Jump to content

3.9% unemployment...and 49 year low on jobless claims


japantiger

Recommended Posts





6a00d83534ac5b69e201bb09efb4eb970d-pi

For some reason, these numbers were fake news during the Obama admin. Go fig. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Way to go Pres. Trump. Great economy. Lots of records being set, especially unemployment for blacks.

Yep, good on him for not screwing up an economic recovery already in progress since 2010.  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yep, good on him for not screwing up an economic recovery already in progress since 2010.  :thumbsup:

It's actually kind of amazing how resilient the pre-Trump economy is.  Despite all of his efforts to start a trade war we're still ok.  Hope it continues.  I'm ok with his base claiming world champ titles that they don't really own.  They're kind of like political Alabama fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, japantiger said:

3.9% unemployment....again....

https://www.bls.gov/

WRAPUP 2-U.S. weekly jobless claims drop to near 49-year low

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/reuters-america-wrapup-2-u-s-weekly-jobless-claims-drop-to-near-49-year-low.html

As you can see here the detractors wouldn't give him credit if the rate was 0%. And I guess we ignore the whatabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yep, good on him for not screwing up an economic recovery already in progress since 2010.  :thumbsup:

Mid terms and all parties will to take victory lap on the current economy. Trump should get some credit for the burst of confidence in our economic possibilities. Thumbs up to all the people that have continued to work and invest daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Mid terms and all parties will to take victory lap on the current economy. Trump should get some credit for the burst of confidence in our economic possibilities. Thumbs up to all the people that have continued to work and invest daily.

One thing however,  we could be pretty sure that HC and the dems with their love of government regulations and higher taxes would have screwed it up big time.  

Best thing the dems have done the last couple years is pretty much stay out of the way. ….and JMO but that's a good plan for the next two years too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AU64 said:

One thing however,  we could be pretty sure that HC and the dems with their love of government regulations and higher taxes would have screwed it up big time.  

 

Understand 64 and started to mention those but it would "derail" this thread. Bring Trump de regulations up and we get schooled on destroying the planet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Understand 64 and started to mention those but it would "derail" this thread. Bring Trump de regulations up and we get schooled on destroying the planet.  

I ain't worried about the scare talk ...I recall Nancy P talking about people dying if the tax bill were passed …..democrat apocalyptic politics has limited appeal and most people see it for what it is...desperation and BS. .   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I ain't worried about the scare talk

not worried about scare talk. just do not feel like being called ignorant for refusing to read 97 pages Vox or whatever. I think we have seen dems in their full colors this past week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

One thing however,  we could be pretty sure that HC and the dems with their love of government regulations and higher taxes would have screwed it up big time.  

Best thing the dems have done the last couple years is pretty much stay out of the way. ….and JMO but that's a good plan for the next two years too. 

Absolutely disagree with you on the HC point.  The trajectory of the economy was established under an administration that one could easily assume would be similar to HC's.  If anything HC is more conservative than Obama.  

Also, the best thing the Dems have done is utilize Keynesian economics to lift the country out of a devastating recession.  Most conservatives were too busy lying about birth certificate or worrying about tinfoil hat bull**** like Jade Helm to realize it, and they probably wouldn't have been nearly as effective with their bullheaded adherence to the principles of Norquist and Laffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...still a few Keynesians around.....hard to believe. They are not still teaching that stuff are they?

And trajectories mean nothing in economics or else we would never have a recession.  It is not just about being conservative, it is about government throwing roadblocks in the way of the economy in way of burdensome regulations and higher taxes....which most people expected of HC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Wow...still a few Keynesians around.....hard to believe. They are not still teaching that stuff are they?

And trajectories mean nothing in economics or else we would never have a recession.  It is not just about being conservative, it is about government throwing roadblocks in the way of the economy in way of burdensome regulations and higher taxes....which most people expected of HC

It's funny that supply siders criticize Keynesian solutions when they do frequently work.  Now I don't believe spending is always the answer to macroeconomic problems, but, unlike Laffer adherents, I'm not an analyst absolutist.  There are times to cut and times to raise taxes.  There are times to spend and times to cut spending.  If you don't see the logic in that, logic isn't something that your perspective allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, HVAU said:

It's funny that supply siders criticize Keynesian solutions when they do frequently work.  Now I don't believe spending is always the answer to macroeconomic problems, but, unlike Laffer adherents, I'm not an analyst absolutist.  There are times to cut and times to raise taxes.  There are times to spend and times to cut spending.  If you don't see the logic in that, logic isn't something that your perspective allows.

Which Obama policy or Democrat passed piece of legislation had a positive effect on growth or economic activity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Which Obama policy or Democrat passed piece of legislation had a positive effect on growth or economic activity?

I seem to recall you implying one should learn to use Google...

"In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended in July when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped $241.9 billion into the economy. That increased growth to a robust 3.9 percent rate by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, almost all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent.

 Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving three million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel efficient and therefore more globally competitive.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency reduced harmful practices of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from risking losses with their depositors' money. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulators.

 

Dodd-Frank directed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These regulated the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps and commodities futures. Dodd-Frank also asked the SEC to recommend how the credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, could be improved. 

In December 2010, Obama and Congress agreed upon additional stimulus in the form of an $858 billion tax cut. It had three main components: a $350 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts, a $56 billion extension of unemployment benefits, and a $120 billion reduction in workers' payroll taxes. Businesses received $140 billion in tax cuts for capital improvements and $80 billion in research and development tax credits. The estate tax was exempted (up to $5 million), and there were additional credits for college tuition and children.

Obama is the biggest job-creating presidentin U.S. history. His policies put 22.309 million people to work from the depths of the recession in January 2010 to the end of his term. That's because unemployment continued to rise even after the recession ended in 2009. It takes a few months of economic growth before businesses are confident enough to begin hiring again.

 

Since the beginning of his term, he put 17.267 million people to work. That makes him the second best job-creator, following Bill Clinton. Job gains would have been even better if Congress had approved Obama's proposed American Jobs Act."

https://www.thebalance.com/what-has-obama-done-11-major-accomplishments-3306158

Should I continue to research further for you, or are you capable of finding answers to your questions on your own?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spending borrowed money is not economic growth.....one party gets richer and someone else poorer.   Keynesian theory was a flop in the 1930s and even under Obama where those shovel ready jobs never existed and a few of his Wall Street and union friends were the major beneficiaries.

In the view of a great many people the recovery came about in spite of Obama's policies, not because of them.

 

Added later"   To his credit , Keynes's theory was one of balance over the long term.

He expected that in "good times" governments would pay off the debt it had built up in bad times. …..but of course that is politically difficult to do since in "good times"   those who love government spending want to spend even more.    Generally Keynesian theory is just a crutch for those who favor large governments and large government spending.....frequently to help their supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynesian may or may not have been a flop in the 30's.  It would be beneficial to the conversation for you to cite sources with data.  The principle, as I understand it, in Keynesian economics is not "spending borrowed money is economic growth" as you stated, but that large economic structures need catalysts to reverse trajectories.  In a downturn, when appropriate, the government may need to spend, possibly borrowed money, to provide such a catalyst.  In the case of the most recent recession that mechanism was effective.

Criticizing the Obama administration's increase to the deficit, which I assume is a major cornerstone of many conservatives position against Obama, is hypocritical considering the deficit run up under the current administration.  On top of that, Obama increased the deficit in order to spur economic growth which every piece of data, despite your opinions on that matter, shows was effective.  Trump is running up the deficit to pad his stats, or his pockets, in the booming economy he inherited, which will leave the government in a much more difficult position to deal with the next downturn.

 

Screenshot_20180908-085154.png

Deficit stats are shown next to the year, yearly GDP in the right column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Way to go Pres. Trump. Great economy. Lots of records being set, especially unemployment for blacks.

Yeah, the economy is going so well that even the loser Colin Kapaenick got a job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HVAU said:

It would be beneficial to the conversation for you to cite sources with data. 

Trust you studied economics and history but FDR practiced Keynesian economics for the better part of 10 years with only modest improvement in the US economy and unemployment was still over 15% by 1940.  It was not until the US got into the business of building/selling military hardware for WW II that the economy started to recover in a reasonable way. .

  https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1510  There are a hundred cites out there if you wanted to verify and this is one that looks nice and simple and cover the time frame we were discussing. 

JMO (and not just me) but FDR's Keynesian economic approach had only a modest effect on the recovery...and same goes for BO's stimulus. .   . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Trust you studied economics and history but FDR practiced Keynesian economics for the better part of 10 years with only modest improvement in the US economy and unemployment was still over 15% by 1940.  It was not until the US got into the business of building/selling military hardware for WW II that the economy started to recover in a reasonable way. .

  https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1510  There are a hundred cites out there if you wanted to verify and this is one that looks nice and simple and cover the time frame we were discussing. 

JMO (and not just me) but FDR's Keynesian economic approach had only a modest effect on the recovery...and same goes for BO's stimulus. .   . 

Please make the qualitative distinction between Keynesian theory and massive rearmament spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...