Even more pitiful economic numbers released. Obama built that

According to a report published
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall LFPR
is projected to decrease slightly to 65.6 percent in
2014 (Toossi, 2005)

currently 63.7

Their predictions are a BIT off so I will have to assume we have much larger factors in play.

 

One of the biggest private-market failures in American history?

The study was published before the crisis, which obviously changed many things.

However, this is why it is the best placed to comment on how LFPR was heading downstream anyways, and so it is perhaps not the best way to measure the damage of 2008.

 

I think that is what the entire thread is about right? pitiful economic numbers?

 

No, the thread is about bashing Obama for pitiful economic numbers, instead of looking at the real culprits (private-sector failures).

In any case, LFPR is not a "pitiful" economic number when one considers the context. Employment-population is the one you're looking for, and the one cited by people like Mankiw.

 

It is pretty pitiful. If you want you graph you should have just posted it.

 

Ah, see, this reflects the current reality much better. Notice the lack of a downward trend before 2008, and the steep decline that prevailed after the Crisis began to strike.

This is Wall Street extravagance at its' highest point. Private market excesses leading to such catastrophic implications.

This is why Dodd-Frank must not only be passed, but must be strengthened. It is why Romney is unelectable.

Thanks for the graph, Casey.

 

And the non impact of anything from Obama? pitiful

Add another guy to the list for the first time ever calling me by (misspelled) name for the first time. I am going to change it to Fred and then everyone will call me Bandwagoner. then change it to CaseyH and everyone will call me Fred.

 

Gallup employment data (underemployment, unemployment, full employment)

"06/3/2012","18.0000000000","8.0000000000","65.4000000000",
....
"08/3/2012","16.9000000000","8.2000000000","66.8000000000",

In 2 months, the employment rate has risen 0.2%. But what people are failing to see is that underemployment has dropped over a full percentage point and full employment has jumped.

In other words, the unemployment number may be artificially high as people are returning to the workforce who had originally given up. This might be a very good sign that the U.S. economy is surviving the global impact in Europe.

 

The employment-population rate, as you can see in the Bush years, tends not to swing too widely; that is unless your economy has a lurking time bomb from the deregulation hawks that ran the economy before.

Any recovery will have to take into account private deleveraging after the credit crisis (pain after pain) and the slow impact of fiscal policy. The American economy is already starting to recover, however, despite the largest failure of markets since the 1930s. That in of itself is a minor miracle when you see the world on the verge of a double-dip recession (most countries being tacked down by the bad policy prescriptions some have made in this thread i.e Britain). I, myself, personally credit the FOMC over the President, but I do have to note that with fiscal policy being controlled by effectively, a bunch of poli sci and law majors who view denying the president as a game of sorts, this should come as no surprise.

I personally preferred your last name. If you really want to be referred to as Bandwagoner, I'll keep it in mind.

 

Get over yourself already Casey.

 

I love the fact you think it irks me. It actually reminds my of Barry Warner because he tries to act like he knows something by giving obscure details that are 100% of the time wrong. I shoulda changed my name years ago, this is epic.

 

It is epic and you have no clue why. You are such a hypocrite.

 

The vast powers these agencies have create uncertainty and additional costs to business. They also distort markets with all sorts of carrots and sticks at their disposal. The vast majority of their functions could be carried out at the state level. IMO every federal action should require an explanation of why it can't be a state function.

As for a shock to demand, they could be phased out gradually.

I would argue the conditions for 2008 were created by government, which socialized risk, encouraging bad behavior by banks. Dodd-Frank enshrines too big to fail into law. IMO nothing is too big to fail.


5) You can get a study to say anything, especially an economic study. They're all based on observation with lots of confounding variables. Simple logic tells you minimum wage laws outlaw the hiring of employees whose skills are worth less than minimum wage, by definition. That's a bad thing, especially in a recession employers have less capital available for hiring.

Ah yes, the dangerous and reckless charge. Always used to dismiss those that would shake things up.

A world without corporations getting my tax dollars in the form of bailouts, subsidies, and guaranteed loans doesn't seem reckless to me. It seems virtuous. The left becoming full-throated champions of corporate welfare (sorry, "investing in America") is an interesting dynamic.

The only thing worse than failure is rewarding it (sorry, "intervening").

And I don't think policy makers know how macroeconomics works.

 

When did you learn how to make crap up?

 

Sigh...

I drag it out once more.

 

If you want to make an arcane argument about how FDIC protection and Fed discount window actions "socialized" risk and brought down the banks, well, explain how all of the banks that did not fail were investment banks with no deposits specifically BANNED from those protections?

And how FDIC-protected retail banks such as BOA actually saved the system?

There was regulatory arbitrage being practiced where one set of banks had a different set of regulations than another. The set of banks with nearly no regulations failed completely, and they had no access to the Fed discount window until they begged and accepted "too-late" regulation in exchange for Fed cash.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

This is also a good example of something where federal regulation makes a ton of sense. How can you even begin to deal with banks like JP Morgan Chase on a state-by-state basis? Why would you fragment efforts and split jurisdictions over a bank that is clearly already too complex for most people to understand, and which is clearly already too unethical to trust?

All this to say, if you're still holding onto your Macro 101 charts as belief that you hold some knowledge in economics, perhaps it is time to expand outwards towards Macro 102.

 

A secondary problem at best.



Certainly not worth ABOLISHING a set of federal regulatory agencies for no good reason. You haven't come up with one instance where it might be better to get rid of a federal regulatory agency.

 

Uh huh.

Like I said, Econ 102.

http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/NC/B0/B63/071MB63.html

I'll spare you the reasons why, but quite a few economists think that labour markets are all dynamic monopsonies with asymmetric information prevailing (which it does). Suffice it to say, your "logic" is just a substitution for beliefs you have that warrant reexamination, and study, because you have clearly not learned enough in the field of economics.

 

They make laws that aren't voted on.

 

If Republicans would have more than an agenda of defeating Obama and helping the rich get more money perhaps this country could begin healing again.

It's so sad that the right just wants to pay less taxes. It's honestly shows how really unamerican they have become. Led by a fool that hasn't paid taxes for 10 years.