246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post your thoughts and comments on terrorism, war, and political shit like that.

Moderator: Metal Sludge

User avatar
DEATH ROW JOE
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 20480
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm

246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by DEATH ROW JOE »

The text in yellow discusses the components of U6. Every month, Moggio and birtherplanet complain that the employment situation summary does not mention U6 even though the report typically devotes 3 paragraphs to U6. You just have to know what U6 means in order to recognize it.

U-6 = Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

Funny that they are so pre-occupied with U6 but do not even realize it gets 3 paragraphs of coverage in the 7 paragraphs devoted to the household survey. So nearly half of the household survey is devoted to U6.
------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Situation Summary - FEBRUARY 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business
services, construction, and health care.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown
little movement, on net, since September 2012. The number of unemployed
persons, at 12.0 million, also edged lower in February. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for whites (6.8 percent)
declined in February while the rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women
(7.0 percent), teenagers (25.1 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics
(9.6 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.1
percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See
tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In February, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks
or more) was about unchanged at 4.8 million. These individuals accounted for
40.2 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The employment-population ratio held at 58.6 percent in February. The civilian
labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.0 million,
was essentially unchanged in February. These individuals were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In February, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
the same as a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not
counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 885,000 discouraged workers in
February, down slightly from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7
million persons marginally attached to the labor force in February had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as
school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)


Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, with
job gains in professional and business services, construction, and health
care. In the prior 3 months, employment had risen by an average of 195,000
per month. (See table B-1.)

Professional and business services added 73,000 jobs in February; employment
in the industry had changed little (+16,000) in January. In February,
employment in administrative and support services, which includes employment
services and services to buildings, rose by 44,000. Accounting and
bookkeeping services added 11,000 jobs, and growth continued in computer
systems design and in management and technical consulting services.

In February, employment in construction increased by 48,000. Since September,
construction employment has risen by 151,000. In February, job growth
occurred in specialty trade contractors, with this gain about equally split
between residential (+17,000) and nonresidential specialty trade contractors
(+15,000). Nonresidential building construction also added jobs (+6,000).

The health care industry continued to add jobs in February (+32,000). Within
health care, there was a job gain of 14,000 in ambulatory health care services,
which includes doctors' offices and outpatient care centers. Employment also
increased over the month in nursing and residential care facilities (+9,000)
and hospitals (+9,000).

Employment in the information industry increased over the month (+20,000),
lifted by a large job gain in the motion picture and sound recording industry.

Employment continued to trend up in retail trade in February (+24,000). Retail
trade has added 252,000 jobs over the past 12 months. Employment also
continued to trend up over the month in food services and drinking places and
in wholesale trade. Employment in other major industries showed little change
over the month.

In February, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2
hour to 40.9 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour to 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $23.82. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1
percent. In February, average hourly earnings of private-sector production
and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $20.04. (See tables B-3
and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from
+196,000 to +219,000, and the change for January was revised from +157,000 to
+119,000.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Image

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
User avatar
SmokingGun
Headlining Clubs
Posts: 2781
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:33 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by SmokingGun »

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:The text in yellow discusses the components of U6. Every month, Moggio and birtherplanet complain that the employment situation summary does not mention U6 even though the report typically devotes 3 paragraphs to U6. You just have to know what U6 means in order to recognize it.

U-6 = Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

Funny that they are so pre-occupied with U6 but do not even realize it gets 3 paragraphs of coverage in the 7 paragraphs devoted to the household survey. So nearly half of the household survey is devoted to U6.
------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Situation Summary - FEBRUARY 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business
services, construction, and health care.
US Total Nonfarm Payroll Numbers:

Dec. 31, 2012__________ 134.69
MJan. 31, 2009________ - 133.56M
Dec. 2012 Adjustment____ + 000.23M
-----------------------------------------------
Net Job Growth________ + 001.36M

Total Obama debt spending to date: $5.8 trillion

After pumping all that borrowed money into the economy, you essentially have only gained 1.36m jobs! ... $4,264,705.88 (million) per job created.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/total_nonfarm_payrolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work. … f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …

The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.


Image
Image
User avatar
DEATH ROW JOE
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 20480
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by DEATH ROW JOE »

SmokingGun wrote: US Total Nonfarm Payroll Numbers:

Dec. 31, 2012__________ 134.69
MJan. 31, 2009________ - 133.56M
Dec. 2012 Adjustment____ + 000.23M
-----------------------------------------------
Net Job Growth________ + 001.36M

Total Obama debt spending to date: $5.8 trillion

After pumping all that borrowed money into the economy, you essentially have only gained 1.36m jobs! ... $4,264,705.88 (million) per job created.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/total_nonfarm_payrolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work. … f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …

The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.


Image
Wow, you are stupid. There is so much wrong with your post, it's hard to know where to start. Your posts are always stupid but this one takes the cake.

1) The US can't wind up like Greece. Greece does not have control of their own currency.

The US is borrowing money at negative real rates for 5, 7 and 10 years because the US can always easily pay their debt. Worst case scenario is that the Fed buys bonds, the dollar falls, our exports become cheap and our trading partners buy US bonds to devalue their currency against the dollar. Very simply concept, has been explained to you about 30x but you do not get it.

2) There is no need to go to a secondary site to get payroll job numbers.

For the 10th time, they are all right here:
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

3) You claim that 5.8 trillion added to the national debt added only 1.32 million jobs? You are claiming that if there was 5.8 trillion in deficit reduction (tax hikes and/or spending cuts) over 4 years, there would only be 1.32 million fewer payroll employees when compared to Jan 2009. That is completely idiotic. The CBO estimates that a 48 billion deficit reduction as part of the sequester will kill 700,000 jobs. You're talking about 120X that. How does 84,583,333 jobs sound? That's 5800/48 x 700,000. That's a rough counterfactual. Where do you get your idiotic counterfactual that only 1.32 million jobs would be lost if the deficit was reduced by 5.8 trillion over 4 years? Did you even consider a counterfactual? You know what what is? You dumb fuck.

Balancing the budget in 2009 would have severely amplified the recession. The fact that you think only 1.32 million jobs would have disappeared if there was nothing added to the national debt since Jan 2009 shows how fucking stupid you are.

Your understanding of the relationship between debt and job creation is convoluted.

Jan 2008: 115.668 million private sector jobs
Jan 2010: 106.876 million private sector jobs

National Debt:
12/31/2007 9,229,172,659,218.31
12/31/2009 12,311,349,677,512.03

So the national debt increases by 3.1 trillion and private sector employment contracts by nearly 9 million.

So after pumping 3.1 trillion in borrowed money into the economy, you have lost 9 million jobs!!!

Is that how you think?

Sounds like you do not understand cause and effect. The bad economy caused the national debt to explode. As the economy has gotten stronger the deficit has gotten smaller.

4) Non-Farm payroll includes govt jobs and private sector jobs. You are claiming there has been a massive spending stimulus by the govt. Problem with your argument is that govt employment has fallen by 627,000 since Feb 2010.

Private jobs:
Feb 2010: 106.850 million
Feb 2013: 113.203 million

Govt jobs:
Feb 2010: 22.470 million
Feb 2013: 21.843 million

Also, as has been pointed out to you a half dozen times, cuts in govt spending have slowed growth for 3 years.

So there has not been a huge govt stimulus to boost the economy.

Image

5) ]f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%?

The labor force has grown by 1.2 million since Jan 2009.

Labor Force:
Jan 2009: 154.232 million
Feb 2013: 155.524 million

People drop out of the labor force for demographic reasons, not simply because the economy is bad. This was predicted by the labor department in 2006. A larger percentage of the work force is in the low participation age groups (college age and retirment age).

This is explained here:

Employment: A decline in the participation rate was expected due to the aging population
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... CzrOsHw.99

Further Discussion on Labor Force Participation Rate
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... 5LVZihR.99

6) The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January?

The household survey is very erratic month to month, so you show your ignorance by making a big deal out of that number in January.

If you look at the 12 month change, you'll see that that indicator has improved for 3 years in a row after skyrocketing in 2008 and 2009. 1.8% fall in 2010. 11.2% fall in 2011 and 14.2% fall in 2012.

The number unemployed for 27 weeks or longer shows an improving economy.

Go to this URL

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13008636

Click on "more formating options"

Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & over(thousands)
Year,Jan,
2010,6334
2011,6219
2012,5522
2013,4708

12 month net change:
2010,3634
2011,-115
2012,-697
2013,-814

12 month percent change:
2010,134.6
2011,-1.8
2012,-11.2
2013,-14.7

7) A little more schooling on the cause of the national debt.

National debt falls 110 billion in 2000.

Bush becomes president and cuts taxes to "return a surplus to the tax payer" (ie: he cuts taxes to create a deficit)

National debt increased 600 billion in 2004, end of Bush's first term.

Cheney says "Reagan taught us deficits do not matter."

National debt increased 1.4 trillion in 2008, end of Bush's second term.

Obama cuts spending and increases taxes to reduce the deficit.

The national debt increases 1.2 trillion in 2012, down from 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 2008. That is the largest deficit reduction of any president in history.

Image
User avatar
Moggio
MSX Tour Support Act
Posts: 4369
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Where there are NO differences between ninth chords...

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Moggio »

SmokingGun wrote:US Total Nonfarm Payroll Numbers:

Dec. 31, 2012__________ 134.69
MJan. 31, 2009________ - 133.56M
Dec. 2012 Adjustment____ + 000.23M
-----------------------------------------------
Net Job Growth________ + 001.36M

Total Obama debt spending to date: $5.8 trillion

After pumping all that borrowed money into the economy, you essentially have only gained 1.36m jobs! ... $4,264,705.88 (million) per job created.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/total_nonfarm_payrolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work. … f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …

The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.


Image


Thanks for the reality check. Most here need it, including DEATH ROW BLOW JOB and his endless stream of MASSIVELY manipulated info via utilization of extremely deceiving, misquotes, links, charts, graphs & tables...not to mention his own type of arithmetic, etc.

DRBJ is truly the red herring KING...
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Image

Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in 5...4...3...2...
User avatar
SmokingGun
Headlining Clubs
Posts: 2781
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:33 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by SmokingGun »

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:
SmokingGun wrote: US Total Nonfarm Payroll Numbers:

Dec. 31, 2012__________ 134.69
MJan. 31, 2009________ - 133.56M
Dec. 2012 Adjustment____ + 000.23M
-----------------------------------------------
Net Job Growth________ + 001.36M

Total Obama debt spending to date: $5.8 trillion

After pumping all that borrowed money into the economy, you essentially have only gained 1.36m jobs! ... $4,264,705.88 (million) per job created.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/total_nonfarm_payrolls
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work. … f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …

The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.


Image
Wow, you are stupid. There is so much wrong with your post, it's hard to know where to start. Your posts are always stupid but this one takes the cake.

1) The US can't wind up like Greece. Greece does not have control of their own currency.

The US is borrowing money at negative real rates for 5, 7 and 10 years because the US can always easily pay their debt. Worst case scenario is that the Fed buys bonds, the dollar falls, our exports become cheap and our trading partners buy US bonds to devalue their currency against the dollar. Very simply concept, has been explained to you about 30x but you do not get it.

2) There is no need to go to a secondary site to get payroll job numbers.

For the 10th time, they are all right here:
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

3) You claim that 5.8 trillion added to the national debt added only 1.32 million jobs? You are claiming that if there was 5.8 trillion in deficit reduction (tax hikes and/or spending cuts) over 4 years, there would only be 1.32 million fewer payroll employees when compared to Jan 2009. That is completely idiotic. The CBO estimates that a 48 billion deficit reduction as part of the sequester will kill 700,000 jobs. You're talking about 120X that. How does 84,583,333 jobs sound? That's 5800/48 x 700,000. That's a rough counterfactual. Where do you get your idiotic counterfactual that only 1.32 million jobs would be lost if the deficit was reduced by 5.8 trillion over 4 years? Did you even consider a counterfactual? You know what what is? You dumb fuck.

Balancing the budget in 2009 would have severely amplified the recession. The fact that you think only 1.32 million jobs would have disappeared if there was nothing added to the national debt since Jan 2009 shows how fucking stupid you are.

Your understanding of the relationship between debt and job creation is convoluted.

Jan 2008: 115.668 million private sector jobs
Jan 2010: 106.876 million private sector jobs

National Debt:
12/31/2007 9,229,172,659,218.31
12/31/2009 12,311,349,677,512.03

So the national debt increases by 3.1 trillion and private sector employment contracts by nearly 9 million.

So after pumping 3.1 trillion in borrowed money into the economy, you have lost 9 million jobs!!!

Is that how you think?

Sounds like you do not understand cause and effect. The bad economy caused the national debt to explode. As the economy has gotten stronger the deficit has gotten smaller.

4) Non-Farm payroll includes govt jobs and private sector jobs. You are claiming there has been a massive spending stimulus by the govt. Problem with your argument is that govt employment has fallen by 627,000 since Feb 2010.

Private jobs:
Feb 2010: 106.850 million
Feb 2013: 113.203 million

Govt jobs:
Feb 2010: 22.470 million
Feb 2013: 21.843 million

Also, as has been pointed out to you a half dozen times, cuts in govt spending have slowed growth for 3 years.

So there has not been a huge govt stimulus to boost the economy.

Image

5) ]f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%?

The labor force has grown by 1.2 million since Jan 2009.

Labor Force:
Jan 2009: 154.232 million
Feb 2013: 155.524 million

People drop out of the labor force for demographic reasons, not simply because the economy is bad. This was predicted by the labor department in 2006. A larger percentage of the work force is in the low participation age groups (college age and retirment age).

This is explained here:

Employment: A decline in the participation rate was expected due to the aging population
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... CzrOsHw.99

Further Discussion on Labor Force Participation Rate
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... 5LVZihR.99

6) The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January?

The household survey is very erratic month to month, so you show your ignorance by making a big deal out of that number in January.

If you look at the 12 month change, you'll see that that indicator has improved for 3 years in a row after skyrocketing in 2008 and 2009. 1.8% fall in 2010. 11.2% fall in 2011 and 14.2% fall in 2012.

The number unemployed for 27 weeks or longer shows an improving economy.

Go to this URL

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13008636

Click on "more formating options"

Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & over(thousands)
Year,Jan,
2010,6334
2011,6219
2012,5522
2013,4708

12 month net change:
2010,3634
2011,-115
2012,-697
2013,-814

12 month percent change:
2010,134.6
2011,-1.8
2012,-11.2
2013,-14.7

7) A little more schooling on the cause of the national debt.

National debt falls 110 billion in 2000.

Bush becomes president and cuts taxes to "return a surplus to the tax payer" (ie: he cuts taxes to create a deficit)

National debt increased 600 billion in 2004, end of Bush's first term.

Cheney says "Reagan taught us deficits do not matter."

National debt increased 1.4 trillion in 2008, end of Bush's second term.

Obama cuts spending and increases taxes to reduce the deficit.

The national debt increases 1.2 trillion in 2012, down from 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 2008. That is the largest deficit reduction of any president in history.

Image



You are right about Greece not being able to control it's own currency.. the US therefore has a plethora of options open to them that Greece doesn't. Like endlessly printing money. And other less destructive measures.

As for the rest of your post, that's some serious data massaging you got going on there Joe. The sort of shit that got Greece / PIIGS into the huge mess they are in today. Not good.
Image
Sheep_Mafia
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Sheep_Mafia »

Yet another underwhelming show of recovery in the economy. Underemployment is going up still as are people being forced to work part time and multiple jobs.

I'd love to be optimistic that the recovery would finally pick up, after all it certainly should be growing by now at a faster pace then it is and business usually is able to ignore Washington's failings after awhile. That said, I just can't be confident with the looming policy disaster that is Obamacare on the immediate horizon.

At best, we are going to see more part time jobs and a lot more underemployment. 18% is horrific now but its hard to imagine how bad its going to get.
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

Sheep_Mafia wrote:Yet another underwhelming show of recovery in the economy. Underemployment is going up still as are people being forced to work part time and multiple jobs.

I'd love to be optimistic that the recovery would finally pick up, after all it certainly should be growing by now at a faster pace then it is and business usually is able to ignore Washington's failings after awhile. That said, I just can't be confident with the looming policy disaster that is Obamacare on the immediate horizon.

At best, we are going to see more part time jobs and a lot more underemployment. 18% is horrific now but its hard to imagine how bad its going to get.
Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
Image
Sheep_Mafia
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Sheep_Mafia »

KneelandBobDylan wrote:
Sheep_Mafia wrote:Yet another underwhelming show of recovery in the economy. Underemployment is going up still as are people being forced to work part time and multiple jobs.

I'd love to be optimistic that the recovery would finally pick up, after all it certainly should be growing by now at a faster pace then it is and business usually is able to ignore Washington's failings after awhile. That said, I just can't be confident with the looming policy disaster that is Obamacare on the immediate horizon.

At best, we are going to see more part time jobs and a lot more underemployment. 18% is horrific now but its hard to imagine how bad its going to get.
Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
Record profits are great. Many of Corporate America are global entities and have learned to deal in hostile environments some governments create for businesses and are also not dependent on one market. Spending in the US by companies is showing some life finally but we'll see if that continues as it should.

Issue in the US is the middle class continues to get hammered as they have the last few years as Joe Biden put it and the poor sector is expanding. Proof positive that the current path we are on is failing and again, Obamacare is only going to make that worse.
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

Sheep_Mafia wrote:
KneelandBobDylan wrote:
Sheep_Mafia wrote:Yet another underwhelming show of recovery in the economy. Underemployment is going up still as are people being forced to work part time and multiple jobs.

I'd love to be optimistic that the recovery would finally pick up, after all it certainly should be growing by now at a faster pace then it is and business usually is able to ignore Washington's failings after awhile. That said, I just can't be confident with the looming policy disaster that is Obamacare on the immediate horizon.

At best, we are going to see more part time jobs and a lot more underemployment. 18% is horrific now but its hard to imagine how bad its going to get.
Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
Record profits are great. Many of Corporate America are global entities and have learned to deal in hostile environments some governments create for businesses and are also not dependent on one market. Spending in the US by companies is showing some life finally but we'll see if that continues as it should.

Issue in the US is the middle class continues to get hammered as they have the last few years as Joe Biden put it and the poor sector is expanding. Proof positive that the current path we are on is failing and again, Obamacare is only going to make that worse.
So continued tax cuts for the rich, huge subsidies for big business and government intrusion into women's vaginas, which seem to be the only three ideas conservatives can come up with offer relief to an overburdened middle class how?

Also, explain how personal resposibility is going to make it worse? Also keep in mind "Obamacare" a.k.a. the ACA was originally a conservative idea, mandate and all.

Go!!!!!!!!!!!
Image
User avatar
absolutely fabulous
Headlining Clubs
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by absolutely fabulous »

wait...

which of the three major networks report this?
The Fiendster wrote:I hate everyone in this thread. Especially myself.

FUCK. I need a drink. :lol:
Sheep_Mafia
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Sheep_Mafia »

KneelandBobDylan wrote: So continued tax cuts for the rich, huge subsidies for big business and government intrusion into women's vaginas, which seem to be the only three ideas conservatives can come up with offer relief to an overburdened middle class how?

Also, explain how personal resposibility is going to make it worse? Also keep in mind "Obamacare" a.k.a. the ACA was originally a conservative idea, mandate and all.

Go!!!!!!!!!!!
Wealthy people pay most of the taxes in the country. I'm all for tax reform though. Expand the tax base, greatly simplify the code and break away from the special interest groups that lock down both parties. We all know none of that is likely happening.

Personal responsibility isn't the issue with Obamacare, it's the incentives for companies to cut their full time work force, not exceed 50 employees and to drop workers coverage in favor of the far less costly penalty. Not to mention all the regulations that are driving costs even higher. I like some aspects of it and it addresses some issues that needed addressing but it is on balance horrible legislation that will end up bashing the middle class even more. Not to mention, we just can't afford it. That part at least should be clear to anyone.

It's certainly ironic to hear Obama supporters talk about personal responsibility though....
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

Sheep_Mafia wrote: Wealthy people pay most of the taxes in the country.


Why shouldn't they, don't they make most of the money?
Sheep_Mafia wrote: I'm all for tax reform though. Expand the tax base, greatly simplify the code and break away from the special interest groups that lock down both parties. We all know none of that is likely happening.
When you say "expand the tax base" what you're really saying is tax the poor. Don't sugar coat it. You want to put even more of the burden on those that can least afford it. There is a huge difference between paying taxes on an income of 20k a year and and paying taxes on 200k+ a year. And there should be. As for genuine useful "tax reform" I say we go with what's been proven to work, which were the tax codes of the 50's, when wealth inequality was at it's lowest point ever.
Sheep_Mafia wrote: Personal responsibility isn't the issue with Obamacare, it's the incentives for companies to cut their full time work force, not exceed 50 employees and to drop workers coverage in favor of the far less costly penalty. Not to mention all the regulations that are driving costs even higher. I like some aspects of it and it addresses some issues that needed addressing but it is on balance horrible legislation that will end up bashing the middle class even more. Not to mention, we just can't afford it. That part at least should be clear to anyone.

It's certainly ironic to hear Obama supporters talk about personal responsibility though....
There is so much wrong and condescending in this paragraph of word salad I don't know where to begin, but I'll try.

Companies are making rcord profits, but are employees seeing any increase in their wages? Why aren't these companies hiring more people, since plenty of money is being made? Because they can get people to work even harder for small wages and little to no benefits while pocketing even more money, all while demonizing and blaming the President.

See I'll never understand why shitting on the working class/poor is ok, but asking the wealthy people/companies to step up and do their patriotic DUTY to make America better for everyone, as opposed to just thenselves and the bottom line is wrong.

I'm only going to say this about your parting comment. It's one of the most assinine things I've ever read, and I read quite a bit.
Last edited by KneelandBobDylan on Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

absolutely fabulous wrote:wait...

which of the three major networks report this?

Image
Image
Sheep_Mafia
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Sheep_Mafia »

KneelandBobDylan wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:wait...

which of the three major networks report this?

Image
I'm not going to spend time fact checking this mainly because I don't care. Instead of banging on people who have created companies and provide jobs and benefits--how about doing that yourself? There are a great many individuals other than those 3 companies who have done just that in those very industries. A great many more along the lines that have started and built those very companies referenced and cashed out to those larger companies. I fail to see the problem.

What should the government do for you? Give everyone their very own business?
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

Sheep_Mafia wrote:
KneelandBobDylan wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:wait...

which of the three major networks report this?

Image
I'm not going to spend time fact checking this mainly because I don't care. Instead of banging on people who have created companies and provide jobs and benefits--how about doing that yourself? There are a great many individuals other than those 3 companies who have done just that in those very industries. A great many more along the lines that have started and built those very companies referenced and cashed out to those larger companies. I fail to see the problem.

What should the government do for you? Give everyone their very own business?

"Cashed out" is right.

But you're correct, I've finally seen the light. Fuck diversity of opinion. In fact, why even have 3 companies from which to get our information, when one would do the job.
Last edited by KneelandBobDylan on Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Danzig in the Dark
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 21596
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Danzig in the Dark »

Sheep_Mafia wrote:
KneelandBobDylan wrote:
absolutely fabulous wrote:wait...

which of the three major networks report this?

Image
I'm not going to spend time fact checking this mainly because I don't care. Instead of banging on people who have created companies and provide jobs and benefits--how about doing that yourself? There are a great many individuals other than those 3 companies who have done just that in those very industries. A great many more along the lines that have started and built those very companies referenced and cashed out to those larger companies. I fail to see the problem.

What should the government do for you? Give everyone their very own business?
Image
ImageImage
Sheep_Mafia
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Sheep_Mafia »

I think you are missing the point of that propaganda you posted or maybe they are misrepresenting the facts but there are far more than 3 companies holding all the various entities in those categories. Most people's local radio market for example have a lot more than 3 companies behind the stations.

Not to mention, most people get a large share of their information--or in some cases misinformation (hint)--from the internet and that's a wide open market place.
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

No where does that meme, or my reply to your reply to said meme, say that ONLY 3 companies own all the media.

That doesn't change the fact that only 3 companies do hold that much sway over what people see and hear.

Diversity of opinion in the media is going the way of the Dodo bird.
Image
User avatar
Moggio
MSX Tour Support Act
Posts: 4369
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Where there are NO differences between ninth chords...

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Moggio »

KneelandBobDylan wrote:Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Image

Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in 5...4...3...2...
User avatar
KneelandBobDylan
Playing Decent Clubs in a Bus
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: 3rd stone from the sun

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by KneelandBobDylan »

Moggio wrote:
KneelandBobDylan wrote:Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...

No, for it to make "perfect" sense to me, the sky would have to taste purple.

Don't act like you don't understand Wronggio, you know exactly what I'm saying.
Image
User avatar
Moggio
MSX Tour Support Act
Posts: 4369
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Where there are NO differences between ninth chords...

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Moggio »

KneelandBobDylan wrote:
Moggio wrote:
KneelandBobDylan wrote:Yeah, all the while "Corporate America" reap record profits, while calling Obama a "Socialist Tyrant."

The disconnect is unreal.
No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...

No, for it to make "perfect" sense to me, the sky would have to taste purple.

Don't act like you don't understand Wronggio, you know exactly what I'm saying.
ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Image

Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in 5...4...3...2...
User avatar
Danzig in the Dark
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 21596
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Danzig in the Dark »

Moggio wrote:
ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...
A mixed economy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The US has always been a mixed economy, tending toward capitalism.
ImageImage
User avatar
absolutely fabulous
Headlining Clubs
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by absolutely fabulous »

all i was trying to say,

a lot of people get their news from the three major networks.
that's all.

so, what major network reported this 246k jobs? (let me try this again..)
The Fiendster wrote:I hate everyone in this thread. Especially myself.

FUCK. I need a drink. :lol:
User avatar
Danzig in the Dark
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 21596
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Danzig in the Dark »

absolutely fabulous wrote:all i was trying to say,

a lot of people get their news from the three major networks.
that's all.

so, what major network reported this 246k jobs? (let me try this again..)
There are a lot of people who are not as well informed as they should be.
ImageImage
User avatar
Moggio
MSX Tour Support Act
Posts: 4369
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Where there are NO differences between ninth chords...

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Moggio »

Danzig in the Dark wrote:
Moggio wrote:
ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


No, it actually makes perfect sense.

But in order for it to make perfect sense to you, you'll first have to learn the difference between a Mixed Economy and a Capitalist Economy (hint: the US hasn't lived in a truly Capitalist Economy since 1929). And when you do, you'll also understand why the Housing Bubble Crisis was ALLOWED to happen...
A mixed economy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
Correct.
Danzig in the Dark wrote:The US has always been a mixed economy, tending toward capitalism.
Incorrect.

During part of the Industrial Revolution, and virtually all of the Roaring Twenties (which interestingly enough were probably two of the biggest economic booms in US history), the US was a Capitalist Economy (with free market principles). However, throughout most of the US' history they've been a Mixed Economy tending towards Capitalism...
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Image

Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in 5...4...3...2...
User avatar
Danzig in the Dark
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 21596
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Danzig in the Dark »

Moggio wrote:
Danzig in the Dark wrote:The US has always been a mixed economy, tending toward capitalism.
Incorrect.

During part of the Industrial Revolution, and virtually all of the Roaring Twenties (which interestingly enough were probably two of the biggest economic booms in US history), the US was a Capitalist Economy (with free market principles). However, throughout most of the US' history they've been a Mixed Economy tending towards Capitalism...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which it has readily exercised since it's inception. That regulation makes the US a mixed economy from the very beginning of it's existence by definition and practice. During the Industrial Revolution, protectionist policies enacted by the US government insulated domestic industry from foreign competition, commonly referred to as the American System. For you to suggest that during the '20s that all regulation of the economy disappeared is ludicrous. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and was in effect through the '20s. Even Dr. Paul would consider that government regulation of the economy.

YOUR.WORLD.JUST.RAN.OUT.OF.TIME.
ImageImage
User avatar
DEATH ROW JOE
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 20480
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by DEATH ROW JOE »

Moggio wrote: During part of the Industrial Revolution, and virtually all of the Roaring Twenties (which interestingly enough were probably two of the biggest economic booms in US history), the US was a Capitalist Economy (with free market principles). However, throughout most of the US' history they've been a Mixed Economy tending towards Capitalism...
LMFAO @ Moggio lecturing again. You do not know jack shit but it is funny hearing you repeat the crap you are fed by the plutocrats.

1) You claim the Industrial revolution in the US was a time of free markets.

Wrong.

Industrialization in the United States was heavily financed by the federal govt. The Eerie canal and the transcontinental railroad were public works project.

2) You claim the 20s was one of the biggest economic booms this country has seen.

Wrong.

There were three recessions during the twenties prior to the 1929 crash.

Jan 1920 to July 1921
May 1923 to July 1924
October 1926 to November 1927
Then the crash August 1929 to March 1933

So during this great "boom" time, the economy was in recession 40% of the time.

From 1920 to 1929, real per capita GDP grew 2.43%/year (from 1920 to 1928 it grew 2.13%/year in case you believe the crash year was cherry picked to distort the annualized growth rate).

For the sake of comparison, from 1960 to 1970 when the top rate was 70% and govt regulation and intrusion in the economy was at a historic high, real per capita GDP grew 2.89%/year.

So the 60s were a far more prosperous time than the roaring twenties.

The "roaring twenties" refers to the stock market, not the overall economy. The S&P composite grew 18%/year. During the 60s is grew 7.79%/year with a rate of inflation of 2.5%/year. The CPI fell 1.73%/year from 20 to 29 to after adjusting for deflation, investors were seeing a 20%/year return in the stock market during the 20s.

The boom did not spread throughout the economy as you claim.

3)You claim a mixed economy slows growth and decreases national productivity and prosperity.

Wrong.

The industrialized business cycle in the US is dated to the recession which started in October 1873. There were 7 recessions between October 1873 and June 1899. The recession which started in 1873 lasted over 5 years.

The reason recessions do not last that long now is because the social safety net acts as a automatic stabilizer. When unemployment rises, the govt gives people money for food and shelter. That helps end the recession. In addition, monetary policy is relaxed and credit is expanded.

This is what the business cycle looks like when the nation is on the gold standard and there are no fiscal stabilizers. This is the type of economy Ron Paul's policies lead to. The economy is in recession 40% of the time. At the end of the economy correcting itself via deflation, all the wealth is transferred to the top and you wind up with the Gilded Age.

Image

If you try to come back, try to support your opinion with some facts. Stop parroting the shit you are fed by people doing stealth PR for the Koch Bros.

Annualized Growth Rate
of Various Historical Economic Series
http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
User avatar
Moggio
MSX Tour Support Act
Posts: 4369
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Where there are NO differences between ninth chords...

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Moggio »

Danzig in the Dark wrote:
Moggio wrote:
Danzig in the Dark wrote:The US has always been a mixed economy, tending toward capitalism.
During part of the Industrial Revolution, and virtually all of the Roaring Twenties (which interestingly enough were probably two of the biggest economic booms in US history), the US was a Capitalist Economy (with free market principles). However, throughout most of the US' history they've been a Mixed Economy tending towards Capitalism...
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which it has readily exercised since it's inception. That regulation makes the US a mixed economy from the very beginning of it's existence by definition and practice. During the Industrial Revolution, protectionist policies enacted by the US government insulated domestic industry from foreign competition, commonly referred to as the American System. For you to suggest that during the '20s that all regulation of the economy disappeared is ludicrous. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and was in effect through the '20s. Even Dr. Paul would consider that government regulation of the economy.

YOUR.WORLD.JUST.RAN.OUT.OF.TIME.
That's not exactly what I said. Read what I said carefully, asshole. Free market PRINCIPLES are different from free markets. :roll:

And regardless, the above is still incorrect. The US Government has largely ignored the US Constitution...especially recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

GDP per capita was broadly stable before the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy. The Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies. Economic historians are in agreement that the onset of the Industrial Revolution is the most important event in the history of humanity since the domestication of animals and plants.
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:
Moggio wrote: During part of the Industrial Revolution, and virtually all of the Roaring Twenties (which interestingly enough were probably two of the biggest economic booms in US history), the US was a Capitalist Economy (with free market principles). However, throughout most of the US' history they've been a Mixed Economy tending towards Capitalism...
LMFAO @ Moggio lecturing again. You do not know jack shit but it is funny hearing you repeat the crap you are fed by the plutocrats.

1) You claim the Industrial revolution in the US was a time of free markets.

Wrong.

Industrialization in the United States was heavily financed by the federal govt. The Eerie canal and the transcontinental railroad were public works project.
That's not exactly what I said. Read what I said carefully, asshole. Free markets PRINCIPLES are different from free markets. :roll:
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:2) You claim the 20s was one of the biggest economic booms this country has seen.

Wrong.

There were three recessions during the twenties prior to the 1929 crash.

Jan 1920 to July 1921
May 1923 to July 1924
October 1926 to November 1927
Then the crash August 1929 to March 1933

So during this great "boom" time, the economy was in recession 40% of the time.

From 1920 to 1929, real per capita GDP grew 2.43%/year (from 1920 to 1928 it grew 2.13%/year in case you believe the crash year was cherry picked to distort the annualized growth rate).

For the sake of comparison, from 1960 to 1970 when the top rate was 70% and govt regulation and intrusion in the economy was at a historic high, real per capita GDP grew 2.89%/year.

So the 60s were a far more prosperous time than the roaring twenties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... ted_States

1923–24 recession - May 1923 – June 1924
From the depression of 1920–21 until the Great Depression, an era dubbed the Roaring Twenties, the economy was generally expanding. Industrial production declined in 1923–24, but on the whole this was a mild recession.

1926–27 recession - Oct. 1926 – Nov. 1927
This was an unusual and mild recession, thought to be caused largely because Henry Ford closed production in his factories for six months to switch from production of the Model T to the Model A. Charles P. Kindleberger says the period from 1925 to the start of the Great Depression is best thought of as a boom, and this minor recession just proof that the boom "was not general, uninterrupted or extensive".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

The 1920s was a decade of increased consumer spending and economic growth fed by supply side economic policy. The post war saw three consecutive Republican administrations in the U.S. All three took the conservative position of forging a close relationship between those in government and big business. When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding did not live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years.
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:3)You claim a mixed economy slows growth and decreases national productivity and prosperity.

Wrong.
That's not exactly what I said. Read what I said carefully, asshole. :roll:
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:The industrialized business cycle in the US is dated to the recession which started in October 1873. There were 7 recessions between October 1873 and June 1899. The recession which started in 1873 lasted over 5 years.
It's called the Long Depression. :roll:
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:The reason recessions do not last that long now is because the social safety net acts as a automatic stabilizer. When unemployment rises, the govt gives people money for food and shelter. That helps end the recession. In addition, monetary policy is relaxed and credit is expanded.
ROTF! :lol: If that was true, the Government would've ended each recession immediately. :lol:
DEATH ROW BLOW JOB wrote:This is what the business cycle looks like when the nation is on the gold standard and there are no fiscal stabilizers. This is the type of economy Ron Paul's policies lead to. The economy is in recession 40% of the time. At the end of the economy correcting itself via deflation, all the wealth is transferred to the top and you wind up with the Gilded Age.

If you try to come back, try to support your opinion with some facts. Stop parroting the shit you are fed by people doing stealth PR for the Koch Bros.
What a pile of SHIT. EVERY single word of it.. The Nixon Administration’s unbelievably disastrous monetary policy decision to eliminate backing of the Gold Standard from the USD on August 15, 1971 signalled the beginning of the end for the fiat currency. And is why there was hyper-inflation throughout the ‘70s and early ‘80s, not to mention the fact that hyperinflation would be occurring today, if Government weren’t manipulating inflation rates at nearly 0% and interest rates at 0% in order to deal with the imminently-busting Currency/Treasuries Bubble, caused by the borrowing of $3 billion per day from US creditors and the printing of $40 billion per month, that will be leading us into the first depression of our lifetime in the near future.

If the Obama Administration had NOT bailed out the banks and instead adopted free market principles (similar to what Harding did in the early ’20s that in effect curtailed the Depression of 1920-1921), despite the fact there would’ve been extremely high unemployment rates in the beginning, the Housing Bubble Crisis would NOT have lasted this long, nor would we have the imminently-bursting Currency/Treasury Bubble to deal with. It’s better to have ONE crash and ONE recovery than TWO crashes and TWO recoveries. Keynesian economists/supporters will NEVER learn.

You may now post more charts, graphs, tables and red herring the FUCK out of reality. :lol:


You two REALLY need to study up, not to mention start quoting me properly. Here are the links again. Happy reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... ted_States


Keep tryin' and you'll keep failin'... :lol: :lol: :lol:
ONE NATION UNDER SOCIALISM

Image

Because of Obamination's spending & socialist BS, America and much of the world will endure one of the worst depressions in history in 5...4...3...2...
User avatar
Danzig in the Dark
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 21596
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by Danzig in the Dark »

There is no other way to quote you properly except by using your exact words.
ImageImage
User avatar
johnk5150
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 15711
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 8:45 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 246,000 jobs added to the private sector in Feb 2013

Post by johnk5150 »

KneelandBobDylan wrote:
Sheep_Mafia wrote: Wealthy people pay most of the taxes in the country.


Why shouldn't they, don't they make most of the money?
C'mon Bob. Tell me that's tongue in cheek.
He's like the Liberace of bass & pot.

$tevil
Post Reply