patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,363,370 comments by 15,749 users - Blue, Patrick online now
Comments 1 - 7 of 7 Search these comments
indigenous
2013 Jul 5, 2:58pm
Am I to understand you do not hold the ark of Krugman in high esteem?
Another way to look at it is to look at the number of people employed as it harder for them to cook the books. In this article Murphy explains how yes we have 20%+ unemployment.
One thing that does not get mentioned much is that the population has grown by 31 million since the last dip in the work force.
indigenous
2013 Jul 5, 3:20pm
You do realize the first article was from 2009, and your latest one was from 2011, right????
Here is one from this morning, it hasn't changed much in reality, just more part time jobs because of Obama care fears.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/establishment-survey-jobs-195k.html
Dan8267
2013 Jul 5, 5:01pm
I mainly posted this article to point out that the media, including the New York Times, simply do not call the current economic status what it is, a depression. Until we're ready to admit what the disease is, we can't cure it.
People think that depressions only happened in the 18th and 19th centuries, but they happened in the 20th and 21st as well. The media needs to start being honest about economics.
Bellingham Bill
2013 Jul 6, 3:57am
Whatever the employment numbers,
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klD
shows employment is not actually too bad
but middle-wage jobs were shed during the recession and were replaced with lower-paying jobs.
this does not feel like a depression.
The Fed pushing $2.5T of money into the system:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klF
has been pumping up the leaky tire that is our macro economy.
The main driver of ending the recession was simply:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klH
doubling the national debt since 2008.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klI
shows the national debt will soon hit 100% of personal income. (actually, counting the sstf etc it's much higher already, but nobody thinks about that anymore -- so much for the "lockbox").
As you, I foresee the impending boomer retirement as highly stimulative and redistributionary -- as they age and die an unimaginable amount of wealth is going to change hands.
The boomers are age 50 to 68 now . . .
If they all buy RVs and burn up their kids' inheritances at the diesel pump, we'll be f-d. But there's going to be millions of jobs created serving the old people this decade and next.
And, unlike Japan, our young population isn't shrinking, so there will be more jobs on that side of the economy too.
But someday we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for all of this, LOL.
Current government spending per 25-54 YO:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klJ
shows that is the biggest bubble. I don't see how that's even possible, really. Does *everyone* work for the government or what . . .
Bellingham Bill
2013 Jul 6, 4:03am
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=klK
shows that in real terms per-working age government spending has risen from $35k to ~$45k since Clinton.
boggle
indigenous
2013 Jul 6, 5:40am
shows employment is not actually too bad
What that fails to consider is that since the dip at about 2000, 30 million people have been added to the population.Bellingham Bill says
As you, I foresee the impending boomer retirement as highly stimulative and redistributionary -- as they age and die an unimaginable amount of wealth is going to change hands.
Spending goes down when people retire not up, except maybe healthcare.
shows that in real terms per-working age government spending has risen from $35k to ~$45k since Clinton.
boggle
It is with borrowed money, in other words it is not possible.
indigenous
2013 Jul 6, 7:28am
does show that the 1990, 2000, and 2008 recessions were different in form than the Fed-caused earlier recessions.
No they weren't
The above chart shows the total employment among private industries from the late 1930s through the present. Notice that during every recession (gray bar), the line fell, indicating that jobs were shed. But the jobs would usually bounce back during the recovery phase, so that, from a distance, the blue line generally rises in a steady fashion.
Comments 1 - 7 of 7 Search these comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/business/economy/15leonhardt.html
What's going on is that this is a depression, a word that the press, economists, and the government don't want anyone using. The word recession is worthless as it does not tell you if an economy is doing awesome or poorly. Yep, that's right. It doesn't.
A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product. So if everybody's income is $1,000,000 a year and the GDP is fucking sky high to match, but the GDP lowers by 0.1% for two consecutive quarters, you're in a fucking recession even though everyone's living in paid off mansions and getting blow jobs from ancient Greek gods.
In contrast, if everyone is earning $12/yr giving blow jobs to the horses of their Chinese overlords while GDP is $1000, but it increases by a penny for even one quarter, you're not in a recession.
This is a completely worthless and ridiculous term. So why do we use the word recession? The whole purpose of the word recession is to keep people from using the word depression, which would inevitably lead to awkward conversations about how fucked the economy is and who fucked it up.
Whether or not we are in a recession is irrelevant. We are in a depression and have been since at least 2007. In fact, we are in the Second Great Depression and it is as bad as the First Great Depression of 1929-1941. And it might just last as long if we don't acknowledge it.
The reason a 20% unemployment rate sounds like the First Great Depression is because it is like the First Great Depression. We're just so used to having the media polish turds so much that we don't even notice the stench anymore.
Sure, we don't see soup kitchen lines because we have food stamps. And technology makes poverty more bearable. But the economics are as fucked up as they were in the 1930s. And until we start calling the depression for what it is, it's going to stay that way. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging its existence.