Unemployment rate drops the lowest in 4 years!

[CycloWizard]

>Spewed Fox News memes.
>"Adult"

Here's a hint: "Adult" is past "sheeple", they don't overlap.

If you want to address what I said, then by all means please do. Otherwise, stay at the kiddie table and keep your mouth shut.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

More bad news for Conservatives it looks like the rampant obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress to shitcan the Economy just prolonged the climb back up.


http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-four-years-1C7488578

News flash for trollololol democrats. Job % level is based on number of people that apply. Keep giving handouts - and they have no reason to keep applying

So FYI - take a look around non-liberal media bias news. The drop in unemployment was based COMPLETELY on people that stopped applying.

 

[CycloWizard]

The problem is that govt employment acts as an economic stabilizer, lessening the impact of economic swings in the deregulated free market financialized economy featuring innovative financial products so you can buy the house of your dreams on a no down no doc negative amortization ARM at an astoundingly low introductory rate... and so that the mutual funds in your 401K can buy the AAA rated bonds created in the process...

When that sort of scam falls down, it takes a lot of the employment in the rest of the private sector with it in a cascading fashion... reference 1931 & 2008.

Government incentivized loans to unqualified borrowers and incentivized banks to make such loans. Indeed, they still are. Do you know how much down payment you would need for an FHA loan still today compared to a non-FHA loan? The things you are describing are not due to the "free market" but due to government-backed government distortions. No banker would ever loan someone enough money for a house worth 10x their annual pay with zero down payment unless the government had insured the loan. In the presence of government insurance, why wouldn't a banker make that loan? It's guaranteed money out of my pocket given to them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did you ever stop to think?
No.
Try that, instead of handing the obligation to others to point out where you went wrong.

You still have time to catch the short plane to NK to see the unicorns. Don't miss out on this once in a lifetime opportunity!

 

[OverVolt]

This is like, the mother of all debt bubbles.

Starting with 1950's FHA
Late 1950's credit cards
1965 federally guaranteed student loans

-Coming upon the 1970s we were tapped out. Gold rose, went off the gold standard, and the oil shortages all around this time frame

Ah hell this can explain precisely what i think better:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/10/10/the-united-states-65-year-debt-bubble/

I definitely reject the modern view. Things can't just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. When I'm 60 is the local college really going to have 60,000 students? Are the roads going to be twice as wide, or carry double the traffic (laughable). Will there be 2billion cars on the road, not 1billion? This exponential growth type stuff is inevitably a bubble I think. A big'un.

Notice the blips in early 1970 and 1987-1990

Then she goes full-retard 1999-2008 (man those were good times)

And now we are absolutely tapped out, unless we get some serious exponential inflation going on main in street to wipe away the debts. We need wage inflation. Instead what we have is massive government debt trying to compensate making private employment hyper-competitive driving down wages.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If you want to address what I said, then by all means please do.

I am. Your reluctance or inability to examine anything outside your emotion-driven replies is a problem, and I'm pointing it out.

I'm not here to do your thinking for you in everything, you know. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." You don't yet know that there even is this thing called "fishing," and it would be helpful if this was remedied.

So try again. Think past what you posted to why you are wrong.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

People giving up finding jobs is a factor contributing to declining unemployment rate? Think about it rationally for a second and ask how that can actually affect data. Why would people give up finding jobs?

.... Entitlements? Unemployment? Food Stamps? Leeching off of others? Welfare Checks? List can only go longer detective dipshit

 

[OverVolt]

It seems to me that there is a significant chance that we will find ourselves transitioning back from a Modern View of debt to a Traditional View of debt. If this happens, we are at risk of the ratio of debt to GDP dropping way back–not to 2005 levels, or 2000 levels, but to 1945 levels, or even lower. A big part of this slide downward might come through debt defaults. Such a change would greatly reduce this country’s ability to buy imported goods, and could result in huge economic dislocations.

I 100% agree with this. Economics is always the bag holding game. So long as there is a greater fool, you can be a fool too. I'm pretty sure the buck stops here sometime 2010-2020.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/10/10/the-united-states-65-year-debt-bubble/

Seriously, read it. I've been thinking this for awhile, its very very very spot-on.

All you can do when deleveraging like this begins is not take out any big loans.

 

[Jhhnn]

Government incentivized loans to unqualified borrowers and incentivized banks to make such loans. Indeed, they still are. Do you know how much down payment you would need for an FHA loan still today compared to a non-FHA loan? The things you are describing are not due to the "free market" but due to government-backed government distortions. No banker would ever loan someone enough money for a house worth 10x their annual pay with zero down payment unless the government had insured the loan. In the presence of government insurance, why wouldn't a banker make that loan? It's guaranteed money out of my pocket given to them.

Hogwash. The worst loans weren't govt insured, at all, but rather securitized & sold to investors w/o govt guarantees of any kind. Bankers pushed ticking bombs off onto investors as fast & as often as possible, aided by the ratings agencies' duplicity.

If the FHA was the problem, why haven't they been taken into conservatorship like Fannie & Freddie?

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy

Facts are sooo inconvenient to Righties...

 

[OverVolt]

Hogwash. The worst loans weren't govt insured, at all, but rather securitized & sold to investors w/o govt guarantees of any kind. Bankers pushed ticking bombs off onto investors as fast & as often as possible, aided by the ratings agencies' duplicity.

If the FHA was the problem, why haven't they been taken into conservatorship like Fannie & Freddie?



Facts are sooo inconvenient to Righties...

None of it really matters honestly. They all got bailed out, except one. And hid who was actually the worst offender by forcing them all to take TARP money.

 

[OverVolt]

News flash for trollololol democrats. Job % level is based on number of people that apply. Keep giving handouts - and they have no reason to keep applying

So FYI - take a look around non-liberal media bias news. The drop in unemployment was based COMPLETELY on people that stopped applying.

Agreed

 

[Jhhnn]

None of it really matters honestly. They all got bailed out, except one. And hid who was actually the worst offender by forcing them all to take TARP money.

Oh, please. Only JPMC & GS would likely have survived w/o TARP, and that was because they had reversed their field & were shorting the piss out of their competitors in every imaginable way.

Just because you turn on your fellow travelers the quickest doesn't mean you were any less guilty.

TARP did conceal the relative strengths & weaknesses of the players, deliberately so. Otherwise, collapse would have been near total, lending destroyed almost entirely, not just in this country but world wide. Commerce depends enormously on credit, like it or not, and creditworthy companies & individuals need lenders to service them.

 

[CycloWizard]

I am. Your reluctance or inability to examine anything outside your emotion-driven replies is a problem, and I'm pointing it out.

I'm not here to do your thinking for you in everything, you know. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." You don't yet know that there even is this thing called "fishing," and it would be helpful if this was remedied.

So try again. Think past what you posted to why you are wrong.

I say this without any emotion at all and base it purely on the empirical evidence you've submitted in this thread: you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Darwin333]

Of course govt spending went up, largely as the result of automatic stabilizers in place to compensate for the sacred free market tripping over its own dick, doing a faceplant. Even if spending in absolute dollars hadn't gone up, spending as a % of GDP would have. That's what's supposed to happen. This has been the most profound economic collapse in 80 years, remember?

The Feds actually did do a lot for state govts in the process- extending federal unemployment benefits, allowing states to claim more federal money in a myriad of ways, particularly wrt medicaid, grants, foodstamps & easing restrictions on SS disability claims. That's outside of infrastructure stimulus spending, which is ongoing. Money appropriated is still in the process of being spent.

The feds also suffered & are still suffering from the cost of the invasion of Iraq through 2011 & ongoing expense in Afghanistan.

The gross figure of GDP says nothing about the reasons for more federal spending, which is really about the way that income distribution has changed-

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

Total spending in dollars has not gone down either. In fact, it has not decreased below the previous years dollar amount in decades.

The point is, you and Krugman are blaming a lack of state and local hiring (spending) for the unemployment (at least partially) when state and local spending has not decreased at all. Unlike the Feds, state and local governments are actually limited to what they can spend because they can't just simply print money. On top of that, a lot of states are seeing revenue crunches because of the loss in home values and exactly how do you, or Krugman, wish state and local governments to hire more people?

Nothing you said has addressed my point but I truly am interested in hearing the answer. You got into Federal spending a bit but the issue Krugman and you raised was one of state and local spending.

 

[Darwin333]

His point wasn't difficult to parse, moron. Then I went beyond it. Now you try.

I was able to parse his point just fine so perhaps it is not I that is the moron. And I would say nice try back but it really wasn't a very good try at all, at least not as far as I am concerned. Maybe its the best you can do though and in that case I guess you deserve a pat on the head.

 

[Darwin333]

Government incentivized loans to unqualified borrowers and incentivized banks to make such loans. Indeed, they still are. Do you know how much down payment you would need for an FHA loan still today compared to a non-FHA loan? The things you are describing are not due to the "free market" but due to government-backed government distortions. No banker would ever loan someone enough money for a house worth 10x their annual pay with zero down payment unless the government had insured the loan. In the presence of government insurance, why wouldn't a banker make that loan? It's guaranteed money out of my pocket given to them.

That isn't exactly accurate.

Some of the loans were quasi .gov backed but a lot weren't. What you said makes sense to most people so I can understand why you think that way but it just isn't accurate.

Specifically this part: "No banker would ever loan someone enough money for a house worth 10x their annual pay with zero down payment unless the government had insured the loan."

Sure they would and they did a LOT because they had big banksters throwing money at them hand over fist to purchase those loans so they could slice, dice, and bundle them up into AAA rated securities. So the banker makes a horrible loan, makes a killing off the fees, and doesn't have the paper on his books for more than a few weeks or so. Who wouldn't do that all day long, its no risk and all reward. The bad loan is someone elses problem.

You can argue that the .gov played some role in this entire fiasco but this was truly invented and exploited by the market. It is NOT however the "free market" at work because it was quite literally criminally fraudulent activity. Just because both administrations are bought and paid for by the banksters and therefore no one has gone to jail doesn't make what they did any less illegal.

 

[Incorruptible]

The problem is that govt employment acts as an economic stabilizer, lessening the impact of economic swings in the deregulated free market financialized economy featuring innovative financial products so you can buy the house of your dreams on a no down no doc negative amortization ARM at an astoundingly low introductory rate... and so that the mutual funds in your 401K can buy the AAA rated bonds created in the process...

When that sort of scam falls down, it takes a lot of the employment in the rest of the private sector with it in a cascading fashion... reference 1931 & 2008.

Wrong, We dont have a free market and there was no deregulation, you really need to stay away from the talking points because you cant be taken seriously. At least I am having a good time laughing at you

 

[Darwin333]

Wrong, We dont have a free market and there was no deregulation, you really need to stay away from the talking points because you cant be taken seriously. At least I am having a good time laughing at you

He is right, although I am not sure he will completely agree with me on the specifics because its not in his teams best interests. The repeal of Glass-Stegall is directly responsible for the sheer scope and severity of the mess we are in. Without it, not only would the problem not be nearly as big, we could have easily let the investment banks fail.

 

[glenn1]

employment rate drops the lowest in 4 years!

Aternatively, after four years of effort, Obama has finally gotten unemployment back down to the level it was when he became responsible for it. Good for him.

 

[Jhhnn]

Total spending in dollars has not gone down either. In fact, it has not decreased below the previous years dollar amount in decades.

The point is, you and Krugman are blaming a lack of state and local hiring (spending) for the unemployment (at least partially) when state and local spending has not decreased at all. Unlike the Feds, state and local governments are actually limited to what they can spend because they can't just simply print money. On top of that, a lot of states are seeing revenue crunches because of the loss in home values and exactly how do you, or Krugman, wish state and local governments to hire more people?

Nothing you said has addressed my point but I truly am interested in hearing the answer. You got into Federal spending a bit but the issue Krugman and you raised was one of state and local spending.

First, get your facts straight, then make an argument-

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/expensive-subsidies-help-state-and.html

Reference also the FRED employment graph linked earlier from Krugman. States & Munis are revenue constrained, as you point out, so obviously their spending has gone down with revenues. This depression has been bad enough that cash strapped states basically have to lay off employees & curtail projects of all sorts to meet enormous unemployment claims, just a small part of a race to the bottom.

You attempt to have it both ways, and fail.

 

[Incorruptible]

First, get your facts straight, then make an argument-

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/expensive-subsidies-help-state-and.html

Reference also the FRED employment graph linked earlier from Krugman. States & Munis are revenue constrained, as you point out, so obviously their spending has gone down with revenues. This depression has been bad enough that cash strapped states basically have to lay off employees & curtail projects of all sorts to meet enormous unemployment claims, just a small part of a race to the bottom.

You attempt to have it both ways, and fail.

If they are government employees then that is good, there are way too many bureaucrats and we need less of them.

 

[Jhhnn]

He is right, although I am not sure he will completely agree with me on the specifics because its not in his teams best interests. The repeal of Glass-Stegall is directly responsible for the sheer scope and severity of the mess we are in. Without it, not only would the problem not be nearly as big, we could have easily let the investment banks fail.

Although I may disagree with this author's final conclusion, he explains how Glass-Steagal came to end- not all at once, but rather slowly eroded over time. It was already on its deathbed when Clinton performed the coup de grace.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/05/how-we-ended-glass-steagall/

It's not like the Bush Admin was forced to set aside a lot of other regulatory clout they had in favor of self regulated banking, either. Ideologically, they were opposed to regulation on principle, so even when a less ideological admin might have taken a more conservative approach, they threw caution to the wind.

I mean, really. When the SEC revised the Net Capital rule in 2004 allowing investment banks to lever up to 30:1 & even 40:1, the presence of a dangerous bubble was already quite obvious, but ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Earlier, they used an obscure civil war statute to stymie state regulators, who had performed extremely important functions as part of the New Deal banking scheme-

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/...-sue-or-have-the-ability-to-stop-the-madness/

They demanded that the GSE's take on more "affordable" loans, then blamed the GSE's for the collapse they commanded-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html

Acting as cheerleaders for the industry every inch of the way-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

Putting the blame on Clinton is more than disingenuous. He admits that he took the wrong advice wrt Glass-Steagal & unregulated derivatives, but Repubs have denied any culpability whatsoever. He may have unlocked the door, but it was Repubs who greeted & introduced the hordes of looters as old friends, worthy of our trust.

Repubs are still fighting to maintain "Freedom" for the financial sector, even though proposed reforms are actually quite mild.

 

[Jhhnn]

If they are government employees then that is good, there are way too many bureaucrats and we need less of them.

Well, yeh, of course, at least in the right wing echo chamber. The only way to vanquish unemployment is to lay off more people, simply because fringe-whacks deem them & their jobs unworthy.

It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Darwin333]

Although I may disagree with this author's final conclusion, he explains how Glass-Steagal came to end- not all at once, but rather slowly eroded over time. It was already on its deathbed when Clinton performed the coup de grace.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/05/how-we-ended-glass-steagall/

It's not like the Bush Admin was forced to set aside a lot of other regulatory clout they had in favor of self regulated banking, either. Ideologically, they were opposed to regulation on principle, so even when a less ideological admin might have taken a more conservative approach, they threw caution to the wind.

I mean, really. When the SEC revised the Net Capital rule in 2004 allowing investment banks to lever up to 30:1 & even 40:1, the presence of a dangerous bubble was already quite obvious, but ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Earlier, they used an obscure civil war statute to stymie state regulators, who had performed extremely important functions as part of the New Deal banking scheme-

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/...-sue-or-have-the-ability-to-stop-the-madness/

They demanded that the GSE's take on more "affordable" loans, then blamed the GSE's for the collapse they commanded-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html

Acting as cheerleaders for the industry every inch of the way-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

Putting the blame on Clinton is more than disingenuous. He admits that he took the wrong advice wrt Glass-Steagal & unregulated derivatives, but Repubs have denied any culpability whatsoever. He may have unlocked the door, but it was Repubs who greeted & introduced the hordes of looters as old friends, worthy of our trust.

Repubs are still fighting to maintain "Freedom" for the financial sector, even though proposed reforms are actually quite mild.

Lol, I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above except for your conclusions. I do understand why you came to the conclusion you did, people are quick to defend their own team and will reach as far as they can to throw the other team under the bus.

With that said, we know for absolute fact that the banksters committed countless crimes during their looting spree. Exactly how many of them have Obama's justice dept. brought up on charges? And we are talking about blatantly obvious crimes, not something that is "grey".


PS: Those hordes of looters are still very good friends with the President of the United States. They have done absurdly well the last four years despite everyone else doing pretty bad or stagnant at best. They have got to keep all of their illegally gained loot and not a one has been led off in cuffs. Oh yeah, they are still to this day looting us with complete impunity.

The Dems even passed some multi-thousand page financial "reform" bill that didn't come remotely close to the few dozen page Glass-Stegal bill that they repealed. I know you will disagree until your very last breath but the truth of the matter is that your guy is owned by the exact same people that owned the last guy.

 

[Darwin333]

First, get your facts straight, then make an argument-

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/expensive-subsidies-help-state-and.html

Reference also the FRED employment graph linked earlier from Krugman. States & Munis are revenue constrained, as you point out, so obviously their spending has gone down with revenues. This depression has been bad enough that cash strapped states basically have to lay off employees & curtail projects of all sorts to meet enormous unemployment claims, just a small part of a race to the bottom.

You attempt to have it both ways, and fail.

I am terribly sorry, you are correct.

Total .gov spending shot way the hell up between 2009-2010 from 35% of GDP to 42% of GDP and then it fell back but still above the previous 35% levels. So yes, if you count the huge temporary jump I guess you can say spending was "cut" but it is still considerably higher than it was for most of the 2000's and 90's.

BTW, does "goods and services" exclude legacy costs such as pensions and healthcare spending for state and local reteries? I only ask because it seems silly to use something like that versus total spent.

Regardless, you agree that states are in a revenue crunch yet you and Krugman are advocating them spend more money? How?

And for the record, I do not attempt to have it both ways. I know what must be done and what eventually be done, until then I am just along for the ride.