Moody's Predicts Democrat Landslide

[JakeStarkey]

two thumbs, the war ended, thus spending was cut.

You are not an idiot, and you should know better.

 

[Synthaholic]

Fox news is the only non democrat news on TV / Cable

You don't get NewsMaxTV? How about Bloomberg? How about CNBC?

 

[KissMy]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

 

[Roudy]

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

ANOTHER right wing talking point about to get demolished:


1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0



Harding/Coolidge handled the 1920's so well, they allowed the credit bubble to explode (like the 1870's, Ronnie's S&L And Dubya's subprime) Weird right Bubs?

New York Times? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Roudy]

Fox news is the only non democrat news on TV / Cable

You don't get NewsMaxTV? How about Bloomberg? How about CNBC?

Your satellite radio has Bloomberg or CNBC? I do get Bloomberg at home, but I never watch it, and they rarely report news.

 

[Dad2three]

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

ANOTHER right wing talking point about to get demolished:


1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0



Harding/Coolidge handled the 1920's so well, they allowed the credit bubble to explode (like the 1870's, Ronnie's S&L And Dubya's subprime) Weird right Bubs?

New York Times? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

So NO you can't refute FACTS nor use logic and reasoning. Thanks anyways Bubs

 

[Roudy]

is because Bush mishandled the aftermath of the Iraq war.

...and the economy.
...and Katrina.
...and covert CIA operatives.
...and Veterans Affairs.
...and the Taliban.
...and al Qaeda.
...and SCOTUS appointments.
...and Climate Change.
...and Blackwater.
...and...

Operation fast and furious.
Obama care
Acorn
Apology tour
Ben Ghazi.
Syria.
ISIS.
Collapse of Iraq.
IRS scandal.
Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea
Solyndra
Domestic Crime wave
Voter fraud
Riots protests and divisiveness
Demonization of law enforcement
800 billion stimulus fuckup
Record number out of work
Alienating America's allies
Arab Spring fuckup.
Keystone pipeline
Refusal to support the Iranian uprising in 2009

Shall we continue?

A bunch of made-up "scandals".

Sez you, of course.

 

[ScienceRocks]

two thumbs, the war ended, thus spending was cut.

You are not an idiot, and you should know better.

Our infrastructure funding is at its lowest since George hw bush. How much more do these people want cut??? Why not focus on getting welfare down pre-recession?

 

[Roudy]

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

ANOTHER right wing talking point about to get demolished:


1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0



Harding/Coolidge handled the 1920's so well, they allowed the credit bubble to explode (like the 1870's, Ronnie's S&L And Dubya's subprime) Weird right Bubs?

New York Times? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

So NO you can't refute FACTS nor use logic and reasoning. Thanks anyways Bubs

Two winners, an article produced by Krudman of the New York Times! Ha ha ha ha.

Speaking of Democrats having the media in their back pocket, you just proved my point. Thanks.

 

[rightwinger]

Above are some of the idiotic comments from those far right reactionary retard so-called Republicans who lost us the elections in 2008 and 2012.

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

Above are some of the idiotic comments from those far right reactionary retard so-called Republicans who lost us the elections in 2008 and 2012.

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

The Great Depression was caused by the lax economic policies started by Harding and Cooledge.
By the time FDR came in, the Depression had been raging for three years

Like Obama found out, you don't fix a Republucan economic crisis overnight

 

[Dad2three]

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

ANOTHER right wing talking point about to get demolished:


1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0



Harding/Coolidge handled the 1920's so well, they allowed the credit bubble to explode (like the 1870's, Ronnie's S&L And Dubya's subprime) Weird right Bubs?

New York Times? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

So NO you can't refute FACTS nor use logic and reasoning. Thanks anyways Bubs

Two winners, an article produced by Krudman of the New York Times! Ha ha ha ha.

Speaking of Democrats having the media in their back pocket, you just proved my point. Thanks.

 

[Roudy]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

Right, I bet you grabbed that bullshit tidbit from another liberal brainwash outlet. Ha ha ha:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

The Big Lie:

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

 

[Dad2three]

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

romney is as moderate as milktoast

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

The Great Depression was caused by the lax economic policies started by Harding and Cooledge.
By the time FDR came in, the Depression had been raging for three years

Like Obama found out, you don't fix a Republucan economic crisis overnight

Yep, second biggest hole since he first GOP great depression, though the CONservatives had a doozy in the 1870's too!

 

[sealybobo]

And these models are never wrong ...

Our Moody's Analytics election model now predicts a Democratic electoral landslide in the 2016 presidential vote. A small change in the forecast data in August has swung the outcome from the statistical tie predicted in July, to a razor-edge ballot outcome that nevertheless gives the incumbent party 326 electoral votes to the Republican challenger's 212.

Just three states account for the change in margin, with Ohio, Florida and Colorado swinging from leaning Republican to leaning Democrat. The margin of victory in each of these important swing states is still solidly within the margin of error though, and will likely swing back and forth in Moody's monthly updates ahead, underlining the closeness of the election to come. Furthermore, three of the candidates for the Republican nomination enjoy favorite-son status in Ohio or Florida, potentially making the outcome of those important states even more unpredictable.
​

Democrats to Win in a Landslide in 2016, According to Moody's Election Model

Even when the gop finally pick jeb rubio Cruz jindal Walker kasich or christie that persons policies aren't popular. Just look how carson trump and fiorino are killing.

Gay marriage taxes on the rich sending jobs overseas middle class guns iran global warming. America does not like the GOP. They only win midterms cause people don't vote midterms.

 

[sealybobo]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

Right, I bet you grabbed that bullshit tidbit from another liberal brainwash outlet. Ha ha ha:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

The Big Lie:

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

We told you about real unemployment when bush was president. You guys said if you weren't working you were responsible for you. Now the economy is getting better so now that's actually more true than ever.

Another reason you're wrong, and there are many, is companies aren't hiring the unemployed. So don't blame Obama, blame corporations. I know you can't blame what you worship.

 

[Roudy]

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

ANOTHER right wing talking point about to get demolished:


1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0



Harding/Coolidge handled the 1920's so well, they allowed the credit bubble to explode (like the 1870's, Ronnie's S&L And Dubya's subprime) Weird right Bubs?

New York Times? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

So NO you can't refute FACTS nor use logic and reasoning. Thanks anyways Bubs

Two winners, an article produced by Krudman of the New York Times! Ha ha ha ha.

Speaking of Democrats having the media in their back pocket, you just proved my point. Thanks.

New York Times!

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

What's wrong with a reasonable moderate? Maybe cutting the shit out of everything isn't the right path to take....Ever thought of that!

I look at historical results.

History says you are wrong and leftist are wrong.

considering that leftist preach about education, they must know this. So why do you support ideas that you know will make our economy worse and lie to people about it?

Get off hate talk radio and grow a fukkn brain dummy!

Harding (R) had to deal with a depression, he cut Fed taxes and spending in 1/2, the depression ended in 18 month and lead to the Roaring 20's.
fdr (D) had to deal with a depression, he upped Fed spending and increased taxes, the depression turned into the Great Depression and lasted 10 years, there was no economic boom.



you can look up all this yourself, and then you can explain why you still support fdr-obamas bad ideas.

The Great Depression was caused by the lax economic policies started by Harding and Cooledge.
By the time FDR came in, the Depression had been raging for three years

Like Obama found out, you don't fix a Republucan economic crisis overnight

Yep, second biggest hole since he first GOP great depression, though the CONservatives had a doozy in the 1870's too!

And they want to deregulate and trim government to the bone so it can happen again! Sick people.

 

[Roudy]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

Right, I bet you grabbed that bullshit tidbit from another liberal brainwash outlet. Ha ha ha:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

The Big Lie:

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

We told you about real unemployment when bush was president. You guys said if you weren't working you were responsible for you. Now the economy is getting better so now that's actually more true than ever.

Another reason you're wrong, and there are many, is companies aren't hiring the unemployed. So don't blame Obama, blame corporations. I know you can't blame what you worship.

Would someone please translate this liberal gibberish?

 

[Dad2three]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

Right, I bet you grabbed that bullshit tidbit from another liberal brainwash outlet. Ha ha ha:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

The Big Lie:

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force.

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force


The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs
A falsifiable claim, falsified


Feb 7, 2014


The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.


Okay, but one year is just one year! Let's keep looking.

The second thing we should expect to see from Part-Time America is a growing number of part-time jobs since Obama came into office and started passing laws. Here's a graph showing the number of people working part-time for economic reasons since March 2010, the month Obamacare was passed.

Huh, nothing there. In fact, the number part-time workers has fallen in the last four years.

Okay, well, raw numbers can be deceiving. After all, the labor force has declined since 2010. So let's graph these part-time workers as a share of the labor force. Surely that will show a rising line...



... dang it.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Three years of data just isn't much context. So let's draw back the lens and look at part-time workers as a share of the labor force since, say, 1980...




... and then compare it to the unemployment rate (in RED) since 1980.


Okay, now here's something: Part-time work, as a share of the economy, is historically high. But these graphs don't make the point that Obama, or long-term global economic trends, are driving the rise in non-voluntary part-time work. Instead, the rise of part-time work seem to be 100 percent the creation of economic downturns. That's why it seems to be holding hands with unemployment, riding the roller coaster up during recessions, and down during recoveries.

But what about part-time employment for non-economic reasons? The story here is short and sweet: There is no story here. The share of Americans working part-time for personal reasons—they're in school; they're raising kids; they're ill—is flat and trending down, according to the San Francisco Fed.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs



lol


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Today's Federal Reserve Beige Book: The overall Labor supply continues to be "very tight", with contacts noting shortages of workers. Pay rates have grown by 3 percent to 20 percent, with the sharper increases reflecting a greater supply-demand gap.

The US Economy is kicking ass & Obama could win a third term.

Right, I bet you grabbed that bullshit tidbit from another liberal brainwash outlet. Ha ha ha:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

The Big Lie:

Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.

I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

We told you about real unemployment when bush was president. You guys said if you weren't working you were responsible for you. Now the economy is getting better so now that's actually more true than ever.

Another reason you're wrong, and there are many, is companies aren't hiring the unemployed. So don't blame Obama, blame corporations. I know you can't blame what you worship.

Corporations are greedy and they have been able to form into giant corporations that don't have much competition because the government doesn't break them up. These giant corporations then outsource jobs to asia to make billions of dollars and yet the gop kisses their ass.