What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Sean Renaud]

According to the Labor Dept, a shocking 1.2 million left the labor force. These are folks who want a job and looked for one within the past year, but failed.

If discouraged workers are included, as they used to be until 1994 and still should be, the real unemployment rate is 15.1 percent.

So? We've been using the same numbers since 1994 according to you so this isn't an Obama thing and I'd bet that 4.5 unemployment under Bush didn't really happen either if we used this measurement. It's meaningless.

 

[Sean Renaud]

http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?symbol=%24US%3AINDU&width=298&height=160&c1=3&ce=0&cf=0&d2=0&d3=0&d4=1&d5=0&e8=1&legend=0&banner=5&af=2&palette=2

Uh. . .this is my first crack at wing nuttery. But look now that the investors know that Romney's the most likely candidate they are confident in the market! I mean it was Obama's nomination that caused it to plummet all those years ago.

 

[patrick1]

More news about the drop in the labor participation rate, via Zero Hedge (emphasis in original):


A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

This is a misunderstanding or mis-statement of a statistical adjustment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics moved in that month to a different population estimate, based on the 2010 census.

<< The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian
noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian
labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000,
and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. >>

The adjustment does not represent any change whatsoever in the month-on-month or year-on-year figures or percentages. This widely-recirculated blog is untrue. There is no 1.2 million 'explosion'.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Patrick

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/recor...month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/when-white-house-touts-falling-wages

Why is this not true?

What is this? "persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000"

Why is Gallup saying 8.6%?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152432/Unemployment-January.aspx

Why two years ago were the same people celebrating solomnly telling us that once the economy began to improve gas prices and unemployment would skyrocket?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see any small improvement and the stock bubble sure has a lot of people feeling really good and mob psychology can be a driving economic force, but did the debt go away? Is it just a matter of confidence? Will it stop being the rational for the Bush economy going south after the Democrats took control of Congress? Obama's debt is far worse and yet here we are at the miracle marks of 12K and 8.3% and the demand is going to be made for four more years of this sort of an economy. If debt never really mattered, then were we right insisting that Obama's ascendency fueled the lack of confidence that created all the lost jobs that he says was the fault of the other guy's debt and does the loss of the House have anything to do with investor "confidence?"

If Obama's numbers rebound, do we gain confidence, or lose confidence, especially if Democrat control of the House looks to be regained?

Are traders betting on Romney?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The U.S. government's January unemployment rate that it will report Friday morning will be based largely on mid-month conditions. At mid-month, Gallup reported that its unemployment rate had declined to 8.3%, based on data collected through the 15th of the month.

The mid-month reading normally provides a pretty good estimate of the government's unadjusted unemployment rate for the month. However, the government is revising its methodology beginning with the January 2012 report. As a result, the government notes, "household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods." In turn, this makes estimating the government's unemployment rate for January even more difficult than usual.

Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show deterioration since mid-January. While the unemployment rate of 8.6% for January is up only modestly from December, this overall increase subsumes the more negative trend of the most recent weeks. In turn, this also seems consistent with Wednesday's ADP report showing less job growth in January than in the prior month.

Gallup

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

While it is understandable that inflation hawks keep a close watch on the Federal Reserve’s money-creation activities, an equally worrisome Fed activity is taking place right under their noses. Whether or not the Fed is expanding the money supply, it has undoubtedly moved into a new activity under cover of addressing the financial crisis and recession: central planner of the allocation of credit.

As San Jose State University economics professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel points out in The Independent Review (Spring 2011), Fed chairman Ben Bernanke “has so expanded the Fed’s discretionary actions beyond merely controlling the money stock that it has become a gigantic, financial central planner…. [The] Fed that emerged from the crisis is no longer the same as the Fed before the crisis.” It did not even have to expand the money supply to assume its new role.

...

Bernanke has been dubbed “Helicopter Ben” because of his so-called “quantitative easing,” which people assume distributes fiat money evenly across the economy, as if from a helicopter. But for Hummel, “A better moniker would therefore be ‘Bailout Ben.’” He adds, “Helicopter Ben talks a good line about being ready to unleash quantitative easing, but this talk only imparts an aura of justification for the Fed’s incredibly expanded role in allocating the country’s scarce supply of savings.”

One can hardly overstate the extent to which Bernanke’s new powers move the U.S. economy further down the corporate-statist road. In his 1936 General Theory, John Maynard Keynes called for “a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment” as the “only means” of driving the interest rate on capital to zero and to secure full employment. He welcomed the “euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor.” I doubt that’s Bernanke’s precise intention, but in a society that calls itself free, no one should have such power at his disposal. A free economy leaves savings and investment to the uncoerced choices of individual persons, just as it leaves money and banking to the market.

Bernanke, an admirer of Franklin Roosevelt and his experimental response to the Great Depression, promises to give up his extraordinary powers once the economy is well. But those words are small comfort to anyone familiar with the dynamics of government. As Hummel writes, “Bernanke may be sincere about his intention, but when in the history of the Fed—or of most other government agencies, for that matter—have newly acquired authority and reach been easily, entirely, and voluntarily relinquished?”

http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/01/central-planning-at-the-federal-reserve

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama, the Great Divider

...

Under Obama, the United States has suffered the steepest drop in private investment since data were kept, as well as the slowest recovery.

To put this in perspective, $2 trillion of idle cash represents two years’ worth of American investment in equipment and software. Why would corporations rather earn rounding-error levels of interest at the bank than put their money to work in profitable ventures?

First, because U.S. corporate taxes are the highest in the industrial world, and Obama wants to keep them high; second, because trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits imply higher tax rates in the future, and Obama will do nothing to reduce the deficit; third, because ObamaCare sets a high threshold of labor costs for startups with more than 55 employees; fourth, because regulatory costs across the board make numerous projects uneconomical; and fifth, because the arbitrary intervention of the federal government in regulatory affairs multiplies the risk associated with any investment decision.

That’s why the Keystone Pipeline cancellation was so devastating. High energy prices and vulnerable foreign supplies make North American energy alternatives a no-brainer investment, with high prospective returns (as opposed to the wind-and-solar boondoggles pushed by the Obama administration). If you arbitrarily cancel the flagship project, what message does that send to investors?

This isn’t an investors’ strike, but a lockout. This isn’t unemployment, but a government shutout. If Republicans win the presidency and both houses of Congress in November, 2013 will be the hottest year the U.S. economy and stock market have had since 1994.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/02/02/obama-the-great-divider-literally/?singlepage=true

 

[landslider2000]

Wasn't making a partisan point.

Politicians come and go, but this is a perfect time of year to ponder one's portfolio.

As to 15.1 percent real unemployment, that may suggest (inter alia) that consumer behavior won't be all that strong.

 

[RightField]

I guess this is the way Democrats do their "objective statistics"....


Recognizing that the total number of people who have jobs has decreased, the question that they ask themselves is....

"Given the bad news on total employment, how do we have to fudge the numbers to make it look like the unemployment rate is dropping so Obama can get elected again?'

There's another calculation they're concentrating on at the same time....

"How many votes do we have to fraudulently create so that Obama gets elected again?"

...the only real question is what crisis they will invent to divert attention from their duplicity.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A rallying war cry?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The angst from Wingnut Nation of late has been almost palpable in this thread. The economy is definitely improving, so now...NOW...it's time to redefine monthly measurements so that Dooooooooooooom and Gloooooooooooom can be laid at the doorstep of President Obama once more.

To review:
Bad Economic Data? Blame President Obama immediately!
Good Economic Data? Time to revisit the measurement standards!

 

[RightField]

Not a war cry, an effort to get people to think critically and thoroughly.

(from an article I read about 6 months ago that I can't put my finger on - but is posted on Lit somewhere)....Did you know that a large component of the monthly unemployment rate is a "guess" about how many new companies were created? They have no means of measuring it, they just plug a number in and then calculate the overall rate. When Bush was President, they routinely put a small number in and then later revised it up (so when the monthly number came out, it was often overstated making Bush look bad and then they'd adjust it a couple months later to an improved and more accurate level).

On the other hand there's been a pattern of "inflating" the "guess" so that the unemployment numbers look better for Obama when first reported that often get adjusted in the bad direction later when more accuate figures are available.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, it is based on surveys and general rules of thumb, which is why we see the continual revisions.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Under President Oromna, the teaconomy will continue to improve.

 

[RightField]

Do you not find it strange that the total number of people working in the United States dropped significantly and yet the BLS reported that the rate of employment improved to 8.3%.

There were reports throughout the month from large employers who announced layoffs of thousands upon thousands of employees.....

yet the BLS still reported numbers that showed that the employment picture was improving?

Does anyone else not find this strange?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you not find it strange that the total number of people working in the United States dropped significantly and yet the BLS reported that the rate of employment improved to 8.3%. Does anyone else not find this strange?

No, I don't find it the least bit strange. I'm not surprised at all, however, that YOU do.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Do you not find it strange that the total number of people working in the United States dropped significantly and yet the BLS reported that the rate of employment improved to 8.3%. Does anyone else not find this strange?

We're being told now that that number is a fiction, a lie, just a blogger, most likely it's racism...




rosco, it very well may continue to improve, but I will not get excited until we've reached the "feels like a recession" numbers we had when this same cast of characters was going ape-shit crazy about the bad economy under George Bush before the Democrats regained control of the people's purse...

 

[RightField]

No, I don't find it the least bit strange. I'm not surprised at all, however, that YOU do.

I understand that you live off the welfare/ssi/whatever program safety net so you have a very strong interest in keeping the Democrats in power so I understand your point of view also.

Btw...Mr. Morrison, sometimes known as John Wayne, was a conservative.

 

[RightField]

We're being told now that that number is a fiction, a lie, just a blogger, most likely it's racism...




rosco, it very well may continue to improve, but I will not get excited until we've reached the "feels like a recession" numbers we had when this same cast of characters was going ape-shit crazy about the bad economy under George Bush before the Democrats regained control of the people's purse...

It's Bush's fault.

4.6% unemployment rate...that's a good target for them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Trust me on this one; should Gallup be correct and the numbers were heading south at the end of January, then the numbers will be HIGHLY suspect and HIGHLY unusual...




I posted their comments on the last page.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's Bush's fault.

4.6% unemployment rate...that's a good target for them.

If we do not continue this "recovery" then it will be Republican Obstruction, ironically the very same Republican Obstruction that was preventing a recovery...



A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized. (This is because the New Age Liberal is a creature that believes in consensus as a short-cut to an examination of the facts and a reasoned judgment about said facts. Corollary #2.)”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I understand that you live off the welfare/ssi/whatever program safety net so you have a very strong interest in keeping the Democrats in power so I understand your point of view also.

Btw...Mr. Morrison, sometimes known as John Wayne, was a conservative.

Log Cabin even...

 

[RightField]

If we do not continue this "recovery" then it will be Republican Obstruction, ironically the very same Republican Obstruction that was preventing a recovery...



A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized. (This is because the New Age Liberal is a creature that believes in consensus as a short-cut to an examination of the facts and a reasoned judgment about said facts. Corollary #2.)”

Yeah, our next recession will be caused by the fact that the Republicans wouldn't agree to massive new taxes and regulation. lol.

 

[RightField]

Log Cabin even...

He lived near me (my old home) in a very nice home on a fancy little island.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I understand that you live off the welfare/ssi/whatever program safety net so you have a very strong interest in keeping the Democrats in power so I understand your point of view also.

Btw...Mr. Morrison, sometimes known as John Wayne, was a conservative.

Yeah, I disagree with you politically so I "must" be on welfare.

And when all else fails, criticize the avatar.

You're quite the debater.