America Is On A Path To Economic Recovery

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
From Speaker Pelosi's flickr account, tabbed using Bureau of Labor Statistics data:

4332827382_8b9c41680e.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4332827382/

Today, the Department of Labor released their January jobs report which showed that 20,000 jobs were lost last month – down from the 779,000 job losses in January 2009.

Today’s jobs report marks a welcome step in the right direction for our economy and our families: the unemployment rate is going down. The Recovery Act, which Congress passed one year ago to pull our economy back from the brink of collapse, has already created or saved nearly 2 million jobs so far.

Yet our work is far from over. This recession that President Obama inherited has taken the worst toll on our job market since World War II. Too many workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Leaders of both parties must work together to keep our recovery on track by helping small businesses create jobs, investing in our infrastructure and clean energy industries, and keeping police, firefighters, and teachers on the job. Congress will continue to act to build a new foundation for long-term prosperity.
Click to expand...

To sensible folk, this is a very enlightening and encouraging picture. To those folk who refuse to think outside their worldview, or those who are foolish enough to believe job hemorrhaging and a weak economy can stop and recover on a dime (i.e., in 30 days), well, I see this as yet another example of something you refuse to believe because your gut feeling tells you otherwise. Stop listening to your gut.
 
Yeah, it's really hard for any reasonable person to not see that things have been slowly getting better.

Pundits point at the unemployment rate, but that always lags and is one of the last things to bounce back from a recession. It also lags in dropping since business finances have to take a hit in order to start laying people off, freeze hiring etc.

That and people will only look locally and think things aren't getting better as the housing market in their area is still awful, or they have furlough days still (which I do) etc. and not at the big picture.
 
Despite the fact that it's getting better, I think it's erroneous to attribute this to the change in administration, like that graph would have you believe.
 
I'd attribute it to the recovery/stimulus spending. Both that done under Bush/Paulson and the second wave under Obama/Geithner personally.

The Bush admin was doing what needed done, and would have probably done a similar wave of stimulus in the spring if their term wasn't up. So I think the graph would look much the same if the crash had came a year later and the Bush administration was dealing with it through 2009.

The government's had was pretty much forced. Spend big to keep some too big to fail banks from causing another depression, spend big to get the recovery on track or have a super long recession etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What do you attribute it to, then?[/QUOTE]
Market cycles. I know how that'll grind your gears though.

I definitely don't think that spending China's money on the so-called stimulus will be very beneficial in the long run. It may have helped a bit now, but we'll pay for it later.
 
So this is market self-correction that would have happened even in the absence of the stimulus bills of 2008/2009 - and one whose arc was not altered, positively or negatively, by those bills?
 
I agree, we've only kicked the can down the road. We should've been spending rich American's money rather than China's. And we're still effectively operating under Reagan economic policies, so any upturn will only be temporary.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So this is market self-correction that would have happened even in the absence of the stimulus bills of 2008/2009 - and one whose arc was not altered, positively or negatively, by those bills?[/QUOTE]

Without the stimulus bills, what do you think that graph would look like?
 
We haven't even had regular inflation let alone the hyper kind.

The upper crusty types wouldn't want there to be a dent in their investments so its long term unemployment for everyone else.

A jobs bill would help, sooner the better.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So this is market self-correction that would have happened even in the absence of the stimulus bills of 2008/2009 - and one whose arc was not altered, positively or negatively, by those bills?[/QUOTE]

That's not what I said at all:

[quote name='Liquid 2']I definitely don't think that spending China's money on the so-called stimulus will be very beneficial in the long run. It may have helped a bit now, but we'll pay for it later.[/QUOTE]

The stimulus plans helped a little bit, and definitely created some jobs. I wouldn't say that it's responsible for the majority of the recovery though.

I also think that down the line, we're going to regret increasing our national debt to even more outrageous heights more than any contribution to the recovery the bills had.


[quote name='Msut77']We haven't even had regular inflation let alone the hyper kind.[/QUOTE]

Msut77, ladies and gentlemen. "Our currency has always had an inflation rate of zero."

Do us all a favor and inject your balls with hydrofluoric acid, please.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']That's not what I said at all:[/QUOTE]

Nah, it's kinda what you said, like it or not - by saying you thought it " erroneous to attribute this to the change in administration." Unless you think stimulus spending would have happened under McCain, too (on one hand, reasonable since Bush did it, on another unreasonable b/c it's not a policy solution intuitive to Republicans).

Now, that's irrespective of raising debt accumulation and the debt ceiling. I don't disagree that those are major concerns, but I also think that we're out of options short of bringing back marginal tax rates on the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels as a means of waning ourselves off of dependence on Chinese investors. A policy I wholly support, but one that's very unpopular among the public.
 
I kind of feel like the decision to go with the big bailouts/stimulus package was very much like being on a business trip to Vegas, becoming incredibly horny, and deciding to go ahead and snag a hooker in the Airport while waiting for your plane and taking her to the janitors closet, because we couldn't wait to get home to our wife.

There was no condom. She didn't care because we offered her 10x normal going rate - and we are all waiting around to see what possible life threating STD's develop.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Without the stimulus bills, what do you think that graph would look like?[/QUOTE]

See all that white space in the bottom right corner? You wouldn't.

It's indeed not time for a ticker-tape parade. These trend lines, if added up, still show millions of jobs lost over the past two years. We haven't broken even, in fact we're not close. Like being told by your physician that your cancer is in remission, it's great news, but still time to be careful, alert, and concerned.

Those trend lines are to be expected, though. The economy can't turn 180 degrees and develop a net job increase after months of 500,000+ losses. I'm not sure why people who groused over the job losses throughout 2009 thought some grand social-political institution could behave in a way that it never has before. But that's the way politics works. I hope that the Republicans who voted against the stimulus package, who decried the size and scope of it, and then brought back giant checks to hand over to their district, praising its effect on the local economy, see those very things they praised. I don't suddenly expect them to turn political course (given that they're on both sides of the political fence here, there's no real turning possible), but I hope that they are able to see these trend lines and realize that it was, at least in the short term, a fine idea.

Or, at the very least, say that the 1/3 of the package that were tax cuts benefitted their localities. ;)

[quote name='thrustbucket']I kind of feel like the decision to go with the big bailouts/stimulus package was very much like being on a business trip to Vegas, becoming incredibly horny, and deciding to go ahead and snag a hooker in the Airport while waiting for your plane and taking her to the janitors closet, because we couldn't wait to get home to our wife.

There was no condom. She didn't care because we offered her 10x normal going rate - and we are all waiting around to see what possible life threating STD's develop.[/QUOTE]

This is why we can't have decent conversation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...but I also think that we're out of options short of bringing back marginal tax rates on the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels as a means of waning ourselves off of dependence on Chinese investors. A policy I wholly support, but one that's very unpopular among the public.[/QUOTE]


I do think that's arguably the biggest change that needs to happen to get our debt down and sure up the economy.

It needs to be couple with spending cuts, eliminating government waste etc., but that won't make a dent without getting those marginal tax rates back to or near the pre-reagan level, getting rid of the estate tax cut, cutting out tax loopholes on coorporations etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do think that's arguably the biggest change that needs to happen to get our debt down and shore up the economy.[/quote]

Kind of hard to do both right now.

Interest rates are pretty much at zero, that load has been shot so to speak which doesn't leave much else as an option.

It needs to be couple with spending cuts, eliminating government waste etc., but that won't make a dent without getting those marginal tax rates back to or near the pre-reagan level, getting rid of the estate tax cut, cutting out tax loopholes on corporations etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of of that, ending one or more wars would be a boon too.

fuck I would settle for pretending they have to be paid for.
 
I wish we could dovetail reality to see what would have happened without stimulus bills. What I would give for that data, even if it totally invalidates everything I think. Just to know.

I look at what got us there. A financial sector that rewards failure. A metric asston of residential and commercial loans that aren't worth the ink on them. An unwillingness to decouple health care costs from the job market. A toothless SEC. Not enough IRS boots on the ground to keep people honest. I don't see significant structural change.

I used to say you know we're in for a shitstorm when people get nervous when you talk about things wrong with the system (especially since we all knew it). Now I think we'll be out of the woods when the government can openly say who got what money from the treasury without caring whether it kills the firm to have the info public. If we can't do that, we aren't out of it.
It needs to be couple with spending cuts, eliminating government waste etc., but that won't make a dent without getting those marginal tax rates back to or near the pre-reagan level, getting rid of the estate tax cut, cutting out tax loopholes on corporations etc.
Click to expand...
Yes sir. The part "they" don't get.
 
I can't wait until the Chinese say "现在工资".

Then, the fun begins.

I saw Christina Romer on CNBC today. She has a hard time selling propaganda. Hey, the economy is going to get better, but you probably won't get or keep a job this year. That or she likes giving that "deer in the headlights" look.

Since it is a given that unemployment won't improve this year or next, is the government going to extend unemployment benefits again?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I wish we could dovetail reality to see what would have happened without stimulus bills. What I would give for that data, even if it totally invalidates everything I think. Just to know.[/quote]
I agree. But we will never know, which makes these sorts of discussions never really more relevant than 'just for fun'.

I look at what got us there. A financial sector that rewards failure. A metric asston of residential and commercial loans that aren't worth the ink on them. An unwillingness to decouple health care costs from the job market. A toothless SEC. Not enough IRS boots on the ground to keep people honest. I don't see significant structural change.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that rewarding failure is exactly what the stimulus did. On many levels.

That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. We'll never know if it was.

I used to say you know we're in for a shitstorm when people get nervous when you talk about things wrong with the system (especially since we all knew it). Now I think we'll be out of the woods when the government can openly say who got what money from the treasury without caring whether it kills the firm to have the info public. If we can't do that, we aren't out of it.

Yes sir. The part "they" don't get.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
WSJ today: How to invest for a global debt-bomb explosion.

This is no joke, folks. Are you prepared? Or preparing? Will your family survive in a post-apocalyptic world, when anarchy is rampant in America? Look at Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America today. You know it's already begun.

You are witnessing a fundamental breakdown of the American dream, a systemic breakdown of our democracy and our capitalism, a breakdown driven by the blind insatiable greed of Wall Street: Dysfunctional government, insane markets, economy on the brink. Multiply that many times over and see a world in total disarray. Ignore it now, tomorrow will be too late.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Quillion']That doesn't actually tell me how to invest.[/QUOTE]

Sure it does ;)
Here's how these savvy Insiders are preparing: In his 2008 best-seller, "Wealth, War and Wisdom," hedge fund manager Barton Biggs, a highly respected Insider in the "Happy Conspiracy," advised rich insiders to expect the "possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure."

His advice: Make tons of money. Buy an isolated farm in the mountains. Protect family against the barbarians: "Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food ... It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson."

How Wall Street insiders will treat Main Street in 'The Anarchy'

And when the barbarians do come, firing "a few rounds over the approaching brigands' heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage." Imagine a scene like Port-au-Prince after the quake. Biggs is no radical anarchist, he's an establishment Insider, a great guy. We both arrived at Morgan Stanley about the same time. Biggs remained 30 years, was Morgan's chief global strategist. Ten times Institutional Investor magazine put him on Wall Street's "All-America Research Team."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']WSJ today: How to invest for a global debt-bomb explosion.[/QUOTE]

Amongst all this fear-mongering, I have to sit back with smug self-satisfaction because op-eds like this, and the fear of wealthy empowered elites as proposed by Glenn Beck? The global struggle between haves and have-nots, and the bloody catastrophic result that would happen eventually as inequality blossomed?

That's so Marxist in origin it's positively delightful to read coming from the mouths of fomenting anti-Marxists.

:rofl: Further evidence that "Marxism" is a floating term used by people to refer to anything they don't like in the political structure (see also: Jonah Goldberg's hilarious satire, "Liberal Fascism"), like "Reagan" is a bogeyman that symbolizes whatever it is we like about the government, whether or not Reagan's actual actions and policies followed or contradicted them.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Let's not forget that rewarding failure is exactly what the stimulus did. On many levels.[/QUOTE]

Did you mean the bail out?

Because that doesn't make a bit of sense regarding the stimulus.

Getting to be as bad ascribing the current bust caused by massive fraud to part of the business cycle.

As an aside since liquid apparently isn't feeling like a big boy today who else know what the mandate of the federal reserve is?

It is relevant since just recently there was talk of raising interest rates, since things are getting too hot right now and all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Amongst all this fear-mongering, I have to sit back with smug self-satisfaction because op-eds like this, and the fear of wealthy empowered elites as proposed by Glenn Beck? The global struggle between haves and have-nots, and the bloody catastrophic result that would happen eventually as inequality blossomed?

That's so Marxist in origin it's positively delightful to read coming from the mouths of fomenting anti-Marxists.

:rofl: Further evidence that "Marxism" is a floating term used by people to refer to anything they don't like in the political structure (see also: Jonah Goldberg's hilarious satire, "Liberal Fascism"), like "Reagan" is a bogeyman that symbolizes whatever it is we like about the government, whether or not Reagan's actual actions and policies followed or contradicted them.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to disagree. I usually surf 2 or 3 websites at once, I happened to be in this thread when I came upon that article and thought it would be fun to link.

I won't vouch for the validity of the article, even if I do have a more dire outlook on the future than you. That dire outlook, however, is not based in a political ideology, but more a karma-tic philosophy.
 
Msut:

I'm going to give a general quote, as I don't think I remember the mandate verbatim:

"Promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."
 
I'm not playing "gotcha," dude.

It's just that Americans are taught to be reactively anti-Marx to the point that it's hard to teach his theories without massaging the fragile egos of so many students who might have David Horowitz on speed dial. Which it's fine to be anti-Marx, but it's succumbing to propaganda to be anti-something and refuse to indulge in learning it (whatever happened to "KYE" anyway?).

At any rate, Beck's anti-bank rants, and this op-eds "299 million vs 1 million" theme have ripped off the eternal struggle of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat and appropriated it to people who reactively hate the theoretical origins of their own speculation!
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is relevant since just recently there was talk of raising interest rates, since things are getting too hot right now and all.[/QUOTE]

Why are things getting too hot now?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Msut:

I'm going to give a general quote, as I don't think I remember the mandate verbatim:

"Promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."[/QUOTE]

It has a dual mandate of "full employment" (note not literally full employment) and making sure the rate of inflation more or less stays stable.

Anyone who doesn't know this shouldn't feel bad, apparently Bernanke doesn't know either.

P.s. Forgot the /sarcasm FoC mea culpa.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So this is market self-correction that would have happened even in the absence of the stimulus bills of 2008/2009 - and one whose arc was not altered, positively or negatively, by those bills?[/QUOTE]

If it was a free market, yes.

But it's not, and never will be, a free market.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/226231f0-16fd-11df-afcf-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

"But Greece still has a mountain to climb, with its budget deficit estimated at almost 13 per cent of gross domestic product last year and its public debt set to shoot up to 125 per cent of GDP this year."

:lol:[/QUOTE]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html

Seriously does the leadership at Goldman Sachs have workshops on stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally?
 
[quote name='Zodiii']If it was a free market, yes.

But it's not, and never will be, a free market.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah?

tell me more about this unique perspective.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh yeah?

tell me more about this unique perspective.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, a true free market, which has never been seen, nor is it likely to ever be seen.

Edit: A free market clashes with my other ideals and this is where I begin talking myself in circles.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/226231f0-16fd-11df-afcf-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

"But Greece still has a mountain to climb, with its budget deficit estimated at almost 13 per cent of gross domestic product last year and its public debt set to shoot up to 125 per cent of GDP this year."

:lol:[/QUOTE]

i know my gf and i are rooting for some defaults in europe. we want the euro to plunge so we can take another trip soon. or if nothing else, go buy a shit load of euros from a bank for later.
 
[quote name='Zodiii']Sorry, a true free market, which has never been seen, nor is it likely to ever be seen.

Edit: A free market clashes with my other ideals and this is where I begin talking myself in circles.[/QUOTE]

Right. Like "true communism" that we've never seen yet, or so I'm told by the ISO kids handing out copies of the Socialist Worker.

I know we don't live in a "true" free market, but I also know that "true" whatevers don't and can't exist in the real world, so it's kinda useless to discuss them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. Like "true communism" that we've never seen yet, or so I'm told by the ISO kids handing out copies of the Socialist Worker.

I know we don't live in a "true" free market, but I also know that "true" whatevers don't and can't exist in the real world, so it's kinda useless to discuss them.[/QUOTE]

That's actually a good argument, the likelihood of seeing a "true" anything is minuscule.

On another note, I don't see how people don't take Socialism or Communism to be demeaning to their character on the basis that most things are handed to them, and that is just raw opinion with nothing to back it up other than that fact I feel that way.
 
Like the ideas of socialism, you mean? That identifying as a socialist means they admit some character flaw in terms of that they can't accomplish things as individuals?

If that is what you're saying, I kinda gotta "eh..." at that. Any form of collectivism can not exist upon widespread expectations of receiving and not giving, right? The idea of a passive population, overweight, flaccid, complaining and hands extended for benefits don't exist in reality - certainly not the socialist/capitalist nations that exist in the world currently.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html

Collectivism is practiced at the micro level by families - divisions of labor, recognition of specialized roles that contribute to each other functionally. These arrangements are certainly socialist, and when individualism interferes (e.g., one parent decides to spend money they do not have on something they wanted for themselves but do not need such that collective responsibilities such as the mortgage aren't taking care of), the institution is threatened and challenged. All societies support some degree of collectivism and rebuke individualism at some levels.

Keeping in mind how Jeremy Bentham equated individualism with hedonism, of course - and how that's part of the philosophical foundation for the rational choice thinking that underlies virtually all economic thought - ;)

It's just rather silly and seems to belong in a book of child's fables to speak of collectivism as inherently dependent. It's not supported historically or currently at any level.

As for Communism, another political structure altogether, eh. Marx's biggest secret is that he never defined or described Communism - few people realize that about him.
 
The ideas and the concept of it, but more of the concept of widespread agreement, basically. I've had limited personal encounters with so called 'socialists' but their opinions reminded me of a society of taking, and not giving. Which is just proof that political ideologies have a hard time moving themselves into actual culture or being put into motion. (Look at the true definition of Liberal and Conservative ideologies compared to what people do now)

You are right, receiving can't happen without giving, which is where modern socialism differs from classical (or theoretical) socialism. Most "first-hand" accounts I have had, have been in the form of 'take, take, take' and not 'give and THEN take'.

Again though, that is from the limited personal experience I have had with people aligning themselves with socialism.

What happens at the family or communal level (collectivism in an honest fashion) usually doesn't translate to larger populations, maybe out to the community level, but beyond that inherent human nature to basically be greedy and hoard starts coming into play.

The only way for socialism to work, in my opinion, is to NOT have federal or state governments, and operate on a community basis, also known as tribes.
 
The absence of any government whatsoever was one of the key tenets of Marx's concept of Communism. One of the few things he did offer about it, anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The absence of any government whatsoever was one of the key tenets of Marx's concept of Communism. One of the few things he did offer about it, anyway.[/QUOTE]

I actually never put two-and-two together, but that makes sense, considering communism is a stateless system.

But that goes back to the likelihood of ever seeing a "true" communist...nation? group?

Which reminded me of a discussion I had the other day about communism: by Marx's theory we are on the road to communism.

To quote Wikipedia.:
  • Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
  • Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; Aristocracy is born.
  • Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
  • Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the proletariat.
  • Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariat through which the socialization of the means of production can be realized.
  • Communism: a classless and stateless society.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure that idea will melt some brains or cause panic among certain populations.
 
Of course - but Marx doesn't allow for any option *but* to be on that road to Communism. It's inevitable to him that one day the inequalities that arise within Capitalism will cause the proletariat class to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie.

He also doesn't consider the possibility that if/when said revolution occurs, any state other than a socialist one will arise. I think that's rather myopic.

True communism and true free markets - "true" anything denies the complexity of social reality. If people want to chase after them, that's fine. But it is, to me, like chasing after the other side of the uncanny valley - it's not possible to get there.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
He also doesn't consider the possibility that if/when said revolution occurs, any state other than a socialist one will arise. I think that's rather myopic.[/QUOTE]

Which is probably the most important thing to consider. Now I want to look back at the French revolution, which if I am recalling from memory correctly basically came about through the same steps the Marx proposed, and resulted in a non-communist government.

Maybe Marx assumed some kind of period of enlightenment that will/has happened somewhere in between then and now? I'm not familiar enough with him or his ideologies to make any kind of assumption beyond that.
 
His revolution is one that is built on the foundation that the masses recognize the futility of class consciousness, so those who revolt know better than to return to a stratified structure when the structure takes place.

Of course, the premise of his concept of history is that it is marked by constant class conflict (even in hunter/gatherer societies), so one great revolution leading to an abandonment of that which divides us into classes is quite naive in itself, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top