US Unemployement Double Digits

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The black lines are the actual unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, while the blue lines were the projected unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, made in January 2009, is absence of the economic stimulus.

The actual unemployment numbers for May 2009, after the Stimulus was passed, were higher than the projected unemployment numbers for May 2009 if the stimulus was NOT passed.

Obama’s economists projected back in January that unemployment in April and May 2009 without the Stimulus would be about 8%. With the stimulus, unemployment was projected to be about 7.75% right now.

The actual numbers came in at 8.9% for April, and 9.4% for May, obviously included the mountain of money spent on the stimulus.

Oops…[/quote]

Great post and find, T-Gun.

I don’t expect crackerjack precision on such policy predictions, but this has been an unprecedented embarrassment. Near silence from the MSM on the issue has kept in minimized, and Obama’s disengenous “jobs saved” rhetoric has purchased a little shielding from accountability.

But “it’s the economy, stupid” - and the economic incompetence chickens will come home to roost.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
The black lines are the actual unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, while the blue lines were the projected unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, made in January 2009, is absence of the economic stimulus.

The actual unemployment numbers for May 2009, after the Stimulus was passed, were higher than the projected unemployment numbers for May 2009 if the stimulus was NOT passed.

Obama’s economists projected back in January that unemployment in April and May 2009 without the Stimulus would be about 8%. With the stimulus, unemployment was projected to be about 7.75% right now.

The actual numbers came in at 8.9% for April, and 9.4% for May, obviously included the mountain of money spent on the stimulus.

Oops…

Great post and find, T-Gun.

I don’t expect crackerjack precision on such policy predictions, but this has been an unprecedented embarrassment. Near silence from the MSM on the issue has kept in minimized, and Obama’s disengenous “jobs saved” rhetoric has purchased a little shielding from accountability.

But “it’s the economy, stupid” - and the economic incompetence chickens will come home to roost.
[/quote]

This is the really infuriating part to me. Nobody wants to face what an abysmal failure the trumpeted Salvation Bill was and they are doing what they can to ignore it or gloss over the catastrophic mushroom cloud. I told people in day to day life, others posted on here, and we had people in office who even managed to recognize this abortion. We were all right, and the result is that nobody wants to admit it.

23

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

This is the really infuriating part to me. Nobody wants to face what an abysmal failure the trumpeted Salvation Bill was and they are doing what they can to ignore it or gloss over the catastrophic mushroom cloud. I told people in day to day life, others posted on here, and we had people in office who even managed to recognize this abortion. We were all right, and the result is that nobody wants to admit it.[/quote]

Well, so long as we’re not biased or using extremist rhetoric.

24

First of all, unemployment is a lagging indicator. The unemployment rate always continues to rise after the economy turns a corner. So these numbers don’t necessarily mean that things are getting worse.

But the thing is, the stimulus couldn’t have worked because little of it is ready to spend. All that infrastructure building could take up to years to get started. The money for most projects will kick in when the recession is nearly over. Even if you believe that a stimulus can theoretically work (and a good many economists don’t), this particular bill wasn’t really a stimulus at all.

It really is a pity that more people aren’t giving the President hell for this. We should be on him like a cheap suit. People want him to be Roosevelt. But Roosevelt was working at the cutting edge of the economics of his time; his administration actually meant to end the Depression, even if there were a lot of hiccups and missteps and experiments that proved counterproductive. Obama, on the other hand, makes economic decisions that he must know darn well aren’t effective, for what I imagine is political expediency. We should be angrier about that.

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
The black lines are the actual unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, while the blue lines were the projected unemployment numbers for April and May 2009, made in January 2009, is absence of the economic stimulus.

The actual unemployment numbers for May 2009, after the Stimulus was passed, were higher than the projected unemployment numbers for May 2009 if the stimulus was NOT passed.

Obama’s economists projected back in January that unemployment in April and May 2009 without the Stimulus would be about 8%. With the stimulus, unemployment was projected to be about 7.75% right now.

The actual numbers came in at 8.9% for April, and 9.4% for May, obviously included the mountain of money spent on the stimulus.

Oops…

Great post and find, T-Gun.

I don’t expect crackerjack precision on such policy predictions, but this has been an unprecedented embarrassment. Near silence from the MSM on the issue has kept in minimized, and Obama’s disengenous “jobs saved” rhetoric has purchased a little shielding from accountability.

But “it’s the economy, stupid” - and the economic incompetence chickens will come home to roost.
[/quote]

I love this kind of stuff. We have republicans who didn’t even agree the recession was as a recession until the financial crisis arguing that the Obama team is horribly at fault for predictions in a report created before they were even in government.

Bottom line, right or wrong, this stimulus will be judged on whether or not the economy turns around. It might not happen but there is reason to be optimistic. dow up, what 34%, TARP being paid back. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0605_jobs_kling.aspx?more=rc

26

Wait until all the defaults on COMMERCIAL mortgages hits this summer. That’s going to make last year seem like a stroll through the park. That problem is at least 10 times the meltdown in the housing market.

We are at the beginnings of a Great Depression, which will end capitalism as we know it.

27

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
First of all, unemployment is a lagging indicator. The unemployment rate always continues to rise after the economy turns a corner. So these numbers don’t necessarily mean that things are getting worse.

But the thing is, the stimulus couldn’t have worked because little of it is ready to spend. All that infrastructure building could take up to years to get started. The money for most projects will kick in when the recession is nearly over. Even if you believe that a stimulus can theoretically work (and a good many economists don’t), this particular bill wasn’t really a stimulus at all.

It really is a pity that more people aren’t giving the President hell for this. We should be on him like a cheap suit. People want him to be Roosevelt. But Roosevelt was working at the cutting edge of the economics of his time; his administration actually meant to end the Depression, even if there were a lot of hiccups and missteps and experiments that proved counterproductive. Obama, on the other hand, makes economic decisions that he must know darn well aren’t effective, for what I imagine is political expediency. We should be angrier about that.[/quote]

I agree to a certain extent, but mostly disagree with what you wrote. I agree that more money should be spent immediately. However, if you look at the multipliers MORE money should probably have been spent on infrastructure, not less. Also, given of the nature of the crisis at the time, “lasting stimulus” money needed to be spent (e.g. infrastructure)

28

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
First of all, unemployment is a lagging indicator. The unemployment rate always continues to rise after the economy turns a corner. So these numbers don’t necessarily mean that things are getting worse.

But the thing is, the stimulus couldn’t have worked because little of it is ready to spend. All that infrastructure building could take up to years to get started. The money for most projects will kick in when the recession is nearly over. Even if you believe that a stimulus can theoretically work (and a good many economists don’t), this particular bill wasn’t really a stimulus at all.

It really is a pity that more people aren’t giving the President hell for this. We should be on him like a cheap suit. People want him to be Roosevelt. But Roosevelt was working at the cutting edge of the economics of his time; his administration actually meant to end the Depression, even if there were a lot of hiccups and missteps and experiments that proved counterproductive. Obama, on the other hand, makes economic decisions that he must know darn well aren’t effective, for what I imagine is political expediency. We should be angrier about that.[/quote]

The one hint that should be fairly obvious to everyone that recovery is still very far off is the amount of debt everyone is still carrying – both individual and governmental.

If this amount continues to keep rising the unemployment rate will only get much larger in the long run as the bills become due. Rising interest rates and prices will also affect unemployment especially on small business owners. One factor that isn’t even taken into account is the fact that the only people who are being counted as unemployed are those drawing unemployment benefits. This does not account for the self-employed that cannot find work, those that have had their benefits run out, those that have just given up looking, or graduated students just entering the work force, etc. The unemployment rate is much larger than 10%.

Unemployment will not get any better until debt shrinks and productivity increases. Unfortunately, there is so much government debt that it will never be paid off which will result in ever increasing prices and unemployment in the short run as that debt is absolved in the private sector.

It would have been better if the fed had just let everyone fail – certainly the public would not be questioning it right now had that been the case. Hindsight is a bitch, huh!?

29

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I agree that more money should be spent immediately.
[/quote]

If you were $2 trillion in debt would you think more debt will solve your problems? REALLY!?

The only thing that money should be spent on to “fix the economy” is paying off debt and investment in productive enterprises so that people can be employed in the long run. Creating short term make-work programs (like the government always does) only diverts resources from productive enterprise – which just creates more debt and unemployment in the long run.

It is people like you with your line of thinking that this country is fucked up. Do us a favor and move the fuck out of DC – and take ALL your family with you. We don’t need any more of your kind there fucking us all!!!

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It is people like you with your line of thinking that this country is fucked up. Do us a favor and move the fuck out of DC – and take ALL your family with you. We don’t need any more of your kind there fucking us all!!![/quote]

I love you to Lifty.

31

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It is people like you with your line of thinking that this country is fucked up. Do us a favor and move the fuck out of DC – and take ALL your family with you. We don’t need any more of your kind there fucking us all!!!

I love you to Lifty. [/quote]

Well, I don’t like parasites.

32

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wait until all the defaults on COMMERCIAL mortgages hits this summer. That’s going to make last year seem like a stroll through the park. That problem is at least 10 times the meltdown in the housing market.

We are at the beginnings of a Great Depression, which will end capitalism as we know it.[/quote]

Doesn’t that make you guys all feel warm and fuzzy? Sources for such claims?

33

Gambit:
actually, the multiplier for infrastructure is not that high, compared to, say, military spending.

That says nothing, of course, on whether we need better public infrastructure (I’m inclined to believe that we do). But I’ve never seen (and correct me if I’m just ignorant) evidence that infrastructure is better AS STIMULUS than other kinds of spending.

34

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I love this kind of stuff. We have republicans who didn’t even agree the recession was as a recession until the financial crisis arguing that the Obama team is horribly at fault for predictions in a report created before they were even in government. [/quote]

While I don’t think this is cleanly GOP vs. Democrats - more Democrats voted against the Act than Republicans voted for it - I am happy for you to produce one Republican who didn’t “agree” it was a recession after it qualified as one under the traditional measuring metric.

[quote]Bottom line, right or wrong, this stimulus will be judged on whether or not the economy turns around. It might not happen but there is reason to be optimistic. dow up, what 34%, TARP being paid back. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0605_jobs_kling.aspx?more=rc
[/quote]

Nope, the economy would turn around with or without a stimulus. The problem we face is what happens during the market correction on our way to recovery - i.e., how painful and how long will it be.

A “stimulus” package is designed to mitigate the time frame prior to recovery, and as such, any “stimulus” will be judged by how well it mitigates. “Stimulus” packages don’t fix economies - they merely, theoretically, act as a pain reliever.

And that is how they will be graded. And so far, the grade is a resounding “F”, based on Obama’s own predictions.

35

Check out IMF.org. I googled “Infrastructure stimulus site:imf.org” and this was the first hit:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/POL020709A.htm

“Infrastructure spending has largest impact on growth, but takes a while”

This was the second: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0903.pdf
“U.S. stimulus packages over the two years have a substantial infrastructure component, and such investment has a larger multiplier than other fiscal instruments”

In short, there is evidence that infrastructure spending is “better” (larger multiplier). However, as the link you posted shows, there is other evidence that it is “equal to” other types of spending (military in your link). The long and the short of it is that by mixing (1) immediate spending, (2) infrastructure spending, and (3) tax cuts, the Obama administration was acting responsibly. My opinion is that “#2” should have been greater, but that all three are included is an acceptable compromise for me.

The idea that many libertarians have of “let the house burn down then rebuild” is wrongheaded to my mind and the idea that Republicans have of “only tax cuts” as stimulus is equally flawed. I believe he was right to have a stimulus and to diversify it.

36

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

I love this kind of stuff. We have republicans who didn’t even agree the recession was as a recession until the financial crisis arguing that the Obama team is horribly at fault for predictions in a report created before they were even in government.

While I don’t think this is cleanly GOP vs. Democrats - more Democrats voted against the Act than Republicans voted for it - I am happy for you to produce one Republican who didn’t “agree” it was a recession after it qualified as one under the traditional measuring metric. [/quote]

On this very site individuals were arguing along with their presidential nominee that the foundation of the economy was strong and that we were not in a recession. Now the numbers hadn’t come out at that time to prove that we had been in a recession…but in a recession we were. That everyone admitted to it after the numbers officially came out is not so great a claim to make I don’t think. “We admitted to it after it was painfully obvious and we couldn’t ignore the data” is a pretty weak statement, IMO. Now, I don’t recall, what were you saying mid 2008?

[quote]

Bottom line, right or wrong, this stimulus will be judged on whether or not the economy turns around. It might not happen but there is reason to be optimistic. dow up, what 34%, TARP being paid back. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0605_jobs_kling.aspx?more=rc

Nope, the economy would turn around with or without a stimulus. The problem we face is what happens during the market correction on our way to recovery - i.e., how painful and how long will it be.

A “stimulus” package is designed to mitigate the time frame prior to recovery, and as such, any “stimulus” will be judged by how well it mitigates. “Stimulus” packages don’t fix economies - they merely, theoretically, act as a pain reliever.

And that is how they will be graded. And so far, the grade is a resounding “F”, based on Obama’s own predictions.[/quote]

Sure, you and I will attempt to gauge it by it’s “mitigating” effects. But most–and this was my point–will just look to see if the economy turned around.

Now, to your “grading.” Making predictions when facing complete financial crisis in addition to a global recession is a crap shoot and you have admitted it yourself. The question seems to truly be “would the economy have been better at this point in time without the stimulus?” Are you arguing that it would be? Or just taking a cheap shot? I realize that no matter what the democrats do you will “boo” them, but I still would like to see your sources for such a claim.

37

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Check out IMF.org. I googled “Infrastructure stimulus site:imf.org” and this was the first hit:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/POL020709A.htm

“Infrastructure spending has largest impact on growth, but takes a while”

This was the second: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0903.pdf
“U.S. stimulus packages over the two years have a substantial infrastructure component, and such investment has a larger multiplier than other fiscal instruments”

In short, there is evidence that infrastructure spending is “better” (larger multiplier). However, as the link you posted shows, there is other evidence that it is “equal to” other types of spending (military in your link). The long and the short of it is that by mixing (1) immediate spending, (2) infrastructure spending, and (3) tax cuts, the Obama administration was acting responsibly. My opinion is that “#2” should have been greater, but that all three are included is an acceptable compromise for me.

The idea that many libertarians have of “let the house burn down then rebuild” is wrongheaded to my mind and the idea that Republicans have of “only tax cuts” as stimulus is equally flawed. I believe he was right to have a stimulus and to diversify it.
[/quote]

IF government has to have a monopoly on building infrastructure and IF that spending is actually necessary (because you can have too much infrastructure) a certain amount of timing would be great.

That is a lot of ifs though and everything beyond that destroys more jobs than it creates by syphoning purchasing power out of more productive areas.

Then, the house already burned down. Let it collapse so that we can roam through the rubble, find out what is salvageable and start a new.

The stubborn insistence that the government could do anything to keep asset prices high, every superfluous Starbucks running and that 30 years of a cheap money binge could be dealt with without a major hangover will turn this into GD II.

38

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

On this very site individuals were arguing along with their presidential nominee that the foundation of the economy was strong and that we were not in a recession. Now the numbers hadn’t come out at that time to prove that we had been in a recession…but in a recession we were. That everyone admitted to it after the numbers officially came out is not so great a claim to make I don’t think. “We admitted to it after it was painfully obvious and we couldn’t ignore the data” is a pretty weak statement, IMO. Now, I don’t recall, what were you saying mid 2008?[/quote]

No one admits to a recession until the numbers come out because of the self-fulfilling prophecy such an event would have on the markets. I can’t recall anyone “ignoring the data” - the question was whether a “cure” was any good before a proper “diagnosis”.

Obama was going to introduce his “cure” no matter what the numbers said - fundamentally bad policy.

Let me know that Republican who denied being in a recession after our economy met the definition of one. Looking forward to it.

No, “we” won’t, because the economy will always turn around. If the “economy turning around” was the measuring stick, every piece of trash policy could take credit, and there would be no such thing as a ba simulus package.

Folks with common sense know that can’t be true.

“Would the economy be better but for the stimulus?” - you have it backwards. The Obama adminstration claimed it would be, and, based on their own projections, it’s not. The burden of proof is on your secular god-king who is healing the oceans.

That said, do I believe the economy would be in a better place? Absolutely. You think our Treasury auctions would be this bad had Obama not passed a Recovery Act that made a laughingstock out of the fiscal strength of the dollar and the American economy?

39

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

This is the really infuriating part to me. Nobody wants to face what an abysmal failure the trumpeted Salvation Bill was and they are doing what they can to ignore it or gloss over the catastrophic mushroom cloud. I told people in day to day life, others posted on here, and we had people in office who even managed to recognize this abortion. We were all right, and the result is that nobody wants to admit it.

Well, so long as we’re not biased or using extremist rhetoric.[/quote]

I’ve had a very low opinion of that stupid bill since it was first discussed. And obviously you simply can’t recognize frustration or anger as such and instead label it extremism. Bravo Einstein.

40

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

On this very site individuals were arguing along with their presidential nominee that the foundation of the economy was strong and that we were not in a recession. Now the numbers hadn’t come out at that time to prove that we had been in a recession…but in a recession we were. That everyone admitted to it after the numbers officially came out is not so great a claim to make I don’t think. “We admitted to it after it was painfully obvious and we couldn’t ignore the data” is a pretty weak statement, IMO. Now, I don’t recall, what were you saying mid 2008?

No one admits to a recession until the numbers come out because of the self-fulfilling prophecy such an event would have on the markets. I can’t recall anyone “ignoring the data” - the question was whether a “cure” was any good before a proper “diagnosis”.

Obama was going to introduce his “cure” no matter what the numbers said - fundamentally bad policy.

Let me know that Republican who denied being in a recession after our economy met the definition of one. Looking forward to it.

Sure, you and I will attempt to gauge it by it’s “mitigating” effects. But most–and this was my point–will just look to see if the economy turned around.

No, “we” won’t, because the economy will always turn around. If the “economy turning around” was the measuring stick, every piece of trash policy could take credit, and there would be no such thing as a ba simulus package.

Folks with common sense know that can’t be true.

Now, to your “grading.” Making predictions when facing complete financial crisis in addition to a global recession is a crap shoot and you have admitted it yourself. The question seems to truly be “would the economy have been better at this point in time without the stimulus?” Are you arguing that it would be? Or just taking a cheap shot? I realize that no matter what the democrats do you will “boo” them, but I still would like to see your sources for such a claim.

“Would the economy be better but for the stimulus?” - you have it backwards. The Obama adminstration claimed it would be, and, based on their own projections, it’s not. The burden of proof is on your secular god-king who is healing the oceans.

That said, do I believe the economy would be in a better place? Absolutely. You think our Treasury auctions would be this bad had Obama not passed a Recovery Act that made a laughingstock out of the fiscal strength of the dollar and the American economy?

[/quote]

Hey, Thunder.

Want to add another obama fail to the pile?

How about today’s news he plans on taxing the rich to pay for his health care plan.

You think credit is frozen now.

Don’t these morons realize you don’t raise taxes during deep recession? Don’t they understand that the “rich” make sustainable jobs?

Government makes work. The affluent make JOBS.

2010 can’t come soon enough.