Unemployment falls to lowest level since 2008

[Koios]

Pretending that the Republicans nearly destroyed the economy doesn't make it so. Neither the Republicans NOR the Democrats destroyed the Economy, the Banksters did.

Hank Paulson held a gun to Congress' head in 2008: "There will be Martial Law if we dont get the Banker Bailouts". Bankers OWN and RUN the United States.

Pretending they don't doesn't make it so.

That's a bit simplistic, not to mention scapegoating.

Vital elements of Glass-Steagall were eliminated, which was signed by Clinton, and urged by Greenspan, who was himself carrying the water for bankers, actually thinking they might better stablize the banking industry with a novel idea: credit default swaps. I think they actually thought it would help protect the finacial sector. But who knows? Anyway, to most folks in DC, it seemed a good idea at the time, and it passed ... near the end of Clinton's second term.

However, what happened was, banks went hog wild lending to anyone with a pulse, or any EU country that wanted it, as if it were Germany, or any city or county with debt they wanted to refinance, the unemployed wanting homes, you name it -- WITHOUT SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY backing the risk (the thing in Glass-Steagall that needed eliminating for credit default swap to be legal).

The lending gone wild was not something predicted, but it became very apparent to regulators as being a huge problem, developing at an alarming rate. However, the fees earned from the not-actually-backed-risk loans, were making bankers rich. So instead of correcting the problem, Bush 43 and Paulson further gutted Glass-Steagall, and actively sidelined all regulators sounding any alarms, the most vocal of which, a woman in charge of regulating the Commodities Exchange, was taken down in Congressional hearings, with good old Al Greenspan brought back in to add weight to the forces trying to quiet her.

And whadaya know, what she warned of, came soon after, and we're still climbing out of the clusterfuck.

do you have a link for this? i would like to read it.

Four of them, actually. But here's part one of four: Video: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

 

[Koios]

That's a bit simplistic, not to mention scapegoating.

Vital elements of Glass-Steagall were eliminated, which was signed by Clinton, and urged by Greenspan, who was himself carrying the water for bankers, actually thinking they might better stablize the banking industry with a novel idea: credit default swaps. I think they actually thought it would help protect the finacial sector. But who knows? Anyway, to most folks in DC, it seemed a good idea at the time, and it passed ... near the end of Clinton's second term.

However, what happened was, banks went hog wild lending to anyone with a pulse, or any EU country that wanted it, as if it were Germany, or any city or county with debt they wanted to refinance, the unemployed wanting homes, you name it -- WITHOUT SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY backing the risk (the thing in Glass-Steagall that needed eliminating for credit default swap to be legal).

The lending gone wild was not something predicted, but it became very apparent to regulators as being a huge problem, developing at an alarming rate. However, the fees earned from the not-actually-backed-risk loans, were making bankers rich. So instead of correcting the problem, Bush 43 and Paulson further gutted Glass-Steagall, and actively sidelined all regulators sounding any alarms, the most vocal of which, a woman in charge of regulating the Commodities Exchange, was taken down in Congressional hearings, with good old Al Greenspan brought back in to add weight to the forces trying to quiet her.

And whadaya know, what she warned of, came soon after, and we're still climbing out of the clusterfuck.

do you have a link for this? i would like to read it.

Four of them, actually. But here's part one of four: Video: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

Oops, posted part 4. But once at the site, choose episode 1 of 4.

 

[mascale]

Little kids already know about the Conservative, Republican View of Washington, and The Bankers. As opposed to the little kids at LA Unified, now all the parents and the lawyers want their share of the loot!

Mostly, Ivy League economics is easily put into the context of the, "More Great Gorgeous Screwing" anyone might expect of Hollywood X-Rated movies, without all the condoms.

Even now(?)--Frank talks are underway between Speaker Boehner, and President Obama--both likely of the more "gifted" take on the manner of economics as the Ivy league understands it!

Moody's has about 24 hours to get the grade down to "C" at any rate(?)! That's before all the other rating services get a load of just how securely and business-like the United States government operations really work(?)!

Mostly, Commentators don't seem too willing to listen in, as yet, to what the two are saying to one another(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Wise Medicine-Makers told young warriors: "Do You see what happens, if ever they take over?(?)!" "Draw up the papers. Forgo their commissions, and tell them that you'll buy it all back for six turquoise necklaces, four pair of moccasins: And even throw in a canoe made of hides, to sail away on the next storm that may come along! Show them how they even can crawl under it, and even when it rains and snows(?)! You can even put sharkskins on it--if they really want it all spiffed up. . .or maybe with genuine beached whale carcass skin, now a source of. . .contention, there at Malibu! Watching White Eyes fight amongst themseleves, you can see--can even make even better sense than lawyers(?)!")

 

[elvis]

That's a bit simplistic, not to mention scapegoating.

Vital elements of Glass-Steagall were eliminated, which was signed by Clinton, and urged by Greenspan, who was himself carrying the water for bankers, actually thinking they might better stablize the banking industry with a novel idea: credit default swaps. I think they actually thought it would help protect the finacial sector. But who knows? Anyway, to most folks in DC, it seemed a good idea at the time, and it passed ... near the end of Clinton's second term.

However, what happened was, banks went hog wild lending to anyone with a pulse, or any EU country that wanted it, as if it were Germany, or any city or county with debt they wanted to refinance, the unemployed wanting homes, you name it -- WITHOUT SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY backing the risk (the thing in Glass-Steagall that needed eliminating for credit default swap to be legal).

The lending gone wild was not something predicted, but it became very apparent to regulators as being a huge problem, developing at an alarming rate. However, the fees earned from the not-actually-backed-risk loans, were making bankers rich. So instead of correcting the problem, Bush 43 and Paulson further gutted Glass-Steagall, and actively sidelined all regulators sounding any alarms, the most vocal of which, a woman in charge of regulating the Commodities Exchange, was taken down in Congressional hearings, with good old Al Greenspan brought back in to add weight to the forces trying to quiet her.

And whadaya know, what she warned of, came soon after, and we're still climbing out of the clusterfuck.

do you have a link for this? i would like to read it.

Four of them, actually. But here's part one of four: Video: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

Thank you.

 

[Koios]

do you have a link for this? i would like to read it.

Four of them, actually. But here's part one of four: Video: Money, Power and Wall Street: Part Four | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

Thank you.

My pleasure, and I think you'll really enjoy it. It goes into remarkable depth, of what happened, and I should add, the HUGE missed opportunity for Obama to reform Wall Street in lieu of the bailout money. Many in the Obama Admin advocated bring old reforms back, and then some. But Timothy Geithner and Obama, apparently, really hit if off. They're the same ages and had similar backgrounds, sort of. That's speculation, but anyway, Geithner got Obama's ear and more modest reforms won the day, largely due to Geithner convincing Obama that tougher reforms would slow growth at a time they desperately needed growth. And most now agree it was foolish and an opportunity missed, with grave consequences still looming.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Neither the Republicans NOR the Democrats destroyed the Economy, the Banksters did.

Actually, our great newspapers and economists on left and right agree it was liberal government that caused the current housing depression.

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"( uber left economist)

You may not have heard of the Federal Reserve system but it exists to inflate and deflate the currency supply through the housing market. They inflated too much for too long. This caused what they call a housing bubble. While the bubble was inflating all the big banks and many insurance companies bought bubble mortgages thinking they were sound rather than merely purchased or made possible by newly printed funny money. When the bubble deflated they all lost money on the mortgages. It would be analogous to the government making cars and giving them to GM so everyone could have a car. If GM got them by the ton and for very little money of course they would find a way to move them . This is essentially what the Banks did with the free money. In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency, That empowered money lenders say Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with Bush, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!


Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”-Alan Greenspan

Courtesy A. Smith:FDR created Fannie.
LBJ Privatized Fannie - creating an "enron" like environment:
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Thanks, LBJ

Carter's Community Reinvestment Act - accelerated by Clinton - pushed risky loans:
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clinton pushed Fannie into Subprime - the most critical mistake:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

Even the NY Times figured this out: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Bush and McCain attempted to reform Fannie on 17 occasions
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone Only To Have Dems Ignored His Warnings :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

The risky subprime loans fueled another layer of risk - derivatives
https://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2947518

The LA Times reported on Clinton's "subprime" success in 1999:
Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites' - Los Angeles Times

 

[jtpr312]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits, nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job. These are false numbers.

 

[Stephanie]

CNN is not even hiding it's propaganda anymore

I posted a article from 2005 in another thread at how the Nyslimes reported on Bush's unemployment numbers, they said Unemployment was STUCK at 5%

unbelievable this media

 

[Koios]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits, nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job. These are false numbers.

Same math that's been used all along. Ergo, the trend is what matters. Down is better than up, when talking UE.

Sorry to disappoint any who wish hardship on American workers and families in support of their Dem/Obama hate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits, nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job. These are false numbers.

yes U6 is a better number and it has been hanging around 24 million forever thanks to an anti business president.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good news


Hiring stable, unemployment falls to lowest level since 2008 - Dec. 7, 2012

The U.S. economy added 146,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7% from 7.9% in October, the Labor Department said. That's the lowest unemployment rate since December 2008.

Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected a far weaker report, factoring in distortions from Superstorm Sandy. Despite the storm, the Labor Department said its survey response rates were in normal ranges.

"Our analysis suggests that Hurricane Sandy did not substantively impact the national employment and unemployment estimates for November," the Labor Department said in a press release.

 

[Stephanie]

[ame=http://youtu.be/ZLo24rls-dk]Fmr. Obama Economist Jared Bernstein: Unemployment Drop Due To Labor Force Drop - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ogibillm]

there's no denying that we've gone from staggering job losses to job gains. you might not be happy or satisfied with the state things are in now but to pretend they aren't better than they were four years ago is an exercise in self delusion.

 

[alan1]

What a crock of shit. Here is from your same CNN propaganda article. 144K supposed people gained employment MORE THAN HALF IN LOW WAGE RETAIL! Yet the same way the get dependency president got the FAUX unemployment rate down before it is happening again. 350K people supposedly dropped out of the work force!

So you can't find a job, sorry son you now have the effect of being employed on the unemployment rate!

Households claimed they had 122,000 fewer jobs in November, and also showed 350,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

The unemployment rate fell because there were fewer people looking for work. The Labor Department only counts people who have searched for a job in the last four weeks as officially unemployed.

About 12 million people were counted as unemployed in November, down from 12.3 million a month earlier.

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.
Edit to add - I work for a Fortune 100 Retailer, we added about 16k seasonal jobs for Christmas. They all go away come January.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

 

[pinqy]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits,

The survey doesn't even ask about benefits. Unemployed means did not work but actively looking for work. That's about it. Benefits are irrelevent to the calculations.

nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job.

I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that someone who has a job should be considered unemployed? What bizzarre definition is that?

 

[pinqy]

What a crock of shit. Here is from your same CNN propaganda article. 144K supposed people gained employment MORE THAN HALF IN LOW WAGE RETAIL! Yet the same way the get dependency president got the FAUX unemployment rate down before it is happening again. 350K people supposedly dropped out of the work force!

So you can't find a job, sorry son you now have the effect of being employed on the unemployment rate!

Households claimed they had 122,000 fewer jobs in November, and also showed 350,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

The unemployment rate fell because there were fewer people looking for work. The Labor Department only counts people who have searched for a job in the last four weeks as officially unemployed.

About 12 million people were counted as unemployed in November, down from 12.3 million a month earlier.

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

 

[depotoo]

Merry Christmas from the Obama's.




US economy adds 146K jobs, rate falls to 7.7 pct. - Yahoo! Finance

US economy adds 146K jobs; jobless rate falls to 4-year low of 7.7 percent; Sandy minor factor

yet at the end of October 143,384,000 were employed. Today's release for Nov.?
143,262,000. A loss of 122,000 jobs from Oct. to Nov. Yeah, just great news, isn't it?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
..................................................... Oct. Nov. Loss
Employed... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,384,000 143,262,000 -122,000

 

[Koios]

What a crock of shit. Here is from your same CNN propaganda article. 144K supposed people gained employment MORE THAN HALF IN LOW WAGE RETAIL! Yet the same way the get dependency president got the FAUX unemployment rate down before it is happening again. 350K people supposedly dropped out of the work force!

So you can't find a job, sorry son you now have the effect of being employed on the unemployment rate!

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

Kudos, pinqy.

Moreover, leaving the workforce is not merely folks choosing to (married and having a baby, for example) or those giving up (taking assistance, begging, moving in with folks, for example), we also have retirees ... quite a few, but not quite Boehner-retard Rightie "math," which takes Pew research on number of folks reaching retirement age, and Boehner convert that to 10,000 retire each day!!! Ahhh!

In fact, if that were so, 3.65 million per year would be retiring, when in fact, new SS claims have been declining, from 3.1 million in 2010 to 3 million in 2011, and probably less this year.

Typical Rightie stupidity. Grab a number you barely understand, and make wild assumptions claiming them factual, since, well, it's Pew research!!!!

Laughable.

 

[depotoo]

What a crock of shit. Here is from your same CNN propaganda article. 144K supposed people gained employment MORE THAN HALF IN LOW WAGE RETAIL! Yet the same way the get dependency president got the FAUX unemployment rate down before it is happening again. 350K people supposedly dropped out of the work force!

So you can't find a job, sorry son you now have the effect of being employed on the unemployment rate!

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

don't want a job? Are you for real? Nowhere is it defined as they are not wanting a job.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently looking for work?
Yes

 

[pinqy]

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

don't want a job? Are you for real? Nowhere is it defined as they are not wanting a job.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently looking for work?
Yes

Who is "they?" Let's look at the data from Table A-1
Population increased 191,000, the labor Force decreased 350,000 and Not in the Labor Force increased 542,000. Let's look further...a subset of Not in the Labor Force is "Persons who currently want a job". Therefore the rest of Not in the Labor Force do not want a job. In October there were 88,341,000 Not in the Labor Force and 6,587,000 of those wanted a job. In November Not in the Labor Force was 88,883,000 (+542,000) and persons who currently want a job went up 230,000. Therefore, those not in the labor force who don't want a job went up 312,000

If you don't quite understand the definitions, I'd be happy to explain them.