Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 79

Thread: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You really don't know where or when to stop.

    Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I understand rhetoric and rhetorical, apparently some don't.

  2. #52
    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: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    I didn't think it would. It's not wise to attempt to smack around others if you're not prepared to answer simple questions...
    My purpose in this thread is not to explain my take on political economy, it is to discuss the topic, i.e. recent unemployment figures. If you really want to discuss peoples takes on economics in general, then create a thread.
    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. #53
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    My purpose in this thread is not to explain my take on political economy, it is to discuss the topic, i.e. recent unemployment figures. If you really want to discuss peoples takes on economics in general, then create a thread.
    Then discuss them. What is your take on the labor participation rate?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Then discuss them. What is your take on the labor participation rate?
    The formula used to calculate unemployment is extremely flawed... Factor in those who don't receive unemployment insurance and who generally take jobs as they come for under the table cash - you're looking at an unemployment rate upwards of 15% but it's probably closer to 20%.

    Of course those 20% are not even acknowledged when the "jobs report" comes out - neither is the net loss in jobs - no, the media only reports "gains" however 2 minus 3 is not a gain, it's a loss however the media portrays it as a gain.

    Of course people don't know any of this because the progressive media is blatantly dishonest.

  5. #55
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    The formula used to calculate unemployment is extremely flawed... Factor in those who don't receive unemployment insurance and who generally take jobs as they come for under the table cash - you're looking at an unemployment rate upwards of 15% but it's probably closer to 20%.

    Of course those 20% are not even acknowledged when the "jobs report" comes out - neither is the net loss in jobs - no, the media only reports "gains" however 2 minus 3 is not a gain, it's a loss however the media portrays it as a gain.

    Of course people don't know any of this because the progressive media is blatantly dishonest.
    Unfortunately, the formula is what it is, but the U6 number does reflect the under employed and those working part-time who would like to be working full-time. The interesting thing in the labor participation rate is that it is a measure of sorts of those who have given up looking for a job and removed themselves from the participating workforce...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Infrastructure investment is the best type of stimulus when overnight interest rates are effectively pushed against the zero-bound.
    Stop calling it "Infrastructure Investment". It's Government Spending. You just want Government to spend money for the sake of spending money. Most of these Infrastructure Projects are going to get done anyways. There is no net gain. It's like Cash for Clunkers. Most of the people who bought cars were going to buy them anyways. Not only that, but the cars they turned in were for the most part vehicles that were running fine that were destroyed. This in turn caused damage to the environment, and create literally tons of waste that was crushed and devalued instantly.

    The*big**debacle - August 7, 2006

    How bad is it? Tragically so. In early July a 38-year-old Costa Rican newlywed, who might have had a reasonable expectation of driving safely through a thoroughly modern tunnel designed by construction giants Bechtel Corp. and Parsons Brinckerhoff, died when a three-ton concrete slab fell onto the Buick sedan in which she was riding.

    It was not a freak accident. Preliminary investigations revealed hundreds of potential problem areas. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney called the tragedy a "systemic failure, not an anomaly or a fluke."

    Here's the beauty part: You paid for most of it. The Big Dig, the final mega-project of the Interstate Highway System and by far the largest public works project in U.S. history, was 85% federally funded - at least until the massive cost overruns kicked in.
    Your premise is a false one. You're assuming Government Spending is the best way to stimulate an economy. You are mistaken.

    These "projects" would be paid with deficit spending (more borrowing/printing), not surpluses. Secondly interest rates are low artificially at the present time, so proper economic calculations in regards to prices, profit, and loss are obfuscated with Centrally Planned "Infrastructure Spending". Government blindly invests the money. The Federal Government has even stated that is wastes 125B a year in "improper payments", ie waste. These are resources that have been misallocated, which in the long run only cause more recessions.

    Government isn't "investing" anything. It's transferring resources. For Government to actually invest wealth, it would have to have created that wealth.

    You have nothing to cling to except for low brow editorials that attempt to define the ARRA multipliers (there is a composition pertaining to the type, e.g. tax cuts, state aid, etc...). Try something of value for once.
    You are projecting. Obama's stimulus added 800+ billion to the deficit. It created more than 800B in new debt. It didn't create any wealth. It created nothing but waste which can never be recovered. As time goes on, less and less of these "jobs" are being maintained while the costs of these jobs continue to skyrocket. Again, this is a misallocation of resources, because these are resources the Government had to take out of the hands of the people who produced the wealth in the private economy which could have been put to much better use there, where real wealth is created. Hence, Obama's failed stimulus had a fiscal multiplier of 1, since it didn't create a surplus. It created nothing but more debt. You need to change your political stance to Socialist. You are not a Libertarian.

    Fiscal stimulus when overnight interest rates are zero has never occurred in the U.S. This is simply a matter of fact. Reagan presided over an economy that was facing high inflation/high unemployment, and therefore increased deficit spending in the form of tax cuts and spending increases (military-Keynesianism) that were beneficial to helping the monetary policy objectives of the time "break the back" of inflation. There was never an instance of wealth loss (much less in the tune of 100% of GDP) during the height of the 1980's recession. Your attempt to compare the 1980's economic reality to the current economic reality is not as naive as it is uniformed.

    I have no expectation of a valid response. But if you want to talk about multipliers and such, maybe you should have a basic understanding of exactly what it is you wish to debate.

    Start here
    Laughable. I hope you are getting paid to type this nonsensical propaganda. Tax cuts are not an expense. Government Spending is.

    Reagan cut domestic spending by 5%. He massively cut tax rates which was directly responsible for an explosion in economic growth and job creation. Look it's not my problem your partisanship and ideology won't allow you to face the facts. There is no comparison between Reagan's Recovery and Obama's "recovery". Obama hasn't had a recovery. The Economy just SHRUNK after 6 Trillion was flushed down the toilet. Pure waste, but here you are, trying to dress up more failed fiscal "stimulus" with lies and propaganda. It's embarrassing.

    The Feds have been keeping overnight interest rates at zero since the end of 2008 and pumping away for quite some time now. It has been tried and it has failed. Secondly, what you are advocating has a price. It devalues the currency. We already see the effect in increasing prices in regards to commodities. (Oil/Food/ect), and reduced purchasing power of your money. It also hurts the savings of average Americans (especially workers who have retired). In other words, it's a hidden tax.

    Your response was not a valid one. I have no expectation that anything else you will attempt to post in this thread will be nothing more than obfuscation mixed with petty insults, hence not really worth anyone's time. Have a great evening

  7. #57
    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: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Stop calling it "Infrastructure Investment". It's Government Spending. You just want Government to spend money for the sake of spending money. Most of these Infrastructure Projects are going to get done anyways. There is no net gain. It's like Cash for Clunkers. Most of the people who bought cars were going to buy them anyways. Not only that, but the cars they turned in were for the most part vehicles that were running fine that were destroyed. This in turn caused damage to the environment, and create literally tons of waste that was crushed and devalued instantly.

    The*big**debacle - August 7, 2006
    Investing in our infrastructure is not only a necessary measure to ensure American competitiveness, but it is (as supported by the paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco).

    Quote Originally Posted by FRBSF
    Surprise increases in federal investment in roads and highways appear to have had positive effects on gross state product in both the short and medium run. The short-run impact is akin to the traditional Keynesian effect that stems from an increase in aggregate demand. By contrast, the positive impact on GSP in the medium run is probably due to supply-side effects that boost the economy’s productive capacity. Infrastructure investment gets a good bang for the buck in the sense that fiscal multipliers—the dollar of increased output for each dollar of spending—are large.
    Cash for clunkers is just your strawman. We know you cannot refute the impact that government financed infrastructure investment boosts economic output as evident in your need to go off on a tangent (cash for clunkers).

    Your premise is a false one. You're assuming Government Spending is the best way to stimulate an economy. You are mistaken.
    You are falsely assuming my position. During a liquidity trap when the private sector is unwilling drive economic growth, government spending is all we have.

    These "projects" would be paid with deficit spending (more borrowing/printing), not surpluses.
    That is the point. Borrowing from capital markets inject money into the economy that would not have existed without said borrowing.

    Secondly interest rates are low artificially at the present time, so proper economic calculations in regards to prices, profit, and loss are obfuscated with Centrally Planned "Infrastructure Spending". Government blindly invests the money.
    Nonsense. IHWS

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System, Interstate System, or simply the Interstate) is a network of freeways that forms a part of the National Highway System of the United States. The system is named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2010, it had a total length of 47,182 miles (75,932 km),[2] making it the world's second longest after China's. As of 2010, about one-quarter of all vehicle miles driven in the country use the Interstate system.[3] The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars),[4] making it the "largest public works program since the Pyramids".[5] The system has contributed in shaping the United States into a world economic superpower and a highly industrialized nation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson
    The Federal Government has even stated that is wastes 125B a year in "improper payments", ie waste. These are resources that have been misallocated, which in the long run only cause more recessions.
    I have never stated that government failure does not exist. I have stated (ad nausium) that when the private sector is either contracting or is not in an expansion mode necessary to provide recovery, the public sector becomes the only game in town.

    Government isn't "investing" anything. It's transferring resources. For Government to actually invest wealth, it would have to have created that wealth.
    When i borrow money from a bank, is it not supplied by the savings (wealth) of other entities looking to earn income (investment)? When the government borrows money from capital markets......

    You are projecting. Obama's stimulus added 800+ billion to the deficit. It created more than 800B in new debt. It didn't create any wealth. It created nothing but waste which can never be recovered. As time goes on, less and less of these "jobs" are being maintained while the costs of these jobs continue to skyrocket. Again, this is a misallocation of resources, because these are resources the Government had to take out of the hands of the people who produced the wealth in the private economy which could have been put to much better use there, where real wealth is created. Hence, Obama's failed stimulus had a fiscal multiplier of 1, since it didn't create a surplus. It created nothing but more debt. You need to change your political stance to Socialist. You are not a Libertarian.
    You simply do not know what you are talking about. Listening to partisan journalists and talking heads does not make informed in regards to macro political economy.

    Reagan cut domestic spending by 5%.
    He increased government spending by 53% during his presidency.

    He massively cut tax rates which was directly responsible for an explosion in economic growth and job creation.
    Effective tax rates are lower now than when they were during the Reagan administration. This is simply a matter of fact.

    Look it's not my problem your partisanship and ideology won't allow you to face the facts.
    I do not adhere to any particular ideology. Objective analysis does not lead people to adhere to any particular political division, e.g. your support of the GOP.

    There is no comparison between Reagan's Recovery and Obama's "recovery".
    You are correct, there is no comparison. The recession during the early 1980's was induced by monetary policy:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Economist
    The Fed began raising interest rates in 1977, and the American economy tipped into recession in 1980, at which point the central bank took its foot off the brakes. But inflation rates continued to rise, and so shortly after the economy recovered (briefly) in July of 1980, Mr Volcker orchestrated a series of interest rate increases that took the federal funds target from around 10% to near 20%.

    What followed was an extraordinarily painful recession. Unemployment rose to near 11%.
    The Feds have been keeping overnight interest rates at zero since the end of 2008 and pumping away for quite some time now. It has been tried and it has failed.
    That is what happens when the economy is in a liquidity trap.

    Secondly, what you are advocating has a price. It devalues the currency.
    Which boosts exports.

    We already see the effect in increasing prices in regards to commodities. (Oil/Food/ect), and reduced purchasing power of your money.
    Price dynamics in commodities is driven by supply and demand. Surging demand in the developing world, e.g. China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc..., accompanied by shortages from various forms of disruptions, e.g. drought and war, which is driving said prices. It has nothing to do with credit easing.

    Your response was not a valid one. I have no expectation that anything else you will attempt to post in this thread will be nothing more than obfuscation mixed with petty insults, hence not really worth anyone's time. Have a great evening
    Did you bother educating yourself in regards to the economics (and mathematics) behind fiscal multiplier analysis?
    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

  8. #58
    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: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Then discuss them. What is your take on the labor participation rate?
    Structural disequilibrium predicated by an aging population and a skills shortage.
    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. #59
    Sage

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

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Hmmmm I'm wondering how Reagan and Volcker would handled the current situation. I bet it would be pretty similiar

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Investing in our infrastructure is not only a necessary measure to ensure American competitiveness, but it is (as supported by the paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco).
    The Free market is what determines American Competitiveness. Not massive Government Spending that does nothing but add more to the deficit. Obama promised "shovel ready" jobs with his first failed stimulus. that didn't happen. Instead we saw nothing more than corruption with scams like "Green Jobs" and Solyndra. Stop using the term "investing". It's propaganda.

    This is the scam. People like you claim we need to "invest" in Infrastructure, pass 800B+ Stimuli, and then don't use any of those funds on 'Infrastructure Spending".

    Cash for clunkers is just your strawman. We know you cannot refute the impact that government financed infrastructure investment boosts economic output as evident in your need to go off on a tangent (cash for clunkers).
    Sorry, you don't get to dismiss it as a strawman. I've already refuted the impact of Government financed infrastructure which is just your propagandist way of saying "More Government Spending". It doesn't work. It just adds more to the deficit, creates more debt, devalues the currency, and reduces the purchasing power of our money. Obama's stimulus didn't create a surplus. It didn't create any wealth. It added the deficit. All government Spending does is move money from the left hand to the right hand.

    You are falsely assuming my position. During a liquidity trap when the private sector is unwilling drive economic growth, government spending is all we have.
    Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits. You just don't know what you are talking about. it's obvious. The danger is The Fed. Bernanke's idiotic policies are what potentially will cause a liquidity trap.

    Bernanke risks creating a liquidity trap - FT.com

    The Fed’s conditional commitment to hold short-term rates down for the next several years is an important way that the Fed can try to minimise investors’ fears of rates backing up soon or abruptly. But the more the Fed drags down the level of interest rates, the more attractive cash becomes on a relative basis, leading to a less-favourable portfolio rebalancing that looks just like a liquidity trap.
    That is the point. Borrowing from capital markets inject money into the economy that would not have existed without said borrowing.
    See above. This premise has already been blown out of the water

    Nonsense. IHWS
    So what are you proposing then? A massive defense build up from alien invasion like Kruhman advocated? There was real economic necessity that drove that decision. The type of Government Spending you are advocating for now is Government Spending for the sake of Government Spending. Your link only makes my argument stronger. I appreciate that.

    I have never stated that government failure does not exist. I have stated (ad nausium) that when the private sector is either contracting or is not in an expansion mode necessary to provide recovery, the public sector becomes the only game in town.
    It isn't though. Government Spending and the economic policies you advocate only dig the hole deeper. make recessions last longer, or cause more recessions. I only need to look at the destruction the economic policies you advocate have caused over the last 4 years alone. 6 trillion added to the deficit. A shrinking Labor Force. High black Unemployment. High youth Unemployment. Wages stagnant and low.

    When i borrow money from a bank, is it not supplied by the savings (wealth) of other entities looking to earn income (investment)? When the government borrows money from capital markets......
    See above. Your premise has already been refuted. Government Spending is the PROBLEM. Not the solution. It only creates more debt.

    You simply do not know what you are talking about. Listening to partisan journalists and talking heads does not make informed in regards to macro political economy.
    Boring dodge. You are once again projecting your own ignorance. Nothing more.

    Fighting the Cold War which he won. This is in turn led to the Peace Dividend. Bush Sr and Clinton took advantage of this which created millions upon millions of new jobs. Reagan created 18 million net+ jobs over the course of his Presidency. His deficit to GDP spending was still only 51%, because the Economy grew by more than 1/3 under his leadership. Compare that with Obama, who is now spending at 103% Deficit to GDP in an Economy that just shrunk after 4 years of his leadership. You're just not very good at this whole posting thing are you. Under Clinton the deficit to GDP ratio was 68%. Reagan >

    Effective tax rates are lower now than when they were during the Reagan administration. This is simply a matter of fact.
    Reagan cut the top rates from 70% - 28%. You're just parroting Ezra Klein talking points. This is not even worth my time. Obamacare has more than 20 new taxes about to kick in. many affect the poor and middle class. This is on top of oil/food prices skyrocketing. (A hidden tax).

    The tax cuts Reagan enacted didn't even take effect until later in his Presidency. using tax rates from 1980 is laughably misleading. So it's true. Carter's tax rates, not Reagan's, were higher than what people are taxed now. When discussing these things you need to start at the point where that president's tax policy actually went into effect. I mean you couldn't be more dishonest. I'm almost embarrassed for you. Reagan advocated a capital gains tax rate of 17.5%, and you're going to sit there with propaganda and try and claim taxes were higher under him than obama? It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Taxes under CARTER than obama (right now until obamacare kicks in) sure. I'll give you that.

    I do not adhere to any particular ideology. Objective analysis does not lead people to adhere to any particular political division, e.g. your support of the GOP.
    You're not an objective analyst. You're a far left hack who is pretending to be an objective analyst. I see right through your schtick. Change your political leaning to Socialist. It's really what you are. You are not a Libertarian. You are being dishonest by calling yourself a Libertarian.

    I'm not going to once again list the economic facts for you to ignore. The Economy grew by more than a third under reagan's leadership. Under obama it just shrunk. Cumulative GDP compared between the two it's not even close. You're really getting desperate. That much is obvious.

    That is what happens when the economy is in a liquidity trap.
    See above. You lied in your previous post

    Which boosts exports.
    US trade deficit hits seven-month high as exports stay low — RT

    The US trade deficit widened to $48.7 billion in November as visible imports grew by 3.8 percent and far outpaced the number of exports, thereby slowing the growth of the US economy and bringing the trade gap to a seven-month high.
    Price dynamics in commodities is driven by supply and demand. Surging demand in the developing world, e.g. China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc..., accompanied by shortages from various forms of disruptions, e.g. drought and war, which is driving said prices. It has nothing to do with credit easing.
    Yea ok than Obama and Bernanke should start minting those trillion dollar coins so none of us ever have to pay taxes again

    Did you bother educating yourself in regards to the economics (and mathematics) behind fiscal multiplier analysis?
    Again you're simply projecting. I only need to point to the fact that Obama's Stimulus didn't create a surplus. It created more debt and added to the deficit. Pure waste.There was no fiscal multiplier associated with it. So toss out all the petty insults you try and mask as arguments all you want. Doesn't change the facts. That's why his administration is no longer releasing reports about his stimulus. That's why all the projections from your hero economists up at Bezerkely selling the Keynesian snake oil resigned in disgrace. Their economic projections falling FAR SHORT of what they promised.

    Clearly this response, like your last, was not a valid one. Clearly you are a waste of my time. If I feel like kicking something around I think I'll go play soccer from now on. It's beneath me to even engage you at this point.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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