Real Unemloyment Rate: 22.5%?

[william the wie]

Got to disagree with you LC the Bush recovery was no more and no less faux than the Clinton recovery. If you want to argue that the last 18 years of economic policy was all smoke and mirrors designed to tweak the NBER numbers while hollowing out the real economy I am more than willing to cover your back but with this kind of partisanship you are on your own.

Back on subject ever since the NBER introduced hedonics and other less scrutable gimmicks into their accounting for inflation they've been a pack of political hacks getting jobs in different administrations in order to pad their resumes and add color to their "I love me" walls. Unhappily they have also infected the federal bureaucracy at least as far back as the Reagan administration and maybe earlier. 22.5% sounds defensible to me as an unemployment number.

 

[loosecannon]

Got to disagree with you LC the Bush recovery was no more and no less faux than the Clinton recovery. If you want to argue that the last 18 years of economic policy was all smoke and mirrors designed to tweak the NBER numbers while hollowing out the real economy I am more than willing to cover your back but with this kind of partisanship you are on your own.

Back on subject ever since the NBER introduced hedonics and other less scrutable gimmicks into their accounting for inflation they've been a pack of political hacks getting jobs in different administrations in order to pad their resumes and add color to their "I love me" walls. Unhappily they have also infected the federal bureaucracy at least as far back as the Reagan administration and maybe earlier. 22.5% sounds defensible to me as an unemployment number.

Hey! I am not the partisan in this argument.

The Bush recovery was saddled atop new debt bubbles and low interest rates.

I wasn't even aware that there was a Clinton recovery.

 

[william the wie]

1991-2000 as California girl posted. It was based on the dotcom and telecommunications bubbles that covered up the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and the promotion of outsourcing.

 

[Trajan]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

oh really? why? and quantify that please while you are at it.

 

[Trajan]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

"The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

As for the current crisis, the President and his economic team have taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the financial sector and avert a collapse. While there are a number of causes of the housing and credit crises that are at the root of our current economic troubles, deregulation by the Bush Administration is simply not one of them. In fact, one of the circumstances that contributed to the crisis was the failure of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which President Bush long tried to subject to greater regulation. In April 2001, three months after taking office, the President warned in his first budget that the size of the two GSEs were a "potential problem" that "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals. By the time Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the oversight the President requested, it was too late to prevent systemic consequences. Had the Administration's initial reform proposals been adopted, some of today's turmoil in our financial markets may have been averted."
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

I earnestly look forward to the day when you evince some real knowledge, rather than partisan propaganda...

but then, I am the eternal optimist.

Malarky. Bush didn't inherit a recession at all. And the "recovery" that did follow the recession that emerged shortly after he took office was a phony recovery fueled by uber low interest rates, massive bubbles and massive new debt.

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in late 2000. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began

or two months after Bush took office.

The most recent recession began 9 months before Obama was even elected. See the difference? (9+2+3=14 months)

In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007.

Get real.

yeas I see not only did he mastermind 911 with a scant 8 months to put it together but he tanked the economy in 60 days....dude, get real.

and we have been 'out' of the recession since july last year......so whats up wit dat?

 

[Trajan]

Got to disagree with you LC the Bush recovery was no more and no less faux than the Clinton recovery. If you want to argue that the last 18 years of economic policy was all smoke and mirrors designed to tweak the NBER numbers while hollowing out the real economy I am more than willing to cover your back but with this kind of partisanship you are on your own.

Back on subject ever since the NBER introduced hedonics and other less scrutable gimmicks into their accounting for inflation they've been a pack of political hacks getting jobs in different administrations in order to pad their resumes and add color to their "I love me" walls. Unhappily they have also infected the federal bureaucracy at least as far back as the Reagan administration and maybe earlier. 22.5% sounds defensible to me as an unemployment number.

Hey! I am not the partisan in this argument.

The Bush recovery was saddled atop new debt bubbles and low interest rates.

I wasn't even aware that there was a Clinton recovery.

I know you didn't post that with a straight face, wtf are we in now? debt bubble? we are buyong our onw bonds for god sakes , what planet are you on? and low interest rates, the rates are at historic, that is HISTORIC lows....

 

[loosecannon]

1991-2000 as California girl posted. It was based on the dotcom and telecommunications bubbles that covered up the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and the promotion of outsourcing.

the dot com bubble was the result of 401K money being poured into S & P 700 accounts. It was a bubble but not a recovery of any recession. There was no Clinton recession.

 

[pinqy]

Got to disagree with you LC the Bush recovery was no more and no less faux than the Clinton recovery. If you want to argue that the last 18 years of economic policy was all smoke and mirrors designed to tweak the NBER numbers while hollowing out the real economy I am more than willing to cover your back but with this kind of partisanship you are on your own.

What "NBER numbers" are you talking about?

Back on subject ever since the NBER introduced hedonics and other less scrutable gimmicks into their accounting for inflation they've been a pack of political hacks getting jobs in different administrations in order to pad their resumes and add color to their "I love me" walls. Unhappily they have also infected the federal bureaucracy at least as far back as the Reagan administration and maybe earlier. 22.5% sounds defensible to me as an unemployment number.

I wasn't aware NBER did any calculations for inflation, do you have a link to their work on that?

And on what rational basis are you thinking 20% unemployment is defensible? Especially since the only way to come up with anything close is to add people who have jobs, and people who have no desire to work.

 

[Douger]

Politico ****.You're an idiot............
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true

Tell it to the NBER. Meanwhile in reality that recession began a few months after Bush took office while the current recession began 9 months before Obama did.

Those are facts, Ma'am. Deal.

April 14, 2000: stock market drops 618 point....

There: I've dealt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politico ****.You're an idiot............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

Watch your language, you're not speaking to your mother.

 

[loosecannon]

"The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true

Tell it to the NBER. Meanwhile in reality that recession began a few months after Bush took office while the current recession began 9 months before Obama did.

Those are facts, Ma'am. Deal.

April 14, 2000: stock market drops 618 point....

There: I've dealt.

11 days later those losses had all been recovered.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=1&c=2000&d=00&e=1&f=2001&g=d&z=66&y=132

By June of 2001 the DOW was still up a few hundred points from your April 14 2000 close, but by Sept 2001 it had fallen 2000 points.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=1&c=2000&d=00&e=1&f=2002&g=d&z=66&y=66

deal with it.

 

[Trajan]

Politico ****.You're an idiot............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

you're another nasty piece of work.

 

[william the wie]

NBER definition
Hedonics are purported quality improvements in products that reduce the real price of the good or service. The metrics for determining quality improvement would have made the Edsel the cheapest car of all time since it was chock full of cutting edge technologies that customers neither needed nor wanted. That is the classic rebuttal of hedonics with fees galore free checking also being a top 10 pick of those who find hedonics dubious.

Consequences of hedonics.

Inflation is understated and therefore real economic growth is overstated two ways directly which may be marginal and indirectly by overstating investment. Hedonics overstates real investment not so much when quality improvements are attributed to new capital equipment but when physical depreciation to existing capital equipment is understated in terms of replacement costs. The GNP and later GDP have overstated Net National Investment for the past half century which also coincided with the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and massive real estate leverage (housing is considered capital investment). Prior to hedonics the quarter Trillion dollar S&L disaster was one such consequence of overstatement. Although it is not currently known how large the current bill will end up being the most conservatively run major bank, Morgan Chase, has just under $2 T mortgage exposure as owner or agent. That is one of the reasons JPM is so admired it mostly stayed out of the real estate bubble and was given WAMU and Bear Sterns along with being offered Morgan Stanley for free but that deal was refused. (Treasury Secretary Paulson made that offer during the WAMU takeover.) So how badly has hedonics overstated investment? I would recommend contacting Morgan Stanley, which is still in existence because nobody who was in good enough to take it over wanted it.

 

[loosecannon]

NBER definition
Hedonics are purported quality improvements in products that reduce the real price of the good or service. The metrics for determining quality improvement would have made the Edsel the cheapest car of all time since it was chock full of cutting edge technologies that customers neither needed nor wanted. That is the classic rebuttal of hedonics with fees galore free checking also being a top 10 pick of those who find hedonics dubious.

Consequences of hedonics.

Inflation is understated and therefore real economic growth is overstated two ways directly which may be marginal and indirectly by overstating investment. Hedonics overstates real investment not so much when quality improvements are attributed to new capital equipment but when physical depreciation to existing capital equipment is understated in terms of replacement costs. The GNP and later GDP have overstated Net National Investment for the past half century which also coincided with the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and massive real estate leverage (housing is considered capital investment). Prior to hedonics the quarter Trillion dollar S&L disaster was one such consequence of overstatement. Although it is not currently known how large the current bill will end up being the most conservatively run major bank, Morgan Chase, has just under $2 T mortgage exposure as owner or agent. That is one of the reasons JPM is so admired it mostly stayed out of the real estate bubble and was given WAMU and Bear Sterns along with being offered Morgan Stanley for free but that deal was refused. (Treasury Secretary Paulson made that offer during the WAMU takeover.) So how badly has hedonics overstated investment? I would recommend contacting Morgan Stanley, which is still in existence because nobody who was in good enough to take it over wanted it.

You still go to work with the NBER that you have, not the NBER you wish for.

 

[pinqy]

NBER definition
Hedonics are purported quality improvements in products that reduce the real price of the good or service. The metrics for determining quality improvement would have made the Edsel the cheapest car of all time since it was chock full of cutting edge technologies that customers neither needed nor wanted. That is the classic rebuttal of hedonics with fees galore free checking also being a top 10 pick of those who find hedonics dubious.

Consequences of hedonics.

Inflation is understated and therefore real economic growth is overstated two ways directly which may be marginal and indirectly by overstating investment. Hedonics overstates real investment not so much when quality improvements are attributed to new capital equipment but when physical depreciation to existing capital equipment is understated in terms of replacement costs. The GNP and later GDP have overstated Net National Investment for the past half century which also coincided with the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and massive real estate leverage (housing is considered capital investment). Prior to hedonics the quarter Trillion dollar S&L disaster was one such consequence of overstatement. Although it is not currently known how large the current bill will end up being the most conservatively run major bank, Morgan Chase, has just under $2 T mortgage exposure as owner or agent. That is one of the reasons JPM is so admired it mostly stayed out of the real estate bubble and was given WAMU and Bear Sterns along with being offered Morgan Stanley for free but that deal was refused. (Treasury Secretary Paulson made that offer during the WAMU takeover.) So how badly has hedonics overstated investment? I would recommend contacting Morgan Stanley, which is still in existence because nobody who was in good enough to take it over wanted it.

I have no idea of which are your words and which are supposed to be NBER's definition. You forgot to include a link. In any case I'm very familiar with hedonics, though the math gives me headaches. I wasn't asking what they are or why you think they're wrong, but rather what you think NBER has to do with it. Again..I'm not familiar with NBER putting out anything where they would use hedonics in their calculations..t.hat's usually done by statistical agencies, which NBER is not.

 

[loosecannon]

I have no idea of which are your words and which are supposed to be NBER's definition. You forgot to include a link. In any case I'm very familiar with hedonics, though the math gives me headaches. I wasn't asking what they are or why you think they're wrong, but rather what you think NBER has to do with it. Again..I'm not familiar with NBER putting out anything where they would use hedonics in their calculations..t.hat's usually done by statistical agencies, which NBER is not.

I think he is implying that inflation is flawed>therefore GDP is flawed>therefore the NBER's strict measure of recessions is flawed

 

[boedicca]

loosecannon suffers from the Heartbreak Of Economic Illiteracy On Parade.

iow you can't refute

It's pointless. Your relationship with knowledge is akin to a diseased body rejecting healthy transplanted tissue.

 

[william the wie]

NBER definition
Hedonics are purported quality improvements in products that reduce the real price of the good or service. The metrics for determining quality improvement would have made the Edsel the cheapest car of all time since it was chock full of cutting edge technologies that customers neither needed nor wanted. That is the classic rebuttal of hedonics with fees galore free checking also being a top 10 pick of those who find hedonics dubious.

Consequences of hedonics.

Inflation is understated and therefore real economic growth is overstated two ways directly which may be marginal and indirectly by overstating investment. Hedonics overstates real investment not so much when quality improvements are attributed to new capital equipment but when physical depreciation to existing capital equipment is understated in terms of replacement costs. The GNP and later GDP have overstated Net National Investment for the past half century which also coincided with the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base and massive real estate leverage (housing is considered capital investment). Prior to hedonics the quarter Trillion dollar S&L disaster was one such consequence of overstatement. Although it is not currently known how large the current bill will end up being the most conservatively run major bank, Morgan Chase, has just under $2 T mortgage exposure as owner or agent. That is one of the reasons JPM is so admired it mostly stayed out of the real estate bubble and was given WAMU and Bear Sterns along with being offered Morgan Stanley for free but that deal was refused. (Treasury Secretary Paulson made that offer during the WAMU takeover.) So how badly has hedonics overstated investment? I would recommend contacting Morgan Stanley, which is still in existence because nobody who was in good enough to take it over wanted it.

I have no idea of which are your words and which are supposed to be NBER's definition. You forgot to include a link. In any case I'm very familiar with hedonics, though the math gives me headaches. I wasn't asking what they are or why you think they're wrong, but rather what you think NBER has to do with it. Again..I'm not familiar with NBER putting out anything where they would use hedonics in their calculations..t.hat's usually done by statistical agencies, which NBER is not.

Feel free to look it up online or in the dictionary. While the NBER may no longer be the chef in charge of this variety of book cooking just as they also backed out UE computation decades ago they are still the brain trust for coming up with new indices and ways of tweaking them. The actual definition takes up far more space than the subject deserves.

 

[loosecannon]

loosecannon suffers from the Heartbreak Of Economic Illiteracy On Parade.

iow you can't refute

It's pointless. Your relationship with knowledge is akin to a diseased body rejecting healthy transplanted tissue.

iow you failed miserably at erecting your fantasy version of the recessions. and all you have left is hyperbole.