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

[4est_4est_Gump]

No sooner had Chief Justice Roberts issued his ruling that ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance ObamaCare was a tax than the law’s defenders in the press were racing to rebut the idea that the law, overall, is the largest tax increase in American history.

“No, ObamaCare Isn’t the Biggest Tax Increase in History,” was the headline over Kevin Drum’s piece in Mother Jones, published July 1.

“No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart)” was the headline over a July 2 postby the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, which hyperlinked back to Kevin Drum.

Bloomberg Businessweek’s Elizabeth Dwoskin weighed in on July 3. Her article was headlined, “Why ObamaCare’s Tax Increase Isn’t the Biggest Ever,” and it linked back to Ezra Klein.

On July 5, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn, a college pal of mine, joined the fray with an article whose web headline is “The Affordable Care Act Is Not The Biggest Tax Hike.” He linked back to both Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum.

Critics would call this herd journalism, or pack journalism, or groupthink. Defenders would say it is just giving credit where credit is due, and that it happens routinely among right-leaning journalists as well as among left-leaning ones. The important thing for a reader to remember, though, is just because a headline or an idea is repeated over and over again doesn’t make it true.

In this case, the left-wing claim that ObamaCare “Isn’t the Biggest Tax Increase in History” is based on exceedingly flimsy evidence, and there’s an entirely plausible case that it is the biggest tax increase in history.

In this case, when one gets into the matter, Mr. Drum’s article, which is the basis for all the others, is flawed. It relies itself on two sources: a June 6, 2011 Treasury Department paper and an analysis by Politifact.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/09/yes-actually-obamacare-is-the-biggest-ta

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

rw V lw

On May 22, 2011, a tornado ripped through the town of Joplin, Missouri. The multi-vortex storm cut an eerily straight west-east line through Joplin’s downtown street grid, growing to three quarters of a mile wide at its peak. In the end, the Category 5 twister physically picked up and slammed down about one-quarter of the town, creating 3 million cubic yards of debris. It flattened big-box stores such as Home Depot and Walmart and left a desert of concrete foundation slabs covering a six-mile stretch of destruction. The storm killed 161 people, displaced 9,000 more, and completely wiped out more than 4,000 structures while damaging another 3,000. It was the deadliest tornado since modern recordkeeping began in 1950, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But as the one-year anniversary of the storm approached, Joplin found itself in startlingly good shape. Local officials estimate that insurance claims will total $2 billion, yet the town’s business tax revenues are actually up for the year. School enrollment is 95 percent of what it was before the tornado, and the vast majority of displaced residents have secured lodging in or near the area.

Joplin’s recovery contrasts with the fitful, fraught response to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, 700 miles to the south, in 2005. The two storms, like the two cities, were different in nature and scale. But there were also disparities in the official and unofficial responses after the initial damage. While the people of Joplin largely took matters into their own hands, pushing aside burdensome rules and refusing help when it came with too many strings attached, New Orleans and the surrounding area to this day remains hamstrung by federal, state, and local bureaucracy. Joplin’s experience offers a powerful lesson in self-sufficiency and knowing when to say “no thanks” to government.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/10/after-the-storm

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The bottom line is that in the historical context of recent non-recessionary years, June 2012′s raw numbers reveal a job market that has essentially ground to a halt — and that’s before we get to the important underappreciated observations Carson made at IBD:

“The employment-to-population ratio for those aged 25-54 dipped to 75.6% in June, down sharply from 80% in January 2008.” That’s also lower than it was when the recession officially ended in June 2009. Millions of people in their prime earning years have dropped out of the workforce, and they haven’t seen a reason to try to get back in. If they were looking for work, the unemployment rate would more than likely be over 10%.

“Entrepreneurial activity (is) fading. The number of startup firms has crashed from pre-recession highs, still near levels previously seen in the early 1980s.” This development throws into question the validity of BLS’s monthly “birth/death” adjustments. In June, it estimated that otherwise undetectable start-ups and very small businesses, net of those which went out of business, added 124,000 jobs. If it turns out that they’re only half-right, June’s real hiring activity was at a level one would see during a recession.

“Meanwhile, the number of employees at startups has plunged, with a greater share of new firms with no employees — one-man shops.” In normal recoveries, entrepreneurs are eager to hire people to take advantage of extraordinary opportunities. That’s mostly not happening now, for a number of reasons, including mediocre economic growth, the uncertain costs of Obamacare, overbearing overregulation, and perhaps most ominously, “Taxmageddon,” which threatens to throw the economy into a full-blown recession next year — that is, if it isn’t already in one now.

Despite all of this, President Obama told an Ohio campaign event audience on Friday that June’s results were “a step in the right direction.” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’s related press release claimed: “We remain on a path toward stable and durable growth.”

No they weren’t, and no we aren’t.

Tom Blumer
http://pjmedia.com/blog/seasonally-...uestionable-june-jobs-report/?singlepage=true

 

[BotanyBoy]

Tom Blumer
http://pjmedia.com/blog/seasonally-...uestionable-june-jobs-report/?singlepage=true

LOL that's funny....right before I left there were STILL people in TX begging for cash holding "Katrina victim" signs up years after the fact. Prob will be for years more.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When President Obama boasts of the number of jobs created during his administration, the numbers he cites may be correct, but he doesn't count the other jobs that were lost during his administration. His critics cite the latter. Both can claim to be right because they are talking about different things.

What has been the net effect? During this administration, the proportion of the working age population that has a job has fallen to the lowest level in decades. The official unemployment rate does not count the millions of people who have simply given up looking for a job.

If everybody gave up looking for a job, the official unemployment rate would fall to zero. But that would hardly mean that the problem was solved or that the "stimulus" worked. Creating particular jobs does not mean a net increase in jobs.

Thomas Sowell
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/jobs-versus-net-jobs/print

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

LOL that's funny....right before I left there were STILL people in TX begging for cash holding "Katrina victim" signs up years after the fact. Prob will be for years more.

Here in flyover country, we know what the real cost of government is in capital and people...

 

[mercury14]

Prove it.

You just said we're about to go back into recession. The market doesn't reflect that at all though You think you know something Wall Street doesn't.

C&P spam isn't helping your case.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Thomas Sowell
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/jobs-versus-net-jobs/print

Good ole porch negro Thomas can find something wrong with any bit of good news. He's an inspiration to the fringe right here.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The US central bank announced recently that it will expand its "Operation Twist" program to extend the maturities of assets on its balance sheet and also said it stands ready to take further action to put unemployed Americans back to work. The US central bank will prolong the program through the end of the year, selling $267 billion of shorter-term securities and buying the same amount of longer-term debt. The action should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more accommodative, so it is held.

The idea behind the move, nicknamed "Operation Twist" after a similar policy in the 1960s, is to push down long-term borrowing costs to encourage the housing market and other forms of economic activities. But why should a lowering of interest rates do all this?

For instance, the data from 2007 to present indicates that a decline in interest rates did nothing visibly to lift housing starts. There is in fact a positive correlation between interest rates and housing starts since 2007. (A fall in interest rates is now associated with a downtrend in housing activity.) Note that prior to 2007 there was negative correlation between housing starts and interest rates — so why is there a sudden break in the correlation?


A fall in interest rates cannot grow the economy. All that it can produce is a misallocation of real savings. As a rule, an artificial lowering of interest rates (which is accompanied by the central bank's monetary pumping — increasing commercial banks' reserves) boosts the demand for lending; and this, as a rule, causes banks to expand credit "out of thin air."

This in turn sets in motion the diversion of real savings, or real funding, from wealth-generating activities to non-wealth-generating activities.

Because so-called economic activity is measured in terms of money, obviously the more money is created the greater the so-called economic activity is going to be, which is misleadingly interpreted as a strengthening in real economic growth. (Note that employing price deflators doesn't fix the problem of measuring real economic growth.)

As long as the pool of real savings is still expanding, the illusory policy of the central bank appears to be "working."

Trouble emerges, however, when the pool of real savings comes under pressure (when it is either stagnating or falling). Then monetary pumping by the central bank cannot lift the rate of growth of the money supply, because banks don't employ the pumped money in boosting the expansion of lending.

Note that banks are just intermediaries: once the pool of real savings is not there, any expansion of lending out of thin air runs the risk that it will end up as nonperforming assets. (Remember it is the expanding pool of real savings that makes real economic growth — i.e., real wealth — expansion possible.)

Obviously banks will not be interested in this. Observe that when the pool of real savings is expanding, banks "can afford" to engage in inflationary lending without incurring too much risk.

However, as the pool comes under pressure, the chances that banks will end up holding a large percentage of nonperforming (i.e., bad) assets increases. Under this situation the Fed cannot do much, because the banks will not expand lending out of thin air. In short, if the pool of real savings is in trouble, the Fed's ability to create illusion is coming to an end.

Obviously the Fed can bypass the banks and lend money directly to the nonbanking sector, thereby boosting the growth momentum of the money supply — such as the "helicopter money." We suggest that if the pool of real savings is in trouble, such pumping will not work; in fact, it will run the risk of destroying the market economy.

Frank Shostak
http://mises.org/daily/6102/Yet-Another-Operation-Twist

 

[mercury14]

Good ole porch negro Thomas can find something wrong with any bit of good news. He's an inspiration to the fringe right here.

Where do you think AJ got the idea that gas prices dropping is bad for the economy and should be blamed on Obama.? And if they rise that's also bad for the economy and blamed Obama.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You just said we're about to go back into recession. The market doesn't reflect that at all though You think you know something Wall Street doesn't.

C&P spam isn't helping your case.

The market will be the last to react because it will not move until the know-it-alls and true believers panic.

Now, let's start seeing some proof of your contentions and what you believe is about to happen...

 

[mercury14]

It's clear from AJ's retreat into his usual C&P spam that he's been soundly beaten here today.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where do you think AJ got the idea that gas prices dropping is bad for the economy and should be blamed on Obama.? And if they rise that's also bad for the economy and blamed Obama.

Prove it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's clear from AJ's retreat into his usual C&P spam that he's been soundly beaten here today.

Still waiting for you to back up just ONE of your serious charges.

If anyone is "beat" it's you and your fellow "winner..."

http://www.downinthevalley.com/images/product/medium/164228.jpg

Throb thread:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068

While you're at it, could you come up with a plan to cancel out America's nigger amnesty policy? And who gave Pocahontas and her drunk-ass tribe citizenship?

 

[mercury14]

The market will be the last to react because it will not move until the know-it-alls and true believers panic.

Now, let's start seeing some proof of your contentions and what you believe is about to happen...

WTF is this? Wall Street immediately reacts to data suggesting that economy is going one way or another. Your entire assertion is patently wrong and anyone with a pinch of basic investment knowledge should already know this.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The market will be the last to react because it will not move until the know-it-alls and true believers panic.

Now, let's start seeing some proof of your contentions and what you believe is about to happen...

That's a rather unusual view of the stock market. Very few people, I think, would agree with you that the stock market is somehow a "trailing indicator" of the economy.

Most people, I believe, would argue exactly the opposite: that the stock market is a bellweather consensus estimate of the economy for a period roughly six months out.

But hey, I won't impede your FREEDOM to believe what you want to believe. After all, you've lectured us plenty of times on how one dollar, one quarter and one nickel is 91 cents.

 

[mercury14]

That's a rather unusual view of the stock market. Very few people, I think, would agree with you that the stock market is somehow a "trailing indicator" of the economy.

Most people, I believe, would argue exactly the opposite: that the stock market is a bellweather consensus estimate of the economy for a period roughly six months out.

But hey, I won't impede your FREEDOM to believe what you want to believe. After all, you've lectured us plenty of times on how one dollar, one quarter and one nickel is 91 cents.

That was honestly one of the most ignorant, misinformed things AJ has ever posted.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That was honestly one of the most ignorant, misinformed things AJ has ever posted.

His firebase done been overrun. Bout time to call in the Vettecavalry and Koalartillery.

 

[busybody..]

Did you even read your own link?..........Yes, I just red it.............. It was a "study" done by a conservative anti-tax group...............SO? does that make them wrong?.............. And it refused to consider wealthy people moving into the state in its analysis...........There is no evidence of that at all..........you made it up, IN EFFECT, YOU LIED.....In fact they said 31,000 NET left, that mean some came and some left and the NET was a loss....so they did consider those that came......... Furthermore, it didn't ask respondents why they moved. Now I know you have little formal education, but doesn't this sound just a wee bit shady to you? It's almost like this conservative group intentionally avoided doing valid research in order to sell a narrative to stupid people.

Then your article goes on to talk about how actual nonpartisan research..........There was NO STUDY done, you made this up as well, further......Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, said while a number of people left the state between 2007 and 2010, others moved in. The net loss, he said, is “very small,” he said............What evidence is there that THEY are "non partisan"?...........and they alos admit that there was a loss has shown no link at all that taxes are driving the wealthy out of Maryland. How come you stopped your C&P right before you got to that part?

You are a piece of shit and a lying piece at that, NIGGERPOONZANDI

 

[busybody..]

WAPO POLL: 54% Disapprove of Obama’s Handling of Economy. But wait, it gets worse: “When you consider how slanted the poll is, the numbers should terrify Team Obama. Of respondents only 24% call themselves Republicans, with a full 60% listed as Democrat or independent.”

 

[busybody..]

This is what NIGGERPOOP and NOGGERPOONZANDI call recovery

and remember

85,000 "people" went on SS disability

CHARLES GASPARINO: Steps In The Double-Talk Direction.



Our president has a funny way with words when it comes to describing the lousy economy. Even for an election year, some of his whoppers would be laughable — if they weren’t coming from a man who wants to remain in charge of the country and its floundering economy for another four years

Speaking after last Friday’s jobs report, President Obama said the economy is taking a “step in the right direction.” Really?

Economic growth as measured by gross domestic product is falling; it’s now less than 2 percent. The Friday report showed that 80,000 jobs were created last month, vs. 77,000 the month before. So, yes, there was an increase — but, earlier in the year, the economy created an average of 226,000 jobs a month. The trend line is actually falling — i.e., we’re headed in the wrong direction.

Hey, it’s still “change.”

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's a rather unusual view of the stock market. Very few people, I think, would agree with you that the stock market is somehow a "trailing indicator" of the economy.

Most people, I believe, would argue exactly the opposite: that the stock market is a bellweather consensus estimate of the economy for a period roughly six months out.

But hey, I won't impede your FREEDOM to believe what you want to believe. After all, you've lectured us plenty of times on how one dollar, one quarter and one nickel is 91 cents.

It is, he's got it backwards....the market crashes before people starve and start jumping out of windows.

 

[busybody..]

It is, he's got it backwards....the market crashes before people starve and start jumping out of windows.

as has been said


the mkt has correctly called 11 out of the past 7 recessions




On a different note, the "mkt" today is somewhat skewed, in that the FED has made it the ONLY GAME IN TOWN.......not earnings, not really expectations, the easy $$$ from teh FED and its plunge protection team......has made it the only winning game

 

[RobDownSouth]

We're All European Socialists Now!
ARTHUR C. BROOKS


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577509251648959104.html

Debunkin' the WSJ "America is Europe!" editorial: Love those pre-WWII comparisons!

 

[busybody..]

Recovery

Unemployment Rate Among 2012 College Grads Hits 16.8%…




Hope and change!

Via Yahoo! News:


The Class of 2012 may have few reasons to celebrate this year. Along with the long-term unemployed, experts say their prospects are the bleakest among all job-seekers.

The U.S. economy added a lower-than-expected 80,000 jobs last month, according to data Friday from the Labor Department. Though the overall unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.2%, experts say this year’s 1.8 million college graduates have a rough job search ahead. “Over the last five years, the jobs situation has gotten increasingly intense for each successive graduating class,” says Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit think-tank based in Arlington, Va. “Their concern is now palpable.”

The last half-decade has not been good to graduates. Only a half of those who graduated since 2006 are now employed full time, according to a recent Rutgers University survey. More college graduates are settling for jobs that in years past would have gone to those without degrees, while people in their 30s are now occupying jobs once taken by recent graduates, says Carl Van Horn, professor of public policy and director of Rutgers’ John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.

But if all the young people who’ve already given up looking for jobs are included — the 1.7 million people aged 18-29 who’ve been out of work for more than a year — the latest 8.2% unemployment figure would be closer to 16.8% for that age group, Conway says. That’s the highest unemployment rate for that age group since World War II. “Their story is one of few opportunities, delayed dreams, and stalled careers,” he says.