Pol. Rammifications of Unemploy Topping 10%

[Quraz]

Kazuma

Chains4w

Miss Skuld

LOL @ giving unemployment numbers. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of the health of the economy.

Exactly. It could be even worse than we think.

Indeed. Some analysts are looking at 11 percent.

AP: What Recovery? Unemployment shoots past 10 percent

Quote:

Economists had not expected the 10 percent mark to come so quickly and immediately darkened their forecasts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, and Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., predicted the rate will peak at 11 percent by mid-2010. They earlier had projected 10.5 percent.

Unemployment at 11 percent would be a post-World War II record. Only once since then has joblessness hit double digits in the United States — from September 1982 to July 1983, topping out at 10.8 percent.

"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."

Obama's going for new high score.

Hrm, I look at DOW and see its up, a better indicator.

[ASlipperySlope]

Nothing is going to change. The average person is going to get more disgruntled, but actual dialogue on what to do with the economy won't do anything.

[Quraz]

ASlipperySlope

Nothing is going to change. The average person is going to get more disgruntled, but actual dialogue on what to do with the economy won't do anything.

Sadly a lot of people don't even know Unemployment is calculated.

[Raywazza]

Miss Skuld

LOL @ giving unemployment numbers. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of the health of the economy.

I disagree. It is either THE indicator, along with things like child mortality, average pay, etc or it is not at all. The last few reccesions had problems with unemployement not going down despite the economy 'getting better'. I say if the people are not getting better off the stock charts moving up are meaningless.

[Quraz]

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

LOL @ giving unemployment numbers. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of the health of the economy.

I disagree. It is either THE indicator, along with things like child mortality, average pay, etc or it is not at all. The last few reccesions had problems with unemployement not going down despite the economy 'getting better'. I say if the people are not getting better off the stock charts moving up are meaningless.

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

[Kazuma]

Quraz

Lag is lag is lag is lag.

Perhaps this will be Obama's slogan to replace "Change" in 2012.

[Quraz]

Kazuma

Quraz

Lag is lag is lag is lag.

Perhaps this will be Obama's slogan to replace "Change" in 2012.

Yea, into an epic video game reference campaign.

[Raywazza]

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

[BlueCollarJoe]

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

[Chains4w]

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

ITT: Partisan politics.

NOEZ! gonk

[Vercingetorix VII]

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

Well, the nominal root of the Democratic party is the party of Democrat-Republicans of Jefferson and Madison, whereas the nominal root of the Republican party is the Federalist party of Adams, Washington and Hamilton.

The former was always ideological and based in principle, whereas the latter was pragmatic and based in reality, excepting probably for Hamilton.

The problem is that the modern Republican party seems based neither in reality nor in humane and liberal principles, but in a seething and irrational hatred of the very concept of "government", with the only exception being where that government fulfill their wishes explicitly, and then it may become as large and oppressive to the opposition as it likes.

In truth, I think we are witnessing the gradual transference of roles, most vividly demonstrated by the recent Republican obsession with what they call states' rights, and a vaguely libertarian declaration of principles. But they haven't even begun to rationally apply those principles consistently across the board. Then again, that was always the problem with idealogues, after all; the original group of libertarian states' rights activists also condoned slavery.

[Mokie7]

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

[BlueCollarJoe]

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

[Vercingetorix VII]

(Some) Democrats were definitely hoping for failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that goes back to the whole anti-war ideology, the belief that violence is never an acceptable answer.

The problem is that Republicans rarely embrace ideological stances that don't serve their purposes, so the whole idealist defense doesn't work. They're pro-freedom except when it comes to suspending habeas corpus and using torture on Muslims or Mexican immigrants, they're anti-government except when it comes to bloating the military industrial complex, they're pro states' rights except when it comes to federal laws banning gay marriage. The entire Republican party as it exists at this moment is a wash of contradictions and hypocrisies.

One of the reasons I've been tempted to like or at least appreciate Glenn Beck and the Paulians, despite the whole inanity, wilingness to lie or ignore evidence that contradicts their desired outcomes, and the sheer impracticality of half the s**t they throw out is that this libertarian movement of the Republican party would represent a shift towards at least a solid ideology.

As I said, I think we're witnessing an ongoing shift where the Republicans are becoming the Jeffersonian Republicans, and the Democrats the Federalists.

But maybe I've just been reading too much early American history lately. But the similarities are odd, the mixture of populism and xenophobic sentiment fostered in the Tea Party movement being especially striking. I have little doubt that today Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson and probably even James Madison would vote Republican (although the latter might have to endure constantly being called a RINO), and Washington, Adams and Hamilton would vote Democrat.

It helps that the actually socialist branch of the Democratic party, rather than those who merely believe in a strong federal government that's capable of dealing with problems, has mostly withered into irrelevance.

[kdogbillion]

Vercingetorix VII

(Some) Democrats were definitely hoping for failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that goes back to the whole anti-war ideology, the belief that violence is never an acceptable answer.

Just because the other side said it 24/7 doesn't make it true. If you're going to blame anti-war protesters who wanted the troops home and didn't pay lip service to Bush as actively hoping more troops die, then your statement is clearly partisan.

Anyway, most people forget that economists follow things like the GDP and the DOW, and ignore things like foreclosure rates, comparative wages to inflation, and unemployment. Anyone who knew all of those numbers put together knew the numbers were bad since 2003, when wages failed to meet with inflation, and in 2005 (maybe even earlier) when foreclosures started growing. Looking at unemployment is a big deal, because consumption is a factor that most economists, for some reason, completely ignore. And honestly, I would trust any kid with a high school diploma over an economics major graduate, because of the corruption and lack of real world experience these people possess.

Edit:

Vercingetorix VII

It helps that the actually socialist branch of the Democratic party, rather than those who merely believe in a strong federal government that's capable of dealing with problems, has mostly withered into irrelevance.

I commend you for mentioning this. Most people don't know what an ultra liberal is. Most people call Obama one, but an ultra liberal is in many ways as similarly scary as an ultra conservative. If you put these people on the scale, Obama is barely to the left.