New unemployment claims lowest since January

[JohnRich 4]

It's funny how you omit the graph that accompanies that data. See the attached image. Don't you like how it looks?

News: Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

Yeah, Obama is doing a good job of turning that trend around!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Reagan Recession lasted 16 months, from July 1981 to November 1982.

Since it took your beloved Ronnie 16 months to turn a relatively mild recession around,

It makes as much sense to call that the Reagan recession as it does to call the current one the Obama recession.

The 70s were a mess, between the Vietnam war and the oil shocks, the stagflation pain was pretty constant, even if your current preference with official recessions doesn't treat it as a long stretch.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It's funny how you omit the graph that accompanies that data. See the attached image. Don't you like how it looks?

News: Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

Yeah, Obama is doing a good job of turning that trend around!

ABC NOT FOX, reported today the actual is closer to 17% accounting for those who have stopped looking.

I wonder if the posters here will attack ABC the same as they attacked Fox when they reported similarly about 6 weeks agi

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Also, corps who base here for the tax benefit but send job ovewrseas need to be taxed HARD.

So that they'll move the whole operation overseas to stay solvent - brilliant idea!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, corps who base here for the tax benefit but send job ovewrseas need to be taxed HARD.

So that they'll move the whole operation overseas to stay solvent - brilliant idea!!!

No they won't! I can't name all of the European and Austrlain corps who base here for teh low taxes and virtual employer immunity. We can raise taxes and still be more attractive than other countries that actually provide employee protections.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also, corps who base here for the tax benefit but send job ovewrseas need to be taxed HARD.

So that they'll move the whole operation overseas to stay solvent - brilliant idea!!!

No they won't! I can't name all of the European and Austrlain corps who base here for teh low taxes and virtual employer immunity. We can raise taxes and still be more attractive than other countries that actually provide employee protections.

Wrong. With the exception of the UAE (55% rate), no country has a higher corporate tax than the USA. Whatever you may THINK is true, they are definitely NOT coming to the States for the low taxes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

NO REDEFINITION.

Maybe you'll take the time to find the official definition of a recession in the USA, since clearly you don't know how they are defined.

Hmmm. I actually decided to myself, "Self. Let us go see what the NBER has to say about it."

Let us start here.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

Quote

The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in 2007 and 2008.

Quote

Q: Typically, how long after the beginning of a recession does the BCDC declare that a recession has started? After the end of the recession?

A: Anywhere from 6 to 18 months. The committee waits long enough so that the existence of a recession is not at all in doubt. It waits until it can assign an accurate date.

How about that. Why, the NBER will wait for between 6 and 18 months to say there is a recession! Which explains why they waited until December, 2008 to announce the conclusion.

I guess they were in denial for 12 months, as well? Or could it be that some of us actually like to get some proof before allegations are made?

What about their definition for a recession? Apparently, you consider it to be "official." From the Dec. 1, 2008 press release:

Quote

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators.

Hmmm. So if it peaked in Dec. 2007, you have to get data for "more than a few months" to find out if there is a recession going on. So when the economy "peaked" in Dec. 2007, you'd have to be a real asshole to say that we were in a recession in Jan., 2008. Even by June, 2008 you'd be a bit on the side of "I still don't have enough to make it stick."

So say as much as you want about the start of the recession. I actually am not denying that. I am just curious as to how righties like me were in denial during a period when your authority - the NBER - would be in full agreement with me.



And your statement that "The NBER, not you, not me, not lawrocket, not the Federal Reserve, and not George W. Bush, is charged with determining when recessions start and end in the USA. "

I've got my questions, then. Who charges them with that task? You? The government sure doesn't.

Check this out: http://www.nber.org/info.html

Quote

National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

Hmmm. Not really saying anything with regard to their credentials as the burning bush of economic analysis. They have no government involvement.

We can see how the NBER charges personnel to do it:

Quote

Q: How is the committee's membership determined?

A: The President of the NBER appoints the members, who include directors of the macro-related programs of the NBER plus other members with specialties in business-cycle research.

How does this make them "official?" Answer - it doesn't! You want them to be "official." But they are not official.

I do not look to you to define "official." I go by the common definition. Hell, I think this definition is, in some ways, better.

Still - not crying 'recession' was acceptable until the evidence came in. so when a post on this forum titled "THe Bush Recession Begins" was made in Feb. 07, I suppose I was in denial then.

Or saying that we were in the "Bush Recession" in January 08. It appears that it was far too soon to make that statement.

Hence, when I claimed in May, 08 "Now, many people are going to hate this. It is not indicative of an economy humming along wonderfully. But it also does not support the notion that we are in a recession, much less entering a recession or a depression" you responded:

Quote

You do realize that you claiming things are getting better because they're not getting worse quite so fast as predicted, right?

Here's a Hint: 20,000 jobs were still LOST last month.

And yes, I now think we are in a recession. Pointing to 20,000 jobs lost in April, 08 was bad. Meanwhile, Lucky points to keeping new jobless claims under 500k as being cause to celebrate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

The Reagan Recession lasted 16 months, from July 1981 to November 1982.

Since it took your beloved Ronnie 16 months to turn a relatively mild recession around,

It makes as much sense to call that the Reagan recession as it does to call the current one the Obama recession.

The 70s were a mess, between the Vietnam war and the oil shocks, the stagflation pain was pretty constant, even if your current preference with official recessions doesn't treat it as a long stretch.

My preference is for definitions. You can make up your own meanings for words if you wish,but there IS an official definition.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,117]

You have a really hard time differentiating between what IS and what has been officially announced.

Gravity obeyed an inverse square law long before Newton wrote about it.

We were obviously in a recession long before NBER announced it officially.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My preference is for definitions. You can make up your own meanings for words if you wish,but there IS an official definition.

Lawrocket covered that nicely - the NEBR is no more official than the John Birch Society at proclaiming recessions.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You have a really hard time differentiating between what IS and what has been officially announced.

Gravity obeyed an inverse square law long before Newton wrote about it.

We were obviously in a recession long before NBER announced it officially.

Tell me - what was the first day that a person could have credibly said "we're in a recession.". Dec 2 07?

And cut it out with the "official" stuff. Unless it is objectively demonstrable. I believe I have proven that you were rather misguided in that respect.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Yes, exactly why we need the gov to step in and create more jobs, if even by opening manufacturing facilities.

The government opening manufacturing facilities? I didn't know that the government was in the manufacturing business.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not sure if Lucky understands that manufacturing something isn't very good if there is no demand. If there is demand for a product, then someone will manufacture it and provide jobs for the manufacture and selling of same.

Lucky suggests bringing the government in. There is a range of possibilities, but these two are most likely:
(1) If there is no demand, then the government has just wasted a fortune (waste can almost be thought of as the primary reason for government spending); or
(2) If there is demand, the government just put private enterprise out of business by creating a glut. Because the competitors are paying for the government's manufacturing, it can sell items below cost and destroy all other manufacturers.

Which is what a government wants. A government is a corporation like any other. It seeks power and money and growth like any other corporation. Only it has some advantages that other corporations do not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, exactly why we need the gov to step in and create more jobs, if even by opening manufacturing facilities.

The government opening manufacturing facilities? I didn't know that the government was in the manufacturing business.

They're not, that's why they would open them if unemployment became too harsh. Of course you would rather the country relive the GD in the name of some antequated ideal where the gov stays out of saving the country and 10's of millions......ever wonder why your side is sitting?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm not sure if Lucky understands that manufacturing something isn't very good if there is no demand. If there is demand for a product, then someone will manufacture it and provide jobs for the manufacture and selling of same.

If the country is starving thnethe gov has options:

- Be a Hoover, McCain, Republican, Libertarian or Lawrocket and watch 10, 20 , 30+ million die and wave the flag of freedom from tyrany; shrug shoulders and say the market will correct itself.

- Pay some corporation to provide basic sustenance to all of the needy by way of harsh tax increases on the rich

- Deficit spend to provide basic sustenance to all of the needy by way of hammering the debt.

Quote

Lucky suggests bringing the government in.

Your hero, Hoover thought he would try it your way, 12 mill died, of course you won't comment on that.

Quote

There is a range of possibilities, but these two are most likely:
(1) If there is no demand, then the government has just wasted a fortune (waste can almost be thought of as the primary reason for government spending); or

If people are dying, there is a demand. Maybe not a paying demand, but still a need and a demand.

Quote

(2) If there is demand, the government just put private enterprise out of business by creating a glut. Because the competitors are paying for the government's manufacturing, it can sell items below cost and destroy all other manufacturers.

Not neccessarily, either tax or deficit spend and make the beloved corps even more rich off the blood of the needy, who were made that wasy largely die to corporate greed. Of course a true conservative capitalist only wants capitalism and a free market based upon the rules of the government completely deregulating them so they can prey upon theconsumer. Great Repiblican presidents like Teddy Roosevelt cared, now the new (neo) conservatives think not; unbridled capitalism via no regulation.

Quote

Which is what a government wants. A government is a corporation like any other. It seeks power and money and growth like any other corporation. Only it has some advantages that other corporations do not.

The corporations have the biggest advantage, they can't be thrown out and can basically hide and act as tho their misdeeds are a mistake.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

?

And cut it out with the "official" stuff. Unless it is objectively demonstrable. I believe I have proven that you were rather misguided in that respect.

According Breitbart, "For decades, the US government and economic community have recognized a panel of academicians with the private National Bureau of Economic Research as the official arbiter of business cycles."

In previous links I provided, both the WSJ and CNN Money state that NBER is the official arbiter for dating business cycles.

The State of Utah also acknowledges it.

Also according to WSJ, "Under his tenure the NBER was revitalized to become probably the country’s most important research network for academic economists. It also became the official arbiter of U.S. recessions and expansions."

Apparently I'm in good company and you are the misguided one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, exactly why we need the gov to step in and create more jobs, if even by opening manufacturing facilities.

The government opening manufacturing facilities? I didn't know that the government was in the manufacturing business.

They're not, that's why they would open them if unemployment became too harsh. Of course you would rather the country relive the GD in the name of some antequated ideal where the gov stays out of saving the country and 10's of millions......ever wonder why your side is sitting?

Why manufacture something that cannot be sold? If the only reason you want gov manufacturing to open is to provide paychecks to the lower classes then why not just send them checks? Why disguise it as something useful?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

- Pay some corporation to provide basic sustenance to all of the needy by way of harsh tax increases on the rich

What happens when you tax then out of business? Do they get to come work in the government manufacturing sites?

Quote

- Deficit spend to provide basic sustenance to all of the needy by way of hammering the debt.

Yeah, fuck the deficit. It's working pretty well so far this year.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Ron 10]

Funny, you claim you can know better and faster than NBER when it suits you... Yet claim others can't... You must have economic superpowers!

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What happens when you tax then out of business? Do they get to come work in the government manufacturing sites?

Gee, they did it after Hoover cut taxes slightly as the GD kicked off, almost 3 years later and 12 mill dead Hoover almost tripled them and FDR raised them a little a year later and then again. They were in the 70's-80's thru the 1930's and as much as 94% in WWII, then stayed in the 90's thru the 1950's, a very massive industrial time for us and businesses didn't die during that time, so how is raising the top brkt from 40% to 50-60% going to kill big business?

The wealth disparity is spreading in a huge way, so how is it that the rich are overtaxed?

Quote

Yeah, fuck the deficit. It's working pretty well so far this year.

And you say fuck the poor, just as Hoover did and 12 mill died. Look, when you guys keep clammering about everything for the rich and nothing for teh poor, your agendas are obvious. The RW is incompassionate. WHat looks silly is that vitually all of teh debt ocurred under a R president, then the minute a D gets in office you start clammering about the debt. How can your side conscionably whimper when just your last turd alone ramped it up 5T? And that isn't even bringing in fascist Ronnie.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, exactly why we need the gov to step in and create more jobs, if even by opening manufacturing facilities.

The government opening manufacturing facilities? I didn't know that the government was in the manufacturing business.

Quote

They're not, that's why they would open them if unemployment became too harsh.

To manufacture what? If there was a great need for some product now, the private sector would already be doing it.

Quote

Of course you would rather the country relive the GD in the name of some antequated ideal where the gov stays out of saving the country and 10's of millions......

Yes, I would rather the country relive the great depression. I have an idea. Lets have the government spend tons of money on a manufacturing facility making products that aren't needed. Maybe open a factory that was closed down due to no one buying their product.

Quote

ever wonder why your side is sitting?

Since I didn't vote for McCain last election, which side would that be?

(Why do I bother)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

He also will not acknowledge that the gov is who run many manufacturing jobs out of this country with regulations pushed by OSHA and the EPA.

And NO, I don't want a dangerous work place or a dirty planet. But common sense is gone today.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

To manufacture what? If there was a great need for some product now, the private sector would already be doing it.

And the people, the needy may not be able to afford it, so either the gov tax to pay for it, deficit spend or open manufacturing facitilies to bot employ people and to distribute neeeded goods. Kinda liek you saying about teaching a man to fish.... same concept.

Quote

Yes, I would rather the country relive the great depression. I have an idea. Lets have the government spend tons of money on a manufacturing facility making products that aren't needed. Maybe open a factory that was closed down due to no one buying their product.

Why would you be defeatist ridiculous? I mean if the gov set aside a chunk of land and taught people how to farm to produce, that would be a way. Altho I don't think we are that GD-era desperate, just an example.

Quote

Since I didn't vote for McCain last election, which side would that be?

Apparenlty you're proud of who you voted for, hence you stated them. Did you vote for that other Repib offshoot, the Libertarians? They ave basically the same take on taxes as the R's, just more extreme.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

He also will not acknowledge that the gov is who run many manufacturing jobs out of this country with regulations pushed by OSHA and the EPA.

And NO, I don't want a dangerous work place or a dirty planet. But common sense is gone today.......

Since our friend won't address the issues, I guess we'll just have to use Lucky-nomics to figure out what he means. I'll give it a shot.....

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Huh? Stick to the issues!

I asked, "You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers?"
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Money!

Who would buy the product?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Buy? We could give it away!

How would they pay the workers?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: With the money they print...duh.

Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: Since we'll have lot's of extra money taxes could be eliminated.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.