• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

We needs more Stimulus!!! Unemployment at 10.2%

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I dont' know, but this should codify the obvious - less education has a direct impact on your hiring prospects. We should spend far less resources on those who won't or can't bother to educate themselves, and more on those who do; and spending gobs of money on trying to save the jobs low-education workers in dying fields like automaking is especially pointless.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/172215-chart-of-the-week-unemployment-rates-based-on-education-level
I can agree with that to a degree, but of our wealth-producing fields - manufacturing, mining, and farming - only farming is doing at all well, the others are in serious decline. However our wealth consumption is as high as ever. For any country, no matter how highly individual jobs are paid with internal currency, net wealth produced has to equal or exceed net wealth consumed or we go into debt, which we've been doing since the 60s at (generally) an ever-increasing pace. George W. Bush doubled our national debt in eight years; Obama will do that in less than four. These figures don't even count all the stocks, bonds, property, etc. bought by foreign individuals and companies.

We are headed for a fall of epic proportions, and it's not Bush or Obama or even Congress that caused the problem - we caused it ourselves.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Meh, I considered that as I edited my post. If he stopped twisting numbers to support his agenda, then calling him would be a hack would be name calling. As it stands I'm just stating a fact.
You are really starting to appear dense. I explained it to you twice. I had Politifact explain it to you. I also said several times that their projections were wrong and deserve to be challenged. The only "twisting" going on is by you when you claim I said job loss was no big deal or only relative. I'm not seeing how I'm a hack because you don't understand simple math concepts or are sold by a talking point which was objectively refuted.

In light of your defense of name calling, you're an idiot. I'm merely stating that as a fact, since you've objectively demonstrated an inability to comprehend simple argument suggesting an IQ deviating below the norm.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I'm from New York and was driven away in the first mass exodus from the state in 1988 when they quadrupled property taxes on Long Island. 2 million people left Long Island that year and most settled in South Florida as evidenced by Florida gaining two seats in the house and NY losing two seats.

So I know all about who pays the bills. NY continued to spend as evidenced by the situation they are on now. They need to continue to bleed.

It is the best thing that the rich are leaving. Soon real Americans will be able to take NY back after it goes belly up because of the rich.
Yeah, be sure and let us know how that works out for you.

I'm always amazed when people leave a city (e.g. New York) or state (e.g. New jersey) that's controlled almost exclusively by Democrats because "rich Republicans" are ruining it. Mostly I'm amazed that these people can actually do something that significant for themselves. (Not to mention doing it without learning anything from the experience, even accidentally.)

But then, perhaps you did learn something after all. I'm betting you didn't move to, say, Cabrini Green, where you could really get away from rich Republicans.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,764
784
126
Yeah, be sure and let us know how that works out for you.

I'm always amazed when people leave a city (e.g. New York) or state (e.g. New jersey) that's controlled almost exclusively by Democrats because "rich Republicans" are ruining it. Mostly I'm amazed that these people can actually do something that significant for themselves. (Not to mention doing it without learning anything from the experience, even accidentally.)

But then, perhaps you did learn something after all. I'm betting you didn't move to, say, Cabrini Green, where you could really get away from rich Republicans.
Maybe because Democrats are the party of the rich now?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I know that, but if prices were rising rapidly primarily because oil was in very short supply, how exactly does having very high short-term interest rates fix that problem?
For one, raising interest rates is going to make borrowing dollars more costly and is always a tool used to fight inflation because it's very successful at removing excess liquidity, which leads to inflation all else equal (which was the case in the early 80's). Volker did it because he saw that growth was stagnating because businesses were becoming persistently uncertain about inflation. At the time it was unexpected and it took Milton Friedman to actually come up for reasons why stagflation was occurring (he correctly predicted it was because expectations for inflation weren't properly factored in originally). Volker likely believed that the real (or natural) rate of unemployment would return to normal once he had "flushed" the system of excess dollars, which has the effect of reducing overall price levels (in most cases). And he was right.

Also, a lot of people cite Bretton Woods and abandoning it for some of the effects of stagflation because it may have contributed to OPEC's decision to hike prices by reducing supplies (i.e. they were getting less for the same supply because everyone starting floating their currencies). This isn't a crazy proposition and probably has some real truth to it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I know that, but if prices were rising rapidly primarily because oil was in very short supply, how exactly does having very high short-term interest rates fix that problem?
Credit increases the money supply faster than it increases the supply of goods and services. Raising interest rates reduces the amount of money in the system by making marginal borrowing ventures impractical and marginal borrowers unqualified. (A loan that costs $500,000 over its life makes sense for a business venture that promises a $600,000 return; raise the interest rate so that the loan costs $700,000 and it won't get made.) Reducing the amount of money in the system makes goods cheaper, thus retarding inflation. Oil prices may or may not go down, but prices overall have to go down because there is now less money to purchase them.

Dang, I was too slow!
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I know that, but if prices were rising rapidly primarily because oil was in very short supply, how exactly does having very high short-term interest rates fix that problem?
Oil is priced in US dollars. Raising or lowering the value of the dollar directly affects the purchasing power of those selling the oil. So the "value" of oil can remain unchanged yet cost more or less actual dollars per unit. A stronger dollar therefor can and will cause the price of oil to drop (in a vacuum, obviously many other factors are at play) as well as the inverse (a weaker dollar causing oil to rise in price). Raising interest rates makes a specific currency more "expensive" (again, over simplified).

Take a look at the charts for the dollar and oil for the last 6 months. Notice any correlation? Now if you really wanna have fun, take a look at the dollar chart and the S&P over the last 6 months. I haven't heard many people relate the recent stock market rally with the decline of the dollar but i'll be damned if the charts don't show them moving almost in unison (one goes up the other goes down). If its not some insane coincidence, or perhaps some other explanation I am not an expert by any means, its just one more reason we are really fubar. We import way to much, and don't have the ability to replace the supply in a timely fashion, for a week dollar to be good for the average American.

Look on the bright side though, a select few are making a fortune.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
I'm from New York and was driven away in the first mass exodus from the state in 1988 when they quadrupled property taxes on Long Island. 2 million people left Long Island that year and most settled in South Florida as evidenced by Florida gaining two seats in the house and NY losing two seats.

So I know all about who pays the bills. NY continued to spend as evidenced by the situation they are on now. They need to continue to bleed.

It is the best thing that the rich are leaving. Soon real Americans will be able to take NY back after it goes belly up because of the rich.
Your first two paragraphs make sense but your third is a can of fail.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
I can agree with that to a degree, but of our wealth-producing fields - manufacturing, mining, and farming - only farming is doing at all well, the others are in serious decline. However our wealth consumption is as high as ever. For any country, no matter how highly individual jobs are paid with internal currency, net wealth produced has to equal or exceed net wealth consumed or we go into debt, which we've been doing since the 60s at (generally) an ever-increasing pace. George W. Bush doubled our national debt in eight years; Obama will do that in less than four. These figures don't even count all the stocks, bonds, property, etc. bought by foreign individuals and companies.

We are headed for a fall of epic proportions, and it's not Bush or Obama or even Congress that caused the problem - we caused it ourselves.
Those aren't our 'wealth producing fields' nearly as much as they once were though. America's biggest and best wealth producing industry is intellectual property, as it accounts for more than half of all US export dollars. Patents and services are what the US exports, and we do it better than anyone else. THAT is what education is most valuable for. (along with greater internal efficiency)
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Those aren't our 'wealth producing fields' nearly as much as they once were though. America's biggest and best wealth producing industry is intellectual property, as it accounts for more than half of all US export dollars. Patents and services are what the US exports, and we do it better than anyone else. THAT is what education is most valuable for. (along with greater internal efficiency)
It still doesn't change the fact that we are required to import a ton of our necessities. When we get into a trick bag like we are now where the Government is purposely devaluing the dollar those imports become more expensive. Just to use 1 example, if gas goes back to $4 a gallon due to a weakened dollar the consumer, which makes up 70% of the economy, instantly loses purchasing power that could otherwise be spent on stuff that helps the economy. As a result, less jobs are created or saved, as a result the economy suffers, as a result the government continues its lose money policy that further weakens the dollar and round and round we go.

We are a net importing country in which 70% of the economy is based on consumer spending and a large portion of the rest is based on Government spending and a portion of that is based on spending borrowed money. Our external debt is mostly short term even though "interest rates" are at historical lows, meaning a small bump in rates will drastically increase yearly interest payments on our debt that we have no ability whatsoever to pay down which brings up another point. Will our lenders continue to put up with us weakening the dollar? We can strengthen it at the cost of the equities market (I think) but is that our politicians are willing to do? I guarantee they aren't willing to do it before the 2010 elections.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
I'm from New York and was driven away in the first mass exodus from the state in 1988 when they quadrupled property taxes on Long Island. 2 million people left Long Island that year and most settled in South Florida as evidenced by Florida gaining two seats in the house and NY losing two seats.
Since the population of LI (i.e. nassau/suffolk) is about 2 million, I must assume you are including Queens and Brooklyn in that exodus number, but still can't find anything about 1/3 of the population of the island leaving. Do you have any support for that?
 

gwydion75

Junior Member
Jul 11, 2007
24
0
0
In 6 pages I've seen very little in the way of actual debate. Arguing about the validity of published government numbers or which president is the most at fault will get you nowhere.

What policy or idea created this problem? Interventionism. How do you fix it? Reduce interventionism.

What's your dollar worth? The government can do nothing without taxing, borrowing, or printing money.

In the case of all 3, individual purchasing power decreases, whether through direct or indirect reduction in wages or inflation in prices.

I'm not sure why anyone wants that effect.

Secondly, when government "regulates" an industry, it increases the costs for that industry. To Walmart or Wells Fargo, the "cost" will be "greater", but it will have a smaller impact on their business than it does to Mom & Pop stores, who still have to meet the regulations, despite a far smaller bottom line. Out goes the local competition. This will happen with medical care as well. The doctor on the corner won't exist, and is already struggling to exist without a veritable team of people to handle the paperwork.

Thirdly, when supply is the same, but demand is increased, prices go up. In the case of schools and medical insurance, the "service price" to the consumer is invisible, but that doesn't mean its irrelevent. In the back, the prices will continue to rise, which will then be met with an increase in taxes and premiums. It's inevitable. This is also a direct result of a lack of the consumer being able to decide something is "too expensive for them". No one is applying downward pressure on the prices that you normally see when buying tourist towels on the Mexican Riviera, or flowers from the guy on the corner, or breast implants.

These are the concepts that should be discussed. Unemployment is high because businesses have no money. They have no money because prices, due to inflation or regulation, have shot through the roof, and they've been borrowing money from banks for too long, to stay afloat.

PS, the price fixing at the Federal Reserve, allowing "easy money" to the banks, results in easy money for businesses and consumers as well. This leads to poor decision-making and long-term debt expenses that most people discount, but that eventually collapse on you.

Discuss!
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
Take a look at the charts for the dollar and oil for the last 6 months. Notice any correlation? Now if you really wanna have fun, take a look at the dollar chart and the S&P over the last 6 months. I haven't heard many people relate the recent stock market rally with the decline of the dollar but i'll be damned if the charts don't show them moving almost in unison (one goes up the other goes down). If its not some insane coincidence, or perhaps some other explanation I am not an expert by any means, its just one more reason we are really fubar. We import way to much, and don't have the ability to replace the supply in a timely fashion, for a week dollar to be good for the average American.

Look on the bright side though, a select few are making a fortune.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1621-We-Dont-Need-Any-Steenking-Consumers.html

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/uploads/Nov2009/dx-carry-again.png

then you look at gold and it matches exactly.

just trying to figure out how to retain my earnings. in warren i trust :D
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Those aren't our 'wealth producing fields' nearly as much as they once were though. America's biggest and best wealth producing industry is intellectual property, as it accounts for more than half of all US export dollars. Patents and services are what the US exports, and we do it better than anyone else. THAT is what education is most valuable for. (along with greater internal efficiency)
That's a very good point. I had forgotten that a country can produce a secondary product of value and get material wealth in exchange.

You smart fella!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY