US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

danarhea · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
This is not a picture of stagnation. It is a picture of a recovery, albeit one that Republicans since taking control of the House in 2011 have been working to stifle and impede.

View attachment 67134332

As the Fed has complained of since the 2010 elections, it no longer has a willing partner in Congress and hence faces the need to bear all of the recovery-boosting burdens on its own back. It's the Republicans, pure and simple.

People who believe that three separate and distinct entities can each be "primarily to blame" for anything don't deserve a lot of mollycoddling. As for macro skills, well, I can't recommend that you go there. The credit crisis was brought about between 2002 and 2006 by the greed of unbridled cowboy capitalism aided and abetted by the god-awful fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of the laissez-faire cheerleaders within the Bush administration. All of those have a heavy cross to bear. Others. not so much.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

DA60 said:
Prove it. With links to factual information from unbiased sources. Have a nice day,

What exactly is there to prove? 6,000 per day times 30 days would be 180,000 per month which is half of the 368,000 you and the easily agitated have been going on about.

I'm left to think that the post above is just your kneejerk go-to comment when you've once again been left with no actual material comeback point to raise at all. Nah, that couldn't be it...

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

Taylor said:
The media didn't report it as such because most are grownups that use relative terms when talking about these sorts of things.

The media and the disinformation media are two different things. One of them can never be relied upon. There are occasional exceptions in the case of the other. And should I suppose that you were aware that the word "largest" has meaning only relative to some other set of things?

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

DA60 said:
Though I agree the likelihood is probably very low. Only the most ignorant and childish of economist would ever say the debt will 'never' be paid off. No one knows the future and all it's possible permutations. To claim otherwise is both unscientific and irrational. Have a nice day.

Pigs will never fly. Hell will never freeze over. The debt will never be paid off. Deal with it.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

jonny5 said:
So youre saying Im a child?

I'm saying that your claim that Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative was incorrect for a very elementary reason. A state of chronological childhood was plainly not implied, but then there have been disturbing patterns of problems with English comprehension around here.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

DA60 said:
Every single week for roughly the past 1/2 year the numbers have been revised in the same direction.

What would you have expected, now that you know that the differences result from incorporation of late reporting?

DA60 said:
And still folks, he cannot admit he erred.

The error is all yours as usual. There was no distinction made between jobs saved and jobs created in the CBO and various other public and private sector analyses of ARRA's progress.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

jonny5 said:
Im not your dude, buddy. Try making a single post without an insulting tone.

Try not making infamously erroneous claims while professing to be some sort of knowledgeable source on the matter. There is no appropriation of revenues for the purpose of repaying maturing public debt. There is one for the purpose of paying associated interest due. Had you known that, I'm sure you would never have made the claims that you did concerning the obligations of taxpayers. Did you now want to file a correction?

DA60 · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
What exactly is there to prove? 6,000 per day times 30 days would be 180,000 per month which is half of the 368,000 you and the easily agitated have been going on about.

I'm left to think that the post above is just your kneejerk go-to comment when you've once again been left with no actual material comeback point to raise at all. Nah, that couldn't be it...

Two things:

one) I was answering a bunch of your posts in a row and when it's someone whom I don't respect on a subject (like you on this - you often present interesting facts, but your interpretation is usually wrong and your condescending attitude is childish, imo), I tend to sometimes scan the first sentence, glance at the rest and make assumptions.

It is a bad habit of mine and I did it to your above post.

My apologies.

Two) I have asked you at least half a dozen times to prove what you state - and you have yet to even attempt to provide ANY links.
So I think it is you that needs to be providing 'comeback material'.
Why on Earth should anyone listen to what you have to say if you consistently fail to back up your comments with links to proven facts?
And I am not the only on on here to say this to you.
And if you think we are going to take your word for it on the things you claim, you are delusional.

Maybe you are a big shot in your real life (I highly doubt that).

But on here - imo - you are just a narcissistic-acting nobody with access to a lot of facts.

Have a nice day.

DA60 · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
Pigs will never fly. Hell will never freeze over. The debt will never be paid off. Deal with it.

I don't really care one way or the other.

In fact, the more the government ramps up the debt - the more my precious metals soar.

So they can keep the printing presses going all night for all I care.

But;

No one knows the future and all it's possible permutations.

To claim otherwise is both unscientific and irrational.

Have a nice day.

OnWisconsin · Sep 13, 2012

My brother works for a CNC machine shop. They have 14 entry level positions open, and have needed those spots filled for around 3 months now. I still can't figure out how, in this economy, there could be a company with 14 entry level positions available yet they cannot find people to fill these positions.

DA60 · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
What would you have expected, now that you know that the differences result from incorporation of late reporting?

I don't know anything of the kind.

All I know is you said it.

Would you take the word of someone with the ego of a mountain and the apparent emotional stability of a child?

Neither would I.

You may be correct. You may not. I do not know.

But I sure am not taking the word of someone whom I hold in such low regard as you on it.

The error is all yours as usual. There was no distinction made between jobs saved and jobs created in the CBO and various other public and private sector analyses of ARRA's progress.

Riiiiight.

You study that link I previously gave you about your 'condition' and let's move on as this is not the topic of this thread.

Have a nice day.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

DA60 said:
So then, what was the point of stating all those other 'reasons' if you admit they do not even collectively comprise the majority of the reason for the LFPR drop?

I attested to no such thing. I point out only what should be obvious to anyone, namely that deciding to retire at the end of a long and successful career is NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job. Choosing to stay at home to raise one's young children is similarly NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job. And of course, choosing to invest in furthering one's education is also NOT leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job.

DA60 said:
Another useless rant meant to try and deflect responsibility for the inept handling of the economy from 'your boy' Obama?

The right-wing does love its race card, eh? Otherwise, those whom Obaba brought along with him did a notable and praiseworthy thing in dealing with the out-of-control economic disaster left behind by Bush on both national and international levels. That was impressive by any standards. You are simply too cowed by Rush Limbaugh to admit it. He and his team also went beyond expectations in getting us out of the Bush-bungled debacle of Iraq. They became the first team to succeed at enacting national health care reform. They have consistently supported everyday Americans most impacted by the economic crisis. They even found time and a way to kill Osama bin Laden along the way. There is in fact an extensive list of milestones and achievements that this administration has brought about that all Americans should be able to applaud. Some just can't bring themselves to do it, though.

Does everything that Obama has done since 2009 belong on that list? No, not at all. He should never for instance have let it be known that he had returned the bust of Winston Churchill that the British Embassy had lent to Bush, replacing it in the Oval Office with one of Dr. King. He should have known that the right-wing crazies would try to spin some idiot issue out of that. Could have just done it on the QT.

DA60 · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
I attested to no such thing.

Ummm...yes you did.

My question was:

'Are you saying that the majority of the drop in LFPR is not due to people simply leaving the work force due to frustration at being able to find a suitable job? Yes or no, please?'

And your reply was 'no'.

Which means that you agree that most people that left the work force did so out of frustration at not being able to find a job.

You DID attest to just such a thing.

The right-wing does love its race card, eh?

Race card?

Have you gone right off the deep end?

Your Boy
1. A good friend
2. Your favourite person/role model

Urban Dictionary: Your Boy

I demand an apology from you on this.

And when I do not get one - because I think I know you - I will report this to the mods.

I doubt they will do much...but it will add to your file.

And btw - I am NOT a right winger.

Otherwise, those whom Obaba brought along with him did a notable and praiseworthy thing in dealing with the out-of-control economic disaster left behind by Bush on both national and international levels. That was impressive by any standards. You are simply too cowed by Rush Limbaugh to admit it. He and his team also went beyond expectations in getting us out of the Bush-bungled debacle of Iraq. They became the first team to succeed at enacting national health care reform. They have consistently supported everyday Americans most impacted by the economic crisis. They even found time and a way to klill Osama bin Laden along the way. There is in fact an extensive list of milestones and achievements that this administration has brought about that all Americans should be able to applaud. Some just can't bring themselves to do it, though.

Does everything that Obama has done since 2009 belong on that list? No, not at all. He should never for instance have let it be known that he had returned the bust of Winston Churchill that the British Embassy had lent to Bush, replacing it in the Oval Office with one of Dr. King. He should have known that the right-wing crazies would try to spin some issue out of that. Could have just dne it on the QT.

List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies

let's see what he has done:

- he ramped up the deficit by about $6 trillion.

- food stamp usage has skyrocketed by about 40%

- average new home prices are WAY below what they were

- the unemployment rate is worse

- the participation rate is the worst since 1981

- he ramped up the war in Afghanistan with disastrous consequences.

- Gitmo is still open (despite some people's delusional thoughts that it is closed)

- he has NEVER posted a deficit of less then a trillion dollars

And these are just off of the top of my head.

The guy may be a very interesting fellow. And as I have stated before, I would love to have a beer with the man.

But as a POTUS? Your boy is a first class failure.

The following was what he should have told America before the last election:

'My promise to America is - by 2012 - to increase the federal debt by $6 trillion dollars, raise the unemployment rate, lower the average resale value of your houses and make sure 40% more people are on food stamps.'

Cardinal Fang · Sep 13, 2012

DA60 said:
True or false? The DOW and unemployment rate returned to near pre-1920/21 depression levels within 3 1/2 years despite the fact that government spending under Wilson and Harding was drastically cut? True or false, please?

False. Through simply being false and through deliberately duplicitous non-specificity and irrelevance. To deal with the plain untruth first, the unemployment rate in both 1918 and 1919 was 1.4 percent, a level that was not seen again until 1944. You have further of course persisted in refusal to explain why you are citing volatile stock market indexes (though the reasons are to facilitate cherry-picking and to avoid the implications of GNP data), and you have not defined what "near pre-1920/21 depression levels" is meant to comprise, whether "within 3 1/2 years" refers only to the end of such an interval or to any point at all within it, and what the threshhold for "drastically cut" might have been. These sorts of weasel-wording are dishonest Madison Avenue-speak wormholes, being little different from touting "up to 50% off", a claim that excludes only discounts that are above 50%. 0% lies squarely within that range.

DA60 said:
1) Did the national debt under Hoover go up or down? Which is it, please?

LOL! Public debt declined in every year from 1920 through 1930. It then increased in every year from 1931 through 1946. There were bigger fish to fry than what you seem able to reel in.

DA60 said:
I use those times because they are 3 months after FDR took over (and the initial, temporary DOW rebound from his Emergency Banking Act) until 6 months after Pearl Harbor (when the U.S. war economy was gearing up).

Really. FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. By June 4, the DOW had increased from 53.84 to 90.02. Six months after Pearl Harbor (June 6, 1942 -- the market was closed on the 7th), it stood at 104.52. Where is your decline?

DA60 said:
And those numbers I posted are facts btw.

No, they are not.

DA60 said:
From mid' 33 until mid' 42, the umployment rate averaged 17+% and the DOW actually went down...despite huge increases in government debt.

The second claim has been shown to be false, but why again an average unemployment rate? Is that because even an annual time series would show the horrific unemployment of the Great Depression sharply and steadily declining under FDR until the point when he foolishly began listening to his "balance the budget" advisors? Would there have been an immediate spike in the unemployment rate at that point in time, followed again by sharp declines as FDR returned to Keynesian measures? Well, yes, that's exactly what it would show, but you want to cover that up by referring only to an average rate. That's simply an intellectual fraud. One of many.

DA60 · Sep 13, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
False.

The depression started in January 1920. Unemployment was indeed 1.4% in 1919. And the DOW was around 108.

By 1921, unemployment was at 11.7% and the DOW as low as 63.80 (in latter 1920).

Yet, within 3.5 years of the depression beginning, the unemployment rate was 2.4% and the DOW was up to 105+.

All while the government MASSIVELY cut spending.

Depression of 1920

Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

And Cardinal Fang does not consider that close.

Noted.

Really. FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. By June 4, the DOW had increased from 53.84 to 90.02. Six months after Pearl Harbor (June 6, 1942 -- the market was closed on the 7th), it stood at 104.52. Where is your decline?

I said from 'mid '33 until 'mid '42. I did not specify dates.

mid
adjective
1.
being at or near the middle point of: in mid autumn.

Mid | Define Mid at Dictionary.com

In mid '33, the DOW peaked at near 108.

By mid '42, it dropped to a low of 92.92.

Dow Jones Industrial Average (1920 - 1940 Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

So technically, we are both right about the DOW performance...though well spotted on your part.

But the facts remain the same - between roughly six months after FDR took office and roughly 6 months after Pearl harbor, the DOW went down and the unemployment rate averaged over 17%. It was still 17.2% in 1939 (FIVE times what it was before the crash).
This despite the fact that FDR (and Hoover) skyrocketed the national debt.

I'd call that a failure.

The Great Depression Statistics

Yet, during 1920/21, massive government cutbacks helped result in the unemployment rate and the DOW going back to near pre-depression levels (1.4/2.4 & 108/105, respectively) all with a DECLINE in the national debt of over 10% between 1920 and 1923.

I'd call that a success.

Let's put that another way.

What took Wilson/Harding 3.5 years to do (get the unemployment rate/DOW back to near pre-depression levels) - all while LOWERING the national debt by 10% using Austrian-style economics.

It took Hoover/FDR over 12 years to accomplish (and even then, the DOW at it's peak during those 12 years was still barely half what it was at it's 1929 peak) - all by TRIPLING the national debt by 1941 alone using Keynesian-style economics.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900 - 1949

Anyone that calls the former a failure and the latter a success is a macroeconomic ignoramus of the FIRST magnitude.

Have a VERY nice day.

jonny5 · Sep 14, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
I'm saying that your claim that Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative was incorrect for a very elementary reason. A state of chronological childhood was plainly not implied, but then there have been disturbing patterns of problems with English comprehension around here.

So youre saying Im an idiot who doesnt understand english?

Taylor · Sep 14, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
And should I suppose that you were aware that the word "largest" has meaning only relative to some other set of things?

...which is why your "FYI, the stimulus bill provided the largest two-year tax cut in US history" claim is meaningless unless you specify what that "other set of things" is... of course you don't want to do that because you don't like being laughed at.

Dittohead not! · Sep 14, 2012

danarhea said:

Clearly, you have hit on the one and only way to increase oil production. It is surprising no one thought of it sooner!

danarhea · Sep 14, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
Clearly, you have hit on the one and only way to increase oil production. It is surprising no one thought of it sooner!

Yea, and I am working hard on it too. DanaRhea Elliott - Musician and wildcatter. LOL.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

DA60 said:
So where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery happened primarily due to efforts by Obama and/or the Fed?

Hmmm. The traditional "I don't really have anything relevant to say" post, plus this is hardly the complete list. For one thing, out of an inherited attitude of global anger and resentment toward the US born of Bush's eight years of arrogant unilateralism concluded in the export of a Made-in-America financial crisis and looming global depression, Geithner and Obama were able use the Spring 2009 G-20 meetings to craft a consensus approach to the problem that saw virtually every significant economy (down to the likes of Thailand and Vietnam) run a stimulus program to restore liquidity and shore up demand in both national and international markets. In an increasingly global world, the success of those efforts was extremely important in paving the way to recovery. The disinformation media may not have reported on it much of course.

DA60 said:
And where are your links to unbiased facts that proves that the recovery was not simply the result of the Great Recession bottoming out and slowly rebounding 'on it's own'?

Fix itself? LOL!!! Do you know what a self-reinforcing downward spiral is? Bush didn't. He was as clueless as ever. The fundamentals of the economy are strong. What a bunch of hapless dupes and liars.

DA60 said:
The Fed lowering interest rates way too low and for too long, Bush pushing through his incredibly naive low income housing program and Congress's willingness to go along are what (imo) primarily started the housing bubble.

So we agree that Bush, Greenspan, and the Republican Congress were all heavily culpable. Of course, programs to increase access to home ownership have been on the agenda of every modern President, so I don't know why you mention those. Maybe there was something about Bush's programs in particualr that was flawed? And you kind of left out the signficant roles played by rapacious unregulated private brokers, crooked property appraisers, the profit-mad private-label securitization shops suddenly built out by Wall Street, and the no-account bond-rating agencies. No tip of the hat either to Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich. If those hadn't failed so spectacularly, there would have been no need for a Fed promise to keep interest rates at near-zero levels until economic activity picked up. Those are all pretty big pieces of the pie to be leaving out, but you didn't get around to any of them.

DA60 said:
And I would hardly call those 'free market'.

Markets are wise enough to regulate themselves. That would be well to the right of Adam Smith. Even he knew better than that.

DA60 said:
That is macroeconomic government meddling if I ever saw it.

So refusing to meddle is just another form of meddling. Deregulation is just a style of regulation. Lifting limits is a means of imposing them. The contortions you have to put yourself through are laughable.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

Das Sozialist said:
If you don't believe me, find better numbers and show me. I used the 1995-2002 numbers that ABC released which included births and deaths, when you do the math, you need over 130,000 jobs to keep up with population growth. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.

The first problem is that the most recent of your data are ten years old. Lots of water over the dam since then. The second problem is that your work assumes that the relationship between employment and population is an immutable constant -- sort of like the speed of light. This is not the case. The relationship is actually in a constant state of flux as the result of changes in technology, demographics, and simple worker preferences, among other things. I suggest that you would have a very hard time finding someone actually versed in the field who would agree that as many as 130,000 jobs a month are needed to keep pace with population growth.

Das Sozialist said:
Again, prove me wrong and I'll gladly admit I am, you haven't provided any evidence otherwise.

Your claim was that employment has not been growing but rather declining. That's beyond false. There are no data to support such an assertion. Your attempts to manufacture such data simply take many months from the preceding decline and lump them in with the months of the succeeding recovery. Had you recognized that employment is a lagging variable, you might not have made such a mistake.

To summarize the actual history, when Obama was inaugurated, employment was declining at an accelerating rate. That is, both the first and second derivatives were negative. Soon the second derivative went positive, meaning that things were still getting worse but at a slower rate. Then the first derivative went positive, meaning that things were actually getting better instead of worse. Then the curve itself went positive, meaning that we experienced job gains instead of job losses. Then Republicans took control of the House and stopped providing support for the recovery, hoping that bad news for the economy would end up being good news for them at the polls.

To summarize in terms of actual data, payroll employment peaked in January 2008. Twelve months later, we had lost 4.5 million jobs. Twelve months after that, we had lost a further 4.3 million jobs. In the thirty months since the employment effects of the Great Bush Recession bottomed out, we have recovered 4.1 million jobs. That's why people say employment has been growing, not declining. Here is a nice picture that may be an aid to comprehension...

That actually makes things kind of clear, wouldn't you say?

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

DA60 said:
I have asked you at least half a dozen times to prove what you state - and you have yet to even attempt to provide ANY links.

You post unsourced, poorly sourced, and entirely bogus claims about deficits, about depressions, about budgets, and about stock market indices, and I have enough initiative to go off and pull up the data that prove those claims to be utterly without merit or foundation of any sort. You apparently either lack any such initiative, or you do have some but in its exercise have utterly failed to track down even an iota of information that disproves any of my statements. So pronounced is the paucity of your contradictory discovery that you have had to resort to misconstruction of the rules of English grammar in order to have something to grouse about. What a waste.

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

DA60 said:
Ummm...yes you did. My question was:

Your typically dishonest question was in the form of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" fallacy, and no, I will not dignify it further than to explain that which actually needs no explanation, namely that people choose to enter and leave the workforce for all sorts of individual reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with any ability to find what they might consider to be a suitable job. Indeed, many of those who choose to exit the workforce leave just such a job behind them in their wakes. How foolishly short-sighted of you not to have realized that.

DA60 said:
Race card? Have you gone right off the deep end?

No. It doesn't matter whose "boy" you refer to, the implication is obvious enough that any sentient person would have thought to reword the statement unless he or she had intended that the implication be drawn. A defense of Oh, you're right, I was typing in a hurry and didn't catch it at the time would have been acceptable. This one isn't.

DA60 said:
I demand an apology from you on this. And when I do not get one - because I think I know you - I will report this to the mods.

How has that worked out for you in the past? Get embarrassed, call a mod.

DA60 said:
And btw - I am NOT a right winger.

Well, you certainly are as befuddled, disoriented, and dishonest as one, so I guess it's an easy mistake for people to make.

DA60 said:
let's see what he has done:
- he ramped up the deficit by about $6 trillion.

Want to try that again? Debt and deficit are two different things. What portion of each of them by the way has been directly attributable to the effects of the Great Bush Recession?

DA60 said:
- food stamp usage has skyrocketed by about 40%

Because the Great Bush Recession has forced tens of millions of Americans out of their jobs and out of their homes. What are the income limits for food stamps again? If Republicans would stop manufacturing poor people at such a dizzying pace with their ignorant economic policies, fewer people would need food stamps simply to meet their basic nutitional needs.

DA60 said:
- average new home prices are WAY below what they were

How did that happen again? Did the Great Bush Recession play any part in it?

DA60 said:
- the unemployment rate is worse

Employment is a lagging variable. More than 4 million jobs have been added since the Great Bush Recession hit its employment bottom. The unemployment rate has meanwhile declined by two percentage points from its peak.

DA60 said:
- the participation rate is the worst since 1981

Why would you think higher was better and lower was worse? Meanwhile, the LFPR was projected 20 years ago to begin a decline by the late 1990's, but it held on for a couple of years thanks to the great economy we had back then. Since 2001, both the demographic and cyclical components underlying the LFPR have turned negative. The reasons for this have been explained to you many times before. Your continued raising of this claim serves only to underscore the level of your dedication to deliberate disinformation.

DA60 said:
- he ramped up the war in Afghanistan with disastrous consequences.

He quite plainly campaigned on a plan to leave Iraq and return to the more important war that Bush had so foolishly abandoned, thus handing back to the Taliban a victory that we had won. And what meanwhile have been the disastrous consequences of this return? The death of bin Laden? The destruction of al Qaeda?

DA60 said:
- Gitmo is still open (despite some people's delusional thoughts that it is closed)

LOL! There have been no arrivals at Gitmo. Only departures. The last 170 or so -- half of whom have already been cleared for release -- are being held captive at Gitmo by Republicans who refuse to fund their relocation to anywhere else at all because the Ayatollah Boehner values these hostages as partisan political assets.

DA60 said:
- he has NEVER posted a deficit of less then a trillion dollars

Again, what on earth did you expect to result from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression? Anyone expecting fiscal balance would have been quite the fool indeed, especially as the FY 2009 deficit was already projected at $1.2 trillion by the day Obama was first sworn in.

DA60 said:
And these are just off of the top of my head.

[Insert joke here]

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

DA60 said:
The depression started in January 1920. Unemployment was indeed 1.4% in 1919. And the DOW was around 108.

Why it would matter is still left uncertain, but the DJIA varied in 1919 between 72.30 and 119.62. The average close during the year was 99.78.

DA60 said:
By 1921, unemployment was at 11.7% and the DOW as low as 63.80 (in latter 1920). Yet, within 3.5 years of the depression beginning, the unemployment rate was 2.4% and the DOW was up to 105+. All while the government MASSIVELY cut spending.

WWI Era Unemployment Rates...

1918: 1.4%
1919: 1.4%
1920: 5.2%
1921: 11.7%
1922: 6.7%
1923: 2.4%
1924: 5.0%
1925: 3.2%

In 1920, the DJIA varied between 66.75 and 109.88. The average close was 90.20. In 1923, the DJIA varied between 85.76 and 105.38. The average close was 94.86. Where in these data should we be looking to find the magical influences of Harding's laissez-faire approach again? And where did the Recession of 1923-24 come from? How about the Recesson of 1926-27?

DA60 said:
And Cardinal Fang does not consider that close.

Correct, a temporary brush with 2.4% is not actually close to two years at 1.4%.

DA60 said:
I said from 'mid '33 until 'mid '42. I did not specify dates.

Such vagueness and imprecision was why I pressed you on the point, and you replied that you had specifically chosen three months after FDR's inauguration and six months after Pearl Harbor as your key dates. I posted the data for those dates. They do NOT fit your hypothesis, but rather contradict it.

DA60 said:
But the facts remain the same - between roughly six months after FDR took office and roughly 6 months after Pearl harbor, the DOW went down and the unemployment rate averaged over 17%. It was still 17.2% in 1939 (FIVE times what it was before the crash).
This despite the fact that FDR (and Hoover) skyrocketed the national debt.

We have already seen that your DJIA claim is a fraud. What you are trying to do here of course is find the highest point you can once FDR took office and the economy began to rebound (as it in fact did quite quickly) and then compare that with the lowest point you can find in subsequent years, seizing finally on the WWII era when savings went heavily into War Bonds and not the stock market, and then settling on the low point of a Spring 1942 market slump. The DJIA was at 112 early in 1942 and 119 in late 1942. But with all your smokescreens of protest, you somehow managed to zero in on the single low-point of the year -- 92.92 on April 28 -- as if that figure were representative of the times instead of being an extreme outlier that was purposely and specifically selected to serve in furthering a phony partisan argument, That is deliberate and dishonest cherry-picking.

Meanwhile...

Depression Era Unemployment Rates...

1929: 3.2%
1930: 8.7%
1931: 15.9%
1932: 23.6%
1933: 24.9% <<< FDR inaugurated
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1%
1936: 16.9%
1937: 14.3% <<< FDR heeds calls to balance budget
1938: 19.0% <<< FDR reverts to Keynesian policies
1939: 17.2%
1940: 14.6%
1941: 9.9%

Or maybe you'd rather just see it all in pictures...

Notice anything about 1933?

Cardinal Fang · Sep 14, 2012

jonny5 said:
So youre saying Im an idiot who doesnt understand english?

I'm saying that your claim that Percentages are a way to spin real numbers, by making everything relative was incorrect for a very elementary reason. If I had meant to say something else, that's what I would have said.

US economy adds 96K jobs, rate falls to 8.1 pct. [W:123]

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

DA60

DA60

OnWisconsin

Well-known member

DA60

Cardinal Fang

DA60

Cardinal Fang

DA60

jonny5

Taylor

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang