- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
like i said, i'm sure that 321,000 jobs is terrible somehow. just out of curiosity, how long have you been debunking job reports? i think i've noticed you in the monthly threads before, but i wanted to know a little more about your personal debunking history.
The Obama stimulus act cost about $831 billion. Half of that was tax cuts. It is estimated that 1.6 million jobs were generated or maintained by the stimulus between 2009 and 2012.If we divide a Trillion dollars by all of the jobs that this Administration claims that they have created with that stimulus... Then how much did each of these jobs actually end up costing the taxpayers per job?
Reasonably effective. Not perfect, but nothing is -- not even the most ruthlessly efficient private business is 100% effective.How effective was the government with that redistribution?
1) The stimulus largely ended 2 years ago.Is it fair for the Administration to brag that these job number increases are a result of fundamentals enhanced by their superior economic policy decisions? Or should they just admit that these numbers were bought and paid for by the taxpayers?
Which projections?And how come no one is talking about how far these [inflated] job numbers are below the Administration's original projections?
Job numbers need to keep up with population. Population growth also didn't stop in 2007, and restart in Q4 2014.Are the wonderful job numbers touted by the Administration the result of fundamental growth or are they marginalized by the expanding population growth and the resultant natural expansion of the jobs market?
Last I checked, undocumented immigrants aren't included in unemployment stats.When this Administration brags about all of these low level jobs being created, do they mention that most of them are going to those individuals that Obama is inviting across the open boarder?
That statistic is rather out of date.Does anyone care that -- For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce?
like i said, i'm sure that 321,000 jobs is terrible somehow. just out of curiosity, how long have you been debunking job reports? i think i've noticed you in the monthly threads before, but i wanted to know a little more about your personal debunking history.
...
• Health care = 29,000 including 7,000 doctors
...
Dems continue to lose the messaging war on every issue by not forcefully defending the these positive numbers
I suspect that a lot of people started doing this the first month that we had positive job growth after Obama took office.
i'm simply stunned by this. next, you're going to tell me that the anti-war movement collapsed about the same time. there has to be some connection. let me think on it for a bit.
like i said, i'm sure that 321,000 jobs is terrible somehow. just out of curiosity, how long have you been debunking job reports? i think i've noticed you in the monthly threads before, but i wanted to know a little more about your personal debunking history.
This jobs report is actually 1,060,000 better than the one six years ago when we were mired in a negative GDP swoon.
The debunkers as you call them will continue to be out in full force until Obama is gone.
Dems continue to lose the messaging war on every issue by not forcefully defending the these positive numbers
I look at the BLS report and if I see something fishy, I say something.
Last month, I saw nothing fishy (in that the details generally supported the headlines), so I said nothing.
Now, do I trust the government numbers are designed to give an accurate representation? No. I do NOT think they are flat out lying (for one thing, they are not that stupid). But I think they set up their statistical analysis to paint a generally rosier picture then actually exists...no matter which party is in power. Especially for unemployment and inflation and to a lesser extent, GDP.
But since they are all we have (outside of ADP and one or two other lesser sources), I have to go with them.
I didn't know that there was an anti-war movement.
but were you debunking the monthly reports regularly on message boards in the mid 2000s?
No.
My interest in them did not start until after the 'Great Recession'. Like most people (it seems), I took them at more-or-less face value up until then.
If your question really is - did I knock them when Bush was Prez? No.
But I think GW Bush (and Obama) was a horrific POTUS and that both parties are worse then useless.
Reserves held by the Fed aren't "pumped into the economy." They're pretty much sitting there, not doing much of anything, except making it cheap to borrow. It won't hurt the economy or the government's balance sheet, unless someone orders the Fed to sell those bonds and assets at a major loss.Are you saying this 4+ Trillion dollar pumping of money into our economy since Obama took office was Bush’s fault.
Apparently, it's because she believes that QE is no longer necessary, and unlike her predecessors, focuses more on factors like unemployment, discouraged workers, time out of work force etc.Oh Really. Is that because she has -all of a sudden- realized that all of her previous votes in favor of pumping were wrong?
I'm pretty sure imagep isn't an Obama defender.In some perverted way, I can see why a biased defender of this Administration’s economic policies would make such a fringe statement…
Yeah, not so much.Obviously, QE has a major effect on our economy. That’s the reason behind doing it in the first place. Right? Can we agree on that much?
lolAssets flowing from QE onto the Fed's balance sheet are now the equivalent of one-fifth of US GDP. Meaning, the FED is pumping money into the economy by buying bonds and treasuries to falsely prop it up, artificially stimulate it, and buy down inflation.
The negatives will really only kick in if politicians force the Fed to sell the reserve assets at a loss.At some point the negative downside to QE will start to creep in as the Fed tries to ween the fake ‘propped up’ economy off of the endless supply of money that the Fed has been, in effect, electronically printing.
There is a little bit of that, mostly that corporations can use cheap credit for stock buybacks. At the same time, companies are seeing record profitability, which obviously has some effect on stock prices....Example: One clearly visible side effect of QE is Market Growth, not built on fundamentals....
Yeah, not so much. The correlation is not as strong as your oversimplified graph suggests. In particular there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between QE and GDP growth. GDP growth stalled during QE2, went up after QE2 ended, dropped in Q4 2013 for no reason connected to QE, and so forth.When the original QE ended, the market withdrew and it stymied growth in the entire economy.
like i said, i'm sure that 321,000 jobs is terrible somehow. just out of curiosity, how long have you been debunking job reports? i think i've noticed you in the monthly threads before, but i wanted to know a little more about your personal debunking history.
Reserves held by the Fed aren't "pumped into the economy." They're pretty much sitting there, not doing much of anything, except making it cheap to borrow. It won't hurt the economy or the government's balance sheet, unless someone orders the Fed to sell those bonds and assets at a major loss.
Apparently, it's because she believes that QE is no longer necessary, and unlike her predecessors, focuses more on factors like unemployment, discouraged workers, time out of work force etc.
I'm pretty sure imagep isn't an Obama defender.
Yeah, not so much.
It makes borrowing cheaper, but it is arguable that this wound up helping the economy much. It seems like it's not doing much except feeding another data point to the already-frazzled brains of equity traders.
lol
You do realize that people have spent years claiming that this type of Fed activity will cause hyperinflation, right? Just checking.
The negatives will really only kick in if politicians force the Fed to sell the reserve assets at a loss.
There is a little bit of that, mostly that corporations can use cheap credit for stock buybacks. At the same time, companies are seeing record profitability, which obviously has some effect on stock prices....
Yeah, not so much. The correlation is not as strong as your oversimplified graph suggests. In particular there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between QE and GDP growth. GDP growth stalled during QE2, went up after QE2 ended, dropped in Q4 2013 for no reason connected to QE, and so forth.
like i said, i'm sure that 321,000 jobs is terrible somehow. just out of curiosity, how long have you been debunking job reports? i think i've noticed you in the monthly threads before, but i wanted to know a little more about your personal debunking history.
I'm pretty sure imagep isn't an Obama defender.
They're not terrible for the people who have jobs, but they're not the type of jobs the economy needs.
what's your opinion about labor organization?
I generally have no opinion about labour organisation. If workers choose to organisation, they should. I don't always agree with their tactics.
yep, we pretty much agree about that. i am pro union, because it is a way to ensure better jobs. however, there is nuance in every issue.
It can ensure people who have jobs keep their jobs. Whether it can or can't equate to better jobs is debatable.The labour market today isn't the same labour market of the early 1900s. Workers increasingly find that they don't really need unions. Some workers don't have a choice in the matter, but the ones who do aren't organised
my opinion : the pendulum has pretty much swung in the other direction, and in an economy that is increasingly post labor, the power is mostly in the hands of employers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?