• 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!

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

You think you have it bad. I am trying to grasp the logic that says "Since we have been going down hill for 30 years of following certain policies, the answer is twice as much of those failed policies will make it better? We want to try something different now and more like the policies that created this nations greatest moments, the postwar years. We are still suffering under Reagan and the Bush's supplyside voodoo economic BS, that has increased the wealth of the top 5% by 5 times to over $40 trillion in net worth while leaving the other 95% languishing. We need at least 26 more years of a different more balanced approach, we will see which is better after that.
I also wonder why you think we should reward the GOP for making such a mess of our economy that it spread worldwide and Europe hasn't even found a way out of it yet? To you the key is to make a big enough mess that it can't be fixed in 4 years, you blame the new guy and get right back in? At least we are not in a recession, which is where we will be if Romney won. There's the reason I want Obama, I hate recessions. That's where we differ I'm sure. Did you think everybody likes recessions? I'm not one of those who think all of us need to suffer because we have been bad boys and girls. We just want to get on with our lives without the rug being yanked out from under us.

What is sad is that I really believe your bs. You obviously have no concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. and apparently have a distorted view of "going downhil." I am so sorry that you need a massive central govt to take care of you. You claim Republicans started recessions but cannot point to the policies that did that. I hate recessions too almost as much as I hate liberal social policies that destroy incentive

Please take a civics course as well as an economics course and you might just learn something. Also pay attention to the Obama economic results, unemployment rose last month and you cannot bring yourself to blame liberal policies. That is what is sad
 
Not when lower taxes only means more $ socked away in hedge funds which is all that has been happening in the upper bracket. Those people spend all the want regardless.
We really don't want or need the top 5% to keep adding to that $40 trillion nest egg, alot of that is used to bid up commoditites instead of being invested in growth and production.
You do realize that those "poor" demonized top 5% have ammased a fortune that is greater than all the money ever created before 1980. Just 15% of that fortune would cut our national debt in half and they wouldn't feel a thing. I think that is what scares them so.

I am so sorry that some hedge fund hurt you but if that is the case you made the decision to invest in that hedge fund. If you didn't how did they hurt you? What gives you or anyone else the right to demand income from others that earned it all to justify bloated spending and 16 trillion in debt? Keep drinking the kool-ade but all you do is show your jealousy over your inability to get your piece of the economic pie
 
You shouldn't fear them so much. Taxes don't really effect their spending all that much. Studies can be linked showing that if you need them. And business leaves more for the cheap labor and not having to worry about healthcare than it does taxes. Just thought you should know.

When you explain to us all why we need a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt., individual wealth redistribution, and class warfare, then we can discuss tax increases
 
You shouldn't fear them so much. Taxes don't really effect their spending all that much. Studies can be linked showing that if you need them. And business leaves more for the cheap labor and not having to worry about healthcare than it does taxes. Just thought you should know.

Taxation, regulation and unfunded mandates definitely affect employment decisions. Employer provided medical care insurance benefit costs may look free or small to YOU but is a huge expense for an employer. As PPACA MANDATES are adding ever more "no out of pocket cost" items the premium rates soar, much of those costs have been "absorbed" by the employer, riasing THEIR labor costs but giving the employee no increase in take home pay.

Costs Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge in 2011 - Kaiser Health News
 
You shouldn't fear them so much. Taxes don't really effect their spending all that much. Studies can be linked showing that if you need them. And business leaves more for the cheap labor and not having to worry about healthcare than it does taxes. Just thought you should know.

Then why did the luxury tax kill jobs? If taxes don't really effect their spending all that much? Just thought you might know.
 
If he is talking about commodities, then they will not show up in the CPI.

And IF he is talking about commodities, then he is right - there was a huge spark after each QE...and there will be again after QE3.
Commodity prices are reflected in cpi, I previously posted an all commodity inflation graph which shows the the phenomena of the "2000's commodities boom", which is continuing post recession. I'm afraid you guys are hung up on the noise and not looking at the signal.
 
Commodity prices are reflected in cpi, I previously posted an all commodity inflation graph which shows the the phenomena of the "2000's commodities boom", which is continuing post recession. I'm afraid you guys are hung up on the noise and not looking at the signal.

Other then oil and gas (food prices are usually calculated with wholesale/retail prices; not commodity prices. Breakfast cereal, for example, is NOT a commodity, though it has commodities in it) - commodity prices make up a minuscule portion of the CPI.

And the 'core' CPI - which the Fed LOVES to use - has so little commodity factors in it that it is not worth mentioning (imo).

Inside the Consumer Price Index

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiri2011.txt


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Commodity prices are reflected in cpi, I previously posted an all commodity inflation graph which shows the the phenomena of the "2000's commodities boom", which is continuing post recession. I'm afraid you guys are hung up on the noise and not looking at the signal.

You are hung up on changing the subject when you get cornered. QE3 will cause a spike in commodity prices. Do you want to argue against that, or make some other extraneous point?
 
You are hung up on changing the subject when you get cornered. QE3 will cause a spike in commodity prices. Do you want to argue against that, or make some other extraneous point?

Of course it will - anyone that says it will not has NO idea what they are talking about.
 
You are hung up on changing the subject when you get cornered. QE3 will cause a spike in commodity prices. Do you want to argue against that, or make some other extraneous point?
I changed the subject.....to what? You mean I showed the broader point that commodity prices since 2003 (reflected in the 1st graph posted) have been on a boom due to world-wide demand and NOT a result of QE?

Note: That is not "changing the subject", it is making the signal clear and eliminating the noise.
 
When you explain to us all why we need a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt., individual wealth redistribution, and class warfare, then we can discuss tax increases

I don't know anyone who has argued for that. Most of this is a fanasty in the minds of radical republicans.
 
Taxation, regulation and unfunded mandates definitely affect employment decisions. Employer provided medical care insurance benefit costs may look free or small to YOU but is a huge expense for an employer. As PPACA MANDATES are adding ever more "no out of pocket cost" items the premium rates soar, much of those costs have been "absorbed" by the employer, riasing THEIR labor costs but giving the employee no increase in take home pay.

Costs Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge in 2011 - Kaiser Health News

No one said insurance was free. It has never been free and has always been a burden for business. Premiums have been soring for decades. All the things you complain about have been happening long before Obama or any reform. Business and the wealthy pay less today than they have before, and they were doing better before. You merely misunderstand what is different today. Today they can more esaily leave workers behind. Until the rest of the world cathes up with us, they can use cheap labor. And until we also have UHC, places without such care attached to business will be cheaper. Taxes are but a small part of the equation and hardly a determining factor.
 
Then why did the luxury tax kill jobs? If taxes don't really effect their spending all that much? Just thought you might know.

That's a popular theory. And you'll find a number of folks spouting that out. You'll also find others linking 100,000 of those jobs lost to the resession and some arguing 25,000 lost tot he tax. But, this was the rebuttal of the time:

But Dennis Zimmerman, a public finance specialist at the Congressional Research Service, said the tax was not to blame for the decline in sales of expensive boats. The gulf war, saturation of the luxury-boat market and a reduction in disposable income for those who can afford expensive boats are more likely causes, he said.

Luxury Tax On Boats Sinks Jobs, U.s. Revenue, Critics Say - Chicago Tribune
 
Of course it will - anyone that says it will not has NO idea what they are talking about.

Why should that be? Aren't commodities prices determined by supply and demand anymore? I don't think they are either. Why do you think they are not?
Why has "free market" capitalism failed when it comes to commodities?
 
Last edited:
Why should that be? Aren't commodities prices determined by supply and demand anymore? I don't think they are either. Why do you think they are not?
Why has capitalism failed when it comes to commodities?

END FED: Bernanke Admits QE Raises Stock Prices, Force Investors Into Other Assets--Commodities?

END FED: Bernanke Admits QE Raises Stock Prices, Force Investors Into Other Assets--Commodities? - YouTube

'The third question is why has the global demand for commodities increased? It's hard to believe that world output has changed enough in recent weeks to explain the rise in commodity prices. More likely, rumours of quantitative easing led to higher future expected output. This would raise future expected commodity prices, and (because of inter-temporal arbitrage) current commodity prices.'

Economics: Monetary easing has raised expected aggregate demand


Just look at ANY major market/commodity when rumours of QE3 come up...they shoot up; especially the more volatile ones like oil, gold, silver, etc..

Others may shoot up as well - but I don't follow those very closely, so I do not know about them as well.


BTW - I am not saying commodities need QE's to rise - obviously that is not true. But QE's will and have (imo) cause large rises in commodity prices.
 
Last edited:
END FED: Bernanke Admits QE Raises Stock Prices, Force Investors Into Other Assets--Commodities?

END FED: Bernanke Admits QE Raises Stock Prices, Force Investors Into Other Assets--Commodities? - YouTube

'The third question is why has the global demand for commodities increased? It's hard to believe that world output has changed enough in recent weeks to explain the rise in commodity prices. More likely, rumours of quantitative easing led to higher future expected output. This would raise future expected commodity prices, and (because of inter-temporal arbitrage) current commodity prices.'

Economics: Monetary easing has raised expected aggregate demand


Just look at ANY major market/commodity when rumours of QE3 come up...they shoot up; especially the more volatile ones like oil, gold, silver, etc..

Others may shoot up as well - but I don't follow those very closely, so I do not know about them as well.
Yes yes...speculation caused spikes......which then subside.



THE question of why commodity prices have been rising must be broken down into several components. First, is the increase merely nominal, or have real commodity prices also been rising? This is complicated by currency fluctuations, which may result in prices rising in some countries and falling in others. I'm going to assume that both real and nominal commodity prices have recently been increasing in most countries (say using a GDP-weighted set of exchange rates).

The second question is whether the increases reflect supply or demand-side factors. If a wide variety of commodity prices increase at the same time, the most likely cause is higher demand. Rising world output might lead to an increase in commodity demand (relative to supply.) In contrast, supply-side problems are usually industry-specific.
Economics: Monetary easing has raised expected aggregate demand

And as I already showed, world-wide demand has been happening since 2003, the slope of ALL commodity increases has remained consistent since that point...long before QE.
 
Yes yes...speculation caused spikes......which then subside.
Of course, every spike subsides once the source of the 'spike' is removed.

When the effects of QE wears off - then the spike that was caused by them wears off as well.

But there is more 'cheap' money flooding the economies then just QE's/LTRO's.

All the massive government deficits most western countries run causes 'artificial' price rises in almost everything - certainly more then there would be without them.
 
Of course, every spike subsides once the source of the 'spike' is removed.

When the effects of QE wears off - then the spike that was caused by them wears off as well.

But there is more 'cheap' money flooding the economies then just QE's/LTRO's.

All the massive government deficits most western countries run causes 'artificial' price rises in almost everything - certainly more then there would be without them.
Any "spike" caused by QE in the commodity markets (and I have yet to see anyone show where they existed) was imaginary since the long term rise since 2003 still exists because of the factors already explained. The near linear rise as not been curved at the points in time when the QE's occurred. The long term trend has not changed. The QE's were not responsible then....or now.
 
Any "spike" caused by QE in the commodity markets (and I have yet to see anyone show where they existed) was imaginary since the long term rise since 2003 still exists because of the factors already explained. The near linear rise as not been curved at the points in time when the QE's occurred. The long term trend has not changed. The QE's were not responsible then....or now.

1) If you are using your CPI charts as a measurement of commodity prices, that is inaccurate (imo).

As I stated before (and showed with links) other then oil/gas, raw commodity prices have VERY little directly to do with the CPI. Finished goods and non-commodity based items/services are the vast majority of the source for calculating the CPI.


2) Yes, commodities increased even after the Great Recession began.

Why would that be?

Obviously if a massive western recession is going on - then commodity prices should collapse. But they didn't. Why? Because of all the huge amounts of 'cheap' money that western governments and central banks (including the Fed's QE1 and 2 over $2.3 trillion) began pouring into their economies starting 2007/08.

Now that QE1 and 2 have faded and the economies (imo) have gotten used to the massive stimuli that government fiscal deficits are providing...the price of commodities has faded somewhat.

Look at the price of oil as an example:

Crude Oil Price History

On Feb. 13/09, it was at $37.51/barrel (from a high of over $125 less then 9 months earlier).

Yet despite the fact that Great Recession was in full swing and oil prices should be continuing to fall or stay as is - what happens?

They start steadily rising to almost double that price by June 12...and it certainly was not because of oil shortages.

It was mostly (imo) 'cheap' money being poured into western economies.

BTW - the massive $1.7 trillion QE1 began in late '08.

And let's not forget Bush's stimuli and TARP and ARRA and $1+ trillion U.S. deficits starting with Bush's last budget, etc....

All this 'cheap' money artificially stimulating economies and stock markets and commodity markets.


And when QE3 is announced, oil and gold/silver and other commodities will jump again.

Heck - they jump even when a rumour of QE3 rears it's head.


Look, you don't want to believe it? Fine...don't.

But the facts and the timelines are too coincidental imo.

You pour trillions of dollars into an economy from outside sources (in this case - a printing press, in essence) and there has to be somewhere for all that money to go. And since interest rates and bond yields are ridiculously low - they are not going into savings and bonds (except the latter when the market panics).
And they are not going into real estate (so far).
What is left?
Equities and commodities.


You watch.

When QE3 is announced (which I think will not be until after the election - unless the economy collapses before then); assuming it is big (like $700-800 billion at least), then within 3 months, gold/silver will jump by 20% and oil by at least 10-15%. And most other commodities will rise as well (though food stuffs may fall once the American drought ramifications work themselves through the market - imo).
 
Last edited:
Just goes to show how little this Administration knows about the private sector. The private sector is not going to create jobs when it is demonized and threatened with higher taxes. Incentive drives all personal behavior and that is something Obama will never understand.

How in the hell can Nobrains claim to know anything about the private sector when he's never worked for a private company a day in his life? That's like a heart surgeon coming along and acting like he knows how to do heart surgery and he's never done one. Damn that man is a dumbass, and worse yet, a dumbass who can't admit he ****ed up. Just say "Hey, I really thought my plan was going to help. But it didn't. Things are worse now and I goofed." At least then I could respect the man.

We used to have someone at our facility who was just like Obama. He would screw up and then blame others. That man is no longer employed with our facility. I, on the other hand, immediately, even before the big boss found out I goofed, went to his face and told him "Look man, I screwed up. This is what happened, this is what I learned, and this is what I will do to ensure this will never happen again." I've been made facility manager and I'm fixing to have more facilities built that I will also oversee, in addition to more employees.

Responsibility......take it, Mr President, take responsibility for what you have done.
 
How in the hell can Nobrains claim to know anything about the private sector when he's never worked for a private company a day in his life? That's like a heart surgeon coming along and acting like he knows how to do heart surgery and he's never done one. Damn that man is a dumbass, and worse yet, a dumbass who can't admit he ****ed up. Just say "Hey, I really thought my plan was going to help. But it didn't. Things are worse now and I goofed." At least then I could respect the man.
Yes, the private sector is indeed as complex, nuanced, and knowledge intensive as heart surgery. Profit margins are a concept that simply escape all but a select few intellectual giants among the masses of mere mortals.
 
How in the hell can Nobrains claim to know anything about the private sector when he's never worked for a private company a day in his life? That's like a heart surgeon coming along and acting like he knows how to do heart surgery and he's never done one. Damn that man is a dumbass, and worse yet, a dumbass who can't admit he ****ed up. Just say "Hey, I really thought my plan was going to help. But it didn't. Things are worse now and I goofed." At least then I could respect the man.

We used to have someone at our facility who was just like Obama. He would screw up and then blame others. That man is no longer employed with our facility. I, on the other hand, immediately, even before the big boss found out I goofed, went to his face and told him "Look man, I screwed up. This is what happened, this is what I learned, and this is what I will do to ensure this will never happen again." I've been made facility manager and I'm fixing to have more facilities built that I will also oversee, in addition to more employees.

Responsibility......take it, Mr President, take responsibility for what you have done.

Hope Obama supporters read your post because you nailed it. Obama's resume showed zero leadership skills along with no executive or even private sector experience so when he took office he thought leadership was telling people what to do and then blaming them when it went wrong. A leader can never delegate responsibility and when you tell some else to do something and they fail it is your failure just like theirs. People are going to fail, that is human nature so when you do fail do what you did, you didn't blame someone else, you fessed up to the mistake. I can tell you that your boss appreciated the face to face acknowledgement and accepting responsibility for the mistake. You are in a higher position now because of that.
 
gee, John McCain didn't work in the private sector. Did you guys screwup or something?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom