WTF Is A Jobless Recovery?????

[The Rabbi]

Before the rise of public education, most of the population was uneducated, which is Toro's point.

That is simply untrue. Sorry.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all strong teachers of their children long before there was public education. In many countries to this day the religious schools are the best educational systems.

My wife and I home schooled our children. All were honor students when the were in college on their own. Public schools are a total disaster here in California and should be done away with.

Most people could read and write, which was sufficient for the economy at the time. Public education, esp the mandatory kind, was the answer to child labor, not illiteracy.

 

[Polk]

Before the rise of public education, most of the population was uneducated, which is Toro's point.

That is simply untrue. Sorry.

No, it's not. Compare the literacy rate in 1800 to today.

 

[Polk]

That is simply untrue. Sorry.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all strong teachers of their children long before there was public education. In many countries to this day the religious schools are the best educational systems.

My wife and I home schooled our children. All were honor students when the were in college on their own. Public schools are a total disaster here in California and should be done away with.

Most people could read and write, which was sufficient for the economy at the time. Public education, esp the mandatory kind, was the answer to child labor, not illiteracy.

Most people couldn't read and write. That's why towns had people who made a living writing things for people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all strong teachers of their children long before there was public education. In many countries to this day the religious schools are the best educational systems.

My wife and I home schooled our children. All were honor students when the were in college on their own. Public schools are a total disaster here in California and should be done away with.

Most people could read and write, which was sufficient for the economy at the time. Public education, esp the mandatory kind, was the answer to child labor, not illiteracy.

Most people couldn't read and write. That's why towns had people who made a living writing things for people.

Have any proof for that?
In fact over 80% of Americans could read and write as of 1870.

 

[code1211]

The financial markets trade overseas so when they recover, it doesn't necessarily translate in jobs.

Due to Republican deregulation, many of the jobs that were formerly American have moved overseas to drive up profits since those countries don't have to bother with things like health insurance or minimum wage. It's great for CEO's but not for everyone else.

Worse, Republicans feel that investing in education is a waste of money because institutions of education have been taken over by the "liberal elite" and a degree is only a "piece of paper".

The truth is that only through education can we hope to compete. I know of a machine shop that lost much of it's business making railway spikes. That business was moved to Mexico. They sent many of their machinists out for further training and upgraded their equipment to make high precision parts for everyone from the medical industry to NASA. They are still struggling, but are way more optimistic than they were.

That is what has to happen here. Education needs to be a priority. We have to smother the dissent of those who want to push idiot notions such as "magical creation" over science. Just that one notion has been incredibly destructive delegitimizing science for many of an entire generation.

When these jobs were moved, why do you suppose they were moved? Could it possibly have been due to competitive pressures that made the Railway spike manufactured in that machine shop un competitive?

Jobs that end in one place and start again in another place usually do so for strictly economic reasons.

Do you think that there was some other motive in this?

The owner of the machine shop made a pretty creative move.

 

[code1211]

Over 70% of our economy depends on consumer spending. No jobs = no spending = no real recovery.

We can of course have GDP growth thru higher oil and stock prices.

For the GDP to grow it just means we are paying more for stuff.

You have put your finger on what a stimulus should do. The only stimulus that will work to stimulate the economy is one that stimulates spending by the private sector.

Cash for Clunkers did this. The idiots in charge had no clue that this might be the result. As soon as they noticed that this was a result, they tried to stop it quick before anyone made the connection and realized that the thing they called the Stimuolus Bill was anything but that.

You do have it a tad backwards, though. Your equation should be:

No spending=No Jobs=No real recovery. You have all the right pieces in the equation, though, which puts you head and shoulders above anyone in Washington.

 

[code1211]

And now this is where we dive into the dishonest. In every previous recession, the standard has been the return of GDP growth, but now you want to slide the scale and say that growth doesn't matter, only job creation does. Fair enough, but that would be an argument for all recessions, not just the current one. Ditto with your claim that unemployment is at 18 percent. That's just simply not true.

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

First of all most of the growth that has been reported is based on temporary productivity not in something that occured naturally. Also, economists have checked and the statistics aren't even close to being accurate. They cooked up a bunch of numbers to give us a false impression. Even bad numbers are reported as positive signs by CBS and other pro-Obama media outlets.

The Cash For Clunkers program was included which ended months ago.

Overtime was added into number of jobs falsely inflating the numbers the Obama Administration counted as jobs created or saved.

Contract work...which is temporary at best was included as saved jobs. These are workers the administration cannot count as saved jobs. When the contract ends in a few months so will the production from those jobs.

Obama himself said that government can't fix the economy...it has to come from the private-sector....the same private-sector that he's currently in the process of decimating.

So basically, you're asking me to take your claims that the numbers are fake at face value? That dog don't hunt.

Mark Zandi, who was one of McCain's chief economic advisers during the campaign, has said that without the stimulus package, unemployment would already be over 11 percent and still rising.

Was he the same one who said BEFORE THE MONEY WAS SPENT that without the Stimulus, the unemployment would be above 8%?

 

[Toro]

Actually government does not own any meaningful means of production.
And your example of education is at best a red herring. There is no logical reason why education should be state run, and traditionally it was not. At worst the example is simply mystifying.
The fact that Polk thinks you're right should make you re-examine.

One must differentiate between the funding of public education and the distribution of public education. Without public funding, large sections of the population would be excluded from meaningful education.

It is absolutely necessary in a knowledge-based world to have a highly skilled workforce. Education is a capital investment. Almost all wealth is driven from technological innovation, and from the application of that innovation. There is a strong correlation over time between productivity growth and wage rates. By excluding more people from meaningful education – as you would with a pure private model – you have a less equipped workforce, which hampers economic growth because it means a lower level of technical skills throughout the economy to apply innovation.

The developing countries of Asia know this. These countries invested heavily in primary education when most of their people were poor so they could have the basic skills to operate in a post-agrarian economy.

The market does a poor job of funding the education of the poor and the lower middle class, simply because the poor and the lower middle class do not have funding and because the returns to private lenders are unknowable and thus extremely risky, which precludes lending. For markets to work, people must have sufficient information. When markets do not have sufficient information, markets break down and do not necessarily generate optimal outcomes.

As more information becomes known, then the market should play a bigger role. The higher the education, funding should be more private. When you are two, your parents have no idea what you will earn over your lifetime, and thus have no idea what you should pay for your education. When you are 22, you have a better grasp of how much you will earn over your lifetime, i.e. you will earn more being a lawyer than a ditch-digger, and thus you should pay more.

The funding of education differs from the distribution of education. The problem with the public distribution of education can be that it is a monopoly, and at times acts like one. When some appropriate monopoly power to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, then the system breaks down.

 

[Toro]

Was he the same one who said BEFORE THE MONEY WAS SPENT that without the Stimulus, the unemployment would be above 8%?

Forecasting is a mug's game. I don't know anyone who does it well. I don't know why the government would be any better.

The question is what would the unemployment rate have been had the stimulus not occurred?

 

[Zander]

Was he the same one who said BEFORE THE MONEY WAS SPENT that without the Stimulus, the unemployment would be above 8%?

Forecasting is a mug's game. I don't know anyone who does it well. I don't know why the government would be any better.

The question is what would the unemployment rate have been had the stimulus not occurred?

I think it would have been lower. Prove me wrong. See how silly that is?

 

[Toro]

Was he the same one who said BEFORE THE MONEY WAS SPENT that without the Stimulus, the unemployment would be above 8%?

Forecasting is a mug's game. I don't know anyone who does it well. I don't know why the government would be any better.

The question is what would the unemployment rate have been had the stimulus not occurred?

I think it would have been lower. Prove me wrong. See how silly that is?

You run econometric models to estimate what the unemployment would have been without the stimulus.

 

[Zander]

Forecasting is a mug's game. I don't know anyone who does it well. I don't know why the government would be any better.

The question is what would the unemployment rate have been had the stimulus not occurred?

I think it would have been lower. Prove me wrong. See how silly that is?

You run econometric models to estimate what the unemployment would have been without the stimulus.

Those same models have proven to be inaccurate in estimating the impact the stimulus would have on unemployment, but we can trust them now? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

What we should do is look at reality. We were told that the Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, and create millions of jobs. It didn't do either. That makes it a massive failure. Everything else is commentary and monday morning quarterbacking. Actual results are the only thing that matter. Stimulus=FAIL

 

[uscitizen]

Stimulus fail but the war in Iraq was a success?

How interesting.

 

[Neubarth]

We were told that the Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, and create millions of jobs. It didn't do either. That makes it a massive failure. Everything else is commentary and monday morning quarterbacking. Actual results are the only thing that matter. Stimulus=FAIL

Well said Zander. Total fail would not be an exaggeration.

 

[Paulie]

For three years the Democrats tried to convince us how bad the economy was. 4 years ago the economy was churning. Back then job growth was good, productivity was up, inflation was in check, earnings were up....yet for the last 3 years the Dems told us the economy was fucked up. Now Obama wants to tell us that the Recession is over.

I don't really remember the hardcore calls from the left that the economy was going down the drain until around 2007. Maybe a little late in 2006, even.

While GDP numbers were still showing positive growth, there was anything BUT, in REAL LIFE.

The recession officially started in December '07, yet for most of '07 it was being called a recession beforehand, and probably rightfully so in an indirect and unofficial sense, especially in hindsight. At that point, bank balance sheets were deteriorating greatly and for many economists, the writing was already on the wall. The smart people knew what was coming.

I'm not defending democrats here, I'm just pointing out that you made a fallacious statement that there was "growth, productivity, and inflation in check". Because in fact, in the beginning of 2008 we saw gold climb above $1,000 and set a record, and silver climbed above $21. The Dollar hit a low against the Euro, and food prices were going through the roof. Wheat prices had damn near tripled and all the sudden it cost twice as much to buy a fucking pizza.

Your facts seem off.

 

[Toro]

Those same models have proven to be inaccurate in estimating the impact the stimulus would have on unemployment, but we can trust them now? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

What we should do is look at reality. We were told that the Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, and create millions of jobs. It didn't do either. That makes it a massive failure. Everything else is commentary and monday morning quarterbacking. Actual results are the only thing that matter. Stimulus=FAIL

Are you a statistician?

Why do you assume that the only models that matter are the ones generated by the government? Why do you assume that ex-ante models are as accurate as ex-post models? I don't know any forecasters who would argue this. I certainly do not trust ex-ante modeling, and I have seen first hand the disasters of making ex-ante assumptions in modeling. But that does not mean we cannot understand what happened ex-post.

Essentially, you are repudiating Milton Friedman making your argument. Friedman was a strong proponent of empirical testing, understanding what has happened in the past using econometric models. You are saying his life's work is irrelevant.

What has failed only matters as it was framed by the government. But that assumes that the government's forecasts were accurate to begin with. There is no reason to believe that the government is particularly good at forecasting since no one is particularly good at forecasting, especially during a recession. But that does not change that we can estimate the effects of the stimulus on the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually government does not own any meaningful means of production.
And your example of education is at best a red herring. There is no logical reason why education should be state run, and traditionally it was not. At worst the example is simply mystifying.
The fact that Polk thinks you're right should make you re-examine.

One must differentiate between the funding of public education and the distribution of public education. Without public funding, large sections of the population would be excluded from meaningful education.

.

That is simply an unfounded assumption on your part. It has no factual basis whatsoever.

 

[Toro]

That is simply an unfounded assumption on your part. It has no factual basis whatsoever.

Actually, it is a pretty good assumption.

We know through economic history and modern economic development that the poor tend to pull their children out of school early because they are needed to help support the family, either on the farm or elsewhere. Kids who work in factories or on farms are not going to school but work because they have to eat. There is a fairly strong correlation in developing countries between levels of poverty and levels of schooling.

We also can do the math. It costs about $10,000 a year to educate a child. The median income in America is $44,000. Poverty levels are around $20,000-$25,000. If the average family has two kids, then the cost to obtain an average education in America eats up all income for a poor family. Most poor families do not save anything and live paycheck to paycheck. They usually do not own their own home. They have very few assets and almost no assets. Even if the cost for an education is a third of the national average, paying for one's own education would be an incredible hardship for the poor.

There is a reason why every single rich nation in the world funds K-12 education primarily through public funding - it is because it is far more efficient and beneficial to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

You've made half a dozen assumptions in this post, all of them unfounded. Nothing more need be said.

As to the stimulus, elsewhere I posted an article from the WSJ that modeled what would have happened had Congress cut the payroll tax rate instead of enacting the stimulus. The results were far better.
Actually almost anything, including doing nothing, would have been far better. The stimulus has been an unmitigated disaster. We have only seen the beginning of the accounts of waste, fraud and abuse such a big program engenders. When it all comes out, hopefull beginning of Nov next year, there will be a scream like Washington has not heard in some time.

 

[Zander]

Those same models have proven to be inaccurate in estimating the impact the stimulus would have on unemployment, but we can trust them now? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

What we should do is look at reality. We were told that the Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%, and create millions of jobs. It didn't do either. That makes it a massive failure. Everything else is commentary and monday morning quarterbacking. Actual results are the only thing that matter. Stimulus=FAIL

Are you a statistician?

Why do you assume that the only models that matter are the ones generated by the government? Why do you assume that ex-ante models are as accurate as ex-post models? I don't know any forecasters who would argue this. I certainly do not trust ex-ante modeling, and I have seen first hand the disasters of making ex-ante assumptions in modeling. But that does not mean we cannot understand what happened ex-post.

Essentially, you are repudiating Milton Friedman making your argument. Friedman was a strong proponent of empirical testing, understanding what has happened in the past using econometric models. You are saying his life's work is irrelevant.

What has failed only matters as it was framed by the government. But that assumes that the government's forecasts were accurate to begin with. There is no reason to believe that the government is particularly good at forecasting since no one is particularly good at forecasting, especially during a recession. But that does not change that we can estimate the effects of the stimulus on the economy.

We were discussing the GOVERNMENT forecasts so therefore I assumed that we would limit our comments on government forecasting. Sorry for any confusion.

That being said, I think Friedman would be have been totally opposed to the stimulus. The United States Congress, and the Executive that signed off on it, promised that certain things would happen. Those things didn't happen. That is a failure. STIMULUS =FAIL. Friedman was a realist too.....