remember the good ole days when Repubicans were about balancing the budget? remember when Phil Gramm was champion of a Balanced Budget Amendment ? its rather crazy how the Republicans have all but abandoned that philisophy in such a short amount of time. screw fiscal responsibility!
OK . . . This does not mean NEW JOBS have come It means NOT AS MANY PEOPLE LOST JOBS last week? Like saying I took 1000$ from you then Take 500$ next week That doesn't mean you got 500$ new dollars Rocket River
Originally posted by SamFisher Supply side economics has been debunked. Completely, absolutely, and unequivocally. I have said that and will say it again. Based on a sample of 1, the community appears confident that supply-side, as implemented in Reaganomics, did not work. It does not mean that supply-side concepts cannot be applied to stimulate the economy when needed. But it is disingenuous to equate saying that with saying that as an abstract principle tax reductions don't cause any sort of economic stimulus. Well, it depends on the context that people use it in. But again, you apparently missed where folks argued that the tax cuts would not help the economy at all. They are two different animals. The theory that you can cut taxes and increase spending and live happily ever after has been debunked, not only because it proved unsuccessful, but because the opposite (raising taxes & reducing spending) proved successful. ... Garbage. The long-term effects of supply-side theory may be negative (based on a sample of 1), but to claim that Clinton's approach was 'proven' successful is a joke. Those who argue against Reaganomics claim that those who argue for it mistakenly credit it for economic growth that was likely due to a normal economic cycle. The they turn around and do the same thing themselves, giving Clinton all the credit when as Greenspan mentioned, we benefitted greatly from the end of the cold war, increased productivity and a surging stock market. Odd how you initially argue how little a President can impact the economy, then claim that Clinton's 'tax and reduce' approach was 'proven' due to the economy's apparent reaction to it. As for your second point, I agree it hasn't hurt us now. That's the whole purpose of the "buy now, pay later" approach. But it will, and it will hurt a lot more later by failing to address it now or in the near future, which neither congress nor the administration is willing to do. We'll see. I've heard all the sky-is-falling predictions for decades. None have come to fruition. I think it's doubtful that we won't see reduced spending and some new taxes if projections don't improve. As for no. 3, Will democrats be more frugal? maybe more stingy on defense. Would they be more willing to stop the giveaways to the rich, (ex, the republicans want to make the last round of tax cuts permanent, currently they expire in 2010, right when the budget crunch happens)? Absolutely. I'm not so keen on the cuts for the uber-wealthy, but they weren't the only ones with their taxes cut. Repeating it over and over doesn't change the truth.
Based on a sample of 1? Well Cohen, I'm confident that If I shot myself in the foot 1 time, I wouldn't have to do it again to realize that it is a bad thing. YOu are saying we should take our chances and do it again? Cohen, the negative evidence against supplysiding goes way, way, beyond that. No legitimate economist, from left wing types like Galbraith to middle of the roaders like Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman and George Akerloff, to conservatives like Greenspan hardcore neoliberal monetarists like Milton Friedman, will tell you that the fundamental precepts of supplyside economics are sustainable in the long term. Former Buffalo Bills QB Jack Kemp will tell you otherwise. Which side would you rather be on? Balanced budgets and crowding out, and "rubinomics", however, have both theoretical and empirical backing. I guess that ain't as good as having Jack Kemp on your side, but still.... My participation in this thread started out when you said "anybody want to argue with Greenspan"? Well, Now I'm asking you the same question; do YOU want to argue with him that tax cuts don't require spending cuts? I'm really glad that you want to tell me about all these other people who have argued that tax cuts, as an abstract principle, will not stimulate demand. If you could show me a post or 2 I will duly chastize them for you, but I don't understand how you and TraderJorge feel the need to tar me with their statements. It has no relevance to anything that I have said and seems like a classic TJ diversionary tactic. I'm glad you want to credit Clinton with the "tax and reduce" approach, but actually a lot of credit must go to George Bush I and the congressional leadership on both sides for balancing the budget. I'm glad you find it inconsistent of me to say that long term fiscal policies have a pronounced impact on the economy while short term ones do not. I do not find it logically inconsistent. If CLinton deserves any "credit" it is simply for not messing things up, which is not the highest form of praise. However, it is more than I can say for GWB and the congressional leadership, who are doing their damnedest to create a crisis that will force an apocalyptic budget situation in order to realize the Hooveristic reductionist fantasies of Norquist and the rest of the anti tax zealots. It sounds like I am making this up,but they are quite open about this being their goal and what they are trying to do. (although the president likes to cloak it with discredited supplyside babble so it will play well in Peoria) So yeah I'm saying the sky is falling, and the anti tax repubs are agreeing with me: Yes, we want the sky to fall. You can hope it doesn't, but like I said before, hope is not a plan.
You will be waiting a VERY long time. We have exited the era of comapnies having an IT department and entered the age when everybody and thier brother outsources it to a handful of companies that do such work. The result...we need HUNDREDS fewer IT professionals than before.
Originally posted by SamFisher Based on a sample of 1? Well Cohen, I'm confident that If I shot myself in the foot 1 time, I wouldn't have to do it again to realize that it is a bad thing. YOu are saying we should take our chances and do it again? So you are saying that cause-effect relationships in Economics are as easy to assess as a shot in the foot? Economics happens to be one of the 'weakest' disciplines around. While others from AI to biology were expanded their fields and actually found a convergence of underlying concepts, economists were still stuck with equations with unrealistic assumptions such as 'everything in equilibrium'. Cohen, the negative evidence against supplysiding goes way, way, beyond that. No legitimate economist, from left wing types like Galbraith to middle of the roaders like Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman and George Akerloff, to conservatives like Greenspan hardcore neoliberal monetarists like Milton Friedman, will tell you that the fundamental precepts of supplyside economics are sustainable in the long term. Former Buffalo Bills QB Jack Kemp will tell you otherwise. Which side would you rather be on? I am aware of the lack of support for the long-term effects of supply-side and I'm not arguing for it. I couldn't care less right now; the economy is sick now and I want stimulus now. There is no reason that the long-term downside of supply-side cannot be avoided. Balanced budgets and crowding out, and "rubinomics", however, have both theoretical and empirical backing. I guess that ain't as good as having Jack Kemp on your side, but still.... My participation in this thread started out when you said "anybody want to argue with Greenspan"? Well, Now I'm asking you the same question; do YOU want to argue with him that tax cuts don't require spending cuts? Nope. Spending cuts will be needed. He just wanted them sooner than me. But he has a pretty good job, I have a business that would like to see a quicker recovery. Now, will you argue with him when he said most, IF NOT ALL of the deficit reduction should come through spending cuts, not tax increases? I'm really glad that you want to tell me about all these other people who have argued that tax cuts, as an abstract principle, will not stimulate demand. If you could show me a post or 2 I will duly chastize them for you, but I don't understand how you and TraderJorge feel the need to tar me with their statements. It has no relevance to anything that I have said and seems like a classic TJ diversionary tactic. How did I tar you? I'm glad you want to credit Clinton with the "tax and reduce" approach, but actually a lot of credit must go to George Bush I and the congressional leadership on both sides for balancing the budget. Whomever. Others credit Clinton. Not really salient issue as to who. I'm glad you find it inconsistent of me to say that long term fiscal policies have a pronounced impact on the economy while short term ones do not. I do not find it logically inconsistent. So, if Bush's tax cut/ spending increase is short-term, we're ok! Great then! I'm curious about how many years we had the tax increases/spending decreases. If CLinton deserves any "credit" it is simply for not messing things up, which is not the highest form of praise. However, it is more than I can say for GWB and the congressional leadership, who are doing their damnedest to create a crisis that will force an apocalyptic budget situation in order to realize the Hooveristic reductionist fantasies of Norquist and the rest of the anti tax zealots. It sounds like I am making this up,but they are quite open about this being their goal and what they are trying to do. (although the president likes to cloak it with discredited supplyside babble so it will play well in Peoria) So yeah I'm saying the sky is falling, and the anti tax repubs are agreeing with me: Yes, we want the sky to fall. You can hope it doesn't, but like I said before, hope is not a plan. Again, heard it all before. Social Security was going to go belly-up. And Medicare. And we would never have another budget surplus. And our trade deficits (esp w/ Japan) were unsustainable. And all the land fills were going to fill up. And we were going to have food shortages because of the population explosion. And healthcare would overtake the entire economy. etc etc Granted, all the chicken-littles are probably the reason the sky hasn't fallen a few times by now, so keep it up. And FWIW, I believe in more than hope. I like spending cuts, and yes, including pork barrels.
Not to flip anybody out, but the (thoroughly Republican) pundits on CNBC have spent all day saying that the first time fileing number is hopeful but the really important number is the new jobs number that comes out tomorrow. I.E. this number portends good things but is not necessarily all that good on it's own.
I guess there are two ways to look at it The way I looked at it The Jobs are not being lost at the same rate or New jobs are being created at a rate hire than previous It is basic Job Lost vs Jobs gain However since it said the number of 1st time Umemployment folx decline . .. I assumed that number would be base on people who lost their jobs recently. . . . . There for I concluded that it would mean that it measured Job Losses . .not job gains. Rocket River
It is now official as of 2 minutes ago. 6% unemployment vs. 6.1% predicted and 126,000 jobs vs. the 58,000 predicted
The upturn in employment is something to be enjoyed. We should try and enjoy all of the recent economic upturns if we can. The government is spending money out the whazoo that they don't have to make it seem like things are going well, so the least we should make the best of things and try to enjoy it, until we can get some fiscal responsibility to take over.
I believe that you interpreted initial unemployment filings correctly, but the rest of the story, and generally speaking the most relevant issue, was the last line which predicted a net gain of 55-58,000 employed. Of course, we now know (as of today) that the net gain was 126,000.
Is The Government Exaggerating Job Creation? Does The Sun Rise in the East? A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS Who you are you going to believe: the company that tracks job losses and has nothing to gain by misrepresenting jobs data or the Bush administration that has everything to gain? If you just look at the numbers, Challenger, Gray and Christmas, an outplacement firm, said that there were 171,874 layoffs in October. The Bush administration, under the cover of the Labor Department, said 126,000 new jobs were added (mostly in the low-paying service sector industry) in October. On BuzzFlash's planet that means there were 50,000 MORE Americans without jobs. And knowing this administrations penchant for obfuscation, exaggeration and lying, we'd say that the number of jobs that they said they created is probably a lot lower. So, don't believe Bush's hype. Bush's economy -- the one he created by running record deficits, cutting taxes for the rich, and cutting programs for the rest of us -- doesn't look very good, no matter how much make-up they slather on the jobs data. * * * US Job Cuts Surged 125 Percent in Oct.-Challenger Tue Nov 4,12:03 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of job cuts announced by U.S. employers more than doubled in October, after declining for two months, calling into question the strength of job market as other segments of the economy surge. Planned layoffs at U.S. firms shot up to 171,874 jobs in October, from 76,506 in September, job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said on Tuesday. Layoffs were at their highest since Oct. 2002, when 176,010 job cuts were announced. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031104/us_nm/economy_layoffs_challenger_dc_2 * * * Payrolls Surge, Third Straight Rise Fri, Nov 07, 2003 By Anna Willard WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy added more than twice the number of jobs expected in October, the third straight monthly gain, and the jobless rate fell, the government said on Friday in a report pointing to a labor market recovery. The Labor Department (news - web sites) also made substantial upward revisions to payrolls for August and September, a sign sizzling economic growth in the third quarter translated into more jobs. The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in October soared 126,000, the largest rise since January, after climbing 125,000 in the previous month. The number far outstripped analyst expectations. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=749&e=1&u=/nm/20031107/bs_nm/economy_jobs_dc
see...here we go again...nothing can be believed except for websites that produce BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS. come on, andy...stop working so hard trying to convince us there's no reason at all to be optimistic.
If you just look at the numbers, Challenger, Gray and Christmas, an outplacement firm, said that there were 171,874 layoffs in October. The Bush administration, under the cover of the Labor Department, said 126,000 new jobs were added (mostly in the low-paying service sector industry) in October. On BuzzFlash's planet that means there were 50,000 MORE Americans without jobs. Holy sh*t, these folks are allowed to call this news? The 126,000 is NET GAINS. Let's try that again... NET GAINS. Its not 126,000 - 172,000 = -50,000. It's X - 172,000 = 126,000. 'Buzzflashes Planet'. How apropo.
That is also totally deceptive. Manufacturing dragged down the total and actually lost 24,000, but Professional and Business gained 43,000 (which probably has the highest job multiplier of all the sectors). http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm
He's just being uncourigable... I mean all we have to do is believe what he believes and we'll be fine...
