WTF Is A Jobless Recovery?????

[saveliberty]

Jobless recovery = When a bus driver successfully completes rehab.

 

[Toro]

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

And said nothing is exactly what you have done.

The empirical evidence concludes that government spending on education has been beneficial to the economy.

Executive Summary
The research summarized in this article shows that schooling is necessary for industrial
development. The form of schooling that emerged in the 19th century generates specific
cognitive, behavioral and social knowledge that are critical ingredients for the way industrial societies organize:
• production and consumption
• daily life in cities and nations
• the size and fitness of the population for work
• the creation and use of knowledge.
Therefore, it is documented that:
• Schooling is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the spectacular feats of industrial development in the 20th century.
• The intricacy of the relationship between schooling and the industrial form of economic growth is confirmed by the technical economics literature.
• Economists have demonstrated that both individuals and societies gain from the investments made in schooling. ...

there is strong evidence from the recent past that economic growth has been accompanied by growth in both spending and participation in schooling. Economists, as reported in a brief overview in the next section, have examined this association quite carefully and come to the conclusion that, through a variety of different avenues and in a number of different ways, investment
in school systems does have a strong economic pay-off. This is an important conclusion that is highly relevant to individual, corporate and government decisions regarding investment. For all spheres of decision making there is good evidence that the rate of return is high, even relative to other investment opportunities. ...

Much of this literature is highly technical in the sense that it uses formal econometric models to test hypotheses using empirical data. Some highlights of this impressive work will be sketched below, but the
bottom line is that the economic evidence supports the view that both public and private returns to investment in education are positive—
at both the individual and economy-wide levels. The vast technical literature on this subject can be subdivided into two general areas:
a. The micro-economic literature looks at the relationship between different ways of measuring a person’s educational achievement and what they earn. Most studies show consistent results for what can be called the private or personal pay-off from education. For individuals this means that for every additional year of schooling they increase their earnings by about 10%. This is a very impressive rate of return.
b. The macro-economic literature examines the relationship between different measures of the aggregate level of educational attainment for a country as a whole and, in most cases, the standard measure of economic growth in terms of GDP. Once again, most studies find evidence of higher GDP growth in countries where the population
has, on average, completed more years of schooling or attains higher scores on tests of cognitive achievement. However, as will be explained in somewhat greater detail below, given the diversity of national experiences, particularly over time, it is hard to settle on one figure for the rate of return at a social level. ...

Studies that compare different countries over a period of time, such as the study by Barro (2002), that looks at 100 countries from 1960 to 1995, show results as in Figure 8. What this figure shows is that “years of school attainment at the secondary and higher levels for males age 25 and over has a positive and significant effect on the subsequent rate of economic growth” (Barro, 2002). This can be interpreted to mean that if the average number of years of upper level schooling for this particular group increases by one year then the rate of economic growth increases by 0.44 percent per year. These are powerful results since an increase in economic growth of almost half a percent will have a large impact on the total GDP of a country over time. This is one of the reasons that education has been treated as such a positive investment
for governments.

http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Education-and-Economic-Growth.pdf

 

[Toro]

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.....

I'm sure he would have been. I am even more sure that he would have done an empirical study to prove so.

And the empirical studies may eventually conclude that he would have been correct.

 

[Polk]

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?

Indeed. I'd also add they were working based on preliminary numbers which showed GDP declining by two percent in Q4 2008, instead of the six percent it actually did.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

And said nothing is exactly what you have done.

The empirical evidence concludes that government spending on education has been beneficial to the economy.

Executive Summary
The research summarized in this article shows that schooling is necessary for industrial
development. The form of schooling that emerged in the 19th century generates specific
cognitive, behavioral and social knowledge that are critical ingredients for the way industrial societies organize:
• production and consumption
• daily life in cities and nations
• the size and fitness of the population for work
• the creation and use of knowledge.
Therefore, it is documented that:
• Schooling is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the spectacular feats of industrial development in the 20th century.
• The intricacy of the relationship between schooling and the industrial form of economic growth is confirmed by the technical economics literature.
• Economists have demonstrated that both individuals and societies gain from the investments made in schooling. ...

there is strong evidence from the recent past that economic growth has been accompanied by growth in both spending and participation in schooling. Economists, as reported in a brief overview in the next section, have examined this association quite carefully and come to the conclusion that, through a variety of different avenues and in a number of different ways, investment
in school systems does have a strong economic pay-off. This is an important conclusion that is highly relevant to individual, corporate and government decisions regarding investment. For all spheres of decision making there is good evidence that the rate of return is high, even relative to other investment opportunities. ...

Much of this literature is highly technical in the sense that it uses formal econometric models to test hypotheses using empirical data. Some highlights of this impressive work will be sketched below, but the
bottom line is that the economic evidence supports the view that both public and private returns to investment in education are positive—
at both the individual and economy-wide levels. The vast technical literature on this subject can be subdivided into two general areas:
a. The micro-economic literature looks at the relationship between different ways of measuring a person’s educational achievement and what they earn. Most studies show consistent results for what can be called the private or personal pay-off from education. For individuals this means that for every additional year of schooling they increase their earnings by about 10%. This is a very impressive rate of return.
b. The macro-economic literature examines the relationship between different measures of the aggregate level of educational attainment for a country as a whole and, in most cases, the standard measure of economic growth in terms of GDP. Once again, most studies find evidence of higher GDP growth in countries where the population
has, on average, completed more years of schooling or attains higher scores on tests of cognitive achievement. However, as will be explained in somewhat greater detail below, given the diversity of national experiences, particularly over time, it is hard to settle on one figure for the rate of return at a social level. ...

Studies that compare different countries over a period of time, such as the study by Barro (2002), that looks at 100 countries from 1960 to 1995, show results as in Figure 8. What this figure shows is that “years of school attainment at the secondary and higher levels for males age 25 and over has a positive and significant effect on the subsequent rate of economic growth” (Barro, 2002). This can be interpreted to mean that if the average number of years of upper level schooling for this particular group increases by one year then the rate of economic growth increases by 0.44 percent per year. These are powerful results since an increase in economic growth of almost half a percent will have a large impact on the total GDP of a country over time. This is one of the reasons that education has been treated as such a positive investment
for governments.

http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Education-and-Economic-Growth.pdf

That's about like concluding the stimulus was successful because it raised GDP. That's true so far as it goes, but fails to answer the question of whether the same goal could have been far better achieved in other ways. In both cases the answer is yes, very much so.
Again, you make many assumptions, all of them unfounded.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Indeed. I'd also add they were working based on preliminary numbers which showed GDP declining by two percent in Q4 2008, instead of the six percent it actually did.

Which raises the question of how can we possibly trust a government that misreads the evidence by a factor of 3. Of course this is the same government that is promising that the new health care bill will reduce deficits. No one believes that.

 

[Polk]

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?

Indeed. I'd also add they were working based on preliminary numbers which showed GDP declining by two percent in Q4 2008, instead of the six percent it actually did.

Which raises the question of how can we possibly trust a government that misreads the evidence by a factor of 3.

That's a question to ask your boys, since they were the ones running Commerce at that point.

Of course this is the same government that is promising that the new health care bill will reduce deficits. No one believes that.

Good thing reality isn't based your beliefs then. More touchy-feely rhetoric without any substance.

 

[Big Black Dog]

A jobless Recovery is like kissing your sister. It's like getting a hamburger with no burger inside. It's like the inside of Obama's head. Nothing there...

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed. I'd also add they were working based on preliminary numbers which showed GDP declining by two percent in Q4 2008, instead of the six percent it actually did.

Which raises the question of how can we possibly trust a government that misreads the evidence by a factor of 3.

That's a question to ask your boys, since they were the ones running Commerce at that point.

Of course this is the same government that is promising that the new health care bill will reduce deficits. No one believes that.

Good thing reality isn't based your beliefs then. More touchy-feely rhetoric without any substance.

Not "my boys". They are Obama's boys since he relied on their information.
It is hardly touchy feely rhetoric, as much as you want to believe that. In fact, by changing one or two of the assumptions they were handed the deficit swells by hundreds of billions a year.
Sucks to have your mindset, I guess.

 

[Polk]

Which raises the question of how can we possibly trust a government that misreads the evidence by a factor of 3.

That's a question to ask your boys, since they were the ones running Commerce at that point.

Of course this is the same government that is promising that the new health care bill will reduce deficits. No one believes that.

Good thing reality isn't based your beliefs then. More touchy-feely rhetoric without any substance.

Not "my boys". They are Obama's boys since he relied on their information.
It is hardly touchy feely rhetoric, as much as you want to believe that. In fact, by changing one or two of the assumptions they were handed the deficit swells by hundreds of billions a year.
Sucks to have your mindset, I guess.

Obama appointees filled the Commerce Department during the Bush administration? That's news.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a question to ask your boys, since they were the ones running Commerce at that point.



Good thing reality isn't based your beliefs then. More touchy-feely rhetoric without any substance.

Not "my boys". They are Obama's boys since he relied on their information.
It is hardly touchy feely rhetoric, as much as you want to believe that. In fact, by changing one or two of the assumptions they were handed the deficit swells by hundreds of billions a year.
Sucks to have your mindset, I guess.

Obama appointees filled the Commerce Department during the Bush administration? That's news.

He relied on their work. That makes them his boys. If he felt the information might be erroneaous then he had a duty to get his own opinion.
Of course he did not. The whole thing is ludicrous. The administration was either incompetent in gathering information or willfully negligent. Which was it?

 

[Polk]

So you're really going to stick to this claim that Bush appointees were Obama's people?

 

[uscitizen]

This is getting kinda strange.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're really going to stick to this claim that Bush appointees were Obama's people?

We can start with, the people gathering the information were likely career bureaucrats so they weren't appointees to begin with.
Then we can say that if Obama was relying n their information and judgment then that made them effectively Obama employees. If he had any reason to distrust their information then he had plenty of recourse to independent sources.
Obama lied, jobs died.

 

[Neubarth]

So you're really going to stick to this claim that Bush appointees were Obama's people?

Some of them are usually kindred souls. Whatever it takes to keep a job.

 

[pinqy]

So you're really going to stick to this claim that Bush appointees were Obama's people?

Some of them are usually kindred souls. Whatever it takes to keep a job.

Excellent...you hava a chart of adjusted vs unadjusted UI claims. I don't know how to do that. Please post one covering the entire recession.

Thanks.

 

[Neubarth]

So you're really going to stick to this claim that Bush appointees were Obama's people?

Some of them are usually kindred souls. Whatever it takes to keep a job.

Excellent...you hava a chart of adjusted vs unadjusted UI claims. I don't know how to do that. Please post one covering the entire recession.

Thanks.

There you go again with your attempts at your lies and deception for Obama's Corrupt Administration's sake. Obama started the heavy deception in September when he moved the dishonest "Adjusted Numbers" up near 600,000 so he could then show that UI claims were going down from that point. Lie after Lie after Lie after Lie after Lie from the horribly Corrupt Obama Crowd. That is our present reality. Once he is removed from office, this shit will stop and we will try and convict all the people who took part in this deceptiion. They should all be executed by firing squad.

 

[code1211]

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.....

I'm sure he would have been. I am even more sure that he would have done an empirical study to prove so.

And the empirical studies may eventually conclude that he would have been correct.

Without doing much fact checking, I think that I've heard that the unemployment rate at the time that the stimulus was passed was around 7%. They said that it would not increase past 8% if the stimulus was passed.

They controlled the scale, the programs, the timing of the outlays, the targets and the folks to whom all of the bribes, paybacks, pork and future return in the form of campaign contributions the money would go to.

The result of their action was that they missed the prediction by a factor of 300%.

We are faced with two choices:

1. The planners of the stimulus are incompetent idiots who both misunderstood the situation and the economy and what might affect it and cannot reasonably be expected to make a prediction and then actually hit it because they are just too stupid.

2. The planners of the stimulus are brilliant decievers who never intended for this to be a stimulus and all the while were intending this as a grand scale exercise in theft.

Incompetent idiots or brilliant, swindling thieves. Which group are you supporting if you support these guys?

 

[Neubarth]

The result of their action was that they missed the prediction by a factor of 300%.

We are faced with two choices:

1. The planners of the stimulus are incompetent idiots who both misunderstood the situation and the economy and what might affect it and cannot reasonably be expected to make a prediction and then actually hit it because they are just too stupid.

2. The planners of the stimulus are brilliant decievers who never intended for this to be a stimulus and all the while were intending this as a grand scale exercise in theft.

Incompetent idiots or brilliant, swindling thieves. Which group are you supporting if you support these guys?

The party in power is the one that has allowed the Stimulus to be totally ineffective. I don't blame the party in power so much as the corrupt politicians who took all that money and had it spent on worthless projects and schemes in their home states. As most people know by now, it did not put people to work, but it made a lot of fat cats richer and they in turn greased the hands of the corrupt politicians who essentially gave them the free money. These people all need to be tried and convicted and shot by firing squad. The whole lot of them need to be disposed of. Our Criminal Justice system is totally corrupt, so we need to find a new way to try, convict and execute any criminal in our nation. We need a massive blood bath to clean up this putrid mess of corruption.

 

[pinqy]

Some of them are usually kindred souls. Whatever it takes to keep a job.

Excellent...you hava a chart of adjusted vs unadjusted UI claims. I don't know how to do that. Please post one covering the entire recession.

Thanks.

There you go again with your attempts at your lies and deception for Obama's Corrupt Administration's sake. Obama started the heavy deception in September when he moved the dishonest "Adjusted Numbers" up near 600,000 so he could then show that UI claims were going down from that point. Lie after Lie after Lie after Lie after Lie from the horribly Corrupt Obama Crowd. That is our present reality. Once he is removed from office, this shit will stop and we will try and convict all the people who took part in this deceptiion. They should all be executed by firing squad.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I lie? I said you had a chart. Is that a lie? I don't know how to make a similar chart. Is that a lie? I asked if you could post one of a longer time period. A question can't be a lie.