- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,075
- Reaction score
- 504
- Location
- unknown
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You I am a common sense supporter.
Common sense dictates that Obama needs to go.
You I am a common sense supporter.
Recessions are not defined by the unemployment rate. So your post is meaningless.
The unemployment rate is a byproduct of an economy. Bad economy, high unemployment; good economy, low unemployment.
But unemployment is also a lagging indicator. Productivity will increase, manufacturing and service growth will recover, GDP will rise, the market will rise and unemployment will be flat. The economy will be robust for a time with unemployment barely moving. Then it will move. The opposite happens when the economy goes south. I look at financial statements for a living. Judging by profits the ecomomy went WAY south when we were still at 5% unemployment. It was awful. Then the layoffs hit.
And keep this in mind: Japan's unemployment rate for a decade long recession was very low. China's unemployment rate is very high (comparatively) and they grow quicker than any country on Earth.
Common sense dictates that Obama needs to go.
The GM bailout was not the stimulus, either. In case that escaped your attention. Further, Jim Cramer isn't Obama or the Treasury secretary or the FED Chairman. So, in other words, your post could not any further off topic than a post about cooking.
You're right that unemployment is going to follow recovery, but it's definitely a close second. Is the unemployment rate going up yet? It's not, is it? hell, nothing is going up. A leveling off isn't a recovery. Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
I actually run a business for a living. I'll let you know when the economy improves.
Go to google and enter stimulus to prevent next depression and there are thousands of hits. Sometimes because you say so, doesn't make it true.
Show my a link. That way I know what the hell you are talking about.
Recessions are not defined by the unemployment rate. So your post is meaningless.
Tell that to the unemployed....
Utlimately though, I think you and I are arguing semantics. Regardless what you call it, the stimulus was set to stimulate the economy to prevent further failure in the economy.
I will! Because it's a fact.
Even in a booming economy some people are unemployed. And I'll be happy to tell them the ecomony is booming. The circumstances of any individual person or company is not related to economic strength or weakness.
well DUH, but we are not talking about individuals....
when the unemployment rate gets back to what economists like to think of as normal, the recession is over.
If the American people are half as smart as I think they are, there will be precious little dabbling (investing) on Wall Street for a long time to come.
If you noticed the market has been rallying. Which says what? People are, in fact, investing. So it looks like that thought is out the window.
Let's try to keep things simple here:
Good economic news is Good for our country but very bad for the GOP. (therefore they will keep praying for another depression)
Bad economic news (which kind stopped right after GW Bush left town) is BAD for our country but great for the GOP
Therefore ( end of the logical syllogism)
What's good for our country is bad for the GOP & what's good for the GOP is bad for our country.
I've also noticed that the housing market has picked up in my community, after being really stagnant. People are actually buying houses again, which means that they believe that the prices have bottomed out and are headed up again.
You, like everyone else, make an assumption that the historical rule of thumb is the rule we should follow without any doubt. The rule says that economy always recovers. Thus Obama can abuse it for personal and ideological purposes and that would result only in some delay, but economy will recover. Economy will still start recovering on his watch and will grant him the 2nd term (especially if to consider the massive brainwashing campaign in media and Internet).
Generally in the bolded part you are conducting the war on the private sector blaming it in all sins...
In your war on the private sector – who will be there to make profits?
Who are the unemployed if they are not individuals?
Factually not true. Recessions are not defined by when we reach "normal" employment. In fact, we had "normal" employment for quite some time after the recession started in December 2007.
If you noticed the market has been rallying. Which says what? People are, in fact, investing. So it looks like that thought is out the window.
You can talk in ever widening circles if you like, but the recession will not end with high unemployment rates still in place.
The economy needs consumers, and I don't see that many people returning to the stores with lots of discretionary income.
Investing will always occur, but we will be a long time getting back to DJIA of 14,000....