|
If any other president.....
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours. Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a centrist with leftward leanings? Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with the Russians? Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda? This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all) Hes improved Americas image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. €śWe are convinced,€ť he said, €śthat he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€ť he said €śthat he is not strong to support his friends." Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.) -- To know the road ahead, ask those coming back. -- Chinese Proverb |
If any other president.....
On 6/14/2011 6:51 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours. Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a centrist with leftward leanings? Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with the Russians? Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda? This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all) Hes improved Americas image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. €śWe are convinced,€ť he said, €śthat he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€ť he said €śthat he is not strong to support his friends." Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.) -- To know the road ahead, ask those coming back. so you would offer up as a choice the republican party that has single handed taken the world's greatest and strongest economy and driven it into a deep recession, which has stonewalled very attempt to administer a recovery, that has systematically destroyed our treasure by wasting our blood in foreign engagements without paying for them, that has abused veterans and refused to give them medical care for their injuries, that has stolen from the people and given to the rich, that has fought against any protections for individuals, society, or the environment because it might constrain the grab for richness of their masters - thank you very much, I will take any alternative to that, no matter what his or her failings - all we can hope for is enough people vote "anything but republican" to take the party out of the main stream and put it down the drain where it belongs. Some day, maybe, we can have a fiscally conservative party that actually conserves, that does not engage in religion as a weapon, and that does not try to balance the needs of the wealthy upon the backs of the needy. |
If any other president.....
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:58:26 -0700, "." wrote:
so you would offer up as a choice the republican party that has single handed taken the world's greatest and strongest economy and driven it into a deep recession, Sorry fuctard..but the Demos have held all of Congress since 2007 and the Whitehouse since 2009 Seems you Leftwinger scum bags try and try and try to blame it on Bush and the Republicans...VBG....but it doesnt work. Never will work either. This cluster **** is YOURS and yours alone. Get used to the idea your people couldnt run a lemonaid stand. Gunner -- Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head. |
If any other president.....
On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of fat people. The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican fabrication. i Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours. Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a centrist with leftward leanings? Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with the Russians? Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda? This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all) He???s improved America???s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. ???We are convinced,??? he said, ???that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,??? he said ???that he is not strong to support his friends." Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.) |
If any other president.....
"Ignoramus10056" wrote in message ... On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of fat people. The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican fabrication. i Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult population working as we have today: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12 So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession took the gas out of an employment bubble. Maybe. It would take a lot of work to analyze it. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote: On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of fat people. The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican fabrication. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...07&toYear=2011 According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at 15.8% According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at nearly 20% (from November last) http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/...20-rising.html http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/us-un...-stands-at-21/ 21% as of January... Highest unemployment rate in April...27.9% Yes Iggy...the unemployment is certainly there. And Id have to say..it was a Democrat creation. But hey comrade...you know better..right? Gunner -- Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head. |
If any other president.....
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056
wrote: On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? There is no recession. So, you don't know anyone who makes less money than you do and are scraping hard to get by? There are no homeowners without a home, by definition. Oh, please. No semantics. You know as well as I do that I meant "former homeowners". There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of fat people. Thin and fat, rich and poor, but all do exist. Just because you don't see or hear of anyone in your neighborhood starving doesn't mean that there aren't starving people in the country. Do yourself a favor and ask the people who run the soup kitchens in your city. They'll clue you in, bigtime. The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican fabrication. That may be the highest figure they saw in their research but not the overall numbers in the country. It's way too high while we feed, house, clothe, and school -known- illegal aliens. _That_ is a crime. (And I include all races from all countries in that definition.) Whose President has been apologizing to our friends and enemies alike at a time when we need to appear stronger than ever? Yours. Whose President has veered arrogantly left after coming on as a centrist with leftward leanings? Whose President signed a unilateral (us) arms reduction treaty with the Russians? Whose President wants to dispense with that crappy old document, the Constitution, and get on with his socialist/communist/fascist (choose word you like best for rape of the people by the gov't) agenda? This could go on for hours but I'm tired. One mo Mort Zuckerman said (and I don't understand the first sentence at all) He???s improved America???s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. ???We are convinced,??? he said, ???that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,??? he said ???that he is not strong to support his friends." Scary. (BTW, Mort voted for Obama.) I'm not surprised you didn't comment on those. Democrats are in denial of this pretty badly. Like the women who thought Clinton was a God. It's baffling. -- Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony. -- Mahatma Gandhi |
If any other president.....
Ed Huntress wrote:
Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult population working as we have today: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12 Women became a larger part of the workforce If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%) of the year 2000 as the norm Then current employment (58.4) is down about 10% from the norm But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying which means businesses are not selling and therefore won't be hiring until they have some better prospects of selling more of their goods and services So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. So current low employment would mean the opposite? I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier The middle class may not be accumulating wealth in the form of consumer goods But they are also not accumulating debt And the federal deficit is where the money is going It's not going to the top earners. Of course you take away the federal deficit and you have a full blown depression I suppose if you have invested your life savings into over-priced gold and guns and ammo you want a depression to avoid looking silly In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession took the gas out of an employment bubble. No evidence that is true what was unsustainable is the level of consumption that produced that high level of employment And that was unsustainable because it was financed by private debt which can't go up forever the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports are -$0.5 trillion a year The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit But that is done now they aint gonna do it anymore So now what? -jim Maybe. It would take a lot of work to analyze it. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
"jim" wrote in message .. . Ed Huntress wrote: Until around 1978, we never had as high a percentage of the adult population working as we have today: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...EMRATIO?cid=12 Women became a larger part of the workforce That's true, although it had flattened out around 20 years ago, until the latest recession: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...0039?cid=32305 But my question is what percentage of the adult population our economy can sustain as employed, money-earning workers. During the Clinton years, we had a tech bubble. During the Reagan and G.W. Bush years, we had a deficit-spending bubble. Are the employment rates we saw in those years sustainable without some kind of bubble? I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs? If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%) of the year 2000 as the norm Then current employment (58.4) is down about 10% from the norm But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble. During the best boom years of the 1960s, the rate was slightly less than it is right now, at a time of economic distress. This is a very curious situation. But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying which means businesses are not selling and therefore won't be hiring until they have some better prospects of selling more of their goods and services All of that is true. The question is, why? So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. So current low employment would mean the opposite? I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental. The middle class may not be accumulating wealth in the form of consumer goods But they are also not accumulating debt And the federal deficit is where the money is going It's not going to the top earners. Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are winding up with the bulk of it. Of course you take away the federal deficit and you have a full blown depression Possibly. I suppose if you have invested your life savings into over-priced gold and guns and ammo you want a depression to avoid looking silly I don't know what they want, but I'm encouraging the paranoids to buy as many American-made guns as they can, and to shoot lots and lots of ammo. It's much more fun than patting your gold bars. d8-) In other words, the high percentage could prove to be a structurally unsustainable ratio, one which didn't appear until a severe recession took the gas out of an employment bubble. No evidence that is true I don't know. I haven't tried to find out. what was unsustainable is the level of consumption that produced that high level of employment And that was unsustainable because it was financed by private debt which can't go up forever Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural unemployment? In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless? the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports are -$0.5 trillion a year The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit But that is done now they aint gonna do it anymore So now what? Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
On Jun 15, 1:56*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I don't know what they want, but I'm encouraging the paranoids to buy as many American-made guns as they can, and to shoot lots and lots of ammo. It's much more fun than patting your gold bars. d8-) Ed Huntress I do not think you have been successful. I think they are all buying foreign made assault rifles and foreign made ammunition. Apparently Obama has kept all the Korean owed Garands out of the country. Dan |
If any other president.....
wrote in message ... On Jun 15, 1:56 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: I don't know what they want, but I'm encouraging the paranoids to buy as many American-made guns as they can, and to shoot lots and lots of ammo. It's much more fun than patting your gold bars. d8-) Ed Huntress I do not think you have been successful. I think they are all buying foreign made assault rifles and foreign made ammunition. Apparently Obama has kept all the Korean owed Garands out of the country. Dan Yeah, they really need more assault rifles, to uglify their gun cabinets. There goes our balance of trade... -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
Ed Huntress wrote:
Women became a larger part of the workforce That's true, although it had flattened out around 20 years ago, until the latest recession: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...0039?cid=32305 Looks like men got laid off much more than women in both recessions in the last 10 years But my question is what percentage of the adult population our economy can sustain as employed, money-earning workers. During the Clinton years, we had a tech bubble. During the Reagan and G.W. Bush years, we had a deficit-spending bubble. Not really - the public debt equals the trade deficit Are the employment rates we saw in those years sustainable without some kind of bubble? What would be the negative impact of maintaining full employment through deficit spending? Keep in mind deficit spending does not mean excess spending It can as easily mean more money available for consumers to spend (lower taxes) I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs? Do you mean how many millions of jobs can the US support in China? If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%) of the year 2000 as the norm Then current employment (58.4) is down about 10% from the norm But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble. There is no reason to believe a smaller portion of the people want to work today At any rate 10% seems to be the maximum The U6 unemployment rate also includes people who are working part time or temporary positions who want full time permanent work That number is about 16% of the work force 9% unemployed and 7% partially unemployed During the best boom years of the 1960s, the rate was slightly less than it is right now, at a time of economic distress. This is a very curious situation. Things are not functioning well But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying which means businesses are not selling and therefore won't be hiring until they have some better prospects of selling more of their goods and services All of that is true. The question is, why? Consumers are not buying because debt to finance consumption is no longer fashionable There is no accounting for taste... The main fear is that if deflation sets in any amount of debt becomes onerous A few years ago people believed deflation was never possible now they know better. So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented It means the jobs exist they are just not being filled Firms have the capacity to hire every one But they don't have the sales to support that level of hiring percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. So current low employment would mean the opposite? I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental. The middle class may not be accumulating wealth in the form of consumer goods But they are also not accumulating debt And the federal deficit is where the money is going It's not going to the top earners. Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are winding up with the bulk of it. Where is the evidence for that? It looks to me that the federal excess spending is being sucked up by the middle class and small businesses to fix up their balance sheets The federal deficit is not sufficiently large to offset the current level of reduction in private debt plus the increase in savings There nothing left over for the very rich Of course you take away the federal deficit and you have a full blown depression Possibly. What? Do you expect that suddenly the consumer is going to suddenly start buying goods and services if the government stops spending and start taking more out of the consumer's paycheck? How is that even a remote possibility? what was unsustainable is the level of consumption that produced that high level of employment And that was unsustainable because it was financed by private debt which can't go up forever Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural unemployment? What you are ignoring is the trade deficit In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless? There is no evidence that any bubble has produced any growth in the long run. the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports are -$0.5 trillion a year The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit But that is done now they aint gonna do it anymore So now what? Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know. There seem to be 3 possible courses 1) Balance the budget and create a depression this would be to follow the theory that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" 2) Carry the economy on the backs of the Fed create full employment and large Federal deficits Eventually that will lower the value of the dollar and slowly goods will drift back to being Made in USA at the same pace they drifted away in the last 30 years 3) Maintain your structural high unemployment and limp a long with little growth and slowly declining wages and living standards -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
"jim" wrote in message .. . Ed Huntress wrote: Women became a larger part of the workforce That's true, although it had flattened out around 20 years ago, until the latest recession: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...0039?cid=32305 Looks like men got laid off much more than women in both recessions in the last 10 years Yeah, that's true. Women tend to have lower-paid jobs. But my question is what percentage of the adult population our economy can sustain as employed, money-earning workers. During the Clinton years, we had a tech bubble. During the Reagan and G.W. Bush years, we had a deficit-spending bubble. Not really - the public debt equals the trade deficit They're pretty close, but they look like two examples of a broader economic and policy dysfunction. And if you look back before 1980 or so, there's little connection between the two. I'd say the mid-70s is about the time we became dysfunctional. And the real bubbles started with Reagan's deficit spending. More recently, tax cuts and deficits being run while the economy was growing have taken on a dysfunctional life of their own. Are the employment rates we saw in those years sustainable without some kind of bubble? What would be the negative impact of maintaining full employment through deficit spending? It depends on whether the economy is growing faster than the deficit. Deficits are justified, and their stimulus is positive, if they decline as a percentage of GDP. Keep in mind deficit spending does not mean excess spending It can as easily mean more money available for consumers to spend (lower taxes) Well, the usual analysis is that deficit spending can represent investment in the economy, through infrastructure or otherwise, more than consumer spending, unless the stimulus to spending is necessary because of slow or negative GDP growth. I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs? Do you mean how many millions of jobs can the US support in China? No, I mean how many can we support here. Our productivity is roughly ten times that of China and our manufacturing output, except for the current recession, continues to grow, despite what most people think. If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%) of the year 2000 as the norm Then current employment (58.4) is down about 10% from the norm But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble. There is no reason to believe a smaller portion of the people want to work today The question is not whether people *want* to work. The question is whether the economy can realistically provide jobs for such a high percentage of the adult population, in this late stage of industrialization and the service economy. At any rate 10% seems to be the maximum The U6 unemployment rate also includes people who are working part time or temporary positions who want full time permanent work That number is about 16% of the work force 9% unemployed and 7% partially unemployed During the best boom years of the 1960s, the rate was slightly less than it is right now, at a time of economic distress. This is a very curious situation. Things are not functioning well But the bottom lone is consumers are not buying which means businesses are not selling and therefore won't be hiring until they have some better prospects of selling more of their goods and services All of that is true. The question is, why? Consumers are not buying because debt to finance consumption is no longer fashionable There is no accounting for taste... The main fear is that if deflation sets in any amount of debt becomes onerous A few years ago people believed deflation was never possible now they know better. So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented It means the jobs exist they are just not being filled Firms have the capacity to hire every one But they don't have the sales to support that level of hiring I don't think they have the capacity to hire everyone, and I don't think that demand can naturally go that high. No country has ever pushed consumption as far as the US; there are no examples of higher levels of general consumption to look to. Of course, you know that there is a bottom level to unemployment, based on normal job-changing, company growth and decline, and other "frictions," as they're called in labor economics. It is not desirable to have everyone working at the same time because of the huge pressure that would put on labor costs. percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. So current low employment would mean the opposite? I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental. The middle class may not be accumulating wealth in the form of consumer goods But they are also not accumulating debt And the federal deficit is where the money is going It's not going to the top earners. Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are winding up with the bulk of it. Where is the evidence for that? For what? That deficit spending runs up deficits on the part of the federal government and disperses that money in the economy? Take a look at M2 and M3 while deficit spending is going on. Or do you mean what evidence is there that top earners are winding up with the bulk of it? Census and SSA figures will show you how the distribution is going by quintile. It looks to me that the federal excess spending is being sucked up by the middle class and small businesses to fix up their balance sheets The federal deficit is not sufficiently large to offset the current level of reduction in private debt plus the increase in savings There nothing left over for the very rich I think you should spend some time with the figures from Census, SSA, and so on. The figures on incomes and wealth accumulation are widely available. Unka' George can probably churn up some URLs for you. I'm researched out for today. Of course you take away the federal deficit and you have a full blown depression Possibly. What? Do you expect that suddenly the consumer is going to suddenly start buying goods and services if the government stops spending ... No. But stopping government deficits does not normally lead to economic decline. Look at historical GDP figures versus federal deficits. Until the past few decades, we had lots of growth without deficits. I say "possibly" because there's a good chance that ending deficits right now would send us into deflation and an economic death spiral. But nothing is absolute about it; as the historical numbers show, we've pulled out of some bad recessions in the past without it. It's just that it's extremely painful to do so, and it wrecks a lot of lives. And there's always the chance that we've crossed some threshold that could throw us into another great depression. ...and start taking more out of the consumer's paycheck? How is that even a remote possibility? Again, the historical record shows that we always come out of recessions eventually, no matter how much or how little deficit spending goes on, or what consumers' paychecks look like in the meantime. It's not a question of what will eventually happen. It's a question of how many families and individuals you're going to wreck, financially, while getting to the other side. what was unsustainable is the level of consumption that produced that high level of employment And that was unsustainable because it was financed by private debt which can't go up forever Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural unemployment? What you are ignoring is the trade deficit I'm not ignoring the trade deficit. I used to write about international trade and manufacturing for publication. The effect of trade deficits is not so clear-cut. The problem is *prolonged* trade deficits, with manipulation going on that prevents the textbook adjustments -- like the decline in currency values that Milton Friedman and the Chicago School said were inevitable, quick, and efficient. Experience has shown that they are not any of those things. In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless? There is no evidence that any bubble has produced any growth in the long run. I don't know if that's true, but that doesn't mean that bubbles are desirable in any case. the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports are -$0.5 trillion a year The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit But that is done now they aint gonna do it anymore So now what? Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know. There seem to be 3 possible courses 1) Balance the budget and create a depression this would be to follow the theory that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" 2) Carry the economy on the backs of the Fed create full employment and large Federal deficits Eventually that will lower the value of the dollar and slowly goods will drift back to being Made in USA at the same pace they drifted away in the last 30 years 3) Maintain your structural high unemployment and limp a long with little growth and slowly declining wages and living standards (1) would set a new economic equilibrium much lower that what we have, and it could take generations to regain what was destroyed. That was the danger that many worried about during the Great Depression. (2) would destroy most markets and leave us completely dysfunctional while we raced to the bottom against the mercantile trading countries that were trying to salvage their exports to the US. (3) seems most likely, although the decline could be sharp and could turn into a bottoming plateau from which we begin more vigorous growth. But then, it's looked likely several times in the past. The first one I remember was 1971. That one was scary to those of us who were looking for our first real jobs. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
Ed Huntress wrote: "jim" wrote in message .. . Not really - the public debt equals the trade deficit They're pretty close, but they look like two examples of a broader economic and policy dysfunction. And if you look back before 1980 or so, there's little connection between the two. Before 1980 there wasn't that much of either I'd say the mid-70s is about the time we became dysfunctional. And the real bubbles started with Reagan's deficit spending. More recently, tax cuts and deficits being run while the economy was growing have taken on a dysfunctional life of their own. Are the employment rates we saw in those years sustainable without some kind of bubble? What would be the negative impact of maintaining full employment through deficit spending? It depends on whether the economy is growing faster than the deficit. Deficits are justified, and their stimulus is positive, if they decline as a percentage of GDP. That was a fuzzy political speech not an answer. Keep in mind deficit spending does not mean excess spending It can as easily mean more money available for consumers to spend (lower taxes) Well, the usual analysis is that deficit spending can represent investment in the economy, through infrastructure or otherwise, more than consumer spending, unless the stimulus to spending is necessary because of slow or negative GDP growth. I don't profess to know. It's just a nagging question that bugs me every time I think about trends in employment. Manufacturing is an example that really prompts the question. As much as productivity has improved, how many people can we realistically sustain in manufacturing jobs? Do you mean how many millions of jobs can the US support in China? No, I mean how many can we support here. Our productivity is roughly ten times that of China and our manufacturing output, except for the current recession, continues to grow, despite what most people think. We continue to support tens of millions of jobs in China but can't figure out how to support jobs here? If you look at the high employment rate (64.6%) of the year 2000 as the norm Then current employment (58.4) is down about 10% from the norm But that 2000 rate is the extreme *peak*. Why should that be the norm? That occurred at the tail end of the dot.com bubble. There is no reason to believe a smaller portion of the people want to work today The question is not whether people *want* to work. The question is whether the economy can realistically provide jobs for such a high percentage of the adult population, in this late stage of industrialization and the service economy. The economy can reach equilibrium at just about any level of employment It might be worth examining the glaring contradiction in the current state of affairs with respect to employment on the one hand the economy can't support such a large percent working On the other hand the country can't meet its social obligations because only a small percent is working Sounds like a mind set of having cake and eating it too So what do these recently high "unemployment" numbers mean? It's an interesting question, but it's curious that the historically unprecedented It means the jobs exist they are just not being filled Firms have the capacity to hire every one But they don't have the sales to support that level of hiring I don't think they have the capacity to hire everyone, and I don't think that demand can naturally go that high. No country has ever pushed consumption as far as the US; there are no examples of higher levels of general consumption to look to. Of course, you know that there is a bottom level to unemployment, based on normal job-changing, company growth and decline, and other "frictions," as they're called in labor economics. It is not desirable to have everyone working at the same time because of the huge pressure that would put on labor costs. A couple of years ago The economy had the capacity for full employment Not much has changed in terms of capacity Full employment would be where everyone is either working or if laid off has a good chance of getting another job within say 6 months percentage of adults who have been employed in recent years parallels that giant sucking sound of wealth and incomes to a minute slice of population at the top of the economic heap. So current low employment would mean the opposite? I.E. not so much money being made by that top tier Not necessarily, but the correlation is curious, if possibly coincidental. The middle class may not be accumulating wealth in the form of consumer goods But they are also not accumulating debt And the federal deficit is where the money is going It's not going to the top earners. Oh, yes it is. Money is coming OUT of the federal government, as deficit spending, and going into the general economy. And the top earners are winding up with the bulk of it. Where is the evidence for that? For what? That deficit spending runs up deficits on the part of the federal government and disperses that money in the economy? Take a look at M2 and M3 while deficit spending is going on. Or do you mean what evidence is there that top earners are winding up with the bulk of it? Census and SSA figures will show you how the distribution is going by quintile. The question was where is your evidence that the bulk of the current deficit spending is going to top earners The evidence is that it is going into ordinary savings deposits and going of pay off past debt of consumers and small businesses the increases in those areas in the last 30 months far outweighs the federal deficit for the same period It looks to me that the federal excess spending is being sucked up by the middle class and small businesses to fix up their balance sheets The federal deficit is not sufficiently large to offset the current level of reduction in private debt plus the increase in savings There nothing left over for the very rich I think you should spend some time with the figures from Census, SSA, and so on. The figures on incomes and wealth accumulation are widely available. Unka' George can probably churn up some URLs for you. I'm researched out for today. We are talking about where the deficit spending goes today - Where it went in the ~30 years prior to 2009 is now water over the dam Of course you take away the federal deficit and you have a full blown depression Possibly. What? Do you expect that suddenly the consumer is going to suddenly start buying goods and services if the government stops spending ... No. But stopping government deficits does not normally lead to economic decline. Look at historical GDP figures versus federal deficits. Until the past few decades, we had lots of growth without deficits. Currently the deficit spending is a finger in the dike normally that is not the case. Normally if you move the finger nothing dire happens -jim I say "possibly" because there's a good chance that ending deficits right now would send us into deflation and an economic death spiral. But nothing is absolute about it; as the historical numbers show, we've pulled out of some bad recessions in the past without it. It's just that it's extremely painful to do so, and it wrecks a lot of lives. And there's always the chance that we've crossed some threshold that could throw us into another great depression. ...and start taking more out of the consumer's paycheck? How is that even a remote possibility? Again, the historical record shows that we always come out of recessions eventually, no matter how much or how little deficit spending goes on, or what consumers' paychecks look like in the meantime. It's not a question of what will eventually happen. It's a question of how many families and individuals you're going to wreck, financially, while getting to the other side. what was unsustainable is the level of consumption that produced that high level of employment And that was unsustainable because it was financed by private debt which can't go up forever Certainly that is a big factor, maybe the biggest. But that's just another type of bubble. In other words, given higher levels of saving, is out present level of employment sustainable? Or is this the new norm? Has productivity improvement resulted in a new, much higher level of structural unemployment? What you are ignoring is the trade deficit I'm not ignoring the trade deficit. I used to write about international trade and manufacturing for publication. The effect of trade deficits is not so clear-cut. The problem is *prolonged* trade deficits, with manipulation going on that prevents the textbook adjustments -- like the decline in currency values that Milton Friedman and the Chicago School said were inevitable, quick, and efficient. Experience has shown that they are not any of those things. In fairness, I've been asking this question for over 30 years, and my fears have yet to be realized. g But only in retrospect do I realize that our economy has been pumped up with one unsustainable bubble after another. How many more rabbits can we pull out of the hat? Is it limitless? There is no evidence that any bubble has produced any growth in the long run. I don't know if that's true, but that doesn't mean that bubbles are desirable in any case. the over-valued dollar is what creates the necessity that somebody has to go into debt if your net national exports are -$0.5 trillion a year The private sector went deep into debt in the last 30 years to finance the consumption and growth and the trade deficit But that is done now they aint gonna do it anymore So now what? Good question. If you come up with an answer, let us know. There seem to be 3 possible courses 1) Balance the budget and create a depression this would be to follow the theory that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" 2) Carry the economy on the backs of the Fed create full employment and large Federal deficits Eventually that will lower the value of the dollar and slowly goods will drift back to being Made in USA at the same pace they drifted away in the last 30 years 3) Maintain your structural high unemployment and limp a long with little growth and slowly declining wages and living standards (1) would set a new economic equilibrium much lower that what we have, and it could take generations to regain what was destroyed. That was the danger that many worried about during the Great Depression. (2) would destroy most markets and leave us completely dysfunctional while we raced to the bottom against the mercantile trading countries that were trying to salvage their exports to the US. (3) seems most likely, although the decline could be sharp and could turn into a bottoming plateau from which we begin more vigorous growth. But then, it's looked likely several times in the past. The first one I remember was 1971. That one was scary to those of us who were looking for our first real jobs. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
"jim" "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote in message .. . Ed Huntress wrote: "jim" wrote in message .. . Not really - the public debt equals the trade deficit Sorry, Jim, I'm going to have to bow out of this now, although it was very interesting and enjoyable to discuss it with someone who uses actual data instead of made-up stuff. g I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
|
If any other president.....
"." wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:26:11 -0400, Ed Huntress, wrote: I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. Bout fukn time! I was wunderin when you were ever going to make good on your "temporarily here" statement. Shore turned out to be a lot longer than you implied! It was a long time between serious commitments. g I can do little publicity jobs with one hand these days, but this one will keep me from spending my research time on discussions here. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
On 6/16/2011 5:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:26:11 -0400, Ed Huntress, wrote: I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. Bout fukn time! I was wunderin when you were ever going to make good on your "temporarily here" statement. Shore turned out to be a lot longer than you implied! It was a long time between serious commitments.g I can do little publicity jobs with one hand these days, but this one will keep me from spending my research time on discussions here. I'd say that's rather a nice way of describing having arguments with ignorant right wing boneheads. Does that come from your experience in writing? Or are you just too delicate to call it what it really is? Hawke |
If any other president.....
"Hawke" wrote in message ... On 6/16/2011 5:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:26:11 -0400, Ed Huntress, wrote: I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. Bout fukn time! I was wunderin when you were ever going to make good on your "temporarily here" statement. Shore turned out to be a lot longer than you implied! It was a long time between serious commitments.g I can do little publicity jobs with one hand these days, but this one will keep me from spending my research time on discussions here. I'd say that's rather a nice way of describing having arguments with ignorant right wing boneheads. Does that come from your experience in writing? Or are you just too delicate to call it what it really is? Hawke g No, I'm just referring to the multi-source documentation that goes into a discussion like the one Jim and I are having. That requires detailed facts, and they aren't always quick to dig up. I have to reserve that effort for a while. -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
On 6/17/2011 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message ... On 6/16/2011 5:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:26:11 -0400, Ed Huntress, wrote: I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. Bout fukn time! I was wunderin when you were ever going to make good on your "temporarily here" statement. Shore turned out to be a lot longer than you implied! It was a long time between serious commitments.g I can do little publicity jobs with one hand these days, but this one will keep me from spending my research time on discussions here. I'd say that's rather a nice way of describing having arguments with ignorant right wing boneheads. Does that come from your experience in writing? Or are you just too delicate to call it what it really is? Hawke g No, I'm just referring to the multi-source documentation that goes into a discussion like the one Jim and I are having. That requires detailed facts, and they aren't always quick to dig up. I have to reserve that effort for a while. Oh, okay, I can see that. I was just wondering about how much of your time is being taken up by the research you need to counter the arguments of Gummer and the other red necks here. I thought about two seconds ought to do it. Hawke |
If any other president.....
"Hawke" wrote in message ... On 6/17/2011 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On 6/16/2011 5:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:26:11 -0400, Ed Huntress, wrote: I just got a big assignment that's going to have me tied up for a while. Bout fukn time! I was wunderin when you were ever going to make good on your "temporarily here" statement. Shore turned out to be a lot longer than you implied! It was a long time between serious commitments.g I can do little publicity jobs with one hand these days, but this one will keep me from spending my research time on discussions here. I'd say that's rather a nice way of describing having arguments with ignorant right wing boneheads. Does that come from your experience in writing? Or are you just too delicate to call it what it really is? Hawke g No, I'm just referring to the multi-source documentation that goes into a discussion like the one Jim and I are having. That requires detailed facts, and they aren't always quick to dig up. I have to reserve that effort for a while. Oh, okay, I can see that. I was just wondering about how much of your time is being taken up by the research you need to counter the arguments of Gummer and the other red necks here. I thought about two seconds ought to do it. Hawke It depends. I prefer to nail the real phonies and smoke-blowers hard, and to do it only once per issue, so I make sure the facts are blatant and multi-sourced -- before I say anything. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
If any other president.....
Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:46:34 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: On 2011-06-15, Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:10:43 -0500, Ignoramus10056 wrote: The 25% unemployment number is probably another Republican fabrication, just like everything else. Do you doubt that there is a recession, that millions of homeowners are without jobs or homes, that there are starving people in America? There is no recession. There are no homeowners without a home, by definition. There is plenty of people without jobs or homes, of course. As for starving people, they have to exist, but I see a lot of fat people. The unemployment, no doubt, is there, but 25% is a Republican fabrication. http://portalseven.com/employment/un...07&toYear=2011 According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at 15.8% According to the U6 numbers on this site..we are at nearly 20% (from November last) http://www.wealthbuildingcourse.com/...20-rising.html http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/us-un...-stands-at-21/ 21% as of January... Highest unemployment rate in April...27.9% Yes Iggy...the unemployment is certainly there. And Id have to say..it was a Democrat creation. But hey comrade...you know better..right? He's so ignorant that he thinks he can't lose everything overnight. -- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter