1 million jobs added in last three months

[KevinNYC]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/06/january-employment-report/22933289/


Employers added a better-than-expected 257,000 jobs in January as the resurgent labor market began 2015 on a positive note

......

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected employment gains of 230,000, according to their median forecast.

Also encouraging: Job gains for November and December were revised up by a total 147,000. November's 's count was revised to 423,000 from 353,000 and December's to 329,000 from 252,000.

The economy has added more than 1 million jobs just in the past three months -- the best such stretch since 1997.

Wage growth, which has been sluggish throughout the recovery despite strong payroll advances in 2014, picked up last month after falling in December. Average hourly earnings increased 8 cents to $24.75 an hour and are up 2.2% over the past year. The average work week was unchanged at 34.6 hours.

"Employment growth is clearly on fire and its beginning to put upward pressure on wage growth," Paul Ashworth, chief US economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients..

Businesses added 267,000 jobs on broad-based gains. Federal, state and local governments cut 10,000.

Unemployment went up

The unemployment rate, which is calculated from a separate survey of households, rose to 5.7% from 5.6%, the Labor Department said Friday.

Either that is just statistical noise or more people are coming back to look for work.

[Jailblazers7]

The report had a lot of people re-entering the workforce.

[Practice?]

:applause:

[Jailblazers7]

Kind of funny that an awesome jobs report comes out and nobody cares. 5 years ago during a bad jobs report people would come in here talking about how this is the harbinger of deep structural weaknesses in the economy and say we are doomed. But now those same people either don't want to admit they were wrong or they will dismiss it by saying that either these stats are cooked or they don't prove anything.

[KevinNYC]

Kind of funny that an awesome jobs report comes out and nobody cares. 5 years ago during a bad jobs report people would come in here talking about how this is the harbinger of deep structural weaknesses in the economy and say we are doomed. But now those same people either don't want to admit they were wrong or they will dismiss it by saying that either these stats are cooked or they don't prove anything.

Some of it is motivated reasoning. Some of it is the first facts that sink in your head are hard to dislodge particularly when those facts are mixed with strong emotions like outrage. Once you lay down the narrative, it's hard to change..

You can see this on TARP and bailouts, the stimulus, this public health response to Ebola, etc.

[The Iron Sheik]

how many of these jobs pay at least $25,000 a year? if any?

[NumberSix]

Some of it is motivated reasoning. Some of it is the first facts that sink in your head are hard to dislodge particularly when those facts are mixed with strong emotions like outrage. Once you lay down the narrative, it's hard to change..

You can see this on TARP and bailouts, the stimulus, this public health response to Ebola, etc.
Or........ The information is just vary vague.

How many of these jobs are full time or part time? How many are long term or short term jobs? How many of these jobs grow the economy and how many are paid by taxpayer dollars?

"1 MILLION JOBS!!!" In itself isn't particularly informative.

[boozehound]

how many of these jobs pay at least $25,000 a year? if any?
none, not a single person who was hired last month makes more than 25k. In fact, most of them are paid in rubles.


The report also shows that wages are going up (slightly) as well as hours worked.

[rufuspaul]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-56-unemployment-jim-clifton


Not sure how much of this is true, but I would think there's a morsel or two of truth here. Things are never as rosy or as dire as partisans would want you to believe.




Here’s something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

I hear all the time that “unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren’t feeling it.” When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren’t “feeling” something that doesn’t remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

***

Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO of Gallup. He is author of The Coming Jobs War (Gallup Press, 2011).

[Jailblazers7]

how many of these jobs pay at least $25,000 a year? if any?

Average weekly earning are up 2.76% year over year and the average salary based on those numbers is around $45k. So my guess is that a large majority of those jobs make over $25k.

[GimmeThat]

I can only say that perhaps for the very least, congress should be happy. Since most of them are not voted in for their economic expertise, but generally a variety of issues.

[~primetime~]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-56-unemployment-jim-clifton


Not sure how much of this is true, but I would think there's a morsel or two of truth here. Things are never as rosy or as dire as partisans would want you to believe.
As long as the way that unemployment has been calculated is the same now as it was in the past it doesn't matter. It's still down.

Perhaps the number is misleading, but has always been misleading...it's still trending in the right direction

[boozehound]

As long as the way that unemployment has been calculated is the same now as it was in the past it doesn't matter. It's still down.

Perhaps the number is misleading, but has always been misleading...it's still trending in the right direction
this is a good point. Actual unemployment has always been higher than this number. But it has been calculated the same way since well before the recession.

[~primetime~]

this is a good point. Actual unemployment has always been higher than this number. But it has been calculated the same way since well before the recession.
Right, maybe multiply the numbers they give us by 2x to get the "real" number...you're still going to get a numbers that are trending downward.

[theballerFKA Ace]

If we don't have robots doing every non art job within 5 years while the rest of us are sipping gin on the beach I'll be very disappointed with america

Or H-1B Visa Holders. :oldlol:

My ex gf works for SoCal Edison. She makes really good money as an accounting manager but a lot of her friends in the IT dept are being forced to train their replacements fresh in from India who are willing to do the job for half the pay. After which they get a severance package and unemployment. If they refuse to train their replacements, they get no severance package.

Robots and immigrants, mmmmmm the future looks rosy. :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-56-unemployment-jim-clifton
Not sure how much of this is true, but I would think there's a morsel or two of truth here. Things are never as rosy or as dire as partisans would want you to believe.

Unless I'm missing something here, this seems to be the same argument that people have been making for years:

The BLS is not telling you the real unemployment rate. The real number is much higher.

Well the BLS publishes 6 different employment stats and the people making this argument often cite the U-6 number as their evidence.

The truth is U-3 is the official rate and U-6 counts people marginally attached to the work force and underemployed. Sometimes people dishonestly compare the U-3 rate to the U-6 rate. Google Dondald Trump and unemployment to see what I mean.

Anyway, the point is the government publishes both number and they tell the same story. Unemployment is coming down and 2014 was a very good year for jobs.

Over the past year, the official rate went down 2.3 percent. The U-6 rate went down 2.2 percent.

Here' the BLS numbers from Jan 14 to Jan 15

U-1
Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
3.5 to 2.7

U-2
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
4.0 to 2.7

U-3
Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
7.0 to 5.7

U-4
Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
7.5 to 6.1

U-5
Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
8.6 to 7.0

U-6
Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
13.5 to 11.3

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?fromYear=1994&toYear=2015

U-6 was above 17 percent at the depths of the recession.


EDIT
Somebody at the Washington Post's Wonkblog agrees with me. This is arguing about the definition not the numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/06/dont-listen-to-anyone-who-says-the-unemployment-rate-is-a-big-lie/

[senelcoolidge]

More than 70% of these jobs are just part time jobs. That's not an improvement.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Fun fact:

Job growth (last three months): +1,009,000 jobs
Job growth (Bush's entire 8-year f*cking presidency): +1,282,000 jobs

How did we survive those years? Serious question.

[ThePhantomCreep]

More than 70% of these jobs are just part time jobs. That's not an improvement.

Wages are up, and the average workweek remained unchanged at 34.6 hours. Both numbers would have dipped had your made-up statistic been true.

[KevinNYC]

More than 70% of these jobs are just part time jobs. That's not an improvement.
evidence?

[joe]

Kind of funny that an awesome jobs report comes out and nobody cares. 5 years ago during a bad jobs report people would come in here talking about how this is the harbinger of deep structural weaknesses in the economy and say we are doomed. But now those same people either don't want to admit they were wrong or they will dismiss it by saying that either these stats are cooked or they don't prove anything.

It is not about how many jobs are created, it is about whether those jobs are being naturally demanded by the free market or are being artificially created in some way by government. A lot of jobs were created during the housing bubble, and they were eventually lost, and turned out to be an enormous waste of resources. Since we are on an NBA forum, I will compare what you are doing to just looking at a box score without actually watching the game. Oh, Marbury had 20 and 10, great game. You never saw him shooting his team out of the game.

[KevinNYC]

It is not about how many jobs are created, it is about whether those jobs are being naturally demanded by the free market or are being artificially created in some way by government. A lot of jobs were created during the housing bubble, and they were eventually lost, and turned out to be an enormous waste of resources. Since we are on an NBA forum, I will compare what you are doing to just looking at a box score without actually watching the game. Oh, Marbury had 20 and 10, great game. You never saw him shooting his team out of the game.

Joe, are trying to claim the free market never wastes resources?

[joe]

Joe, are trying to claim the free market never wastes resources?

No, but the free market more easily corrects itself due to the checking mechanism of profit and loss. A company that is wasting resources goes out of business, and its resources are reallocated to companies that are using resources more wisely. Since government never goes out of business, and it doesnt even need to earn its money from willing customers, it is far slower to correct itself when it is wrong, or simply never corrects itself. Actually it is more likely for government to double down when it is wrong, and spend even more money on a project that is not only failing, but was never desired by the market (or, people) or begin with.

If a pizza shop was losing enormous amounts of money (a signal that this pizza shop is not desired or that it is not satisfying its customers), the owner of the pizza shop cannot just triple his budget with taxpayer money and continue pushing his pizza shop down customers throats. The system of profit and loss is sending a clear signal that this pizza shop is a waste of resources. He goes out of business or he finds a better way to satisfy customer demand.

Since the government does not operate in the world of profit and loss, it never receives these signals and instead continuously dumps more money into things that do not warrant it. Of course, the second half of that statement is misleading. They dont just happen to increase their budgets repeatedly, they do so because of their own self centered greed without any care for anyone but themselves. Increase their budgets, increase their ability to take more taxpayer money and do things to support their constituency, no matter how much it hurts anyone else in the economy. And then you can run back to your voters and say you created 20,000 jobs, despite the fact that the jobs you created took more out of the economy than they added.

And even the few politicians that have good hearts are still blind actors. They do not have the profit and loss system to guide them so they are blindly making economic decisions with no clue how much they are actually desired.

And these statistics that you post are all mired in this system and cannot be separated from it. The economy is so infested with government spending and influence that you cannot take these statistics seriously. I do not doubt the validity of the statistics. I am sure that these jobs were created and they are not lying. But how they came about, how sustainable they are, and how necessary they were to begin with are all in doubt.

And that is before we talk about how the government willfully alters their statistical formulas to make themselves look good. But for the sake of argument I will just accept the statistics at face value. However, it should be noted and understood that the government cooks the statistical books and gets funny with math in a constant attempt to mislead the public and make themselves look better.

[joe]

And this is exactly why the USA was originally meant to be many separate states with a unifying but WEAK federal government. If Florida started overtaxing and stepping out of bounds, it would not be hard for many citizens to move to Georgia. This would make every state less willing to dominate the economy to such a degree as our current federal government does. Competition works among governments just like it works among pizza shops and fast food restaurants and sneaker brands.

[joe]

And KevinNYC I love you man. Not mad at all. Just felt like being fiery.

[gigantes]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-56-unemployment-jim-clifton


Not sure how much of this is true, but I would think there's a morsel or two of truth here. Things are never as rosy or as dire as partisans would want you to believe.
not to mention... jimmy cliff e one of my favorite reggae mons, me watcha mon. riiiight?

[gigantes]

And KevinNYC I love you man. Not mad at all. Just felt like being fiery.
you know i love you joe, but you gotta watch your hot sauce consumption.

[nathanjizzle]

good, im moving my business into a work shop and will hire someone soon. thankyou obama.

[GimmeThat]

government income

= people in different tax brackets, paying their tax rates, minuses the tax exemptions etc.


we can talk about unemployment all we want.

but when we get the amount of citizens documented, how many in the working force, and how much the government is making. That too, is another way to evaluate the state of the economy comparing to other time periods(factor inflation etc)

[GimmeThat]

It is not about how many jobs are created, it is about whether those jobs are being naturally demanded by the free market or are being artificially created in some way by government. A lot of jobs were created during the housing bubble, and they were eventually lost, and turned out to be an enormous waste of resources. Since we are on an NBA forum, I will compare what you are doing to just looking at a box score without actually watching the game. Oh, Marbury had 20 and 10, great game. You never saw him shooting his team out of the game.


goods/trades rates
labor rights
monopoly
to a certain extent, copyrights


trying to refrain from governmental influence as to the direction of where the labor force ought to participate is indeed a key issue for sustainability.


in which, I consider that as a subject being regarded with education



I'm just being vague here

[boozehound]

evidence?
who needs evidence when you've got hyperbole?

[boozehound]

No, but the free market more easily corrects itself due to the checking mechanism of profit and loss. A company that is wasting resources goes out of business, and its resources are reallocated to companies that are using resources more wisely. Since government never goes out of business, and it doesnt even need to earn its money from willing customers, it is far slower to correct itself when it is wrong, or simply never corrects itself. Actually it is more likely for government to double down when it is wrong, and spend even more money on a project that is not only failing, but was never desired by the market (or, people) or begin with.

If a pizza shop was losing enormous amounts of money (a signal that this pizza shop is not desired or that it is not satisfying its customers), the owner of the pizza shop cannot just triple his budget with taxpayer money and continue pushing his pizza shop down customers throats. The system of profit and loss is sending a clear signal that this pizza shop is a waste of resources. He goes out of business or he finds a better way to satisfy customer demand.

Since the government does not operate in the world of profit and loss, it never receives these signals and instead continuously dumps more money into things that do not warrant it. Of course, the second half of that statement is misleading. They dont just happen to increase their budgets repeatedly, they do so because of their own self centered greed without any care for anyone but themselves. Increase their budgets, increase their ability to take more taxpayer money and do things to support their constituency, no matter how much it hurts anyone else in the economy. And then you can run back to your voters and say you created 20,000 jobs, despite the fact that the jobs you created took more out of the economy than they added.

And even the few politicians that have good hearts are still blind actors. They do not have the profit and loss system to guide them so they are blindly making economic decisions with no clue how much they are actually desired.

And these statistics that you post are all mired in this system and cannot be separated from it. The economy is so infested with government spending and influence that you cannot take these statistics seriously. I do not doubt the validity of the statistics. I am sure that these jobs were created and they are not lying. But how they came about, how sustainable they are, and how necessary they were to begin with are all in doubt.

And that is before we talk about how the government willfully alters their statistical formulas to make themselves look good. But for the sake of argument I will just accept the statistics at face value. However, it should be noted and understood that the government cooks the statistical books and gets funny with math in a constant attempt to mislead the public and make themselves look better.
ah, good old joe, with his anti-government agenda shrouded in ignorance. You do realize that the housing bubble was due to the free market (as was the correction), but somehow the gov't is to blame? Typical fuzzy, non-linear argument from this crackpot.

[The Iron Sheik]

none, not a single person who was hired last month makes more than 25k. In fact, most of them are paid in rubles.


The report also shows that wages are going up (slightly) as well as hours worked.

meh. what's the point of celebrating jobs being created if the people are still going to be living in poverty because their pay is shit?

[GimmeThat]

meh. what's the point of celebrating jobs being created if the people are still going to be living in poverty because their pay is shit?

True.

I tend to want to murder someone after seeing them 34 hours a week. Or burn down the place, let alone 34 hours, weeks after weeks.

[GimmeThat]

ah, good old joe, with his anti-government agenda shrouded in ignorance. You do realize that the housing bubble was due to the free market (as was the correction), but somehow the gov't is to blame? Typical fuzzy, non-linear argument from this crackpot.

If the free market you mean here, implies houses OUTSIDE of the U.S. government territory.

You may be correct.


:lol

[NumberSix]

ah, good old joe, with his anti-government agenda shrouded in ignorance. You do realize that the housing bubble was due to the free market (as was the correction), but somehow the gov't is to blame? Typical fuzzy, non-linear argument from this crackpot.
Yes.

Generally, in a free market, when a bunch of scammers commit giant amounts of fraud and lose all the money, they go out of business and are prosecuted, not rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars and get out of jail free cards.

:hammerhead:

[Lakers Legend#32]

Great news only a Republican could hate.

[Dresta]

ah, good old joe, with his anti-government agenda shrouded in ignorance. You do realize that the housing bubble was due to the free market (as was the correction), but somehow the gov't is to blame? Typical fuzzy, non-linear argument from this crackpot.
:roll: :roll: :roll:


That's too much, seriously. Government manipulation of interest rates had everything to do with that bubble swelling to gargantuan proportions. Yeah, the actions of Greenspan had nothing to do with it :hammerhead:. They are now doing the same with subprime auto loans, so Obama fanboys can go 'look GM is doing well, the bailout is working!!!' - even though much of these gains are on the basis of unsustainable loaning and spending, just like before.

Written in 2004:


It has now been three years since the U.S. stock market crash. Greenspan has indicated that interest rates could soon reverse their course, while longer-term interest rates have already moved higher. Higher interest rates should trigger a reversal in the housing market and expose the fallacies of the new paradigm, including how the housing boom has helped cover up increases in price inflation. Unfortunately, this exposure will hurt homeowners and the larger problem could hit the American taxpayer, who could be forced to bailout the banks and government-sponsored mortgage guarantors who have encouraged irresponsible lending practices.


The prices of houses are also up, but mainstream economists have generally ignored this development as well; and as noted above, Greenspan sees this as a positive development. Some economists can even point to the Consumer Price Index which shows that the housing component in the CPI is steady or falling. And yet reports are coming out nearly every day saying that housing prices are up dramatically and setting records all across the country. Record prices have been recently reported in the San Francisco Bay Area, Denver, Boston, Las Vegas, the state of Washington, and even Buffalo, New York.

Nationally, the price of a median family home was up 15% between 2001 and 2003, with regional increases of 30% in the Northeast, 8.5% in the Midwest, 14.4% in the Southeast, and 20.4% in the West. Over the last year, increases have been reported as 18.7% in the Northeast, 1.9% in the Midwest, 3.8% in the Southeast, and 10.7% in the West, or 6.5% for the nation as a whole. Interestingly, the median price has actually dropped 7.2% in the Midwest and 7.3% in the South since peaking in the 3rd quarter of 2003, while prices have been generally flat in the West. Statistics from the last couple of quarters might therefore suggest that the housing bubble may have topped out, or at least temporarily cooled down, in most of the country.

Why have home prices been increasing? David Lereah, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors, explained: "It's a simple matter of supply and demand…We continue to have more home buyers than sellers in most of the country, which results in tight housing inventories and higher rates of home price appreciation." Of course the cause of higher home prices is that the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates, and thus mortgage rates, at historically low rates so that people find it easier to finance homes. In fact, despite an 18% increase in home prices since 2001, the median monthly payment remained the same at $789/month and the "median payment as a percentage of income" has actually fallen. This is the magic of monetary inflation, courtesy of Alan Greenspan.

And this was reiterated time and time again before 2007, only for those predicting this and urging restraint to be declared 'crackpots' in much the same childish and ignorant manner as you are right now. Economic illiteracy is ubiquitous, and that is the cause of our problems, not the 'free-market', when we haven't had anything remotely close to a free-market since the dawn of the century :rolleyes:.

What we have right now is the consequence of the satanic Freidmanite/Keynesian hybrid that remains the economic consensus, despite its repeated failures.

edit: it's also funny Kev is preaching about every good bit of data that comes out, but ignores the skyrocketing trade deficit (among several other things), which just increased by about 20%, and is, in real dollar terms, the largest singe increase ever.

[joe]

ah, good old joe, with his anti-government agenda shrouded in ignorance. You do realize that the housing bubble was due to the free market (as was the correction), but somehow the gov't is to blame? Typical fuzzy, non-linear argument from this crackpot.

The housing bubble had nothing, NOTHING to do with a free market. Lets see. Government manipulated interest rates. Banks that were guaranteed by the government, thus banks being far more risky and handing out loans like it was nothing. The implicit understanding that banks would be bailed out if they failed, which many investors point to as a ubiquitous belief among them at the time, and of course they were proven right.

Also, the correction has not been free market either. Bank bailouts, government continuing to endlessly push down interest rates while inflating the dollar. And when the next leg of this depression hits, it will also not be the free markets fault.

[joe]

you know i love you joe, but you gotta watch your hot sauce consumption.

I just had hot sauce both today and last night for dinner, weird O.o

[KevinNYC]

I love you too, Joe, but you have a very econ 101 sense of economics. Private businesses waste money all the time, many of which stay in business.

Earlier in my career, I worked on a multiyear $30 million plus project. You know what we did when finished it? Started building the replacement for it, because it didn't work the way the company wanted it to. But while it was going on, it paid mine and lots of other people's salaries and we paid our rent and mortgages and taxes and spent money and bought things and increased the velocity of money through the economy. So while it may have been a bad investment, it could argue it had a positive affect on the economy. That company is still in business and still the leader in its field.


It is not about how many jobs are created, it is about whether those jobs are being naturally demanded by the free market or are being artificially created in some way by government. A lot of jobs were created during the housing bubble, and they were eventually lost, and turned out to be an enormous waste of resources.
What's the connection between the first sentence here and the second? Are you claiming the free market had nothing to do with the Housing Bubble?

Free markets are not "natural." They don't just popup like weeds in a sidewalk.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6136/6201278256_22a1af2597.jpg
Even before the full blown financial crisis of 2008, we did not create a lot of jobs during the housing bubble. Not across the entire economy, the years 2001-2007 were very, very weak for job growth. At the time it was the worst cycle since WWII.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/8-9-05bud-f1.jpg



And this is exactly why the USA was originally meant to be many separate states with a unifying but WEAK federal government. If Florida started overtaxing and stepping out of bounds, it would not be hard for many citizens to move to Georgia. This would make every state less willing to dominate the economy to such a degree as our current federal government does. Competition works among governments just like it works among pizza shops and fast food restaurants and sneaker brands.
Says who? Certainly not the folks who wrote the Constitution. Because our initial attempt at having a weak central government failed. (http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/articlesofconfederation/)

I would love to see any historical argument that claims it would not be hard to move from one state to another. Also claims that with a a weaker federal government there would be more competition among states is belied by actual history. We had a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation and it failed and we decided to get rid of it pretty quick, among the reasons it didn't work is there were too many conflicts between the states, many involving trade, like protective tariffs.



No, but the free market more easily corrects itself due to the checking mechanism of profit and loss. ........
.......

Joe, you're missing the point of what government can do to add the economic climate, even if they are not operating by profit and loss. Investments in the common good, infrastructure, highways, education, help business do business. The government, like the private sector can do this poorly or not. Your "artificially created by goverment" these is far too simplistic to actually apply to the economy. And of course, that ideology would have been paticularly detrimental in time like the recent financial/credit crisis when the markets flat out broke.

We would have been much worse off with the effects of the ARRA aka the stimulus.
http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screen-shot-2014-02-14-at-1-00-12-pm.png

[KevinNYC]

The housing bubble had nothing, NOTHING to do with a free market. Lets see. Government manipulated interest rates. Banks that were guaranteed by the government, thus banks being far more risky and handing out loans like it was nothing. The implicit understanding that banks would be bailed out if they failed, which many investors point to as a ubiquitous belief among them at the time, and of course they were proven right.

Also, the correction has not been free market either. Bank bailouts, government continuing to endlessly push down interest rates while inflating the dollar. And when the next leg of this depression hits, it will also not be the free markets fault.
This is just so much bullshit, Joe. You really should educate yourself. You're telling yourself fairy tales.

Lets see. Government manipulated interest rates.
Yes, the Fed sets interest rates.
However, this by itself won't lead a bubble.

This wouldn't explain why mortgage fraud took off

This doesn't explain why banks lowered their mortgage underwriting standards.

This doesn't explain why banks would push people in more expensive subprime loans when they qualified for standard conforming loans.

This doesn't explain why the private sector rushed to create Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages, Interest-Only ARMs, Fixed Interest Mortgages, etc.

Did the Fed push private banks to create Liar Loans, such as Stated Income, Stated Asset or No Income, No Asset loans?

It woudn't explain why Wall Street was so hungry to buy these loans.

It wouldn't explain why Wall Street was so hungry package to these loans in credit derivatives and mortgage backed securities like CDOs, CDOs squared, credit default swaps, etc.

It wouldn't explain why the credit ratings agencies mispriced the risk of the credit derivatives.

It wouldn't explain why Wall Street firms didn't misprice the risk of mortgage backed securities and used them as collateral borrow and lend hundreds of billions of dollars on.

This wouldn't explain why credit markets froze around the world, why housing prices went up around the world, etc.

Also you missed the point that government could have used laws on the books to properly regulate the wave of mortgage fraud and risky lending that would have stopped the bubble from inflating so high. The super risky liar loans came about because otherwise, there was so much demand from Wall Street.

Banks that were guaranteed by the government, thus banks being far more risky and handing out loans like it was nothing.
False.
The top subprime lenders like Countrywide and Ameriquest (http://www.publicintegrity.org/business/finance/whos-behind-financial-meltdown/subprime-25) were not deposit banks subject to government regulation. They were mortgage originators and were financed by Wall Street and they were not guaranteed by the government. Later on some of these companies were bought by regular banks, but still operated a subsidary company. They handed out loans like they were nothing because it was incredibly profitable for the them and because they knew Wall Street would buy these loans off them to securitize them.

The implicit understanding that banks would be bailed out if they failed, which many investors point to as a ubiquitous belief among them at the time, and of course they were proven right. False
Tell that to Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns or Countrywide or Ameriquest or Wachovia or Royal Bank or Washington Mutual, etc, etc.


http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/59690000/59693823.JPG
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf

Also where is this "inflating the dollar" you are talking about?

http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/244983/projected-inflation-rate-in-the-united-states.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Good news. Doesn't mean what it once did given the jobs are usually shit, but that's the nature of the American job market these days. Those nice low skill middle class jobs are not coming back. Just the way it is.

[joe]

This is just so much bullshit, Joe. You really should educate yourself. You're telling yourself fairy tales.

Lets see. Government manipulated interest rates.
Yes, the Fed sets interest rates.
However, this by itself won't lead a bubble.

This wouldn't explain why mortgage fraud took off

This doesn't explain why banks lowered their mortgage underwriting standards.

This doesn't explain why banks would push people in more expensive subprime loans when they qualified for standard conforming loans.

This doesn't explain why the private sector rushed to create Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages, Interest-Only ARMs, Fixed Interest Mortgages, etc.

Did the Fed push private banks to create Liar Loans, such as Stated Income, Stated Asset or No Income, No Asset loans?

It woudn't explain why Wall Street was so hungry to buy these loans.

It wouldn't explain why Wall Street was so hungry package to these loans in credit derivatives and mortgage backed securities like CDOs, CDOs squared, credit default swaps, etc.

It wouldn't explain why the credit ratings agencies mispriced the risk of the credit derivatives.

It wouldn't explain why Wall Street firms didn't misprice the risk of mortgage backed securities and used them as collateral borrow and lend hundreds of billions of dollars on.

This wouldn't explain why credit markets froze around the world, why housing prices went up around the world, etc.

Also you missed the point that government could have used laws on the books to properly regulate the wave of mortgage fraud and risky lending that would have stopped the bubble from inflating so high. The super risky liar loans came about because otherwise, there was so much demand from Wall Street.

Banks that were guaranteed by the government, thus banks being far more risky and handing out loans like it was nothing.
False.
The top subprime lenders like Countrywide and Ameriquest (http://www.publicintegrity.org/business/finance/whos-behind-financial-meltdown/subprime-25) were not deposit banks subject to government regulation. They were mortgage originators and were financed by Wall Street and they were not guaranteed by the government. Later on some of these companies were bought by regular banks, but still operated a subsidary company. They handed out loans like they were nothing because it was incredibly profitable for the them and because they knew Wall Street would buy these loans off them to securitize them.

The implicit understanding that banks would be bailed out if they failed, which many investors point to as a ubiquitous belief among them at the time, and of course they were proven right. False
Tell that to Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns or Countrywide or Ameriquest or Wachovia or Royal Bank or Washington Mutual, etc, etc.


http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/59690000/59693823.JPG
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf

Also where is this "inflating the dollar" you are talking about?

http://www.statista.com/graphic/1/244983/projected-inflation-rate-in-the-united-states.jpg


Yo mama

[sundizz]

The economy is simple....people in here are overstating "good" versus "bad".

Corporations should push for profits. Governments should push for regulation that allocates that profit relatively evenly to a larger segment of society. This results in a greater degree of variety (versus a monopoly), job opportunities, good jobs, and "fairness".

As we saw with the financial crisis, it resulted from the "free market". In essence the free market model rewards intelligence and punishes stupidity. However, the government HAS to protect people from themselves. It doesn't make sense for a country to have 1% really wealthy people and 99% poor people. That is what would eventually happen if we had a pure capitalistic, free market society. Once someone is rich, they can increase their wealth, capitalize on economies of scale, etc and basically be impossible to dislodge from their pedestal. Poor people would have no chance to rise through.

It's why national health care, education, etc are all so important. The more of the "necessities" are a right (versus a privilege) the more freedom people have to improve their quality of life through hard work. A poor man without education, and health care can work their whole life and still end up broke. Nobody thinks that is fair or should want that sort of indentured servant life for others in their society.

[kNIOKAS]

The economy is simple....people in here are overstating "good" versus "bad".

Corporations should push for profits. Governments should push for regulation that allocates that profit relatively evenly to a larger segment of society. This results in a greater degree of variety (versus a monopoly), job opportunities, good jobs, and "fairness".

As we saw with the financial crisis, it resulted from the "free market". In essence the free market model rewards intelligence and punishes stupidity. However, the government HAS to protect people from themselves. It doesn't make sense for a country to have 1% really wealthy people and 99% poor people. That is what would eventually happen if we had a pure capitalistic, free market society. Once someone is rich, they can increase their wealth, capitalize on economies of scale, etc and basically be impossible to dislodge from their pedestal. Poor people would have no chance to rise through.

Never saw an argument mended this way but that doesn't mean it isn't a wholy dogshit statement.

:hammerhead:

When corporations push for profits everything gets bulldozed off the way, government included. That's what all this fuss is about, now.

Are you insinuating that 1% is intelligent and 99% is stupid? That government (follows that it must be composed of that 1%, doesn't it) should protect 99% of population from their stupid selves? :sleeping

[Dresta]

Says who? Certainly not the folks who wrote the Constitution. Because our initial attempt at having a weak central government failed. (http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/articlesofconfederation/)

I would love to see any historical argument that claims it would not be hard to move from one state to another. Also claims that with a a weaker federal government there would be more competition among states is belied by actual history. We had a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation and it failed and we decided to get rid of it pretty quick, among the reasons it didn't work is there were too many conflicts between the states, many involving trade, like protective tariffs.



It's about time you give up the distorting and lying, because here you are either being disingenuous, or know nothing about the history of your native land. The Articles of Confederation were disastrously weak; the US Constitution was stronger, yes, but it still gave primacy to the States, it still relegated the President to a role of not much more than an administrator (with his most important power being a negative one - the veto), and it still needed an extremely bloody war to even levy its first ever income tax (i.e. it had to kill its own citizens, en masse). Tariffs? Of course that needs to be dealt with centrally, but that doesn't imply that anything like the Federal superstate, with its armies and layers of politicians and bureaucrats, was what was wanted, nor why the States should be forced to remain under a compact that they did not agree to, and which has been repeatedly violated and trampled over. The States now have almost no authority of their own, local populations feel no real involvement in politics (as local institutions have been eroded by a despotic central power), and we have an increasingly alienated and apathetic populace, who feel unrepresented by the increasingly alien power and authority of Washington, and the conveyor belt of power-hungry maniacs you have so much faith in.

You actually think the Constitution mandates a 'strong' government such as we have today? Seriously? Have you even read the thing? Have you read the Federalist papers? Are you completely unaware that even the assumption of State debts by the Federal Government in 1790 was bitterly contested, with Madison being vehemently against it? That it was only agreed to in exchange for placing the new capital on the potomac, away from financial interests (superfluous now, with the changes in technology). That Jefferson considered bringing Madison and Hamilton to this arrangement to be one of his greatest mistakes? Did you know any of this? I doubt it. How about the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, penned by Jefferson and Madison respectively? That would be where the so-called 'father of the Constitution' declares ultimate authority to reside with the states. Do you seriously, for one second, think the Constitution would have been ratified if those ratifying knew it was going to become a one-way train to the administrative superstate it is today? No, it was barely ratified with the extremely limited specified powers laid out as it was.

The Constitution granted "the general government" (as Jefferson called it) only specific enumerated powers, and the 9th and 10th Amendments reiterated that all other powers lay with the states and the people. Madison's Virginia Resolution directly cites this argument. Thus rejecting Federal laws when they overstep what is explicitly granted to them is not nullification, but Federalism, properly practiced.

Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve:


"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution For the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force..."


What imbeciles like you never realise is that by extending executive power and authority (undoubtedly as all your favourite Presidents have done), leads directly to abuses of power; ergo, the actions of FDR led straight to Kissinger and Cold War realpolitik, to the abuses of Nixon and others. Your type is only too happy to have Presidents they like usurp despotic power, and then whinge about it when one they don't like takes advantage of the same privileges.

As for all the other stupid points you made (in the other post), yes, all those things are related to the ubiquitous interference of Washington in economic affairs, the partnership between New York bankers and officials and politicians in Washington, between so-called 'independent' regulators and the people they were supposed to regulate (why can't the child-like recognise there is no such thing as regulatory independence, and never can be?). There is a reason Jefferson, Madison and Washington wanted the capital of the new nation in the middle of nowhere, away from financial interests (Hamilton did not btw: he was a shill for wealthy NY bankers, and it is his economic ideas that have survived and been preserved, his interpretation of Federal and Executive power - and this man basically wanted to be King)! Adams, Jefferson and Madison all detested and distrusted Hamilton, and for good reason.

Now they've just found a way of using politicians to their advantage without much of the population even recognising it (like you, btw), by attempting to confound them with the economic sophistry of the day, and its endless contradictions. As always, you only post things that plug your pathetic and subservient agenda, ignoring all the weak economic data that has come out in the last month, and focusing on just about the only thing that exceeded projections.

The problem with people like you Kevin, is that you have deluded yourself into thinking that the Government is some kind of magical institution, devoid of human weakness and caprice. We have at the moment steady and incessant growth in Federal authority, just happening to coincide with the increased militarisation of law & order. Sorry, but if you can't recognise the inherent danger of these things, then you haven't read or understood even a lick of history.

[Dresta]

Free markets are not "natural." They don't just popup like weeds in a sidewalk.

Even before the full blown financial crisis of 2008, we did not create a lot of jobs during the housing bubble. Not across the entire economy, the years 2001-2007 were very, very weak for job growth. At the time it was the worst cycle since WWII.

Just saw this and :facepalm


Your understanding of economics is so limited.

1. Yes, markets are completely natural, and will spring up wherever human beings desire to own things, and desire to use the things they own to get more things they want & desire. Capitalism is not a modern construction: it has been present ever since the first human being traded a possession of his with somebody else. Capitalism is nothing more than an expression of human nature, and fighting against human nature is foolish and counterproductive (and has repeatedly been shown to be so).

2. The 2001-2007 period was weak for job growth because most of the growth in that period was artificial, and dependent on government subsidisation. This is the problem with your Keynesian logic: in your world, a massive housing bubble based on artificially cheap credit = real and sustainable economic growth. No word on why they are now doing the same thing with cars and the stock market :hammerhead:.

I find it hilarious that when the government has its hand in just about every sector of the economy (directing most of them), people like you can blame everything that has gone wrong on the mythical 'free-market.' It only takes the slightest bit of intelligence to recognise that as an out-and-out lie, i honestly don't see how anyone with a human brain could believe it.

[Jailblazers7]

Honestly, arguing that things would be all gravy if we had a "free market" (idk what that would look like on a macro scale) is pretty much pointless. Once markets get to be large and geographically dispersed governments become a vital player because they provide the legal and institutional structure necessary to carry out trade. And once government gets involved, politicians are interested in accumulating wealth/power and corporations are interesting in buying power and rent seeking. I'm pretty much convinced that the current relationship between federal government and private industry is an inevitability, especially in the US given its development throughout history.

[Dresta]

Honestly, arguing that things would be all gravy if we had a "free market" (idk what that would look like on a macro scale) is pretty much pointless. Once markets get to be large and geographically dispersed governments become a vital player because they provide the legal and institutional structure necessary to carry out trade. And once government gets involved, politicians are interested in accumulating wealth/power and corporations are interesting in buying power and rent seeking. I'm pretty much convinced that the current relationship between federal government and private industry is an inevitability, especially in the US given its development throughout history.
I agree, which is why libertarianism has always been a bit flakey and ahistorical, but i am not, and have never been, a libertarian. In fact, the need, in American political discourse, to brand anyone who considers a roll-back of the Federal state and a devolution of power as necessarily a 'libertarian' is a gross simplification, used only to trivialise views that actually aim to buck the trends of the last 50 years. Where I disagree with someone like Hayek (who is not a libertarian, and who only an ignoramus would classify as a libertarian) is that he has faith in democratic restraint, and i do not. I think this is the problem with most Classical Liberals, even; i'm not sure that once democratic principles are embraced, that the progressive slide towards increased corruption is not also probably inevitable, and can only be slowed by documents like the US Constitution, never halted - a reversal simply doesn't seem feasible, and if we do undergo significant civil unrest in the future, the natural progression will be into a fairly benign military state, and that will be the end of the emancipatory shibboleth that democracy has become (the word democrat, btw, was used by the likes of John Adams as a pejorative). I posit that a democratic electorate was always going to end up as an easily manipulated body of subservient and dependent sheep just looking for someone else to pay for the things they want. The masses have a natural inclination towards docility, and politicians the cunning to use this to their own advantage.

Accusing others of being 'free-marketers' or whatever, is not much more than an empty pejorative, and doesn't come close to explaining what is at its basis an opposition to heavily centralised power, especially when it comes to domestic issues, that could be managed far better, and with less waste (and with more actual democracy and public participation) if they were done on a local level. It has nothing to do with the free market to say that there is a dangerous imbalance between state and federal power, and that this was made worse by the passing of the 17th amendment (pushed for by the demagogic fanatic Bryan btw), which removed some of the structural components that reinforced state influence on federal policies which affect the states in particular. If people could recognise that in essence the Federal government is a monopoly of force, with a smaller and smaller counterweight every year, that alone would do a lot; but alas, they are too much in the habit of looking to the government as father and protector - something it was never meant to be in this nation. It was only after the nation went to war with itself that people started to say 'the United States is..' rather than 'the United States are...' - that was the only way they could consolidate a far weaker Federal government than today: with fire and brimstone, the total war of Sherman and Grant.

I think Tocqueville was right in his Democracy in America, which, in my mind, is still the greatest and most perceptive book ever written about democracy, and one of the very best about America as well. Tbh it might well be the best non-fiction book i've ever read. Have you read it? If not, i recommend: you will be struck by his incredible prescience. One of the major recurring themes is the absolute necessity of strong local institutions, that cultivate a kind of political camaraderie and sense of participation (and duty), because it is the best check on democratic tyranny. When these things were present Americans actually took pride in their politics, and what's more, it forced them to take an interest, to learn and study the particulars (how many voters do that today? It helped being able to directly observe the effects of local decisions).

Honestly, i think you have to be pretty close to braindead to think a country as vast and diverse as the United States should be managed by a one-size-fits-all web of bureaucratic administration. What's also funny is that the people who tend to be so in favour of diversity are also the ones trying to ram their model of good government down everyone else's throat :oldlol:.

[longhornfan1234]

60% of the jobs were part-time restaurant type jobs... etc. Also... when you start at the point he did... jobs will be created in mass amounts no matter what the President does

[Droid101]

60% of the jobs were part-time restaurant type jobs... etc.
http://openscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Citation_needed.jpg

[Jailblazers7]

Yeah, I've seen you mention Democracy in America a couple of times on ISH. I've been meaning to pick up a copy of that but I keeping forgetting. I still haven't quite read all of the Federalist Papers yet but I've been taking my time with those.

[NumberSix]

The left is so mind-bogglingly weird. In their mind, absolutely everything has to be micromanaged by the government..... Except immigration.

[GimmeThat]

The economy is simple....people in here are overstating "good" versus "bad".

Corporations should push for profits. Governments should push for regulation that allocates that profit relatively evenly to a larger segment of society. This results in a greater degree of variety (versus a monopoly), job opportunities, good jobs, and "fairness".

As we saw with the financial crisis, it resulted from the "free market". In essence the free market model rewards intelligence and punishes stupidity. However, the government HAS to protect people from themselves. It doesn't make sense for a country to have 1% really wealthy people and 99% poor people. That is what would eventually happen if we had a pure capitalistic, free market society. Once someone is rich, they can increase their wealth, capitalize on economies of scale, etc and basically be impossible to dislodge from their pedestal. Poor people would have no chance to rise through.

It's why national health care, education, etc are all so important. The more of the "necessities" are a right (versus a privilege) the more freedom people have to improve their quality of life through hard work. A poor man without education, and health care can work their whole life and still end up broke. Nobody thinks that is fair or should want that sort of indentured servant life for others in their society.

"You know why I like pictures with big eyes? Because it says that maybe honor, may be within me"
- Howard Liu on painful lessons

[ThePhantomCreep]

The left is so mind-bogglingly weird. In their mind, absolutely everything has to be micromanaged by the government..... Except immigration.

Can I have a link to this horseshit? You are aware the last president to grant amnesty was Reagan, yes? That GWB wanted to grant amnesty as well, yes?

Conservatives are the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do" party. They promote fiscal responsibility and living within your means...until one of theirs assumes the presidency, then it's a spend-a-thon:

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/cbpp-20110413-downturndeficit.png

[KevinNYC]

The single greatest cause of the financial crisis was likely the government incentivizing bad loans to try and increase home ownership.

But that didn't happen. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/) It's a flat out myth.


The Financial Crisis Inquiry looked this very question. Fannie and Freddy didn't accept subprime loans. Their loans were much closed to the national average rate of default. Subprime loans which were very, very profitable for Wall Street and the originators failed at more than 3 times the national average.


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Unbenannt1.png

The incentive for Ameriquest and Countrywide to issue these risky loans, it was very, very profitable for them. Even if someone couldn't pay after their rates jumped in two years, they could refinance and you could get a bunch more fees from them. This worked as long as housing prices kept going up.

[Dresta]

But that didn't happen. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/) It's a flat out myth.


The Financial Crisis Inquiry looked this very question. Fannie and Freddy didn't accept subprime loans. Their loans were much closed to the national average rate of default. Subprime loans which were very, very profitable for Wall Street and the originators failed at more than 3 times the national average.


The incentive for Ameriquest and Countrywide to issue these risky loans, it was very, very profitable for them. Even if someone couldn't pay after their rates jumped in two years, they could refinance and you could get a bunch more fees from them. This worked as long as housing prices kept going up.
Remarkable how you can ignore the fact people predicted exactly what was going to happen, while Keynesians were singing kumbaya, saying housing prices would keep going up, and denying the existence of an imbalance or a problem with mass government distortion of the housing market. These predictions are documented and show the folly of your desperate attempts to argue them into nothingness (just by copying disingenuous articles written after the fact, no less). People have been doing what you're doing for 60+ years now in childish attempts to justify enforced 'charity' and the Government-as-parent, and no matter how many times it fails, the next idiot is always lining up to argue contrary to the facts and in favour of his tribal sentiments.

As Hayek said once: 'i've lived long enough now, to make many predictions, and see them come true, only for the next generation to always blame these accurate predictions on some other mysterious cause' - usually the mysteriously emotion-driven cause of 'the evil rich screwing the rest of us over' that always eeks some votes away from the envious masses who have not time to actually examine what has happened for themselves.

Care to mention why simply because Fanny & Freddy weren't directly issuing subprime mortgages that they were somehow not responsible for what happened? They compensated against this restriction by buying the securities of companies that did make subprime loans. The incentive structure made this inevitable, which is why people were predicting this is in 2004. They got rich from it, while the government got to pretend that it cared about the poor, and encouraged the banks to take huge risks in the process - why are you denying all of this? Because you're a fanatic. Need i remind you that the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results? Well, it's what you're doing.

What's funny is that even the people who caused these problems are now recognising the mess they've created:

No interest rate normalization during my lifetime" ~ B.S. Bernanke 2014

"Buy gold" ~ Alan Greenspan 2014

"The poor should buy financial assets" ~ Janet Yellen 2014

Yeah, because you're devaluing whatever savings they might have :roll:. Crushing the poor while pretending to care about them, and instead helping the lower-middle classes buy cars and houses they can't afford, because real wages are lower than they were in the early 70s.


Yeah, I've seen you mention Democracy in America a couple of times on ISH. I've been meaning to pick up a copy of that but I keeping forgetting. I still haven't quite read all of the Federalist Papers yet but I've been taking my time with those.

The Federalist papers are definitely a bit of a chore. Remember I tried to read them on a flight from London to Miami but only got about half way through, losing consciousness several times, and so didn't return to it for months (tis just tiresome reading one after the other). Reading them piecemeal is probably best. But there is still a structural and linguistic elegance to them (especially Madison's), something that shows them to be from a very different intellectual environment to us. Still find it remarkable that Paine's writing was considered crude and common and vulgar by many at that time, when his writing is so superior to the political publications of today.

Democracy in America though, is a much breezier and pleasurable read; it is an artistic masterpiece in itself, regardless of its analytical merit (which is also considerable) - i would go so far as saying it was a downright joy to read, one I didn't want to put down, which isn't what you'd expect from some 19th century political philosophy. I recommend the Goldhammer translation (better than Karmnick one imo) if you can get it; some translations reformat Tocqueville more academically, taking away from his discursive style, so try to avoid those.

[rufuspaul]

not to mention... jimmy cliff e one of my favorite reggae mons, me watcha mon. riiiight?


:oldlol: His version of Johnny B Goode is classic.

[GimmeThat]

But that didn't happen. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/) It's a flat out myth.


The Financial Crisis Inquiry looked this very question. Fannie and Freddy didn't accept subprime loans. Their loans were much closed to the national average rate of default. Subprime loans which were very, very profitable for Wall Street and the originators failed at more than 3 times the national average.



The incentive for Ameriquest and Countrywide to issue these risky loans, it was very, very profitable for them. Even if someone couldn't pay after their rates jumped in two years, they could refinance and you could get a bunch more fees from them. This worked as long as housing prices kept going up.


and hence the electoral college instead of total popular vote


or we can describe, essentially in smaller parts of the country in which housing prices were continue to going up. infected to other parts of it. which meant that while the "national" "federal" level of growth rate was still more consistent (your freddie fannie example) due to other parts having such high influence, the whole nation suffered.

which yes, that would include your traditional blue states such as NY and CA


following from the "progressive, where housing price will continuous boom" economic point of view

[GimmeThat]

Yeah, because you're devaluing whatever savings they might have :roll:. Crushing the poor while pretending to care about them, and instead helping the lower-middle classes buy cars and houses they can't afford, because real wages are lower than they were in the early 70s.



lets say we go off from my assumption in which the Fed Reserve chairman and its primary responsibility would be the growth rate of the GDP.

when you have continuous GDP growth, even at a rate of say 2-4%.

If the federal interest remains at 0%. in which means that as you stated, the lower-middle classes will start purchasing cars and houses. in which, given that due to credit rating agencies, consumers are then indirectly more responsible for ownership, instead of continuous cycle of replaceable spending habits.

what should/may/could change the wage growth would then be reliable upon commission/tip based jobs.


if you could trace whatever data that comes from, compared to your salary position wage growth.

you are then faced with the position to either raise the wage (in which, the federal rate SHOULD/OUGHT to influence lower number of states if such a republican conservative approach is taken place, since many other states would have raised their minimum wage before then, which fits how traditional its been) or the interest rate.


also throw in the fact that GDP growth should increase jobs/promotions.



which again, is probably just about one of the multiple different ways to approach this whole problem.

I could write out a scenario in which raising the wages now, in order to change how all the following scenarios play out.



but you know, I don't intend to put "helping the economy recovery, as well as the highest rate of job growth" on my next campaign.

because
"I've got my back against the wall
But I still hear the blue sky call
The chains that hold me back inside
Are the prisons of my mind"


inside this shell, there's a prison cell
-switch foot "free" Hello Hurricane