Why the economy is still in shambles

[Anarchist420]

1. Obama/McCain made no pledge to cut spending.

2. Obama/McCain don't support cessation of occupying Iraq.

3. Obama wants to continue to inflate the dollar.

4. Obama/McCain/Palin supported TARP.

Y'know what we really needed rather than those two retarded (unless they're fucking things up on purpose then they're not retarded)dipshits?

We needed spending to be slashed and higher interest rates, as well as separation of investment and commercial banking. People who had saved while established businesses were failing could've started new businesses with all the cash they had saved.

 

[Blackjack200]

So reduced spending and higher interest rates will stimulate economic growth? Please tell us more.

 

[IGBT]

when quantitative easing fails the next step will be wage/price controls which will cause shortages thus rationing. your obama is doing great isn't he??

 

[ElFenix]

So reduced spending and higher interest rates will stimulate economic growth? Please tell us more.

long term it's a good idea. we've been doing this short term vast overconsumption by government thing since ronnie raygun and that engine may have run out of steam.

it's kinda like how inflation control and full employment are presented as a dichotomy in those silly political spectrum tests. oh, short term easy money looks good for the economy but long term it just gets eaten up by inflation and then made worse by uncertainty. once you understand that, you realize that stable money (note, not 0 money supply growth as that's actually deflationary) vs. employment is a false dichotomy.

 

[brencat]

So reduced spending and higher interest rates will stimulate economic growth? Please tell us more.

No, what he's saying is that eventually the piper has to be paid. The debt has to be liquidated and if a Depression is necessary to find the true clearing price of assets without stimulus or assistance, then so be it.

We are so afraid of taking a loss and so afraid of deflation, that we are willing to risk inflation and are creating massive massive national debts to avoid it. But I have a feeling we're going to end up in shit's creek anyway because this stimulus is at best allowing us to tread water, while punishing savers and the elderly on fixed incomes and creating moral hazard for investors and irresponsible people that they will always be bailed out if they fvck up.

I'm so sick of this Keynsian mentality. Austerity is the only true path to salvation. But it would be devastating for many many people, no question -- particularly the owners of assets.

Just remember this... deflations never got anyone killed. Japan has muddled along in deflation for 20+ years and they still have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Inflation on the other hand, gets people killed -- food/fuel rise, the poor can't afford basics, hoarding, shortages, riots, etc..

Nope, I prefer deflation thank you.

 

[Anarchist420]

Deflation is always better than inflation. And yes, we do need to start a massive bust, so the market can correct itself from there.

 

[bamacre]

Deflation is always better than inflation. And yes, we do need to start a massive bust, so the market can correct itself from there.

I think you need to be careful here, or just more precise. A quick up or downward swing in either direction would be quite harmful to an economy.

 

[bamacre]

We are so afraid of taking a loss and so afraid of deflation, that we are willing to risk inflation and are creating massive massive national debts to avoid it. But I have a feeling we're going to end up in shit's creek anyway because this stimulus is at best allowing us to tread water, while punishing savers and the elderly on fixed incomes and creating moral hazard for investors and irresponsible people that they will always be bailed out if they fvck up.

This is what Hayek predicted, that eventually they will not be able to blow the bubble back up. We should all pray this is not the case today.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Deflation is always better than inflation. And yes, we do need to start a massive bust, so the market can correct itself from there.

Uncontrolled deflation is much worst than inflation, so what you said was idiotic...

 

[Anarchist420]

I think you need to be careful here, or just more precise. A quick up or downward swing in either direction would be quite harmful to an economy.

Good point, but a ton of businesses swimming in red ink isn't real wealth, and they just need to go bankrupt if they've borrowed so much that they can't pay it back. I don't think raising interest rates so sharply that everyone who has the slightest amount of debt won't be able to pay it back is a good idea, but they should keep raising them gradually and not lower them ever again.

The reported CPI figure for 2010 is something like 1.32%, but it's probably double that, since the CPI method was changed to understate inflation.

 

[First]

Considering the economy has gained over 1,000,000 private sector jobs this year, the bailout money is on track to be recouped over 90% (that includes Fannie and Freddie), and the dollar has continued to neither gain or lose any significant strength going on 2+ years now, it's pretty clear who has been right and who has been wrong about the recession and its implications so far. Seriously, at this point it's more than a little sad if you're still claiming the bailouts, Fed policy or job growth measures haven't been effective. Hell, adjusted for inflation you still gained 3% on your stock portfolio over the last decade 2000-2010. We've had decades where you actually lost money on your stock portfolio, but still gained 6%+ over any 30 year period adjusting for dividends and assuming you invested in blue chips in the Dow/S&P/Nasdaq indices. With the Dow currently at 11,600 equity growth certainly isn't historically trending somewhere dire. The proposed alternatives of non-Fed, deflationary policies where large monopolies are allowed to manipulate interest rates have failed miserably throughout world and U.S. history, and any untested hybrid alternative of these arcane austerity policies haven't been anywhere near adequately proven or vetted.

 

[Blackjack200]

Good point, but a ton of businesses swimming in red ink isn't real wealth, and they just need to go bankrupt if they've borrowed so much that they can't pay it back. I don't think raising interest rates so sharply that everyone who has the slightest amount of debt won't be able to pay it back is a good idea, but they should keep raising them gradually and not lower them ever again.

The reported CPI figure for 2010 is something like 1.32%, but it's probably double that, since the CPI method was changed to understate inflation.

Oh, right, I see, raise interest rates to cause deflation. Preach oooooonnnnnn brutha! :awe:

 

[matt0611]

Every dollar the government doesn't spend goes back to the private sector where it can be used more productively. Unless we need to spend money on something, we shouldn't.

 

[Zebo]

Ross Perot warned us many other great thinkers warned us of the fail in outsourcing our production. We faked it and are still faking it with debt but whole house will blow up once that credit card can't be used. We're are only arguing over the length of the fuse, not whether or not it's lit. You as an American can't compete unless you are willing to work for 90 cents a hour simple as that. Asset prices will follow.

 

[ElFenix]

Considering the economy has gained over 1,000,000 private sector jobs this year,

link?

 

[KIAman]

1. Obama/McCain made no pledge to cut spending.

2. Obama/McCain don't support cessation of occupying Iraq.

3. Obama wants to continue to inflate the dollar.

4. Obama/McCain/Palin supported TARP.

Y'know what we really needed rather than those two retarded (unless they're fucking things up on purpose then they're not retarded)dipshits?

We needed spending to be slashed and higher interest rates, as well as separation of investment and commercial banking. People who had saved while established businesses were failing could've started new businesses with all the cash they had saved.

Common solution: Divide by Obama.

 

[First]

link?

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...pelosi-says-more-private-sector-jobs-created/

That's 847,000 private jobs created through September, add in 82,000 in October and 79,000 in November according to ADP: http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_November_10.pdf, and that doesn't include the likely 100,000+ gained this month. That'll be roughly 1.1M private sector jobs for all of this year. Which is good for a recovery, but not quite for a full-on bull market, which would probably require closer to 2.5 times that number.

 

[chucky2]

"To be fair, Pelosi's staff points out that they have not shied from showing the full arc of the jobs numbers since Obama took office, attaching a fact sheet showing both the decline and rise in jobs since Obama's inauguration. But her televised comments don't reflect that. To fully understand the jobs comparison Pelosi makes, you need to understand how she sliced and diced the numbers. It's a good example of a statement that is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. -- the Truth-O-Meter's definition of Half True. So we rate it Half True."

Mmmmmmm....so good things need to be cherry picked. Around here, no one is getting jobs. When there's going to be a job opening and thousands of people apply, saying 1M jobs have been created doesn't mean much.

What kind of jobs are they? Full time, part time? Payscale vs. pay of job person had before? Benefits?

Another job created at McDonald's is better than no job, but, it's not better when the person was making $60k a year and now works for minimum wage - part time.

The devil is in the details, and if Pelosi is having to cherry pick them, we can see it's not as rosy as ONE MILLION JOBS CREATED!!!

Chuck

 

[First]

"To be fair, Pelosi's staff points out that they have not shied from showing the full arc of the jobs numbers since Obama took office, attaching a fact sheet showing both the decline and rise in jobs since Obama's inauguration. But her televised comments don't reflect that. To fully understand the jobs comparison Pelosi makes, you need to understand how she sliced and diced the numbers. It's a good example of a statement that is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. -- the Truth-O-Meter's definition of Half True. So we rate it Half True."

Mmmmmmm....so good things need to be cherry picked. Around here, no one is getting jobs. When there's going to be a job opening and thousands of people apply, saying 1M jobs have been created doesn't mean much.

What kind of jobs are they? Full time, part time? Payscale vs. pay of job person had before? Benefits?

Another job created at McDonald's is better than no job, but, it's not better when the person was making $60k a year and now works for minimum wage - part time.

The devil is in the details, and if Pelosi is having to cherry pick them, we can see it's not as rosy as ONE MILLION JOBS CREATED!!!

Chuck

You wrote all that only to come to a conclusion that is easily thwarted with a simple Google search that shows average wages and hours have essentially stayed the same the last 2 years adjusted for inflation. What's telling is that you got that distracted over Pelosi's comments, which were entirely irrelevant to the post. rofl.

 

[chucky2]

What's telling is there's thousands of people out of work, no one gets jobs, no one hears of people getting jobs. No one hears of people hearing of people getting jobs.

What's telling is you linked to an article that is basically debunked in your own link.

Show me a credible non-partisan source that says the Milllion!!! Million!!! Million!!! jobs created mirror the high paying full time jobs that were lost. While your at it, show me the other link from the same type of source that shows that existing hourly jobs are back at full hours - and hence full salary - and not reduced.

rofl indeed.

Of course, you think people should be able to stay on Unemployment for their life and never be expected to work for said compensation, because that might require the government to employ a limited amount of out of work people (who themselves are collecting Unemployment) to manage training to teach said long term Unemployed how to pick up trash wrappers off the ground. You were laughing at what again? Oh....you....

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Show me a credible non-partisan source that says the Milllion!!! Million!!! Million!!! jobs created mirror the high paying full time jobs that were lost. While your at it, show me the other link from the same type of source that shows that existing hourly jobs are back at full hours - and hence full salary - and not reduced.

Chuck

Do you mind clarifying whose numbers you don't trust? Is it that you think Nancy Pelosi wouldn't skew statistics to pat herself on the back? Or do you not trust the government's numbers using the government's analysis of them?

 

[First]

What's telling is there's thousands of people out of work, no one gets jobs, no one hears of people getting jobs. No one hears of people hearing of people getting jobs.

To be clear, I'm talking about the reality of the job market, not the made-up job market swirling in your head.

What's telling is you linked to an article that is basically debunked in your own link.

Show me a credible non-partisan source that says the Milllion!!! Million!!! Million!!! jobs created mirror the high paying full time jobs that were lost. While your at it, show me the other link from the same type of source that shows that existing hourly jobs are back at full hours - and hence full salary - and not reduced.

It's ridiculously easy to confirm that wages and hours have stayed the same with a simple Google search.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/realer_12152000.txt <-- 2000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_11192008.pdf <--- 2008
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_12162009.pdf <--- 2009
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_11172010.pdf <--- 2010
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

rofl indeed.

Yeah, just not in the way you think.

Rofl.

Of course, you think people should be able to stay on Unemployment for their life and never be expected to work for said compensation, because that might require the government to employ a limited amount of out of work people (who themselves are collecting Unemployment) to manage training to teach said long term Unemployed how to pick up trash wrappers off the ground. You were laughing at what again? Oh....you....

Oh right, you're that dude that couldn't reconcile his small gov't ideology with wanting to add billions to the deficit for trash cleanup for the unemployed by ignoring logistics like distance, coordination, and administration of 5-7M unemployed persons while simultaneously ignoring that this sort of insanity would simply delay people getting back into the skilled labor workforce. That deserves one more rofl.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...pelosi-says-more-private-sector-jobs-created/

That's 847,000 private jobs created through September, add in 82,000 in October and 79,000 in November according to ADP: http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_November_10.pdf, and that doesn't include the likely 100,000+ gained this month. That'll be roughly 1.1M private sector jobs for all of this year. Which is good for a recovery, but not quite for a full-on bull market, which would probably require closer to 2.5 times that number.

Interesting numbers but when you factor in that more jobs were created in off-shore locations you realize just how dire the job growth numbers are in the US. Major job growth is happening overseas but at home you won't see anything on the level that is needed to pull the economy back up to its pre-bust levels and thus the job situation will remain sluggish in the US for a while.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013789073_foreignjobs29.html

Yet, jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says U.S. companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with fewer than 1 million here. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.

"There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," Scott said.

American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. Those jobs, however, have become more sophisticated &#8212; semiconductors and software, not toys and clothes.

And many of the products being made overseas aren't coming back to the United States. Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets such as India, China and Brazil.

Meanwhile, consumer demand in the United States has been subdued. Despite a strong holiday shopping season, Americans are spending 18 percent less than before the recession on furniture, and 10 percent less on electronics, according to MasterCard's SpendingPulse.

"Companies will go where there are fast-growing markets and big profits," said Jeffrey Sachs, globalization expert and economist at Columbia University. "What's changed is that companies today are getting top talent in emerging economies, and the U.S. has to really watch out."

With the future looking brighter overseas, companies are building there, too. Caterpillar, maker of the signature yellow bulldozers and tractors, has invested in three plants in China in the past two months. The decision is based on demand: Asia-Pacific sales soared 38 percent in the first nine months of 2010, compared with 16 percent in the United States. Caterpillar stock is up 64 percent this year.

 

[First]

Interesting numbers but when you factor in that more jobs were created in off-shore locations you realize just how dire the job growth numbers are in the US. Major job growth is happening overseas but at home you won't see anything on the level that is needed to pull the economy back up to its pre-bust levels and thus the job situation will remain sluggish in the US for a while.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013789073_foreignjobs29.html

The fact that more jobs were created overseas shouldn't surprise anyone that realizes the United States constitutes an extreme minority of the total world population as well as less than a quarter of its total energy demands. Since outsourcing began in earnest 30 years ago, it has (in part) contributed to an average unemployment rate south of 6.3&#37; in the U.S., which is why the outsourcing bogeyman has never picked up any significant steam. You can't argue with hard numbers.

But I agree that it'll take a while for the U.S. to recover the several million jobs necessary to get back to that average. Maybe there's a new average for unemployment, closer to 7%-8%, tough to tell without knowing what the context of those numbers are (better wages, benefits, technology, etc.). Of course, it's hard to ignore that outsourcing has been instrumental in improving technology, support, and services for all U.S. firms as well as significantly raising the labor skills standards of U.S. labor above any other nation. There's plenty of proof of that.

 

[Engineer]

What's telling is there's thousands of people out of work, no one gets jobs, no one hears of people getting jobs. No one hears of people hearing of people getting jobs. (got 2nd job after not really liking the travel of the 1st job received).

What's telling is you linked to an article that is basically debunked in your own link.

Show me a credible non-partisan source that says the Milllion!!! Million!!! Million!!! jobs created mirror the high paying full time jobs that were lost. While your at it, show me the other link from the same type of source that shows that existing hourly jobs are back at full hours - and hence full salary - and not reduced.

rofl indeed.

Of course, you think people should be able to stay on Unemployment for their life and never be expected to work for said compensation, because that might require the government to employ a limited amount of out of work people (who themselves are collecting Unemployment) to manage training to teach said long term Unemployed how to pick up trash wrappers off the ground. You were laughing at what again? Oh....you....

Chuck

I don't know about not getting jobs as I have got two of them in the last 8.5 months (after my company offshored tooling to Korea) and both of them have been higher pay than the previous.

Not many jobs but from September 2008 to about December of 2009, there were ZERO jobs listed in my field. Around Jan. 2010, a few started to trickle in. Lately, I've seen as many as 5 a week (and have received 4 calls in one month from various headhunters). Maybe I'm just in a more in demand field but when controls engineering jobs pick up, means more systems are being ordered for business automation and new assembly systems.