So he's the new Reagan? That qualifies him for canonization.

If they're not working they're not workers, therefore there is a 100% employment rate amongst the workers. Good going.

Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Yep, and it is likely to keep going for another 3-4 months before it bottoms out. This recession had quite a bit of downward momentum to it when it fell off the cliff back in September of last year.

Code_Archeologist: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Yep, and it is likely to keep going for another 3-4 months before it bottoms out. This recession had quite a bit of downward momentum to it when it fell off the cliff back in September of last year.

We are just now getting the leading edge of CRE loan defaults, small business bankruptcy is climbing like a mofo, and another round of jumbos is about to hit. I'd say another 11 to 14 months before we see the bottom.

Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won.

This'll happen when you confuse stimulus with pork.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and it tends to lag 6 months behind. We're just now getting to the numbers reflecting the tail end of the Bush recession. Jesus, you whargarblers don't even read the whargarble economists writings, do you?

Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain Ron Paul won.

Ron Paul

/Ron Paul

I'm sure the loyal opposition will put forth a comprehensive plan for getting us out of this mess that Obama's trying to deal with. Perhaps a color glossy pamphlet with smiling people and a suggestion to cut taxes for the wealthy.

US Troops pull out of Iraq: "That was GEORGE W. BUSH's doing! Nothing to do with Obama at all!"

Economy sucks: "Obama is president now, it has all been his fault from the minute he got into office!"

Consistency is all I ask. . .

Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

It's a shame all the stimulus spending is designed to occur in 2010 (I'm sure just a coincidence around mid-term elections) rather than with speed and urgency that Obama requested.

Thanks, congress!

*spits kool-aid everywhere*

Fart_Machine: Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain Ron Paul won.

Ron Paul

/Ron Paul

I thought it was RON PAUL!

Sigh. When Bush was in office I had it all. Then Obama became president, and I lost it all, millions, overnight. I now have nothing except this computer, which I use to tell the world my story.

portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

This.
/Newsletter?
//Subscription!

Amatukaze: Fart_Machine: Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain Ron Paul won.

Ron Paul

/Ron Paul

I thought it was RONRU PAUL!

FTFY

Someone get that graph from the report Obama released during his campaign.

The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.

That graph is hilarious.

sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

You are either illiterate or willfully ignorant. It's an economic fact that unemployment is a lagging indicator. The Dow is now above what it was when Obama took office. The stock market is a fast-paced indicator, unemployment tends to lag 3-6 months behind. This isn't rocket science, it's high school economics.

"on the road to less bad"

dumbo is by far the worst president out of the starting blocking. power hungry and likes to hear himself talk and say nothing and look at himself in the mirror.

Chuck Wagon: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

No, the correct classification is Mexican.

hai guize! is this thread to post useless pix to make fun of obamanomics?

Car_Ramrod: Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Chuck Wagon: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

No. Not at all. After looking for months and months and months and not finding anything, it's not uncommon for people to get dejected and give up.

Joliet_Jake: This isn't rocket science, it's high school economics.

Elitist.

vol1805: "on the road to less bad"

dumbo is by far the worst president out of the starting blocking. power hungry and likes to hear himself talk and say nothing and look at himself in the mirror.

And he's a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and his butt smells and he likes to kiss his own butt.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Car_Ramrod: Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Obviously, because Obama can control the economy, while Bush couldn't control foreign policy. Duh.

In order to lower the unemployment rate, we need to change the definition of "unemployment rate." Perhaps we can only count workers who lost their jobs in the past month. That would lower the unemployment rate to the lowest in decades. It would make the State look real good. Problem solved.

But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!


But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

Car_Ramrod...Welcome to my ignore list. You have just joined the ranks of:

BillCo
Capitalist1
Cup_O_Jo
Darconix
Hang On Voltaire
MethFreek
Nabb1
SouthernManDunWrong
The Stealth Hippopotamus

...for being ridiculously stupid.

/Seriously. Does calling the president "Barry" really make you feel better?
//Or does it just get your panties in such a bunch that the only fiscally responsible presidents we've had in the last 30 years have been Democrats?

I miss the GDP growth under Reagan. What are we at, consecutive -5+% months?

Larofeticus: The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.


Ask and ye shall receive

vol1805: "on the road to less bad"

dumbo is by far the worst president out of the starting blocking. power hungry and likes to hear himself talk and say nothing and look at himself in the mirror.

It'll be a long, long time before someone earns the worst president title again.

Thanks for pointing out how stupid you are.

Welcome to my favorites list, labelled very stupid, colored dark grey so I don't accidentally read your posts.

Car_Ramrod: Chuck Wagon: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

No. Not at all. After looking for months and months and months and not finding anything, it's not uncommon for people to get dejected and give up.

I can't imagine how that number could be significant. Most people need money to eat and stuff.

We're on Day 2 of the fiscal year. How are we able to determine "Obama's Economy" right now?

Chuck Wagon: Car_Ramrod: Chuck Wagon: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

No. Not at all. After looking for months and months and months and not finding anything, it's not uncommon for people to get dejected and give up.

I can't imagine how that number could be significant. Most people need money to eat and stuff.

Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

PinkFuzzyBunny: Car_Ramrod...Welcome to my ignore list. You have just joined the ranks of:

BillCo
Capitalist1
Cup_O_Jo
Darconix
Hang On Voltaire
MethFreek
Nabb1
SouthernManDunWrong
The Stealth Hippopotamus

...for being ridiculously stupid.

/Seriously. Does calling the president "Barry" really make you feel better?
//Or does it just get your panties in such a bunch that the only fiscally responsible presidents we've had in the last 30 years have been Democrats?

1) I have no idea who you are
2) My first ignore listing (that I know of)! Hurray!
3) Nabb1 ain't that bad, he doesn't deserve to be grouped with those other peeps.
4) Excuse me while I guffaw loudly at your expense

Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

Chuck Wagon: Car_Ramrod: Chuck Wagon: sepuku2: If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June,

That's the reality of it.

Uh, what? Wouldn't most laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs be either retired or dead?

No. Not at all. After looking for months and months and months and not finding anything, it's not uncommon for people to get dejected and give up.

I can't imagine how that number could be significant. Most people need money to eat and stuff.

Many people just sit on their ass until their unemployment runs out.

/see: my brothers

Car_Ramrod:
Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.

Dil Doe: Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.

Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

Car_Ramrod: Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

personally, i'm digging on that 'look around the house, see an ebay listing in everything i see' bit. it's awesome.

anybody want to buy a fork?

Welfare Xmas: But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!

But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

Where was this sort of perspective when Bush apologists were blaming Clinton for the recession and for 9/11?

This is a serious question.

Alright, welcome back, Republicans and Democan'ts, to The Rush Limbaugh Show. I'm your host, the honorable Rush J. Limbaugh. The numbers are out on the Obama economy and they are not good. The administration is now acknowledging nearly half of the actual unemployment rate in this country, meaning that the "Obama unemployment rate" is around ten percent. This disregards my numbers, the numbers that I picked up on the Fark.com, and the Google, which indicate this may be the worst jobless cause in the history of the American people. Welcome to change, folks; the take-a-penny, leave-a-penny box is now the bank for a new American century.

Let's head to the e-mail box. MaxxLarge writes: "Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees." Aaaaand you're an idiot. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to make a graph in your head. For George W. Bush, please note that the unemployment rate was four to five percent. For Barack Hussein Obama, the unemployment rate, the one they are not reporting on, is somewhere in the 25 to 35 percent range. Congratulations, Barack: You're now as effective a leader as Franklin Roosevelt, who created the first Great Depression. Go read your history books, kids: Things were good under the Republicans in the Roaring Twenties. Then, the Democrats got a hold of things and screwed it all up. And thanks to a liberal media machine fueled by the horrors of a world with Hitler and Mussolini, the sheeple re-elected Roosevelt three times. That's history for you, kids.

Back on topic, Chearl writes: "We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won." Can't disagree with you there. John McCain had solutions to fix this country, folks. Those solutions were to stay the course. Notice people only talk bad about the Bush economy when they mention the Clinton housing bubble? Mr. Clinton, is there anything you couldn't ruin? Oh wait, that's right, you couldn't ruin the Obama economy, because it is already the worst economy in the history of this country.

Eddie Adams from Torrance writes: "Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy. W-T-F is this guy's problem? Worst President EVAR!" I cannot disagree with you, Mr. Adams. Let me tell you a story: When I was in the eighth grade, I had a teacher, and man, was she a liberal whiner. Every day, I would ask the teacher, "Mrs. Williams, why do you hate this country?" And the class would laugh at me. That's how badly she indoctrinated those kids: Questioning her obvious lack of patriotism seemed crazy to that flaming batch of liberals. This is what has happened in the Barack Obama America. You cannot go from one end of the country to the other without running into the zombie Obama supporters. Is it any surprise that they vote for the Democrats year-in year-out, and never have their thirst for braaaaaaaaains satiated? Take a guess why that is, folks. I'll tell you one thing: If the economy continues to tank like it has under Barack Hussein Obama, we may have to take our chainsaws and gore our way to Mexico. This is The Rush Limbaugh Show, I'll be taking some of your phone calls after this word from our sponsors.

Car_Ramrod: 1) I have no idea who you are

I've yet to figure out what people really think they're claiming when they announce they've put someone on ignore. Something like:

"I have deemed my anonymous opinion of you highly regarded!"

Car_Ramrod:
2) My first ignore listing (that I know of)! Hurray!

Congrats!!

Joliet_Jake: Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

John Boener said as much last month.

Its an economic shiat storm, and blaming any one person (Bush, Obama etc...) makes you functionally retarded.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.

heap: Car_Ramrod: Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

personally, i'm digging on that 'look around the house, see an ebay listing in everything i see' bit. it's awesome.

anybody want to buy a fork?

Sure, just let me put it on one of my credit cards. Those things are great!

Dil Doe: Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.

When it improves it's because of George W Bush. Durrr. Don't you know how science works? If something bad happens it's a Democrat Socialist Nazi Child Molesting Party member's fault. If something good happens it's a Republican's fault. And nothing else matters.

Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

All that graph indicates is that even Obama didn't realize how badly Bushco screwed up our economy.

The Bushco failure was monumental.

DarnoKonrad: Car_Ramrod: 1) I have no idea who you are

I've yet to figure out what people really think they're claiming when they announce they've put someone on ignore. Something like:

"I have deemed my anonymous opinion of you highly regarded!"

Heh, it's funny cuz it's true. Though I'm opposed to the ignore list in general.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
2) My first ignore listing (that I know of)! Hurray!

Congrats!!

Thanks! Only took me 6 and a half years.

Joliet_Jake: Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

A variation on something Bill Clinton once said:

Republicans claim that if anything good happened during a Democratic administration, the president had nothing to do with it; but, if anything bad happened, he must have stayed up all night planning it.

My dad got the news that he's getting laid off from Briggs and Stratton yesterday. My aunt is being laid off as well from her job.

I do not blame Obama for either. This is the Bush aftermath. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. That is to say, in a recovering economy, jobs will be the VERY LAST THING to come back. Employers will keep telling themselves that all their rivals are laying off, but it's not gonna be them, so jobs are slow to be lost. But when the jobs ARE lost, employers get jittery and are afraid to hire again until they know the company can take that kind of burden again.

Lagging indicator. Not leading. LAGGING. The more leading indicators have stabilized somewhat, so we remain on pace.

Besides, if you'd been listening, Obama said at the very start that 2009 was going to suck, didn't he?

Bush broke the planet and now Obama's gonna save the Earth!!!!
Leave Obama alooooone!

Car_Ramrod:
And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.


Sad but true:
Link (new window)

The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

So the economy was worse off than people had originally thought. Even the Obama administration admitted so.

What exactly is the point you guys are trying to make? That we're not quite out of the recession that started before Obama ever took office or even won the nomination?

Also, why is voting enabled so often these days?

Ok, just to make sure I have this straight on who is liable for anything negative to the United States.

1981-1989 all Carters fault
1989-1993 Blissfull heaven everything was perfect. If it wasn't it was Carters fault.
1993-2001 Pure hell and anything good was because of Reagan and Bush Sr.
2001-2009 all Clinton's fault.
2009-2012 Clinton's fault and Obama's.
2012-2016 Obama's fault



/Really?
//Really really?
///How do you not feel like a farking tool?

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

If you think the budget is the only, the primary, or a leading reason for the state of the economy right now, you need to stop sniffing airplane glue.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.


Sad but true:
Link (new window)

Jesus. Now I don't feel so bad about having a miniscule savings account.

/never used unemployment
//should send this to my parents to get them off my back

heap:

anybody want to buy a fork?

I'll trade you a Cup o' Noodles for it!


Oh, wait ...

Joliet_Jake: If you think the budget is the only, the primary, or a leading reason for the state of the economy right now, you need to stop sniffing airplane glue


I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

Car_Ramrod: Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Obviously, because Obama can control the economy, while Bush couldn't control foreign policy. Duh.

Well, at least we're in agreement on one thing, Obama is far more in control than Bush ever was.

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Whaagarbl? Whaaaaagarbl!

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

I know! Especially with their overwhelming majorities and no threats of vetoes. It should've been no problem to make this country into a liberal paradise!

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Car_Ramrod: Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Obviously, because Obama can control the economy, while Bush couldn't control foreign policy. Duh.

Well, at least we're in agreement on one thing, Obama is far more in control than Bush ever was.

Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Joliet_Jake: you need to stop sniffing airplane glue.

So that's why planes keep crashing -- they're held together with glue!

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Erebus1954: Sad but true: [9:10 on food stamps]


I know people on food stamps. And in this state, the qualification are pretty damn destitute.

It has a lot to do with the last 10 years being the only economic expansion that saw buying power for consumers lower.

This really is miserable shiat.

MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

There's a lot of willful ignorance in your post, an almost obsessive determination to pin every setback of the past eight years upon one man and a grinding need to assign him blame for all negative current events and those far in the future that have yet to occur. It's almost as though, in your search for truth, you've crawled up your own asshole and lost contact with the real world. Send us a postcard.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

WhyteRaven74: Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Well, go tell the democrats they just spent a couple trillion based on that belief.

Car_Ramrod: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat? Awwwwwwww.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Ah, so now it's the "state-run" media, since anybody who goes around in public using the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet is now properly recognized as an incompetent lunatic?

Clever... Cleee-veeer!

Exactly what McCain would have done that you think will make the situation right now any better off? Just curious, subby. I'm guessing Tax Cut? Which surely would have help the economy this whole SIX freaking month?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Ah, so now it's the "state-run" media, since anybody who goes around in public using the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet is now properly recognized as an incompetent lunatic?

Clever... Cleee-veeer!

The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Shaggy_C: Larofeticus: The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.


Ask and ye shall receive

The stimulus benefits are supposed to hit in Q3/Q4 of this year full-bore, which actually (interestingly enough to the report I listened to on NPR) means that the prime effects'll be in time for the mid term elections in 2010. I wonder how much of a coincidence that was; because if it works, there won't be a Republican in Congress outside of the Deep South/Mormon country.

PinkFuzzyBunny: Car_Ramrod...Welcome to my ignore list. You have just joined the ranks of:

BillCo
Capitalist1
Cup_O_Jo
Darconix
Hang On Voltaire
MethFreek
Nabb1
SouthernManDunWrong
The Stealth Hippopotamus

...for being ridiculously stupid.

/Seriously. Does calling the president "Barry" really make you feel better?
//Or does it just get your panties in such a bunch that the only fiscally responsible presidents we've had in the last 30 years have been Democrats?

Nabb1 really doesn't belong on that list. He's conservative but he's no where near as disingenuous, trollish, or retarded as most of those guys.

Stealth Hippopotamus might not belong either, but I may be thinking of the wrong poster.

/Only ignorelists people who post stupid pictures constantly or repeat the same argument over and over again and think that is "discussion."

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Why does he have to have a solution? Aren't we allowed to blame the politicians on both sides who got us here in the first place? Didn't we elect them to fix this mess? Isn't that their job?

godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Wow, FOX News submits their questions? And Helen Thomas? I really doubt it.

Amatukaze: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Why does he have to have a solution? Aren't we allowed to blame the politicians on both sides who got us here in the first place? Didn't we elect them to fix this mess? Isn't that their job?

Very well, I shall rephrase that...

What alternative do you offer?

godofusa.com: Car_Ramrod: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat? Awwwwwwww.

*tossles hair* Keep fighting the good fight, kid.

Larofeticus: Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

On the bright side, this dot will only be 0.1% away from the previous dot.

godofusa.com: Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat?

Helen Thomas is just being honest. She is faulting the Obama administration for its secrecy because the administration is being overly stingy with the facts and overly controlling of the press environment.

But, these aren't new objections on Thomas' part. She was raising holy Hell during the Bush administration, too. Then, of course, the same right wingnuts who are now celebrating her boldness were dismissing her concerns of executive secrecy and press manipulation.

And I, for one, think the right wingnuts have no one to blame for this but themselves. They defended this kind of nonsense when the White House was in Republican hands. They were told that allowing Bush to get away with his shenanigans would set a bad precedent. They were told that once the executive asserts a privilege and that assertion is sustained politically, it is never given up.

So why are you right wingnuts whining about it now? If you were really against government secrecy of the type Obama is practicing, you should have objected when it first came up rather than waiting for eight years.

godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Odd how this didn't disturb you until now.

WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Really?

Pechorin [TotalFark] 2009-07-02 04:10:18 PM
"In order to lower the unemployment rate, we need to change the definition of "unemployment rate." Perhaps we can only count workers who lost their jobs in the past month. That would lower the unemployment rate to the lowest in decades. It would make the State look real good. Problem solved."

Wouldn't that just be delicious irony to watch the FARK Independents^TM, who so vigorously defended Bush's redefining "unemployment", argue as viciously against Obama redefining "unemployment". The circle of hypocrisy would be complete.

eraser8: So why are you right wingnuts whining about it now? If you were really against government secrecy of the type Obama is practicing, you should have objected when it first came up rather than waiting for eight years.

Happiness is seeing this...



... In the bargain bin at Barnes and Noble.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Do you even know what "state-run media" means or did it just sound good in your head?

STATE-RUN media would be something like Armed Forces Radio.

Fart_Machine: rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?


Some, not much. You were challenged with congress, you responded with one thing they do. I'll grant you SMF drove you that direction, but including all the powers of Congress, do they or don't they have an influence on the economy?

Really?

Fart_Machine: You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Well it does. It's like 35% of GDP. And the whole point of the stimulus package is to effect the economy. And that's in the budget.


But generally no, the Federal Budget is not used to manage the economy. That's what the Fed's for. But it does effect it.

Wake up sheeple, Bush is still secretly controlling everything.

You know, Republicans, I don't know how quickly the economy is going to recover, but I'm going to bet it will look significantly better 3 years from now -- probably even a year from now -- and the general mood will therefore be happier.

And whether he deserves it or not, Obama will receive all the credit. And whether they deserve it or not, Republicans will be like the duck, the goose, the cat and the pig in the old childrens' fable of The Little Red Hen... biatching and moaning throughout the whole process, and then expecting a reward for it.

And even if the economy isn't significantly better in a year, I think the odds of it being better in 3 years are pretty durn good.

And you may remember what happened to the Democrats when they biatched and moaned during the '82 recession that ended in time for the '84 election.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Odd how this didn't disturb you until now.

Gibbs annoyed me from day 1.

paygun: Wake up sheeple, Bush is still secretly controlling everything.

Clinton's. Weather. Machine. I see they've been using the atmosphere on you. Don't be duped.

I'd rather go with the

rohar: Fart_Machine: rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?


Some, not much. You were challenged with congress, you responded with one thing they do.

Well the question related to the budget not all of the powers of Congress. However for Congress to enact legislation that would effect the economy they would have to A) have it approved by the President or B) override a veto from the President.

So what legislation does that relate to under the previous Administration?

Fart_Machine: You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts trillions into the economy. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

Just remember, guise.

Great Depression (1929 - 1933): FDR's fault
Recession of 1937: FDR's fault
Recession of 1945: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1948: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1953: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1958: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1960-1961: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1969-1970: LBJ's fault
Recession of 1973-1974: LBJ's fault
Recession of 1980: Carter's fault
Recession of 1981-1982: Carter's fault
Recession of 1990-1991: Carter's fault
Recession of 2000: Clinton's fault
Recession of 2007-: Clinton/Obama's fault

godofusa.com: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Odd how this didn't disturb you until now.

Gibbs annoyed me from day 1.

I think he was referring to the blatant propagandizing done by Fox News during the Bush administration- or, wait, they were just being Fair and Balanced then, amirite?

Spanky_McFarksalot: Fart_Machine: You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts trillions into the economy. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

Well the key word here is directly. You really can't control what federal employees spend their paychecks on however they do put money back into the economy. However they don't directly control it. If that were the case we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Unless you want to nationalize industry of course but that has its own set of problems.

Welfare Xmas: But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!

But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

It's not so much that I fault y'all for blaming Obama, but I fault y'all for being inconsistent liars.

Recession that has so far been 67% in Bush's term: It's the fault of the guy who inherited it.

Recession that started early in Bush's term (despite claims, he technically did not inherit a recession, as it started and ended in 2001): It's the fault of the guy before.

Recession that occurred in Bush I's term: *crickets*

Recession that occurred in Reagan's first term: It's the fault of his predecessor.

Recession that occurred in Carter's term: It's Carter's fault.

etc...

Spanky_McFarksalot: Fart_Machine: You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts takes trillions into out of the economy and pisses it down a rat hole. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense defence, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

FTFY

/FLAME ON!

Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won.

Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Have you come from an alternate future where he won? Do tell!

WHAAAARGARBLE

Dil Doe - Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.


Now, c'mon... that's not completely true. They did suggest some big tax cuts for the wealthy.

MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

It took 6 posts before the "Blame Bush" crowd showed up!!! Farkers, you're letting me down!

I think your comment would carry more weight if the Savior hadn't promised he'd fix the economy quickly (you know, stimulus bills and what not).

elchip: Welfare Xmas: But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!

But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

It's not so much that I fault y'all for blaming Obama, but I fault y'all for being inconsistent liars.

Recession that has so far been 67% in Bush's term: It's the fault of the guy who inherited it.

Recession that started early in Bush's term (despite claims, he technically did not inherit a recession, as it started and ended in 2001): It's the fault of the guy before.

Recession that occurred in Bush I's term: *crickets*

Recession that occurred in Reagan's first term: It's the fault of his predecessor.

Recession that occurred in Carter's term: It's Carter's fault.

etc...

Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he inherited a recession from the burst of the "dot com" bubble, much like Bush was involved in the housing bubble (that Obama inherited).

We can also blame Greenspan and the Fed for lowering interest rates to 1%?! Should be 10%!

/25% if they want to pass all this spending

Rockstone: Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won.

Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

At the very least, we would have had all the pancakes we could eat!

/PANCAKES!

RemyDuron: US Troops pull out of Iraq: "That was GEORGE W. BUSH's doing! Nothing to do with Obama at all!"

Economy sucks: "Obama is president now, it has all been his fault from the minute he got into office!"

Consistency is all I ask. . .

When Bush was in office....
Democrats = "We've lost the war in Iraq. It was horribly managed and it's all Bush's Fault. It's over, there's no hope, bring our troops home."

Now....
Democrats = "Victory in Iraq... Praise be to Obama"

A little consistency would be nice wouldn't it?

Joliet_Jake: Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and it tends to lag 6 months behind. We're just now getting to the numbers reflecting the tail end of the Bush recession. Jesus, you whargarblers don't even read the whargarble economists writings, do you?

Talking point #1 I came for...

moralpanic: Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

Ohh, and look! It's talking point #2!

Seriously folks, when is unemployment going to cease being the lagging indicator and start to show the results of all the governmental spending? August? October? Next May?

At what point is there the realization that the "cure" (read - Stimulus Package) is making things worse than it would have otherwise? Does unemployment have to be 30%?

My guess is we're just going to be hearing a lot of: "Hey, it took 8 years for you guys to wreck the economy, you can't expect Obama to have it fixed in 6months/1 year/2 years/3 and a half years, etc. etc."

Larofeticus: Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

Republican humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican failure.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

And in three years you'll just say it was a wash and Bush ruined it so bad Obama never had a chance to begin with. Kill yourself.

jgbrowning: Larofeticus: Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

Republican humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican failure.

Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession

Ontos: Joliet_Jake: Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and it tends to lag 6 months behind. We're just now getting to the numbers reflecting the tail end of the Bush recession. Jesus, you whargarblers don't even read the whargarble economists writings, do you?

Talking point #1 I came for...

moralpanic: Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

Ohh, and look! It's talking point #2!

Seriously folks, when is unemployment going to cease being the lagging indicator and start to show the results of all the governmental spending? August? October? Next May?

At what point is there the realization that the "cure" (read - Stimulus Package) is making things worse than it would have otherwise? Does unemployment have to be 30%?

My guess is we're just going to be hearing a lot of: "Hey, it took 8 years for you guys to wreck the economy, you can't expect Obama to have it fixed in 6months/1 year/2 years/3 and a half years, etc. etc."

This talking point is valid, 6 months is not enough to see any effect of the economic policy. One year, may be. Myself, my cut-off point is one and a half.

kleppe: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

And in three years you'll just say it was a wash and Bush ruined it so bad Obama never had a chance to begin with. Kill yourself.

I think we're on the same page...

ou_fan222 - MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

It took 6 posts before the "Blame Bush" crowd showed up!!! Farkers, you're letting me down!

I think your comment would carry more weight if the Savior hadn't promised he'd fix the economy quickly (you know, stimulus bills and what not).


Yeah... I'm gonna require a citation on the claim that Obama said he'd repair the economy in less than six months. If he said anything even remotely like that it would have been wall-to-wall on every network, so you shouldn't have ANY trouble at all backing up your claim.

You guys are the lyingest sacks of shiat ever. You'll just say absolutely anything, no matter how preposterous... no matter how easily fact-checked. You have no reservations about blowing utter bullshiat at the slightest whim if you think it will score you a point in an argument.

Fortunately, you're pretty farking retarded... so your lies are usually about as believable as the kid who picks his nose in geometry and claims he knows someone who makes his own bulletproof chainmail.

Masso:
This talking point is valid, 6 months is not enough to see any effect of the economic policy. One year, may be. Myself, my cut-off point is one and a half.

Honestly, that's one of the most valid positions I've read on the Politics tab of Fark.

Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

No one knows how to drive back up the cliff than the guys that drove off it to begin with, I suppose. I see you really do believe that past performance isn't indicative of future performance.

I, however, suspect that anyone who was smart enough to select Palin as a running mate would somehow find us another cliff to drive off of were he in charge.

ou_fan222: Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession revolt

FTFY

/ the peasants are revolting!
// you got that right!

Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

jgbrowning:
Republican Austrian humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic Keneysian failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican Keneysian failure.

That is a more accurate perspective on my point of view. I find it amazing how a field of study with such a terrible track record for making predictions continues to find someone to listen to its predictions.

Hope and Change.

Fart_Machine: rohar: Fart_Machine: rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?


Some, not much. You were challenged with congress, you responded with one thing they do.

Well the question related to the budget not all of the powers of Congress. However for Congress to enact legislation that would effect the economy they would have to A) have it approved by the President or B) override a veto from the President.

So what legislation does that relate to under the previous Administration?

To finally go full circle, that's exactly my point. It doesn't exist. Inept government at it's best.

jgbrowning: Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

Package it anyway you'd like, it's just as retarded.

Larofeticus: That is a more accurate perspective on my point of view. I find it amazing how a field of study with such a terrible track record for making predictions continues to find someone to listen to its predictions.

Oh, an Austrian. That's even funnier. Have you checked on the top story at the Ludwig von Mises Institute today? https://www.mises.org/

It's titled "Free Bernie Madoff" and it's as cute as a button.

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

6 months is enough to fix the worst economic melt down in 80 years but 9 months isn't enough to stop 20 guy with box cutters.

Got it.

Ontos: jgbrowning: Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

Package it anyway you'd like, it's just as retarded.

Feeling better yet? Maybe you should respond to this post as well. Perhaps that would finally do the trick.

portscanner: FTFY

I wouldn't argue against your fixes.

I thought last months unemployment rate went up because GM shut a bunch of plants down when they went into bankruptcy.

Obviously all these problems could have been solved with a tax cut for the rich. Maybe similar to the 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut Bush put in to save the economy during his first term. That one did awesome!

jgbrowning: Oh, an Austrian. That's even funnier. Have you checked on the top story at the Ludwig von Mises Institute today? https://www.mises.org/

It's titled "Free Bernie Madoff" and it's as cute as a button.

That's nice. How is it relevent to this thread?

The other side wants to borrow as much money as possible to flush down the government toilet with no track record for success or even close to accurate predictions. That strikes me as not only a less rational point of view, but it's also a relevant one.

portscanner: ou_fan222: Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession revolt

FTFY

/ the peasants are revolting!
// you got that right!

Really? Did anyone revolt when NAFTA was passed? How about when the New Deal ramped up and got going? A riot? Really?

Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).

portscanner, you are a disingenuous cock.

Cap and trade for CO2 is revenue neutral, you stupid asshole. This has been pointed out to you again and again. Exactly the same way cap and trade for SO2 was revenue neutral. So stop being ignorant and obfuscating the debate with your nonsensical shenanigans.

kleppe: Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).

If nothing has changed by 2012 we're completely farked as a country.

kleppe - Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).



And it still wouldn't change the fact that the GOP drove this country right into the farking ground with greater velocity than a kamikaze pilot.

If he can't turn it around... it sucks, but sometimes the firemen just can't save the building... It's just too far gone.

When that happens... the blame doesn't rest with the firemen, the blame is on the crackheads who were smoking rock in the basement.

Every time you guys talk about how Obama is unable to fix the economy, all you're doing is pointing out once again, what an unbelievable farking mess Republicans left it in.

So go ahead... keep talking about what an astounding shiatpile this country's economy is in... because nobody's forgetting who put it there.

Larofeticus: Someone get that graph from the report Obama released during his campaign.

The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.

That graph is hilarious.

And without the stimulus it would be even higher still. Government adding new spending increases employment, that is undeniable. Whether it is worthwhile in the long run can be debated, but the base fact is hard to deny - you would basically be saying that for every person the government hires, private enterprise reacts to that single fact by firing more than one person on average. Most analyses of historical employment policy (government vs private) suggest that in a period of high unemployment every extra employee the government takes on increases private employment (by amounts from 0.3 to 1.6 being a figure that sticks in my head but I can't remember which recessions we were discussing at the time). The government employees have more money to spend compared to when they were unemployed, so that tends to stimulate demand in the private sector.

Obviously when government takes on more employees during a period of low employment it competes with private industry more, and the net increase in employment drops below 1 and heads towards zero as you get closer to full employment. At full employment it is exactly 0, as any new employee must come from private industry by definition (ignoring immigration/emigration, new entrants/retirements and so on for simplicity).

I love how this whole economic meltdown started at the end of 8 years of George W Bush and Republican-dominated rule, and yet subby has the balls to call it the Obama Economy. Regardless of whether or not you think his stimulus approach is working or wasteful, you'd have to be a complete simpleton to lay the blame for the housing collapse, the banking collapse, and the sorry state of US manufacturing on a President who took office well after all of that began.

/He may claim to have rainbows or unicorns, but he hasn't got a time machine, people.

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

LOL

Republicans blamed everything in BOTH of Bush's terms on Clinton (when it wasn't all Carter's fault, of course). The phrase originated as "b...b...but Clinton!" because Bush defenders couldn't go 10 words without trying to pin something on Bill.

I'm sure you're going to tell me that you're being sarcastic and making fun of Bush defenders now, because this is fark and up is down.

Trey Le Parc: MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

There's a lot of willful ignorance in your post, an almost obsessive determination to pin every setback of the past eight years upon one man and a grinding need to assign him blame for all negative current events and those far in the future that have yet to occur. It's almost as though, in your search for truth, you've crawled up your own asshole and lost contact with the real world. Send us a postcard.

You're right. Congressional Republicans share a lot of the blame, along with Bush.

technicolor-misfit: Dil Doe - Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.

Now, c'mon... that's not completely true. They did suggest some big tax cuts for the wealthy.

Then again the solution to a cat being stuck up a tree is apparently big tax cuts for the wealthy.

xria: Larofeticus: Someone get that graph from the report Obama released during his campaign.

The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.

That graph is hilarious.

And without the stimulus it would be even higher still. Government adding new spending increases employment, that is undeniable. Whether it is worthwhile in the long run can be debated, but the base fact is hard to deny - you would basically be saying that for every person the government hires, private enterprise reacts to that single fact by firing more than one person on average. Most analyses of historical employment policy (government vs private) suggest that in a period of high unemployment every extra employee the government takes on increases private employment (by amounts from 0.3 to 1.6 being a figure that sticks in my head but I can't remember which recessions we were discussing at the time). The government employees have more money to spend compared to when they were unemployed, so that tends to stimulate demand in the private sector.

Obviously when government takes on more employees during a period of low employment it competes with private industry more, and the net increase in employment drops below 1 and heads towards zero as you get closer to full employment. At full employment it is exactly 0, as any new employee must come from private industry by definition (ignoring immigration/emigration, new entrants/retirements and so on for simplicity).

But most of the expenditures of the stimulus package goes to private contractors, not government employees.

Your theory, it just evaporated.

Larofeticus: jgbrowning:
Republican Austrian humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic Keneysian failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican Keneysian failure.

That is a more accurate perspective on my point of view. I find it amazing how a field of study with such a terrible track record for making predictions continues to find someone to listen to its predictions.

John Maynard Keynes, hence Keynesian.

Keynesianism is probably broadly correct, it is just impossible politically. The spending by government when things are bad works fine, but cutting back spending and paying down the debt during booms (to avoid competing with the private sector and causing inflationary pressures) is far too rare to make it work in practise. Politicians are Keynesianists when there is a recession and turn into Monetarists when there is a boom.

DGS: MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

This.
/Newsletter?
//Subscription!


Obama is continuing the Bush Policies x 10. How is what he doing any different in policy? We're just going to hell faster than under Bush.

006andahalf: So he's the new Reagan? That qualifies him for canonization.

no, Obama would need 20 years to fark things up like reagan was able to do in 8.

ronnie started the ball rolling and its culmination was in 2008 when bushie put the cherry on top and the richest 1-2% ran away with all the Gold.

thanks ronnie for getting that evil government off the backs of wallstreet bankers so they could frkkk this country in the asss.

you're swell ronnie!

PS --have a great dirt nap for eternity.

wmanning833: DGS: MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

This.
/Newsletter?
//Subscription!


Obama is continuing the Bush Policies x 10. How is what he doing any different in policy? We're just going to hell faster than under Bush.

Not really. Foreign policy is drastically different. Economic policy is also much different. Tax policy, yup, different.

How you can say that we're going down faster now when in GWBs last term so many of the major bankers failed and the housing bubble burst astonishes me.

kleppe: Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).

So this leaves us with two options:

(1) You're right. Obama can't fix the economy. Because it was so much of a mess that the entire combined might of all politicians on both sides of the political spectrum can't fix it (the GOP is working with Obama, right?). This does not help the GOP.

(2) You're wrong. He did fix the economy. Your entire position is invalid, and you are a laughing stock for playing Chicken Little while Obama fixes things.

Is that really what you want? To either be right about the biggest fark-up in years and have things worse, or to be completely wrong?

Please, help me see your perspective here. I'm failing.

Larofeticus: That's nice. How is it relevent to this thread?

The other side wants to borrow as much money as possible to flush down the government toilet with no track record for success or even close to accurate predictions. That strikes me as not only a less rational point of view, but it's also a relevant one.

I'm sure it strikes you as less rational. I wouldn't expect anything such from someone that can believe in Austrian Economics.

For those reading here's a bit from wiki about Austrian Economics "Austrian economists reject empirical, statistical methods and artificially constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this treatment. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action. Von Mises called this discipline "praxeology".

and

"The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they perceive to be self-evident axioms; undeniable facts about human existence."

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

It's not that he hasn't fixed it, it's that he's totally farked it for the next three generations.

Hoopido: It's not that he hasn't fixed it, it's that he's totally farked it for the next three generations.

xria: Keynesianism is probably broadly correct, it is just impossible politically.

I fail to see how something can be correct despite government when it both requires government to implement and that government is a permanant aspect of our society.

That is as valid as the claim "Communism is right, it just can't be implemented."

jgbrowning:

Hey I've got a piece of empirical evidence for you.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

That's the report obama used to justify the stimulus. It uses modern macroeconomics to distill the near infinite complexity of american economic interaction into some numbers. The past six months have demonstrated that its predictions are not just wrong but far in excess of their worst case scenario.

Using toy models to understand a system of that much complexity would be fine with me if it worked. Instead, they have to be modified following every crisis to explain it after the fact, and are never successful in predicting the next crisis. In data mining, that sort of error is called overfitting.

Joliet_Jake:

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

You are either illiterate or willfully ignorant. It's an economic fact that unemployment is a lagging indicator. The Dow is now above what it was when Obama took office. The stock market is a fast-paced indicator, unemployment tends to lag 3-6 months behind. This isn't rocket science, it's high school economics.

Okay, so you're saying everything from this month on is Obama's fault? No more Bush-biatching^TM about everything? Fair enough. Set the counters to zero...

Gen. Jim

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:

Car_Ramrod: Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Speaking personally, I don't mind looking at this kind of thing either way. YES, there are carry-over effects, some of them long-lasting. And, YES, once someone becomes President, like it or not, the buck stops there.

BUT (and it's a big but) only take it one way or the other. If 9/11 was Clinton's fault, then GWB has to take responsibility for the problems NOW. And if it 'was all Bush's fault' on 9/11, then Obama screwed the pooch on the economy. I don't mind looking at it either way, but, BOTH sides of this want to take any credit, and dodge any blame. Get real.

But, as to this, Obama ducking responsibility for the economy would make a lot more sense if he weren't making the same mistakes GWB did, and doubling down every chance he gets. Using any reasonable viewing of the situation, if you think GWB was bad on the economy (like I do) then Obama is several times worse.

I mean that it would make more sense to blame GWB for current INTERNATIONAL problems, because BHO has changed them, quite a bit. But on the economy, GWB started a dumbass bailout program, and BHO is continuing, and accelerating that plan. What's the gripe? GWB didn't dork it up enough?

Gen. Jim

Yeah but obama takes reporters out to eat and hits the bars with them

obama news

obama achievements

Hoopido: It's not that he hasn't fixed it, it's that he's totally farked it for the next three generations.

I also heard that the sky is falling! We'd better all move underground.

Few things are more hilarious than watching a bunch of people with less understanding of what's going on than an average 12th grader a week into Econ 101 throw tantrums.

Did Bush cause the recession? No. Did he do much to prevent it, even when it was glaringly obvious it was imminent? No, he stuck his head in the sand like an ostrich.

Is Obama making the recession worse? Too early to tell. So far the worst crime he's definitely guilty of is presenting very rose-tinted projections of how quickly his policies might turn things around. Anyone who says that he's doing better/worse than that is a partisan hack.

You can quote all the history, economic theories, political jargon etc you want, fact of the matter is there are thousands of variables at play here and it's impossible to predict where we'll be in 3 months much less a year from now.

Back to your regularly scheduled self-congratulatory noisemaking contest.

chaunceymo: I also heard that the sky is falling! We'd better all move underground.

Yeah, but employed volume isn't beyond a standard deviation of the mean, the DOW is recovering nicely and the stimulus package hasn't even gotten it's groove on yet.

DarnoKonrad:

Joliet_Jake: Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

John Boener said as much last month.

The reality of the situation is that the 90s were going to be good, almost no matter what, and had been predicted that way since the 60s. The reason? The giant lump of baby-boomers were in their peak earning years, buying houses and cars. This decade, the 2010s, (starting a tad early) should suck, also based on demographics; the boomers are retiring, and starting to draw money rather than deposit it.

But the dynamic duo of GWB and BHO are proving there's no cluster-fark so bad you can't throw another shrimp on the barbie, to mangle the metaphor. This is precisely the wrong time to be building up a huge debt.

Gen. Jim

This economy took years to get where it is, it will take years to get out. The president did what he could to replace some of those 6 million jobs that were lost - he passed a stimulus to get some important public works projects started so that some people could start earning a paycheck again.

As you can't grow an economy on hamburger stands, lawn care, and other crappy service sector jobs and the pain will continue until some industry booms and soaks up some of these people out of work, if anything Paul Krugman was correct and we need a larger stimulus.

Another harsh reality is that those jobs aren't going to come back. A 21st century plan is needed to pull the US out of its recession, the best thing we can do is get these people building solar panels, turbines, and tidal harnesses. After that we can put them to work cleaning up the great Pacific Garbage patch, a project that would have tremendous health benefits for the ecosystem, our country, and the world.

Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.



Do any of you understand what a projection is?

RevMercutio: We're on Day 2 of the fiscal year. How are we able to determine "Obama's Economy" right now?

Unfortunately that'll never stop the right from getting their shots in.

Unfortunately for the right-wingers the economy during Reagan's first term wasn't a great read either.

Jeezus. Were y'all paying attention at the end of 2009? Did you see what happened? Did you see banks collapse and lenders freeze money? Do you think you think that sort of thing just goes away?

The economy isn't a farking microwave. It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Jeezus. Were y'all paying attention at the end of 2009? Did you see what happened? Did you see banks collapse and lenders freeze money? Do you think you think that sort of thing just goes away?

The economy isn't a farking microwave. It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

2008. I meant 2008.

kleppe: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.
WTF is this guy's problem?
Worst President EVAR!

And in three years you'll just say it was a wash and Bush ruined it so bad Obama never had a chance to begin with. Kill yourself.

And? You act as if it would be an unfair statement.

ragekage: Shaggy_C: Larofeticus: The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.


Ask and ye shall receive

The stimulus benefits are supposed to hit in Q3/Q4 of this year full-bore, which actually (interestingly enough to the report I listened to on NPR) means that the prime effects'll be in time for the mid term elections in 2010. I wonder how much of a coincidence that was; because if it works, there won't be a Republican in Congress outside of the Deep South/Mormon country.



Because Two-Party Politics is a Biatch

Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying chart:



source (new window)

moralpanic: Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

The housing bubble has been going on for a lot longer than Bush's presidency....

It's better than 5 in 10 living on elephant farts, like in 2000 & 2004.

Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.

It's impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years. Take a look at this chart:



source (new window)

Over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.

But even that gives the private sector too much credit. Remember that the private sector includes health care, social assistance, and education, all areas which receive a lot of government support. I've been talking about the HealthEdGov sector. Take a look at this table:
10-year Job Growth: HealthEdGov Sector Dominates


Industry Change, May 1999-2009
(thousands of jobs)*

Private healthcare 2898
Food and drinking places 1567
Gov educ 1390
Professional and business services 885
Gov except health and ed 843
Social assistance 796
Private education 772
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 188
Gov health 148
Mining 133
Financial activities 130
Utilities -40
Transportation and warehousing -43
Retail -91
Accomodations -119
Wholesale -166
Construction -238
Information -525
Manufacturing -5372

*Gov health and gov educ based on April 2009 estimates
Data: BLS


Most of the industries which had positive job growth over the past ten years were in the HealthEdGov sector. In fact, financial job growth was nearly nonexistent once we take out the health insurers.

source (new window)

brainiac-dumdum: Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying chart:



source (new window)

Yeah, but the employed volume hasn't left standard deviation. Hmm, wonder what blew the percentage up.

Without a decade of growing government support from rising health and education spending and soaring budget deficits, the labor market would have been flat on its back.



source (new window)

Obama and his great stimulus sham has FAILED. There is no debating that. The standard for success for the stimulus plan SET BY OBAMA HIMSELF was that unemployment would not rise above 8.5%. Unemployment is approaching 10%. FAIL. Many much FAIL.

The 22%'ers calling this the "Obama recession" can go fark themselves.

You don't get to rewrite history WHILE IT'S HAPPENING. You have to at least wait a few years before you pin something on the new guy that clearly started under the last guy.

You also don't get to rewrite history when you lose.

Oh my poor, misguided Americans....pretty soon you'll be Canada's Mexico.

shower_in_my_socks: The 22%'ers calling this the "Obama recession" can go fark themselves.

We didn't set the measure of success for the stimulus package at 8.5% unemployment. Obama did. We're WAY past that now. It's much worse than what they predicted would happen WITHOUT the stimulus. Not only did the stimulus FAIL it made things WORSE. This is on Obama now. The stimulus was his baby and its failure is directly attributable to him. The moment he started pushing the failed stimulus package was the moment this failure became his.

mmm... pancake: shower_in_my_socks: The 22%'ers calling this the "Obama recession" can go fark themselves.

We didn't set the measure of success for the stimulus package at 8.5% unemployment. Obama did. We're WAY past that now. It's much worse than what they predicted would happen WITHOUT the stimulus. Not only did the stimulus FAIL it made things WORSE. This is on Obama now. The stimulus was his baby and its failure is directly attributable to him. The moment he started pushing the failed stimulus package was the moment this failure became his.


So it's Obama's recession because he didn't predict that Bush's fark up was as bad as it's proving to be? If we're still this farked by the end of the year, then I'm willing to consider that the stimulus didn't work. But considering that a vast majority of it hasn't even been spent yet, I'm going to reserve judgment for now.

The failure is HIS? Fark off, wingnut. I know you'd love to pawn off one of Bush's many clusterfarks on someone else, but you have to wait a little more than 6 months if you want to be taken seriously.

shower_in_my_socks: So it's Obama's recession because he didn't predict that Bush's fark up was as bad as it's proving to be?

He accepted responsibility for it when he promised that he could fix it by ramming trillions of dollars of borrowing and spending down our throats. Instead, he made it much worse even according to HIS standards of success.

The Corporation: Oh my poor, misguided Americans....pretty soon you'll be Canada's Mexico.

We're already sneaking across the border for cheap drugs.....

But he's SO well SPOKEN!

mmm... pancake: He accepted responsibility for it when he promised that he could fix it by ramming trillions of dollars of borrowing and spending down our throats. Instead, he made it much worse even according to HIS standards of success.

Most of the stimulus money hasn't even been distributed yet. Hold your horses until it is.

I like how when Bush was president it was the Clinton economy, and now it's the Obama economy immediately upon taking office. "Party of responsibility" is clearly an exercise in ironic performance art.

Gosling: mmm... pancake: He accepted responsibility for it when he promised that he could fix it by ramming trillions of dollars of borrowing and spending down our throats. Instead, he made it much worse even according to HIS standards of success.

Most of the stimulus money hasn't even been distributed yet. Hold your horses until it is.

I'm already prepared for the dollar's collapse. Cheers!

mmm... pancake: The standard for success for the stimulus plan SET BY OBAMA HIMSELF was that unemployment would not rise above 8.5%.

Source?

The stupid in this thread is amazing.

Gosling: Most of the stimulus money hasn't even been distributed yet. Hold your horses until it is.

The standard of success, as defined by Obama himself, was that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.5%. Employment has exceeded 8.5%. Not only that but unemployment has surpassed what unemployment would have been without the stimulus. It did not do what it was promised to do. It has made things worse. I'm simply applying OBAMA'S standards for success here, folks.

mmm... pancake: Obama and his great stimulus sham has FAILED. There is no debating that. The standard for success for the stimulus plan SET BY OBAMA HIMSELF was that unemployment would not rise above 8.5%. Unemployment is approaching 10%. FAIL. Many much FAIL.

This statement is incorrect. If you read the report, the stated goal was to "create or save three million jobs before the end of 2010."

Give them a little credit. Although the government does not know how to fix an economy, it does know how to make a goal vauge and distant enough that it is impossible to verify.

No matter how many jobs are lost, they can claim that three million jobs more would have been lost without stimulus, which is impossible to prove or disprove.

And by the time 2010 shows up, there will almost certainly some sort of other economic disaster blowing back up since the current/previous ones weren't fixed but instead hidden under the rug. Then they can claim "Well of course we didn't meet our goal; nobody guessed that just as we were about to recover, bad future economic event would happen and ruin everything?"

Who would have guessed that economic problems come back so soon after you hide them instead of fix them? Only people that follow the money supply and realize that as soon as a recovery begins banks are going to start lending with that fresh new FED money and any pretense of recovery will be swept away by a hurricane of inflation.

mmm... pancake: The standard of success, as defined by Obama himself, was that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.5%

You've said this three times now, do you have a link I can read? I'd love to take a look at it. this is the first I've ever heard of "8.5%"

Thanks!

mmm... pancake: Not only that but unemployment has surpassed what unemployment would have been without the stimulus.

Oh sorry, I just noticed this. Do you have a source for this one, too?

Thanks again!

The Homer Tax: Source?



MugzyBrown can point you to the source PDF that was produced by Obama's economic advisors.

This is what you're looking for, Homer:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Would be nice if fark didn't filter out pdf links; sorry for the inconvenience.

Here it is...

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Larofeticus: This is what you're looking for, Homer:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Would be nice if fark didn't filter out pdf links; sorry for the inconvenience.

Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

The words "standards of success" were actually used no where in that document, FWIW.

Also, significant space was allotted to the "uncertainty" of projections. What I read was (like most projections) "This is our best guess as to what will happen."

It didn't. I mean, I know you have a political axe to grind here, but it seems silly some of the statements that you are making in light of what was actually written.

Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate
unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

I read it, concluded their projections were wrong, and noted that they noted that their projections could be wrong.

Comments?

Yes, because the McCain/Palin Plan would have really delivered by now.

The Homer Tax You've said this three times now, do you have a link I can read? I'd love to take a look at it. this is the first I've ever heard of "8.5%"

It's common knowledge (to anyone that pays attention) the Obama administration predicted without a stimulus bill unemployment would hit 9% early next year. (That's not even worth wasting the time to look up.) We are now approaching 10% unemployment with that stimulus bill being passed.

The only conclusions we can come to is the stimulus is...

A. Not working at all.

B. Working but the economy was worse than expected.

Nobody really knows for sure, but with the urgency and sloppiness in which it was passed, it looks like on the surface we should have at least had a better bill.

Cool, so if I set a fire in an apartment complex, and firemen attempting to put out the blaze say "we believe if we do blah, blah, blah we can save 8 of the 10 buildings" but then only manage to save 6 of the 10 buildings... I get to have the firemen prosecuted instead of me.

The fire is now THEIR fault because their projections weren't 100% accurate... That's awesome.

That or mmm... pancake has gone full retard. You were always a zealot, but now you're just a complete idiot. That's really some of the most moronic "logic" I've ever heard.

You should sit in front of a mirror and say it out loud to yourself... When you see how stupid you look and sound, you might learn a valuable lesson for next time.

The Homer Tax: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Don't worry, they won't read it anyway.

I read it, concluded their projections were wrong, and noted that they noted that their projections could be wrong.

Comments?

It's a dry read, I'm almost sorry I looked at it. That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

MFL: It's common knowledge (to anyone that pays attention) the Obama administration predicted without a stimulus bill unemployment would hit 9% early next year. (That's not even worth wasting the time to look up.) We are now approaching 10% unemployment with that stimulus bill being passed.

Right, and they spent a significant portion of their projections commenting on how their projections could be wrong, and how difficult it was to project such things. They even went as far as to offer projections that far outpaced their projections.

They didn't say "This is what will happen." They said "This is our best guess as to what will happen, but we acknowledge that it could be much worse based on the complexity of the situation."

Again, I know you have a political axe to grind, but in reading the document that you linked, it appears that you're being at the very least, intellectually dishonest in your characterization of what was actually said.

3_Butt_Cheeks: That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

The Homer Tax: 3_Butt_Cheeks: That's the problem with projections though, too many people who support the candidate who makes them take it as fact.

From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

Yea, well it goes both ways. When a politician gets up and speaks matter-of-factly with projections about the economy, he better err on the side of caution. When those predictions don't pan out, you really should expect to be called on it. Nothing new here.

The Homer Tax
Again, I know you have a political axe to grind, but in reading the document that you linked, it appears that you're being at the very least, intellectually dishonest in your characterization of what was actually said.

huh?

You're calling me a liar about a link I didn't post or know anything about.

Nice.

Ahem.

"A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010."

That is literally the first sentence in the body of the document.

On the issue of uncertainty, which it is very true that they allow room for error in their modeling and discuss this.

"In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million."

They set an upper bound to their error at 5 million, though qualifying with "at least" makes it conveniently impossible to falsify. We've already blown past that, which puts alot of their methodology, and especially their conclusions, into doubt.

I suspect the primary reason they lowballed so many of their estimates is that accurate numbers are bad, and if they use accurate numbers then it would spook everyone. Back in January only the most independent thinkers were claiming 10% unemployment was possible, but that suggestion was verboten to most pundits, officials, and media sources. Hell not even the "worst case scenario" of the fabled stress test managed to come close to what we're actually seeing.

3_Butt_Cheeks: When those predictions don't pan out, you really should expect to be called on it.

I think we can all agree that the President's projections were wrong. The questions is: does that mean that the stimulus a failure. pancakes is arguing that the President said that if his projections were wrong, by his own omission, then the stimulus was a failure. I didn't read that anywhere.

MFL: You're calling me a liar about a link I didn't post or know anything about.

My mistake, I confused you for someone who bothered to actually post the projections.

The Homer Tax: The questions is: does that mean that the stimulus a failure. pancakes is arguing that the President said that if his projections were wrong, by his own omission, then the stimulus was a failure. I didn't read that anywhere.

Many believe the stimulus was a failure to begin with because it was unnecessary and filled with social agendas. Others didn't think it was big enough, thus a failure of sorts.

The true judge will be time. That being said, it certainly cannot be said it is off to a good start.

The Homer Tax From what I'm reading here, the issue is that the people who don't support the President are upset that the projections his administration provided *weren't* fact.

lol

A projection is not a "fact". It's just an educated guess.

The only "fact" was that the Obama adminstration made economic "projections" that were "wrong".

I'm not gonna complain about projections having error.

But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

MFL: A projection is not a "fact". It's just an educated guess.

Correct.

The only "fact" was that the Obama adminstration made economic "projections" that were "wrong".

Correct. They also acknowledged that they could be wrong and offered alternate projections as a point of reference. I'm taking issue with a statement about "standards of success" regarding the stimulus that, FWIW, I can't find were ever made.

Larofeticus
I'm not gonna complain about projections having error.

But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

You must be a political hack (and probably racist) to even consider something like that. Get those thoughts out of your head.

Larofeticus: But when compared to what actually happened, there was a lot of error, far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainly would lead someone to believe.

Actually, if you read the linked document, it's nowhere near "far beyond what their qualifications of uncertainty would lead someone to believe." It's right there in the linked document.

Larofeticus


Then they used those poor projections to justify very very expensive public policy. That's the part I have the complaint with.

They should have spent twice as much.

The Homer Tax Correct. They also acknowledged that they could be wrong and offered alternate projections as a point of reference. I'm taking issue with a statement about "standards of success" regarding the stimulus that, FWIW, I can't find were ever made.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you. Nobody really knows what effect the stimulus is having because we really have nothing to compare it to or base it on.

But on the surface it looks like the Obama administration took our money and allowed Pelosi to blow it on shoes.

Well there is one footnote that says some private forecasters think it might go as high as 11%. I'm sure if you do a full survey of predicting people then you could find someone that says much higher than that, and probably some people that would have said lower too. 11% is not the number they picked to do their calculations to make policy recomendations though; they picked 8.8%.

We're at 6.5m jobs lost now and still going, which is at least 5m.

Nucleus: They should have spent twice as much.

I've always loved that argument. If it works then the government can take the credit, and if it doesn't work it's because they didn't spend enough. Can't lose.

Now tell me my horoscope; i'm an Aries.

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

This is confusing to me, because when the US Economy was in the shiatter in 1982 I was told that Reagan was still trying to clean up Jimmy Carter's mess.

If Saint Ronny Divined Upon The American People by God couldn't fix a bad economy in 2 years, what chance does a mere mortal like Obama have to fix it in 6 months?

Larofeticus: I've always loved that argument. If it works then the government can take the credit, and if it doesn't work it's because they didn't spend enough. Can't lose.


Conceivably they could do nothing and the whole country would lose. Once again, the purpose of the stimulus is to get some of the unemployed receiving a paycheck while accomplishing some important public works. They didn't spend this money on wasteful foreign wars, they spent it on science and roads among other things, and yes these projects employ people.

Presumably you would like to see the unemployment number slow its rate of increase and perhaps even go down rather than up. Prepare yourself to watch congress spend some more money in order to do this. Be grateful its being spent on something useful.

Nucleus:

It's also quite conceivable that they could do nothing and the recovery would begin sooner. Sadly, I am no more able to prove my assertion than you are yours. We do not get parallel universes to set in motion and compare our respective ideologies.

Yes I agree domestic expenditure is better than foreign, but better doesn't go all the way to good. Besides, what we'll be getting now is both sorts of spending. A fancy pullout from Iraq, although a good start, is only a good start and does nothing to remove the expense of all those other hundreds of unnessecary military bases spread across the globe.

Larofeticus: Nucleus:

It's also quite conceivable that they could do nothing and the recovery would begin sooner. .


You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

The stimulus was 800 billion. For all of the goodies in this bill, answer me this....

1. How are we going to pay for it?

2. No seriously, how are we going to pay for it?

MFL

How are we going to pay for it?

How did we pay for the wars and all those tax cuts? We aren't saddling the next generation with debt, we're purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow.

MFL: The stimulus was 800 billion. For all of the goodies in this bill, answer me this....

1. How are we going to pay for it?

2. No seriously, how are we going to pay for it?

Sweet Jesus, you STILL don't get the strategy behind the stimulus bill?

Nucleus How did we pay for the wars and all those tax cuts?

we're purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow.

You seriously don't believe that shiat? Do you?

brainiac-dumdum Sweet Jesus, you STILL don't get the strategy behind the stimulus bill?

Please enlighten me.

Nucleus: You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

I'm not advocating individuals do nothing; I'm advocating the government do nothing.

Stimulus money is all about keeping people employed. If they stay employed in their less productive hamburger stands, lawn services, dog walking and other overbuilt activities then nothing gets fixed. Stimulus is about preserving the economy as it currently exists, not changing it to more suitibly or efficiently meet the needs of consumers.

In order to change the economy for the better, people have to lose those less productive jobs and find new ones. Unproductive buisnesses have to go bankrupt and their assets be purchased by new buisnesses with different buisness models. If stimulus keeps those jobs and assets tied up in uproductive activities, then they can't contribute to a recovery.

That re-arrangment of resources takes time, the recession, and is too detailed and complex to be centrally planned by the government. Instead, wage levels and asset prices adjust, people switch from lost jobs to ones they can find, unproductive buisnesses close, new buisnesses spring up to meet the changing demands of consumers, and people resume saving money which is a nessecary component of the investment needed to end the recession and return to prosperity.

MFL


You seriously don't believe that shiat? Do you?

Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

You can go back further in time and see how the same set of properly aligned priorities enabled drug discovery, superconductors, and better algorithms. All of this technology gets ported to the private sector and creates jobs.

Where did you think this stuff comes from?

Larofeticus: Nucleus: You can't grow an economy on hamburger stands and lawn services. I believe the market is also saturated with dog walkers last I checked. There is no logical sequence of events that would imply doing nothing is productive. Try it for yourself, plant your ass on the couch next week and see how much gets done.

I'm not advocating individuals do nothing; I'm advocating the government do nothing.

Stimulus money is all about keeping people employed. If they stay employed in their less productive hamburger stands, lawn services, dog walking and other overbuilt activities then nothing gets fixed. Stimulus is about preserving the economy as it currently exists, not changing it to more suitibly or efficiently meet the needs of consumers.

In order to change the economy for the better, people have to lose those less productive jobs and find new ones. Unproductive buisnesses have to go bankrupt and their assets be purchased by new buisnesses with different buisness models. If stimulus keeps those jobs and assets tied up in uproductive activities, then they can't contribute to a recovery.

That re-arrangment of resources takes time, the recession, and is too detailed and complex to be centrally planned by the government. Instead, wage levels and asset prices adjust, people switch from lost jobs to ones they can find, unproductive buisnesses close, new buisnesses spring up to meet the changing demands of consumers, and people resume saving money which is a nessecary component of the investment needed to end the recession and return to prosperity.


I disagree with your notion that the stimulus is to preserve the economy as it exists. You are confusing the stimulus with the banking and auto bailout, these are separate issues. Remember a large part of the stimulus money went to the department of energy and national institute of health to fund the grants that will lead to the commercialized technology of tomorrow.

Yes I agree that unsuccessful businesses need to turn over. However you are forgetting that this is no ordinary recession. 6 million jobs have been lost. We have the highest unemployment in 26 years, think about that for just a moment while you're waiting for these people to find new jobs.

Yes, the rearrangement of resources takes time. Too much time for Joe sixpack to wait while his house is about to be foreclosed on dragging those lucky enough to still have jobs down with him. Yes it takes time but in the same breath you aren't giving the stimulus a chance to disseminate. I would go on a limb and say many of these projects havn't yet started, much less finished, further national assets like roads have value, and building them now will cushion the damage of losing 6 million jobs.

You are also making a hack's argument that the government is "centrally planning" the recovery. Understand that acting as a catalyst to promote growth in new sectors and down-regulating the old is not as what is suggested in oft repeated republican talking points.

Not to be a complete buzzkill while everyone is getting into this, but is it possible that we won't really be able to sort out the last couple of years of economic events for another 10-15 years?
Simply put, much of what we've seen is unprecedented, so few of the models and theories we have really apply, and that it may only be in hindsight that we are able to really pick out the important data trends from the avalanche of information we're constantly bombarded with? And that most positions don't therefore have any basis in economic theory or practice, but instead are noting more than blind, meaningless partisan chest pounding?

Nucleus: Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science

You've never worked in public science, have you?
90% of it is a money pit. Make-work for grad students and professors. I myself am guilty of being on the dole, but I don't intend to make a career out of it. It is by no means an efficient way of producing knowledge but the stimulus will keep it going at the expense of everyone else.

Making statements about the magnitude of a recession do nothing to solve a problem of kind. Emotional appeals don't cancel the fact that Joe-Six-Pack's mortgage is a toxic asset and poisoning the banking sector in it's current unliquidated form. That's just another nessecary adjustment of asset prices that needs to happen to end the recession, but stimulus and bailouts will delay.

Picking the winners and losers counts as central planning in my book. Ethanol got picked as pork for the midwest and now it's failing. The winners with cap and trade will be the people that manage the market for it. Green technology is annointed as a winner so heavily that it will probably be the next bubble to inflate and pop.

Nucleus Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

So...the biotechnology revolution that's going to be created by the stimulus package is going to create an economic boom that is going to pay for the trillions of dollars of debt we are putting ourselves in. What are we going to clone mexicans to work at GM fro 20 cents an hour?

What we are looking at in the upcoming months because of this "investment" is a weaker dollar and inflation...and a government that won't eventually be able to fund these worthy projects you mention in the long term. We could potentially have a generation of wealth lost before we get back on track.

We need to fix the economy we have now, not 15 years from now.

DarnoKonrad: Erebus1954: Sad but true: [9:10 on food stamps]


I know people on food stamps. And in this state, the qualification are pretty damn destitute.

It has a lot to do with the last 10 years being the only economic expansion that saw buying power for consumers lower.

This really is miserable shiat.

So much THIS.

Few people seem to grasp how long this has been going on. The "boom" of the 90s is not what they think. And things were happening before Bush that led to this (I'm not saying Bush didn't help pile the shiat on, just that he wasn't the only one.)

MFL: Please enlighten me.

to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

brainiac-dumdum: to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

I think he might want a little more detail than a metaphor that reduces the size and complexity of the economy to a motor with a handle on it.

Argh2: Not to be a complete buzzkill while everyone is getting into this, but is it possible that we won't really be able to sort out the last couple of years of economic events for another 10-15 years?
Simply put, much of what we've seen is unprecedented, so few of the models and theories we have really apply, and that it may only be in hindsight that we are able to really pick out the important data trends from the avalanche of information we're constantly bombarded with? And that most positions don't therefore have any basis in economic theory or practice, but instead are noting more than blind, meaningless partisan chest pounding?

This is probably more true than we'd like it to be.

Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy. So they make something up based on what little they know.

elchip: Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Have you come from an alternate future where he won? Do tell!

Yes. He went forwards in time, bringing one person with him. But his safety was not insured. He had only done this once before.

cuzsis Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy.

It's also boring.

What good is a flame war without any fire?

Nucleus: Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.



Do any of you understand what a projection is?


One of those futures the Echthroi want to make real?

MFL: cuzsis Unfortunately, just saying "I don't know" doesn't seem to make too many people happy.

It's also boring.

What good is a flame war without any fire?

True that.

Larofeticus: brainiac-dumdum: to "prime the pump" in order to get the economy going again

I think he might want a little more detail than a metaphor that reduces the size and complexity of the economy to a motor with a handle on it.

There's the thing called the internet, people are able to look stuff up there

Larofeticus: You've never worked in public science, have you?
90% of it is a money pit. Make-work for grad students and professors. I myself am guilty of being on the dole, but I don't intend to make a career out of it. It is by no means an efficient way of producing knowledge but the stimulus will keep it going at the expense of everyone else.

I always get a kick out of people who think scientists are living high on the hog with public grant money. Considering how little of the allocated money is actually used for science, I'm surprised sometimes that any science actually gets done.

Mentat: I'm surprised sometimes that any science actually gets done.

Me too.

Nucleus:

MFL


You seriously don't believe that shiat? Do you?

Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

You can go back further in time and see how the same set of properly aligned priorities enabled drug discovery, superconductors, and better algorithms. All of this technology gets ported to the private sector and creates jobs.

Where did you think this stuff comes from?

Bell Labs, mostly.

So, you're saying that the function of government in business is to develop new technologies, and let business use them?

* FACEPALM *

Gen. Jim

GeneralJim: Bell Labs, mostly.

Don't look now, but they are closing their basic sciences, including material and superconductor research.

There is a great deal of basic research that business won't fund, but contributes to the general welfare.

brainiac-dumdum: Sweet Jesus, you STILL don't get the strategy behind the stimulus bill?

Macroeconomics is the tinfoil hat that Obama wears to keep Jesus out of his budget.

Mentat: I always get a kick out of people who think scientists are living high on the hog with public grant money. Considering how little of the allocated money is actually used for science, I'm surprised sometimes that any science actually gets done.

This is somewhat akin to the widespread belief that government agencies are rolling in unlimited money, despite the fact that they cant fill high education/high demand positions. For example, IT ... believe it or not, most IT professionals with options would rather not work for 60% of their potential open market salary in dreary, nearly dilapidated buildings with rejected furniture from the 1970's with little to no chance at upward movement.

I've worked as an IT consultant to the private and public sector ... if I were starting a business, Im looking for a government agency IT director. What those people can build with some proverbial bailing wire and chewing gum is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Meanwhile, most corporate IT middle management is filled with nothing more than charlatans and professional bullshiat artists who have talked their way up the ladder on the golf course.

General Jim


Bell Labs, mostly.

So, you're saying that the function of government in business is to develop new technologies, and let business use them?


Bell labs? No, you would be dead wrong. Most innovation is done in the academic sector. Not just top tier institutions like MIT, and Stanford but universities and medical research facilities in every medium large sized city in the country.

Developing new technologies is largely a military endeavor, that it has a role in business, energy, and medicine is a beneficial side effect.

MFL: Nucleus Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science? Of course I do. Without committing to research and development there never would have been a silicon valley, a tech boom, and we wouldn't be on the cusp of a biotechnology revolution.

So...the biotechnology revolution that's going to be created by the stimulus package is going to create an economic boom that is going to pay for the trillions of dollars of debt we are putting ourselves in. What are we going to clone mexicans to work at GM fro 20 cents an hour?

What we are looking at in the upcoming months because of this "investment" is a weaker dollar and inflation...and a government that won't eventually be able to fund these worthy projects you mention in the long term. We could potentially have a generation of wealth lost before we get back on track.

We need to fix the economy we have now, not 15 years from now.


You are a now term thinker. You want the food hot before you put it in the microwave just like a large part of the American culture that demands instant gratification but doesn't want to work for it. 15 years on the scale of the nations is a very short term.

What will the biotechnology boom do? Grow stronger livestock and crops, thereby feeding more people on less land, water, and fertilizer.

Tease out chemical metabolic processes making it possible to produce drugs, industrial intermediates, maybe even energy just as cheaply and easily as we currently produce the ethanol for your beer and the citric acid for your soda - and do it all cleaner than we did before producing less toxins and pollutants that cause disease and drive up the cost of health-care.

Cure diseases, promote effective and efficient management of our ecosystem and finite resources, strengthen our nation against outside threats.

Try using your brain.

Larofeticus: Nucleus: Purchasing the opportunities of tomorrow by investing in education and science

You've never worked in public science, have you?
90% of it is a money pit. Make-work for grad students and professors. I myself am guilty of being on the dole, but I don't intend to make a career out of it. It is by no means an efficient way of producing knowledge but the stimulus will keep it going at the expense of everyone else.

Making statements about the magnitude of a recession do nothing to solve a problem of kind. Emotional appeals don't cancel the fact that Joe-Six-Pack's mortgage is a toxic asset and poisoning the banking sector in it's current unliquidated form. That's just another nessecary adjustment of asset prices that needs to happen to end the recession, but stimulus and bailouts will delay.

Picking the winners and losers counts as central planning in my book. Ethanol got picked as pork for the midwest and now it's failing. The winners with cap and trade will be the people that manage the market for it. Green technology is annointed as a winner so heavily that it will probably be the next bubble to inflate and pop.



What a bunch of horseshiat. I do work in public science currently. A visit to pubmed will show you how effective the grant review process has been over the years and the payoff has been an incalculable benefit.

The American family is not an asset to be turned over for banking profits. You would do well to remember that.

Investment in renewable resources will begin the end of the boom-bust cycle. What else could you expect from the current system that depletes a resource to nothing and then moves on like a parasite?

Cap and trade is a necessary tool of reducing the ecological stress we put on our only habitat. It is not some commoonist anti-free-for-all market hating conspiracy.

Nucleus:
If it's true you work in public science, and I were to guess... I'd say you're a Biology grad student... no masters yet, and they've probably got you running busywork Bio 101 labs for next to nothing. The FarkID fits with that scenario, too. I'm computer science myself; but I end up working with Bio people a fair amount.

The only noteworthy applications of biotech to food supply I've seen are using it to sell more RoundUp and using it to put more pus in the milk. And those were done by Monsanto. Everything else just seems to skrew up the genome and either result in mutations or cancer.

Yeah, I've got a few papers on pubmed, and like a vast majority of other papers there, nobody uses or cites them except for me and the people i have direct contact with.

"Investment in renewable resources will begin the end of the boom-bust cycle." In the boom-bust cycle, there can't be a bust unless it is a surprise. The vast majority of people can't see it coming, or else enough people would short everything to deflate it gently. Lots of people can measure how much of a single natural resource deposit is left and calculate when it will run out; when it does it is not a surprise. Besides, if running out of resources caused the boom-bust cycle, then you should be able to identify which resources ran out to cause certain busts. The 70's and the oil-shock is the only obvious one; you're theory can't explain the great depression, the internet boom, the housing boom, or any of the cycles in the 1800's. This statement is just asinine. You couldn't find an economist who would even listen to you say a second sentence after this one.

Cap and Trade is a gift to wall street. The key is in the word "trade." Wall street firms will be doing the trading, and earning a fat commission for every one. Hell, just a plan carbon tax would be better than that... and probably more effective... and less difficult to manage.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

You have got that right. Or don't your remember the libtards that were screaming for Bush to resign as soon as the election was completed. All the Dems were saying that Obama would have the economy fixed before the swearing in ceremony date. The only thing this "President" is doing is spending us into oblivion. Mark my words, his approval rating will be in the low 20% in a year and we will be lucky to not be in a full blown depression.

. Besides, if running out of resources caused the boom-bust cycle, then you should be able to identify which resources ran out to cause certain busts. The 70's and the oil-shock is the only obvious one;

It seems to me you're complaining about rampant speculators and unscrupulous investors and then decrying government intervention.

Come back when you get some reading comprehension or can form a coherent argument that doesn't wander all over the place.

You said renewable resource investment will stop the boom-bust cycle. That's crap. Maybe try and come up with a defense of that (even though you can't because it's crap) instead of wandering off into straw man land.

You couldn't even get Paul Krugman to agree with that statement.

Larofeticus: Come back when you get some reading comprehension or can form a coherent argument that doesn't wander all over the place.

You said renewable resource investment will stop the boom-bust cycle. That's crap. Maybe try and come up with a defense of that (even though you can't because it's crap) instead of wandering off into straw man land.

You couldn't even get Paul Krugman to agree with that statement.


Maybe its your reading comprehension that is the problem. Come back when you've fixed that. I said that renewables will begin to end the boom-bust cycle. In particular I'm thinking energy, but that can be extrapolated to include all consumables. Our economic model is largely built on consumption. Recycling and reprocessing is an unexplored market that requires development, but has enormous potential. Plastics, landfills, methane, gray water all of these are largely untapped resources.


Its a component, not an absolute. Another component is speculators. That Goldman-Sachs article in Rolling Stone was interesting.

The buisness cycle is a function of the interaction between real resouces being limited and the credit expansion of money being unlimited.

Green technology is limited by our ability to waste, which although quite impressive in it's own right, is not infinite, just like every other useful resource. Maybe it tweaks some numbers around the edges compared to other methods of doing things, and sure a nicer environment is a pretty good bonus, but fundamentally it changes nothing that would stop the buisness cycle. Energy can get cheaper, or more efficient, but it will never be free. Unless you think green technology is going to turn out like star trek, in which case I've got bad news...

Nucleus:

General Jim


Bell Labs, mostly.

So, you're saying that the function of government in business is to develop new technologies, and let business use them?


Bell labs? No, you would be dead wrong. Most innovation is done in the academic sector. Not just top tier institutions like MIT, and Stanford but universities and medical research facilities in every medium large sized city in the country.

Yeah, right. Bell Labs earned six Nobel Prizes, and was the home of the inventors of a FEW things you may have heard of:

The Radio Telescope
The Transistor
The Laser
Statistical Process Control
The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation
The fractional quantum Hall effect
Microwave radio relay
Long distance television transmission
The first synchronous-sound motion picture system
The photovoltaic cell
Information Theory
Cryptography
The one-time pad cypher
MOSFETS
Electret microphone
Molecular beam epitaxy
The CCD
Fiber optics
the first single-chip 32-bit microprocessor
Digital speech encoding (scrambler)
The Vocoder - speech synthesizer
Stereo radio
UNIX
The 'C' Programming Language
C++
The Plan 9 operating system
Laser cooling
The first wireless local area network
The quantum cascade laser
VOIP
SCALPEL electron lithography
Concurrent Limbo programming language
DataBlitz
DNA machine prototypes

They're pretty much a dead issue now, as about a dozen spin-offs and mergers have eviscerated the group. Now they make phones. Sad, really.

So, what institution were YOU proposing as superior?

Gen. Jim

Nucleus:

Investment in renewable resources will begin the end of the boom-bust cycle. What else could you expect from the current system that depletes a resource to nothing and then moves on like a parasite?

Cap and trade is a necessary tool of reducing the ecological stress we put on our only habitat. It is not some commoonist anti-free-for-all market hating conspiracy.

Ah, I see you're a multi-disciplinary incompetent. I guess it's good to diversify...

Gen. Jim