• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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 :2wave:
 
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).

FRBSF said:
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

wiki said:
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.

Bronson said:
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:

The Economist said:
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 :2wave:

Did you bother educating yourself in regards to the economics (and mathematics) behind fiscal multiplier analysis? :lol:
 
Then discuss them. What is your take on the labor participation rate?

Structural disequilibrium predicated by an aging population and a skills shortage.
 
Hmmmm I'm wondering how Reagan and Volcker would handled the current situation. I bet it would be pretty similiar
 
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


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? :lol:

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.
 
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.

That the state of our infrastructure is a determinant of our competitiveness is simply a matter of fact. The free-market is a term used to explain (in a simplistic way) macroeconomics. I am not the President, so it makes little sense to rant about him via proxy.

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".

The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.

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.

The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!

Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits.

No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!

See above. This premise has already been blown out of the water

You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.

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.

Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a topic posted, and all you provided was partisan drivel.

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.

You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!

See above. Your premise has already been refuted. Government Spending is the PROBLEM. Not the solution. It only creates more debt.

You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response. :lol:

Boring dodge. You are once again projecting your own ignorance. Nothing more.

An observation of your activity.

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

:lol:

You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.

Reagan cut the top rates from 70% - 28%.

Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.

You're just parroting Ezra Klein talking points.

Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.

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).

Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?

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.

Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.

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.

Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).

The Economy grew by more than a third under reagan's leadership.

Not disputing that.

Under obama it just shrunk.

Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.

Cumulative GDP compared between the two it's not even close.

Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.

You're really getting desperate. That much is obvious.

Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.

See above. You lied in your previous post

A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.

fredgraph.png



Yea ok than Obama and Bernanke should start minting those trillion dollar coins so none of us ever have to pay taxes again

I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.

I only need to point to the fact that Obama's Stimulus didn't create a surplus.

That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.

It created more debt and added to the deficit. Pure waste.

Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.

There was no fiscal multiplier associated with it.

This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.

That's why his administration is no longer releasing reports about his stimulus.

An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.
 
I've interviewed a BLS economist, and he revealed how the process has been done like forever.
It was probably Steve H. you interviewed, he does a lot of those. I'm not mistaken, I know very well how the data is calculated and meet regularly with the BLS experts to discuss this stuff at the professional level.

He told me that the information used to create the reports presented to the public at the beginning of every month are not obtained from government offices reporting in about this or that actual occurrence during the named month of the particular report.
Correct.

Instead, the information for the report so-named "January" is collected during the second week of January by an interview process performed by the U.S. Census Department as contracted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Yes. Not sure why you said "so-named"...the January data comes from the week in January that contains the 12th day, and the interviews occur during the week that contains the 19th. Just like I said. You were the one claiming the data "is mostly for DECEMBER, the second week in December through the first week in January, so it is hugely more accurate to state that the number of unemployed rose "from 12.2 million in NOVEMBER to 12.3 million in DECEMBER." Which is wrong. The interview for the January report (released Feb 1) was for labor force activity in the week of Jan 6-12 and all changes are the changes from the week of December 9-15. November has nothing to do with it.

The Census Department interviews roughly 60,000 pre-selected households (which change periodically) (amounting to roughly 120,000 working-qualified people) and roughly 150,000 businesses.
They don't interview any businesses....that's a seperate survey conducted solely by BLS.

Yes, that many interviews happen each and every month .. and in those interviews the interviewees are asked questions about what happened in the second week of the previous month through the first week of the current month.
You misunderstood. The interview for the January data took place the week of Jan 13-19 and the questions were all framed as "last week, did you..." except for questions about job search, which was "in the last 4 weeks.." and a couple others. But all questions on Employment and Unemployment were solely for the week of January 6-12.


Something else the BLS economist told me was that estimates of those who drop off the radar of their interview process are way off, as they simply assume that the people in a household that's unreachable for the interview in a given month are all in the same status they were previously but they're simply dropped from the reports.
It's a little more complicated than that. There are different categories of non-response. What your contact was talking about was if the household simply didn't respond that week but still occupied the house. If the house was torn down, turned into a business, or vacant, things are a little different.

But really, you didn't contradict anything I said, you were just mistaken on your understanding of the time periods.
 
It was probably Steve H. you interviewed, he does a lot of those. I'm not mistaken, I know very well how the data is calculated and meet regularly with the BLS experts to discuss this stuff at the professional level.

Correct.

Yes. Not sure why you said "so-named"...the January data comes from the week in January that contains the 12th day, and the interviews occur during the week that contains the 19th. Just like I said. You were the one claiming the data "is mostly for DECEMBER, the second week in December through the first week in January, so it is hugely more accurate to state that the number of unemployed rose "from 12.2 million in NOVEMBER to 12.3 million in DECEMBER." Which is wrong. The interview for the January report (released Feb 1) was for labor force activity in the week of Jan 6-12 and all changes are the changes from the week of December 9-15. November has nothing to do with it.

They don't interview any businesses....that's a seperate survey conducted solely by BLS.


You misunderstood. The interview for the January data took place the week of Jan 13-19 and the questions were all framed as "last week, did you..." except for questions about job search, which was "in the last 4 weeks.." and a couple others. But all questions on Employment and Unemployment were solely for the week of January 6-12.


It's a little more complicated than that. There are different categories of non-response. What your contact was talking about was if the household simply didn't respond that week but still occupied the house. If the house was torn down, turned into a business, or vacant, things are a little different.

But really, you didn't contradict anything I said, you were just mistaken on your understanding of the time periods.
You contradict yourself here .. you would do well to be more careful .. and if you're going to cite specifics of weeks, like 1/13 - 1/19 and 1/6 - 1/12, don't you think you'd do well to link to proof, rather than merely say "I know Steve H.".

The bottom line is what is important, and as you've validated, the report we received from the BLS last Friday is, as I stated, mostly about December, and truly less about what happened in the great part of January, despite your imaginative hedging.

In addition, I don't recall the BLS agent telling me anything other than that the interviews were conducted by the Census people, including the 150,000 business inteviews, even if the questions themselves might have originated with the BLS. So again, you might want to show a BLS link if you're going to override what a BLS agent directly told me, as saying you know Steve H. doesn't cut it.

Finally, your imaginings of why there was a non-response are pretty extreme .. and, no, that's not what is the great general rule. The great general rule of non-response is not that "the house got torn down" or "turned into a business", as that's pretty ludicrous to attribute. The truth of the matter is that people who can't find a job for awhile lose their homes, and they get tired of relating their dismal situation to the census taker each month, and they just stop looking .. these are the great general rules that people don't respond.

To assume the person I spoke with told me something than what I've related to you is rather arrogant of you.

Sounds like you're really more liberal than centrist.

Reality remains that the true unemployment rate is around 14.0%.

That's an accurate presentation of the percentage of those who want a job and would take a job if offerred, and that includes those who search for work in ways that are wholly acceptable and sensible, but are rejected as valid methods of looking for work by the BLS.
 
Thought you might be interested to read this article bubba. It appeared on the front page of my local newpaper. This is part of the major problem.


For new immigrants, an 'American nightmare' in Los Angeles

Once a promising destination for foreign jobseekers and war refugees, the City of Angels is rolling up its ladder of opportunity.

(Excerpt)

"A small group of day laborers clustered around the exit. Jose Perez, 22, and about a dozen other men whistled, waved and shouted at passing vehicles, hoping to get some work. They’ll do just about anything, Perez said, from landscaping to putting together a swing set. He looked concerned but resilient. He said he hadn’t found work in several days.

Then a gray Lexus rolled to a stop and an electric window slid down. The driver extended a manicured finger in Perez’s direction, her blonde perm hardly moving above large, dark sunglasses."


The author of this pap is Kevin Douglas Grant, offers this in his bio.

At GlobalPost, Grant oversees foundation-supported reporting series from around the world, including work on human rights, global health, world religions, emerging democracies and rebuilding efforts in Haiti. He works closely with organizations including Ford Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting and Galloway Family Foundation among others.

The Progressive Machine is alive and well, and on the front page of major newspapers..............


DayLaborerContempt.jpg
Soon to be registered Democrats.

Unless the Republican Party becomes the party of giving away free stuff, the Mexican and Central American Latino voters will continue to vote the Democrat ticket because they want their free stuff, food stamps, subsidising housing, WICS, and Obama phones.
 
View attachment 67141921
Soon to be registered Democrats.

Unless the Republican Party becomes the party of giving away free stuff, the Mexican and Central American Latino voters will continue to vote the Democrat ticket because they want their free stuff, food stamps, subsidising housing, WICS, and Obama phones.

Any question about why Latin America remains a Third World region is answered by the people in the picture.

Are these the types of immigrants Progressives want to compare our nation of immigrants to?
 
You contradict yourself here .. you would do well to be more careful .. and if you're going to cite specifics of weeks, like 1/13 - 1/19 and 1/6 - 1/12, don't you think you'd do well to link to proof, rather than merely say "I know Steve H.".
Why? You didn't....you just related what you remember from an interview. I'm telling you that you are a little off or misunderstood.

For the reference weeks, it's right in the Technical Note:
In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month.

The bottom line is what is important, and as you've validated, the report we received from the BLS last Friday is, as I stated, mostly about December, and truly less about what happened in the great part of January, despite your imaginative hedging.
The ONLY thing that is "mostly about December" is job search. Read the actual Survey Questions:
It starts off with:
I am going to ask a few questions about work-related activities (THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK). By (the week before last/last week), I mean the week beginning on Sunday, (DATE), and ending on Saturday, (DATE).
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)?
(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), (was/were) (name/you) on layoff from a job?
etc etc, until you get to things like:
What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
Did (name/you) look for work at any time during the last 12 months?

In addition, I don't recall the BLS agent telling me anything other than that the interviews were conducted by the Census people, including the 150,000 business inteviews, even if the questions themselves might have originated with the BLS.
I'm sorry your memory is not perfect. But the multiple people I've talked to at BLS, who work on the different surveys...and the people I've spoken to at Census who work on the household survey, all confirm that there are 2 surveys, one for household, one for business (actually, there are a few more, but we're just talking about Friday's release now). Again, you should have read the Technical Note:
The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables, marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments.

Do you need links to the BLS Handbook of Methods?

So again, you might want to show a BLS link if you're going to override what a BLS agent directly told me, as saying you know Steve H. doesn't cut it.
So why does your one conversation outweigh my multiple conversations at the professional level? And there's a difference between what he told you and what you understood/remember. I study this stuff continuously and have for many years.

Finally, your imaginings of why there was a non-response are pretty extreme .. and, no, that's not what is the great general rule. The great general rule of non-response is not that "the house got torn down" or "turned into a business", as that's pretty ludicrous to attribute.
Never said it was a great general rule. I was pointing out other reasons that do frequently occur. And ludicrous??? I'll get back to that.

The truth of the matter is that people who can't find a job for awhile lose their homes, and they get tired of relating their dismal situation to the census taker each month, and they just stop looking .. these are the great general rules that people don't respond.
And your link for that is? The fact is that there is usually no way to tell why a person no longer occupies a home. Let's go to Technical Paper 66 for the word on that. First sentance when talking about ineligibility:
The FR’s first task is to establish the eligibility of the sample address for the CPS. There are many reasons an address may not be eligible for interview. For example, the address may have been converted to a permanent business, condemned or demolished, or it may be outside the boundaries of the area for which it was selected. Regardless of the reason, such sample addresses are classified as Type C noninterviews.
Obviously this is important contrary to your claims and it is a matter of including the address in future interviews.
Next up is
Type B ineligibility includes units that are intended for occupancy but are not occupied by any eligible individuals.
Reasons for such ineligibility include a vacant housing unit (either for sale or rent), units occupied entirely by
individuals who are not eligible for a CPS labor force interview (individuals with a usual residence elsewhere (URE), or in the Armed Forces). Such units are classified as Type B noninterviews.
And let's not forget Type A;
These are households that the FR has determined are eligible for a CPS interview but for which no useable data were collected. To be eligible, the unit has to be occupied by at least one person eligible for an interview (an individual who is a civilian, at least 15 years old, and does not have a usual residence elsewhere). Even though such households are eligible, they are not interviewed because the household members refuse, are absent during the interviewing period, or are unavailable for other reasons.
As for claims of how often...I'm not going to go digging for more recent non-interview data, but again from Technical Paper 66, for September 2004 (Figure 7-9):
Noninterviews: 16,445
Type A: 4,511 Mostly refusals, no reason given.
Type B: 11,522 Mostly from vacancies, no way to tell why.
Type C (which you claimed was "ludicrous"): 412



To assume the person I spoke with told me something than what I've related to you is rather arrogant of you.
I'm assuming that you, not being expert in this field, misunderstood what you were told. It happens. I've been doing this a very long time and know this stuff almost as well as anyone at BLS.

Reality remains that the true unemployment rate is around 14.0%.
i guarantee no one at BLS told you that. The U6 includes people with jobs, and the Marginally Attached are not Unemployed (by definition).

That's an accurate presentation of the percentage of those who want a job and would take a job if offerred, and that includes those who search for work in ways that are wholly acceptable and sensible, but are rejected as valid methods of looking for work by the BLS.
It also includes people who have full time jobs but are temporarily working part time due to cut hours. Why do you consider them unemployed?

And which "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods are you talking about? Census and BLS accept all active methods: anything that could conceivably result in a job offer. From the Interviewer's Manual:
Active Job Search Methods
• Contacted public employment agency (for example, visited a job service)
• Contacted private employment agency (for example, called a recruiting or head-hunting agency)
• Contacted employer directly (for example, spoke to someone in a company's employment office about a job)
• Sent out resume or filled out applications (for example, mailed a job application)
• Contacted friends or relatives (for example, asked friends for job leads)
• Contacted school/college or university employment center (for example, visited a college placement office)
• Placed or answered ads (for example, responded to newspaper want ads)
• Checked union/professional registers (for example, placed name on nurses union register)
• Other Active (for example, bid on a contract or auditioned for a part in a play)

Methods not accepted as active search would be
Looked at ads (for example, read newspaper want
ads, but did not respond to any)
• Attended job training programs or courses (for example, took a typing course)
• Other passive (for example, studied for Real Estate license or picked up a job application)
Which of those do you consider to be "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods

In addition, those on temporary layoff who expect to return do not need to have conducted any search.
 
That the state of our infrastructure is a determinant of our competitiveness is simply a matter of fact. The free-market is a term used to explain (in a simplistic way) macroeconomics. I am not the President, so it makes little sense to rant about him via proxy.

As was stated before, if it was such an issue, then why didn't Obama's 800B+ stimulus primarily go to fund Infrastructure? You keep simplistically calling or "Infrastructure Investment" when it is nothing more than Government Spending. You're really not saying much here that already hasn't been refuted 10 times over in this thread.

Nobody is "ranting" about the President. This is why it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You mischaracterize and objectify positions when you are unable to refute facts.

The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.

You don't have a point. You're just claiming we need more Government Spending. We don't. Your points were refuted in the previous post, regardless of how much Socialist "research" you want to provide.

The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!

Dodging again. You can't refute facts so you obfuscate. /shrug it is what it is

No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!

Keynes was against large and structural deficits. He believed they were a drag on the Economy. Do try and keep up!

You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.

Of course I have. All you keep doing over and over is stating the Government needs to spend more money, engage in more Stimulus Spending. It's a joke.

Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a topic posted, and all you provided was partisan drivel.

You just keep advocating more Government Spending. It didn't work before. It won't work now. Obama's Stimulus added to the deficit and created more debt. No new wealth was created. Pure waste. These are Infrastructure Projects that wouldn't sustain any jobs over the long term, and would be done anyways regardless, hence no net gain to the Economy in the long run. You're also not taking into account, (and surprise! I mentioned this in a previous thread and you were unable to refute it) high levels of job poaching and the negative externalities associated with that. Construction jobs are usually highly specialized jobs. It's a wash.

You also are unable to refute the massive cost overruns, fraud, corruption ect. usually associated with massive Government Spending Projects. There is also no point in repairing bridges in communities that aren't producing any goods and services. Using your logic we might as well rebuild Detroit from the ground up. Doesn't mean there will be sustained economic growth there at all, so in the long term, there would be very little value in rebuilding that infrastructure.

9 out of 10 Government projects go over budget, many at DOUBLE initial estimates - http://www.honolulutraffic.com/JAPAFlyvbjerg05.pdf

I suggest you get up to speed - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10229.pdf

You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!

6 trillion added to the deficit over the last 4 years. An 800B Stimulus Package (Largest in American History). Economy just shrunk. You are not worth my time.

You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response. :lol:

Government deficits add to economic output? 6 trillion spent over the last 4 years. The Economy just shrunk genius. Look you try and act like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You keep trying to debate nonsense in a bubble. When that bubble is punctured by reality, you claim pesky facts that bring down your house of cards are not relevant. Clearly it's waste of time trying to even engage you. You are not an honest person.

An observation of your activity.

Projection noted :lol:

You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.

Total Debt: $16,432,730,050,569.12; Debt To GDP: 103% | Zero Hedge

Under Reagan it was 51%. The Economy under Reagan grew by 1/3. Yes we get it. The Economy under Reagan was "Different" or something. /laugh

Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.

Which caused massive economic growth actually. Something you admit you cannot dispute

Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.

You're repeating his talking points. Nothing more

Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?

This strawman was refuted in the previous post. Claiming tax rates when Reagan took office is misleading. A better indicator of his tax policy would be when he left office. They were lower, especially for the poor and middle class. Tax rates under Carter were higher than Obama, but only because Obama chickened out on raising taxes. He's now calling for higher taxes. You're just bleeting a debunked article run by the NYT. Nothing more.

Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.

/yawn you're not very good at this

Obamacare = 20 new taxes coming down the pipe. Poor and Middle class will be hardest hit. Obama inherited low tax rates which he is now trying to raise. You don't even know the argument you are trying to make. You're just bleeting talking points in a vacuum (par for the course) without any context and not making any sense. We get it though, when your dishonesty is pointed out, you will quickly come up with excuses like "that isn't relevant to the discussion" because anything outside your limited knowledge of talking points must not be discussed. I know your game and it doesn't impress me.

Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).

Not a fallacy at all. Just an observation of facts. You are not a libertarian. You are a socialist who bleets like a sheep the need for more and more Government Spending with every post.

Not disputing that.

You can't dispute it. You try and propagandize around it with lies and obfuscation, but unfortunately for you it blows whatever garbage point you are trying to make in this thread, ie Government Spending is the answer to all our economic problems or something.

Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.

You mean wealth stolen. Another dodge when you can't refute facts. We need to create a drinking game for your buffoonery.

Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.

*drink*

Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.

*drink*

This is your usual ploy. Not working. You're just bleeting what Keynesian fools like Krugman keep claiming. All as an excuse to increase Government Spending. These are the keynesians who were wrong about Obama's Stimulus. Current Monetary Policy is simply not working. Hell, they are heavily pumping into malinvestments yet again (MBS what could possibly go wrong?) which in the long term is only going to create another recession. We've just had a quarter of negative growth. We shall see what happens next quarter which is usually the slowest retail quarter of the year.

A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.

fredgraph.png

Another typical ploy of yours. Dismiss facts you don't like as "low brow". Krugman does the same thing. If you don't buy into his Keynesian Big Government nonsense, you're "dumb" ect. *drink*

I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.

Oh it does, but like everything you try an argue, you can't step outside your simplistic little box.

That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.

Too bad it hasn't created any short term economic growth. It has only added 6 trillion to the deficit while shrinking the Economy. Fail.

Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.

Projection noted. I've had these types of discussions with Big Government Spending types like you many times. Your premise is always the same. Government needs to spend spend spend, regardless of the actual Economic results. Unfortunately for your position on the subject, the facts are hilariously against you at this point.


This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.

The fact that you believe it makes zero sense tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject. You're just spouting a bunch of BS. Obama's own economic team made predictions based entirely on the Fiscal Multiplier. All of those predictions were laughably not even close, all while while creating more debt and adding to the deficit. I get it though, your response in the past was "So what?". There really is nothing more to say on the subject. Obama's stimulus didn't create wealth. it created waste and hurt the Economy.

An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.

We talked about this in a previous thread and I repeated the point earlier which you ignored. Stimulus funds are maintaining less and less jobs, while the cost of these jobs continue to rise. It was a massive failure. You are also contradicting a previous claim you made in regards to stimulus funds which I had (like always) to correct you on.

For any further answers you need on the subject, feel free to read my previous posts. You have repeatedly lied and tried to pass off debunked nonsense as facts. It's not worth anyone's time to engage you, since you are incapable of having honest debate.

Have a great day :2wave:
 
Why? You didn't....you just related what you remember from an interview. I'm telling you that you are a little off or misunderstood. For the reference weeks, it's right in the Technical Note: The ONLY thing that is "mostly about December" is job search. Read the actual Survey Questions: It starts off with: etc etc, until you get to things like: I'm sorry your memory is not perfect. But the multiple people I've talked to at BLS, who work on the different surveys...and the people I've spoken to at Census who work on the household survey, all confirm that there are 2 surveys, one for household, one for business (actually, there are a few more, but we're just talking about Friday's release now). Again, you should have read the Technical Note: Do you need links to the BLS Handbook of Methods? So why does your one conversation outweigh my multiple conversations at the professional level? And there's a difference between what he told you and what you understood/remember. I study this stuff continuously and have for many years. Never said it was a great general rule. I was pointing out other reasons that do frequently occur. And ludicrous??? I'll get back to that. And your link for that is? The fact is that there is usually no way to tell why a person no longer occupies a home. Let's go to Technical Paper 66 for the word on that. First sentance when talking about ineligibility: Obviously this is important contrary to your claims and it is a matter of including the address in future interviews. Next up is And let's not forget Type A; As for claims of how often...I'm not going to go digging for more recent non-interview data, but again from Technical Paper 66, for September 2004 (Figure 7-9): Noninterviews: 16,445 Type A: 4,511 Mostly refusals, no reason given. Type B: 11,522 Mostly from vacancies, no way to tell why.
Type C (which you claimed was "ludicrous"): 412 I'm assuming that you, not being expert in this field, misunderstood what you were told. It happens. I've been doing this a very long time and know this stuff almost as well as anyone at BLS. i guarantee no one at BLS told you that. The U6 includes people with jobs, and the Marginally Attached are not Unemployed (by definition). It also includes people who have full time jobs but are temporarily working part time due to cut hours. Why do you consider them unemployed? And which "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods are you talking about? Census and BLS accept all active methods: anything that could conceivably result in a job offer. From the Interviewer's Manual: Methods not accepted as active search would be Which of those do you consider to be "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods In addition, those on temporary layoff who expect to return do not need to have conducted any search.
Pure Obfuscation. :lol:

You attempt to drown the reader in quotes from the BLS website, but at no place do you at all refute the facts that were in question.

In fact, you showcase that the household questions are "by" the first week in January starting with the second week in December, so clearly the so-called January reports are mostly about December.

And you completely ignore the reality of the 150,000 businesses surveryed where the questions put to them were from the second week in December through the first week in January how many people did you hire, fire, lay off, out-source, in-source, etc.

Again, you're simply posting subterfuge, probably for a liberal reason.

As for what does the BLS not allow as a valid job-search reason? For one, if you post an account with Monster or Dice or any employment data base where all the job openings are posted nowadays, with key search parameters for your profession and have that site send you an e-mail when a job-opening matching those parameters appears, that's not considered looking for work by the BLS requirements .. yet everyone does that anymore.

And, when you can't accept that the BLS, the Census Department, they simply can't get an accurate handle on all the truly unemployed people, that they admit that the millions of not-in-labor-force "discouraged" workers the reports present is really only about 60% of the true figure, you then say "they're professionals, they'd never say that, no BLS worker ever told you that".

:roll:

Clearly your political ideological agenda is to keep the BS up because it's the liberal thing to do to make the fictional numbers sweeter for Obama than they in reality are.

I really don't care whether the numbers favor Obama and House Repubs or harm either of them.

All I care about is the truth, which I have presented.

Sadly, obfuscation is all you seem to care about, and for political agenda reasons.
 
Anyone else see how MSNBC received the jobs numbers news? Despite the uptick in unemployment to 7.9%, it was really good news,

Has Fox recommended we go to the bunkers yet?
 
why didn't Obama's 800B+ stimulus primarily go to fund Infrastructure?

The majority of stimulus money was in the form of tax cuts and aid to state/local government. I have maintained the same sentiment that it was too small and poorly targeted.

You keep simplistically calling or "Infrastructure Investment" when it is nothing more than Government Spending. You're really not saying much here that already hasn't been refuted 10 times over in this thread.

Again, you have yet to refute a single comment i have made. Government spending is simply a subset of GDP, which can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX). A deficit adds to GDP by definition; there is no debate here.

Nobody is "ranting" about the President. This is why it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You mischaracterize and objectify positions when you are unable to refute facts.

I am not the one who brings up President Obama in every single response! Debate the topic, not your like/dislike of the current administration via proxy.

You don't have a point. You're just claiming we need more Government Spending. We don't. Your points were refuted in the previous post, regardless of how much Socialist "research" you want to provide.

If we were to balance the budget tomorrow, aggregate output initially declines, dollar for dollar, by way of elimination of federal deficits. This can be observed by way of the national income accounting identity GDP = C + I + G + NX.

Keynes was against large and structural deficits. He believed they were a drag on the Economy. Do try and keep up!

Can you source this statement? Of course not! Here is a link to The General Theory.

All you keep doing over and over is stating the Government needs to spend more money, engage in more Stimulus Spending. It's a joke.

When unemployment is abnormally (and persistently) and given the existence of a liquidity trap (short term interest rates at the zero bound), fiscal policy responses in the form of increased public expenditure alleviate economic downturns. Again, this can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX) and a basic IS/LM diagram.

You just keep advocating more Government Spending. It didn't work before. It won't work now. Obama's Stimulus added to the deficit and created more debt. No new wealth was created. Pure waste. These are Infrastructure Projects that wouldn't sustain any jobs over the long term, and would be done anyways regardless, hence no net gain to the Economy in the long run.

Stimulus is not a long term solution to high unemployment. This is a strawman at best.

You're also not taking into account, (and surprise! I mentioned this in a previous thread and you were unable to refute it) high levels of job poaching and the negative externalities associated with that. Construction jobs are usually highly specialized jobs. It's a wash.

Stimulus is a short term solution to high unemployment; your comment is of no use (strawman).

You also are unable to refute the massive cost overruns, fraud, corruption ect. usually associated with massive Government Spending Projects.

Government failure and market failure are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

There is also no point in repairing bridges in communities that aren't producing any goods and services.

Quote me stating anything of the sort.

Using your logic we might as well rebuild Detroit from the ground up.

Detroit has a GDP of over $200 billion. The city would benefit from infrastructure stimulus when unemployment is high.

Doesn't mean there will be sustained economic growth there at all, so in the long term, there would be very little value in rebuilding that infrastructure.

Say you are correct (although i disagree); that does not equate to infrastructure stimulus having very little value. What do the experts (Civil Engineers) have to say?

Home | Report Card for America's Infrastructure

9 out of 10 Government projects go over budget, many at DOUBLE initial estimates - http://www.honolulutraffic.com/JAPAFlyvbjerg05.pdf

An article on industrial planning does not support your premise that infrastructure stimulus will not boost short term economic growth. It simply argues that infrastructure planners (both public and private) can do much to improve their forecasting methods and accuracy.



I suggest you read your own sources:

The analysis here shows that in a standard neoclassical growth model, the
cumulative multiplier for output can still be larger than 1, even under distortionary financing
and with a modest degree of productivity of public capital. Since recent countercyclical fiscal
actions in the United State include substantial government investment projects, our results
indicate that different government spending categories are likely to have very different
multipliers, depending on the productivity of the spending.

Macroeconomic effects of government investment hinge critically on implementation delays
and distorting fiscal adjustments. A substantial time-to-build lag in a standard neoclassical
model can make expansionary government investment contractionary in the short run, at
worst, and have a muted impact, at best. Over longer horizons, the choice of fiscal adjustment
instruments is important for minimizing the negative effects from stabilizing government
debt. The productivity of government investment is also critical. Macroeconomic analysis
often does not distinguish among the various types of government spending. But
present-value long-run output multipliers can be larger than 1 even if government investment
is only moderately productive.

6 trillion added to the deficit over the last 4 years. An 800B Stimulus Package (Largest in American History). Economy just shrunk. You are not worth my time.

Cuts in government spending while a slowly growing private sector continues to dig its way out can have that effect. Government expenditures fell by 6.6% in QIV 2013.


Government deficits add to economic output? 6 trillion spent over the last 4 years.

By definition!

The Economy just shrunk genius.

As did government expenditure in the tune of 6.6%, or 0.025% of GDP.

Which caused massive economic growth actually. Something you admit you cannot dispute

Never intended to dispute it. But imagine that, increased federal deficits caused massive economic growth. Who would have thought?


This strawman was refuted in the previous post. Claiming tax rates when Reagan took office is misleading

We can use tax rates when Reagan left office; it really does not make a difference. Taxes are lower now then they were during any period of the Reagan Presidency. Understand the difference between progressive tax rates and effective tax rates. :lol:

A better indicator of his tax policy would be when he left office.

Source?
 
Any question about why Latin America remains a Third World region is answered by the people in the picture.

Are these the types of immigrants Progressives want to compare our nation of immigrants to?

who says we are limiting the "best and the brightest" with our immigration policies???
 
The majority of stimulus money was in the form of tax cuts and aid to state/local government. I have maintained the same sentiment that it was too small and poorly targeted.

More dishonesty. You're just tossing up a bunch of strawmen now. This is pathetic.

They weren't "Tax Cuts". They were "Tax Credits" which is Government Spending. Tax Credits are not Tax Cuts. Not only that, but a lot of Individuals who take advantage of these "Tax Credits" don't even pay taxes.

Again, you have yet to refute a single comment i have made. Government spending is simply a subset of GDP, which can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX). A deficit adds to GDP by definition; there is no debate here.

I've refuted everything you have stated. All the Government Spending (especially over the last 4 years) hasn't created any wealth. All it has created is massive debt. 6 trillion added to the deficit. Pure waste. It's a shifting of resources. Nothing more.

I am not the one who brings up President Obama in every single response! Debate the topic, not your like/dislike of the current administration via proxy.

Obama is the President. These are his economic policies. It was his hand picked economic team who pushed the Stimulus with false promises. My original point stands. When you can't refute facts, you try and belittle, objectify, call people stupid, ect. It isn't working.

If we were to balance the budget tomorrow, aggregate output initially declines, dollar for dollar, by way of elimination of federal deficits. This can be observed by way of the national income accounting identity GDP = C + I + G + NX.

Oh hey another strawman. It's not even possible to balance the budget tomorrow. Not spending a trillion a year we don't have would be a nice start though. Th Economy just shrunk after 6 trillion was spent. The economic policies you advocate are not working.

Can you source this statement? Of course not!

You're confused. I think you need to learn the difference between what Keynes advocated, and what post-Keynesians advocate. You can start by reading the link you cited. Secondly, do you understand what a Structural Deficit is? This is major fail on your part. Keynes advocated cyclical deficits, which is completely different than structural deficits, which are large deficits even at full employment. He never advocated borrowing 46 cents for every dollar the Government spends either.

How Obama got Keynes wrong - Feb. 5, 2010

He would roll over in his grave if he could see the things being done in his name. Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits. He thought that they chilled rather than stimulated the economy. It's true that we're stuck with large deficits now. The goal should be to reduce them, not to take on new spending that makes them worse.

When unemployment is abnormally (and persistently) and given the existence of a liquidity trap (short term interest rates at the zero bound), fiscal policy responses in the form of increased public expenditure alleviate economic downturns. Again, this can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX) and a basic IS/LM diagram.

Looks like you busted open an Economics book. How silly. The Fed has set "short term interest rates" at zero since the end of 2007 early 2008. All it's doing is creating another bubble and destroying wealth. Bernanke (The Crook) plans on keeping them low until 2014. A full six years. This is unprecedented. Not "short term". This is going to have far damaging negative affects on the Economy in the long term.

Stimulus is not a long term solution to high unemployment. This is a strawman at best.

It wasn't even a solution for short term unemployment. Unemployment just went up. Not down. The Economy just shrunk. It didn't grow. You're the guy who keeps advocating more Stimulus spending, and larger stimuli after we just enacted the largest stimulus package in American History to pathetic results. You're all over the map, claiming we need more stimulus, and then in the next post claiming it isn't a long term solution. 6 trillion spent in 4 years and you now admit it's not a long term solution to high unemployment? Sig worthy fail on your part.

Stimulus is a short term solution to high unemployment; your comment is of no use (strawman).

See above.

Government failure and market failure are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

You did not even address the point made. Try again.

Quote me stating anything of the sort.

Just go back and read your own posts. You advocate "Infrastructure Spending" and "Bigger Stimuli". Tell us what specific roads and bridges we need to fix then, and which ones we need to ignore for your snake oil to actually work.

Detroit has a GDP of over $200 billion. The city would benefit from infrastructure stimulus when unemployment is high.

Sure it will. Have you been there lately?

Say you are correct (although i disagree); that does not equate to infrastructure stimulus having very little value. What do the experts (Civil Engineers) have to say?

[Report Card for America's Infrastructure

You've cited that article in the past and it was debunked. It's like asking the military if we need to completely rebuild it from the ground up. Their opinion is motivated by the need for fat Government contracts that will most likely go way over budget. Government intervention distorts incentives. Secondly you once again refuse to address the negative externalities of Job Poaching.

An article on industrial planning does not support your premise that infrastructure stimulus will not boost short term economic growth. It simply argues that infrastructure planners (both public and private) can do much to improve their forecasting methods and accuracy.

The way you try and sugarcoat what the article actually said is laughable. Par for the course.

I suggest you read your own sources:

I suggest you read the part of the source you quoted. It didn't state there was a fiscal multiplier greater than 1. We know there wasn't. All Obama's failed stimulus did was add to the deficit and create more debt. It stated there "can be". Too bad for you there wasn't. It's beyond refute. Nothing you quoted even remotely makes the case for your argument. On the contrary, if you read the source in full context it clearly makes my case. Nice try though.

Economist John Taylor has studied the effect of Stimuli from the past. They run out of steam usually after only a few short months. Exactly what we saw with Obama's Failed Stimulus. Unfortunately your kids are still going to have to pay for it.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/10/05/Taylor.pdf

Cuts in government spending while a slowly growing private sector continues to dig its way out can have that effect.

You're lying again. Federal Outlays increased last quarter.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

1st: 966,188

2nd: 884,957

3rd: 809,969

4th: 907,912

By definition!

The Economy shrunk. Federal Outlays increased. Federal Employment increased significantly. Try again.

As did government expenditure in the tune of 6.6%, or 0.025% of GDP.

See above. You're blatantly lying. Pathetic and desperate.

Never intended to dispute it. But imagine that, increased federal deficits caused massive economic growth. Who would have thought?

Refuted in the previous post. /Yawn this is becoming boring and tedious. Reagan 51% debt to GDP with an Economy that grew after he massively cut Marginal Rates from 70% - 28%. Domestic Spending decreased by 5%. Obama 103% debt to GDP. Shrinking Economy. You fail.

We can use tax rates when Reagan left office; it really does not make a difference. Taxes are lower now then they were during any period of the Reagan Presidency. Understand the difference between progressive tax rates and effective tax rates. :lol:

Wrong :lol:

You're citing bogus information from the NYT. Go ahead, use the same calculator that the NYT did here - Internet TAXSIM Version 9.0 Home Page

The times article purposely didn't mention Reagan because they used Carter's tax rates as part of their equation. Not very bright individuals have run with their obfuscation and beclowned themselves however. You're purposely not including Obamacare taxes in your assumptions. Sad and pathetic. Clinton also raised some rates higher than Reagan in 1993, but they brought back down again. Clinton later admitted he raised taxes too high. :lol:

From 1988 - 2010 (Before the 20 new Obamacare taxes, including the tax mandate.)

0 to 25K, decreased 4%
25 to 50K, decreased by 3%
50 to 75K, decreased 2%
75 to 100K, decreased 2%
100 to 125K decreased 1%
125 to 150K decreased 1%
150 to 200K exactly the same
200 to 350K increased 2%
350K+ increased 1%

You lied


See above

Consider this the last response. You have been exposed multiple times in this thread lying and distorting facts. You are a waste of my time and NOT a Libertarian. It should be against the rules to purposely misrepresent your political views on these forums :2wave:
 
Oh no, another tea partier from the "dollars are sentient and know who spends them" school.

Spending almost always creates jobs. The issue is what you spend on. If you spend on the military you produce few jobs. If you spend on education, infrastructure, health care, you produce a lot. Join the modern world and modern economy!

If you give it away to the poor you create jobs.
 
Pure Obfuscation. :lol:

You attempt to drown the reader in quotes from the BLS website, but at no place do you at all refute the facts that were in question.
First you ask for cites, then you ignore them. Interesting. And I showed your misunderstanding of the facts.

In fact, you showcase that the household questions are "by" the first week in January starting with the second week in December, so clearly the so-called January reports are mostly about December.
I showed no such thing.
Now read carefully and get the concept. The CPS is based on Reference Weeks, usually the week that contains the 12th day. The Survey Week, when the questions are asked, is the week after. I showed this in the CPS questionairre, which consistantly stated "Last week did you...?" Labor Force Activity is SOLELY for the reference week.
The reference week for January was January 6-12. If a person had been fired January 4th, looked for and found work between the 5th and the 12th and started work on the 14th, he would be classified as Unemployed because during the reference week he did no work for pay.

JOB SEARCH covers the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. So if you did not work Jan 6-12 but looked for work sometime between Dec 16 and Jan 12, you would be unemployed. I think that's what you were misunderstanding about the time periods.

Another example...if someone was classified as unemployed in December, but found a job and started work Dec 17th (after the reference period), but was fired before January 6th and did not work Jan 6-12 (but looked for work since being fired) he would be classified as Unemployed because for each reference week, regardless of the time in between he was not working but looking for work.

Alternatively, if someone worked during the December reference week, was fired, looked for work, found a job and started working during the January reference week, he would be classified as Employed for both months.

And you completely ignore the reality of the 150,000 businesses surveryed where the questions put to them were from the second week in December through the first week in January how many people did you hire, fire, lay off, out-source, in-source, etc.
The reference period for the Current Employment Survey is the pay period that contains the 12th. So the exact dates vary by payroll (which is why the CES is subject to 2 revisions). There are no questions about hiring, firing, lay-offs, out-source etc in the CES. The questions are (using the
  1. Manufacturing industries form):
  2. Employee Count
  3. Women Employee Count
  4. Payroll excluding commissions
  5. Commissions
  6. Hours including overtime
  7. Overtime
Collected for All employees and Production Workers. CES Report Forms.

There is another survey...the Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey...that collects data on job openings, hires, and separations, but is not part of the Employment Situation Report and has a greater lag.

As for what does the BLS not allow as a valid job-search reason? For one, if you post an account with Monster or Dice or any employment data base where all the job openings are posted nowadays, with key search parameters for your profession and have that site send you an e-mail when a job-opening matching those parameters appears, that's not considered looking for work by the BLS requirements .. yet everyone does that anymore.
Because it's not an active job search anymore than just reading the classified ads is. I have my resume out on a few such sites, but at the moment I'm ignoring all the emails. An active search means doing something that can get you a job...you answer an ad, or you get a hit from Monster and apply, that's active. Receiving emails is not an active search.

And, when you can't accept that the BLS, the Census Department, they simply can't get an accurate handle on all the truly unemployed people, that they admit that the millions of not-in-labor-force "discouraged" workers the reports present is really only about 60% of the true figure, you then say "they're professionals, they'd never say that, no BLS worker ever told you that".
Now you're twisting my words. I said no BLS employee would tell you that the U6 was a measure of Unemployment because it includes people who are employed. And there's less than a million discouraged right now. I highly doubt anyone told you that the count of discouraged was 60% of the true figure because how would they know what the "true figure" was?

Clearly your political ideological agenda is to keep the BS up because it's the liberal thing to do to make the fictional numbers sweeter for Obama than they in reality are.
I have stated no political opinion at all..merely informed you of the facts. Another fact: I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

I really don't care whether the numbers favor Obama and House Repubs or harm either of them.
Then why are you so quick to accuse me of bias?

All I care about is the truth, which I have presented.
As you believed it. I have shown you were in error...that you misunderstood or were mistaken on some facts. You seem to have trouble accepting that as a possiblity, though.
 
Last edited:
First you ask for cites, then you ignore them. Interesting. And I showed your misunderstanding of the facts. I showed no such thing.
Now read carefully and get the concept. The CPS is based on Reference Weeks, usually the week that contains the 12th day. The Survey Week, when the questions are asked, is the week after. I showed this in the CPS questionairre, which consistantly stated "Last week did you...?" Labor Force Activity is SOLELY for the reference week. The reference week for January was January 6-12. If a person had been fired January 4th, looked for and found work between the 5th and the 12th and started work on the 14th, he would be classified as Unemployed because during the reference week he did no work for pay. JOB SEARCH covers the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. So if you did not work Jan 6-12 but looked for work sometime between Dec 16 and Jan 12, you would be unemployed. I think that's what you were misunderstanding about the time periods. Another example...if someone was classified as unemployed in December, but found a job and started work Dec 17th (after the reference period), but was fired before January 6th and did not work Jan 6-12 (but looked for work since being fired) he would be classified as Unemployed because for each reference week, regardless of the time in between he was not working but looking for work. Alternatively, if someone worked during the December reference week, was fired, looked for work, found a job and started working during the January reference week, he would be classified as Employed for both months. The reference period for the Current Employment Survey is the pay period that contains the 12th. So the exact dates vary by payroll (which is why the CES is subject to 2 revisions). There are no questions about hiring, firing, lay-offs, out-source etc in the CES. The questions are (using the
  1. Manufacturing industries form):
  2. Employee Count
  3. Women Employee Count
  4. Payroll excluding commissions
  5. Commissions
  6. Hours including overtime
  7. Overtime
Collected for All employees and Production Workers. CES Report Forms. There is another survey...the Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey...that collects data on job openings, hires, and separations, but is not part of the Employment Situation Report and has a greater lag. Because it's not an active job search anymore than just reading the classified ads is. I have my resume out on a few such sites, but at the moment I'm ignoring all the emails. An active search means doing something that can get you a job...you answer an ad, or you get a hit from Monster and apply, that's active. Receiving emails is not an active search. Now you're twisting my words. I said no BLS employee would tell you that the U6 was a measure of Unemployment because it includes people who are employed. And there's less than a million discouraged right now. I highly doubt anyone told you that the count of discouraged was 60% of the true figure because how would they know what the "true figure" was? I have stated no political opinion at all..merely informed you of the facts. Another fact: I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Then why are you so quick to accuse me of bias? As you believed it. I have shown you were in error...that you misunderstood or were mistaken on some facts. You seem to have trouble accepting that as a possiblity, though.
Meaningless obfuscation and subterfuge, as apparently usual for you. :roll:

You again go to lengths to pick on fine points that are simply not in debate question .. come to erroneous conclusions with them .. and then use those erroneous conclusions as a premise to your ultimate erroneous conclusion that the "January" BLS aren't mostly about December, when they obviously are, as your own hedging in explanation validates.

Truly, what is your issue with the reality that these reports are mostly for December, the second week in December thru the first week in January?!

The rest of your post is mostly simply repeating your insinuated opinion, simply because you don't like the truth of things as they are, especially about the fact that the number of discouraged workers is considerably greater than reported, as the BLS agent told me.

As for your hair-split about "receiving e-mails is not actively looking for work", you just lost all ethical credibility right there, as you know the process I described is much more than just waiting for e-mails, but is truly about configuring a data base to send relevant information as it appears. That's an active and initiated process by the job-seeker. That the BLS doesn't consider that process, the process that just about everyone uses nowadays, to qualify as "looking for work", is part of the lies, damn lies, and statistical errors the current BLS method embodies.

Who you voted for is neither here nor there.

That you're presenting inaccurately to obviously defend something ideoloical, that is obvious.
 
Back
Top Bottom