Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, November 06, 2009

The unemployment rate spiked to 10.2 percent, its highest level since 1983 and a total much worse than expected. Employers continue to trim jobs despite other signs of growth.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mysterytoy

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Raising taxes to pay for the healthcare bill should help that... Wow, I have always thought that Pelosi and crew were out of touch, but now we have proof.

Yes. Definitely raise taxes to lower unemployment.

Maybe another stimulus bill will help. Let's replace the bridges this time. More and better infrastructure will stimulate the economy.

And just to think yesterday, they were breaking bottles of champagne to celebrate the Dow 10,000. How long will the fools allow themselves to be fooled?

There is no greater threat to an economic recovery than government itself. But I sorry to say that the damage is too severe to avoid the inevitable consequences of runaway debt spending.

I imagine we will have the healthiest bunch of unemployed citizens of any country.

All is well. It's just a lagging indicator.

--The Loony Left

The problem Obama is having with unemployment numbers is you can't fake them like the number of jobs saved.

This will be a wark in the park once health care and crap and trade are put in place, those are definite job killers.

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Sincerely

Corly.

Sincerely

Corky

Don't worry. He can't spell it right, either.

Ronald Reagan had unemployment his 1st year at 7.6 it got as high as 9.6, but when he left office it was at 5.3. How did he do it, he cut non defense spending by 15%, lowered taxes, and eliminated may federal regulations.

Obama is going in the opposite direction.

We will see what works.

There are some very good analysts who have the financial skills to see through the smoke and mirrors. Karl Denninger gives us the long term view of what is really going on in the job market. This is not for children like Corky.
market-ticker.org

Ronald Reagan had unemployment his 1st year at 7.6 it got as high as 9.6, but when he left office it was at 5.3. How did he do it, he cut non defense spending by 15%, lowered taxes, and eliminated may federal regulations.

Obama is going in the opposite direction.

We will see what works.

#12 | Posted by 90c2cab

Ronald Reagan had unemployment his 1st year at 7.6 it got as high as 9.6, but when he left office it was at 5.3. How did he do it, he cut non defense spending by 15% (FORCING MORE AND MORE PEOPLE INTO POVERTY AND EXPANDING THE GAP IN WEALTH), lowered taxes (AND BORROWING), and eliminated may federal regulations (WHICH HAS LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD, SPECULATION AND THE BANKING AND MORTGAGE FIASCO OF RECENT YEARS).

FTFY

-This is not for children like Corky.

Ha! Who hasn't even posted on this thread.

So, I take it that as the economy comes back... oh wait, Raystradamus prophesies it will never come back!.... but let's say somehow, miraculously, the economy does come back, ever, then the hiring will start again.

Unless you are a perpetual pessimist pussy, or just one of these wingnuts who would prefer jobs not come back so as to discredit the Pres because he isn't a walleyed wacko like yerself.

#14 | Posted by truthhurts

Ronald Reagan had unemployment his 1st year at 7.6 it got as high as 9.6, but when he left office it was at 5.3. How did he do it, he cut non defense spending by 15% (FORCING MORE AND MORE PEOPLE INTO POVERTY AND EXPANDING THE GAP IN WEALTH), lowered taxes (AND BORROWING), and eliminated may federal regulations (WHICH HAS LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD, SPECULATION AND THE BANKING AND MORTGAGE FIASCO OF RECENT YEARS).
-------------------------
You can knock it all you want he lowered the unemployment rate.

Also for your information the SEC couldn't find fraud in Somalia, they were asleep at the wheel, so bringing back more regulations would have not prevented anything when your regulatory agency was hiding under a desk.

It was not deregulaton it was a Fed that was in bed with the banks and Wall Street, that played a huge role is this current downturn.

Hooray!

-The Right

1983... 1983... now who was president in 1983?

"who was president in 1983?"

The guy helped destroy the Liberal Paradise on Earth, the Soviet Union, and you guys still hate him for doing it. No wonder Obama is going to Germany to celebrate the Berlin Wall coming down, for Liberals, that was a bad thing.

is not going

Without the stimulus O said 8%.

With the "stimulus" now at 10.2%.

Just as he planned. He does not want to lower it. He wants to control us all and this is but a piece in the puzzle.

Stop him.....now.

The United Welfare States of America.

Jobs? Who needs them?

I'm employed. If you aren't that's your problem. Go out and get a job and stop expecting the government to just give you one.

What are you? A Socialist?

Wow! I've seen righties accuse "libs" of having more time to sit on the net all day and post to this site because they're not working. Then I look at a thread like this, where a lib didn't even post until #14 and only 3 out of the first 21 posts are from anyone that could be considered a "lib".

When do the cons work?

#15 | POSTED BY CORKY

It looks like when I said that the link I posted is not for children like Corky, he didn't look.

Too scary for you? Right, Corky?

Yea, bunker mentality kooks who embrace every fringe theory they can find no matter the subject are a bit scary.

But isn't it a jobless recovery? You don't need workers in a jobless recovery. We'll simply raise the taxes on those still working to cover those who can't. And when those workers loose their jobs then we'll raise the taxes on the rest to cover the newly unemployed. And when those workers loose their jobs, we'll raise the taxes on the remaining once again. We should be able to do that until there's another Republican president to blame, then Obama will never have been responsible.

Good thing the DOW is over 10,000 again, the 16 million people looking for work will be ecstatic about the recovery. 16 million....isn't that about the number of illegal aliens here doing jobs Americans don't want?

"But isn't it a jobless recovery? You don't need workers in a jobless recovery."

Well, you don't need American workers. What do you expect to happen when you outsource all the manufacturing jobs and now white collar jobs as well???
Meanwhile people like Carly Fiorina have the audacity to run for the Senate. Any working class person who would even consider voting for her needs to have their head examined.

Like Biden said, "We have not begun to experience the full effects of the stimulus."

God help us.....

"16 million....isn't that about the number of illegal aliens here doing jobs Americans don't want?"

But George Bush told us they were only coming here to do jobs Americans won't do. John McCain said we wouldn't do the jobs they do even for $50 per hour. The US Chamber of Commerce actively lobbied Congress and INS to not enforce the immigration laws, notice how few employers have faced prosecutions????

Well, you wanted change. There is no doubt now that you have it. By the end of his single term, your boy will have wrecked our nation and I am guessing an unemployment rate of 20%. That is something you can believe in!

At least Obama has made honest people out of the dems. It is now truly the "worst economy in 20 years". Wonder if they will campaign on that slogan in 2010? To his credit...he is making great strides toward assuring that W is the best president of the 21st century...by comparison so far, that statement is certainly true!

20% huh? Thanks for the info. Saved for later.

You WILL see that post of yours again, and you're going to look very, very stupid when you do.

And we are all going to point and laugh.

Just ask Ray and his Market Predictions......

Yea, bunker mentality kooks who embrace every fringe theory they can find no matter the subject are a bit scary.
#26 | POSTED BY CORKY

I'm doing fine. Thank you. It's axiomatic in investing that the crowd never sees turns in the market. Making money in this environment is for men with the balls to be in the minority. This is not for children who scare easy.

and just moments ago

FANNIE mae asked for another 15 billion.

cap and tax
health care boondoggle

would any small business owner in his right mind even think about hiring people?

let me beat them to it

end of great depression unemployment was at 14%..

oops..is that right...yeah..at the outbreak of ww2.

obama can only hope thats his top number.

Just ask Ray and his Market Predictions......
#32 | POSTED BY MANYPATHS

Gold and silver doing fine, outperforming the dollar, stocks, bonds and real estate. Thank you. Let the losers bitch and moan about me and my predictions.

end of great depression unemployment was at 14%..

So the depression ended even though unemployment was at 14%?

Many,

Hey, I hope I am wrong. But given the nine months, your boy has almost doubled unemployment and we have only just begun...and Biden tells us that we are just now seeing the beginning of the effects of the stimulus....WOW.

To help out, the dems want to raise taxes on producers, raise taxes on industry and the private sector through "cap and trade", and tax businesses based upon whether they provide insurance to their employees....sounds like a recipe for growth to me. Just like that other nation that taxed itself into prosperity...I am trying to think of the name...do you remember?

#32 | Posted by Manypaths
Not sure if this report has any merrit, but according to it, we are only .8% away from the real unemployment rate of 20. Not the padded (or whatever the term is for under padding is) number the govt puts out.

www.thewashingtonnote.com

If you want to be afraid of the unkown you are free to do so.

I'll continue to assume everything is going to work out just fine and not cry about every little thing like the TeaBaggers are doing.

I am happy. I have a great job, wonderful home and family. About to purchase a second home and money is real good right now. (my industry feels these swings about 6 months before others)

I have strong faith in America and its economy.

I don't know what you're bitching about. Must be a personal thing.

We know President Obama and the Congress controlled by the Democrats have created at least 2 new jobs for sure, one for Robert F. McDonnell, and Chris Christie both newly elected govenors.

So the Democrats ecnomic policies are working, just like the Republicans planed it.

GoBama....he's Number One and he's getting deeper in Number Two!

#39 | Posted by freechoice

You're moving the goal posts and trying to compare apples to oranges.

I work in the employment arena. I know what the fuck I am talking about. What do you do for a living?

I am happy. I have a great job, wonderful home and family. About to purchase a second home and money is real good right now. (my industry feels these swings about 6 months before others)

I have strong faith in America and its economy.

I don't know what you're bitching about. Must be a personal thing.

#40 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-06 02:29 PM

Did you not have the same blessings when Bush was pres? Because you sure bitched when he was pres.

About the economy? got a link or 2?

#43 | Posted by Manypaths
Did you not read, that I don't know if it has any merrit. Damn do you have sand in your underwear or somthing. I threw it out for discussion, and freely admited I did not know. If you have something better to reply with than what a 10 year would, then please do so.

Ronald Reagan had unemployment his 1st year at 7.6 it got as high as 9.6, but when he left office it was at 5.3. How did he do it, he cut non defense spending by 15%, lowered taxes, and eliminated may federal regulations

The rate actually climbed to 10.8% as Bug Out Ronnie was tripling the debt.

1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

data.bls.gov

Guess I did miss that first part.

No, there isn't much merit.

Am I to assume some of you guys feel it is the Governments responsibility to provide you with a job or are you just bitching to bitch without having a leg to stand on?

You know what they call societies where the Government gives you jobs right? Socialist Societies.

You guys seem to want to be Socialist whenever it suits your angst.

What's up with that?

#48 | Posted by Manypaths
Nope, I have a great job, and not bitching from my standpoint. I do think Obama is going in the wrong direction, and it is hurting the economy as a whole on the long term, but that is my opinion. I just wanted to know more about this effective unemployment numbers, and if they were true or not.

ManyPaths, it's great that you have a wonderful job and a great family, and because you, yourself, are doing great, that no one else should be bothered by the trillion and a half deficit, $30 trillion in debt, 10.2 percent unemployment, etc. As long as you're doing good, the entire country must be doing good. Herein lies the problem with libs like you. You can't see beyond your own nose. Me, me, me, me,... Guess what, bozo, the rest of the country isn't doing so hot. In reality I believe you probably realize this. But your blind political ideology simply keeps you from admitting that the Obama administration has made a crap-bag of things.

BTW, the Great Depression didn't officially end until the 40s, after WWII. I guess we can credit Hitler, Musilinni, and Emperor Hirohito.

I guess we can credit Hitler, Musilinni, and Emperor Hirohito

No, I credit the repeal of the alcohol amendment. Nothing else stimulated the economy, or the people, like that.

About the economy? got a link or 2?

#45 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-06 02:33 PM

Do I need a link that says a bear shits in the woods?

#36---- "gold and silver doing fine"--- you folks beating up on ray better be careful; he'll wave that gold/silver banner in front of your face for the next few years. When this horrendous cycle is over, gold will be a minimum of $2000/ounce--- that's right, a minimum.

#50--- "the great depression didn't officially end until the 40s." ---- if memory serves me right the stock market didn't hit a new high until 1954.

" if memory serves "

www.bullinvestors.com

#47 | Posted by reinheitsgebot
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

------------------------------

Here is link to the average unemployment rate per year, and they don't match your numbers.

www.bls.gov

#55---- Thanks, Zat, for that site--- I guess my memory hasn't left me yet-- my wife is amazed (not negatively) about my memory and often remarks about it--- I guess it frustrates her. The only thing that got me through all those yesrs of school was my memory.

#56 | Posted by 90c2cab

Do you know how to find the average of a set of numbers?

Real Unemployment Hits 17.5%, Up From 17% In September.

www.zerohedge.com

Here is link to the average unemployment rate per year, and they don't match your numbers.

The BLS stats from 1982 clearly show the unemployment rate was 10.8% in November and December.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8

data.bls.gov

If not, I will explain it to you.

It's not that hard.

1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8

For instance, the AVERAGE of these numbers, is right around 9.7 in 1982.

What does your link say again?

"I guess we can credit Hitler, Musilinni, and Emperor Hirohito."

Anyone except FDR who led us to victory over both the Depression and WWII. Sad when you'd rather give credit to our enemies than to one of our greatest presidents.

and they don't match your numbers.

They match them exactly.

#47 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

Ronnie was tripling the debt.
-------------------
If I go from 1 dollar of debt to 3 dollars of debt I just trippled the debt or increased it by 300%.

If I go from 100 dollars in debt to 150 dollars in debt I just increased the debt by 50%.

I'll take trippling the debt.

You should really avoid the use of numbers for a little bit........

It's just a number. That's all. As long as it's not you, the party goes on.

The economy continued to worsen in the first half of Reagan's first term. He went on to win re-election, but the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1982. Wonder what will happen next year.

RisR,

Did someone steal your login info? That post of yours makes sense.

I was wondering if someone stole yours, after posting that everything's great with you, even though the economy's going to hell. You know--something a cold-hearted righty-tighty would say.

If I go from 1 dollar of debt to 3 dollars of debt I just trippled the debt or increased it by 300%.

If I go from 100 dollars in debt to 150 dollars in debt I just increased the debt by 50%.

I'll take trippling the debt.

#65 | Posted by 90c2cab
* * * *

Tripling the debt increases it by 200%, not 300%.

Barack Hussain Obama & his wonderful jobs/stimulus/fuck America in the ass policies..

MMMMM... MMMMM... MMMM...

Can't wait to get Danni's take on this. I haven't had to correct anyone in a couple hours now.

end of great depression unemployment was at 14%..

So the depression ended even though unemployment was at 14%?

#37 | Posted by Manypaths at

okay so the word 'end' may need a little stretching.
but YOU know what I meant.

Tripling the debt increases it by 200%, not 300%.

#70 | Posted by rightisright at 2009

doesnt one FACT of obama economics come into play

what does the FALLING of the value of the dollar do to change this IF at all...

seems like it has to make it even worse, doesnt it or does it?

"seems like it has to make it even worse, doesnt it or does it?"

That will make foreign goods more expensive here and our exports cheaper overseas. It could actually increase our exports which would increase employment.

Here is a graph to give the full impact:

www.moonbattery.com

No, a weakening dollar makes it easier to repay debts. That's why debtors prefer periods of high inflation--their earnings go up, as do the value of their assets, but their debts can be repaid in cheaper dollars.

Worry not, though. Obama et al would love a weak dollar, but they're not going to get it. Deflation is already here in almost every single asset class, and the last bubbles will be popping soon enough.

FDR = one of our greatest presidents? That myth has been debunked long ago. The New Deal and associated programs greatly increased the size and duration of the Depression. Now I'm not one of the ideologues saying he was evil, he just didn't know any better. But we know better now. A government cannot spend its way out of a recession. Our dollar is soon to be the same as a mark during the Weimar government of Germany in the 1920s. In order to pay back WWI debts and fines, Germany simply printed more money. Bad idea.

No, a weakening dollar makes it easier to repay debts.
I don't disagree but it also effects trade exactly how I said it does. It is partially how China manages to keep their goods so cheap here in the US as they slowly undercut our labor and destroy our industries. I don't know why I said "slowly" there is nothing slow about it.

"FDR = one of our greatest presidents? That myth has been debunked long ago."

Only in right wing history rewrite world.

Worry not, though. Obama et al would love a weak dollar, but they're not going to get it. Deflation is already here in almost every single asset class, and the last bubbles will be popping soon enough.
#76 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

The wildcard is the degree to which foreigners exit from the dollar. Then we get asset deflation AND commodity inflation.

Normally deflation increases the value of a currency. But not when the rest of the world is flooded with dollars and treasuries.

Only in right wing history rewrite world.
#79 | POSTED BY DANNI

Actually the myth of Roosevelt rescuing capitalism was written by the left. Obama is getting the same results only on a grander scale.

Like I keep saying, to try and borrow your way of a problem caused by too much borrowing is insane.

It is still in the interest of China to sell us goods and they hold considerable amount of our debt. They don't want to see a collapse of the dollar, it would end their growth and prosperity.

"Actually the myth of Roosevelt rescuing capitalism was written by the left. Obama is getting the same results only on a grander scale."

Tell that to Germany and Japan. Tell that to the British and French. WE paid for WWII on credit yet emerged richer than when we entered the war.
What we also did though was tax the wealthy and induced them to invest in factories, etc. or give up their income in high taxes. We can do the same thing right now, we don't have to be only borrowing our way back to prosperity, we can also tax our way back just like we've done in the past. If we don't eventually the economy will collapse so those so worried about socialism will have much more to worry about then than with a period of high taxes.

Shovel-ready jobs, hah! Makes you wonder where all those holes are.
They rushed the spending on this country without giving us time for the dust to settle. I believe Obama and Co. tried TOO hard. Then again, I also believe our economic system was jolted by both 9-11 and various hurricanes.

I can't recall in my short life where an administration promised so much - but delivered so little (when it comes to jobs). If Obama was like, "Well, we might hit 10-12%,..." then yeah - we the people, might have a bit more trust. But he capped it at 8% in the event they passed his Stimulus. Don't give me that, "We didn't expect Bush's detriment would be so large." Who do they have working the numbers, Six Flags? The rookie politician forgot to hire economically sound advisors.

He's a wedge president intent on splitting our country ideologically imho. But don't take my word for it. Just have a listen to one of Rev. Wright's sermons.

Danni - In all seriousness, you can't distinguish what you imagine from reality. No nation has ever taxed or borrowed its way to prosperity. Inexorably, it leads to national poverty as it is doing now.

Tell that to Germany and Japan. Tell that to the British and French. WE paid for WWII on credit yet emerged richer than when we entered the war.'

I would try to explain to you why that is, but you can't get even get past your fixation on taxes and debt.

Meanwhile his opponent had been claiming "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Meanwhile Bush and Paulson warned us we might fall into a deep depression.
You call him a rookie but he has helped us avoid the depression that Bush and Paulson warned us about.
I think he's doing pretty damn good.

I would try to explain to you why that is, but you can't get even get past your fixation on taxes and debt.

LOL! You couldn't begin to even explain it.

Danni is at the target but misses the means as to why we were successful.

We got out of debt Danni yes because we raised taxes, but you forget that we had the infrastructure of our manufacturing and began the population boom in which to collect those taxes.

People like ray don't grasp the idea that higher wages means higher revenue, that just doesn't make sense to them.

The wildcard is the degree to which foreigners exit from the dollar. Then we get asset deflation AND commodity inflation.
* * * *

Theoretically possible, but it would be the first time in history such a thing happened, anywhere.

Ok, that's it "RisR".

WHAT DID YOU DO WITH HIM?

I think McCain would have instilled the confidence Americans need to get through this.

On the other hand, Obama has been plastered all over the news, media, and art and I'm annoyed by the overexposure.

The cabinet is a joke; he should scrap those leftists and put in some moderates that know how Washington works. Independent people would notice his revamped centered approach, much like they did during CAMPAIGN '08.

People like ray don't grasp the idea that higher wages means higher revenue, that just doesn't make sense to them.
#87 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

People like Moneywar don't understand that higher wages come from the surplus of production that expands wealth. By his logic we could double everybody's wages and declare them wealthier. But everything else would double in price too. Money is not wealth. It is a unit of trade and value.

Roosevelt and the unions tried to keep wages up. But it only increased unemployment and exacerbated the depression. Unions have been putting themselves out of business because they refuse to lower their wages when their employers are losing money.

They wanted a Community Activist in the WH and they got their wish. The dems are going to tax this country into prosperity whether you like it or not. I think Barack needs to whip out the visa again and buy us even more prosperity. Another Cash-for-Clunkers debacle which economist pegged at a real cost at $124,000 per car over the sales that would have taken place anyhow would be nice. Just wait until "free healthcare" and "Immigration reform" kicks in.

Sorry libs, you're boy in the WH is making even "dubya" look good and he's only just getting started.

"Meanwhile his opponent had been claiming "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Funny, isn't Biden out there claiming the exact same thing?

"I think he's doing pretty damn good."

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

#82----The Chinese in their 5 year plan are attempting to move their populace to greater spending (consumption) and less savings-- not to depend on exports as much. Also, the Chinese have backed off from buying as much of our treasury bonds as they have in the past-- that means the fed is going to have to monetize the debt even more--- Danni, good for you, you've been learning some economics recently --- there is hope for you.

Yea, bunker mentality kooks who embrace every fringe theory they can find no matter the subject are a bit scary.
#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-06 01:44 PM

Televangelistic Glenn Beck, Jim Kramer, Pat Robertson, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Vic Kevlar are provocateur programming familiar to all tv, internet and radio media. These highest paid, most frequently observed people are for many reasons the most likely to evoke public responses. We are perpetually connived-at by these cultists and I do not abide being told which topics are "sacrosanct".

#82----The Chinese in their 5 year plan are attempting to move their populace to greater spending (consumption) and less savings-- not to depend on exports as much. Also, the Chinese have backed off from buying as much of our treasury bonds as they have in the past-- that means the fed is going to have to monetize the debt even more--- Danni, good for you, you've been learning some economics recently --- there is hope for you.
#94 | Posted by matsop at 2009-11-06 07:13 PM

By "monotize" you mean "spreading toxic assets"? Isn't that why EU banks are gifted US taxpayer money in the US "too big to failout" planning? Would these debts instead of gold be used to back a new monetary model?

The wildcard is the degree to which foreigners exit from the dollar. Then we get asset deflation AND commodity inflation.
* * * *
Theoretically possible, but it would be the first time in history such a thing happened, anywhere.
#88 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

At no other time in history did the entire world economy use the debt based fiat currency of one nation as a reserve standard. Foreigners are already laying the groundwork for their exit.

#96---- intereting statement-- the fed doesn't want it known that they're sopping up these bonds when external forces are cutting back from these purchases due to their lack of confidence in our dollar--- the primary bond dealers purchase them and then the feds come in about 2 days later with swaps (?mortgage bonds). I've seen it disussed that ultimately the debts would be used to back a new monetary model but I wonder who the heck would have confidence in any paper backing those debts if the dollar (paper) would have no confidence any longer. Also, it's interesting that banks for the first time are buying gold in large amounts (e.q. India's purchase of IMF gold)>

High unemployment: bad for the people, good for the stockmarket (for the time being.)

True, but it would still be a stretch for real asset prices to fall, while commodities rise. If you're arguing for a collapse of the dollar, then real estate, automobiles and equipment, even labor--must go up in price. And that's simply not what's happening in the economy.

The battle right now is between inflation/deflation-- the fed desperately wants inflation -- the only way for that to happen is to continue to depress interst rates and have an orderly decline in the dollar-- the only way out of our predicament is to "inflate or die".

When do the cons work?

#24 | Posted by Whatsleft

they don't .. most are retired assholes waiting for the grim reaper.

"Unemployment Hits 26-Year High"

So that means Obama = Reagan?

True, but it would still be a stretch for real asset prices to fall, while commodities rise. If you're arguing for a collapse of the dollar, then real estate, automobiles and equipment, even labor--must go up in price. And that's simply not what's happening in the economy.
#100 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

The money supply is not the only factor that affects prices. Human psychology affects perceived value. It is for those reasons why we will have both debt collapse AND dollar collapse. The trend is inexorable, but it can't be timed or quantified beyond the observation that this county and the world economy is in the final years of a hundred year inflation cycle.

Remember, fiat currencies have no tangible value. They are dependent on a common trust that they can be exchanged for real goods. Even with common trust, they are a poor store of value - a dollar today will not buy what a dollar could buy ten years ago. Inflation has had the long term effect of discouraging savings and encouraging debt. That's why we live in a debt based economy ~ $60 Trillion. Debt collapse explains the deflationary side.

The last stage in an inflationary cycle is when a contagion takes hold, when common trust disintegrates and there is a mass exodus to exchange dollars for real goods. This is what happened to the Weimer Republic. Germans who lived through it say the hyperinflation came suddenly without warning. With the debt this country is carrying, I don't think it will take much inflation to wipe out the dollar. The more Obama and maybe his successor try to bail out the economy by monetizing debt, the sooner foreigners will refuse to accept dollars for real goods. That explains the inflation side.

In sum, deflation has domestic roots; inflation has international roots. Real wages will continue to deteriorate like they have for the past forty years. There is no chance of a recovery until the debt is extinguished, the dollar is tied to real assets and Americans become net savers - when savings exceed debt.

#103 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Guess you missed the history books also.

Reagan's unemployment numbers were DIRECTLY related to the wonderful peanut man himself, Jimmy Carter.

Reagan had to fix Carter's blunders, just like the next prez, R or D, will have to fix this Obamanation.

Guess you missed the history books also.
Reagan's unemployment numbers were DIRECTLY related to the wonderful peanut man himself, Jimmy Carter.
Reagan had to fix Carter's blunders, just like the next prez, R or D, will have to fix this Obamanation.
#105 | Posted by seedeez2

Thank goodness George W. Bush and his party of fiscal responsibility had nothing to do with the current economic mess. Otherwise you'd sound like a poorly-informed, soma-imbibing,lobotomized, lockstepping hack.

and there is that old doc satire....

history huh???

well here is a great article written by a great writer..NO NO>>>Its not by me.....hee hee

the MYTH DISPELLED

www.washingtonpost.com

Watching something the other night (forget what), but the emassador from Poland was on. He said that thier economy was the only economy to grow is the last year. What they did was to not bail out any banks, lower the tax rate and place a flat tax on small business owners.

Just the opposite of what the Dems are doing.

When discussing the elections last year, I said that I hoped that the Dems won Congress and the White House, because then we would know who to blame when things went to hell.

Looks like in 2010 we will know who to blame.

Obama is nothing but a fucking piece of shit

So, let me get this straight, Seedeez2:

Reagan must be held utterly blameless for the horrendous economic situation in this country after he'd been in office more than two years because that was the fault of his predecessor, Carter. Right?

But Obama's to be held fully accountable for the horrendous economic situation in this country after he's been in office ten months and his predecesor, Bush and his enablers (the GOP), get a pass? Riiight.

When discussing the elections last year, I said that I hoped that the Dems won Congress and the White House, because then we would know who to blame when things went to hell.
#108 | Posted by sawdust

Obama was not POTUS when things went to hell. You can try to obscure the facts, you may even forget them, but you cannot destroy them.

So, let me get this straight, Seedeez2:

Reagan must be held utterly blameless for the horrendous economic situation in this country after he'd been in office more than two years because that was the fault of his predecessor, Carter. Right?

But Obama's to be held fully accountable for the horrendous economic situation in this country after he's been in office ten months and his predecesor, Bush and his enablers (the GOP), get a pass? Riiight.

#110 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

YUP!
Doc, it took ya long enough, but you're finally beginning to understand - - -

Obama has been in office since '06 in the majority party . .

his job? -

a) to approve oversee all federal spending - -

b) to oversee the Pentagon

b) to oversee federal regulations concerning banks, housing etc

the executive branch has little power to promote THEIR OWN agenda when OPPOSED by the legislative majority in Congress & Senate - -

soo, since '06 - - it WAS Bush at the helm steering the boat, but Pelosi, Reid, & Obama were setting the COURSE
(naturally, w/Barwny Frank manning the poop deck)
{no pun intended}

Riiiight, Markh. Read Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution and get back to me.

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,"

I am pleases that ya know what the Constitution is . . .
what part of Sec 8 did ya need help understanding Doc?

we can look at Sec 9 too . . the mundane shit like . . . printing money, funding wars & regulating Wall Street

market-ticker.org -- #13 | Posted by Ray

Thanks for posting this, Ray. I get really irritated with the 10% unemployment con, and was looking for this figure, ACTUAL unemployment, including both people actively looking for work and people who have given up:

But U-6 is 17.5%, rising dramatically from 17.0% previously (both "seasonally adjusted.")
I understand why the right wants to convince people unemployment is only 10% (only 10% !), but do not understand why the left continues to repeat the bogus number.

oops, make that Sec 7 & then to 8 -

my typing skills failed me

I understand why the right wants to convince people unemployment is only 10% (only 10% !), but do not understand why the left continues to repeat the bogus number.

The left doesn't. Let's change it. Problem is, which political party is going to change it under its watch and be subjected to the inevitable demagoguery by the opposition?

The left doesn't.

Lol. Good point. I must need more coffee if I'm confusing the Democratic Party with the left.

BTW, what are you doing up so early?

Let's change it. Problem is, which political party is going to change it under its watch and be subjected to the inevitable demagoguery by the opposition? -- #117 | Posted by nullifidian

What is there to change? Both numbers are calculated and reported by the BLS. Dems ought to be whipping up populist anger to use as leverage. Unemployment isn't a secret when nearly 1 in 5 is hit. The worst talking about it can do is give the public the impression that someone is paying attention and gives a damn.

If the Dems started saying the unemployment rate was 17% rather than 10%, i.e., started using the more inclusive BLS number, the Republicans would instantly say they increased the unemployment rate by that amount and there would be a lot of morons in this country who would believe it.

...Republicans would instantly say they increased the unemployment rate by that amount... -- #119 | Posted by nullifidian

Regardless of the number used, unemployment has risen under the Obama administration, and he is already being (unfairly) blamed. A lot of people placed hope in him and WANT him to be the person they thought he was. Would be nice if the brilliant orator could get his head out of the arugula and muster enough passion for the real casualties of the banking crisis to become the leader he could be if he cared.

Problem is, which political party is going to change it under its watch and be subjected to the inevitable demagoguery by the opposition?
Posted by nullifidian

If the Dems started saying the unemployment rate was 17% rather than 10%, i.e., started using the more inclusive BLS number, the Republicans would instantly say they increased the unemployment rate by that amount and there would be a lot of morons in this country who would believe it.
#119 | Posted by nullifidian

Incumbency uber alles.

Incumbency uber alles. -- #121 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Well said.

Funny thing, though -- pretending that many of the unemployed don't exist didn't get them to the polls last week.

Funny thing, though -- pretending that many of the unemployed don't exist didn't get them to the polls last week.
#122 | Posted by Phoenix

Let's make voting mandatory. But wait, we'd have to depend on the duopoly to pass laws that would make that happen. They have no interest in full civic participation.

Regardless of the number used, unemployment has risen under the Obama administration, and he is already being (unfairly) blamed.
#120 | Posted by Phoenix
unfairly?? how so??

Let's make voting mandatory. But wait, we'd have to depend on the duopoly to pass laws that would make that happen. They have no interest in full civic participation.
#123 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
just wondering why ya would want full participation??

don't some have the "right" as citizens NOT to participate?

don't some have the "right" as citizens NOT to participate?
#124 | Posted by markh

I'd argue no, for precisely the reason I stated above.

Happy with the status quo, are we, Mark?

Happy with the status quo, are we, Mark?

#125 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

hmm, the "former" status quo was arguably a hell-of-alot better than the current "hope & change"

"hmm, the "former" status quo was arguably a hell-of-alot better "

I'd argue that!

Regardless of the number used, unemployment has risen under the Obama administration, and he is already being (unfairly) blamed. -- #120 | Posted by Phoenix

unfairly?? how so?? -- #124 | Posted by markh

The banking crisis is the Bush Administration's baby.

But I'll grant you that placing a higher priority on rescuing failed banks than on minimizing the pain to ordinary Americans has been a questionable choice.

The banking crisis is the Bush Administration's baby.

But I'll grant you that placing a higher priority on rescuing failed banks than on minimizing the pain to ordinary Americans has been a questionable choice.

#128 | Posted by Phoenix

back to unemployment - - -

Obama proclaims his NEW energy policy will "bankrupt" many energy suppliers

a) Cap & Trade = more taxes on business; higher cost to Americans

b) Healthcare = more taxes on business; unknown effect on Americans

c) banks NOT lending

d) Americans NOT spending

e) yet printing money 24/7

I'm pretty sure all of the above are incentives NOT TO HIRE

Gee, unemployment as bad as under Saint Reagan but without the 20% interest rates.

Of course, Obama didn't inherit any economic problems 10 months ago, but Reagan's problems were all Carter's fault, even three years later, right?

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable