loan was
    outstanding and divided this amount by the number of days in a year
    (365). Table 9 shows the top 20 borrowing institutions in terms of termadjusted
    total transaction amount for emergency programs and other
    assistance provided directly to institutions facing liquidity strains.

    Note: The dollar amounts borrowed for each loan were term-adjusted by multiplying the loan amount
    by the term to maturity for the loan and dividing by 365 days. Term to maturity is calculated as the
    difference between the original loan maturity date and the trade date and does not reflect repayments
    of loans that occurred before the original loan maturity date. Total borrowing is aggregated at the
    parent company level and generally includes borrowing by branches, agencies, subsidiaries, and
    sponsored ABCP conduits that we could identify. Total borrowing for each parent company
    consolidates amounts borrowed by acquired institutions following the completion of acquisitions.
    PDCF totals include credit extensions to affiliates of some primary dealers and TSLF totals include
    loans under the TSLF Options Program (TOP).
    Last edited by Michael H; 09-08-11 at 02:56 AM.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  4. #1064
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Uh-oh!







    Aside from the fact that Bush's budget ran trhough September, 2009, plus TARP, plus supplimentals for his wars, he's responsible for well over a trillion dollars, the FY2008 deficit also topped a trillion dollars.


    Well I've offered you many opportunities to show where in that GAO report it said the cost was above the $639B it stated was the "estimated loss" "to the United States," but you folded like a bad poker hand; I asked many times for you to show where it stated that $639B was not the total cost, but you ran away like a frightened schoolgirl; I challenged you to show where that report stated direct + indirect costs exceeded a trillion dollars, but you failed like the 2008 Lions.


    Speaking of sickness ... I've posted those side-by-side comparisons about 5 times now and yet you're still waiting for them.
    Doesn't matter how long the Bush BUDGET ran, Obama spent the money and Obama approved the spending. Obama voted for the Budget as I pointed out earlier in this thread and thus Obama is responsible for the deficit as history will show

    If you read the report you will see that there were direct and indirect costs,, You don't know the difference. The direct costs were 639 billion and the indirect costs such as lost wages, lost tax revenue, etc took that well over 1 trillion dollars

    You have posted percentage change which mean nothing but keep saying the same things over and over again and believe that they are true. You have a bad case of BDS as well as a lack of civics understanding

  5. #1065
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    Table 8 is the correct amount of loans. Table 9 is the term adjusted amount.

    16 Trillion is correct. The note on table 9 explains it

    Table 9 should be correct based upon the note at table 9 ... dollar amounts are term adjusted for a year ... with deviation for loans paid before the original loan maturity date. You don't need the duration as it is already adjusted for in Table 9

    PDCF and TAF



    Table 9

    Have you read anything that i posted? I provided the same context to which i highlighted in the bold red. Why all the sudden do you feel the need to act as though this is some new information?

    I have little interest in continuing this discussion because you are being either purposely obtuse, or you are replying to my posts without reading them in their entirety.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #1066
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    They had terrorist attacks under Bush as well. frankly, the overall death total is much higher under Bush.
    Well then by all means, please, list them as I have or else I'll call you the partisan hack you already know you are.

  7. #1067
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    Well then by all means, please, list them as I have or else I'll call you the partisan hack you already know you are.
    Old news, and something anyone discussing it should know. But sure, no problem:

    NEW YORK — As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

    Terrorism deaths on increase - US news - Security - msnbc.com

    As nihilistic as it may be, al-Qaeda, from a business point of view, is a major success: three years after September 11, it is a global brand and a global movement. The Middle East, in this scenario, is just a regional base station. This global brand does not have much to do with Islam. But it has everything to do with the globalization of anti-imperialism. And the empire, whatever its definition, has its center in Washington. Bin Laden is laughing: Bush's crusade has legitimized an obscure sect as a worldwide symbol of political revolt. How could bin Laden not vote for Bush?

    Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East

    In addition to rebuilding its organization and enhancing its capacity to attack the United States homeland, as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell reported in the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment, al Qaeda also has significantly expanded its worldwide operational and ideological reach over the past few years. New terrorist organizations have emerged and many existing networks have gained renewed strength, from al Qaeda affiliates in North Africa and Southeast Asia to "homegrown" extremists operating in many parts of Europe and even in the United States. While these organizations often draw resources and inspiration from al Qaeda, they primarily operate independently, making them more difficult to identify and defeat

    The Bush-Republican Record of Failure in Combating Global Terrorism

    One of the many sad ironies of the Bush era that is rapidly and mercifully drawing to a close is that after the president created a �central front in the war on terror� by invading Iraq, the amount of �terrorism� in the world skyrocketed. I call it the Bush Bubble:

    The Raw Story | White House: Increase in terror attacks since 9/11 a success

    Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

    U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism


    I do have to leave for a awhile, but any search would show you much more than I've listed.


    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #1068
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Doesn't matter how long the Bush BUDGET ran, Obama spent the money and Obama approved the spending. Obama voted for the Budget as I pointed out earlier in this thread and thus Obama is responsible for the deficit as history will show

    If you read the report you will see that there were direct and indirect costs,, You don't know the difference. The direct costs were 639 billion and the indirect costs such as lost wages, lost tax revenue, etc took that well over 1 trillion dollars

    You have posted percentage change which mean nothing but keep saying the same things over and over again and believe that they are true. You have a bad case of BDS as well as a lack of civics understanding
    That is the nature of a financial and economic downturn. Automatic stabilizers (unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare tend to increase when jobs are lost) combined with a reduction in revenue (due to unemployment, wealth loss, etc...) naturally increase a deficit in a downturn. This has happened to every administration, Dem or Rep, since WWII.

    However, it is a TRAVESTY to run deficits during periods of economic growth (or when the natural rate of unemployment converges with the actual U-3 rate of unemployment).
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #1069
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    That is the nature of a financial and economic downturn. Automatic stabilizers (unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare tend to increase when jobs are lost) combined with a reduction in revenue (due to unemployment, wealth loss, etc...) naturally increase a deficit in a downturn. This has happened to every administration, Dem or Rep, since WWII.

    However, it is a TRAVESTY to run deficits during periods of economic growth (or when the natural rate of unemployment converges with the actual U-3 rate of unemployment).
    What is your recommendation to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work? Why didn't the 840 billion dollar stimulus program signed in Feb. 2009 do that and create more employment than when Obama took office?

    there is no way the govt. can grow the economy out of a debt this big nor can they tax enough to do it. Far too many people don't understand the free enterprise/Capitalism economy that we have today. Anyone here believe that the Obama job's plan this time will result in any different results than last time? Obama and his minions don't understand how to create jobs.

  10. #1070
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What is your recommendation to put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work? Why didn't the 840 billion dollar stimulus program signed in Feb. 2009 do that and create more employment than when Obama took office?
    It was far too small, and was made up primarily of tax cuts/breaks (the largest portion).

    $1.5 trillion spent with a multipler of 2 (i am assuming as a whole, the marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%), spanned across 3 years would boost output by around $1 trillion a year on average.

    In retrospect, the $800 billion stimulus (assuming the same MPCDG, and therefore the same multiplier) only accounts for (on average) $533 billion per year for 3 years.

    The Obama economic team blew it from the get-go, stating that unemployment would not even reach 9% WITHOUT stimulus! And with stimulus, it went all the way to 10.2%! This means they undershot the stimulus.

    there is no way the govt. can grow the economy out of a debt this big nor can they tax enough to do it.
    Why? It worked during WWII when the government spent so much bloody money, the unemployment rate hit an all time low of 1.2% (10 years after the initial downturn). Why would it not work this time around?

    Far too many people don't understand the free enterprise/Capitalism economy that we have today.
    Nonsense. I understand how our economy works, and the mechanisms within it far more than you ever will. The content of my post are representative of that.

    Anyone here believe that the Obama job's plan this time will result in any different results than last time? Obama and his minions don't understand how to create jobs.
    The early on Obama administration was trying to appease far to many sides of the political spectrum. The key is to invest in public works. Tax cuts will under-perform as a means of stimulus until the level of house hold debt as a % of GDP falls to around 60%. Remember, stimulus is always a short term fix, and saving tax proceeds does not boost the economy in the short term.

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •