patrick.net

robertoaribas says

I should sell my old necklace and wedding band from back in the day

A fallen Catholic who used to wear gold chains...you've lead an interesting life, Herr Roberto.

nw888 says

I'm not advocating a gold standard, but when he compares the Euro to a gold standard, I can't help but ask myself this:

Actually PK's point was that the Euro is a de-facto gold standard for the individual countries on it, neither Greece nor Italy can print euros like they printed their former national currencies.

This is what PK said at 1:45:

"If you're a country like Portugal or Greece . . ."

By that measure, isn't the relationship of the USA to its states, the same as the Eurozone to its countries?

Isn't the USA on a "gold standard" right now too?

No, since we have a more unified national government. Again, that is Krugman's point, that Europe has a monetary union without (strong-enough) a political union.

From the perspective of Sacramento, the USD is equivalent to a gold standard, but they've got around that in the past by printing warrants, LOL.

robertoaribas says

I should sell my old necklace and wedding band from back in the day... where the hell are they? i better sell them before they drop!

Rob, keep at least 10% of your savings in gold, and/or silver. It is a good hedge.

indigenous says

Some say the price is manipulated

Good point. I track the ETF called GLD. It is suppose to be an indicator of the price of an ounce of gold as it claims to hold an amount of gold in a vault. So you divide GLD's market capitalization by this claimed number of ounces of gold to figure out the $ per ounce of gold sitting in GLD's vault.

Now perhaps GLD is being manipulated.

I mean that is like accusing the federal government manipulating the unemployment data to get close to the magic 6.5% unemployment rate in order to get the Federal Reserve off the hook for the quantitative easing and Treasury Notes buying.

I wonder how big of a factor asian and latin american money is in California Real Estate.

indigenous says

Once Benny raises the interest rate the bubble is over.

Historically, the Federal Reserve doesn't raise rates until after the economy has already improved--it's a lagging indicator of economic activity. And, as such, the effect of rate increases will be offset by the effect of wage inflation.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Once Benny raises the interest rate the bubble is over.

Historically, the Federal Reserve doesn't raise rates until after the economy has already improved--it's a lagging indicator of economic activity. And, as such, the effect of rate increases will be offset by the effect of wage inflation.

The way they cook the books that could be anytime. Unemployment by the way they used to keep track is 11%

indigenous says

You would consider what Benny is doing to be moral?

Am I to understand that you consider the tea in China to be too expensive then?

robertoaribas says

we've had 3+ years of economic and employment improvement. It hasn't been sudden, it hasn't been fast but it has been real. In fact, the government deficit is falling quite fast, due more to economic improvement than the sequester.

claiming otherwise is just plain silly.

That is not what I hear from college graduates, construction workers, under employed part time workers, etc

indigenous says

No the basic premise is that small business creates jobs even the POTUS know this. If small business is down so are jobs. Just a fact.

fyi--your graph wasn't "small businesses", it was self-employed. Those are NOT the same thing.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

No the basic premise is that small business creates jobs even the POTUS know this. If small business is down so are jobs. Just a fact.

fyi--your graph wasn't "small businesses", it was self-employed. Those are NOT the same thing.

Ok, learn me how that is so.

IT is sad that we don't yet have as many people employed as in 2007.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

At least when we get a little further in to boomers retiring, you could have a graph like this and it would be much more positive than this is.

Also, it may soon be going the other way, based on a lot of the economic prognosticators.

indigenous says

Ok, learn me how that is so.

Self employed, includes all private contractors (consultants and such).

MAny small businesses owners would be incorporated, with their corporation or paying themselves a salary and would not be considered self employed (even though they are in a way).

In the United States, any person is considered self-employed for tax purposes if that person is running a business as a sole proprietorship, independent contractor, as a member of a partnership, or as a member of a limited liability company that does not elect to be treated as a corporation. In addition to income taxes, these individuals must pay Social Security and Medicare taxes in the form of a SECA (Self-Employment Contributions Act) tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-employment

Many small businesses, especially the kind that have employees, are incorporated.

robertoaribas says

If you really think that, give up you are a clueless nitwit then!

Oh dear hang my head in despair.

2 points, the job numbers are bullshit created by politicians

ALL new jobs are created by small business. This is a fundamental of housing sales. It IS the reason for the great depression it IS the reason that this "recovery" is a mirage.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Paul Krugman needs a savage, debilitating kick RIGHT IN THE VAGINA!

Everyone knows that!

Which mean you can kick him anywhere as he are one

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=iBX

kinda interesting.

blue is jobs, more or less

red is age 25-54 population, which actually has gone down as there were more people born in the late 50s than the early 1980s . . .

My xls of US births by year shows there were 42M births 1955-64 and ~35M 1975-1984.

The baby boom echo was starting to arrive in the late 1980s (remember 'thirtysomething'?)

1973-75 was actually the post-boomer low point at ~3.2M, births rose continuously YOY until 1991, which matched an average baby boom year from the 1950s (4.1M).

tatupu70 says

Your graph does an OK job of capturing small business creation. But it does a horrible job of capturing small business hiring.

OK so my graph is under reporting job creation by small business, so what, if anything that further shows my point.

indigenous says

OK so my graph is under reporting job creation by small business, so what, if
anything that further shows my point.

huh? Your point was that small businesses weren't hiring. I showed that your evidence severely under reports hiring. How does that further show your point?

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

OK so my graph is under reporting job creation by small business, so what, if

anything that further shows my point.

huh? Your point was that small businesses weren't hiring. I showed that your evidence severely under reports hiring. How does that further show your point?

My point was that all new jobs are created by small business. The graph indicates that small business is languishing ergo job creation is languishing.

This strikes at the very core of why the economy is languishing and why the POTUS has to create the illusion that it is not, just as FDR did the same.

indigenous says

The graph indicates that small business is languishing ergo job creation is
languishing.

But that's the point. The graph doesn't indicate that.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

The graph indicates that small business is languishing ergo job creation is

languishing.

But that's the point. The graph doesn't indicate that.

By virtue of the fact that self employed is different than small business?

indigenous says

By virtue of the fact that self employed is different than small
business?

Yep--

From your earlier post, you're defining small business as less than 500 people, it appears. So, at MOST, 1 out of the 500 people would show up as "self employed". You would be missing 499 out of the 500 people.

tatupu70 says

From your earlier post, you're defining small business as less than 500 people, it appears. So, at MOST, 1 out of the 500 people would show up as "self employed". You would be missing 499 out of the 500 people.

That is irrelevant

indigenous says

That is irrelevant

lol--how do you figure?

If small business goes from 50 people to 250 people--hiring 200 people, you would miss it.

How is that irrelevant?

Small business creates all new jobs.

If small business is languishing job creation is languishing.

The graph show that small business creation has been shrinking.

indigenous says

So you are saying that these graphs are not FED graphs?

indigenous says

the basic premise is that small business creates jobs even the POTUS know this. If small business is down so are jobs. Just a fact.

No, it isn't a "fact":

"...recent economic research shows that small companies play no greater role in job creation than large ones do. What matters more is age: New businesses account for the biggest share of job gains. Those companies tend to be small yet unprofitable. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/time-to-debunk-the-myth-of-small-business-as-job-engine.html

finehoe says

"...recent economic research shows that small companies play no greater role in job creation than large ones do. What matters more is age: New businesses account for the biggest share of job gains. Those companies tend to be small yet unprofitable. "

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias. They site a Treasury department study, a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

Another way to look at is what percentage of the jobs come from business with more than 500 employees, probably about 20%

indigenous says

You're using BLS to prove BLS statistics are wrong.

What do you mean by this?

John Bailo says

We saw this ever since 2009. People worry about resuscitating dinosaurs when
we?ve got incredible growth available for small and mid sized business in
nanotechnology, fuel cells, knowlegebased computing, and many. many more
areas.

Instead of loosening capital markets its become tighter and more restrictive
and people put their money in dead stuff like gold and real estate to try and
hang on to a past that keeps evaporating.

You've got to be kidding. There is an almost limitless supply of capital available right now. Look at savings rates. Look at treasury rates. There is so much money floating around looking for any kind of return right now it's not even funny.

We have a demand problem, not a capital problem.

John Bailo says

Yes exactly!

During the 1930s Depression there were key new industries that could have been jobs creators and were capital starved.

Aviation, movies (talkies), chemicals (nylon).

Remember Howard Hughes? During that time, he privately funded key sectors of emerging industry while everyone else keep looking backwards at all the (unnecessary) jobs that disappeared!

We saw this ever since 2009. People worry about resuscitating dinosaurs when we?ve got incredible growth available for small and mid sized business in nanotechnology, fuel cells, knowlegebased computing, and many. many more areas.

Instead of loosening capital markets its become tighter and more restrictive and people put their money in dead stuff like gold and real estate to try and hang on to a past that keeps evaporating

Thank you, finally some one who knows which way is up

indigenous says

Demand is created by the entrepreneur it does not exist without it being
created

Demand requires ability to pay. No entrepreneur can create the abilty for his customer to pay.

indigenous says

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias. They site a Treasury department study, a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

Then give us a source that proves your "fact" that
indigenous says

Small business creates all new jobs.

indigenous says

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias.

Reality tends to have a liberal bias too.

finehoe says

Then give us a source that proves your "fact" that

indigenous says

Small business creates all new jobs.

Already did earlier

indigenous says

Already did earlier

So wait...you think the SBA and the BLS aren't government agencies?
indigenous says

They site...a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

indigenous says

This is a monopoly game that never ends.

there's a reason Monopoly was designed as a land buying game and not a retail selling game.

but to address your point more directly, when retail productivity was less efficient much more money stayed within the paycheck economy, even though we had less stuff to show for it.

Walmarts suck billions of out local communities -- which is why 5 or whatever of the richest people in the US are Walmart heirs -- but it is true that Amazon is taking this productivity to a another level:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USTRADE

shows retail employment is at late 1990s levels.

Don't look for any job growth in transportation and warehousing, either:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES4300000001

real retail wages have risen 40c/hr since 2011:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=iDa

but are still far below 2006 levels.

(cont'd)

Retail isn't the monopoly game. Hell manufacturing isn't the monopoly game:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP

This is the monopoly game:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

Bellingham Bill says

there's a reason Monopoly was designed as a land buying game and not a retail selling game.

The only way monopoly can exist is through a government
Originally the king would give exclusivity to a crony

Bellingham Bill says

but to address your point more directly, when retail productivity was less efficient much more money stayed within the paycheck economy, even though we had less stuff to show for it.

That is ambiguous

Bellingham Bill says

Walmarts suck billions of out local communities -- which is why 5 or whatever of the richest people in the US are Walmart heirs -- but it is true that Amazon is taking this productivity to a another level:

Walmart raised the standard of living of it's customer or they would not have shopped there

Bellingham Bill says

shows retail employment is at late 1990s levels.

Not good and indicative of what I see

Bellingham Bill says

real retail wages have risen 40c/hr since 2011:

But through service differential more jobs should have been created and less menial onesBellingham Bill says

but are still far below 2006 levels.

As I would suspect

Bellingham Bill says

Retail isn't the monopoly game. Hell manufacturing isn't the monopoly game:

The only monopoly is through crony capitalism

indigenous says

Walmart raised the standard of living of it's customer or they would not have shopped there

sure, that's the rightwing economics theology.

and it's true in the short-term, individual shoppers are initially better off shopping at walmart than local retailers.

problem comes in the macro, as more and more of the wealth flows of the economy leave the paycheck level -- both the shopper's local economy and the global working wage economy -- and accumulate with capital -- "the 1%" to lack a better term.

That's been the story of 1970 to now and entirely why things are so fucked now.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

But through service differential more jobs should have been created and less menial ones

Less money circulating in the paycheck economy means less demand. The middle quintiles have their wages beaten out of them via the high economic rents in energy, medical care, and housing.

There are some jobs being provided in these sectors -- 200,000 in oil:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES1021100001

14M in health care:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES6562000101

but household expenses in just these two fields works out to over $200,000 per job in these industries, giving an scale of the flow going to the capital ownership and not the labor factor.

The only monopoly is through crony capitalism

"Crony capitalism" is just a thought-terminating cliche, something stupid people say when they don't really understand (or want to understand) reality.

Monopoly is a feature of any unregulated market. Power begets power.

See Microsoft for how that worked, 1980-now. No "cronyism" required.