(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/27646/GR_PR_120402_eocnintel1.jpg)
"The official unemployment rate isn't telling the whole truth. What the government calls "the unemployed" is not what American workers think of as the unemployed. To be unemployed in the eyes of the government, a worker must not have a job and have searched for work at some point within the previous month. If a worker gives up looking for a job for more than a month, that worker is no longer counted as unemployed. What this means is that, during periods of prolonged unemployment, the official unemployment rate will decline over time simply because the government stops counting unemployed people who know they don't have a chance at a job until the economy turns around.
The reason the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly fixed at such a high level is that our political leaders—even after four years of conducting the most expensive economic experiment in human history—still don't know what it is that makes an economy grow. They could have saved us a tremendous amount of pain plus several trillion dollars in wasted money if they had simply asked a few economists who didn't have a vested interest in telling them what they wanted to hear."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/03/why-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-economy-is-getting-better
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
Quote from: Gaspar on April 04, 2012, 07:27:18 AM
(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/27646/GR_PR_120402_eocnintel1.jpg)
"The official unemployment rate isn't telling the whole truth. What the government calls "the unemployed" is not what American workers think of as the unemployed. To be unemployed in the eyes of the government, a worker must not have a job and have searched for work at some point within the previous month. If a worker gives up looking for a job for more than a month, that worker is no longer counted as unemployed. What this means is that, during periods of prolonged unemployment, the official unemployment rate will decline over time simply because the government stops counting unemployed people who know they don't have a chance at a job until the economy turns around.
The reason the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly fixed at such a high level is that our political leaders—even after four years of conducting the most expensive economic experiment in human history—still don't know what it is that makes an economy grow. They could have saved us a tremendous amount of pain plus several trillion dollars in wasted money if they had simply asked a few economists who didn't have a vested interest in telling them what they wanted to hear."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/03/why-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-economy-is-getting-better
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference in the economy. – Ludwig von Mises
Really? Can you not correlate the current 'recession' to the huge bubble in 2008? Which was mainly caused by lack of regulation?
Boggles the mind sometimes.
Awaiting your colorized font filled reply.
Quote from: Hoss on April 04, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Really? Can you not correlate the current 'recession' to the huge bubble in 2008? Which was mainly caused by lack of regulation?
Boggles the mind sometimes.
Awaiting your colorized font filled reply.
Oh, I get it. We're just getting back to normal, right?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 04, 2012, 08:21:34 AM
Oh, I get it. We're just getting back to normal, right?
Do you or do you not agree with my assessment?
Is it any wonder people question your credibility around here?
Quote from: Hoss on April 04, 2012, 08:44:25 AM
Do you or do you not agree with my assessment?
Is it any wonder people question your credibility around here?
We have gone over this before, again and again, and you should be aware of my opinion.
Bubbles don't happen, they are created. They are not a product of the free market, they are a product of manipulation.
The moment our government demanded that lenders finance people with no proven ability to repay, the door was opened, and the rats scurried in fueled by government backed debt. Politicians rejoiced because it represented the largest single vote purchase in history. Congress was warned 17 times over almost a decade that it was a bubble with devastating consequences, but they chose to kick the can.
Regardless of the result, there is no precedent for continued levels of unemployment this high. That is due to a continued worship of poor economic policy that continues to encourage uncertainty through the demonization of the free-market and failure to recognize small business as the impetus for job growth.
Green
That last year of Bush really sucked. It is a good thing Obama was able to turn that around in his second year.
Prior to the establishment of government regulations on the markets, we had the celebrated Depression of 1893:
The Depression of 1893 was one of the worst in American history with the unemployment rate exceeding ten percent for half a decade. This article describes economic developments in the decades leading up to the depression; the performance of the economy during the 1890s; domestic and international causes of the depression; and political and social responses to the depression.
The Depression of 1893 can be seen as a watershed event in American history. It was accompanied by violent strikes, the climax of the Populist and free silver political crusades, the creation of a new political balance, the continuing transformation of the country's economy, major changes in national policy, and far-reaching social and intellectual developments. Business contraction shaped the decade that ushered out the nineteenth century.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whitten.panic.1893 (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whitten.panic.1893)
The robber barons who sat atop our economy through the Gilded Age would have been jailed for their manipulations in more recent times. Their excesses lead directly to the election of Teddy Roosevelt and brought about progressive reforms that are still with us.
So in one sense, perhaps we should be applauding the 1% and their efforts to both disenfranchise us and eliminate the middle class. People who have no voice and nothing to lose are more likely to take up torches and pitchforks, and knock down the walls of those "gated communities."
Quote from: Ed W on April 04, 2012, 11:23:41 AM
Prior to the establishment of government regulations on the markets, we had the celebrated Depression of 1893:
I prefer the panic of 1907 as an example, but I clearly don't need to tell you that panics, bubbles, and the whole thing existed long before government regulation was involved. Somehow during the zenith of the regulatory state we managed to go an unusually long time without any such events, but surely the regulations had nothing to do with it.
Gaspar, it continues to amaze me that you blame the 2000s bubble on regulation. Which regulations, pray tell, were responsible for hedge funds buying up toxic assets? Which regulations were responsible for the ratings agencies choosing to forgo any due diligence on the securities they were rating? Which regulations popped the securities at the heart of the bubble into existence? Why is it that the bubble didn't happen until after regulations on financial institutions were relaxed?
Quote from: nathanm on April 04, 2012, 04:08:34 PM
I prefer the panic of 1907 as an example, but I clearly don't need to tell you that panics, bubbles, and the whole thing existed long before government regulation was involved. Somehow during the zenith of the regulatory state we managed to go an unusually long time without any such events, but surely the regulations had nothing to do with it.
Gaspar, it continues to amaze me that you blame the 2000s bubble on regulation. Which regulations, pray tell, were responsible for hedge funds buying up toxic assets? Which regulations were responsible for the ratings agencies choosing to forgo any due diligence on the securities they were rating? Which regulations popped the securities at the heart of the bubble into existence? Why is it that the bubble didn't happen until after regulations on financial institutions were relaxed?
Oh oh oh, don't forget Glass-Steagall!
Quote from: nathanm on April 04, 2012, 04:08:34 PM
I prefer the panic of 1907 as an example, but I clearly don't need to tell you that panics, bubbles, and the whole thing existed long before government regulation was involved. Somehow during the zenith of the regulatory state we managed to go an unusually long time without any such events, but surely the regulations had nothing to do with it.
Gaspar, it continues to amaze me that you blame the 2000s bubble on regulation. Which regulations, pray tell, were responsible for hedge funds buying up toxic assets? Which regulations were responsible for the ratings agencies choosing to forgo any due diligence on the securities they were rating? Which regulations popped the securities at the heart of the bubble into existence? Why is it that the bubble didn't happen until after regulations on financial institutions were relaxed?
I don't know about Gaspar, but I wouldn't blame it on regulation so much as bad policy.
I don't think you guys are necessarily arguing for more regulation. Obviously some regulation is needed. But I think you would agree that just adding more on top of bad regulations wouldn't be good either. The SEC for example is so deathly afraid to investigate anything, it would be pointless to add to it until it is strengthened or refocused.
Quote from: erfalf on April 04, 2012, 04:53:47 PM
I don't know about Gaspar, but I wouldn't blame it on regulation so much as bad policy.
Ok, replace which regulation in my previous questions with "which policy". I really am interested in the answer, because I can't for the life of me figure out which policies (or regulations), other than the general trend of deregulation, that pushed hedge funds, banks, ratings agencies, and mortgage brokers to lie, cheat, and steal. At every step of the way, the federal regulators showed how toothless they were by responding to wrongdoing with small fines and little extra scrutiny.
You probably feel differently, but I think poor regulation happens when people who don't believe in what they're doing are placed in charge of regulators. At that point, it doesn't matter how well written or poorly written the laws and regulations are. This is my most fundamental disagreement with Republicans in general. Republicans who gain the Presidency tend to nominate people to head agencies who don't believe in government, much less the agency's mission. I think that's a recipe for disaster.
To be fair, Clinton was guilty of the same thing, at least in the SEC and other financial regulatory bodies.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 04, 2012, 07:27:18 AM
(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/27646/GR_PR_120402_eocnintel1.jpg)
(http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/net-change-reagan-v-obama.jpg)
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419778_321708561217608_102702636451536_866262_96767517_n.jpg)(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429174_321435761244888_102702636451536_865669_1648131680_n.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 04, 2012, 07:27:18 AM
(http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/27646/GR_PR_120402_eocnintel1.jpg)
The reason the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly fixed at such a high level is that our political leaders—even after four years of conducting the most expensive economic experiment in human history—still don't know what it is that makes an economy grow. They could have saved us a tremendous amount of pain plus several trillion dollars in wasted money if they had simply asked a few economists who didn't have a vested interest in telling them what they wanted to hear."
You keep going all "Shadows" on us...what's the deal with that??
That blue line has never been close to the red - else there would not be a million trained, degreed engineers in this country who have gotten out of the profession over the last 25 years or so, because they cannot find engineering jobs. And that doesn't even include the ones who went to other fields to be sales/managers/etc. Thereby losing our society the benefit of technical expertise that everyone keeps jawing about such a shortage of.
As for the second part of your "Shadows" moment - "still don't know what it that makes an economy grow" - well, you are still stuck back in June, 2009 - just before the economy started to grow at over twice the rate that it grew during the Bush regime, and now, when the deficit has been reduced by half of what it was in Bush Baby's last fiscal year. Yeah, I can see how you would think double the growth and half the deficit would be an economic disaster for the US. That's what Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly and Romney keep saying, too. Wow! Wouldn't it be refreshing if those guys would actually tell the truth - just once!!
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on April 04, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419778_321708561217608_102702636451536_866262_96767517_n.jpg)(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429174_321435761244888_102702636451536_865669_1648131680_n.jpg)
Still visiting the meme pages, eh Ruf?
So Conan, you're voting for Mitt? Explain why we should follow your lead.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 05, 2012, 10:54:39 AM
So Conan, you're voting for Mitt? Explain why we should follow your lead.
Actually, I was just indulging our old buddy Ruf. But since you axed:
I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I've voted for many Democrats over the years, just never in a presidential election, though it's not beyond me to consider voting for one if I thought he/she were the best candidate.
If Obama reveals a raft of sane and workable energy policies which will benefit my industry, I'd be stupid not to listen and vote accordingly, especially if it looks like it would benefit my personal plan to retire in 5 to 7 years.
Naturally, the war drums from the right wing talking heads are that as a lame duck, Obama can finally unleash the rest of his socialist doctrine on us. I think Obama's approach to the economy has been a complete disaster. That said, a free market economy can prosper because of a leader or in spite of a leader. I think we will see improvement in the economy over the next four years regardless who is in the WH.
I've still got seven months to decide. I want to hear each candidate's plan to reduce joblessness, energy plans, and debt & deficit once they are going toe-to-toe. Not the primary BS that is going on right now still. Oh, and if Romney picks Sanctimonious Santorum for Veep? That might be an automatic vote for Obama.
Interesting times, eh, Conan?
Quote from: nathanm on April 05, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
Interesting times, eh, Conan?
Thinking someone will find what they are looking for?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 05, 2012, 11:27:46 AM
If Obama reveals a raft of sane and workable energy policies which will benefit my industry, I'd be stupid not to listen and vote accordingly, especially if it looks like it would benefit my personal plan to retire in 5 to 7 years.
Naturally, the war drums from the right wing talking heads are that as a lame duck, Obama can finally unleash the rest of his socialist doctrine on us. I think Obama's approach to the economy has been a complete disaster. That said, a free market economy can prosper because of a leader or in spite of a leader. I think we will see improvement in the economy over the next four years regardless who is in the WH.
The people who you should be questioning about why your industry is not benefiting from $100+ oil are the leaders of that industry. (You are still in one that depends on the oil industry aren't you?)
Actually, any slowdown in oil or oil services and related industries is more due to the glut of oil products we have at this time. Crude and refined products are at near record highs. And yet, the price is going up. Anyone out there still believe it is NOT a contrived rise based on out of control speculation?
I for one am not so sure of your argument. When I worked in the industry during the first oil crisis, there were similar things happening. As consumers we watched in horror as the price of a barrel of oil rose and lines started to form at stations who didn't have any product to sell. As members of the industry we were elated to see the price rise, a chance to edit out some long time privately owned stations and replace them with our own stations. "Please God, give us another oil crisis. We won't screw it up this time".
The rumor was that we had tankers waiting out in the Gulf of Mexico waiting for gasl. to hit $2 gallon! It turned out to be true. But it wasn't because we were waiting for higher gasl. prices at the pump. We had a clusterfark going on with distribution channels, pipelines and refinery turnarounds. We were actually losing an opportunity to make some pretty good money because of our own incompetence!
Quote from: AquaMan on April 06, 2012, 10:30:40 AM
I for one am not so sure of your argument. When I worked in the industry during the first oil crisis, there were similar things happening. As consumers we watched in horror as the price of a barrel of oil rose and lines started to form at stations who didn't have any product to sell. As members of the industry we were elated to see the price rise, a chance to edit out some long time privately owned stations and replace them with our own stations. "Please God, give us another oil crisis. We won't screw it up this time".
The rumor was that we had tankers waiting out in the Gulf of Mexico waiting for gasl. to hit $2 gallon! It turned out to be true. But it wasn't because we were waiting for higher gasl. prices at the pump. We had a clusterfark going on with distribution channels, pipelines and refinery turnarounds. We were actually losing an opportunity to make some pretty good money because of our own incompetence!
? I was just commenting on Conan's comment about a raft of sane and workable energy policies... while Obama has no sane policy, he is just following the tradition with that. As a nation, we just let the big oils do mostly what they want.
Having said that, part two is that his industry IS benefiting greatly from current oil prices, so by those criteria, he may be voting Obama next November....
This time, there are no tankers setting off the coast, just pipelines and storage tanks full to the brim. And yet, due to the forces of speculation we are paying dramatically higher prices with no rationalization other than to make the situation distasteful for election time.
Quote from: Hoss on April 04, 2012, 08:44:25 AM
Do you or do you not agree with my assessment?
Is it any wonder people question your credibility around here?
Thats laughable...He's one of the most credible and inteligent posters here.....
Quote from: Breadburner on April 08, 2012, 12:35:18 PM
Thats laughable...He's one of the most credible and inteligent posters here.....
To you? Not surprising.
He didn't answer my question in the preceding post, so he initiated a 'block'. Why would you consider someone like that credible. He rarely cites information up front, and when asked to, he hems and haws about it.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 05, 2012, 11:27:46 AM
I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I've voted for many Democrats over the years, just never in a presidential election, though it's not beyond me to consider voting for one if I thought he/she were the best candidate.
I am just the other side. I have never voted for a republican for national office but highly support many republicans for local and state offices.
I find many compelling things about Santorum. I truly think he would help the poor in America. I also like what Ron Paul says about military spending. But I doubt I could ever vote for either of them because of their other positions.
I could never vote for Romney. I think he represents everything I hate about politicians. He has no core values and has been on both sides of every issue. He says what ever he thinks will make him popular. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He was against the assault weapons ban, then was for it a few years later. Romney was supportive of the stimulus package, then said he was against it. He campaigned for Governor in a democrat state saying he was opposed to the economic policies of Reagan, then while running for president as a republican, says Reagan's policies were correct. He has flat out lied about immigration saying he has never hired an illegal immigrant, then minutes later admits to hiring a lawn company that used them. He believed in global warming in June, then said he did not believe in it in October last year. He said he would never sign a no new tax pledge, then announced he was the only candidate to sign it. He was for the auto bailout, then decided he was against it.
I believe in the ability and need to change your mind. I think it is one of the most important aspects of critical thinking. Circumstances do change. But with Romney, I don't think he ever really has given any issue any thought. He just says what he thinks people want to hear and stands for nothing.
Romney is a wind vain pointing whichever way the wind blows. I want a president who wants to change the wind, not point it out.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 08, 2012, 01:01:40 PM
I find many compelling things about Santorum. I truly think he would help the poor in America. I also like what Ron Paul says about military spending. But I doubt I could ever vote for either of them because of their other positions.
I think Frothy would throw the poor thingy over onto the private sector to deal with. Most likely outsource it to Churches and Synagogues (BUT NO MOSQUES! :(). How do you get a voucher system installed to do that, I don't know.
Morning Joe says he doesn't find one major Republican who thinks Mitt has any chance.
Who is this guy Olson running against Sully? And doesn't Sully have a primary race? I think our focus should be on these other offices and outing the obstructionists. Lazy performance and little outcome should be the litmus test and not social issues.
If there were any women on this forum, we could discuss what they feel and what they hear....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2012, 09:39:05 PM
The people who you should be questioning about why your industry is not benefiting from $100+ oil are the leaders of that industry. (You are still in one that depends on the oil industry aren't you?)
Actually, any slowdown in oil or oil services and related industries is more due to the glut of oil products we have at this time. Crude and refined products are at near record highs. And yet, the price is going up. Anyone out there still believe it is NOT a contrived rise based on out of control speculation?
I can make money off oil exploration, refining, and further processing. I can also make money on bio-fuel plants. Heck, even more restrictive emissions is a good thing for our business as people are forced to retrofit to cleaner-burning, much more expensive technology.
RM- Personally, I like a politician who shows flexibility and illustrates their views can evolve over the years for good reason. In fact, I'd say it was a really good asset to have. You make good points on Romney and certainly given me more reason to look closer at what has been behind his constantly evolving views.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 09, 2012, 08:54:32 AM
I can make money off oil exploration, refining, and further processing. I can also make money on bio-fuel plants. Heck, even more restrictive emissions is a good thing for our business as people are forced to retrofit to cleaner-burning, much more expensive technology.
RM- Personally, I like a politician who shows flexibility and illustrates their views can evolve over the years for good reason. In fact, I'd say it was a really good asset to have. You make good points on Romney and certainly given me more reason to look closer at what has been behind his constantly evolving views.
Absolutely!! And business is booming right now! You are so busy you don't know what to do about it all!
And if you are not, then there is something seriously wrong, because everybody else is.