I couldn't agree more. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blame...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3 "The efficacy of this program is where we disagree. There are costs and benefits. I argue more on the cost side, others argue on the benefits side," Fisher said on the "Squawk Box" program. "A decision was taken. But instead of hammering the Federal Reserve, point your fingers at Congress." Specifically, Fisher said business owners are plagued with questions of "what are my taxes going to be, what kind of spending patterns are going to come out of the federal government, how do I deal with this explosion of regulatory morass that we have come out of Washington?"
Except that every piece of empirical data contradicts him which is why his faction is outvoted at the fed. It's fine that a hard money pain caucus type like him is on the Fed, what's not excusable is that he thinks he's able to ignore the fed's employment mandate. Next....
Well, at least he acknowledges the spending side of the equation. The fiscal cliff focuses vastly slashed expenditure as a centerpiece. It should serve as an abject lesson to those with an irrational ideological commitment to run away from the government.
Their dual mandate is a trade-off. Monetary policy cannot guarantee both price stability and full employment.
Its telling that he believes business owners (employers) are concerned with Regulatory Morass from Washington. Most businesses simply want clarity on what the future will look like from a regulatory standpoint, so they can go about their business. While they are ultimately attempting to create products that consumers are willing to spend their hard earned money on. If they're able to have the honor of consumers choosing them they can expand and hire more people if possible. The increases in regulatory bodies and rules are hampening our business' ability which is contributing to the continued unemployment woes we face.
It is telling because he is ignoring all the data sets that indicate that this concern is marginal compared to lack of demand, in order to generate a misleading theory.... ...which happens to coincide with his ideological persuasion. I'd say it tells us he isn't very trustworthy.
Pretty aggressive statements about the Head of a Federal Reserve Bank. Ignoring all the data....in order to generate a misleading theory....he isn't very trustworthy. Guess you know better.
How is this any different than anytime in the last 200 years? Did businesses stop producing because they weren't sure if slavery would survive? Did businesses stop producing because they weren't sure if new clean air and water regulations might start? Or because the government might change health care requirements or how they tax health care? Did businesses stop producing every time tax policy changed every few years over the past 50 years? This is a weak excuse - businesses adapt and adjust; they always have and always will. For all the destructive qualities, new regulation also creates new businesses and new industries. For the most part, businesses aren't expanding because there are a lack of potential new consumers. The rest is just a convenient way to blame everyone else.
Business adapts and adjusts, but uncertainty does not inspire managers to act. There has no doubt been increases in regulatory oversight and the planning and cost determination of the affordable care act has not been something to make it easier. The government is limited in what it can do as demand is the major piece of the business puzzle. But neither of you should argue that the increased regulatory atmosphere, aggressiveness of governmental agencies and regulators and the question marks surrounding the affordable care act has been positive for businesses in any way. When the economy needs help you don't saddle it with these issues.
This might be true for some businesses. But for all the small businesses with less than 50 employees, there are no changes. For all the businesses that currently provide health insurance to their 160 million employees, there are no significant changes. Those two categories cover the vast majority of businesses in the country. And those businesses aren't growing or expanding any more than the others. So it doesn't seem like "scared of health care" has had impact on growth. The history of the US is filled with nonstop regulatory and tax changes. There's nothing different about the current setup than anytime in the last 200 years. So the blame doesn't make any sense - it's never stopped business from doing anything before.
The affordable care act will have adverse and potentially significant costs for large low wage employers like national restaurant chains and other retail type operations. Most of these employers will determine the cost and determine the increased costs and ultimately hire less people, find ways to farm labor overseas and invest in technology that will take the place of people as it wasn't cost effective before. So in this case you are left with people wondering why they've lost employment and it is partially because the government attempted to do more for you.
Considering that he's openly contemptuous of the fed's legal obligations to boost employment and thus the economy.... And considering the following.....You tell me what to make of this then: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/08/the-main-problem-with-jobs-growth-is-lack-of-de/185857 Look, Rocketman1981. Either Fisher doesn't have access to google, and the Fed's own dataand I do know better.... -OR- he does, and he is not telling the truth - which happens to be rather inconvenient to his ideological predisposition. Which do you think it is? I await your response, otherwise: /thread.
We'll balance that out with the amount of people who will lose their shirts because of government attempting to do less. BofA Survey Finds 'Fiscal Cliff' Top Investor Concern http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120918-706933.html
When did I say demand was not the biggest problem in a post credit boom recessionary economy?? That is the biggest reason BY FAR that jobs are not returning. I agree with that 100%. What I am stating is that concern of the Affordable Care Act and Governemnt Regulations are adverse factors affecting the job market. Your own graphs say that! I'm not saying they are the only or even the primary reason but I'm stating they are a factor contributing to this job malaise we are in. Do you or do you not agree that if there was less regulation increases and if the affordable care act had not been implemented that the job picture would look better now? When the economy is so fragile the government should be helping and not detracting from our recovery.
Yeah, see, the problem with that is the reason why the economy was so fragile in the first place was because of a lack of regulation on the financial sector. So, yeah, let's help the recovery by never addressing that issue. You have no one but weak Democrats and Republicans who for year after year refused to do anything about a healthcare system gone bad to blame for the fact that after one of the biggest exposition of conservative, free-market f**kups, was the only time a narrow, quasi-compromised reform package could be passed through.
I disagree because in the absence of demand its irrelevant. You are mistakenly assuming linear causation It's not linear. If you're not hiring due to lack of demand/other reasons- your feelings on PPCA are by definition irrelevant and have zero impact on hiring.
The healthcare industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country and its a disaster. So lets regulate it more?? The financial industry and banking is so regulated and it obviously did not limit the failures in the credit crisis and recession. Why do you naively think any regulation will limit the next bubble?? If investors cannot predict where the next bubble and such will occur how does the government think it can determine where the excess is and how to limit it?
The LOLLERCOPTER is flying high today. The Fed's employment mandate must consist of having people drop out of the labor force, so that the unemployment rate continues to decline -- right? HAHAHAHA I thought the Fed was there to promote economic growth through monetary policy? Or was it to control inflation? Today it's to improve employment. What is the Fed really doing, other than creating asset bubbles, artificially propping up the stock market, driving up food and energy prices, assaulting the value of the dollar, and widening the gap between rich and poor?
No, actually it was because the Fed created a housing bubble (that Paul Krugman was openly advocating), the Democrats repealed Glass-Steagall, the Democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to lend to unqualified borrowers, and Barney Frank single-handedly prevented the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banking was arguably THE MOST REGULATED INDUSTRY in 2008, and the regulators couldn't do a darn thing. Regulators are incompetent buffoons who if they were any good, would be working in private industry and making money. More regulators does not solve a thing.
