US Unemployement Double Digits

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Brookings:
Jobs Report is Good News; U.S. Economy Turning Corner
-Jeffrey R. Kling, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Economic Studies The Brookings Institution (earlier link)
[/quote]

If you believe this you are a lost cause. Its like you cannot look at reality and make any sound judgments. Do you not see all the debt that cannot be paid back? Do you not see the foolishness of trying to hold up asset prices with inflation when bad debt is trying to be liquidated? Who, with any amount of intelligence, is going to reinvest in it with their own money?

We are so fucked!!

62

Came across this looking for something else:

[i]Composite Leading Indicators point to an easing pace of deterioration in some major economies

08/06/2009 - While is still too early to assess whether it is a temporary or a more durable turning point, OECD composite leading indicators (CLIs) for April 2009 point to a reduced pace of deterioration in most of the OECD economies with stronger signals of a possible trough in Canada, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The signals remain tentative but they are present in the majority of the CLI component series for these countries. Compared to last month, positive signals are also emerging in Germany, Japan and the United States. [/i] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/42/42946062.pdf

63

^You’re still quoting the Keynesians whom are incorrect about everything. These people are just government paid economists. Do you think they are going to come out and admit to being wrong and jeopardize their paychecks?

The fact that you cannot give any analysis of your own shows just how woefully ignorant of economics you actually are. The fundamentals of a strong economy are still the same…and we are nowhere where we should be. The fact that the CLI cannot separate out real growth from inflation (growth of the money supply) is very problematic.

This is the mindset of the people you are touting: “Hurry up, let’s keep saying everything is fine so that we can dupe people into spending their money.”

People in debt have no business listening to the crap being spouted by government economists. These are the same economists that can convince the government that spending more is in everyone’s best interest…which if you think about it isn’t really that hard. Politicians have no problem spending money that isn’t theirs.

64

I’m very curious as to why we should listen to Keynesian economists when they did fuck all to predict this… the Austrian school pretty much predicted this sort of catastrophe. Shouldn’t we listen to the people who saw a crucible of this sort coming ahead of time?

65

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m very curious as to why we should listen to Keynesian economists when they did fuck all to predict this… the Austrian school pretty much predicted this sort of catastrophe. Shouldn’t we listen to the people who saw a crucible of this sort coming ahead of time?[/quote]

Yes, you should listen to those who have made correct predictions but don’t expect any government paid economist to tell you to do this. This would amount to them admitting they are wrong.

66

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

So far you have offered exactly dick backing your claims that Obama’s Recovery Act is somehow helping mitigate the recession.

  1. I did offer sources. 2) this search took about 30 seconds:

Brookings:
Jobs Report is Good News; U.S. Economy Turning Corner
-Jeffrey R. Kling, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Economic Studies The Brookings Institution (earlier link)

IMF:
A simple search of the site will provide answers. But I’ll help you out a little…I assume you can use the map here and add the United States? http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php

I assume you know how to use google? Once you stop relying solely on right-wing blogs and websites it becomes obvious that there is currently a debate as to whether we are turning a corner or not. This is not “partisan.” This is reality. [/quote]

Laughable. You didn’t offer any sources that Obama’s Recovery Act was mitigating the recession - you offered sources that suggested the economy may be turning the corner. They aren’t the same thing.

Obama’s Recovery Act was predicated on preventing 10% unemployment, among other things, and cost us trillions. What is our return on investment here? It didn’t “mitigate” the very thing it was advertised to mitigate.

Secondly, what about the longer-term cost? We already seeing signs of weakness in the Treasury auctions, where buyers of the debt - if there are any - are getting spooked about the viability of the dollar and the American economy… Obama’s “monopoly money” approach has buyers of dollar-denominated assets worrying about having the value of their assets inflated away, among other things, which has damning systemic consequences.

And at what advantage in the short-term? None, because the “monopoly money” approach didn’t stave off the unemployment.

A better question might be: what would the long-term prospects of the economy look like if Obama hadn’t lavished billions on special interests that (1) were not “shovel-ready” projects, and (2) were not immediate payouts?

I get it - you really don’t have anything substantive to add, and you adopt a red herring about being “biased”, and therefore positions being “untenable”.

Name one position I have asserted that is “untenable”. Do tell.

67

Lifticus: would you consider an academic economist government-paid?

Aragorn: I haven’t read much Austrian stuff, but from what I understand they avoid statistics and models and instead rely on deductive reasoning. Conventional macro is an embryo science, I realize, and predicts 9 out of the last 5 recessions, and so on … but Austrian economics doesn’t even try to be science, and so my initial impulse is to distrust it. An analogy: I know that medicine is often half guesswork, but I’d still rather go to a doctor than an orthopedist.

Thunderbolt: good point. Improving indicators don’t prove that the Recovery Act had a positive effect. By that token, though, worsening indicators (like the unemployment figures) don’t prove that the Recovery Act failed – it’s possible that things would have gotten worse without it. I don’t believe that it was actually that helpful, but let’s be honest about the logic.

68

[quote]AlisaV wrote:

Aragorn: I haven’t read much Austrian stuff, but from what I understand they avoid statistics and models and instead rely on deductive reasoning. Conventional macro is an embryo science, I realize, and predicts 9 out of the last 5 recessions, and so on … but Austrian economics doesn’t even try to be science, and so my initial impulse is to distrust it. An analogy: I know that medicine is often half guesswork, but I’d still rather go to a doctor than an orthopedist.
[/quote]

Is mathematic a “science” ?

Is logic a “science” ?

There is the assumption in there that, because economics as it is taught today very heavily relies on mathematical models, it is somehow more “scientific”.

You of all people should not know though that the ability to express false ideas and assumptions in the form of mathematical models does not make them any more true.

69

It’s not the formalism, it’s the empiricism. I want my economists looking over the data of the past century and extrapolating from it, not looking inward.

Also there’s a wisdom-of-crowds thing. All things being equal, I don’t trust a school of thought that’s concentrated at George Mason and Loyola (and the dark corners of the internet) over the school of thought that’s accepted in the whole rest of the academic world. Again, yes, I should go read Mises and see for myself, but until I do, I think it’s reasonable to trust the majority of professors.

70

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
It’s not the formalism, it’s the empiricism. I want my economists looking over the data of the past century and extrapolating from it, not looking inward.
[/quote]

Did you not post yourself that we cannot say if the stimulus helped or hurt because there are too many variables?

What good will empirical settings do if you cannot hope to ever have laboratory conditions?

Also, the methodology of natural sciences does not work with human beings, for we react and interact in unforeseen ways and constantly.

The attempt to try to use this methodology is historically understandable but doomed to failure because of the very complexity of the system of human interactions.

[quote]
Also there’s a wisdom-of-crowds thing. All things being equal, I don’t trust a school of thought that’s concentrated at George Mason and Loyola (and the dark corners of the internet) over the school of thought that’s accepted in the whole rest of the academic world. Again, yes, I should go read Mises and see for myself, but until I do, I think it’s reasonable to trust the majority of professors.[/quote]

The majority of professionals did not see this crisis coming, Austrian economist did for over a decade.

We have Ron Paul on record with what would happen and why.

You can read Peter Schiffs predictions on what would happen and why.

Not to mention that Keynesianism is dead since the eighties, whether its proponents admit or not. One word: Stagflation.

I dunno, for purely heuristic reasons I would assume that the clock that always shows the right time is a better instrument that the one that is broken.

But maybe that is just me.

71

What’s laughable is your shifting of the goalposts. You start with:

Then, you move to:

Oops, looks like your pre-conceived hate has even clouded your thinking. I “offered sources” which directly contradicted your previous claim. The least you could do is say “I misspoke.”

I’ve consistently argued that your rhetoric is based on pre-conceived notions and bias and, at best, is premature. I’ve consistently argued that there are cautious signs for optimism. And I’ve suggested that the speed in which this recession is turning around might have something to do with the stimulus act. This thinking is consistent with all the the sources I’ve posted. BTW, I don’t believe you’ve listed one source yet (other than opinion data).

I’m late. Perhaps I’ll write more later.

72

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Lifticus: would you consider an academic economist government-paid?[/quote]

Depends on where most of the funding comes from. Most major non-private universities receive some government grants for research. This definitely makes the fight for funding political. But fortunately there are plenty of private endowments funding research in most fields of study.

73

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I haven’t read much Austrian stuff, but from what I understand they avoid statistics and models and instead rely on deductive reasoning… but Austrian economics doesn’t even try to be science, and so my initial impulse is to distrust it. An analogy: I know that medicine is often half guesswork, but I’d still rather go to a doctor than an orthopedist.
[/quote]

Economics cannot be understood as a science because there is nothing testable about any of the laws that are completely a priori, synthetic judgments.

For example, that man acts in his own best interest cannot be tested. To even attempt to prove the axiom is an assertion of the axiom itself.

Science does not work for “social studies”. Take this as fact from a physicist.

74

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
It’s not the formalism, it’s the empiricism. I want my economists looking over the data of the past century and extrapolating from it, not looking inward.

[/quote]

This does not work. Historical data concerning human action is exactly that! History. The things that make humans unknowable is the fact that they are capable of learning and changing their behavior.

However, using a few key axioms it becomes possible to “extrapolate” the consequences of certain key economic activities; such as saving versus spending, or what might happen as the money supply increases. All of these things that even the non-Austrians agree upon are not understood by methods of science – in fact, they cannot be.

75

The end results of the money we wasted on the stimulus will be higher taxes and inflation.

The special interests Obama bought with the spending will not stay bought under those conditions.

76

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

What’s laughable is your shifting of the goalposts. [/quote]

How can I be “shifting the goalposts” when I expressly stated that whether the economy is “turning the corner” isn’t proof that the Recovery Act has mitigated the recession? Quoting myself:

You didn’t offer any sources that Obama’s Recovery Act was mitigating the recession - you offered sources that suggested the economy may be turning the corner. [b]They aren’t the same thing. [/b]

You offered sources that suggest the economy might be moving out of a recession. I’ve seen sources that argue otherwise (on the basis of interest rate risk, inflation of oil prices, unemployment rising in key sectors, etc.). Whether I agree with your sources or not has zilch to do with whether the Recovery Act is mitigating the recession.

Which, despite your blathering attempts to change the subject, remains unaddressed by you.

I didn’t misspeak - you still haven’t offered sources that the Recovery Act has mitigated the recession.

Then make an argument, Einstein - if you think the stimulus legislation “might have something to do” with the recession turning around, then you are suggesting causation: well, tell me what the cause is?

One preliminary problem: the Act was supposed to stave off unemployment of over 8ish percent. It failed to do that, but you are telling me that it otherwise is succeeding.

I asking you to explain why you think that is.

77

[quote]hedo wrote:

The end results of the money we wasted on the stimulus will be higher taxes and inflation.

The special interests Obama bought with the spending will not stay bought under those conditions.[/quote]

Is debt that future generations will have to pay off with taxes, taxation without representation? My children or grandchildren certainly didn’t vote for representatives, or their opponents, that voted for this spending.

78

Obama is a lying arrogant fool who has no clue of what he is doing and a firm believer that he does know and is doing the right thing - the worst possible combination, a fool convinced he is right despite all evidence to the contrary and the power to ruin the lives of millions . . . .

79

It’s like arguing with a child. I can’t imagine that you’re honestly misunderstanding this, so why do you respond with such a froth.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

How can I be “shifting the goalposts” when I expressly stated that whether the economy is “turning the corner” isn’t proof that the Recovery Act has mitigated the recession? Quoting myself:

You didn’t offer any sources that Obama’s Recovery Act was mitigating the recession - you offered sources that suggested the economy may be turning the corner. [b]They aren’t the same thing. [/b]

You offered sources that suggest the economy might be moving out of a recession. I’ve seen sources that argue otherwise (on the basis of interest rate risk, inflation of oil prices, unemployment rising in key sectors, etc.). Whether I agree with your sources or not has zilch to do with whether the Recovery Act is mitigating the recession.

Which, despite your blathering attempts to change the subject, remains unaddressed by you.

I didn’t misspeak - you still haven’t offered sources that the Recovery Act has mitigated the recession. [/quote]

Depth and breadth. It’s deeper but may be shorter. You didn’t honestly misunderstand this, did you?

I honestly couldn’t care less if you “agree” with the IMF or Brookings, or the OECD (or whoever else I cited). If you recall you, apparently, didn’t realize people were arguing about this… Sorry to break you out of your strange right-wing world.

I’m glad you’ve finally come around. But what is this? Is this some sort of “internet argument” technique? Pretend like you didn’t really say what you did? You started that above quote with "[quote]Fact is, we don’t have good signs that the recession is letting up [/quote] Well guess what? The “fact is” we do have those signs. …Remember that debate I asked you to wake up to? It seems you finally have. This would be where a “oops” would make you sound a lot less silly.

[quote]

Then make an argument, Einstein - if you think the stimulus legislation “might have something to do” with the recession turning around, then you are suggesting causation: well, tell me what the cause is? [/quote]

You didn’t actually read those sources, did you? Or is it that you really don’t understand the basics to this debate? I thought you were supposed to be “the educated” right-winger around here. Fair enough, probably only this once, but here’s the basics laid out nice and easy for you from the council on foreign relations (the folks who make “Foreign Affairs” magazine). It’ll even tell you how to argue “your side” better…then maybe we can start speaking as adults, “Einstein”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18348

[quote]
One preliminary problem: the Act was supposed to stave off unemployment of over 8ish percent. It failed to do that, but you are telling me that it otherwise is succeeding.

I asking you to explain why you think that is.[/quote]

My god, for the 100th time, I did not say that. I’m starting to honestly wonder if you’re purposefully creating that strawman or simply aren’t understanding this argument…

80

I have not read the thread I will right after this.
I just wanted to say something.

I was recently laid off because of lack of work,I went to unemployment and they said the most I can get is 260 a week. basically min wage.
so I went from 38 dollars an hour to min wage,however I was turned down they sent me a bill instead.which I can get unemployment when i bring my account current,which makes no sense at all to me I mean its like me asking someone to borrow 20 dollars cause im broke an dthey in turn say “no but can you give me 100” then youll get your 20

so I really think there are alot more poeple out of work than whats reported.
some wont even apply for unemployment and others are like me.

I think this is worse than we think it is,or being told it is anyways

also a family member has a neighbor that was foreclosed on.
when they left they stripped the copper out of the house and left
this homes sale price is now 9 thousand dollars
in an area where average home prices 2 years ago was 150 thousand.
this homes sat empty since end of feburary