Purple line is post-2008, blue line is pre. Welcome to the new reality, folks, brought to you by Goldman Sachs et al and a lack of interest in training American workers out of structural mismatches between the skills supplied, and the skills demanded.
typical response from SamFisher when he's in over his head Step 1: insult (troubled mind) Step 2: Try to play to the absurd (teh luz on teh unanimity) Step 3: Provide data that does not address the post (the bloomberg link) What Sam has done, actually, over the past few months, has been to lose faith in Obama. Even though they have the University of Chicago linkage, that previously had increased Sam's liking of Obama, it has worn thin due to the irrefutably poor job Obama has done in handling the economy. With no straws left to grasp, Sam resorts to his pitiful 3 step approach highlighted above.
I would have thought it obvious, given that I posted two quotes, and given the context of "in fact", what was represented as fact. Do I have to spell out everything to you? It gets tiresome sometimes, though if you require it constantly, let me know. (^the above was more of a snide comment than something to be taken at face value)
Yes, millions of Americans must suffer because a handful of Wall Street executives have far too much influence over the rest of us. We are all suffering for their bad decisions.
macb - Except that hiring is depressed in all sectors, that's not very characteristic of structural unemployment (which is a convenient excuse for the ol' very serious people to do nothing and let the pain continue.) Hell the biggest job losses recently have been public employees, especially teachers. Is it because our economy no longer needs teachers due to internetz? Unlikely.
5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth Here are the top five ways the Republicans have sabotaged the economic recovery: 1. Filibustering the American Jobs Act. Last October, Senate Republicans killed a jobs bill proposed by President Obama that would have pumped $447 billion into the economy. Multiple economic analysts predicted the bill would add around two million jobs and hailed it as defense against a double-dip recession. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years, and the American public supported the bill. 2. Stonewalling monetary stimulus. The Federal Reserve can do enormous good for a depressed economy through more aggressive monetary stimulus, and by tolerating a temporarily higher level of inflation. But with everything from Ron Paul’s anti-inflationary crusade to Rick Perry threatening to lynch Chairman Ben Bernanke, Republicans have browbeaten the Fed into not going down this path. Most damagingly, the GOP repeatedly held up President Obama’s nominations to the Federal Reserve Board during the critical months of the recession, leaving the board without the institutional clout it needed to help the economy. 3. Threatening a debt default. Even though the country didn’t actually hit its debt ceiling last summer, the Republican threat to default on the United States’ outstanding obligations was sufficient to spook financial markets and do real damage to the economy. 4. Cutting discretionary spending in the debt ceiling deal. The deal the GOP extracted as the price for avoiding default imposed around $900 billion in cuts over ten years. It included $30.5 billion in discretionary cuts in 2012 alone, costing the country 0.3 percent in economic growth and 323,000 jobs, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute. Starting in 2013, the deal will trigger another $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years. 5. Cutting discretionary spending in the budget deal. While not as cataclysmic as the debt ceiling brinksmanship, Republicans also threatened a shutdown of the government in early 2011 if cuts were not made to that year’s budget. The deal they struck with the White House cut $38 billion from food stamps, health, education, law enforcement, and low-income programs among others, while sparing defense almost entirely.
Below is the article I referenced above. Germany, the country that was in love with Obama during his candidacy in 2008, has fallen out of love after Obama has squandered his opportunity to lead on economic matters. Four more years of failed economic leadership will leave millions of Americans worse off. It takes an atrocious effort to not have a flourishing economy after 4 years of Federal Reserve stimulus and 0% interest rates. We now know that Obama’s policies are terrible for the economy. He hasn’t even passed a budget in 4 years! Can you believe that? At a time when our economy is busting records for the highest budget deficits in the history of mankind, his leadership does not even pass a budget. Unreal. It’s a dereliction of duty, and illustrative of Obama choosing political expediency over economic leadership. Obama checked out last Labor Day (almost a year ago) from legislative matters and went into campaign mode. Ironically, his absence from doing his job is a net positive for America, given that his policies of higher taxes, more regulation, higher energy cost, and higher labor costs are all job killers. The entire world is being pulled down by this amateur’s incompetence. Germany won't sit by and listen to an unqualified politician lecture them on economics. http://www.spiegel.de/international...-criticism-of-crisis-management-a-840749.html In a sign of tensions between Berlin and Washington, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said on Sunday that President Barack Obama should focus on cutting America's own budget deficit before advising Europe on how to tackle its debt problems. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble rebuffed recent criticism of Germany's handling of the euro crisis from Barack Obama, telling the US president to get his own house in order before giving advice. "Herr Obama should above all deal with the reduction of the American deficit. That is higher than that in the euro zone," he told German public broadcaster ZDF on Sunday night. It is easy to give advice to others, he added Obama, worried about the impact of the debt crisis on the global economy and financial markets -- and on his own prospects for re-election --has been urging Europe to step up its efforts to tackle the problem. In the interview, Schäuble also reiterated his opposition to euro bonds, saying countries must remain individually liable for their public debt as long as they were taking sovereign decisions on how the money was being spent. "If you spend the money from my account, you won't be frugal with the money," said the finance minister. He added that he was against devoting large sums of money -- for example from the European Central Bank -- to fight the crisis. The roots of the crisis needed to be fought credibly, he said, adding that that was succeeding in Ireland and Portugal, which have both received international bailouts. "It's not succeeding so well in Greece,"he added.
It's funny how Fed officials like Kocherlakota will use that as an excuse. However, I believe it is a much better argument for the need for active labour market policy a la Sweden, and a better educational system, and so I would argue the other direction with the evidence. Nevertheless, knowing your propensity for Krugman (and knowing exactly where your argument came from), I'd submit the following--- An interesting measure by proxy (by no means an actual study validated by econometrics, but an idea that the following could explain the shift in the Beveridge curve) http://www.cnbc.com/id/47388559/Need_a_Job_Best_and_Worst_Degrees_for_2012_College_Grads Currently the national unemployment rate at 8.1 percent. Beyond the 13.9 percent rate for graduating architects, other majors with gloomier-than-average prospects include: Arts (11.1 percent) Humanities and Liberal Arts (9.4 percent) Social Science (8.9 percent) http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/...ta-highlights-growing-educational-divide?lite
If you're listening to Germany on macroeconomics, you're not very good at following economic matters. Germany shouldn't act so high and mighty. Loose controls on their own banks led to them holding the bag on billions in losses. They're doing themselves a favor bailing out nations that owe their "dumb money" banks massive sums of cash.
Unemployment rates for those majors has always been high historically, even when we are at full employment. Are you saying that we are churning out a lot more arts and Humanities people all of a sudden, and that has caused the structural gap? Again, unlikely, mcb. Very unlikely.
Read the quote under---the historic divergence between high school dropouts and college graduates is growing, which could confirm the hypothesis that there is skills mismatch. The fact that these liberal arts rates are so much more above the new UE rate, and those for say, computer engineering are at much lower is telling. It does point to a picture that Krugman did not even bother to look at, because the divergence (what with the coefficient it was based on increasing so much) definitely went up.
Could you cite your sources please? Also english tip, when you say 'facts' and then post multiple conflicting opinions, it hurts your argument.
:/ Casey, since you're so quick at criticizing other people's language skills, I'll chalk it up to an atrocious lack of knowledge about financial journalism.
You don't know the Wall Street Journal? I think you were looking for the thread detailing non-financial topics. You'll find one here. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=222716
Here is the problem when you post: Bear in mind the following FACTS.: Wall Street Journal editor and frequent Fox News guest Steve Moore claimed that concerns over a scheduled expiration of tax cuts is "the whole problem with the U.S. economy right now." In fact, economic experts say that a lack of demand for goods and services is the main factor dragging down jobs growth, and several recent surveys of small business owners show that lack of demand is their main concern. I read it to find that they are opinions, conflicting, and only one having an actual source. Furthermore I find it highly unlikely that quote came from the Wall Street Journal as you now seem to be claiming. I just kindly ask for a link from where you ripped it. I will also kindly remind you it is a rule of the board to not steal from other websites without linking to them.
Report me then, Casey. You came out here to nitpick. Unless you show you have a coherent set of points to contribute, I kindly point you to Google, or the Wall Street Journal itself. Like I said, Casey, politeness is a weakness when unearned, and in this thread, you have definitely earned none. (though I have to say, the funny thing is the source for the first quote above is the second---had you not noticed the first quote was a reference to the second, you might not be in the awkward predicament of asking me for sources I have already given)
Not it isn't. See this is the source for the WSJ 'quote' but your quote is sourced from somewhere else. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html This mysterious source is the SOLE source of your first quote and all of it's credibility. Just link it.
