US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

Nothing wrong with not knowing things.

Problem is when you are (yes you Oldstyle) are explained same thing over and over and over and still don't get it.

For some reason you folks on the left think repeating something that's wrong a lot of times somehow makes it less wrong. Sorry, Anton...I don't subscribe to that view.

First, what a food services employee with nearly no economic education "subscribes to" is a joke. Oldstyle, we all understand that you are a con tool. And you are incapable of making an economic argument. Got that. And your only economic wording was to pat the back of a nut case conservative Libertarian eon professor who is, me boy, a joke himself.
And that is interesting, that you do not understand Anton's view. Because no other person posting on this board has said the same thing over 25 times. And you have done so on numerous occasions. Which makes you....... A nut case.

 

[Rshermr]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

He just doesn't get it.

Is the clown still arguing that the national debt requires spending? It is really not his fault. He is a congenital idiot. And a con troll. He just posts con talking points.

 

[Faun]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

He just doesn't get it.

Is the clown still arguing that the national debt requires spending? It is really not his fault. He is a congenital idiot. And a con troll. He just posts con talking points.

No, that idiot is demonstrating he doesn't know the difference between debt and spending.

 

[Oldstyle]

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?

I've never taken an economic class in my life (at least that I recall), my degree is in mathematics.

Professor Sowell is an armchair economist and a big time right wing tool to boot. He has some respected economic work published but he is way more a politico than he ever was an economist or historian.

What is an "armchair economist"? Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton. As for his being a "politico"? Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico". I found him to be brilliant. One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from. A "tool"? Far from it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

I was referring to the national debt, Anton...not the deficit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

He just doesn't get it.

Is the clown still arguing that the national debt requires spending? It is really not his fault. He is a congenital idiot. And a con troll. He just posts con talking points.

If you can show me how you accumulate debt without spending I'll be really impressed, Georgie!

 

[Oldstyle]

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?

I've never taken an economic class in my life (at least that I recall), my degree is in mathematics.

Professor Sowell is an armchair economist and a big time right wing tool to boot. He has some respected economic work published but he is way more a politico than he ever was an economist or historian.

Yet you know so much more about economics than Rshermr...who maintains that not only did he graduate with a degree in economics...but taught the subject at the college level while he was an undergrad! Gee...how about THAT!

 

[AntonToo]

What is an "armchair economist"? Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton. As for his being a "politico"? Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico". I found him to be brilliant. One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from. A "tool"? Far from it.

Armchair economist refers to those that have never seen their advisory used in practice of policy formation in either private sector or governing. He spends his time theorizing in an office, unchallenged by results. His did sign up as an adviser to Reagan...for all of one meeting in 1981, after which he resigned.

 

[Oldstyle]

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

Another day, another conservative making another fucking stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.

Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?

The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?

Two is better than none. But does not help much.
The Great Thomas Sowell??? Really. You forgot to mention the libertarian, koch bought and paid for, part of the lead up to Sowell.
And Oldstyle, in addition to using a juvenile name to try to insult me (as normal) forgets somehow to provide the qualifications of Thomas Sowell. Who never saw a chance to demonize democrats that he did not like and make use of. And was, and still is, a Libertarian (self admitted). Pushing an economic type that has never, ever existed in real life. And is a close friend of the Koch brothers for whom he does work whenever possible. And is, by the way, a contributing author for the Koch think tank, the Cato Institute. So, no, Sowell is not generally looked at anything other than what he is, which is a bought and paid for economist, by the far far right. Particularly by Cato and the Koch brothers
When still in college and trying to decide what to do next, I considered grad school in economics. Maybe a masters or even PHD, depending on the availability of money. I learned as most students of economics did that the way to get really rich was to get an advanced degree in economics and work for the far right. I found that an affront to my self respect, as most did. But many did take that route. And used their education to further the desires of the very, very wealthy on the far right. So went Sowell.
Wow, Oldstyle. That is three totally agenda driven references you have used. Just coincidence, I am sure, that none are impartial. At all.
t

Your knowledge of who Sowell was is about as good as your knowledge of economics, Georgie! He describes himself as a Marxist when he was in his twenties. He only became a Libertarian after studying the effects of mandated minimum wage laws for sugar cane workers in Puerto Rico for the Federal Government.

Sowell has spent the majority of his career working as a professor. He has not gotten rich by being bought and paid for by anyone.

So all conservative economists are rich and all liberal ones are poor? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound with this nonsense?

 

[Oldstyle]

What is an "armchair economist"? Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton. As for his being a "politico"? Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico". I found him to be brilliant. One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from. A "tool"? Far from it.

Armchair economist refers to those that have never seen their advisory used in practice of policy formation in either private sector or governing. He spends his time theorizing in an office, unchallenged by results. His did sign up as an adviser to Reagan...for all of one meeting in 1981, after which he resigned.

Would you prefer he be like a Larry Summers or Christina Romer...who saw their "advisory" used in practice of policy formation...only to run back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley when what they advocated didn't pan out?

 

[AntonToo]

Would you prefer he be like a Larry Summers or Christina Romer...who saw their "advisory" used in practice of policy formation...only to run back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley when what they advocated didn't pan out?

I prefer him to be less of political commentator and more of an economist with some real world experience.

And yes, the two names you mention are preferable. But there are also plenty others on the right.

 

[Oldstyle]

Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton! Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college. Larry Summers grew up the son of two college professors at the University of Penn., went right into MIT out of high school and then on to Harvard. Christina Romer went from MIT right into a professorship at Princeton and has never worked in the Private Sector. What "real world" experience do either of them possess? I think you'd be hard pressed to find two people with LESS real world experience than Summers and Romer...whereas Thomas Sowell has quite a bit.

 

[AntonToo]

Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton! Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college.

None of which constitutes real world professional economist experience.

 

[AntonToo]

Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus

For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.

 

[Rshermr]

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)


Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

 

[Rshermr]

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

After your blazingly retarded conflation of "spending" versus "debt," I'd be a tad more careful about calling others ignorant, if I were you.

Just sayin'.

Between you and me, Faun...I feel very comfortable calling Georgie ignorant since he backs that viewpoint up every time he posts his own material.

And why, me poor ignorant con troll, would you feel that anyone cares about the opinion of a lying troll. And one who has never won an economic argument in his life. But always lies and claims he has. You see why you are a joke?

 

[Oldstyle]

Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus

For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.

Don Millard? Really, Anton?

 

[boedicca]

At some point, the Labor Force Participation rate gate so low that that there will be nobody left to drop out. And then the Elites will unleash the killer drones and robots to cull the surplus population. Hope change!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AntonToo]

Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus

For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.

Don Millard? Really, Anton?

I don't know who Don Millard is, but what he wrote about Sowell is spot on and a really funny read.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)


Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

Interesting graph, Georgie! I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate. When was Obama elected again? I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office. I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?