The Obama Boom.

[bernardos70]

We started talking about Iraq here, this is the war in question. And while some of these wars may have been worthy, this one isn't, in my view, one of those. A war which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and thousands upon thousands US Troops.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really?

tell the north koreans, who live right next to a free and democratic south korea, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

tell the bosnians, who were being murdered by the serbs, the same.

did you see the photos of the women in afganistan who had their schools burned to the ground by the taliban, were not allowed to go to school, or for that matter to leave their homes, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

individual rights are not something that is respected throughout our world. I'm proud to say that our country has many times been an instrument of good in producing these rights for others, and done so with the blood of american soldiers.

^^^The Western Liberal's Burden....bombing people for their own good for nearly a century now....

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the W. Liberals burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the W. Liberal's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

^^^The Western Liberal's Burden....bombing people for their own good for nearly a century now....

is that what you will tell the north koreans who starve while their bethern in the south have plenty? or will you sing that to the afgani women?

ah, to be as cynical as you alex, to be able to say that the american way is only one of greed and conquest, of the american people merely puppets for the wall street bankers who truly are in control, that these decades of the world being led by america really hasn't produced freedom for so many.

it just ain't so. your mantra makes for a good dime novel, but it isn't reality.

yeah, it's all a bunch of "western liberal" propaganda...jeesh. amazing how blind someone can be.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really?

tell the north koreans, who live right next to a free and democratic south korea, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

tell the bosnians, who were being murdered by the serbs, the same.

did you see the photos of the women in afganistan who had their schools burned to the ground by the taliban, were not allowed to go to school, or for that matter to leave their homes, that it had "jack shit to do with freedom".

individual rights are not something that is respected throughout our world. I'm proud to say that our country has many times been an instrument of good in producing these rights for others, and done so with the blood of american soldiers.

One of the reasons you are one of my favorite liberals. Very liberal dude, but you get it. Reality is different from wishitwas.

[dalmations202]

My purpose for the statement that I wrote a page back, wasn't about the shedding of blood for blindly following the government. It was to get people to understand that freedom's come with a price (that price is blood).

If the police won't arrest someone for raping and killing -- if they aren't willing to offer their blood if the case arise -- then you live or die by the whim of the powerful. Women are second class in some countries -- because men will not say no and offer their blood to make sure that the physically weaker sex is not made into a second class citizen. This country has a history with slavery for the same reason.

The cost of freedom is blood. Heck, if firemen weren't willing to risk their lives - then we would have more burnings. Life as we live; it costs.

I am not talking about whether we as Americans should be in any other country or blindly follow the government to any war. That is a totally different situation -- but if the Iraq people want freedom -- it costs blood. If the North Koreans want freedom, it will cost blood. It may be American blood or Russian, Chinese, or Iranian blood, but it will cost blood, and the biggest givers will be wherever the battles are fought.

If Iraq wants to stay a democracy with the limited "freedom" we have given them (and the possibility of a larger freedom ongoing), then they will have to be willing to give blood.

When people stop standing up for what is right, and they get scared, and get to the point of not being willing to give blood --- then they become slaves in one form or another.

There is a reason that "give me liberty or give me death" was made famous.


You may believe that every war/skirmish we have been in since the civil war was wrong, and maybe it was -- but until we lose greed, envy, etc and start following the ways of Jesus, then you cannot have that type of peace. Everyone will have to learn to be selfless instead of selfish, and always wanting more.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

One of the reasons you are one of my favorite liberals. Very liberal dude, but you get it. Reality is different from wishitwas.

My point is that mavsog's view is quintessentially Liberal. He's left of Woodrow Wilson. The White Man's Burden was Kipling's way of encouraging the USA to take up Britians role as an imperial power and it was the progressives that really took up the call.

The notion of using war as a means of social progress is prototypically left-wing. That republicans in the US also support war as a means for social progress is a testament to their leftiness. Nothing whatsoever anomolous about lefties touting war as a means of progress...it's in their DNA.

Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun, as Chairman Mao might say.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

My point is that mavsog's view is quintessentially Liberal. He's left of Woodrow Wilson. The White Man's Burden was Kipling's way of encouraging the USA to take up Britians role as an imperial power and it was the progressives that really took up the call.

The notion of using war as a means of social progress is prototypically left-wing. That republicans in the US also support war as a means for social
progress is a testament to their leftiness. Nothing whatsoever anomolous about lefties touting war as a means of progress...it's in their DNA.

the history of america is not one of the "usa [taking] up britain's role as an imperial power", and a look at modern political dynamics show that it was america who led the cause of the end of european colonialism. your neo-isolationism clouds your vision.

odd, at no time have I been guilty of "touting war". looking at history and the affects of conflicts is not akin to "touting", it is a easy exercise of understanding outcomes. I'll leave the "touting" to the neo-conservatives who brought us the unnecessary war with iraq.

as it stands you have not answered the questions about the two koreas, or of the afganis, or of the muslim albanians that were aided by american intervention.

have their been mistakes and wrong decisions by americans? sure. the numerous strongmen who were beneficiaries of american support while at the same time were plundering their countries. geopolitics is a very messy affair, and we are not without errors.

yet that is not the point of the discussion, which to recap is your statement

Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Greneda, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, etc., etc...

....none of these have/had jack shit to do with freedom.

that is not accurate in the least.

you're wrong, you're judgement is falacious.

not all conflicts are easy to put in a box, for instance was ww2 about freedoms or about economies? the answer is: both.

and if you are believing that ww2 was not a pivotal battle for the direction of freedoms you and I enjoy, you have a lot to learn.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

...until we lose greed, envy, etc and start following the ways of Jesus, then you cannot have that type of peace. Everyone will have to learn to be selfless instead of selfish, and always wanting more.

I actually agree with this to a great degree. Folks gotta get right with Jesus for liberty to flourish....that is, I think liberty and peace depend upon what lies in men's hearts first and foremost.

Bourgeois respect for neighbors is the cornerstone of liberty. In certain circumstances it may require fighting and spilling one's own blood, but 99 times out of 100 liberty requires not acting like a petty tyrant to one's neighbors.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I actually agree with this to a great degree. Folks gotta get right with Jesus for liberty to flourish....that is, I think liberty and peace depend upon what lies in men's hearts first and foremost.

Bourgeois respect for neighbors is the cornerstone of liberty. In certain circumstances it may require fighting and spilling one's own blood, but 99 times out of 100 liberty requires not acting like a petty tyrant to one's neighbors.

100 times out of 100.

unfortunately, once someone IS acting tyrannical to one's neighbors action is required or the tyranny continues. The question becomes whose action is appropriate, and within what guidelines.

[dude1394]

The Obama boom continues....



Maybe the country got this out of their system.

[alexamenos]

But unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic health.

See...in the Keynesian mindset people being productively employed and contributing to economic output is not something which drives a good economy, it is something which happens only after you have a good economy....

...as every good Keynesian knows, a good economy (and thence high employment) will only come after the spirits of dead animals have been pacified.

[Mavdog]

look no further than the drive of business to acheive the greatest efficiency possible from its producers.

U.S. Economy: Worker Productivity Surges, Costs Drop
By Shobhana Chandra and Bob Willis

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Worker productivity surged at the fastest pace in six years, labor costs fell and unemployment claims were lower than forecast, signaling companies may be preparing to start hiring again after cutting costs to the bone.

Productivity, a measure of employee output per hour, jumped at a 9.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, exceeding the highest economist forecast, according to Labor Department figures released today in Washington. Initial jobless claims dropped by 20,000 to 512,000 in the week ended Oct. 31, the fewest since January.

Stocks climbed on signs the economic recovery is gaining strength while generating little inflation pressure, ratifying the Federal Reserve’s decision yesterday to keep interest rates near zero for an “extended period.” A report tomorrow may show that employers cut jobs at the slowest pace in more than a year as they begin to anticipate sales gains.

The jump in productivity “tells the Fed it can be on hold for quite some time,” said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York, whose forecast was the highest among economists surveyed. “Business investment spending and employment will be pushed higher in the next few months.”

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose for a fourth day, gaining 1.9 percent to 1,066.63 at 4:07 p.m. in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 2.1 percent to 10,005.96, closing above 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 22.

Economists had projected productivity would rise at a 6.5 percent annual pace, according to the median of 70 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from gains of 3.8 percent to 8.5 percent.

Unemployment claims were forecast to fall to 522,000 from an originally reported 530,000 a week earlier, according to the median of 42 estimates in a Bloomberg survey.

Labor Costs

Labor costs fell at a 5.2 percent rate, capping the biggest 12-month drop since records began in 1948 and exceeding the median forecast for a 4.2 percent decline projected by economists. Costs in the prior quarter fell 6.1 percent, more than previously estimated.

Gains in productivity are boosting company earnings. For the July to September quarter, profits exceeded the consensus estimate of analysts for 81 percent of S&P 500 companies that have reported so far, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest health-products company, said this week it plans to fire more than 7,000 workers. While the majority of cuts will occur outside the U.S., the New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company said within the country they’ll be across all businesses.

“People just aren’t spending as much as they used to,” Chief Executive Officer Bill Weldon said in a telephone interview on Nov. 3.

Back-to-Back Gains

The third-quarter jump in productivity followed a revised 6.9 percent increase in the prior three months, marking the biggest back-to-back gain in productivity since 1961.

“This should be a healthy development for corporate profits, but it also tells us that the economy cannot grow on productivity gains alone,” Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, said in a note to clients. “Hours worked must also rise, either through a longer workweek or increased hiring.”

The productivity report showed hours worked declined at a 5 percent pace, while output climbed at a 4 percent rate. Compensation for each hour worked rose at a 3.8 percent annual pace, up from a 0.3 percent rate the prior quarter.

The year-over-year measure of hours worked dropped at the fastest pace since data began six decades ago, while the 12- month increase in hourly compensation at 0.5 percent was also the smallest on record.

Fed Statement

Fed policy makers yesterday signaled a return to economic growth alone won’t warrant higher interest rates, saying an increase will instead depend on when the labor market and inflation pick up.

The central bank’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee said for the first time that its commitment to low borrowing costs depends on “low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends and stable inflation expectations.”

The economy grew last quarter for the first time in more than a year, even as employers cut 768,000 workers from payrolls, indicating those Americans who still had jobs were more efficient. The third quarter’s 3.5 percent rate of expansion was the strongest in two years.

Government stimulus measures such as the homebuyer tax credit are boosting consumer demand, helping to pull the economy out of its worst recession in seven decades.

Tax-Credit Extension

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved a $45 billion plan to expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers, extend jobless benefits and provide tax refunds to money-losing companies. Lawmakers voted 98-0 for the measure, sending it to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a statement it will receive a vote as early as today.

A Labor Department report tomorrow may show that payrolls fell by 175,000 in October, the smallest decline since August 2008, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 84 economists. The unemployment rate probably rose to 9.9 percent from 9.8 percent.

The economy has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

if productivity meets demand there is no reason to increase costs of production. it is only when demand cannot be supplied by existing production that employment will be added.

even the followers of the austrian school should know this....

[alexamenos]

BLS Productivity calculation = GDP / employment
GDP = number of dollars printed by fed x velocity - intentionally understated inflation

hence, print dollars get higher GDP...

Higher GDP / falling employment = greater bls productivity

greater bls productivity => fewer emlpoyed people are
slinging around increasingly worthless bernanke bucks

Whether few people slinging around more worthless FRNs is indicative of greater worker efficiency is highly debateable.

i wouldn't expect a Keynesian to understand this, if they did they wouldn't be keynesians.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

BLS Productivity calculation = GDP / employment
GDP = number of dollars printed by fed x velocity - intentionally understated inflation

hence, print dollars get higher GDP...

Higher GDP / falling employment = greater bls productivity

greater bls productivity => fewer emlpoyed people are
slinging around increasingly worthless bernanke bucks

i wouldn't expect a Keynesian to understand this, if they did they wouldn't be keynesians.

tsk tsk "print dollars get higher gdp"? have you looked at the inflation index lately? The index has decreased 1.3 percent over the last 12 months

and as for your review of how we get higher worker productivity.....

Annual indexes for manufacturing and its durable and nondurable goods components are constructed by deflating current-dollar industry value of production data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census with deflators from the BLS.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.tn.htm

I wouldn't expect everybody to know this, but it is easy to expect someone who holds themselves out to be knowedgeable about economics to know this.

but then, if they are out there trumpeting the ideas of the austrian school as absolute truth, maybe it is easy to understand how they wouldn't know...

[alexamenos]

^^^Do you even understand that you didn't disagree with anything I said previously?

[Mavdog]

^^^ do you understand that I showed what you said previously is inaccurate?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

^^^ do you understand that I showed what you said previously is inaccurate?

I sometimes leave out technical jargon when discussing economics...I do this because I understand what I'm talking about and I try to make it so that non-practioners can follow if so desired...

hence when I say that the bls measurement of output is essentially real gdp, that is just a slightly more comprehensible way of saying output is determined by "deflating current-dollar industry value of production data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census with deflators from the BLS"....

(...obviously the output metrics for sub-sectors of the economy are based on data for the respective sectors of the economy, duh...)

The BLS measurement which they (and you) call Productivity is a ratio of *output* : *input*, *output* being an index of sector specific nominal dollar product deflated by BLS inflation measurements and *input* being an index of man-hours of employment.

So...take a look at some actual data....

Period, output, input
3q07, 150.3, 83.4
3q08, 144.4, 80.1
3q09, 128.8, 69.3

Now compare a productivity indices for, say, the 3q09 to the 3q07...

3q07 = 100 x (150.3/83.4) = 180.3
3q08 = 100 x (144.4/80.1) = 180.3
3q09 = 100 x (128.8/69.3) = 185.8

So yeah....so-called productivity was higher in the 3rd quarter of 09 than in 08 or 07....that's because unemployment has been rising faster than production has been falling. This is hardly reason for celebration....

...at most we might surmise that those not yet unemployed are more productive than those who have already lost their jobs, thereby raising the average productivity of remaining worker. This isn't necessarily indicative of any improvement because we don't know whether those who lost their jobs were marginally productive in the first place.

And all of this is based on the very faulty assumption that BLS calculations of inflation are reliable -- they're not. If BLS did a more reliable job of calculating inflation (ie, if the deflator was higher than that used by the BLS), then the *output* (the deflated current dollar industry value of production) would be lower and we'd see that there really haven't been any statistically significant increases in productivity.

So as I was saying, all this "increased productivity" means is that fewer people have a few more (albeit less valuable) bernanke bucks to fling around. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better off and certainly those unemployed aren't any better off.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I sometimes leave out technical jargon when discussing economics...I do this because I understand what I'm talking about and I try to make it so that non-practioners can follow if so desired...

hence when I say that the bls measurement of output is essentially real gdp, that is just a slightly more comprehensible way of saying output is determined by "deflating current-dollar industry value of production data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census with deflators from the BLS"....

but you made the claim that "hence, print dollars get higher GDP...", which is not true in light of the gdp used by the agency being "deflated".

(...obviously the output metrics for sub-sectors of the economy are based on data for the respective sectors of the economy, duh...)

The BLS measurement which they (and you) call Productivity is a ratio of *output* : *input*, *output* being an index of sector specific nominal dollar product deflated by BLS inflation measurements and *input* being an index of man-hours of employment.

So...take a look at some actual data....

Period, output, input
3q07, 150.3, 83.4
3q08, 144.4, 80.1
3q09, 128.8, 69.3

Now compare a productivity indices for, say, the 3q09 to the 3q07...

3q07 = 100 x (150.3/83.4) = 180.3
3q08 = 100 x (144.4/80.1) = 180.3
3q09 = 100 x (128.8/69.3) = 185.8

So yeah....so-called productivity was higher in the 3rd quarter of 09 than in 08 or 07....that's because unemployment has been rising faster than production has been falling. This is hardly reason for celebration....

"so called productivity"? so now you question the actual metric of productivity? really?

output has increased and average labor time per unit of output has decreased. increased output is a good thing.....or are you somehow of the opinion that it is not? surely it is "reason for celebration". it suggests that added employment is on the horizon.

...at most we might surmise that those not yet unemployed are more productive than those who have already lost their jobs, thereby raising the average productivity of remaining worker. This isn't necessarily indicative of any improvement because we don't know whether those who lost their jobs were marginally productive in the first place.

And all of this is based on the very faulty assumption that BLS calculations of inflation are reliable -- they're not. If BLS did a more reliable job of calculating inflation (ie, if the deflator was higher than that used by the BLS), then the *output* (the deflated current dollar industry value of production) would be lower and we'd see that there really haven't been any statistically significant increases in productivity.

yet the deflator isn't truly higher, the deflator used is accurate, and the assumptions are correct...unless you have any valid facts to question the numbers provided.

So as I was saying, all this "increased productivity" means is that fewer people have a few more (albeit less valuable) bernanke bucks to fling around. It doesn't necessarily mean their better off and certainly those unemployed aren't any better off.

those who are working have an increase in real compensation/hour so yes they are better off, and no those who do not have a job are not better off (yet).

as was shown the "bernanke bucks" are not less valuable, so your premise has a big hole in it.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

output has increased....

output, 3q07 - 150.3
output, 3q09 - 128.8

inasmuch as you can refer to a 21.5 point decrease as an increase, I'll forgo addressing the rest.

Regards,

[Mavdog]

^^output per hour. we're talking about productivity per person. odd you didn't follow that line of thought.

have you found out a way to show that deflation="less valuable bernanke bucks" yet?

I'm sure you're working hard at that....

[dude1394]

Those Joker Products...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...476681352.html

A familiar definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. So in the wake of yesterday's report that the national jobless rate climbed to 10.2% in October, we suppose we can expect the political class to demand another "stimulus." Maybe if Congress spends another $787 billion in the name of job creation, it can get the jobless rate up to 12% or 13%.

It's hard to imagine a more complete repudiation of Keynesian stimulus than the evidence of the last year's job market. We've now had two examples of such stimulus—President Bush's $160 billion effort in February 2008 and President Obama's mega-version a year later—and neither has made even the smallest dent in employment. As the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's economic advisers sold the stimulus by saying it would keep the jobless rate below 8%. Actual results may differ, as they say.

The economy shed another 190,000 jobs in October, taking the total job losses to 3.5 million since January. The larger measure of joblessness that includes marginal and part-time workers jumped 0.5% to 17.5%. And the average hours worked in a week stayed the same at 33.0, which means that millions of Americans working part-time will have to become full-time before employers start hiring new workers.

[alexamenos]

When economists from "academia and government" start belly-aching about the divergence of government stats from reality, you know stuff is really getting out of whack...

WASHINGTON — A widening gap between data and reality is distorting the government’s picture of the country’s economic health, overstating growth and productivity in ways that could affect the political debate on issues like trade, wages and job creation.

The shortcomings of the data-gathering system came through loud and clear here Friday and Saturday at a first-of-its-kind gathering of economists from academia and government determined to come up with a more accurate statistical picture.

good luck with all that guys, but don't forget who you work for....

in other news...

'Comrades!' cried an eager youthful voice. 'Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year. All over Oceania this morning there were irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations when workers marched out of factories and offices and paraded through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to Big Brother for the new, happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us. Here are some of the completed figures. Foodstuffs-'

.....

The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen. As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture, more cooking-pots, more fuel, more ships, more helicopters, more books, more babies -- more of everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards.

[alexamenos]

right then....

Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises's ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome "Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel" ("The Theory of Money and Credit"). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn't exactly a beach read at that. ...

..."Theorie des Geldes" did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity...Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises's script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once "Theorie des Geldes" was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises's bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism's repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan's "Great Moderation" and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one.

How curious it is that the guy who wrote the script depicting our never ending story of government-induced credit expansion, inflation and collapse has remained so persistently forgotten. Must we sit through yet another performance of this tragic tale?

...still right.

[dude1394]

This is not going to end pretty.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...170312732.html

Preparing to write about yesterday's downward revision in third-quarter GDP, we were tempted to say the Obama Administration has hit a speed-bump on its promised exit out of the recession. But it is the American economy that has hit a speed bump, and on the evidence of the policy mix emerging now from Democratic Washington, the road ahead for the economy is bump, bump, bump, bump, bump. Other than a few lucky banks, few seem be enjoying the ride.



What last month had appeared to be third-quarter growth of 3.5% in gross domestic product turns out to have been a more modest 2.8%. Consumer spending was pared back to 2.9% from 3.4%. The cash-for-clunkers subsidy produced fewer new-vehicle purchases than first estimated. In short, we aren't getting much bang for our $787 billion stimulus bucks. But you already knew that.


The frustrated Congressional Democrats who designed and enacted the stimulus seem more surprised, and they are now circling the wagons and starting to look for someone else to blame.
The Democrat catching most of the bullets is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon last week called on Mr. Geithner to resign. No surprise there. More noteworthy was that not a peep of support emerged for Mr. Geithner from the Obama White House. We've had our differences with the Treasury secretary, but how throwing Mr. Geithner off the wagon train would turn around the unemployment rate is, to put it mildly, far from clear.
The panicked Democrats' biggest problem is that Congress and the President have erected the biggest overhang of economic policy uncertainty that anyone can remember.



One big difference between Washington and private markets is that politicians think everything they do is free-standing. Markets, however, combine all the potential costs of Washington's policies and then decide whether to invest, or not. Consider what private decision-makers see in their future:
A 2,074-page, trillion-dollar health-care bill to redesign 17% of the U.S. economy. A carbon tax—cap and trade—that remains an Obama priority ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit next month. A falling dollar and gyrating commodity prices, with no idea where those prices will go next.



Democratic liberals are talking about an income tax surcharge to pay for any commitment in Afghanistan. Card check, to expand unionization of the private economy, remains a priority. Domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 2010 is set to rise at 12.1%, with inflation near zero.



Nurturing a fragile economic recovery into a durable expansion requires policies that restore public confidence and reassure investors, risk-takers and employers. The Democratic agenda is doing precisely the opposite, which is how you get subpar growth and fewer new jobs.

[dude1394]

This is about right.

A brilliant idea from the Wall Street Journal on creating jobs

Wesley Clark, MD
The Wall Street Journal has proposed a new stimulus plan, that will create many more new jobs, will actually save taxpayer's money, and is more likely to succeed than anything like the White House's new cockamamie proposal to pay homeowners to weatherize their houses - Cash for Caulkers.

WSJ's idea is that Congress should take a year off, adjourn until 2011, and stop meddling:

The real message of the November report is that the job market is healing on its own, if Washington will simply let it happen. If Democrats want faster job creation by next November, they'll do nothing at all. Stop imposing new taxes on estates, payrolls, insurance, device makers, drug makers, small business, you name it. Start over on health care. Adjourn for the year, spend December with the family, come back in 2011. And watch Congress's approval rating rise.

[dude1394]

Little commentary is needed.





David Farr is the president, chairman and chief executive officer of Emerson. In response to "Shut up, he explained," regarding 3M's communication with employees regarding Obamacare, an Emerson employee forwards the following message and column by Farr from the company Web site:

To: Emerson U.S. based employees

Attached is a copy of an op-ed that I recently wrote and submitted to local St. Louis newspapers relative to my concerns as the CEO of Emerson -- a global manufacturing company.

As the leader of this company of 120,000 employees, hundreds of thousands retirees, and 350,000 shareholders, I must be concerned about strategic global issues that will impact Emerson and our ability to survive, compete and win.

We are a diverse company and I realize that opinions vary. My responsibility is to do my best to represent the overall interests of our shareholders, our employees and our customers. In this instance, I want first to share this piece with you as employees of this great company.

I wish all of you a very special and joyous holiday season and a prosperous new year.

My personal regards,
David N. Farr
America's Survival as a Prosperous Nation is at Risk
Major manufacturers today must compete in global markets if they want to survive, prosper, and grow. Emerson is no exception. We compete head-to-head with Asian and European companies here at home and in virtually every market of the world. The ability to manage quality, innovation, logistics, customer support, manufacturing cost and many other factors determines which companies survive or don't.
Emerson has expanded globally to diversify and ensure that we can continue to win against intense global competition. We are well positioned to grow profitably in the USA and in international markets, like China and India.
At a recent Chicago investment conference, I stated in strong terms that excessive federal spending and costly legislation are destroying the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete globally, and to successfully invest in the U.S. Yes, Emerson is a St. Louis headquartered company with 30,000 U.S. jobs, but we must compete around the world.
I spoke in very strong terms to underscore the issues I believe our nation is facing. I understand that some don't share my concerns. However, I believe our great country is threatened as the global economic leader if we don't change our government's course. The issues we face are not Democratic or Republican issues, or just business issues. They are real and impact every American, today and in the future.
The issues underlying my comments then, as now, impact America's world economic leadership, quality of life and standard of living. Rapidly increasing government debt and proposed expensive laws are placing our nation's future and competitive position at risk. Please consider these worrisome facts:
• Federal debt: Over two administrations, the United States has created debt that is forecast to exceed $20 trillion within 10 years. By the end of 2011, our projected government debt will be greater than our gross domestic product. This is a dangerous situation and is not the balance sheet of a global leader. Our current weak dollar reflects the world's concern about America's financial strength, and there is a clamor abroad for a new world currency standard. The eventual consequences of a weak dollar are less global investment in America, fewer jobs and a declining standard of living. Both political parties have contributed to this situation and both should work together quickly to resolve it without adding expensive new programs and spending beyond our means.
• Healthcare legislation: America needs health insurance reform and access to health care for all. Emerson provides health coverage to employees and their families in the United States -- more than 100,000 people. We would like to continue to do so. However, the bill that passed the House of Representatives, and the proposed Senate bill, would raise costs on private sector plans. Basic economics could force many businesses, like Emerson, to seriously consider exiting employer-sponsored plans, requiring employees to shop for coverage or move to the government-based plan. That's not progress. We should look instead to many targeted, bipartisan proposals to help the uninsured, such as giving small businesses and individuals access to interstate insurance pools or investing in federally supported Community Health Centers that are effective in providing care for the uninsured.
• Tax policy: Major competitors in the European Union and Asia are taxed at lower rates than U.S. companies. That may be hard to believe but it's true, and it gives them a significant competitive advantage. Emerson pays a substantial tax bill every year, as we should. But America needs a tax policy that is fair to all in this country - individuals and corporations - and that creates a level playing field against European Union and Asian nations.
We are a nation of varied beliefs and perspectives, and there is room for honest disagreement on all of these issues. But none of us wants to see our country weakened to no longer be the global economic leader. Greater government debt and diminished competitiveness mean global investment and good jobs will go elsewhere, and America will risk slipping into second-tier economic status. That's not the legacy any of us want to leave future generations. Action is needed now!

David N. Farr
Chairman, CEO and President
Emerson

Bloomberg News reported last month on Farr's comments at the Chicago investment conference referred to in Farr's column. The article is "Emerson's Farr says U.S. is destroying manufacturing."

[alexamenos]

this is m-effing outrageous...

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this is m-effing outrageous...

no s*** sherlock. It's like all marxist economies...power to the ruling class.

Look at the crap that is being foisted upon california by these guvment jobs.

[mcsluggo]

...except that it is a kinda meaningless statistic.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/DCB.pdf

the story IMPLIES that the number of employees making over $150k surged out of nowhere (and also implying that it could be waaaaay over $150k), while in reality the 2% cost of living allowance was enough to push the very top general salary in the washington area from just under $150k to just over that mark.

for what its worth FIRST YEAR associates at the major DC area law firms (and Dallas law firms) earn over $160 k in 2009
http://www.nalp.org/salariesjuly09

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

...except that it is a kinda meaningless statistic.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/DCB.pdf

the story IMPLIES that the number of employees making over $150k surged out of nowhere (and also implying that it could be waaaaay over $150k), while in reality the 2% cost of living allowance was enough to push the very top general salary in the washington area from just under $150k to just over that mark.

for what its worth FIRST YEAR associates at the major DC area law firms (and Dallas law firms) earn over $160 k in 2009
http://www.nalp.org/salariesjuly09

Is there any level of government largesse that liberals won't defend?

I mean...if the story instead was that 48% of government employees were paid more than a gillion dollars per year and supplied with a 18 year old virgins to act as personal testical washers, would you then say, "hey....this seems like a bit much!"

[mcsluggo]

I live in the washington area, and I have to say that a top salary of $153k does not sound excessively high for the area.

like I said, 23 year old first year associates make $160k.

I would actually agree with you that many of the mid-level (GS 9 or GS 11) people are overpaid. but I certainly don't think that the top level federal positions are overpaid. As a senior justice department lawyer, you basically top out as a GS-15... making less than associates at local law firms fresh out of law school. That is scary to me, because the senior justice department lawyers are determining extremely important (and expensive) policy... much more so than 1st year associates ANYWHERE.

So who takes a senior justice appointment....? is it only people that love the power? or feel that they will be able to flip it into a much higher k-street salary if they perform favors? I don't know... but there is probably some of that, and more than there WOULD be if top justice lawyers made what similarly powerful lawyers made elsewhere.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I live in the washington area, and I have to say that a top salary of $153k does not sound excessively high for the area.

For the area?

Could it be that the reason the area is so damn pricey is because the top employer there is not constrained by the value of services it provides to it's constituency, but instead by the number of FRNs it can print or extract by force?

[dude1394]

Marxist government at work. School boards have always been political positions and they are paid like one.

The economy has been in the dumps for years, but the good times keep on rolling for some favored D.C. employees.
City officials have doled out nearly $15 million in bonuses and awards since Mayor Adrian Fenty took office in January 2007, records obtained by The Examiner under the Freedom of Information Act show.
Among the big winners were Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who was handed $41,250 in August 2007 after barely two months on the job; Department of Health Director Pierre Vigilance, who was given $15,000 in 2008; and city property manager Robin-Eve Jasper, handed $18,000 over two years.

[dude1394]

Our radical left-wing inexperienced community organizer continues to focus like a lazer beam on making the economy perform worse than it would without his stimulus political vote buying bill.

[dude1394]

Man his performance just continues to impress, doesn't it.
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.co...ployment-rate/

[dude1394]

You go bahama.

Almost everything Congress has done in recent months has made private businesses less inclined to hire new workers. ObamaCare imposes new taxes and mandates on private employers. Even with record unemployment, Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25, pricing more workers out of jobs. The teen unemployment rate rose to 26.4% in May, and for those between the ages of 25 and 34 it rose to 10.5%. These should be some of the first to be hired in an expansion because they are relatively cheap and have the potential for large productivity gains as they add skills.

[Arne]

The left and the right seem to have killed the private sector, considering that the above mentioned trend is not going to be reversed in our current political climate reigned by big government statists of all political parties.

Anyways, has anyone completed this quiz: ?

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_res..._100.gif&p=100

[mary]

Almost everything Congress has done in recent months has made private businesses less inclined to hire new workers. ObamaCare imposes new taxes and mandates on private employers. Even with record unemployment, Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25, pricing more workers out of jobs. The teen unemployment rate rose to 26.4% in May, and for those between the ages of 25 and 34 it rose to 10.5%. These should be some of the first to be hired in an expansion because they are relatively cheap and have the potential for large productivity gains as they add skills.

A) The current minimum wage legislation is over three years old.

B) The teen unemployment rate? Really?

[dude1394]

U.S.'s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP: Chart of Day


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?p...d=ixMWvmP_l8FQ

[dude1394]

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/07/...imulus-failed/

Morning Bell: Why Obama’s Stimulus Failed

Posted June 7th, 2010 at 9:31am in Enterprise and Free Markets with 34 comments Print This Post


Last Friday’s Department of Labor jobs report, which showed private sector job creation fell by 190,000 between April and May of this year, jolted markets worldwide including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which fell 3.2% Friday to its lowest level since early February. In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised his $862 billion stimulus would help create by 2010. This morning on MSNBC, former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) pressed prominent Keynesian economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs on whether it was too early to declare President Obama’s stimulus a failure. Scarborough had to ask the question twice, but Sachs finally relented: “It did fail.”
For objective observers the failure of President Obama’s $862 billion stimulus has become increasingly difficult to deny. But not for the White House. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden told Charlie Rose on PBS that the stimulus was “an absolute success.” Betraying a common perception about unemployment, Biden told Rose: “[W]e lost 8 million brand new jobs … since … 8 million brand new jobs since we hit the skids. On top of the 6% that were already unemployed. It took us several years to get there, it is going to take several years to get back to that number.” That is not quite true. In fact, the American economy has shed 55.4 million jobs since the recession began in the First Quarter of 2008. But at the same time the economy has only added 46.5 million jobs. Putting the two together produces the net approximate 8 million jobs lost that Biden referenced.
But isn’t net jobs all that really matters? Why should anyone care exactly how many jobs were lost and created since all that really matters is the net number of Americans who are no longer employed? Here’s why: despite an unemployment high of just 6.4%, more jobs were lost in the first seven quarters of the 2001 recession than were lost in the first seven quarters of this recession. How is that possible? How could job losses have been worse in 2001 but unemployment so much higher now? Weak job creation. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics data show that employers have created 8.6 million fewer new jobs this time around than they did almost a decade ago. Heritage Senior Labor Policy Analyst James Sherk estimates that lower job creation accounts for 65 percent of the recession’s decreased employment.
Our nation’s unemployment rate is hovering near 10% not because of record job losses, as Biden suggests, but because of record job non-creation. Private sector employers have gone on strike. Contrary to what the President’s economic wizards and New York Times columnists believe, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation. President Obama does not have a secret vault of money he can just throw at the American people. The resources the government spends come from the economy. When the government increases spending, it crowds out the resources that business owners could have invested in their enterprises. Private investment falls sharply when government spending rises. According to Sherk, annual private fixed nonresidential investment has fallen by $327 billion since the recession started— a 19 percent drop. Less private investment means less hiring.
And then there is the rest of the Obama agenda that has created, and is creating, significant economic uncertainty: Obamacare, EPA carbon regulations, financial regulations and impending tax hikes. Renouncing these policies, and canceling the rest of the stimulus, would do more to spur private sector job creation than anything this White House has done so far.