Page 93 of 194 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103143193 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 930 of 1936

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

  1. #921
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jambalaya View Post
    A big Amen Barbarian. The Republicans usually get drunk on tax cuts and the Democrats get drunk on spending. We had a situation where both got drunk on spending and tax cuts while only giving token resistance to each other to put on a show for their constituents. That equals disaster. And people don't talk about NAFTA and other free trade agreements enough. We need to admit those agreements have been nothing but poison for us.
    Thank you, I'm not totally against tax increases, I was one of the conservatives that think letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't such a bad thing .. Business did well during the 90's so I don't think taxes were to high to hurt the economy. But I'm not for giving the government more money until they show they are serious about reining back spending.

    It's like pumping blood into someone that has cut a main artery and never bothering to fix the wound, just keeping pumping blood into to replace what is being lost.

  2. #922
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    If the govt. doesn't borrow that money and spend it we wouldn't have as much debt and debt service. You seem to believe the govt. is the answer, I disagree as govt. has taken on roles it has no business in doing.
    Fiscal stimulus is the only answer when the economy is in a liquidity trap. What is a liquidity trap? I'll save you the time:

    From wiki

    In its original conception, a liquidity trap refers to the phenomenon when further injections of money into the economy will not serve to further lower interest rates. This can be visualized through a demand curve. Demand for money becomes perfectly elastic (i.e. where the demand curve for money is horizontal). Under the narrow version of Keynesian theory in which this arises, it is specified that monetary policy affects the economy only through its effect on interest rates. Thus, if an economy enters a liquidity trap, further increases in the money stock will fail to further lower interest rates and, therefore, fail to stimulate.

    In the wake of the Keynesian revolution in the 1930s and 1940s, various neoclassical economists sought to minimize the concept of a liquidity trap by specifying conditions in which expansive monetary policy would affect the economy even if interest rates failed to decline. Don Patinkin and Lloyd Metzler specified the existence of a "Pigou effect," named after English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou, in which the stock of real money balances is an element of the aggregate demand function for goods, so that the money stock would directly affect the "Investment Saving" curve in an IS/LM analysis, and monetary policy would thus be able to stimulate the economy even during the existence of a liquidity trap. While many economists had serious doubts about the existence or significance of this Pigou Effect, by the 1960s academic economists gave little credence to the concept of a liquidity trap.

    The neoclassical economists asserted that, even in a liquidity trap, expansive monetary policy could still stimulate the economy via the direct effects of increased money stocks on aggregate demand. This was essentially the hope of the Bank of Japan in the 1990s, when it embarked upon quantitative easing. Similarly it was the hope of the central banks of the United States and Europe in 2008–2009, with their foray into quantitative easing. These policy initiatives tried to stimulate the economy through methods other than the reduction of short-term interest rates.

    When the Japanese economy fell into a period of prolonged stagnation despite near-zero interest rates, the concept of a liquidity trap returned to prominence.[1] However, while Keynes's formulation of a liquidity trap refers to the existence of a horizontal demand curve for money at some positive level of interest rates, the liquidity trap invoked in the 1990s referred merely to the presence of zero interest rates (ZIRP), the assertion being that since interest rates could not fall below zero, monetary policy would prove impotent in those conditions, just as it was asserted to be in a proper exposition of a liquidity trap.

    While this later conception differed from that asserted by Keynes, both views have in common first the assertion that monetary policy affects the economy only via interest rates, and second the conclusion that monetary policy cannot stimulate an economy in a liquidity trap. Declines in monetary velocity offset injections of short term liquidity.

    Much the same furor has emerged in the United States and Europe in 2008–2010, as short-term policy rates for the various central banks have moved close to zero.[2]

    In October 2010, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz explained how the U.S. Federal Reserve was implementing another monetary policy—creating currency—to combat the liquidity trap.[3] Stiglitz noted that the Federal Reserve intended, by creating $600 billion and inserting this directly into banks, to spur banks to finance more domestic loans and refinance mortgages. However, Stiglitz pointed out that banks were instead spending the money in more profitable areas by investing internationally in commodities and the emerging markets. Banks were also investing in foreign currencies which, Stiglitz and others point out, may lead to currency wars while China redirects its currency holdings away from the United States.[4]

    Economist Scott Sumner has criticized the idea that Japan unsuccessfully attempted expansionary monetary policy during the Lost Decade. Indeed, he claims Japan's monetary policy was far too tight.
    Sorry, but I don't really care about your formulas but I do care about reality.
    The formula is based on reality: For example, see the NIPA tables from BEA.gov, which give a thorough breakdown of the C+I+G+NX = GDP

    Consumption is 2/3rds of GDP
    And the sky is blue on a bright summer day. What is your point?

    Net Exports has been negative as we have continued to run a trade deficit and that reduces GDP now.
    More of your ignorance is displayed. A negative import/export ratio symbolizes we purchase more from abroad than we sell to them, which is a good thing if your trading partner has a low-skill labor comparative advantage. However, a current account must be balanced, and therefore the absolute value of NX is then injected from abroad in the form of foreign direct investment. For more information, research the current account.

    Govt spending is about 20% of GDP and we can do with less of that which will be offset by consumer spending and more attractive job markets.
    What makes you believe that cutting spending will lead to more consumption? If you cut spending, you will cut jobs which will surely decrease consumption, and put more fear in the consumer.

    We don't live in a socialist economy that you are trying to create here.
    Nonsense. You simply lack the experience and education in regards to the political economy that would allow you to even identify my position.

    Business can do quite well especially the private sector small businesses without massive govt. spending and that is where the jobs are created.
    Massive government spending began in the 80's and continues to this day. It is simply irresponsible to believe gutting government at a time where unemployment is @ 9.1% will lead to growth. I might lead to growth 10 years from now, but an entire generation will likely suffer from such a policy.

    The only viable alternative now is to cut spending
    Which would kill jobs instantly, and cause a negative blow to consumer confidence.

    and increase economic activity through incentives to the private sector.
    WTF? Interest rates are at or near all time lows, taxes are at their lowest levels since the 20's.

    Cutting corporate tax rates will do that and make us more competitive with foreign countries and would also stablize the value of the dollar making our products more attractive overseas
    Wow.... I mean, this is cute. A stronger dollar makes are products more attractive overseas?

    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. #923
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I've tried to figure out a way to answer your mathematical formula, but I can't. I also am not sure it really has much relevance here. First how can you or anyone just nominally hold “I” (investment)
    “C” (consumption) and “NX” constant ? What happens if like recently our exports rise ?

    How could investments be held constant ? Or for that matter consumption?

    I'm sorry maybe I'm just not understanding... because it just seems that altho what you are saying maybe true today, 30 days, 6months, or a year from now that could change.
    It was a simple mathematical representation that proves what happens when you cut government spending, ceteris paribus. Of course, cutting government spending during periods of high unemployment will also cause investment and consumption to decrease, but that was beyond the point i was trying to convey. Reason being, if cops, military personal, permit issuers, statisticians, etc... employed by the government lose their jobs, they will undoubtedly spend less, which will cause local companies to layoff workers, which causes consumption to fall until it reaches a bottom.

    If our economy falls by 20%, it will require 25% of growth to get back to its previous level. In the meantime, capital depreciates, people get older, and skills begin to stagnate as unemployment continues to stay high.

    I COMPLETELY agree we need to cut spending, but not when unemployment is @ 9.1%. The best time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, so it can pick up the slack of the public sector.

    Now is not the time.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-07-11 at 03:11 PM.
    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

  4. #924
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Fiscal stimulus is the only answer when the economy is in a liquidity trap. What is a liquidity trap? I'll save you the time:

    From wiki





    The formula is based on reality: For example, see the NIPA tables from BEA.gov, which give a thorough breakdown of the C+I+G+NX = GDP



    And the sky is blue on a bright summer day. What is your point?



    More of your ignorance is displayed. A negative import/export ratio symbolizes we purchase more from abroad than we sell to them, which is a good thing if your trading partner has a low-skill labor comparative advantage. However, a current account must be balanced, and therefore the absolute value of NX is then injected from abroad in the form of foreign direct investment. For more information, research the current account.



    What makes you believe that cutting spending will lead to more consumption? If you cut spending, you will cut jobs which will surely decrease consumption, and put more fear in the consumer.



    Nonsense. You simply lack the experience and education in regards to the political economy that would allow you to even identify my position.



    Massive government spending began in the 80's and continues to this day. It is simply irresponsible to believe gutting government at a time where unemployment is @ 9.1% will lead to growth. I might lead to growth 10 years from now, but an entire generation will likely suffer from such a policy.



    Which would kill jobs instantly, and cause a negative blow to consumer confidence.



    WTF? Interest rates are at or near all time lows, taxes are at their lowest levels since the 20's.



    Wow.... I mean, this is cute. A stronger dollar makes are products more attractive overseas?

    Thanks for the intellectual gobblygoop. Consumption is currently 70% of GDP, Net imports and experts is negative as we have a trade deficit, Govt spending is 20%, and investment is 10% so cutting govt. spending may cut jobs in the public sector but those jobs are being funded by the taxpayers now.

    As for blow to consumer confidence? Have you seen the latest consumer confidence? You think more govt spending is going to change that? the problem now is the debt along with unemployment. It is up to the private sector to change that and an increase in govt. spending doesn't do that.

    Glad my posts are cute. Have a good one.

  5. #925
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Let's hear it libs, how the economy is getting better.....Ha! what a joke....

    Then there is this little ditty.....



    That 16% must largely be in these forums from what I see of the posting from liberals, and liberals that are ashamed to admit they are liberals in here...

    j-mac
    Lets see you expect corporate america to create jobs when they are at least smart enough to know if they hold out until the 2012 elections that they might have a republican dominated business friendly government that is running on reducing corporate tax rates and regulations.

    I can only hope that americans are smart enough to remember what 10 years of Bush tax cuts and Reagan's trickle down economics have done to the middle class and the poor in our country, instead of jobs and trickle down the Republicans have plundered the wealth of this country to the point of where 93 percent of America's wealth is now controlled by 20% of our population, to the point of high unemployment.

    It's time for the middle class and the poor to show that 80% of our population can recover what the republicans have stolen from the poor and middle class. If we want jobs in America for Americans it's time to send the carpetbaggers and thier supporters back into the holes they crawled out of

  6. #926
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Glad my posts are cute. Have a good one.
    Answer me straight. Does a stronger dollar make our goods more attractive abroad? This should be obvious coming from someone who "ran a $200 million" business.

    So?????????
    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

  7. #927
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Answer me straight. Does a stronger dollar make our goods more attractive abroad? This should be obvious coming from someone who "ran a $200 million" business.

    So?????????
    It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country, yes it could make goods more attractive abroad. This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.

  8. #928
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country
    This is not what you said. For a refreshment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    stablize the value of the dollar making our products more attractive overseas
    yes it could make goods more attractive abroad.
    Incorrect, which proves you really have no business discussing these topics to the length at which you go.

    This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.
    We import oil.

    And to think, you ran a $200 million business
    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. #929
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Lets see you expect corporate america to create jobs when they are at least smart enough to know if they hold out until the 2012 elections that they might have a republican dominated business friendly government that is running on reducing corporate tax rates and regulations.

    I can only hope that americans are smart enough to remember what 10 years of Bush tax cuts and Reagan's trickle down economics have done to the middle class and the poor in our country, instead of jobs and trickle down the Republicans have plundered the wealth of this country to the point of where 93 percent of America's wealth is now controlled by 20% of our population, to the point of high unemployment.

    It's time for the middle class and the poor to show that 80% of our population can recover what the republicans have stolen from the poor and middle class. If we want jobs in America for Americans it's time to send the carpetbaggers and thier supporters back into the holes they crawled out of
    Hopefully you are sending your Bush tax cuts back to the govt. to reward them for their great stewardship of the economy and for creating a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. Love how stealing from the poor is allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Wonder how those evil Republicans cutting taxes increased govt. revenue?

    Personal income taxes by year

    Individual Income tax

    2010 898.5
    2009 915.3
    2008 1,145.7
    2007 1,163.7
    2006 1,043.9
    2005 927.2
    2004 808.9
    2003 793.7

    U.S. Treasury

    Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

  10. #930
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    It certainly means our dollar buys more and depending on prices in this country, yes it could make goods more attractive abroad. This certainly affects oil prices which are traded in dollars.
    epic_fail.jpg

    ..................

Posting Permissions

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