Total Employment

[Saigon]

Rabbi -

1) Which countries would you say are more like the US in terms of scale - Estonia and Israel, or Germany and France?

2) Would you say that for companies like Ford, Apple and Microsoft, overseas markets are important or unimportant?

btw, Next time you want to post that foreign trade is unimportant to the performance of the US economy as a whole, consider this:

Total U.S. international trade (exports + imports) set a new record of $4.76 trillion in 2011 (see chart above), as both annual exports ($2.1 trillion) and imports ($2.66 trillion) reached record high levels last year, according to today's BEA report.

http://mjperry.blogspot.fi/2012/02/good-news-us-trade-reaches-record-high.html

 

[Wiseacre]

" Well, not sure about 4.3 million, but you'd have to count from when the job losses actually bottomed out - in December 09 "


Why should we start counting at the low point - isn't that a bit disingenuous? The man asked for and got a stimulus package; told everyone we had to pass it right away cuz people needed jonbs amd we could give 'em shovel-ready jobs immediately. Given the fact that shortly thereafter he also got a huge appropriations bill, the largest in our history, and the fact that the recession was over in June 09 and that's when the 1st so-called recovery started, it seems fair to me to start counting then.

As for being historically bad, check out the link below; here are a few facts from it:

I wasn't saying we have to start counting at the low point, only that you get a figure close to the "4.3 million" if you start from there. Like I said, most economists would tell you you would have to start counting about 6 months into the presidency, which would yield about 3 million on job gains (from July 09 to April '12).

Likewise, the figure for the same time period for Bush I (Jul 89 - Apr 92) and Bush II's first term (Jul '01 to Apr '04) is very much below this 3 million mark at 1.6 and 0.9 million respectively.

The data is publicly available at the BLS; I like looking at it from Google because its easier though [link by clicking "Google"].

What your article fails to mention is that 1) Every single recovery has been progressively slower than the last in terms of job recovery, this pattern dating back several decades; and 2) Obviously, the numbers are going to be worse in this downturn because it was worse than any other downturn in several decades.

I think the main thing I would criticize about Obama's handling of the recession is that his policies inever went far enough: at the beginning it might have been better that he squander his political capital on a larger stimulus and a deeper focus on tax and financial reform rather than Health care, which was not the principal problem at the time and which basically tied him up for the rest of his term. Virtually nobody thought the amount oif stimulus was nearly enough. This mistake will probably be his undoing in November, but c'est la vie.

Dunno about that - so far as I can tell, stimulus packages don't really prime the pump, they only help people temporarily. When the money runs out you're not much better off but you end up with a larger debt. When FDR increased gov't spending in 1933 with his jobs programs, it went well until he cut the spending a few years later. Whereupon UE went right back up. It's true that spending for WWII got us out of the great depression, but the increase in spending was over 6 years and was enormous. The debt increased several fold; but that was a time when a war was being fought and we didn't have a large debt to start with.

How much more stimulus would be required for today's situation? There's no guarantee it would work at any amount, seems to me the US has to change the business climate first to make more advantagious to start or grow a business here. We need to change the relationship between business and gov't to be less adversarial; until that happens, I don't think any new stimulus will be effective.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

1) Which countries would you say are more like the US in terms of scale - Estonia and Israel, or Germany and France?

2) Would you say that for companies like Ford, Apple and Microsoft, overseas markets are important or unimportant?

btw, Next time you want to post that foreign trade is unimportant to the performance of the US economy as a whole, consider this:

Total U.S. international trade (exports + imports) set a new record of $4.76 trillion in 2011 (see chart above), as both annual exports ($2.1 trillion) and imports ($2.66 trillion) reached record high levels last year, according to today's BEA report.

CARPE DIEM: Total U.S. Trade Sets New Record High in 2011

The question is not whether they are like or unlike the U.S. China is more liek the US in size than anything you've mentioned. The question is whether what goes on there has a major impact on the US economy. And with trade accounting for only 5% of GDp the answer is clearly no.
It doesnt matter that some large companies get a lot of their revenue from overseas. It is still counted as part of GDP. $2T in a 14T economy is not that much.
Neg rep for abject stupidity and goal moving.

 

[Saigon]

The question is whether what goes on there has a major impact on the US economy. .

And that is why I listed Germany and France - and presumably why you chose Estonia.

As long as the US exports $2 trillion, I'd say that is a very worthy consideration - particularly as that does not include another $1 trillion or so of business done by US businesses through subsidiaries and joint ventures.

I do have a question about your maths - first you sid exports amounted for 5% of the US economy, and here yo say it is $2 trillion out of $14 trillion.

Which is it?

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is whether what goes on there has a major impact on the US economy. .

And that is why I listed Germany and France - and presumably why you chose Estonia.

As long as the US exports $2 trillion, I'd say that is a very worthy consideration - particularly as that does not include another $1 trillion or so of business done by US businesses through subsidiaries and joint ventures.

I do have a question about your maths - first you sid exports amounted for 5% of the US economy, and here yo say it is $2 trillion out of $14 trillion.

Which is it?

Trade as a percentage of GDP is 5% of our economy. Do you dispute this figure?

 

[Saigon]

Trade as a percentage of GDP is 5% of our economy. Do you dispute this figure?

In 2007, exports were 12 percent and imports were 17 percent of G.D.P., compared to the third quarter’s 13 and 16 percent.

The Impact of Foreign Trade on the Economy - NYTimes.com

Are you honest enough to admit that this is correct?

Let's see.

 

[Saigon]

1970, trade accounted for just 10 percent of U.S. GDP; today it is more than 25 percent and rising. But increasing trade volumes alone will not fix what ails the economy; the United States still exports too little for a large economy, and has not adjusted well to import competition.

Can Trade Motor U.S. Economy? - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Trajan]

Every month the BLS puts out a monthly report of employment/unemployment. Table A-1 in that report shows the total number of employed and the change over the last couple of months so you can see the direction it's going in. Lately it ain't good, but that's not the point of this post.

When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the BLS summary showed the total employment at approx 142.1 million. As you know, that was in the middle of big numbers of people losing their jobs, losses would continue into 2010, even though Obama pushed for and signed a stimulus bill costing about $862 billion. It was said to be needed immediately, and shovel ready jobs were just waiting for the bill to be signed to go into effect. Here's a link to show the numbers for Jan 2009:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf


So, the bill was signed, but the jobs didn't materialize in the numbers we expected. Then, in June 2009, the recession was said to be over, and economic growth was no longer negative. At that time, the BLS showed total employment to have dropped down to approx 140.2 million, subsequently revised downward to 140.0. Seems to me this is the logical time to start counting jobs created on Obama's watch, considering he got his stimulus bill and then a very large appropriations bill, the largest in our history, passed shortly thereafter. And the Fed obliged by lowering interest rates down to next to zero and also enacted QE1 and QE2, and Twist and Shout, or whatever they called that latest effort. Here's a link to the June 2010 numbers:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf


So, where are we now? The latest BLS numbers say total employment is about 142.3 million. 3 years later, from the end of the recession, we've got about 2 million more employed. And that included part timers who would rather be working fulltime, and the underemployed. I don't think 2 million in 3 years is anywhere near good enough, it doesn't even come close to keeping up with the new workers entering the workforce evey month. And it's not even close to the recoveries from other recessions since WWII.

Question: How does Obama come up with the 4.3 million jobs created? Even the lowest number was 138.6 million in Feb 2010, maybe someone can explain that.

Question: We were supposed to be doing so much better by now, why aren't we? With all the additional spending, low interest rates, QE1 and QE2, WTF? We've been spending money for 3 and a half years like it was going out of style, do you think it's been wisely spent? I don't.

To be fair to both sides the BLS has an issue and that is; how it communicates its data to the public, they simply can’t, there are way too many counter intuitives, variables and plain common sense detonations.

It’s a common issue a few folks here have to, they blast pages with graphs charts, figures upon figures then tell you whats going on, BUT they have a uber partisan viewpoint, ( both sides fellas) and you cannot believe them. *shrugs*

So we are left parsing what we can form the news…..in its most simplified form.

I was watching one of the Sunday shows and yup, sure as shit, ( I said they would play this card a year ago, pat on the back not necessary) the democratic operative was making it sound like a good thing that over 600k people ‘flooded’ back into the job market, that the number went up is a consequence of that event, not that there were only 69K jobs for them….

I don’t know what to believe or not.
I don’t have any idea what the labor force participation rate is really doing, down, it appears so, due to what? Well one bunch of folks says retirees are responsible, …..humm, well, look a here, if I were a retiree with a huge global slow coming, a very soft marker in correction territory with no growth on the horizon and the wishy washy unknown tax situations vis a vis investments etc. at the end of the year? No, I am not retiring now….aside from that there appears to be issues with even quantifying that from the BLS……theres a guy here ( well 2 actually) who tell me that unemployed people step into those retiree jobs and they are not counted anywhere in the stats, as a no longer unemployed person, not a new or created job either…..what the ****? Is it NOT to ANY administrations advantage to at the very least laud the fact that someone has gotten a job how had not had one and the position was not closed out by that co. for a cost savings?
Hey, IF that’s true, the truth is the truth, but that seems to me to be one of those convoluted methods/measurements that I said makes me lose faith in the BLS……...Now since 600k started to look for work this past month the number blipped up, so how does that all add up in the grand scheme of things?


I do believe that temp. jobs are at all time high, that’s a simple metric to figure out, disability applications and grant rates are at an all time high, wages are flat and have been, Europe is in recession ( even of the real indicator lags its pretty easy to see now, China has slowed waaay down and they are in for a real rough patch, which altogether means we are too and the jobs picture has nowhere to go.

The socialist nanny state in EU, the Communist central planning of China and the top heavy regulatory and confused tax code burden of the capitalist state are all hitting the skids at once.


The Chinese downturn btw has NOT been priced in either....

Oh and QE 3. I was wrong I called it for last year but, baby, its coming and it won't mean shit, the market will barely register a blip in the long run, its going to get as ugly as summer of 09.

 

[Claudette]

We are better off than Europe right now but I wouldn't ring any bells over it.

I agree austerity and big time spending cuts need to be implemented.

I ain't holding my breath for either.

 

[Wiseacre]

Every month the BLS puts out a monthly report of employment/unemployment. Table A-1 in that report shows the total number of employed and the change over the last couple of months so you can see the direction it's going in. Lately it ain't good, but that's not the point of this post.

When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the BLS summary showed the total employment at approx 142.1 million. As you know, that was in the middle of big numbers of people losing their jobs, losses would continue into 2010, even though Obama pushed for and signed a stimulus bill costing about $862 billion. It was said to be needed immediately, and shovel ready jobs were just waiting for the bill to be signed to go into effect. Here's a link to show the numbers for Jan 2009:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf


So, the bill was signed, but the jobs didn't materialize in the numbers we expected. Then, in June 2009, the recession was said to be over, and economic growth was no longer negative. At that time, the BLS showed total employment to have dropped down to approx 140.2 million, subsequently revised downward to 140.0. Seems to me this is the logical time to start counting jobs created on Obama's watch, considering he got his stimulus bill and then a very large appropriations bill, the largest in our history, passed shortly thereafter. And the Fed obliged by lowering interest rates down to next to zero and also enacted QE1 and QE2, and Twist and Shout, or whatever they called that latest effort. Here's a link to the June 2010 numbers:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf


So, where are we now? The latest BLS numbers say total employment is about 142.3 million. 3 years later, from the end of the recession, we've got about 2 million more employed. And that included part timers who would rather be working fulltime, and the underemployed. I don't think 2 million in 3 years is anywhere near good enough, it doesn't even come close to keeping up with the new workers entering the workforce evey month. And it's not even close to the recoveries from other recessions since WWII.

Question: How does Obama come up with the 4.3 million jobs created? Even the lowest number was 138.6 million in Feb 2010, maybe someone can explain that.

Question: We were supposed to be doing so much better by now, why aren't we? With all the additional spending, low interest rates, QE1 and QE2, WTF? We've been spending money for 3 and a half years like it was going out of style, do you think it's been wisely spent? I don't.

To be fair to both sides the BLS has an issue and that is; how it communicates its data to the public, they simply can’t, there are way too many counter intuitives, variables and plain common sense detonations.

It’s a common issue a few folks here have to, they blast pages with graphs charts, figures upon figures then tell you whats going on, BUT they have a uber partisan viewpoint, ( both sides fellas) and you cannot believe them. *shrugs*

So we are left parsing what we can form the news…..in its most simplified form.

I was watching one of the Sunday shows and yup, sure as shit, ( I said they would play this card a year ago, pat on the back not necessary) the democratic operative was making it sound like a good thing that over 600k people ‘flooded’ back into the job market, that the number went up is a consequence of that event, not that there were only 69K jobs for them….

I don’t know what to believe or not.
I don’t have any idea what the labor force participation rate is really doing, down, it appears so, due to what? Well one bunch of folks says retirees are responsible, …..humm, well, look a here, if I were a retiree with a huge global slow coming, a very soft marker in correction territory with no growth on the horizon and the wishy washy unknown tax situations vis a vis investments etc. at the end of the year? No, I am not retiring now….aside from that there appears to be issues with even quantifying that from the BLS……theres a guy here ( well 2 actually) who tell me that unemployed people step into those retiree jobs and they are not counted anywhere in the stats, as a no longer unemployed person, not a new or created job either…..what the ****? Is it NOT to ANY administrations advantage to at the very least laud the fact that someone has gotten a job how had not had one and the position was not closed out by that co. for a cost savings?
Hey, IF that’s true, the truth is the truth, but that seems to me to be one of those convoluted methods/measurements that I said makes me lose faith in the BLS……...Now since 600k started to look for work this past month the number blipped up, so how does that all add up in the grand scheme of things?


I do believe that temp. jobs are at all time high, that’s a simple metric to figure out, disability applications and grant rates are at an all time high, wages are flat and have been, Europe is in recession ( even of the real indicator lags its pretty easy to see now, China has slowed waaay down and they are in for a real rough patch, which altogether means we are too and the jobs picture has nowhere to go.

The socialist nanny state in EU, the Communist central planning of China and the top heavy regulatory and confused tax code burden of the capitalist state are all hitting the skids at once.


The Chinese downturn btw has NOT been priced in either....

Oh and QE 3. I was wrong I called it for last year but, baby, its coming and it won't mean shit, the market will barely register a blip in the long run, its going to get as ugly as summer of 09.

India and Brazil are slowing down too, and BTW there's a decent chance we could have a war in the ME by year's end. That won't help the situation any either. Bu the main point I want to address in your post is about trust in the numbers.

Agree that it's hard to believe what comes out of DC these days, or the myriad of reports and analyses from various think tanks and researchers. Most are biased one way or the other, some maybe not too much but some are difficult to put much faith in. And it's the same with gov't, seems like most of their original estimates get revised downward a few months later, to little fanfare. And who's to say even then you can trust the results.

But you can look at trendlines, up being good and down being bad, usually. And you can look at what the market is telling you; it's a forward looking system, and what investors are doing with their money tells you something about what's going on better that what you hear from gov't, either side. Look at what the ten year Treasury Interest rate is; it's been hovering around all-time lows, 1.5% or so. That means a lot of people would rather get a return that's less than the rate of inflation rather than invest in companies, either here or abroad. That's one number that I trust.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trade as a percentage of GDP is 5% of our economy. Do you dispute this figure?

In 2007, exports were 12 percent and imports were 17 percent of G.D.P., compared to the third quarter’s 13 and 16 percent.

The Impact of Foreign Trade on the Economy - NYTimes.com

Are you honest enough to admit that this is correct?

Let's see.

Coorect but irrelevant. Trade component of GDP is a net number. Since the US is a net importer the contribution to GDP is negative.

 

[Saigon]

We are better off than Europe right now but I wouldn't ring any bells over it.

Europe is 27 economies - and that is only including the EU countries. It's not really accurate to say the US is better off than all 27.

Some countries in the EU are performing very well; others significantly less so.

What is clear is the basic pattern - growth through 2007 and early 2008, and then we all fell off a cliff. Some economies are now improving (Ger, Fin, Swe) others aren't particularly (UK, Fra) and others are getting worse (PIIGS).

 

[Wiseacre]

We are better off than Europe right now but I wouldn't ring any bells over it.

Europe is 27 economies - and that is only including the EU countries. It's not really accurate to say the US is better off than all 27.

Some countries in the EU are performing very well; others significantly less so.

What is clear is the basic pattern - growth through 2007 and early 2008, and then we all fell off a cliff. Some economies are now improving (Ger, Fin, Swe) others aren't particularly (UK, Fra) and others are getting worse (PIIGS).

I think she meant that the US is probably better off that the EU collectively, which I'd agree with. Even Germany is barely above the line for a recession, their GDP growth was only .5% in the 1st quarter. Some think the UK is already in recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think she meant that the US is probably better off that the EU collectively, which I'd agree with. Even Germany is barely above the line for a recession, their GDP growth was only .5% in the 1st quarter. Some think the UK is already in recession.

Yeah that isn't saying much. They are in the situation they are because they pursued policies that are being proposed here.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

What your article fails to mention is that 1) Every single recovery has been progressively slower than the last in terms of job recovery, this pattern dating back several decades; and 2) Obviously, the numbers are going to be worse in this downturn because it was worse than any other downturn in several decades.

I think the main thing I would criticize about Obama's handling of the recession is that his policies inever went far enough: at the beginning it might have been better that he squander his political capital on a larger stimulus and a deeper focus on tax and financial reform rather than Health care, which was not the principal problem at the time and which basically tied him up for the rest of his term. Virtually nobody thought the amount oif stimulus was nearly enough. This mistake will probably be his undoing in November, but c'est la vie.

Dunno about that - so far as I can tell, stimulus packages don't really prime the pump, they only help people temporarily. When the money runs out you're not much better off but you end up with a larger debt. When FDR increased gov't spending in 1933 with his jobs programs, it went well until he cut the spending a few years later. Whereupon UE went right back up. It's true that spending for WWII got us out of the great depression, but the increase in spending was over 6 years and was enormous. The debt increased several fold; but that was a time when a war was being fought and we didn't have a large debt to start with.

Well, yeah that is perfectly true - stimulus packages are only meant to help temporarily; until the private sector is capable of picking up the slack. The idea is that when the 'money runs out' the economy should already be functioning more or less normally, so that government spending can be scaled back; with growth, the debt-to-GDP ratio decreases so the level of relative debt falls.

Government basically acts as a safety cushion during a recession, because it is the only actor that can propel growth. It makes no sense for rational individual businesses or consumers to spend money at this time, but government can defy this - it can demand goods and services from businesses and distribute cash in the form of unemployment benefits or other social help which people then go and spend as well.

In terms of the point you bring up about FDR, it is quite unfortunate that the US was indeed not fiscally prepared to deal with this crisis, which it should have been following the huge boom of the mid 2000's. Such an expansion without the fiscal strain of two global wars and a huge tax cut would have yielded the necessary means to properly stimulate the economy with a much larger package, and the US's position now would be much stronger.

But either which way there's no looking back and there's no other option, because the debt problem worsens if government cuts spending. If government cuts spending demand is lowered further, because there will be less demand for the goods and services it buys, and less demand from the goods and services its laid-off employees buy, and less demand from the goods and services that people who receive assistance buy. So the producers of these goods and services sell less products, make less money, and fire more workers, and the cycle continues. Only more government spending can stop the downward spiral.

How much more stimulus would be required for today's situation? There's no guarantee it would work at any amount, seems to me the US has to change the business climate first to make more advantagious to start or grow a business here. We need to change the relationship between business and gov't to be less adversarial; until that happens, I don't think any new stimulus will be effective.

I agree with you here: obviously the business climate has to improve. What I say is that some of the ideas that people bring up about how to improve the business climate actually worsen it - like slashing government spending. This very seriously damages the business climate when basically only the government is spending any money. You do not improve the business climate by firing public sector workers and hence increase the unemployment rate, nor do you do so by lowering demand through cuts to government programs which need to buy goods and services from the private economy, or social assistance which allows consumers to buy more goods and services from the private economy.

I'm not totally sure how to make the government be less 'adversarial' towards businesses, but I have an idea: how about if it buys more of their stuff? Or if it gives more people more money to buy more of their stuff? That seems quite the opposite of adversarial towards businesses - it seems VERY positive towards businesses. This is why further stimulus would work, and it still needs to be very large.

But it will not happen - why? Because the stimulus would help the economy; and an improving economy might get Barack Obama re-elected. So we'll have to wait until President Romney passes some synonym of stimulus over the next 4 years - which will happen without a doubt because he is perfectly acquainted with the reasoning expressed in this post and he will no doubt take no chances at securing a second term.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Well, yeah that is perfectly true - stimulus packages are only meant to help temporarily; until the private sector is capable of picking up the slack. The idea is that when the 'money runs out' the economy should already be functioning more or less normally, so that government spending can be scaled back; with growth, the debt-to-GDP ratio decreases so the level of relative debt falls.

Government basically acts as a safety cushion during a recession, because it is the only actor that can propel growth. It makes no sense for rational individual businesses or consumers to spend money at this time, but government can defy this - it can demand goods and services from businesses and distribute cash in the form of unemployment benefits or other social help which people then go and spend as well. " - Epsilon Delta


I can see we need to have a discussion about Demand pretty soon, maybe in a new thread. Since our posts are getting a bit long, I took the liberty of breaking it up into a few smaller parts, starting with this one.


The first issue I have is the assumption that the economy will be functioning normally as a result of stimulus. I am not at all sure that such would be the case, even at far larger amounts than what we've done so far, considering the debt we've already got. I know of no case where that plan worked, outside of the enormous amount of spending and the length of time we did it during WWII. We ended up with enormous debts after the war; we were able to pay if off then, not sure we could do it again. Didn't seem to work too well in 2009; why should we assume a different result if we tried it again?

As for scaling back spending and reducing the debt burden, we did that too after the war was over. I'm not sure we could or would do that either, recent history suggests that politicians woukld rather keep spending more money than pay down debt. In those days the US economy was the only game in town, most of the rest of the developed world was in ruins. They raised rates to exorbitant levels and got away with it; such is not the case today, there are other places where people can invest their money. BTW, do you realize that back then EVERYBODY paid taxes; the lowest rate was 22% for income between $0 and around $22k or so. I'll look it up later and edit this post. Edit: 22.2% tax rate for income $0 - $16807. Everybody paid something.

In your 2nd paragraph you seem to suggest that increased gov't spending is the only answer. Not true, first of all there's no evidence that redistributing wealth would result in more spending of all that money. I suspect that in today's environment most of that money will be saved rather than spent; I know I would rather put most of it away just in case I lost my job or had my wages cut. There are some countries that did cut spending, and got themselves out of fiscal difficulties. Sweden and Canada come to mind.

And there's only 2 ways you can pay for that extra spending: you either raise taxes on the wealthy or you borrow it, thereby increasing your obligation to service the debt. Since taxing the rich doesn't come close to paying for the stimulus, you're going to have to borrow most of it anyway. Don't know about you, but I have serious moral issues with putting that much debt on our children and grandchildren to deal with.

 

[Wiseacre]

" In terms of the point you bring up about FDR, it is quite unfortunate that the US was indeed not fiscally prepared to deal with this crisis, which it should have been following the huge boom of the mid 2000's. Such an expansion without the fiscal strain of two global wars and a huge tax cut would have yielded the necessary means to properly stimulate the economy with a much larger package, and the US's position now would be much stronger.

But either which way there's no looking back and there's no other option, because the debt problem worsens if government cuts spending. If government cuts spending demand is lowered further, because there will be less demand for the goods and services it buys, and less demand from the goods and services its laid-off employees buy, and less demand from the goods and services that people who receive assistance buy. So the producers of these goods and services sell less products, make less money, and fire more workers, and the cycle continues. Only more government spending can stop the downward spiral. " - Epsi Delta


Your 1st para is very speculative. You are referring to the Bush tax cuts? Those cuts did indeed stimulate the economy up until the housing bubble popped and the credit crisis followed. Surely you are not going to suggest that those cuts had anything to do with either event. Neither political party here has had the necessary backbone to cap spending as other countries have done to their benefit. Do you suggest we should have done nothing about those terrorist camps in Afghanistan, or the WMDs that Saddam was thought to have? Many intelligence agencies thought that those weapons existed; Saddam certainly used them in his war with Iran and against his own people, the Kurds.

You say the debt problem worsens if the gov't spending is cut; I say that other countries have managed to cut or cap spending, and thereby got themselves into much better fiscal shape. Canada, Sweden, Switzerland to name a few. Doesn't have to be all at once, as some on the right suggest; we don't have to drastically cut to balance the budget IMHO, as the TPers want. But we should be able to restructure our entitlement programs to be more sustainable, we should be able to sensibly reduce gov't spending gradually so as not to induce a recession. God knows we've got enough fraud and waste, recent headlines prove that. I'm thinking we could cut quite a bit before any real pain is felt.

To say that only more gov't spending can get us out of the downward spiral is not true IMHO. In fact, I suggest that more gov't spending does the opposite, it reinforces that spiral by adding more debt. Many on the left discount the effects of more debt; I think they are gravely mistaken. I say that if you first improve the business climate, restructure the tax code to be easier to understand, and reduce the amount of regulations to those that are cost effective and truly needed, then you will see an increase in GDP without spending another nickel. And that means more jobs.


PS: one more part from your post coming tomorrow.

 

[Saigon]

Trade as a percentage of GDP is 5% of our economy. Do you dispute this figure?

In 2007, exports were 12 percent and imports were 17 percent of G.D.P., compared to the third quarter’s 13 and 16 percent.

The Impact of Foreign Trade on the Economy - NYTimes.com

Are you honest enough to admit that this is correct?

Let's see.

Coorect but irrelevant. Trade component of GDP is a net number. Since the US is a net importer the contribution to GDP is negative.

Ah, ok...and I'm sure no one noticed that massive backpedal.

You said "trade as a percentage of GDP" - think we can assume if you had meant the net balance you'd have said so.

I hadn't thought you would be man enough to admit that you were wrong, somehow.

 

[Saigon]

I think she meant that the US is probably better off that the EU collectively, which I'd agree with. Even Germany is barely above the line for a recession, their GDP growth was only .5% in the 1st quarter. Some think the UK is already in recession.

Yeah that isn't saying much. They are in the situation they are because they pursued policies that are being proposed here.

And again, there are 27 different countries with 27 different policies...there is no single policy being pursued..honestly, how can you guys not know this?

 

[The Rabbi]

In 2007, exports were 12 percent and imports were 17 percent of G.D.P., compared to the third quarter’s 13 and 16 percent.

The Impact of Foreign Trade on the Economy - NYTimes.com

Are you honest enough to admit that this is correct?

Let's see.

Coorect but irrelevant. Trade component of GDP is a net number. Since the US is a net importer the contribution to GDP is negative.

Ah, ok...and I'm sure no one noticed that massive backpedal.

You said "trade as a percentage of GDP" - think we can assume if you had meant the net balance you'd have said so.

I hadn't thought you would be man enough to admit that you were wrong, somehow.

Even if it is as you assume that still is a smallish percentage of GDP. The incredible slow growth cannot be accounted for entirely by poor economies overseas. The proof is that during the '90s most of the world was in recession while we were prospering.
So your argument is a fail.