Obama's 88 economy

[code1211]

Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page it's closer to 25% Unemployment..

So you won't believe statistics from the BLS for some reason, but you're perfectly content believing any old statistics that some guy on the internet may as well have just made up. If I had a website saying the real rate of unemployment was 5%, would you believe me?

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inflation isn't 8%.

The argument during the housing boom was that the CPI didn't accurately capture the rising price of homes and thus inflation was understated. I agree. However, if that argument was correct, it's also correct on the downside too. Home prices have collapsed, and the CPI underestimated the decline of inflation, if not outright deflation. But those who are convinced that there is massive price inflation ignore this now and instead focus on food, gas and commodity price inflation. So the inflationistas who pointed to soaring housing costs as to why inflation was higher than the official figures are now ignoring collapsing housing prices and are instead focusing on other areas since they have a narrative they want to perpetuate.

All of that is probably true and I have a great deal of respect for your opinions.

However, in business, we have capital dollars and expense dollars. Near the end of any fiscal year, we often find that we are out of one or the other and that impacts decisions made on how to procure what is needed to both achieve budget and to conduct business.

Expense dollars buy disposables and capital dollars buy assets.

In an individual's monthly budget, the disposables: Gas, food, toilet paper and such don't have quite as clear a separation from the mortgage payment as exists in a business, but it's still there.

The cost of the mortgage is stable even if the value of the house changes while the price of a tank of gas causes a realignment of spending priorities.

 

[code1211]

And from the figures they report we see that half of headline number comes from shocks to the price of energy. Do we want to start measuring the sustained increase in the general level of prices with a figure that's thrown out wildly by transitory supply shocks to one item, do we? I guess since you're trying to pin this on the president, you'll probably just go with whichever measure is biggest, right?

I get that everybody here is super partisan, but at least make a fucking effort to disguise your bullshit in an approximation of a logical thought.

What policy has the Big 0 enacted to help reduce the price of oil and the price of all fuels.

Spare me the Green BS. This has nothing, NOTHING, to do at all with energy at any level.

Our country runs on fossil fuels and nuclear.

What policies has the Big 0 enacted to help us have more and cheaper energy

Absolutely nothing. Obviously, absolutely nothing, because the President has no control whatsoever over the price of oil. Actually that's not entirely true. The President can significantly increase the price of oil by declaring war on an oil exporting country. That's about it. The price of oil is set by the market.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with demanding that the President do something about the price of oil? Isn't the whole Republican shtick that government should get the fuck out of the way and let markets work?

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

In violation of a court order, he continued the moratorium on drilling the Gulf.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

 

[code1211]

Yup.

Bad times for the working classes.

And suddenly, our Republican friends claim they care?

Where were they when all this started?

When all what started? Are you are referring to the period when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress with filibuster proof majorities.

Immediately prior to that time, Unemployment was 4.7%, inflation was non existent, there were cranes everywhere breaking ground on new construction, the economy was growing at about 6% and the Democrats were saying it was the worst economy since the Great Depression.

By the same measures now, Unemployment is about 10%, inflation is about 8%, Finding a construction project is like trying to find an honest politician and the economic growth is at about 1.5%.

How long has it been since this "Worst Economy" was seen? The 7 Plagues of Egypt?

What time period exactly are you referring to?

There are a couple different periods included.

The Democrats took control of the Congress in January of 2007. During that campaign and continuing through until the election of the Big 0, the unrelenting repetition of "the worst economy since the Great Depression" was trumpeted by all of the Dems as an attack against Boooosh and then the justification of all of the Big 0's goals that had and have nothing to do with invigorating the economy.

Have you not noticed that things have gotten a little tougher in the market place now compared to 2006?

 

[Sallow]

Yup.

Bad times for the working classes.

And suddenly, our Republican friends claim they care?

Where were they when all this started?

Cashing in.

 

[code1211]

So you won't believe statistics from the BLS for some reason, but you're perfectly content believing any old statistics that some guy on the internet may as well have just made up. If I had a website saying the real rate of unemployment was 5%, would you believe me?

Our population growth goes on pretty steady. The total number of working Americans is far below that of August 2008. It's still below that of February 2009.

We have had a sudden run up of hiring in recent months and it looks like the Big 0 may end his single term with a net increase in working Americans, but just barely.

That's what the BLS says.

As such, he will avoid being the first president since Hoover to have fewer Americans working at the end of his Presidency than at the start. He got lucky.

Whatever. I don't care. I'm not pro-Obama. Although I would prefer that you didn't call him the Big O out of respect for the late Roy Orbison. I don't care about how it looks for Obama. But if you don't like the President, you don't get to pick the biggest measure of inflation or unemployment you can find and use that, despite it being obviously bullshit. The fact that he has a website doesn't make John Williams an authority on statistical measures. Any retard can get a website. You need transparency and peer review.

I'm not the poster that referenced that web site. The BLS stats are what they are. We must use them to find a measure that is not so massaged that it's useless. Using total employed is the best one from their site IMHO.

I, too, have a very healthy lack of respect for the accuracy of blogs, but they do often point to a direction that may provide a source that's trustable.

Out of respect to Oscar Robertson, I have not referred to Obama as the Big O, but rather as the Big 0.

I didn't know Orbison had that monicre also, but I did have his Greatest Hits on vinyl. Probably still do, but I no longer have a turntable.

 

[DSGE]

What policy has the Big 0 enacted to help reduce the price of oil and the price of all fuels.

Spare me the Green BS. This has nothing, NOTHING, to do at all with energy at any level.

Our country runs on fossil fuels and nuclear.

What policies has the Big 0 enacted to help us have more and cheaper energy

Absolutely nothing. Obviously, absolutely nothing, because the President has no control whatsoever over the price of oil. Actually that's not entirely true. The President can significantly increase the price of oil by declaring war on an oil exporting country. That's about it. The price of oil is set by the market.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with demanding that the President do something about the price of oil? Isn't the whole Republican shtick that government should get the fuck out of the way and let markets work?

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

 

[Sallow]

What policy has the Big 0 enacted to help reduce the price of oil and the price of all fuels.

Spare me the Green BS. This has nothing, NOTHING, to do at all with energy at any level.

Our country runs on fossil fuels and nuclear.

What policies has the Big 0 enacted to help us have more and cheaper energy

Absolutely nothing. Obviously, absolutely nothing, because the President has no control whatsoever over the price of oil. Actually that's not entirely true. The President can significantly increase the price of oil by declaring war on an oil exporting country. That's about it. The price of oil is set by the market.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with demanding that the President do something about the price of oil? Isn't the whole Republican shtick that government should get the fuck out of the way and let markets work?

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

In violation of a court order, he continued the moratorium on drilling the Gulf.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Excuse me..are you saying "Supply" is the problem?

Really?

 

[DSGE]

Our population growth goes on pretty steady. The total number of working Americans is far below that of August 2008. It's still below that of February 2009.

We have had a sudden run up of hiring in recent months and it looks like the Big 0 may end his single term with a net increase in working Americans, but just barely.

That's what the BLS says.

As such, he will avoid being the first president since Hoover to have fewer Americans working at the end of his Presidency than at the start. He got lucky.

Whatever. I don't care. I'm not pro-Obama. Although I would prefer that you didn't call him the Big O out of respect for the late Roy Orbison. I don't care about how it looks for Obama. But if you don't like the President, you don't get to pick the biggest measure of inflation or unemployment you can find and use that, despite it being obviously bullshit. The fact that he has a website doesn't make John Williams an authority on statistical measures. Any retard can get a website. You need transparency and peer review.

I'm not the poster that referenced that web site. The BLS stats are what they are. We must use them to find a measure that is not so massaged that it's useless. Using total employed is the best one from their site IMHO.

I, too, have a very healthy lack of respect for the accuracy of blogs, but they do often point to a direction that may provide a source that's trustable.

Out of respect to Oscar Robertson, I have not referred to Obama as the Big O, but rather as the Big 0.

I didn't know Orbison had that monicre also, but I did have his Greatest Hits on vinyl. Probably still do, but I no longer have a turntable.

Ah. Must have got you confused with Bugs. Sorry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yup.

Bad times for the working classes.

And suddenly, our Republican friends claim they care?

Where were they when all this started?

warning how dangerous Progressive economics is to society at large

 

[code1211]

Absolutely nothing. Obviously, absolutely nothing, because the President has no control whatsoever over the price of oil. Actually that's not entirely true. The President can significantly increase the price of oil by declaring war on an oil exporting country. That's about it. The price of oil is set by the market.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with demanding that the President do something about the price of oil? Isn't the whole Republican shtick that government should get the fuck out of the way and let markets work?

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

What I think is that there are business friendly policies and policies that are unfriendly to business. Right now, Obama is threatening to single out the oil companies and eliminate deductions that are available to them, and to all other companies, forcing them to not take those deductions.

This will have no effect whatever on their profits. They will raise the price of gas and the effects will ripple through the economy. Obama fights the Class War again and the people suffer.

The list of anti oil policies in the previous post still stand.

The Green Whackos have fought ANWR since e the 80's. That is not a magic wand waving policy. It is a policy of future orientation from the past that should have been enacted then.

Even assuming that the problem occurred when the Big 0 took office with gas prices at $1.87/gallon, what policy has he enacted to reduce the price of gasoline?

With prices pushing $4.00, obviously, not enough.

 

[code1211]

Absolutely nothing. Obviously, absolutely nothing, because the President has no control whatsoever over the price of oil. Actually that's not entirely true. The President can significantly increase the price of oil by declaring war on an oil exporting country. That's about it. The price of oil is set by the market.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with demanding that the President do something about the price of oil? Isn't the whole Republican shtick that government should get the fuck out of the way and let markets work?

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

In violation of a court order, he continued the moratorium on drilling the Gulf.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Excuse me..are you saying "Supply" is the problem?

Really?

Strawman.

I'm saying that the Obama and his supporters have actively stood in the way of all business growth including oil since the moment he first decided to begin his campaign for the presidency.

That he attacks Boeing, Gibson, Keystone, all oil and anything else that employs, invests, heals, capitalizes or developes is obvious.

What policies has the Obama administration enacted that would decrease the price of gas?

 

[DSGE]

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

What I think is that there are business friendly policies and policies that are unfriendly to business. Right now, Obama is threatening to single out the oil companies and eliminate deductions that are available to them, and to all other companies, forcing them to not take those deductions.

This will have no effect whatever on their profits. They will raise the price of gas and the effects will ripple through the economy. Obama fights the Class War again and the people suffer.

Well that's clearly bullshit. If they could simply raise the price they would have done so already. Unless you think maybe they said to themselves "we could be making more money if we raised our prices, but you know what, I think we've got enough money". They won't be able to raise their price at all. If the deductions didn't have any effect whatsoever on their profits, then they wouldn't care about Obama threatening to eliminate them.

The list of anti oil policies in the previous post still stand.

No they don't because they have no effect on the current price of oil. You haven't actually addressed that point. Do you think that if Obama made a couple of reforms, he could magically bring the price of gasoline down to $2.50?

Even assuming that the problem occurred when the Big 0 took office with gas prices at $1.87/gallon, what policy has he enacted to reduce the price of gasoline?

With prices pushing $4.00, obviously, not enough.

And the entire point is that there is nothing he can do to affect the current price of oil. Policies you've mentioned affect the long run supply of oil, but don't do anything at all about current prices. Unless you think Obama can create peace in the middle east and stop emerging markets from emerging, he can't do diddly squat about gas prices.

 

[code1211]

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

Well that's clearly bullshit. If they could simply raise the price they would have done so already. Unless you think maybe they said to themselves "we could be making more money if we raised our prices, but you know what, I think we've got enough money". They won't be able to raise their price at all. If the deductions didn't have any effect whatsoever on their profits, then they wouldn't care about Obama threatening to eliminate them.



No they don't because they have no effect on the current price of oil. You haven't actually addressed that point. Do you think that if Obama made a couple of reforms, he could magically bring the price of gasoline down to $2.50?

Even assuming that the problem occurred when the Big 0 took office with gas prices at $1.87/gallon, what policy has he enacted to reduce the price of gasoline?

With prices pushing $4.00, obviously, not enough.

And the entire point is that there is nothing he can do to affect the current price of oil. Policies you've mentioned affect the long run supply of oil, but don't do anything at all about current prices. Unless you think Obama can create peace in the middle east and stop emerging markets from emerging, he can't do diddly squat about gas prices.

Read my sig line.

Obviously, he can. Remember what happened in 2001? In October of that year, I filled my car with gas for .99/gallon. Not saying we need to threaten to destroy the Middle East. Just noting that what a president says, no action required here at all, what he says has a dramatic effect on everything.

Talking without acting is something that seems to appeal to Democrats.

Oil companies produce a commodity. Gas is gas whether it's BP or Shell. Oil companies magically have about the same price in the same neighborhood. If you haven't noticed that, I'm happy that you've come out of your coma.

All companies do not pay any tax at all. They collect tax on behalf of the government and then pass it along. Oil companies are included in all companies. You probably pay a sales tax where you live. You probably pay excise taxes on gasoline when you buy it. Excise taxes are applied at the local, state and federal levels.

Every company accounts for the taxes it is charged to do business by simply raising their prices. This is absolutely basic stuff. All companies that are publicly held have a responsibility to their share holders which include the rich, the retired, the average worker with a 401K and just about anybody you can think of.

If a publicly held company fails to turn a profit, it cannot pay a dividend, the stock will drop, investors will divest and the company will go out of business.

You can trust me when I say that if the government increases the tax on a commodity that is obviously price fixed, the companies selling that commodity will raise the price.

In order to prove that the oil companies would not raise prices due to an increase in tax, you said that if the oil companies could raise the price, they already would have? What did you pay for gas this week?

 

[code1211]

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

Well that's clearly bullshit. If they could simply raise the price they would have done so already. Unless you think maybe they said to themselves "we could be making more money if we raised our prices, but you know what, I think we've got enough money". They won't be able to raise their price at all. If the deductions didn't have any effect whatsoever on their profits, then they wouldn't care about Obama threatening to eliminate them.



No they don't because they have no effect on the current price of oil. You haven't actually addressed that point. Do you think that if Obama made a couple of reforms, he could magically bring the price of gasoline down to $2.50?

Even assuming that the problem occurred when the Big 0 took office with gas prices at $1.87/gallon, what policy has he enacted to reduce the price of gasoline?

With prices pushing $4.00, obviously, not enough.

And the entire point is that there is nothing he can do to affect the current price of oil. Policies you've mentioned affect the long run supply of oil, but don't do anything at all about current prices. Unless you think Obama can create peace in the middle east and stop emerging markets from emerging, he can't do diddly squat about gas prices.

That is the whole point. He must do things now that will have an effect in 5 to 10 years. No action now? Bigger problem then.

 

[Oldstyle]

Language, please.

Yes, the government should get out of the way. The Big 0 has closed down the ability to drill off shore on both the East and the West Coasts eliminating the option afforded to the states.

ANWR is still off limits.

In violation of a court order, he continued the moratorium on drilling the Gulf.

The Keystone pipeline is still blocked.

Refineries are all but impossible to get approvals to build.

He doesn't need to grab a shovel and start digging a well. All he needs to do is exactly what you say the Republican Schtick is.

Excuse me..are you saying "Supply" is the problem?

Really?

Strawman.

I'm saying that the Obama and his supporters have actively stood in the way of all business growth including oil since the moment he first decided to begin his campaign for the presidency.

That he attacks Boeing, Gibson, Keystone, all oil and anything else that employs, invests, heals, capitalizes or developes is obvious.

What policies has the Obama administration enacted that would decrease the price of gas?

We're all fortunate that Barry didn't get his way with Cap & Trade legislation or we'd be looking at even higher energy costs (with those costs being passed along to consumers in across the board price hikes of most items) than we are now. Hey, but elect him to another term, Kiddies and let's see if he can't get that kind of legislation in through the back door in the form of EPA regulations...you know...the ones that he backed off on in his attempt to GET reelected. Punch Barry's ticket for another 4 years and he'll have ZERO reason to not push all of his progressive agenda through. You think energy costs are going up now? You ain't seen nothing if Obama gets another term.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Absolutely, that's stuff that needs to be dealt with. But you think any of that will influence the current price of oil? You think Obama could just make some reforms and suddenly the price of gasoline will drop to $2.50?

Well that's clearly bullshit. If they could simply raise the price they would have done so already. Unless you think maybe they said to themselves "we could be making more money if we raised our prices, but you know what, I think we've got enough money". They won't be able to raise their price at all. If the deductions didn't have any effect whatsoever on their profits, then they wouldn't care about Obama threatening to eliminate them.



No they don't because they have no effect on the current price of oil. You haven't actually addressed that point. Do you think that if Obama made a couple of reforms, he could magically bring the price of gasoline down to $2.50?

Even assuming that the problem occurred when the Big 0 took office with gas prices at $1.87/gallon, what policy has he enacted to reduce the price of gasoline?

With prices pushing $4.00, obviously, not enough.

And the entire point is that there is nothing he can do to affect the current price of oil. Policies you've mentioned affect the long run supply of oil, but don't do anything at all about current prices. Unless you think Obama can create peace in the middle east and stop emerging markets from emerging, he can't do diddly squat about gas prices.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzj4GyeBaTY]Barack Obama 2008 Ad About High Gas Prices - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka_tjPLJwVI]Barack Obama 2008 ad on Gas Prices - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avorysuds]

Yup.

Bad times for the working classes.

And suddenly, our Republican friends claim they care?

Where were they when all this started?

They were in congress voting in line with Democrats to fuck you... Now they all want to claim it was just the other side.

 

[pinqy]

no.

Okay, so why would Shadowstats be a valid source then?

google john williams of shadowstats and you can SEE for yourself why his Opinion is worth something..

Ok, let's look at his UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.

So how many is he claiming?

The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.

Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%

Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000

Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?

But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.

Now, tell me why we should listen to his opinion. Noting that I provided all data...he does not.