• 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!

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've really stopped looking at the unemployment numbers because any way you slice it, Pres. Obama will never get credit for any positive private sector job growth whatsoever.

Even if one new job were created, there will be those who will find something wrong with that employment figure, i.e., it's part-time work, not full-time; it's only +1 more job than what was reported last month; it's a job in a low skilled arena not a technical job.

There's will always be someone who will seek out the negative, never the positive...the fact that private sector job growth has continued each year since 2010. It's almost as if those who believe that "the best way to end poverty is with a job" are fighting themselves and are willing to say anything to show that President Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the positive job growth that has taken place for five straight years.
 
"U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008"

....and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the great depression. Take your pick.
 
You know,

I had to double check the record, but my memory was right - for the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency the GOP completely controlled both branches of government, including both the house & senate. There was majority control of both chambers for 6 out of 8 of those years, and a two year period where the house was in majority GOP control and the senate floor was evenly split - but the senate still stayed in GOP control due the the GOP VP tie-breaking vote.

Source: Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855–2017

To blame the Bush recession on a minority party seems ... a bit of ... a reach.

So now the GOP recession is due to (as you state) their having 'a liberal mindset'?

You gotta' be kidding!

Huh? You say that the GOP controlled "both branches of government, including both the house & senate" for the entire 8 years of Bush 43's Presidency. Not accurate. In 2006 the Democrats won both the House and the Senate. What point were you trying to make?
 
Yet you and other GOP posters keep asking for what you just said he can't do.
GOPs are certainly first in line to bash economic news with their TPs no matter what the news.

While GOP posters also continue to damn the POTUS on every other front, even when they agree with him, such as on TPP .

So Obama isn't responsible for private sector job growth...is he?
 
Proof?

Proof?

Once again, no proof from the one who demands proof from lefties.

which he didn't so you've moved on to the blatant lie level.

Have you seen the pictures of GOP politicians digging in their shovels?
Again, no proof as our economy has moved on--try to catch up.

Repetitious and without proof--GOPs only care about NH every 4 years--how's that Christie doing defending a fellow cheater Brady?

Especially those used by governors like Perry of Texas to balance his budget.
Tell me those dollars didn't create private sector jobs--and prove it .

Everything you need to know about stimulus money can be found on http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/the-minimal-impact-of-the-stimulus/?_r=0
 
"U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008"

....and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the great depression. Take your pick.

The Great Depression was in 1978?
fredgraph.png


And since Labor Force Statistics weren't collected at all until 1942, and official data not available prior to 1948, it's clear you just made things up. Why did you do that?
 
The Great Depression was in 1978?
fredgraph.png


And since Labor Force Statistics weren't collected at all until 1942, and official data not available prior to 1948, it's clear you just made things up. Why did you do that?

OK. The labor participation is the lowest since 1978. Take your pick.
 
Janet Reno AND Robert Rubin bragging about the effectiveness of Clintons CRA changes and the effectivness of his Fair lending task force is not in context ?

It is of little meaning. Fair lending does not equate to bad mortgages, as nobody can force a bank to make a loan. Fair lending does require depository institutions who reside in specific neighborhoods to objectively process applications from people who also reside in these same neighborhoods.

A most epic gap in logic is required to argue processing applications leads to a mortgage bubble. This is why you've never been able to produce valid empirical support for your illusions of grandeur.

Ruben and Reno even quantified the sucess of his CRA changes and his Fair lending Task Force and I've posted their quotes over and over and over.

Sorry, but it does not follow that CRA changes lead to poor mortgage underwriting standards or shady securitization techniques. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did not go broke due to the CRA or the GSE's.

Its not in context with the debunked left wing narratives that blame the banks and Bush but its definitely relevant to what actually happened.

Where is the data that supports this POV?
 
OK. The labor participation is the lowest since 1978. Take your pick.

Why didn't you actually bother to do research first? Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?
 
Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?

This isn't the first time. Therefore, we know why they do it.
 
Last edited:
Why would you just post something you made up with no consideration for reality?

To be fair, we don't know that fmw "made it up." It could be that a "commentator" or a "radio personality" or an "entertainer" said that someone reported it.
 

Which means you know very little with respect to the subject matter. The Cato economist presented a false narrative.

Case and point: "If Keynesian stimulus advocates are correct, economic growth should have been sharply reduced when stimulus spending slowed."

The author does not understand Keynesian economics, which is rather apparent given her Cato and freshwater connections. Stimulus is never intended to be permanent. Instead, it's meant as a temporary boost to push economic activity back into action. By the time the stimulus funds ran their course, the U.S. economy was strong enough (given continued fiscal and monetary support) to continue growing sans stimulus.

fredgraph.png


Dr. Mulligan further exhibits his shortcomings with Keynesianism:

"After all, the stimulus spending penalized success, since its benefits — for example, extending unemployment insurance — were aimed at people and businesses with low incomes, and not at those who were working and/or achieving a certain income level. So it would be no surprise if the result was to keep incomes below what they would have been — as in other cases, a counterproductive result of a well-intentioned program."

How utterly ridiculous! How does providing money to people penalize success, unless you view helping those in need as a punishment for those without? Incomes fell because job losses mounted in the wake of deflationary pressure, not because unemployment benefits extended. In fact, the prevailing freshwater idea is that wages need to fall to a market clearing level. Yet experiences from the great depression, Japan, etc... show that downward nominal wage rigidity negates the classical hypothesis.

It seems your lack of exposure to both the data and literature have led you to be hopelessly outmatched on this topic.
 
Which means you know very little with respect to the subject matter. The Cato economist presented a false narrative.

Case and point: "If Keynesian stimulus advocates are correct, economic growth should have been sharply reduced when stimulus spending slowed."

The author does not understand Keynesian economics, which is rather apparent given her Cato and freshwater connections. Stimulus is never intended to be permanent. Instead, it's meant as a temporary boost to push economic activity back into action. By the time the stimulus funds ran their course, the U.S. economy was strong enough (given continued fiscal and monetary support) to continue growing sans stimulus.

fredgraph.png


Dr. Mulligan further exhibits his shortcomings with Keynesianism:

"After all, the stimulus spending penalized success, since its benefits — for example, extending unemployment insurance — were aimed at people and businesses with low incomes, and not at those who were working and/or achieving a certain income level. So it would be no surprise if the result was to keep incomes below what they would have been — as in other cases, a counterproductive result of a well-intentioned program."

How utterly ridiculous! How does providing money to people penalize success, unless you view helping those in need as a punishment for those without? Incomes fell because job losses mounted in the wake of deflationary pressure, not because unemployment benefits extended. In fact, the prevailing freshwater idea is that wages need to fall to a market clearing level. Yet experiences from the great depression, Japan, etc... show that downward nominal wage rigidity negates the classical hypothesis.

It seems your lack of exposure to both the data and literature have led you to be hopelessly outmatched on this topic.

Good grief. What a bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with what I posted. Ugh, stop quoting me. I can't read your liberal Obama worshipping drivel.
 
Good grief. What a bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with what I posted.

You lack the ability to respond; i get it. Perhaps the superior approach would be to hesitate to respond rather than putting your lack of knowledge of the subject on full display.

Ugh, stop quoting me. I can't read your liberal Obama worshipping drivel.

Do you have a problem with reading? Not once did i mention Obama in the post for which you chose to reply. It pains me to watch you stumble throughout this thread.
 
Dr. Mulligan further exhibits his shortcomings with Keynesianism:

"After all, the stimulus spending penalized success, since its benefits — for example, extending unemployment insurance — were aimed at people and businesses with low incomes, and not at those who were working and/or achieving a certain income level. So it would be no surprise if the result was to keep incomes below what they would have been — as in other cases, a counterproductive result of a well-intentioned program."

How utterly ridiculous! How does providing money to people penalize success, unless you view helping those in need as a punishment for those without? Incomes fell because job losses mounted in the wake of deflationary pressure, not because unemployment benefits extended. In fact, the prevailing freshwater idea is that wages need to fall to a market clearing level. Yet experiences from the great depression, Japan, etc... show that downward nominal wage rigidity negates the classical hypothesis.

It seems your lack of exposure to both the data and literature have led you to be hopelessly outmatched on this topic.

I've heard people complain about Keynesian economics for years and kinda laugh about it. It's as if people fail to realize that since the Great Depression each time there's been a major economic downturn the one thing governments turn to in order to turn the economy around is Keynesian economic in some shape, form or fashion. And once all the "stimulus" spending is over, things more or less go back to the way they were.

Like it or not, but there are times when the only entity that can give the economy the kick start it needs is government.
 
I've heard people complain about Keynesian economics for years and kinda laugh about it. It's as if people fail to realize that since the Great Depression each time there's been a major economic downturn the one thing governments turn to in order to turn the economy around is Keynesian economic in some shape, form or fashion. And once all the "stimulus" spending is over, things more or less go back to the way they were.

Like it or not, but there are times when the only entity that can give the economy the kick start it needs is government.

Nonsense.

If " Keynesian " solutions worked Japan would be sitting pretty right now.

They blew through 10 separate stimulus packages in the 90s running up record amounts of debt and they even invested in " infrastructure ".

Now, they have the Highest debt to GDP ratio in the world and the only one buying ( monetizing ) their debt is the BoJ.

They've had to raise taxes twice which lead to two consecutive quarters of economic contraction and they'll have to raise it again soon just so they can keep up with their massive amount of debt.

If Keynesian solutions worked there would have actually been " shovel ready " jobs and we wouldn't be struggling under this perpetual economic stagnation.
 
You lack the ability to respond; i get it. Perhaps the superior approach would be to hesitate to respond rather than putting your lack of knowledge of the subject on full display.



Do you have a problem with reading? Not once did i mention Obama in the post for which you chose to reply. It pains me to watch you stumble throughout this thread.

Your incredibly idiotic post about Keynes had nothing - zero - to do with that link that I posted. I wasn't arguing the merits of the stimulus spending, nor the economics behind it - the poster asked me to prove that most of the stimulus money was spent before 2013, and that link showed how the stimulus money was spent, and when. Your clueless and sanctimonious posts show how far behind the discussion you are. You jumped in to drone endlessly about a post I made to someone else, and that was not at all related to your self serving, off topic and boring rant.

Now, go away and post your liberal, Obama loving posts to someone who cares what you think and someone who wants to debate the merits of the stimulus with you. I don't fall into either one.
 
BTW, since Nov. 2007 (just before the Great Recession), there are now 1,277,000 LESS Americans employed full time and 3,113,000 MORE Americans employed part time.

That is what roughly $12 trillion in government stimuli/deficits/Fed spending, ZIRP and 89 months have accomplished.

Still waiting for someone to factually prove to me that had the government done nothing that the economy would not have recovered even more in that time.

Oh, that's right...no one can.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_12072007.pdf

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.
 
Last edited:
BTW, since Nov. 2007 (just before the Great Recession), there are now 1,277,000 LESS Americans employed full time and 3,113,000 MORE Americans employed part time.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_12072007.pdf

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

1. It is "fewer" not "less." You sound ignorant when you get it wrong.
2. I see that again you ignore the warning that numbers get revised and so you shouldn't use the archived releases. The Actual (seasonally adjusted) change has been -1,103,000 full time and +2,980 part time.
3. But while in either case full time is lower and part time is higher....what is the current trend?
fredgraph.png

fredgraph.png


In other words, Full time employment took a massive drop in the recession but has steadily built back up since then, while part time jobs took a huge increase and have bounced up and down since then.

What I would like to know is why the difference in level from an arbitrary point seems more important to you than the trend?
 
Last edited:
If " Keynesian " solutions worked Japan would be sitting pretty right now.

You have such a good handle on the US economy that you feel comfortable analyzing the Japanese experience. Interesting.

>>They've had to raise taxes twice

They have raised taxes. Are you sure they had to?

>>If Keynesian solutions worked

You do know that raising taxes in a recession runs counter to Keynesian theory.

Not everyone agrees with yer … analysis:

"Japan Shows Keynes Is Right and Austerity Is Wrong," The Hankyoreh, Apr 24, 2014

"Is the state of the Japanese economy proof that Keynesian economics doesn’t work?," Quora, Aug 2012

"Keynes, trains and automobiles," The Economist, reprinted on eastwestcenter.org, Jan 12, 2013

"Is Abenomics discrediting Keynesianism?," Pieria, an online magazine, Nov 27, 2014
 
In other words, Full time employment took a massive drop in the recession but has steadily built back up since then …

… the difference in level from an arbitrary point seems more important to you than the trend

I think you get an even clearer picture looking at the last few decades:

emp_ft_1968_2015.jpg
 
You have such a good handle on the US economy that you feel comfortable analyzing the Japanese experience. Interesting.

>>They've had to raise taxes twice

They have raised taxes. Are you sure they had to?

>>If Keynesian solutions worked

You do know that raising taxes in a recession runs counter to Keynesian theory.

Not everyone agrees with yer … analysis:

"Japan Shows Keynes Is Right and Austerity Is Wrong," The Hankyoreh, Apr 24, 2014

"Is the state of the Japanese economy proof that Keynesian economics doesn’t work?," Quora, Aug 2012

"Keynes, trains and automobiles," The Economist, reprinted on eastwestcenter.org, Jan 12, 2013

"Is Abenomics discrediting Keynesianism?," Pieria, an online magazine, Nov 27, 2014

Lol !!

Japan lowered taxes more than once when they were blowing through one stimulus package after the next back in the 90s.

100 Trillion Yen in 10 different Stimulus packages from 1992 to 2000 with multiple tax cuts produced only debt. Massive debt as Japan continued to ignore their structural economic issues in place of a purely ideological approach to growing economies.

Stimulus fails because it just papers over the REAL reason economies continue to suffer.

Whether its tried here or in Japan the results are the same. Failure and increased debt as REAL WEALTH simply bides its time , hoarding their capital waiting for the progressive nonsense and Government misallocation to end.


Now, is it too difficult for you to do 5 minutes of research before showing up here and making a fool of yourself ?
 
BTW - not that I am a fan of GW Bush at ALL - but for you Obamabots out there...

since he took office, every major age demographic has less people employed now except two - 20-24 and 55 plus.

The most important demographic for economic growth is the 25-54 age group. This is the group that predominately has children, raises them and buys the most big ticket items. Before that no. And after 55, most either are retired or their children have left home and they are saving for retirement.
Since Obama took office, despite all the massive deficits/stimuli and Fed spending, there are actually 211,000 less Americans employed in this important age range (and 404,000 less 16-19 year olds).

BTW - there are over 4 million (?!?) less people employed in this age range since Nov. 2007 (just before the Great Recession).

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_12072007.pdf


As I have said many times, this is a McDonald's/Mercedes recovery (maybe I should change that to Walmart/Mercedes recovery).

Crappy fundamentals mixed with TONS of government debt and corporate stock buybacks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom