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. €œWe are convinced,€� he said, €œthat he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€� he said
€œthat 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

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. €œWe are convinced,€� he said, €œthat he is
not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,€� he said
€œthat 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.

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.

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.)

"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

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

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

"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

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!

"." 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

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

"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

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

"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

On 6/18/2011 1:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
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-)



Everybody's got their own way of doing things. I tend to like to get dirty.

Hawke

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.