http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNSc0oQ0vb4M&pos=10
Recovery? What recovery?
A recession is when your friend loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. A recovery is when Commander Hope’n’Change loses HIS job.
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”
If the president was impeached, who would step in to steer the economic ship? It’s impossible to trust anyone, especially since our leaders were keeping up appearances and they are still living well, no matter if the economy is up or down.
Can we ever completely recover from this downturn? I don’t expect it
What the libs can do to a society…
"California, the worldâ??s eighth-largest economy, faces a $20 billion hole in the budget during the next 17 months. With its cash dwindling, the government may need to issue IOUs for the second straight year unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and two-thirds of the Legislature can agree on a fix. Once the budget is balanced, the state is poised to sell billions of dollars of bonds after flooding the market with $36 billion in debt last year.
â??This is a political mess,â?? said Naehu. â??The state is not out of the woods. In fact, one could argue they are in even worse shape than they were before.â??
— from Bloomberg (when I clicked the link above)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What the libs can do to a society…
[/quote]
CHeck out what they’ve done to Detroit.
[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
If the president was impeached, who would step in to steer the economic ship? It’s impossible to trust anyone, especially since our leaders were keeping up appearances and they are still living well, no matter if the economy is up or down.
Can we ever completely recover from this downturn? I don’t expect it[/quote]
We will recover once we let the collapse happen. Check out the depression of 1920(1). This is why we need someone in their like Ron Paul. With his style of government(small) stuff like this doesn’t happen.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What the libs can do to a society…
"California, the worldâ??s eighth-largest economy, faces a $20 billion hole in the budget during the next 17 months. With its cash dwindling, the government may need to issue IOUs for the second straight year unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and two-thirds of the Legislature can agree on a fix. Once the budget is balanced, the state is poised to sell billions of dollars of bonds after flooding the market with $36 billion in debt last year.
â??This is a political mess,â?? said Naehu. â??The state is not out of the woods. In fact, one could argue they are in even worse shape than they were before.â??
— from Bloomberg (when I clicked the link above)
[/quote]
Perhaps Arnold will save the state budget, as well as the entire world from global warming, by ordering power cut to the upper floors of skyscrapers.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
Apparently you were not one of those 800,000.
Remember, this is simply the amount of job loses that were understated in that time frame. Said another way, you could go back and add another 70,000 job loses per month to the previous stated totals. It is a big deal.
Even bigger, we are still using this same method today. So the question begs, what is our real unemployment rate now?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
Apparently you were not one of those 800,000.
Remember, this is simply the amount of job loses that were understated in that time frame. Said another way, you could go back and add another 70,000 job loses per month to the previous stated totals. It is a big deal.
Even bigger, we are still using this same method today. So the question begs, what is our real unemployment rate now?[/quote]
If we read unemployment like they did back in the great depression I would not be surprised if we are close to 20%.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
Apparently you were not one of those 800,000.
Remember, this is simply the amount of job loses that were understated in that time frame. Said another way, you could go back and add another 70,000 job loses per month to the previous stated totals. It is a big deal.
Even bigger, we are still using this same method today. So the question begs, what is our real unemployment rate now?[/quote]
If we read unemployment like they did back in the great depression I would not be surprised if we are close to 20%.
[/quote]
No doubt on either of these points. I just think that you can’t blame O for the job losses per se. Some of it you can blame on Bush. And a pretty good chunk of it you can blame on Clinton. The only thing I think you can blame O for is how he has handled the economy since he has taken over, in which the stimilus hasn’t lead to any real GDP recovery.
(Edit: If you can blame Clinton for the bubble economy of the late 90’s then do you approve of what Bush did after the crash of 2001. He rev’d the engines and reinflated a bubble that popped again 7 years later. If Obama had taken the same tactic then we would probably be presented with another asset bubble that would be bigger and pop quicker that the housing bubble did. Obama is in a tough spot and he may be handling it wrong. I personally agree with Jon that we need to let the crash totally happen to “reset” many asset prices. Painful but effective. Obama has choosen to nurse it to some stability hoping that asset prices will gradually reset, it will be a long process.)
I suspect our “underemployement” rate is over 30%. Which in a way I don’t mind. Currently I am over employeed because I choose to be, I have my job and do consulting work on the side. I don’t think anyone here would complain about that and frankly if some of the underemployed would get off their asses I wouldn’t be overemployeed.
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
It’s a big deal when you are supposedly in recovery and your shedding jobs. Jobs are the biggest economic indicator. If people aren’t making money, their not spending it. The more jobs lost the less money circulation. This wonderful Keynesian model hasn’t done dick for the job market. It just created another temporary unsustainable bubble in the stock market. It has dug a huge hole and threatened the currency.
Keynes did not look at the law of unintended consequences, or he wasn’t anticipating the borrowing part of the spending equation.
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
Apparently you were not one of those 800,000.
Remember, this is simply the amount of job loses that were understated in that time frame. Said another way, you could go back and add another 70,000 job loses per month to the previous stated totals. It is a big deal.
Even bigger, we are still using this same method today. So the question begs, what is our real unemployment rate now?[/quote]
If we read unemployment like they did back in the great depression I would not be surprised if we are close to 20%.
[/quote]
No doubt on either of these points. I just think that you can’t blame O for the job losses per se. Some of it you can blame on Bush. And a pretty good chunk of it you can blame on Clinton. The only thing I think you can blame O for is how he has handled the economy since he has taken over, in which the stimilus hasn’t lead to any real GDP recovery.
I suspect our “underemployement” rate is over 30%. Which in a way I don’t mind. Currently I am over employeed because I choose to be, I have my job and do consulting work on the side. I don’t think anyone here would complain about that and frankly if some of the underemployed would get off their asses I wouldn’t be overemployeed. [/quote]
Here is a big part of the overall problem. I am not that concerned with assigning blame. There is plenty to go around.
What I am very concerned about is acknowledging reality. You cannot address a problem that you do not first recognize.
And also, putting on different-colored glasses at different times for the sake of propping up what one likes and attacking what doesn’t, not only doesn’t help but interferes with making things better.
Remember how agitated and condemning the media was of 5.5% unemployment under Bush?
Whereas while it is not that they never speak of unemployment at all now – they can’t go that far and haven’t: it is unavoidable to talk about it a fair deal – they don’t seem nearly as worked up now despite unemployment being roughly twice as high.
But it would help to be worked up over the fact that employers are going to be less likely to choose to expand their operations or hire more employees when expecting higher taxes to be coming.
Hey Bill,
My third grader just came home with a simple math problem that for some reason I can’t get my head around.
You start a journey with X many cakes.
You have to cross 7 bridges to get to your destination.
At every bridge you have to pay a “troll toll”, where you give a troll half of the cakes you have, and then the troll will give you back 1 cake.
How many cakes do you have to leave with in order to arrive at your destination with 2 cakes remaining?
Hmm… doesn’t seem to be at a 3rd grade level of simplicity.
I’ll try it from the reverse direction:
Destination: 2 cakes
7th bridge, before giveback: 1 cake. Therefore you had 2 cakes on arriving at the bridge. This is also the 6th bridge after-giveback value.
Well, it seems that this is a constant situation and it doesn’t matter how many bridges.
You start with 2 cakes; at each bridge give 1 cake, and then get 1 cake back, restoring your 2 cakes.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmm… doesn’t seem to be at a 3rd grade level of simplicity.
I’ll try it from the reverse direction:
Destination: 2 cakes
7th bridge, before giveback: 1 cake. Therefore you had 2 cakes on arriving at the bridge. This is also the 6th bridge after-giveback value.
Well, it seems that this is a constant situation and it doesn’t matter how many bridges.
You start with 2 cakes; at each bridge give 1 cake, and then get 1 cake back, restoring your 2 cakes.
[/quote]
“If it were a snake…”
Beautiful. I had a page of equations and just knew I was missing the obvious.
Thanks.
Sure thing!
It would be a great GRE type of question. There, they aim for questions that appear to beg, so to speak, for a strong-in-mathematics type approach but instead are really intended to be solved by stepping back and looking for the quick and easy way.
I was never much for the first but the quick and easy, employing some cheap trick, I can usually handle 
If we lost this coercionistic government (read: no government) and had anarchy we wouldn’t have to worry about unemployment because the only people not working/laboring are the people that wish not too. Wouldn’t even need an agency to let the people know that shits in the toilet.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Here, I’ll save the “O” worshippers the trouble:
“… it’s Bush’s fault”[/quote]
I am not an “O” supporter, but shit 800,000 jobs lost was the one month total near the end of Bush’s term.[/quote]
Apparently you were not one of those 800,000.
Remember, this is simply the amount of job loses that were understated in that time frame. Said another way, you could go back and add another 70,000 job loses per month to the previous stated totals. It is a big deal.
Even bigger, we are still using this same method today. So the question begs, what is our real unemployment rate now?[/quote]
If we read unemployment like they did back in the great depression I would not be surprised if we are close to 20%.
[/quote]
No doubt on either of these points. I just think that you can’t blame O for the job losses per se. Some of it you can blame on Bush. And a pretty good chunk of it you can blame on Clinton. The only thing I think you can blame O for is how he has handled the economy since he has taken over, in which the stimilus hasn’t lead to any real GDP recovery.
I suspect our “underemployement” rate is over 30%. Which in a way I don’t mind. Currently I am over employeed because I choose to be, I have my job and do consulting work on the side. I don’t think anyone here would complain about that and frankly if some of the underemployed would get off their asses I wouldn’t be overemployeed. [/quote]
Here is a big part of the overall problem. I am not that concerned with assigning blame. There is plenty to go around.
What I am very concerned about is acknowledging reality. You cannot address a problem that you do not first recognize. [/quote]
500 (taxable) PWI points for you.
That was the point of my stupid little comment. I don’t give a flying fuck about hearing who’s fault it is-- just fucking fix it, or shut up.
I get handed problems created by other people every single day. It doesn’t matter that it was a customer fuck up, a colleague fuck up, or my boss’ fuck up. My job is to FIX it, because I convinced my company I was the guy to fix their shit when I ‘campaigned’ for my job during the interview process.
If I never fixed the problem, but only lamented how I wasn’t the one to blame, I’d lose my job pretty quickly.