Jobs rose by only 18000 ... here comes double dip.

[Zeno Lorea]

Laika sorry you're tardy but we already talked the dismal job growth this past month.

Yes, but not a day goes by without pundits, columnists, bloggers or jubbers saying "Yeeehaaaa! The economy is up!" or "Woe is us! We have hit an all-time low!"

And in reality it's probably a good old-fashioned Kondratieff cycle: up, down, up, down, up, down, but in the long run more up than down.

 

[jackoroe]

GiancarloC, I think you need to be reminded to address the topic at hand and not the others posting in the thread.

 

[evanrick]

maybe Obama should ask big business: What do I need to do in order for you guys to hire more people?

I think we know their answer: Tax Cuts!

Fool me once...

I would have let those damn tax cuts expire.

We wouldn't be in this Mexican standoff with the debt ceiling now would we?

 

[andysayshi]

^ That is such a deceptively simple suggestion it is pure genius.

Why doesn't Obama hold a public forum with the top 20 business heads of the US and ask them what, specifically, will create more jobs?

 

[JayHawk]

I read Jackaroe's comment to GC and removed my response to his attacks on me instead of the issue... below is the issue

BHO has my absolute full support BUT besides throwing jabs at reelection time only it would be nice if he would take the bully pulpit once in a while to get things done.

Everyone readily and falsely agrees around here that Bush harmed the country beyond all Presidents to ever exist... However how was he able? By your logic since he had a Democrat Senate for four of the eight years and a full Dem Senate and House for two years...how was he able to get his agenda all done? Was it leadership? Perhaps?

Oh the democrats then were just not the leaders they are now......

Bullshit Same people.

Oh the republicans then weren't as obstructionist as they are now......

Bullshit same game.

No the key difference is the guy steering the course not making something a specific issue and then steering the direction.

How many times do you remember GWB holding talks at the white house with the two parties and then GWB makes the announcement of the way ahead.

BHO has had plenty of folks to the white house for those same reasons... who makes the statements after??? .... each party generally.

the POTUS has a lot of great qualities and is a very smart shrewd worker in the political system BUT he could have done more with his office when the public was ripe for it.... Job Corps, WPA Jobs, a Dodd-Frank bill with both required funding and teeth to reform wall street, Health care might not still be done but based on what we got for a bill I think it could have cooked just a little bit longer while we got America back to work.

SO that will be the albatross BHO has to overcome this election year... but don't get to thinking it is a mandate when BHO wins. It is a last resort. That and if he doesn't find a leadership bone or a cabinet member who can goad him into those roles then the Democrats will be looking at shitty employment numbers and losing the white house in 16.

Look at the actions and reactions through clear glasses and throw away those everything is George Bush's fault and you might get somewhere.

 

[JayHawk]

Hmmm.... discussing leadership for creating jobs in a jobs thread....

yes yes
Completely off point

 

[JB3]

maybe Obama should ask big business: What do I need to do in order for you guys to hire more people?

I think we know their answer: Tax Cuts!

Fool me once...

I would have let those damn tax cuts expire.

We wouldn't be in this Mexican standoff with the debt ceiling now would we?

I doubt most would answer tax cuts, especially the largest employers. Perhaps it would be a one-time incentive, or something similar, but it wouldn't be anything long-term.

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't bother asking the big corporations yet -- I'd start by cutting taxes on purely domestic businesses right to zero.

THEN you ask the big businesses to talk, with the point made that it's domestic jobs that are wanted.

 

[JB3]

maybe Obama should ask big business: What do I need to do in order for you guys to hire more people?

I think we know their answer: Tax Cuts!

Fool me once...

I would have let those damn tax cuts expire.

We wouldn't be in this Mexican standoff with the debt ceiling now would we?

I wouldn't bother asking the big corporations yet -- I'd start by cutting taxes on purely domestic businesses right to zero.

THEN you ask the big businesses to talk, with the point made that it's domestic jobs that are wanted.

Well, I know for the company I work for, last fall there were tax incentives for the company if they hired new people. When that happened, the company hired 5-10 new employees in every store, and those were not the biggest in the company. Multiply that 460 stores, and that's at minimum 5,000 new jobs.

 

[jackoroe]

Then tell them to do like wise with me rather then attacking my education every chance they get. I've already told them to private message me if they have a problem and we can talk about it over there.

Yes, and you'll be hearing from us about that relatively soon, I can assure you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then tell them to do like wise with me rather then attacking my education every chance they get. I've already told them to private message me if they have a problem and we can talk about it over there.

Your master's degree is public information. The sloppy intellectual quality of many of your posts is public information. Calling you on that publicly is thus legitimate.

Everyone readily and falsely agrees around here that Bush harmed the country beyond all Presidents to ever exist... However how was he able? By your logic since he had a Democrat Senate for four of the eight years and a full Dem Senate and House for two years...how was he able to get his agenda all done? Was it leadership? Perhaps?



No the key difference is the guy steering the course not making something a specific issue and then steering the direction.

How many times do you remember GWB holding talks at the white house with the two parties and then GWB makes the announcement of the way ahead.

BHO has had plenty of folks to the white house for those same reasons... who makes the statements after??? .... each party generally.

A major element in both is that the Democrats seem to have lost the capacity to stand tough, either obnoxiously (think LBJ), blusteringly (Hubert Humphrey), boldly (JFK), or any other way.

When all you need is one vote in the Senate to get everything on your wish list, and you don't get it... you're not much of a leader. Of the above named individuals, I have no doubt that Johnson would have gotten his way in less than a week, and people would have settled down to work, Humphrey within a month, and JFK after a speech or two to the nation. But Obama doesn't get in faces like LBJ, doesn't bluster his foes into submission like Humphrey, and however eloquent he may be he just doesn't inspire the public to badger their congresscritters into action.

the POTUS has a lot of great qualities and is a very smart shrewd worker in the political system BUT he could have done more with his office when the public was ripe for it.... Job Corps, WPA Jobs, a Dodd-Frank bill with both required funding and teeth to reform wall street, Health care might not still be done but based on what we got for a bill I think it could have cooked just a little bit longer while we got America back to work.

Too bad the WPA and CCC were voted closed by Congress instead of just lapsing -- it would have been fun to watch people actually get employed and do things. Heck, this county's economy still benefits heavily from work by those outfits!

 

[BostonPirate]

There will be no double dip. The recession is effectively over, and we could not get back there for nine months.

The jobs report reflects that there are more people that at one time were not even included in the workforce, are getting jobs.

This needs to be fixed legislatively and until the GOP in the house gets real and starts writing bills that the senate will consider and the president will sign, as legislators they are holding the american workers hostage.

Enough henny penny already....

Economists have been warning for two years, that this jobless rate could last five years, and that is getting extended further at this point. There is much arguing academically right now, about how much damage a shutdown legislature can cause the nation. It is an element that is currently being worked into new forecasts, and it will start being part of the equation.

How unfortunate for america that economists now need to find a way to quantify partizanship into economic models.

Get ready for a partisan index. Its coming.

 

[rareboy]

While i don't want to gloom and doom....Rachel put up a chart the other evening that shows how deep this recession is compared to all others since the great Depression and how sluggish the recovery is compared to the 'V' shaped bounceback...even on previous double dips.

It is very scary.

But the US and the western economies are gradually recovering and a slower stable recovery is infinitely better than a boom/bust cycle.

BTW welcome back.

You'll have fun reading the postings while you were away, except that reams of somewhat heated posts have been consigned to the ether.

 

[maxpowr9]

How unfortunate for america that economists now need to find a way to quantify partizanship into economic models.

Get ready for a partisan index. Its coming.

That's half the fun of being an economist, quantifying qualitative variables. I ♥ my utility functions.

 

[BostonPirate]

While i don't want to gloom and doom....Rachel put up a chart the other evening that shows how deep this recession is compared to all others since the great Depression and how sluggish the recovery is compared to the 'V' shaped bounceback...even on previous double dips.

It is very scary.

But the US and the western economies are gradually recovering and a slower stable recovery is infinitely better than a boom/bust cycle.

BTW welcome back.

You'll have fun reading the postings while you were away, except that reams of somewhat heated posts have been consigned to the ether.

They always raised taxes on the rich before.

New manufacturing sectors need to be developed. God knows american consumers still have the highest appettite for spending than any other nation.

and yeah... it looked like you guys had a drunken brawl in here while I was busy with the new reports...lol

Damnit. I miss all the fun

That's half the fun of being an economist, quantifying qualitative variables. I ♥ my utility functions.

LOL

heres a quiz....

Who said this, and no cheating!

"value is therefore nothing inherent in goods, no property of them, but merely the importance that we first attribute to the satisfaction of our needs, that is, to our lives and well-being."

you always have to consider what people are capable of and willing to do before the rest makes sense.

when the political will of the elected officials interfere with the functioning of the economy, it needs to be addressed and expressed in the model, IMO.

Good to read you guys postings

 

[maxpowr9]

@ BP

Most of me wants to say Marx simply because he was all about the "feel-gooderies" of economics compared to say Nietzsche. A tiny portion of me could say Freedman because of his "Methodology of Positive Economics" for the same reason.

You should see the post I made in the topic about capitalism because it sounds very similar to what you just said also.

 

[BostonPirate]

interesting.. I will go read it next.

The quote was of Carl Menger. An Austrian who lived about one hundred years ago, give or take..

This line of thinking is now being applied to political ideology to define a true level of motivation to bring change that could be substantive enough to actually fix something...

Differences in the magnitude of importance of different satisfactions (subjective factor).

As concerns the differences in the importance that different satisfactions have for us, it is above all a fact of the most common experience that the satisfactions of greatest importance to men are usually those on which the maintenance of life depends, and that other satisfactions are graduated in magnitude of importance according to the degree (duration and intensity) of pleasure dependent upon them. Thus if economizing men must choose between the satisfaction of a need on which the maintenance of their lives depends and another on which merely a greater or less degree of well-being is dependent, they will usually prefer the former. Similarly, they will usually prefer satisfactions on which a higher degree of their well-being depends. With the same intensity, they will prefer pleasures of longer duration to pleasures of shorter duration, and with the same duration, pleasures of greater intensity to pleasures of less intensity.

http://mises.org/etexts/menger/three.asp

This variable is being warped now, by a new satisfaction.... political ideology. It now trumps truth and modifies proven methods of fixing the national budget. As a result, the utility function that pre-defines the entire system is political will.

The Question is how we quantify the quality of a group of politicians ability to work well with others.

 

[maxpowr9]

I'm surprised you haven't read more Milton Friedman BP. I would say my economic reasoning is most in line with him. Paul Samuelson is decent also.

If I had to point a particular line that summarizes the piece well, it is...

Economics is a "dismal" science because it assumes man to be selfish and money-grubbing, "a lightning calculator of pleasures and pains, who oscillates like a homogenous globule of desire of happiness under the impulse of stimuli that shift him about the area, but leave him intact"; it rests on outmoded psychology and must be reconstructed in line with each new development in psychology; it assumes men, or at least businessmen, to be in a "continuous state of 'alert,' ready to change prices and/or pricing rules whenever their sensitive intuitions...detect a change in demand and supply conditions..."

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL

heres a quiz....

Who said this, and no cheating!

It strikes me as someone from the Mises Institute.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I had to point a particular line that summarizes the piece well, it is...

I love that bit -- thanks for bringing it back for consideration.