Wall St. Journal reports stimulus is working

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Right was saying the same thing about the Bush economy, and it was very well pointed out that the economy wasn't growing, we were just going more into debt. It was true then, and it's true now. Do we have more shit? Sure, but we owe more money, too. It's like we whipped out a massive credit card, went on a shopping spree, and those in charge say "hey, look how much stuff we have."

Not really. Debt owed internally (as the vast majority of our debt is), is in no way a 'credit card'.

I'm not trying to talk shit or anything, but it looks like you might start sweating your signature.

the bailout has already proven him a fool. The austrian and chicago schools are dead.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: rudder
Jobless rate highest since 1983

A jobless recovery until the stimulus money runs out I suppose.

Biden yesterday said the stimulus is working better than hoped. I wonder how he reconciles that with the graph LTC8K6 just put up.

jobs are and always have been a trailing indicator. Do you have a point or are you just, as always, grasping at straws?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm not too well versed in national economics but isn't that within what a so called "natural trend" could produce?

Since no one seems to have noticed my question i'll repost it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shira
Hahahah. SO funny watching the righties twist and turn trying to turn every economic report into an anti-Obama screed. Just a week or two ago, there was a thread about "Stimulus fails," and how we had wasted SO much money on a useless plan.

Now, after the WSJ article, we read, "The economy was already turning around - the stimulus is irrelevant," and besides, it was too SMALL.

Finally, although it was predicted at least as far back as January that the unemployment rate would continue to increase at least until mid-2010 even AFTER the recession ended, we read, "Oh, a jobless recovery."

Man, you righties really do need to come up with some less obvious rhetoric. You're SO desperate to discredit this administration, it's heads Obama wins, tails he fails.

Employment is always a trailing indicator, but that did not stop libs from proclaiming a jobless recovery during the last recession. DO you think this will be labeled a jobless recovery? That was my point, which you seemed to have completely missed.

Nine months from now? Yes. 18 months from now? No.

That did not stop libs from proclaiming a jobless recovery during the last recession. And for the most part unemployment remained below historical averages. It will take at least 18 months to bring the current unemployment levelsback to where they were before the crash started.

barring major war, you won't see sub 6% employment levels for a long, long time i think., probably the next presidential term is underway. we had a net loss of ~10 million jobs and are going to have a net loss of around 2-3 million over the next year before we start seeing net gains, and unemployment will likely hit 11+% by next spring.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I'm a firm believer that you cannot create wealth merely by creating more debt, which is what the federal government is doing. I don't think the economy can get any worse, but 2-3% growth for Q3 09 is wishful thinking.

Will other countries be willing to invest in the United States the way they did in the past 10-15 years (including the dot-com years)?

hopefully not, because that 'investment' only caused unsustainable bubbles; they didn't really invest, they just gave us dirt cheap loans to buy shit with, mostly from the people that lent us the money (japan, china, opec, etc)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm not too well versed in national economics but isn't that within what a so called "natural trend" could produce?

Since no one seems to have noticed my question i'll repost it.

i'm not sure if there is a natural trend in economics like you could say there is a natural trend in say, climate. Economics, much like population, tends to defy any sort of trend people try to place on it. There is a large degree of unpredictability, because nothing is really constant.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shira
Hahahah. SO funny watching the righties twist and turn trying to turn every economic report into an anti-Obama screed. Just a week or two ago, there was a thread about "Stimulus fails," and how we had wasted SO much money on a useless plan.

Now, after the WSJ article, we read, "The economy was already turning around - the stimulus is irrelevant," and besides, it was too SMALL.

Finally, although it was predicted at least as far back as January that the unemployment rate would continue to increase at least until mid-2010 even AFTER the recession ended, we read, "Oh, a jobless recovery."

Man, you righties really do need to come up with some less obvious rhetoric. You're SO desperate to discredit this administration, it's heads Obama wins, tails he fails.

Employment is always a trailing indicator, but that did not stop libs from proclaiming a jobless recovery during the last recession. DO you think this will be labeled a jobless recovery? That was my point, which you seemed to have completely missed.

Nine months from now? Yes. 18 months from now? No.

That did not stop libs from proclaiming a jobless recovery during the last recession. And for the most part unemployment remained below historical averages. It will take at least 18 months to bring the current unemployment levelsback to where they were before the crash started.

barring major war, you won't see sub 6% employment levels for a long, long time i think., probably the next presidential term is underway. we had a net loss of ~10 million jobs and are going to have a net loss of around 2-3 million over the next year before we start seeing net gains, and unemployment will likely hit 11+% by next spring.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Libs were calling it a jobless recovery 4 years after the last recession when we had a sub 5% unemployment rate. I am going to enjoy watching them try to proclaim the opposite with over 7% unemployment.

getting jobless rates down to 7% from roughly 11% would mean a net gain of about 6 million jobs, so that would be pretty easy to justify as not being a jobless recovery.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm not too well versed in national economics but isn't that within what a so called "natural trend" could produce?

Since no one seems to have noticed my question i'll repost it.

i'm not sure if there is a natural trend in economics like you could say there is a natural trend in say, climate. Economics, much like population, tends to defy any sort of trend people try to place on it. There is a large degree of unpredictability, because nothing is really constant.

BTW, by "natural" i did not intend the scientific term, more the formal one, that it's economics nature that trends vary.

Perhaps i used the wrong word there but it works in British English, i sometimes come across terms that are replaced by other words in Americanese that us Brits do not use, and the other way around of course.

But i should probably stay out of this discussion, it's not my forte.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is not due to the stimulus since most of it hasn't even been spent yet. The economy heals on it's own so long as it is not actively collapsing.

Well it would appear that economists disagree with you.

The same retarded economists who never saw the crash coming?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I'm a firm believer that you cannot create wealth merely by creating more debt, which is what the federal government is doing. I don't think the economy can get any worse, but 2-3% growth for Q3 09 is wishful thinking.

Will other countries be willing to invest in the United States the way they did in the past 10-15 years (including the dot-com years)?

hopefully not, because that 'investment' only caused unsustainable bubbles; they didn't really invest, they just gave us dirt cheap loans to buy shit with, mostly from the people that lent us the money (japan, china, opec, etc)

For the record, a majority of treasury debts are bought domestically.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is not due to the stimulus since most of it hasn't even been spent yet. The economy heals on it's own so long as it is not actively collapsing.

Well it would appear that economists disagree with you.

The same retarded economists who never saw the crash coming?

*sigh* Economists can be wrong. They frequently are wrong. They still know more about economics and are more likely to be right than you.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

*sigh* Economists can be wrong. They frequently are wrong. They still know more about economics and are more likely to be right than you.

I don't claim to be right. You post articles like this because it supports your delusion that your president's fiscal policy is good for the country. We don't need more out of control spending.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

*sigh* Economists can be wrong. They frequently are wrong. They still know more about economics and are more likely to be right than you.

I don't claim to be right. You post articles like this because it supports your delusion that your president's fiscal policy is good for the country. We don't need more out of control spending.

Well if it is a 'delusion', it is one based upon the opinions of quite a few highly educated sources. I guess me and that Goldman Sachs guy can go be crazy together.

While I might think that your (presumed) alternative of not spending money to stimulate the economy would have been dangerous and irresponsible, I wouldn't call you deluded for having it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well my industry is starting to recover. In the last 2 months I've made as much as I've made all the rest of the year.

We make stuff

You make stuff here in the U.S.?

What do you make?

 

[shira]

I'm a little less sanguine than in my earlier posts about the U.S. recovery after reading Robert Samuelson's op-ed piece in the Washington Post today. A brief excerpt:

Text

What's most ominous is not today's job market; it's the outlook. After the 1981-82 recession, unemployment dropped steadily from an annual average of 9.7 percent in 1982 to 7.5 percent in 1984 and 5.5 percent in 1988. The descent this time is expected to be much slower. In 2014, the unemployment rate will still average 7.6 percent, forecasts IHS Global Insight, which predicts a peak of 10 percent early next year. Reducing unemployment requires an economic expansion fast enough to absorb today's jobless plus the natural growth of the labor force. Most forecasters expect a tepid recovery will only gradually dent unemployment, despite slowing labor force growth.

"The 1982 recession was largely caused by the desire to break the back of inflation," says economist Nigel Gault of IHS. "Once the [Federal Reserve] was comfortable it had broken inflation, it lowered interest rates, and economic growth took off." Interest-sensitive sectors -- autos and housing -- propelled recovery. By contrast, today's slump results from financial crisis, Gault says. The Fed has already cut interest rates, which will probably go up. As overborrowed households repay debt, their spending will be sluggish. The weak recovery then retards new jobs.

If that analysis is correct - I DO keep in mind that every organization has their own set of assumptions used in making projections, and IHS Global Insight's assumptions could be way off base - we could be in for a long, bleak employment picture for many years to come.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is not due to the stimulus since most of it hasn't even been spent yet. The economy heals on it's own so long as it is not actively collapsing.

Well it would appear that economists disagree with you.

The same retarded economists who never saw the crash coming?

Please. A clear majority of economists (anywhere from 50% to 71%) by mid-08 thought we were already in a recession. Links:

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/...say-71-percent-of.html
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/...economist-survey-says/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/...-01-08-recession_N.htm
http://www.boston.com/business...re_economist_declares/

This was a "surprise" only in its severity but no one well informed wasn't calling this a recession by mid-2008.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: rudder
Jobless rate highest since 1983

A jobless recovery until the stimulus money runs out I suppose.

Biden yesterday said the stimulus is working better than hoped. I wonder how he reconciles that with the graph LTC8K6 just put up.

jobs are and always have been a trailing indicator. Do you have a point or are you just, as always, grasping at straws?

By straw you mean penis. Stop chasing me in all the threads like an intimacy-starved puppy.

Aren't you ever capable of making your own posts or does your ability to poo on your keyboard leave you limited to one or two liner responses to others? It's as if, without something to seed your mind on a certain track, it's vapid, like your chronically over-drawn bank account.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well my industry is starting to recover. In the last 2 months I've made as much as I've made all the rest of the year.

We make stuff

You make stuff here in the U.S.?

What do you make?

Cheeseburgers.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well my industry is starting to recover. In the last 2 months I've made as much as I've made all the rest of the year.

We make stuff

You make stuff here in the U.S.?

What do you make?

Cheeseburgers.

Is that you Bush?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well my industry is starting to recover. In the last 2 months I've made as much as I've made all the rest of the year.

We make stuff

You make stuff here in the U.S.?

What do you make?

Cheeseburgers.

Is that you Bush?

Dont you mean Greenspan? And that was a comment on the difficulty of classiying on what is a manufacturing job....

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
This is not due to the stimulus since most of it hasn't even been spent yet. The economy heals on it's own so long as it is not actively collapsing.

Well it would appear that economists disagree with you.

The same retarded economists who never saw the crash coming?

A lot of economists were calling things ahead of time.

 

[Acanthus]

I would tend to believe nobel prize winning economists before a fox news pundit...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I would tend to believe nobel prize winning economists before a fox news pundit...

That's kind of funny actually, because some bumpkin here literally told me he would take the opinion of internet pundits more seriously than nobel economists. That's more sad than funny, but that's the gist of it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
The economy had was already turning around before the stimulus was even passed.

You live in your own alternate reality, don't you Charrison?

 

[piasabird]

Wait till the FHA and HUD both go under and we lose even more money. The President has done nothing to tighten up credit in the housing market It can all collapse rather quickly. What has President O'Bammah done to fix the Real Estate problems? The answer is nothing.