The View From 1776

Obama’s 17% Unemployment Rate

That’s what we got for almost a trillion in stimulus spending.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/29 at 06:37 PM
  1. Without the stimulus spending unemployment would be at least 25%.

    For those who are against the stimulus, its intention has been to stop the economy from going into a tailspin and help stabilize it while it repairs itself. That is Keynesian thinking.

    Had the economy not blown its brains out during the last administration a Keynesian stimulus would not have been necessary.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  10:20 AM
  2. David is correct. Fortunately, Friday's news that the Gross Domestic Product was up 5.7% in the last quarter of 2009 confirms that the Stimulus is working. We have now had two successive quarters of growth, which appears to spell the end of the Bush recession.

    It will, unfortunately, take several years before the unemployment rate declines significantly, because the damage done by the last administration was so wide and so deep.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  01:10 PM
  3. Mr. Airth, how can you possibly substantiate your assertion that, without the stimulus bill, unemployment would be at the rate of 25%?

    Mr. Jay, take a more careful look at the 4th quarter GDP increase. It was primarily an accounting result of inventories being more slowly liquidated. Translated, people were buying more slowly. How can you square your enthusiasm with the CBO report forecasting that unemployment (officially 10+%; 17% if people who have given up trying to find a job) will continue at 10+% through 2011.

    Your take is similar to Obama's stating that he proposes to freeze the budget for the next three years, when, in fact, he proposes to freeze a small part of the budget, of which the net effect would be to cut the huge increase of 45%, already in the budget, by less than 1%.

    I don't say that you fellows are liars, but Obama certainly is.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  02:59 PM
  4. Boys, again, what exactly is BHO doing differently than GWB? The GSE's can only collapse once, unless the gov tries to prop them up, right? The securitization process initiated in the 90's with the full suppport of the FED supervised banking system no longer works. The liquidity in that sector no longer exists. The TBTF banks have been recapitalized with free dollars. The regulatory environmnet was lousy under Bush while it's only getting worse under O. Why would business plan to expand under the uncertainty created by the current admin. and congress? The states and federal gov are broke yet these geniuses are floating a socialized health care plan? Go sell crazy somewhere else.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  03:03 PM
  5. Thomas,

    I would add to this, several remarks I
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  07:48 PM
  6. David is, of course, parroting lines from the MSNBC/Pravda machine. Nothing original there, and if you push him to give specifics of just how moving money from one pocket to another will "stop the economy from going into a tailspin and help stabilize it while it repairs itself", he'll be at a total loss to explain. The other thing about David is he wouldn't know free-markets from Keynesian. He argues "Had the economy not blown its brains out during the last administration a Keynesian stimulus would not have been necessary" as if the last administration had not also engaged in Keynesian chicanery. What the heck does he think all that diddling with the prime-rate was all about? Obama isn't Keynesian, he's Stalinesque. Keynes only wanted to influence the market from the sidelines, not drag it kicking and screaming into the shadows for a good pasting. Obama is punishing those he regards criminal (must not have put enough in the Obama till). Show me, please, where Keynes ever prescribed anything even remotely like that. About the only thing David got remotely right was the market will eventually
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  08:31 PM
  7. Mr. Brewton, how can you possibly substantiate your assertion that the stimulus is a waste of money. You are only speculating.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/30  at  11:58 PM
  8. Mr Breton says, "Take a more careful look at the 4th quarter GDP increase. It was primarily an accounting result of inventories being more slowly liquidated."

    In other words, The View is very dismissive of this positive result because it occurred during Obama's administration. But if this kind of increase occurred under a Republican administration Mr. Brewton would be jumping up and down on the bed with uncontrollable hysteria.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  12:15 AM
  9. As Bob S. correctly states, there is a whole host of economic indicators tracking economic outlook, and GDP is only one.

    Unemployment, another favorite statistic, is clearly a lagging indicator, and it will drop only very late in the economic recovery cycle. It always has been late in past recessions, and will be late in this recession.

    Another indicator that is now trending in a favorable direction is the monthly loss of jobs. When Bush walked out the door and handed Obama the key (with a smirk), we were losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month. That statistic was reduced to less than 1/10 of the Bush benchmark in the last months of 09!

    How can unemployment be high and job losses be reduced, you ask? The employment situation is dynamic. New graduates or emigres are constantly entering the work force, so you can add new jobs, have fewer job loses and STILL not make headway to eliminate the backlog of out of work people.

    It took Bush eight long, disasterous years to get us into this mess, and it will probably take at least as long to fight our way out of it. Anybody who thinks one guy in Washington can wave a magic wand and get us back on the yellow brick road, is dreaming. And with the Republicans filibustering every vote in the Senate, the job is doubly difficult.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  10:04 PM
  10. "It took Bush eight long, disasterous years to get us into this mess, and it will probably take at least as long to fight our way out of it. Anybody who thinks one guy in Washington can wave a magic wand and get us back on the yellow brick road, is dreaming. And with the Republicans filibustering every vote in the Senate, the job is doubly difficult."

    How true!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/01  at  09:25 AM
  11. Mr. Brewton asked: "Mr. Airth, how can you possibly substantiate your assertion that, without the stimulus bill, unemployment would be at the rate of 25%?"

    We have the evidence of the early years of the Great Depression when there was no government stimulus added to the economy, when unemployment shot up to at least 25%.

    Interesting article by Paul Krugman his morning where he compares American and Canadian banks. He put his figure on something that makes a lot of sense, something I am sure The View will dismiss as nonsense, that interest rates set by the both central banks remained low but like in the US that never led to a bubble economy in Canada. In other words, The Fed was not the chief source of the US's economic plight, because of cheap money, like conservatives on this blog insist on. There were other factors peculiar to the US that caused its economic calamity, like no overside and poor regulations on the part of the Bush administration. Consumer protection against predatory lending was another big factor that prevented a real estate bubble from building in Canada, a protection that the Bush administration blocked every step of the way.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/01  at  10:01 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: Whither Wend We, And Why?

Previous entry: Quote Of The Day