No, Scrat, none of the indicators are meaningless and if the economy contained only one variable, we could all make 100% accurate forcasts.
I suspect that everyone in the discussion has economics courses way beyond 101, Italgato. C.i certainly has, and so have I.
Scrat, We have a difference of opinion; only the future will tell which one is rignt or wrong. All I know is that these economic experts have been telling us about the growing economy from 18 months ago; many are saying it's gonna happen in the second half of this year. Some are predicting the first half of next year. I'm waiting.
Cicerone Imposter- I do not control the rate of Productivity.
Therefore, I can not put it anywhere.
When automobiles came out and the buggywhip makers were put out of business, they either adapted or starved.
When the productivity index goes up by 6.8% that means that there is more production with the same number of people.
That means that no hiring is necessary.
In Japan, as quoted in Friedman's book- The Lexus and the Olive Tree" there is a Lexus plant which produces 300 Lexus cars a day. Sixth humans work there. These humans MERELY supervise the Robots and Machines which produce the automobiles.
What is the solution?
The Congress and President could pass laws forbidding the introduction of any new technology which would increase productivity.
That wouldn;t work since in this global economy, other countries would utlize the technology we are turning down.
Can anyone be specific and tell me where the new jobs are going to come from?
I think that I have some ideas but I want to hear from Cicerone Imposter or others.
What would Gore have done to preseve jobs.
I really want to know.
I must thank Mamajuana for labeling my post illumiinating. I am certain she is being sincere.
However, I can not take credit for all of the ideas in that post.
Many of them came almost directly from Friedman's stunningly accurate book- "The Lexus and the Olive Tree"
Friedman quotes the great economist -Schumpeter who uses the phrase "creative destruction"
By that phrase, Schumpeter means to say that because of globalization and rising productivity and technological changes, old jobs will be "destroyed" and new ones need to be created.
Think "buggy whip maker" in 1900 and "Computer Engineer in 2000.
Jobs go and jobs come.
Of course, some would say that we need to raise tariff walls and "protect the American worker".
I have listened in vain to all of the putative Democratic Candidates. None ever mentioned "High tariffs."
I wonder why!
Italgato, American productivity is one of the highest on this planet, and that alone is to be applauded. However, as you have opined, creativity is necessary to keep our economy growing. It wasn't that long ago that none of us owned computers. High tech is now the industry of choice for most developed countries, and the third world countries are catching up very quickly. In order to create new products, it is necessary for the populace to have a well educated, creative, innovative people. Once a popular product is created, it must have the wherewithal to produce it. That means a work force able to follow instructions, ready capital, and risk takers. Capitalism and political savvy are necessary to promote economic growth. I still haven't seen any positive actions by this administration that makes me think our economy is going to grow any time soon. When I say economic growth, I don't mean job loss while productivity increaes; it must also mean job growth.
Let's hope so, since on the News Hour tonight it was reported that Unemployment rose again last month.
Scrat, I've maintained before that my opinion differes from most of these eocnomists that are predicting growth in this half or the first half of next year. As the last paragraph of your post in bold letters notes, their projection points in the past have not materialized. There's nothing in my book of cards that shows any indication of growth during the next twelve months. That is my opinion, and I'll stick to it. One of the key indicators for me is the increasing unemployment rate. It's going to take a whole lot of growth to rehire all those that have lost jobs during the past three years. I just don't see it in the cards. BTW, foreclosures on mortgages are also increasing.
Employment is always a trailing indicator. As autum arrives, inventory buildup (from near-historic low levels) will occaision an uptick in production and distribution jobs, and, of course, as the Christmas Season draws nearer, Retail and other Service positions will uptick. Given strong year-end sales results (not guaranteed, but seemingly highly likely), real employment growth will ensue. Of course, if that isn't what happens, The Current Administration faces considerable inconveniece, while, conversely, should it come to pass, The Opposition is left with the prospect of no prospect whatsoever.
Here'a another point of fact: Many government agencies are going to be laying off more people, because they are again showing huge deficits in their budgets. The only way to balance their budget is to lay off people. It wasn't that long ago that government jobs provided their workers with some job security. That's not true any longer. When schools are unable to hire teachers from the lack of money, all the other government funded employees are also going to suffer job loss.
I admit that I have only a year of 100 level macro and micro econ, but the "lagging figure" of unemployment has been lagging for two and a half years now. If it lags any more, it will start dragging in the mud.
cicerone imposter wrote: BTW, foreclosures on mortgages are also increasing.
No, they are not 
Mortgage Rates are
are ticking down as well, with considerable action both in ReFis and new applications..
timber, Some major stores like WalMart seems to hold their own. Most of the others are suffering from red ink. Some of the majors are showing store to store increases, but they're mostly in the single digits. I read recently that Costco is having problems with their sales numbers. Most consumers are already maxed out on their credit cards. Those with money have always purchased whatever they wanted to; their buying power hasn't changed, and they will not affect the sales numbers. What is also telling is that business jet leasees have dropped significantly. A few years ago, that was a growing industry. Most people do not have extra dollars to spend compared to one year ago or two years ago. What money they pocketed from refinancing their home mortgages are already spent. Guess how much the market place has lost in buying power when three million people lost their jobs during the past three years? That'll give you some idea why "growth" in the economy is unrealisitic.
hobitbob, unemployment began to rise in mid 2001, well after the start of the recession, trailing the economic indicators which were already in distinvct downturn. The other indicators are moving up now; employment may be expected to follow as the tide rises. That's not economics; that's logic.
timber, Economics is not "logic." It's an art that must consider many variables. That's the reason why so many "economic experts" differ in their opinions.
Ahh, heck, c.i. , I guess I'm just not as much a pessimist as some. I'm comfortable that the corner has been rounded, and that controlled, sustained growth is under way. In fact, with the steady decline of the dollar, imports become less competitive against American product, while American exports become more attractive globally. I figure the bull is back all the way around.
timber, California is the fifth largest economy in the world, and according to the San Jose Mercury News, Californians are falling behind in their mortgage payments.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/6744431.htm
timber, That is one good sign; that the dollar is losing value against the Euro and Yen, but they have high unemployment problems too.
mamajuana wrote:One problem among many about the use of "lagging" referring to job loss is that it a continuing (and growing) item. There, it is one of the leading indicators. A jobless recovery is another one of those dreamed-up Bush terms that has no meaning. And, of course, the latest shift in blame is to China, and the yuan against the dollar.
And applications for jobless relief rose sharply. And the market is volatile, so can't really be considered a leading indicator.
So "lagging" becomes a questionable word to use.
I think perhaps, scrat, your understanding of the economic situation may not be so broad or wide as you think. CI is worth listening to - he brings great experience and knowledge to this, and, further, makes sense. The people I know down in the financial district would like to meet you. They also question the word "lagging,"
Every one who has taken an Economic Course knows that, for the large majority of Americans, the value of their homes is the largest part of thier estate.
The question- "How is the economy?" can be answered "Very very good"for some people.
Thode who owned houses in DC or New York or SanFrancisco have gained anywhere from 80 to 50
oercent.
