dum luck
you still out there
i got pigged on my response to your request for data to support my position
so here it is
starting with your request
dum luk wrote on Fri, 12/11/2009 - 12:27 pm
Mock,
You keep posting that "we need to create over 300k jobs a month to dig our way out of this hole over a 5 to 7 year period".
Where are you getting that number ??
I believe 175k per month would do it in a 5 year time frame. These are my sources:
http://web-xp2a-pws.ntrs.com:80/content//media/attachment/data/econ_research/0912/document/dd120809.pdf
Economist Mark Zandi: On stimulus, jobs, state finances, inflation and the year ahead
my answer
you asked where i got my figures and supplied a different set of numbers
your first reference says 86k just to hold steady at current employment rate
my sources put the steady state number at 127 k
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/signs_of_healing_in_the_labor_market_though_unemployment_remains_in_double_/
ok no big deal
what you are leaving out is the job GROWTH needed to re coup the 8 million jobs lost since the recession began
do we agree almost 8 million jobs have been lost????
see this article for one as a reference
US economy has lost almost 7m jobs since recession began, fresh figures show - Telegraph
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
we were for an ice age before we were against it
longwaver wrote 10:49 pm
" in 75 the gov predicted a (coming) ice age...And (and so)a government forecast for anything is worth what again?"
-----
my response
i dont think the government made that prediction in 75 (ford administration?)
back then there was good reason to think that in the coming centuries (they never said tomorrow) we would enter a new ice age
the natural record indicated grand cycles of 95 thousand years ( orbital eccentricity) 42k yrs orbital obliquity) and 12k yrs ( rotational precession) due to the milankovitch cycle
the newer warning about climate change have noting to do with predicting the milankovitch cycle or other natural events that effect climate
i dont know if 20 billions metric tons of CO2 into the air every year will win thee tug of war with the natural cycle of ice ages
i think (guess) it will
but the forbes article is simplistic and unreasonably vituperous in its argument
" in 75 the gov predicted a (coming) ice age...And (and so)a government forecast for anything is worth what again?"
-----
my response
i dont think the government made that prediction in 75 (ford administration?)
back then there was good reason to think that in the coming centuries (they never said tomorrow) we would enter a new ice age
the natural record indicated grand cycles of 95 thousand years ( orbital eccentricity) 42k yrs orbital obliquity) and 12k yrs ( rotational precession) due to the milankovitch cycle
the newer warning about climate change have noting to do with predicting the milankovitch cycle or other natural events that effect climate
i dont know if 20 billions metric tons of CO2 into the air every year will win thee tug of war with the natural cycle of ice ages
i think (guess) it will
but the forbes article is simplistic and unreasonably vituperous in its argument
this is not your grandfathers de-recession
Adllen C said
"Let's not forget the govi deficits"
yeah the deficits are crushing
and thats why i take issue with our friends who say there are lessons from past recessions or the great depression
where we are at today as a country and society is off the charts
nothing like the past
around the time of the GD or just prior, the usa was the "china" of that time...we exported industrial and agricultural goods like crazy
before WWII we had a far favorable balance of trade and gov deficit situation
i really am concerned that this time we have boxed ourselves into a corner and there is no good way out
and as you know i suspect the puppet masters have rigged it this way by design
which political or corporate leaders want to tell the american people we cant live so high on the hog
look at what the press and what passes for our leadership did to carter when he put on a sweater and turned down the heat
"Let's not forget the govi deficits"
yeah the deficits are crushing
and thats why i take issue with our friends who say there are lessons from past recessions or the great depression
where we are at today as a country and society is off the charts
nothing like the past
around the time of the GD or just prior, the usa was the "china" of that time...we exported industrial and agricultural goods like crazy
before WWII we had a far favorable balance of trade and gov deficit situation
i really am concerned that this time we have boxed ourselves into a corner and there is no good way out
and as you know i suspect the puppet masters have rigged it this way by design
which political or corporate leaders want to tell the american people we cant live so high on the hog
look at what the press and what passes for our leadership did to carter when he put on a sweater and turned down the heat
right for the wrong reasons?
mock turtle (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sun, 12/6/2009 - 10:21 pm
*
Wisdom Speaker
except for your quote of mine "the two programs are not the same..."
i agree pretty much with everything you said
please note in my original comment and in many others...
i think we are in deep voodoo...seriously effed and the dollar is toast etc
all im saying is that many of us are so blind angry about all this shit..and understandably so
that many of us have transitions into a zone of less analysis and in favor of venting our spleens
*
Wisdom Speaker
except for your quote of mine "the two programs are not the same..."
i agree pretty much with everything you said
please note in my original comment and in many others...
i think we are in deep voodoo...seriously effed and the dollar is toast etc
all im saying is that many of us are so blind angry about all this shit..and understandably so
that many of us have transitions into a zone of less analysis and in favor of venting our spleens
wisdom speaker wrote
mock turtle wrote:
"...but the two programs are not the same..."
But they are. Under TARP, Uncle Sam issued a large quantity of Treasuries, and injected the cash thus obtained into the banking sector. Effectively a taxpayer-guaranteed loan to the banking sector, funded by investors' cash. But whence flowed the cash?
Ahh, lookie here! We have the Federal Reserve doubling its "balance sheet" to buy Treasuries and Agencies (which are nearly equivalent to Treasuries, given the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie). Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.
Now, look at the Fed's other program. Bankers walk up with trash MBS, walk away with Treasuries and sell them for cash. Federal Reserve doubles its balance sheet to "buy more" Treasuries and Agencies. Banks have to back the MBS loaned to the Federal Reserve in the event that they are no longer AAA-rated (or something like that)... Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.
Read the last sentence of each paragraph and tell me what's different, exactly?
This would be inflationary except that most of the relevant inflation (expansion of money and credit) already occurred. It occurred when the house and stock markets inflated. That was done with shadow bank credit, which the Federal Reserve has now made explicit. They had the choice of ratifying the banks' stealth inflation of "asset values" or allowing the FIRE sector to re-equilibrate with the real economy through asset deflation, and they blinked. (Congress blinked too -- they raised the minimum wage by a large chunk to ratify the inflation as well.) The next problem is that the people's agents in government also failed to rein in the creation of yet more shadow bank credit, so the stage was set for yet another inflationary asset bubble...
Meanwhile, the real economy struggles under tremendous friction from the burden of servicing the huge, and generally non-productive population in the FIRE economy. "Credit intermediation" is "productive friction"...
mock turtle wrote:
"...but the two programs are not the same..."
But they are. Under TARP, Uncle Sam issued a large quantity of Treasuries, and injected the cash thus obtained into the banking sector. Effectively a taxpayer-guaranteed loan to the banking sector, funded by investors' cash. But whence flowed the cash?
Ahh, lookie here! We have the Federal Reserve doubling its "balance sheet" to buy Treasuries and Agencies (which are nearly equivalent to Treasuries, given the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie). Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.
Now, look at the Fed's other program. Bankers walk up with trash MBS, walk away with Treasuries and sell them for cash. Federal Reserve doubles its balance sheet to "buy more" Treasuries and Agencies. Banks have to back the MBS loaned to the Federal Reserve in the event that they are no longer AAA-rated (or something like that)... Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.
Read the last sentence of each paragraph and tell me what's different, exactly?
This would be inflationary except that most of the relevant inflation (expansion of money and credit) already occurred. It occurred when the house and stock markets inflated. That was done with shadow bank credit, which the Federal Reserve has now made explicit. They had the choice of ratifying the banks' stealth inflation of "asset values" or allowing the FIRE sector to re-equilibrate with the real economy through asset deflation, and they blinked. (Congress blinked too -- they raised the minimum wage by a large chunk to ratify the inflation as well.) The next problem is that the people's agents in government also failed to rein in the creation of yet more shadow bank credit, so the stage was set for yet another inflationary asset bubble...
Meanwhile, the real economy struggles under tremendous friction from the burden of servicing the huge, and generally non-productive population in the FIRE economy. "Credit intermediation" is "productive friction"...
is this progress...tarp paydown
from the NYT and CR
"From the NY Times: U.S. Forecasts Smaller Loss From Bailout of Banks
CR, "The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report."
after reading all the negative comments around and the NYT article...it seems to me...
according to the NYT article the estimates of tarp loses have gone from 341 billion last summer...to 100 billion and now down to 42 billion
i agree with hollywood hack that given the games the fed has played at "the window" accepting trash MBS and other assorted crap in exchange for us treasuries is a ticking financial time bomb (my words not his)
but the two programs are not the same
in our zeal, to lambaste the miscreants in DC and NYC for banksterism
are we possibly turning a blind eye to any progress at all?
i agree with Rob Dawg that as long as unemployment is sky high and climbing we are effed (again my word not his)
but this story is...what it is.... nothing more
lets see if the number 41 billion comes to pass...like you im skeptical
but willing to wait and see
but nothing i read above contradicts the new york times article CR posted
"From the NY Times: U.S. Forecasts Smaller Loss From Bailout of Banks
CR, "The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report."
after reading all the negative comments around and the NYT article...it seems to me...
according to the NYT article the estimates of tarp loses have gone from 341 billion last summer...to 100 billion and now down to 42 billion
i agree with hollywood hack that given the games the fed has played at "the window" accepting trash MBS and other assorted crap in exchange for us treasuries is a ticking financial time bomb (my words not his)
but the two programs are not the same
in our zeal, to lambaste the miscreants in DC and NYC for banksterism
are we possibly turning a blind eye to any progress at all?
i agree with Rob Dawg that as long as unemployment is sky high and climbing we are effed (again my word not his)
but this story is...what it is.... nothing more
lets see if the number 41 billion comes to pass...like you im skeptical
but willing to wait and see
but nothing i read above contradicts the new york times article CR posted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)