You know, Google has a function where you paste " " around a quote and you can find the source. Just sayin. The page is quite a goldmine once you find it though, so I do recommend the search. NBER: "A Drop In Aggregate Demand ... Is Responsible" For Much Of Unemployment. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: "The Continued Weakness In Aggregate Demand Is Likely The Predominant Factor" In Continuing Long-Term Unemployment. Economist Bruce Bartlett: "It's The Aggregate Demand, Stupid."
I actually think the above economists, as weighty as their "opinions" might be, have it wrong in terms of aggregate demand being the overriding factor behind continuing unemployment. If that were the case, I think unemployment would have cleared up a bit more. Aggregate demand and cyclical unemployment is obviously a huge factor, but new structural weaknesses in the American economy cannot be ignored.
You need to brush up on your understanding of the banking system. The Federal Reserve is only capable of creating reserves. The only thing it has the power to do is pump money into bank vaults. Doing so automatically causes the Fed Funds Rate to hit zero, and market interest rates adjust downwards automatically. This money cannot make it into the economy if there are no loans. Banks are significantly more risk-averse, Basel III placed additional capital requirements on banks, and households are already laden with debt. In other words, both supply and demand for loans have decreased drastically. All that "money" (or reserves) that the Fed has been "pumping" isn't making it into the economy at all. It's extremely difficult to have a flourishing economy when there's been a large contraction in private lending, and household balance sheets are utterly debt-laden. I'm not going say that Obama's done a great (or even good) job, but it would appear that you don't have a particularly good understanding of the economy either. High energy costs due to what? Blocking domestic oil production? Inflation? I've already debunked both of those myths multiple times. Higher taxes? It may surprise you to know that taxes are actually lower now than when Obama took office. More regulation? I suppose less regulation like repealing Glass-Steagall was helpful. I'll admit I'm on the fence about how effective Dodd-Frank has been (and will be), but really it's an attempt to reinstate regulation that had been around for decades. I'll also agree that Obama succumbed to EPA activism by delaying the XL pipeline, but any politician would've done the same given the thousands of people protesting outside the White House. Higher labor costs? I wasn't aware of any national wage controls implemented by the Obama administration.
Stealing content is weak and greatly frowned upon. Not citing your sources and then misrepresenting a mysterious source as a well known publication like WSJ implies you have something to hide. You have just entered the Basso realm of credibility.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120326a.htm Bernanke's view dismisses this point based on historical data. However, I do not personally think the comparison is completely correct considering the natures of the recessions described---stagflation and tight monetary policy being very different things from the collapse of credit markets on employment outcomes. The second Bernanke argument of increased UI I reject as well, if one looks at empirical data from the UK (where UI rates and duration have not been changed significantly)
Debt has exploded under this President, as over $5 trillion of budget deficits (approaching 6) has needed to be financed since Obama took office. Our economy has never been in a more vulnerable position than it is today. Our national security has been compromised by this fiscal recklessness and our fate put in other country's hands. You would think that if this fiscal stimulus were directed properly, the economy could grow. You would think that the Fed's unprecedented balance sheet expansion through QE1, QE2, and Operation Twist (turning on the electronic printing presses to devalue the dollar and keep rates low), would cause the economy to grow. You would think that 0% interest rates for 3 years would cause the economy to grow. I can tell you this, it takes an incredibly hideous set of economic policies for economic growth to not occur given these conditions. Higher taxes, higher energy prices, higher labor costs, and more regulation is not the ticket to economic growth. Any fool knows this. The EPA is creating an absolute energy crisis in America and energy prices have and will continue to rise. They have put the coal industry out of business -- America's cheapest fuel source for the last 100 years. They have decimated the power industry by causing 100's of gigawatts to be shut in over the next few years. As a result, capacity charges for power have skyrocketed in 2014 and 2015 as reserve margins in places like Texas and the Atlantic seaboard will fall to shockingly low levels. This is a little treat that the Obama administration is leaving for after the election -- skyrocketing power prices. The natural gas industry is under attack by the EPA for their use of hydraulic fracking. The oil industry is under attack at pretty much every turn, and the target of public demonizing by the administration. And of course these budget deficits put more pressure on the Fed to debase the dollar, which jacks up coal and oil prices. The Fed can't allow interest rates to rise because if they did, America couldn't service its debt load. That's how bad Obama has allowed this nation to deteriorate. Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world, and Obama has already announced that taxes are going up at the end of this year. Is this the recipe for economic growth? This administration is a total joke. Every economic instinct that they have is totally wrong.
Casey, why don't you contribute something, anything at all to this thread? I think it's weak and generally frowned upon to enter a thread to nitpick about details, and leave without contributing anything of substance. Then I'll link my source. I want to see the arguments you would make, because the link is a handy tool for dispelling foolish economic notions.
The EPA is causing an energy crisis. I haven't laughed so hard in ages. You sure it's not the war in Iran? Have no fear though, if we get the Eurozone to fall, those energy prices will come right on down! Speculation on crucial commodities! It's GOOD for EVERYBODY!
you're clueless if you think that link is relevant. I'm convinced all you try to do is find some "scandal" du jour and then try to work a few of your central bank buzz words into posts.
Your harsh response to a simple request of following long stand BBS rules isn't helping your credibility. I don't understand the resistance. If you falsely represented something as WSJ just admit it, post the real source, and move on. Some of us are interested to know who the 'economic experts' in the quote are.
I can't believe I'm replying to you before you bother to educate yourself, but I'll do so to point you in the right direction. Please go study CSAPR and MATS and their impact on the US power industry. It's not what we need right now, that's for sure.
As opposed to you coming into threads, and launching no substance at all? I'll take my style over yours any day. Come on texxx, tell me why that is irrelevant. Oh, you want a more legitimate source? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b9acbe4-c4fc-11e1-b6fd-00144feabdc0.html Get a subscription first.
Frankly, Casey, until you show you have an ounce of insight on the subject, you're not worth educating. Report me if you want, like I said. I could give less of a s**t what you think of me.
Oh, you know the fact that oil can slide from $80 to $100 is sure not hurting anyone. Contrary to what you think, environmental regulations have a benefit. Unhealthy speculation doesn't. It's something most key economists have signed onto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club you know--- From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. In 2006, he became an economic adviser to Mitt Romney and continued during Romney's 2012 presidential bid.
and yet...a grand total of how many people care? I'm still holding onto you having perhaps one original thought on the topic. Just one, Casey. Then you can have the benefit of the link you so dearly care for.
You are really bad about falling for "substitution bias". This is a principle in psychology that occurs when you're unable to address the question at hand, but instead you choose to answer what you believe to be an easier question that you think you know more about.
http://www.power-eng.com/blogs/up-in-the-air/2012/05/CSAPRontheBackBurner.html Tell me Texxx, how a law that has not even been properly implemented yet is "causing an energy crisis".
