US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf

Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf

Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

 

[Oldstyle]

If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one? They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!

Not if they were tasked to do so, me boy. The CBO and the Council of Economic Advisers have professional, extremely well educated, smart, and well paid economists. Now, me boy, you may have noticed that you were not offered one of those jobs. Because, you are not well educated relative to economics, You are obviously dumb. You are obviously not a professional economist. And you are NOT well paid to produce economic information. You see, me boy, though you have a high opinion of yourself, others see you as a simple con tool who is told what to believe. You are, me boy, insignificant.

Since I have an undergraduate degree in History, an MBA and years of running nightclubs for experience...it should come as no surprise to anyone that I wasn't offered a position at the Congressional Budget Office or on the Council of Economic Advisers! I'm NOT a professional economist. I took Micro and Macro Economics in college. What's rather pathetic however is that my knowledge of economics is far greater than yours...someone who claims to have a degree in Economics and who was so well versed in the subject that you taught at the college level!

What's wrong with THAT picture, Georgie? The sound you hear going off is the board's "BULLSHIT ALARM" every time you try and post something intelligent about economics!

 

[Oldstyle]

The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf

Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

 

[Rshermr]

The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following. Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created! It's all about jobs saved! Why? Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created. They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf

Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA. Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct. The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.

Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing. Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous. Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers. Simple enough, really. But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time. And a good dose of economic history. Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components. The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.

So you've "seen" formulas for "jobs saved", Georgie? By all means...share one of those formulas with us!

As for the multipliers for the different stimulus components? Kindly provide the formulas that Obama's economists used to arrive at THOSE numbers!

You still haven't figured it out yet...have you? All those numbers are based on assumptions...none of it is based on proven statistical analysis. They made it up. They started from the results they wanted...and plugged in the numbers to make that happen. When you give the CBO bullshit numbers then the CBO will crunch those numbers and give you an answer that is also bullshit. That's not a reflection on the CBO...they work with the numbers they are provided.

There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you. I am still waiting for the bills that repubs passed, me boy. But perhaps you have learned that they did NOTHING, because they could care less about the middle class.
Relative to the multipliers, those like other numbers that come from economists are based, typically, on the results derived from experience with stimulus. I know, you believe like R. Reagan used to believe, before he died and before he determined that stimulus was in his best interest.
I have it, oldstyle, you are a true con tool. You drink the coolaid. You prefer to believe what you are told. Because that is what cons do. They do not believe economists, but they do believe other cons. The cons have no credentials, but you WANT to believe. Which is the way cons are. Which is why it is SOOOO easy to get you to believe, say, and do what they want you to.
You do not believe in global climate change, because you would rather believe the energy industry than scientists. You believe in money in politics because that is what you have been told is a good thing. If the middle class is going away, that is fine with you. You hate unions, because you have been told to. You, in fact, always line up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con web sites. Because you want to believe. You like being angry. And you like being part of a team that is against everything that is conservative.
I, me boy, and most people, like truth, and reason, and journalistic work, So, there you are. You are living in a false belief system, but it is truth as far as you are concerned.
The CBO has been trusted by conservatives and liberals for decades. But not real cons. Because the CBO does everything it can to provide the truth. And cons, like you, hate the truth. If it does not meet with what you are told to believe, you hate it.
You make nonsense claims like Obama, or his people, give the cbo bullshit numbers. But you have no proof. And the CBO says that does not ever happen. But your bat shit nut case web sites give you the information you CHOOSE to believe. I am not sure how anyone would want to be that small. But obviously you do.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth. It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

 

[Oldstyle]

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

 

[Rshermr]

If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one? They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!

Not if they were tasked to do so, me boy. The CBO and the Council of Economic Advisers have professional, extremely well educated, smart, and well paid economists. Now, me boy, you may have noticed that you were not offered one of those jobs. Because, you are not well educated relative to economics, You are obviously dumb. You are obviously not a professional economist. And you are NOT well paid to produce economic information. You see, me boy, though you have a high opinion of yourself, others see you as a simple con tool who is told what to believe. You are, me boy, insignificant.

Since I have an undergraduate degree in History, an MBA and years of running nightclubs for experience...it should come as no surprise to anyone that I wasn't offered a position at the Congressional Budget Office or on the Council of Economic Advisers! I'm NOT a professional economist. I took Micro and Macro Economics in college. What's rather pathetic however is that my knowledge of economics is far greater than yours...someone who claims to have a degree in Economics and who was so well versed in the subject that you taught at the college level!

What's wrong with THAT picture, Georgie? The sound you hear going off is the board's "BULLSHIT ALARM" every time you try and post something intelligent about economics!

What is wrong with that is it is your opinion. Only. But it is instructive to see someone who has no clue believe what he wants to believe. got it, me boy. You are a true idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy? Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery? GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation? The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

 

[Rshermr]

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

Oldstyle, it would be so easy to see the formula that is SOOOOO important to you. All you need to do is tell everyone what the republicans did to help create jobs during the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Or, simply admit that they did NOTHING.
Nah. You are not into truth, me boy. Not at all
Uh, by the way, your economic knowledge is highly limited. I have yet to see an economic argument from you. Simple denials are not economic arguments. Now history, yep. If you can make an argument using economic history, that would be an improvement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. .

actually house was 100% against stimulus and Obamacare and communism. Under communism everyone has a job but few work hard and few get paid well. Sort of like here now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net,.

there was no failure just a recession caused by 20% interest rates needed to combat the Carter era inflation. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
.

only because they knew that communism does not work!! The way China cured the deadly poverty communism caused was by switching to capitalism. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are a true idiot.

actually it was communism that slowly starved 120 million souls to death , not Republican capitalism.

 

[Oldstyle]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

 

[Oldstyle]

You are a true idiot.

actually it was communism that slowly starved 120 million souls to death , not Republican capitalism.

I'm pretty sure, Rshermr will find some way to blame that on George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan...just saying...

 

[Rshermr]

who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.