The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Economics For discussion about economics, financial markets, investing, stock markets, finance, and economic theory


Thanks Tree3Thanks
  • 2 Post By myp
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10th, 2014, 05:38 AM   #1
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Unemployment numbers

Came out minutes ago. NFP up only 74k, but the rate dropped to 6.7%, lowest since 2008.
myp is offline  
Old January 10th, 2014, 06:10 AM   #2
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Compare Obama's totally pitiful "recovery" to Reagan's; no comparison!
It is hardly just Reagan's or Obama's recovery- too many other variables in play. I think the Fed gets a lot of the credit for this one and while it isn't the greatest, it is also not bad and could be far worse overall. If only the Fed could do more, but I think political nutcasery on the Hill has held them back.
myp is offline  
Old January 10th, 2014, 06:15 AM   #3
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Reagan's doing the right things, and Obama doing the wrong things do indeed make the huge difference.
What do you think are the right things and the wrong things? Obama's crisis was probably much worse to begin with also.
myp is offline  
Old January 10th, 2014, 06:43 AM   #4
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Nope. Reagan had to deal with higher unemployment than Obama.
That doesn't mean it was worse. Systemic characteristics and monetary policy matter.
myp is offline  
Old January 10th, 2014, 07:01 AM   #5
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
What is way worse, is Obama's numbers look way better than they would have been, had millions not given up hope finding work, and therefore quit looking. That did not happen under Reagan.
There are many reasons for labor force participation rate changes. You can't just look at the number and blame it on the Presidency. Like I said, systemically Obama's recession was probably worse given the state of the financial system and Fed rates that were already relatively low. He is also President during a time when automation is more and more a substitute for lower level labor and where global competition is greater. A lot of capital that may have added jobs in Reagan's days may be adding computers or machines today. And that is no fault of Obama's, the Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else.

Then there is the whole issue of the Federal Reserve- the side that many political discussions seem to leave out for whatever reason. Amongst macroeconomists, the effectiveness of fiscal policy vs. monetary policy in spurring a recovery is still highly contentious. I think Volcker and Bernanke both did great jobs doing what they had to do in their tenures, by the way. I preferred some of Reagan's fiscal measures to Obama's too (not a fan of the stimulus as it was done- would've preferred tax cuts), but they presided over different times. Overall, it could be a lot, lot worse (imagine one of the Tea Party folks trying to slash spending across the board right now or in the last few years and actually having enough power to do so).
myp is offline  
Old January 10th, 2014, 07:30 AM   #6
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
What about Greenspan?

Ha.
myp is offline  
Old January 11th, 2014, 06:51 PM   #7
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Yeah, he was WAY to slow to react to economic conditions.
Eh... I don't know if lack of speed was the issue, just some bad judgement calls and perhaps a bit too much ideology.
myp is offline  
Old January 12th, 2014, 07:19 AM   #8
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
How does ideology come into play when dealing with numbers?
I think Greenspan was more ideological than some other chairmen of the Fed in how he saw markets and banking. He seemed to have a lot more faith in the private sector even when the numerical risks were partly in front of him. Might be due to his relative lack of an academic background. Reminds me, I need to check out his new book.
myp is offline  
Old January 12th, 2014, 08:01 AM   #9
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
One who has more faith in the government than the private sector does so at their own peril.
My point is it shouldn't be about faith in anything. There are things greater than faith which should be guiding policy.
Thanks from tecoyah and Polydectes

Last edited by myp; January 12th, 2014 at 08:08 AM.
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Tags
numbers , unemployment



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ghana revises GDP numbers by over 60% myp Economics 0 November 25th, 2012 08:14 PM
The Magic Numbers CatholicCrusader Government and Politics 6 December 5th, 2011 02:18 AM
Obama Manipulates Numbers to Get Unemployment Under 9% CatholicCrusader Current Events 1 December 4th, 2011 11:23 AM
OMB predicts unemployment over 9% thru 2012 Patrick Government and Politics 15 September 4th, 2011 08:21 AM
Unemployment numbers .... which numbers can we trust? deanhills Government and Politics 8 April 12th, 2010 08:18 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.