The erudite Mr. Kuvasz attempts to be persuasive. He is not as persuasive as he thinks, however.
If we examine his comment that it is not really possible to separate the job-market effects of the terrorist attacks from the "underlying economic weakness", he may be half way correct.
Trying to separate the job-market effects of the terrorist attacks from the economy is like trying to separate the "man-made" effects which contribute to "Global warming" from the "natural effects" which contribute to global warming.
It has been done, all you had to do was read the links I provided on the globa warming thread and you would know this.
The partisans for the Administration will claim that 9/11 caused almost all of the extra unemployment after 9/11/. The left wing will claim that the Economy was, as Mr. Kuvasz puts it, loaded with "economic weakness".
I must, therefore, replicate my figures in a previous post:
You posed the as-to-yet unsubstantiated hypothesis that it was not the underlying weak economy that caused the job loss during the 2001-2 recession but that the 911 attack did. It was not I but professional governmental economists that implied that "it is not really possible to separate the job-market effects of the terrorist attacks from the "underlying economic weakness."
But thru the magic prism of ideological poisoning you and you alone can discern what the professionals cannot. Next, I assume you shall boast of being able to see thru walls and around corners in pursuit of your support of George Bush
Your argument is with the professionals at Barrons and the bureau of statistics and you have yet to refute with facts what they stated with their own.
If you had competent arguments about the causes global warming you should have posted them on the thread from which you ran away instead of guttersnipping about it here. Your remark here is akin to a great retort, but spoken only a week after it would have made sense. Check your watch; timing is everything.
btw: your argument is a piss-poor analogy, because the facts do not bear them out as being similar, unless you can show them to be. Can you show that your arguments are analogous?
**********************************************************
The so called "weak economy" you speak of had these Unemployment Numbers in the months before 9/11
SEE BLS
year of 2001
Feb. 4.2 Mar. 4.3 Apr. 4.4 May 4.3 Jun. 4.5 July 4.6 Aug. 4.9
Sept. 5.0
Only then did the rate shoot up rapidly OVER 5.0 to show a 5.7% in December.
If you remember your economics, any unemployment rate under 5.0% is defined as "full employment" by the consensus by Economists.
Quote from "Economics" by Fisher, Dornbusch and Schmalensee, McGraw Hill- 1983 BELOW. Quote from P. 602
"The natural rate of unemployment is the unemployment rate that corresponds to practical FULL EMPLOYMENT in the economy--The full employment number is believed to be anything under five percent ."
I am very sorry but the Unemployment Figures for the months BEFORE 9/11 do not show, as you stated, "a weak economy" according to Professional Economists. The Rate only shot past 5.0 after 9/11.
*************************************************************
I respectfully ask Mr. Kuvasz to show that mainstream economists do not consider have have not, in the past, considered, any unemployment rate below 5.0% as FULL EMPLOYMENT.
If this is correct, then it can hardly be said that the eight months of 2001 when President Bush was President, before 9/11, can be described as an economy with, as Mr. Kuvasz puts it, "underlying weakness".
Indeed, when the figures from the BLS are compared in the area of THE EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO, it is clear that the first term of President Bush's tenure was, on average, higher than most of the months in Clinton's first term.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (SIC)
Series Id: LFS1600000 (1)Seasonally AdjustedSeries Title: CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIOSex: N/aRace: N/aEthnicity: N/aAge: 16 Years And Older (null)Status: Civilian Labor Force (Null)Class of Worker: N/AIndustry: N/AOccupation: N/a
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
1996 62.7 62.9 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.2 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.4
1997 63.4 63.4 63.6 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 64.1 64.0
1998 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.0 64.0 63.9 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.3
1999 64.4 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.4
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.2 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.3 62.4 62.6 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.8
2006 62.9 62.9 63.0 63.0
How could the Economy of the Clinton Years--that glittering economy--ever produce an EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIO which was lower, on average, in 1993 and 1994 than the ones produced by the Bush Administration in 2001 and 2002
The answer is obvious when the link above is perused.
But what about President Bush's second term when compared to President Clinton's second term?
That can be analyzed when the Bush second term is completed. It now has thirty one (31) months left to run.
Then, the learned Mr. Kuvasz produces an interesting quote from Baron's which does not agree that the figure of 5.4% is the REAL unemployment rate for ?(It must be either Sept. or Oct. of 2004 since the Baron Article is dated Oct.15, 2004)
but Mr. Kuvasz does not reference the month referred to in the article.
In fact, Mr. Kuvasz's link states that if the participation rate was the same as it was at the Jan. 2001 level, the Unemployment Rate would be at 9.4%.
Mr.Kuvasz may be surprised to hear that I agree with him.Indeed, if we adjust the data, we can get a higher percentage unemployed.
I agree with him because if we adjust the data, we will see that the ideal economy( of the nineties under William Jefferson Clinton) does not turn out to be as ideal as the left wing claims--that is, if we "adjust the data"
source
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
The data below refers NOT ONLY to the Total Unemployed but also includes all marginally attached workers employed part time for economic reasons
Series ID : LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title : (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor Force Status : Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of Data : Percent
Age : 16 years and over
Educational Attainment : All educational levels
Ethnic Origin : All Origins
Family Member Status : Total
Industry : All Industries
Marital Status : All marital statuses
Occupation : All Occupations
Percent/Rates : Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Race : All Races
Sex : Both Sexes
Data:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
1994 11.8 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0
1995 10.2 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.0
1996 9.8 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.5
1997 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.4
1998 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6
1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.9
2004 9.9 9.7 9.9 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.3
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.6 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.2
*************************************************************
It is clear, therefore, if the data are "Adjusted" to include as the article from Baron( quoted by Mr. Kuvasz) indicated: Those who would like to work full time plus the unemployed---then THE 1994 and 1995 CLINTON YEARS( those Golden years-say the left) have HIGHER TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT THAN ANY BUSH YEAR EXCEPT 2003.
************************************************************
For those who are looking for less arcane explanations of the Unemployment Rate, the May rate will be published Friday and it will be 4.7% or lower--FULL EMPLOYMENT AS JUDGED BY ECONOMISTS.
Your attempt to define the economic health merely by "unemployment rates," as defined by economic textbooks is fallacious, and oddly while you use such to defend George Bush you agree that this is not a good indicator, but unsurprisingly only when used to attack Bill Clinton's economic policies.
well here's clue, the "Left" didn't like Clinton's economic policies precisely because that magical economic tide that was purported to lift all boats was a illusion precisely because the rich people had yachts, while others of us did not have any boat at all, and the more realistic unemployment figures show that. What they also show is that Bush has done even worse.And the numbers, from the more realistic set of unemployment figures I highlighted show it.
But the 800 pound gorilla in all of this is that while Clinton and Bush have similar unemployment figures at similar points in each their the second term, Clinton, unlike Bush had federal budget surpluses, while Bush is running the highest budget deficeits in US history, using the good old Keynesian economic policy of priming the pump to get the economy moving... break down the number of new government jobs versus private sector jobs and Bush looks like FDR and the whole "socialst" WPA/PWA/CCC hiring jag
now who is fooling whom here?
This is why the conservatives are pissed off at Bush; he is spending government money like a drunken sailor yet even more inefficiently than any liberal democrat would ever do.
The bottom lin is that Bush lied when he said that 911 cost the economy a million jobs, the recession started in march 2001, on his watch. it cost the nation millions of jobs, the recovery is in large part through increases in governmnt spending, classical kenyseian policies, misdirected as they are, and thru large increases in government hiring an anathema to conservative ideology
yum yum.
First and foremost, where ever did you get the absolutely silly idea that the "Left Wing" defends Bill Clinton and thought he was a great president? Most of us social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives thought he was a disaster for social policies and consider him merely "The best Republican president of our lifetime."
You skipped over most of my evidence. Why? Were you unable to respond to it?
<snip>
Yes, President Bush has had severe deficits. Do you know that our country has had yearly deficits almost every year since its founding?
<snip>
kuvasz wrote:yum yum.
First and foremost, where ever did you get the absolutely silly idea that the "Left Wing" defends Bill Clinton and thought he was a great president? Most of us social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives thought he was a disaster for social policies and consider him merely "The best Republican president of our lifetime."
You all have had me fooled for a long time now. Who is an example of a social liberal in your opinion, Castro?
George Bush Goes For Broke
A banana republic is one of those places where 1 in 5 of the dollars spent by the government is borrowed, the trade deficit exceeds 6% of GNP, and the president funds the state with a printing press in the basement.
What brings things to a head is usually a sudden loss of confidence; some big debtor doesn't get paid and the currency is suddenly dumped. Next, import prices skyrocket, inflation destroys the citizens' savings, and finally, when no one can get gasoline and spares, the ruler is overthrown.
The IMF is called in, a slightly more responsible leader is installed, and a new currency introduced. Citizens slowly pick up the pieces, but they never trust their rulers again and henceforth keep money offshore or in gold, buried in the backyard.
The U.S. printed to fund the revolutionary war, hence the phrase, "Not worth a continental," but generally, throughout the years, the U.S. has had a currency backed by gold and been the world's biggest creditor. In fact, the dollar was trusted and the economy so strong that it became the world's reserve currency, replacing the British pound.
LBJ spent big on the War and his "Great Society" and so the French got so worried they asked for gold, instead. To stop the drain, Nixon ended gold convertibility and, as the dollars multiplied, their individual value declined. Gold hit $850.
Volker, by targeting the money supply and paying 18% for dollar deposits, restored confidence.
In the 1980s, America slowly slipped from international credit to debit and the debt went up, and up. The U.S. had a lucky break when crisis in Russia and Asia and the Internet boom sent money flowing in. During the Clinton administration it looked for a moment as if the U.S. might not only stop adding to the debt, but pay some off.
But George W. Bush was elected and today the U.S. fiscal position is vastly worse than it was in 1977.
The U.S. just raised the debt limit to $8.2 trillion, that is, the total amount of dollars the U.S. owes can owe holders of U.S. government debt instruments. Well, 7.9 trillion is what the U.S. owes bondholders, but it has promised much more to its citizens. U.S. Comptroller General David Walker reports "the federal government's fiscal exposures now total more than $46 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000." So, amazingly, most of that debt was incurred by the current administration.
Federal revenue peaked at $2.03 trillion in 2000 and then fell.
Expenditures were $2.47 trillion in 2005, an alarming 38.2% above the federal government's expenditures in 2000. Even in constant 2000 dollars this was a 21.8% increase over the five years from 2000 to 2005. The administration supported both massive outlays and tax cuts, both Guns and Butter.
As a consequence of this loss of revenue and uncontrolled spending, the U.S. government relies on debt to cover the difference. In 2000, 1.1% of the U.S. government's cash flow came from new debt, but this grew to 20.4% in 2005.
For every $100 spent by the U.S. government in 2005, $20.40 came from borrowed money, whereas in 2000, it was 1.1%.
This new debt has been easy to service due to declining interest rates; the interest bill was $361.9 billion in 2000, but it fell to $352.3 billion in
2005.
Low interest rates also meant a boom in housing prices, a flood of re-finances, and more spending allowing the U.S. government to evade the political repercussions as the federal debt climbed 40.5% from $5.63 trillion to $7.91 trillion in the same period.
Now, as rates rise, the U.S. will either have to massively cut spending so as to continue to meet its interest expense obligations, or just borrow more, creating a vicious circle where the government borrows more and more money to meet both current expenditures and the climbing interest bill.
Today, the United States is so broke the "structural adjustment team" would have long ago been called in, but for its privilege of being able to pay for imports with its own currency.
Over the last three years, all Federal Reserve Board members have either resigned or retired with replacements appointed by this administration, an unprecedented turnover. The Treasury stops reporting M3 this month and Ben Bernake, a chairman who believed the great depression could have been avoided by monetary accommodation is in the chair.
And people wonder why the price of gold is rising.
Nice graph of the U.S. debt on this site. I can't bring it up here so I'll give you all the site.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
It will show how bad this administration is in its spending. When it comes to irresponsible spending and debt, nothing can beat a Republican.
xingu wrote:Nice graph of the U.S. debt on this site. I can't bring it up here so I'll give you all the site.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
It will show how bad this administration is in its spending. When it comes to irresponsible spending and debt, nothing can beat a Republican.
And you know how that the things the money was spent on were unnecessary??? Spending too much money when you have no choice isn't a fault.
And you know how that the things the money was spent on were unnecessary??? Spending too much money when you have no choice isn't a fault.
Mr. Kuvacs- I am astonished. You get an F.
You skipped over most of my evidence. Why? Were you unable to respond to it?
First of all, the left wing DID support Bill Clinton. If Mrs. Edelman( before Clinton signed the Welfare Bill) is not a card carrying left wing liberal,no one is.
And.of course, Bill Clinton did not take the classic liberal step of rescinding a standing rule barring doctors at federally funded hospitals from counseling women to abort.
Clinton's health care package was as far left as one could get without exhuming Karl Marx.
My professional government economist will match your professional government economist.
It is then that you must get your grade of F. I am very sorry but you did not respond directly to my quantitative evidence from the BLS about
l. Unemployment figures before and after 9/11
2. Economic Definition of Full Employment- Under 5.0
3. Figures showing that the Bush Administration has had Civilian Emploment -Population Ratios which compare very favorably with those during the Clinton Adminstration
4. Evidence that shows when the Unemployment Data is adjusted to include those who are working part time and wish to work full time are included, it is President Clinton's tenure ( despite he had no 9/11 ) that shows weakness especially in his first term.
You then dribble away into esoteric unproven commentary.
Yes, President Bush has had severe deficits. Do you know that our country has had yearly deficits almost every year since its founding?
Do you know that the GNP is the critical factor with regard to the ability of our nation to handle our national debt?
Do you know that at the end of World War II, the deficit for 1945 was LARGER than the GNP?
Do you know that despite the fact that the TOTAL debt increased after World War II and before Viet Nam that the GNP grew faster?
Do you know that because of the tax cuts that the revenue coming in to the treasury is higher than it was before the tax cuts?
Anyway, Mr.Kuvasz, this is all just posturing. Your opinion and my opinion mean nothing in the scheme of things. The bottom line will come in November. I know you will be watching. I will be also. And. if, as I predict, the Republicans hold on to the House and Senate majorities, there will be no criticism strong enough to deaden the victory!!
And lets not forget another war they would like to get into; Iran.
