QuoteObama: U.S. rescued from economic disaster
By BEN FELLER • Associated Press • August 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is welcoming an improved national employment report, saying his administration has "rescued our economy from collapse."
In an appearance on the White House Rose Garden, Obama applauded a Labor Department report earlier today saying that the jobless rate declined to 9.4% from 9.5% a month earlier.
But he said much more needs to be done and that he won't rest until "every American that is looking for a job can find one."
Obama said, "We have a steep mountain to climb and we started in a very deep valley."
Happy days are here again. :)
Mission Accomplished!
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
Mission Accomplished!
He may not be more competent, but at least Obama is politically astute enough not to fly onto an aircraft carrier with that message. ;)
The recession is imploding!
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2009, 12:58:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
Mission Accomplished!
He may not be more competent, but at least Obama is politically astute enough not to fly onto an aircraft carrier with that message. ;)
Now he can fly, eh? :rolleyes:
I like that the AP calls this article: White House still warns of 10 percent jobless rate
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 07, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2009, 12:58:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
Mission Accomplished!
He may not be more competent, but at least Obama is politically astute enough not to fly onto an aircraft carrier with that message. ;)
Now he can fly, eh? :rolleyes:
Apparently he can do something even more remarkable: reduce unemployment 6 months after taking office in the worst economic crisis since WWII. :)
:yeah:
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
That's even more impressive than inventing the internet :)
Quote from: Faeelin on August 07, 2009, 12:59:20 PM
The recession is imploding!
:lmfao:
The recent job loss statistics are just evidence that the recession is desperate and on its last legs.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2009, 01:05:15 PM
Apparently he can do something even more remarkable: reduce unemployment 6 months after taking office in the worst economic crisis since WWII. :)
:lol: Yeah. It's magic!
For the record, I didn't doubt Obama's economic abilities for one second. I think it's a well known fact that it takes five months before the new president can start having an effect on the economy, and we've seen proof of it again.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 07, 2009, 01:00:43 PM
Now he can fly, eh? :rolleyes:
Somebody quick, blackface this photo:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesblogs.latimes.com%2Fherocomplex%2Fimages%2F2008%2F11%2F14%2Fgreatest_american_hero.jpg&hash=e5013aba7f4a0971722fae87c681553c3bc045f0)
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2009, 01:33:42 PM
For the record, I didn't doubt Obama's economic abilities for one second.
I never once doubted his ability to take credit for the eventual recovery. :)
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
I know all the projections show unemployment going up through the end of the year and going over 10% in this country, but if unemployment has actually fallen (and this isn't an artifact of sampling or another error), maybe we are turning the corner sooner than expected.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
despite other indicators, the fact that unemployment keeps rising in the US, UK and Canada, tells me that we are still in very bad shape.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 07, 2009, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
despite other indicators, the fact that unemployment keeps rising in the US, UK and Canada, tells me that we are still in very bad shape.
This thread starts with the report that the unemployment rate fell in the US in July (from 9.5% to 9.4%).
Ron Paul would have done better.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 07, 2009, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
despite other indicators, the fact that unemployment keeps rising in the US, UK and Canada, tells me that we are still in very bad shape.
I thought unemployment was a lagging indicator ?
God Bless Obama. Saviour of the World.
Quote from: Josephus on August 07, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
God Bless Obama. Saviour of the World.
Revolution postponed.:console:
Quote from: Josephus on August 07, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
God Bless Obama. Saviour of the World.
Gordon Brown gets no love :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0`
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2009, 02:41:06 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 07, 2009, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 07, 2009, 01:17:00 PM
Good news, the unemployment rate has dropped, even if only by a small amount, it's the right direction and hopefully it keeps going that way. :)
Unemployment will keep rising but I believe a number of other early indicators are looking good, in both the US and the UK.
despite other indicators, the fact that unemployment keeps rising in the US, UK and Canada, tells me that we are still in very bad shape.
This thread starts with the report that the unemployment rate fell in the US in July (from 9.5% to 9.4%).
Unemployment only "fell" because half a million people have quit looking for a job altogether. The overall labor market shrank by 800,000 last month. If we factor for that the unemployment rate actually increased to 9.9 percent.
In any event, the federal unemployment figure is a totally bullshit, meaningless statistic (even moreso than most government stats).
Quote from: Caliga on August 07, 2009, 03:22:05 PM
In any event, the federal unemployment figure is a totally bullshit, meaningless statistic (even moreso than most government stats).
:Michael Douglas:?
Quote from: Caliga on August 07, 2009, 03:22:05 PM
In any event, the federal unemployment figure is a totally bullshit, meaningless statistic (even moreso than most government stats).
Look at the seasonally adjusted U-5 or U-6 numbers instead of the baseline U-3.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 07, 2009, 03:18:00 PM
Unemployment only "fell" because half a million people have quit looking for a job altogether. The overall labor market shrank by 800,000 last month. If we factor for that the unemployment rate actually increased to 9.9 percent.
Hey now suspect math was good enough to declare we had a federal surplus 10 years ago so why not do it again with unemployment stats?
Quote from: ulmont on August 07, 2009, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 07, 2009, 03:22:05 PM
In any event, the federal unemployment figure is a totally bullshit, meaningless statistic (even moreso than most government stats).
Look at the seasonally adjusted U-5 or U-6 numbers instead of the baseline U-3.
Which also declined.
QuoteUnemployment only "fell" because half a million people have quit looking for a job altogether. The overall labor market shrank by 800,000 last month. If we factor for that the unemployment rate actually increased to 9.9 percent.
Why would they do that? :s
If you're unemployed and don't want to be employed you should at least stay on the books to get your unemployment benefits...
Quote from: Faeelin on August 07, 2009, 12:59:20 PM
The recession is imploding!
:lol:
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2009, 04:10:31 PM
Why would they do that? :s
If you're unemployed and don't want to be employed you should at least stay on the books to get your unemployment benefits...
Not everyone who is unemployed qualifies for unemployment benefits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2009, 04:14:32 PM
Not everyone who is unemployed qualifies for unemployment benefits.
Or wants them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2009, 04:14:32 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2009, 04:10:31 PM
Why would they do that? :s
If you're unemployed and don't want to be employed you should at least stay on the books to get your unemployment benefits...
Not everyone who is unemployed qualifies for unemployment benefits.
Werid, but still. Why bother to unregister?
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2009, 04:43:43 PM
Werid, but still. Why bother to unregister?
In the US you file a claim for unemployment insurance and if you meet the qualifications you get some money. If those people were deemed not to qualify, or if their eligibility had run out (you can only claim for a certain amount of time), or if they had never claimed in the first place because they knew they didn't qualify then there's not a lot of point in continuing to file a claim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2009, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2009, 04:43:43 PM
Werid, but still. Why bother to unregister?
In the US you file a claim for unemployment insurance and if you meet the qualifications you get some money. If those people were deemed not to qualify, or if their eligibility had run out (you can only claim for a certain amount of time), or if they had never claimed in the first place because they knew they didn't qualify then there's not a lot of point in continuing to file a claim.
Or if they never claimed because they didn't want to file for benefits.
Wow! What a shocker! Who would have thought that after six months the numbers would look so different.
Well, I did for one, the usual term of collecting unemployment before eligibility runs out is six months than you're off the books er I mean no longer unemployed according to government statistics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 07, 2009, 04:50:51 PM
Or if they never claimed because they didn't want to file for benefits.
Quit stalking me.
Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2009, 04:00:48 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 07, 2009, 03:18:00 PM
Unemployment only "fell" because half a million people have quit looking for a job altogether. The overall labor market shrank by 800,000 last month. If we factor for that the unemployment rate actually increased to 9.9 percent.
Hey now suspect math was good enough to declare we had a federal surplus 10 years ago so why not do it again with unemployment stats?
We didn't have a surplus in the 90s? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2009, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 07, 2009, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 07, 2009, 03:22:05 PM
In any event, the federal unemployment figure is a totally bullshit, meaningless statistic (even moreso than most government stats).
Look at the seasonally adjusted U-5 or U-6 numbers instead of the baseline U-3.
Which also declined.
Yes. By about the margin of error on the household surveys they derive that figure from.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 07, 2009, 05:09:20 PM
We didn't have a surplus in the 90s? :huh:
My understanding is the surplus appeared when they took Social Security off the books. So it was just an accounting trick.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 02:53:56 PM
I thought unemployment was a lagging indicator ?
Yes and no. The unemployment rate's partially calculated from continuing claims, which is people who are filing for the previous week or even two weeks.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 07, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
God Bless Obama. Saviour of the World.
Gordon Brown gets no love :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0`
Poor Gordo, I feel sorry for him.
Anyway, every time I see Cameron in the Parliament, I am reminded what a tosser he is.
Vote Lib-Dem. :cry:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2009, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 07, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
God Bless Obama. Saviour of the World.
Gordon Brown gets no love :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0`
Gordon Brown; the man for whom the concept "damnatio memoriae" should have been invented...
Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 07, 2009, 05:09:20 PM
We didn't have a surplus in the 90s? :huh:
My understanding is the surplus appeared when they took Social Security off the books. So it was just an accounting trick.
Oh wow, is that what was done? Lol, what a joke, on us. I think I'd heard of that but forgot. Soc Sec is one of the more important and troublesome issues, and there haven't been many fixes to it since Pres Reagan which I think was basically a tax hike. This is something the Obama admin will probably have to take on too. Bush tried and the poltics of it were a divisive, angry mess, kind of like with health care now.
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2009, 04:10:31 PM
Why would they do that? :s
If you're unemployed and don't want to be employed you should at least stay on the books to get your unemployment benefits...
Unemployment benefit rolls have nothing to do with unemployment figure, that's a very common misconception.
Quote from: Strix on August 07, 2009, 04:52:49 PM
Well, I did for one, the usual term of collecting unemployment before eligibility runs out is six months than you're off the books er I mean no longer unemployed according to government statistics.
That's 100% false.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 07, 2009, 11:12:48 PM
Yes and no. The unemployment rate's partially calculated from continuing claims, which is people who are filing for the previous week or even two weeks.
No, it isn't. Unemployment rate is fully calculated from the results of surveys.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 07, 2009, 12:59:20 PM
The recession is imploding!
Heh. Did he stand in front of a banner proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished!"
Quote from: DGuller on August 08, 2009, 10:01:33 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 07, 2009, 04:52:49 PM
Well, I did for one, the usual term of collecting unemployment before eligibility runs out is six months than you're off the books er I mean no longer unemployed according to government statistics.
That's 100% false.
How so?
Quote from: DGuller on August 08, 2009, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 07, 2009, 11:12:48 PM
Yes and no. The unemployment rate's partially calculated from continuing claims, which is people who are filing for the previous week or even two weeks.
No, it isn't. Unemployment rate is fully calculated from the results of surveys.
So, they survey everyone in the US to determine the unemployment rate?
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:23:04 PM
So, they survey everyone in the US to determine the unemployment rate?
No, just everyone in the random sample.
Quote from: DGuller on August 08, 2009, 10:23:42 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:23:04 PM
So, they survey everyone in the US to determine the unemployment rate?
No, just everyone in the random sample.
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
What's so dreaded about a sample?
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 03:40:11 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
What's so dreaded about a sample?
People who don't understand statistics fear it. :P
Btw, how does the survey take place? If they go door to door or call people at homes, then I assume the unemployed rates would be higher than in reality, since people who are employed are more likely not to sit at home. :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2009, 03:43:19 AM
People who don't understand statistics fear it. :P
Btw, how does the survey take place? If they go door to door or call people at homes, then I assume the unemployed rates would be higher than in reality, since people who are employed are more likely not to sit at home. :D
No idea as to the mechanics of it, but I'm pretty sure that government statisticians are not anywhere near that incompetent.
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
We do that once every 10 years and it costs a fair chunk of change. And honestly, what does it matter if the unemployment rate is 9.7 as opposed to 9.3?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 05:25:34 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
We do that once every 10 years and it costs a fair chunk of change. And honestly, what does it matter if the unemployment rate is 9.7 as opposed to 9.3?
If I recall correctly, the margin of error for unemployment is actually 0.1%.
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 03:45:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 09, 2009, 03:43:19 AM
People who don't understand statistics fear it. :P
Btw, how does the survey take place? If they go door to door or call people at homes, then I assume the unemployed rates would be higher than in reality, since people who are employed are more likely not to sit at home. :D
No idea as to the mechanics of it, but I'm pretty sure that government statisticians are not anywhere near that incompetent.
The Department of Labor has the mechanics on their website. They basically survey 60,000 people each month. They survey those same 60,000 for X number of consecutive months (I think 4-6). They actually never ask if they are employed or not but infer it based on the answers to other questions. I guess after the 4-6 months they switch to a new 60,000 sample.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 05:25:34 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
We do that once every 10 years and it costs a fair chunk of change. And honestly, what does it matter if the unemployment rate is 9.7 as opposed to 9.3?
On the bright side, unemployment will go down once the census starts next year. They pay pretty good.
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 03:40:11 AM
What's so dreaded about a sample?
It isn't exact by its very nature and can be easily manipulated. It's a useful tool but shouldn't be relied on for important things.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 05:25:34 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 08, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
Ugg, yes, the dreaded random sample. At least Clinton didn't get his way with sampling and we still have an exact census for population totals.
We do that once every 10 years and it costs a fair chunk of change. And honestly, what does it matter if the unemployment rate is 9.7 as opposed to 9.3?
It matters due to the trend. At the end of Q1 the OECD was projecting unemployment to continue increase through Q4 2010 when it would reach 10.5%. While the earlier unemployment figures were worse than their projections, the fact we had a decline (or even were just stable) could mean the worst unemployment is over--a year and a half early.
Dont forget that a drop in the unemployment rate can also mean that a significant number of people have simply removed themselves from the job market out of despair that they cant find a job. ;)
We need a lot more data before anyone can suggest that a drop of .1% means things might be improving.
Quote from: Strix on August 09, 2009, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 03:40:11 AM
What's so dreaded about a sample?
It isn't exact by its very nature and can be easily manipulated. It's a useful tool but shouldn't be relied on for important things.
So every month, every single person in the country should have to fill out a form describing their employment status?
The only practical way to get information is through a survey, which does involve some uncertainty. If you aren't comfortable with that uncertainty, then you should just ignore all economic reporting and commentary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2009, 10:56:39 AM
Dont forget that a drop in the unemployment rate can also mean that a significant number of people have simply removed themselves from the job market out of despair that they cant find a job. ;)
We need a lot more data before anyone can suggest that a drop of .1% means things might be improving.
I bet you that US GDP growth for Q3 is positive. You up for it?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 10:57:13 AM
So every month, every single person in the country should have to fill out a form describing their employment status?
The only practical way to get information is through a survey, which does involve some uncertainty. If you aren't comfortable with that uncertainty, then you should just ignore all economic reporting and commentary.
I am comfortable with the uncertainty. That isn't the issue. I am uncomfortable with the weight that is given to a sample that has such uncertainty.
I doubt it would cost that much more to survey those people who have come to the end of the unemployment benefits to find out if they found a job, stopped looking, or ran out of eligibility.
Using sampling to determine if the economy is getting better or worse is speculation at best. And basing how the government approaches the recession on speculation doesn't seem to be the best course of action to take.
The last set of unemployment rates might be a total false reflection of the true unemployment rate because the "sample" of people might have changed (as they do every so often). Any increase or decrease might just be based on the new set of variables and have nothing to do with the economy.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:02:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2009, 10:56:39 AM
Dont forget that a drop in the unemployment rate can also mean that a significant number of people have simply removed themselves from the job market out of despair that they cant find a job. ;)
We need a lot more data before anyone can suggest that a drop of .1% means things might be improving.
I bet you that US GDP growth for Q3 is positive. You up for it?
Thats just the point isnt it. We dont know yet. We really dont know what the drop in the unemployment rate means yet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2009, 10:56:39 AM
Dont forget that a drop in the unemployment rate can also mean that a significant number of people have simply removed themselves from the job market out of despair that they cant find a job. ;)
We need a lot more data before anyone can suggest that a drop of .1% means things might be improving.
We do know from the data that this is exactly what happened. Employment declined by 270,000. The labor force declined by 800,000. Ta-daa, unemployment went down, but we're still worse off than the month before. Actually, the first sign of the labor market improving will probably be a spike in unemployment as more optimistic people rush to join the labor market, but i don't expect that to happen until next summer at the earliest. The big question will be when Obama's insane spending spree sends the economy back into a tailspin?
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 09, 2009, 01:23:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2009, 10:56:39 AM
Dont forget that a drop in the unemployment rate can also mean that a significant number of people have simply removed themselves from the job market out of despair that they cant find a job. ;)
We need a lot more data before anyone can suggest that a drop of .1% means things might be improving.
We do know from the data that this is exactly what happened. Employment declined by 270,000. The labor force declined by 800,000. Ta-daa, unemployment went down, but we're still worse off than the month before. Actually, the first sign of the labor market improving will probably be a spike in unemployment as more optimistic people rush to join the labor market, but i don't expect that to happen until next summer at the earliest. The big question will be when Obama's insane spending spree sends the economy back into a tailspin?
Never, because the God Emperor's prescience will avert that before it happens.
Quote from: Strix on August 09, 2009, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 03:40:11 AM
What's so dreaded about a sample?
It isn't exact by its very nature and can be easily manipulated. It's a useful tool but shouldn't be relied on for important things.
Its inexactness is very calculable, and there is no reason why it can't be riled on for important things. What's your alternative, a monthly census?
I guess my question as to why we should care what Hans thinks about the topic is because he was among those saying, "Don't worry about the deficits, the rapid economic growth of 2009-2012 will leave us with a surplus."
Shame the old board's gone, to digt up some priceless quotes.
Quote from: Strix on August 09, 2009, 11:27:31 AM
I am comfortable with the uncertainty. That isn't the issue. I am uncomfortable with the weight that is given to a sample that has such uncertainty.
Then you're not really comfortable with uncertainty.
Quote
I doubt it would cost that much more to survey those people who have come to the end of the unemployment benefits to find out if they found a job, stopped looking, or ran out of eligibility.
Maybe it wouldn't cost much more, but then it would be very stupid from a statistics point of view. You would be calculating unemployment figures from a biased sample, which is a big no-no in statistics.
Quote
Using sampling to determine if the economy is getting better or worse is speculation at best.
No, comments like that are speculation at best.
Quote
The last set of unemployment rates might be a total false reflection of the true unemployment rate because the "sample" of people might have changed (as they do every so often). Any increase or decrease might just be based on the new set of variables and have nothing to do with the economy.
Again, the uncertainty is 0.1%, so it's not like we can go from boom to depression figures over a change of a sample.
Weirdly Irwin Stelzer sort of agrees with Obama. Indeed it's the only thing so far that he thinks Obama's got right (in terms of domestic/economic policy):
QuoteAt last Barack Obama has good news for angry voters
Irwin Stelzer
Washington has changed overnight. Yesterday the Senate followed the House of Representatives' flight from the city. On vacation? Certainly not. According to the official House schedule, its members are on their "summer district work period", a time off from legislating that the Senate calls its "state work period". Translation: members of both Houses will take some time off, and hear from constituents. With Congress's approval rating at about 24%, members should get an earful. More on that in a moment.
When Congress leaves town, the lobbyists cannot be far behind. Or the president: the Obamas will be heading for Martha's Vineyard, the summer playground of wealthy, liberal Democrats. But Obama will interrupt his holiday to flit round the country trying to explain to angry voters how a healthcare plan that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reckons will cost some $1 trillion can reduce the deficit, as he claims. And why he is trying to destroy a system that close to 90% of Americans are satisfied with.
He also has to persuade voters to press their senators to back the cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. That chore was made more difficult when India's environment minister told Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, that his country would not even consider accepting limits on its greenhouse-gas emissions until 2020, if then. This means that nothing the Senate can do will affect global warming — and the high cost of limiting American emissions would merely be an act of economic masochism.
The problems the president faces in persuading voters that the huge deficits he is running up are sustainable, that the government can run a healthcare industry that accounts for one-sixth of the economy, and that taxes on energy are a good idea, have caused a shift in the administration's strategy. The name of the game now is to trumpet the nascent economic recovery, and take credit for it.
Here, Obama is on firmer ground.
In the jobs market, less bad is good. Friday's report showed the loss of 247,000 jobs in July, way down from the monthly rate of almost 750,000 in January. Unemployment fell from 9.5% to 9.4% but only because of exits from the workforce. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2%. The recession has ended, say many economists.
The housing market seems ready for a transfer from the intensive-care unit. Prices have stopped falling and in some cities are rising, sales of new single-family homes rose 11% from May to June, and the supply of new homes available for sale is dropping. Pending home sales (those not yet completed) have risen for five consecutive months, suggesting existing sales are due to rise.
The rest of the economy is also improving. The manufacturing sector rose in July for the seventh straight month, propelled by a growth in new orders. Second-quarter GDP declined by only 1%, compared with a drop of 6.4% in the first quarter. Banks are on the mend, able to raise capital and to charge more for services now that many competitors are no more. Several have repaid the bailout money they received, giving the government an estimated 20% profit on those loans. The prices that investors are willing to pay for risky loans still on banks' books have risen to 90% of face value, the highest level in more than a year.
"The optimism is justified," Goldman Sachs headlines the latest report of its Investment Strategy Group. For the firm, euphoria would be justified. Goldman made more than $100m in trading profits on 46 days in the last quarter, during which it racked up record profits of $3.4 billion, the largest quarterly profit in its 140-year history. So far this year profits total $22 billion, of which half is being reserved for staff bonuses. The company's chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, has bowed to the populist wave sweeping the liberal Democratic Congress and the Oval Office and asked all employees to eschew ostentatious purchases. Make the old Ferrari do for a while at least. And other firms on Wall Street — banks and lawyers — are looking forward to $1 billion in fees for managing the break-up of insurer AIG.
Obama can't take credit for those profits, but since government spending is up by about 10% while consumers continue to keep their wallets zipped, he can reasonably claim that the stimulus package he pushed through Congress is responsible for the improved condition of the economy. But he is being cautious lest this proves to be a false dawn.
Still to come are more write-downs of loans on the banks' books. The business default rate exceeds 11%, and is headed toward 13%, compared with 2.4% last year. Businesses are loaded down with more than $1 trillion in high-yield bonds and loans, and so will have to concentrate on debt repayment before they can undertake big new investments. The number of prime borrowers behind on their mortgage payments rose 13.8% between March and June, according to a study by Standard & Poor's. Delinquencies on credit cards are rising. And it is estimated that some $30 billion in loans backed by commercial property will have trouble getting renewed, and might end up having to be written off.
Most ominous, the huge deficits, soon to be increased by an estimated $20 billion over five years to finance the training and expansion of the Afghan army, are forcing the Treasury to auction off more IOUs. The increased supply of these bonds has forced down their price, which means the interest rate the government must pay is rising. If the rise in rates spreads to other securities, the recovery will be slowed as consumers and businesses find borrowing to spend and invest more expensive.
Still, Obama has a good story to tell about the economy — a lot better than the story he can tell about his largely discredited healthcare plan. So look for him to scale back his ambition to set up a government-run health system, and instead prepare for next year's congressional elections by claiming credit for the emerging economic turnround.
Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute
Quote from: Faeelin on August 09, 2009, 09:58:40 PM
I guess my question as to why we should care what Hans thinks about the topic is because he was among those saying, "Don't worry about the deficits, the rapid economic growth of 2009-2012 will leave us with a surplus."
Shame the old board's gone, to digt up some priceless quotes.
:rolleyes:
I recall that too. I remember in particular a thread called "this economy is smoking!" back in 2005 where certain sergeant was praising Bush on his expert handling of the economy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 06:20:27 AM
I recall that too. I remember in particular a thread called "this economy is smoking!" back in 2005 where certain sergeant was praising Bush on his expert handling of the economy.
:jaron:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 09, 2009, 12:07:28 PM
Thats just the point isnt it. We dont know yet. We really dont know what the drop in the unemployment rate means yet.
So can I take your unwillingness to take the bet as an indication that you think the chances of positive Q3 growth are 50% or higher? Obviously we don't know what the rate will be--Q3 isn't even half over yet--but a few months ago no one was projecting Q3 growth. It is a definite positive sign.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 10, 2009, 06:17:58 AM
:rolleyes:
Just the sort of intelligent response we've all come to know and love. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 09, 2009, 11:27:31 AM
I am comfortable with the uncertainty. That isn't the issue. I am uncomfortable with the weight that is given to a sample that has such uncertainty.
Then you're not really comfortable with uncertainty.
No kidding.
Isn't the reliability of statistical sampling rather well understood?
My understanding, which is admittedly not at all professional, is that you can challenge a samples methodology, in that they may screw up how it is done, but barring that, the error rate is very well understood.
A .1% decline is important, if for no other reason than that it is not a .5% decline.
Hans makes sort of a point - to really understand what is going on, you would have to analyze the people leaving the work force in more detail. Are they older workers taking an earlier retirement or younger workers choosing this time to get some more education or training? If so that is not such a bad thing. But if we are talking about prime age workers (e.g. Detroit assembly line types) who are simply giving up and permanently joining the ranks of the informal economy, it is more of a long-term concern.
The bigger story is that the efforts to save the financial system from total collapse appear to have succeeded, but no one is rushing to pump that because: (a) it is a bipartisan story, and (b) the popular anger at the "fat cat" bankers perceived to have been the unfair beneficiaries.
Also - it would be nice to see people get away from the notion that the President has a great deal of control over the fate of economy, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 10, 2009, 06:48:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 06:20:27 AM
I recall that too. I remember in particular a thread called "this economy is smoking!" back in 2005 where certain sergeant was praising Bush on his expert handling of the economy.
:jaron:
It is a shame we lost our archives. Do you remember that thread? You started it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2009, 09:00:15 AM
Also - it would be nice to see people get away from the notion that the President has a great deal of control over the fate of economy, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
:lmfao:
Oh sure, NOW you say that!
I've been saying that on Languish for years. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on August 10, 2009, 09:23:30 AM
I've been saying that on Languish for years. :smarty:
Well sure, so have I - I just find it amusing that suddenly JR is banging on that particular drum.
His post, in general, was right on though.
Quote from: Caliga on August 10, 2009, 09:23:30 AM
I've been saying that on Languish for years. :smarty:
I am not even sure how accurate that view is. How much impact does the President have on the economy? I was told over and over again not to give Clinton any credit for the economy being good because he had nothing to do with it...
that usually came from a Republican after I said something like 'I really like Clinton's free trade and globalization policies'
'Yeah? Well they do not effect the economy because CLINTON IS EVIL AND I WANT HIM DEAD!!!111'
So yeah. I think, though, that really stupid and bad policies by the government can tank an economy immediately so who knows?
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 09:22:22 AM
:lmfao:
Oh sure, NOW you say that!
When did I say otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2009, 09:28:18 AM
I am not even sure how accurate that view is. How much impact does the President have on the economy? I was told over and over again not to give Clinton any credit for the economy being good because he had nothing to do with it...
that usually came from a Republican after I said something like 'I really like Clinton's free trade and globalization policies'
'Yeah? Well they do not effect the economy because CLINTON IS EVIL AND I WANT HIM DEAD!!!111'
So yeah. I think, though, that really stupid and bad policies by the government can tank an economy immediately so who knows?
The fact that the US didn't engage in significant protectionism in the 90s and that the budget was kept under control was a good thing. Of course, some of that was Bush Sr.'s administration in conjunction with the old Congress and some Clinton with the Gingrich Congress. And as useful as that was, there were larger forces at work aside from government policy.
I don't want to suggest the President has zero role or effect, just not necessarily the major one the media sometimes ascribes (when it isn't running its Fed conspiracy theory stories about how the Fed controls the entire economy).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2009, 09:30:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 09:22:22 AM
:lmfao:
Oh sure, NOW you say that!
When did I say otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
In Berkut's mind the caricature of you did.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2009, 09:30:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 09:22:22 AM
:lmfao:
Oh sure, NOW you say that!
When did I say otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
When did I say you said otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
When did I say you said otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
So...you are saying the Joan wouldn't have said that while Bush was President not that he said that Bush impacted the economy...do I have that right?
I just blame the jews, like normal people.
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2009, 09:48:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
When did I say you said otherwise? :huh: :unsure:
So...you are saying the Joan wouldn't have said that while Bush was President not that he said that Bush impacted the economy...do I have that right?
More to the point that it is funny that now that Obama is President he is beating that drum, while I never heard him say anything like that back when the lefty crowd was beating the crap out of Bush, or Reagan, or Bush Sr., or whoever over their "destroying of the economy".
I don't doubt that he believes it, nor do I doubt that it is true. Just found the timing rather amusing.
I don't get it. The economy isn't great but clearly has improved since Obama entered office. If I really was the partisan hack Berkut suggests, why would I be highlighting this particular point now?
I want to rebutt the rebuttal that the president doesn't affect the economy. Obviously it's foolish to attribute cyclical fluctuations in the economy to them, but in the longer term they can drive the agenda that can be helpful or hurtful for the economy. Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike. However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2009, 09:54:43 AM
I don't get it. The economy isn't great but clearly has improved since Obama entered office. If I really was the partisan hack Berkut suggests, why would I be highlighting this particular point now?
The amusement isn't over you highlighting it now, it is over you NOT highlighting it in the past.
Anyway, it was an aside - don't take it so seriously - it was not intended that seriously. And I do not think you are a partisan hack - partisan certainly, but no hack.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 10:23:38 AM
Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike. However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.
Unions were already in the midst of a long secular decline - Reagan's move highlighted that fact and arguably may have emboldened some employers, but IMO in the grand scheme it is still a minor event in the context of a much broader, long-term story.
Meanwhile as the traditional craft and industrial unions continue to stagnate, the public sector unions are as frisky as ever. As our friend strix can remind us.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2009, 10:34:02 AM
Unions were already in the midst of a long secular decline - Reagan's move highlighted that fact and arguably may have emboldened some employers, but IMO in the grand scheme it is still a minor event in the context of a much broader, long-term story.
Meanwhile as the traditional craft and industrial unions continue to stagnate, the public sector unions are as frisky as ever. As our friend strix can remind us.
Ok, maybe a better example would be widespread deregulation, starting with Ford and continuing in force with Reagan. Some of it was done with extreme stupidity, like the S&L debacle, but a lot of it was very beneficial in the long run. The presidents were the ones pushing the deregulation agenda.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 10:23:38 AM
I want to rebutt the rebuttal that the president doesn't affect the economy. Obviously it's foolish to attribute cyclical fluctuations in the economy to them, but in the longer term they can drive the agenda that can be helpful or hurtful for the economy. Reagan making an example of air traffic controllers didn't improve the 1981 GDP, if anything he probably made it worse due to a strike. However, the effects of dealing a severe blow to the union movement continue to this day, and IMO they're quite substantial.
I brought up in another thread that the President can appoint people to the Federal Reserve and the various agencies that set economic policy and enforce regulation. Thus the President has some degree of control over the economy in that respect but not many people agreed with it.
Quote from: Vince on August 10, 2009, 12:18:30 PM
I brought up in another thread that the President can appoint people to the Federal Reserve and the various agencies that set economic policy and enforce regulation. Thus the President has some degree of control over the economy in that respect but not many people agreed with it.
I agree with it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 10, 2009, 06:48:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 06:20:27 AM
I recall that too. I remember in particular a thread called "this economy is smoking!" back in 2005 where certain sergeant was praising Bush on his expert handling of the economy.
:jaron:
It is a shame we lost our archives. Do you remember that thread? You started it.
Stop using drugs in your parent's basement, you fucking retard. As usual you don't have a clue what your talking about - that is, when you're not simply making shit up since your incapable of making an intelligent argument.
Just as a little refresher, not that this would ever make it thru your little retarded brain, here's a recap:
Way back in late 2004 (and several times in subsequent years) JR was making an argument that the Bush's deficits was causing the dollar to drop vs other currencies, which I rebutted by making the argument that 1. drop in the value of the dollar was a monetary issue of the Fed under Greenspan practicing to loose a monetary policy (citing the great Milton Friedman "inflation always and everywhere is a monetary problem"), and second, that deficits, as long as they do not exceed economic growth, are entirely manageable, since the only thing that matters is the publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP (which was basically flat during the Bush years)
The stupid thing is that even if your claim about my position was true, you don't have an actual argument to make. Just because somebody is fine with a deficit of 3 percent, it does not follow that he should also be fine with a deficit of 12 percent. How does that even make a remote amount of sense? Only a retard would make that argument.
However, when you decry a deficit of 3 percent as bankrupting the nation, as you, my little psych-ward patient have argued in the past, it is completely incoherent to argue that a defict of 12 percent in the short term, and deficits above 6 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see are suddenly just fine. Only somebody who is either certifyably insane, or somebody who can't really think but only regurgitate a party-line, no matter how intellectually incoherent.
One of my points (as I recall) is that the Bush fiscal position was inherently unsustainable because it depended on double-digit increases in profits and associated tax receipts year-after-year. Thus, even though Bush was running "only" 3 percent GDP deficits, that number was misleadingly low because it was being flattered by an unusually frothy profits cycle. I predicted that the fiscal position of the country was due for a significant deterioration- which I estimated would probably occur in the 2006-07. That turned about to be wrong: the crash came a couple years later, but was even worse then I thought it would be.
Note that the majority of the present deficit is due to prior spending commitments vs. present receipts; for all the criticism of the stimulus package, its relative contribution is not that great. If long-term deficits of 6 percent are to be deemed unsustainable, then there is no way we should have running 3 percent at the top of the boom in 2005. On the contrary, we should have taken a page from the Clinton years and be running a slight surplus during that time period.
These came out yesterday; mixed news, or take a bit from recession recovery. I guess with the retail sales drop it was mitigated by the rise in auto sales, but was a pretty bad time for other retailers. :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32400126/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Weekly jobless claims rise unexpectedly
Four-week moving average rises; continuing claims drop sharply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32399822/ns/business-retail/
Retail sales post surprise drop for July
Unexpected drop raises worries about consumer spending
Quote from: KRonn on August 14, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
These came out yesterday; mixed news, or take a bit from recession recovery. I guess with the retail sales drop it was mitigated by the rise in auto sales, but was a pretty bad time for other retailers. :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32400126/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Weekly jobless claims rise unexpectedly
Four-week moving average rises; continuing claims drop sharply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32399822/ns/business-retail/
Retail sales post surprise drop for July
Unexpected drop raises worries about consumer spending
What I find interesting is that gas prices are rapidly rising, at least where I live, and there is no mention of it. It's gone from around $2.50 a gallon to $2.85 in less than a month. Last time gas got this high the media was predicting doom and gloom.
Yet, not a peep even though Bush got slammed hard over the same thing happening when he was President.
I wonder how much it's affecting consumers.
Quote from: Strix on August 14, 2009, 11:46:36 AM
What I find interesting is that gas prices are rapidly rising, at least where I live, and there is no mention of it. It's gone from around $2.50 a gallon to $2.85 in less than a month. Last time gas got this high the media was predicting doom and gloom.
Yet, not a peep even though Bush got slammed hard over the same thing happening when he was President.
I wonder how much it's affecting consumers.
Yeah I was mentioning that the other week to someone. It's like other things have gotten so bad that we aren't going to go back to our leisurely role of complaining about gas prices.
Quote from: KRonn on August 14, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32399822/ns/business-retail/
Retail sales post surprise drop for July
Unexpected drop raises worries about consumer spending
Retail will follow on from credit card defaults (which have increased a lot in the US) and unemployment. It'll probably be a dreadful summer for retail but I think this autumn and Christmas could be better than last year.