The Private-Sector Recovery

A couple of recent articles jumped out at me, made me curious to hear the Org's take.

First there's this one, about how weird the recent recovery has been in relation to other post-recession bounce-backs. Essentially, every other time in recent U.S. history, public sector has led the way with job creation. This time? Public sector job cuts are slowing us down. A bit of detail:

Public sector employment has fallen sharply in the wake of The Great Recession, which is markedly different from every other recession of the past 35 years, according to a new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute.

Government jobs held steady between December 2007, when the downturn began, and September 2009, when it officially ended. That was largely due to beefed up aid to state and local governments contained in the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus package. When that disappeared, so did more than 600,000 state and local teacher, police, firefighter and other public sector jobs, which added about a half percentage point to the overall unemployment rate.

Which president’s economic recovery benefited most from an increasing number of government jobs? Oddly enough, it was President Ronald Reagan, who successfully ran for re-election in 1984 by proclaiming it was “morning in America.” Reagan, running in a year when unemployment fell over a percentage point to 7.5 percent, is generally (and incorrectly) remembered as the first conservative president to dramatically shrink the size and role of government.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ent_inline.jpg

Interestingly, only 13% of those public job losses were on the Federal level. And the majority of states didn't go on firing binges; if you run the numbers, twelve states were responsible for 70% of the total public sector job cuts. Detail:

Of the eleven states in which Republicans came into power in 2010 – Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – five were among the seven states that lost more than 2.5 percent of their workforce from December 2010 to December 2011. [...]

Overall, these 1 states were responsible for 40 percent of the total state and local public sector job losses in 2011. Add to these Texas, which because of its large size is responsible for 31 percent of the total at the state and local level. Taken together, these 12 red states drove over 70 percent of the total losses. The rest of the states suffered much smaller losses or even slight gains.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...aph_losses.png

Thoughts?

Heavy thread for Friday afternoon. Did you see the study that found the dramatic rise in government employee salaries during the recession?

The reason that we arn't seeing the spike in public sector employment shown in other recoveries is that the recovery has not begun. We are still in the doldrums and are just getting used to it at this point, making it feel like a recovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

The reason that we arn't seeing the spike in private sector employment

---

You're misreading the numbers. Private sector employment has been up for seven quarters, I believe. Maybe more. I'd have to Google it, and I'm on deadline. The graphs I posted are of public-sector employment.

By private-sector standards, we are well into recovery.

I don't understand economics...what's the connection between public sector employment and exiting the recession? I mean, what's the theory other than that in the past public sector jobs have increased as we left a recession.

You're right, I meant public sector. I was talking about the first chart that you had posted. Maybe we are getting serious about shrinking the role of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

what's the connection between public sector employment and exiting the recession?

---

Total employment and economic activity. So for example, a Marine in Camp Pendelton is considered employed. He buys things, he spends money, he generates economic activity. From the economy's perspective, he is adding to the bottom line, and it doesn't matter that his paycheck comes from your and my taxes. What's interesting about this recovery is that net public employment has been consistently down, so overall economic activity looks lower than it actually is. (Or you could say this is the true state, if you discount all public spending, which is tough to do.)

In a not-uncommon case of cognitive dissonance, many of the politicians criticizing the recovery are the same people responsible for or advocating a shrinking of public sector employment. (At least as long as there's a Democrat at the top of the Executive branch. Once there's a Republican? Not so much.)

So we've had something like two years of consistent growth fueled entirely by the private sector, hence the name of the thread. I find this interesting.

It should be a good thing yeah???

I mean, the job cuts to public sector conceivable slow the recovery down, but the also keep us from going so far in debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It should be a good thing yeah???

---

It certainly points to the underlying strength of the American economy, that's certain.

I'm guessing household debt is not coming down as quickly or as easily as in past recessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Total employment and economic activity. So for example, a Marine in Camp Pendelton is considered employed. He buys things, he spends money, he generates economic activity. From the economy's perspective, he is adding to the bottom line, and it doesn't matter that his paycheck comes from your and my taxes. What's interesting about this recovery is that net public employment has been consistently down, so overall economic activity looks lower than it actually is. (Or you could say this is the true state, if you discount all public spending, which is tough to do.)

In a not-uncommon case of cognitive dissonance, many of the politicians criticizing the recovery are the same people responsible for or advocating a shrinking of public sector employment. (At least as long as there's a Democrat at the top of the Executive branch. Once there's a Republican? Not so much.)

So we've had something like two years of consistent growth fueled entirely by the private sector, hence the name of the thread. I find this interesting.

---

Right, the Public Sector is essential, the litteral heart of the economy in that it pumps blood (money) trhough the system and prevents it from seizing up. After a crash the stimulus usually applied acts as CPR, keeping the heart pumping until the economy (and tax reciepts) recover, the stimulus also signals a vote of confidence from the government and therefore (hopefully) encourages private investment. However, the "Great Recession" was the result of governments overborrowing. Not only does this make a stimulus difficult, it changes the confidence dynamic, what investors want to see is not a splurge, but serious and considered belt tightening to demonstrate the government is "a safe pair of hands" that can be trusted until the tax reciepts pick up. Anotheer thing a stimulus usually does is hude the trough in the private sector, evening the crash out a bit.

Of course, the one thing the Public Sector can't do is bring money into the economy, but because goverment employees can't spend abroad it can still bleed money out.

This is why, in this recession those economies that are now recovering are the ones who could intially provide a stimulus and were then able to cut successfully and prudently, or whose economies are so strong that they didn't post large defecits. THe US is a speical case because as a Superpower your money will always be good.

More general examples are Germany (growing rapidly, no defecit) the UK (beginning to grow slowly and picking up, has made credible cuts but is struggling because we have no one to sell to) and Greece (fiscal heart attack, large defecit, no ability to provide a stimulus has resulted in reckless defecit cutting and economic collapse.)

So, go USA - we're depending on your private sector.

It's not really "tacking the issue of big government" when they are cutting teachers, firefighters and cops instead of bureaucratic jobs.

But's lets continue to point the finger that those wasteful teachers that are ruining our budgets.

There's a big misunderstanding going around; that the public sector spends, while the private sector creates wealth.

Which of course is just simple rubbish. It's the nature of the service/company which decides whether it spends or creates, not its ownership. A hospital spends money regardless of its ownership, while a nail factory creates money regqrdless of its ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There's a big misunderstanding going around; that the public sector spends, while the private sector creates wealth.

Which of course is just simple rubbish. It's the nature of the service/company which decides whether it spends or creates, not its ownership. A hospital spends money regardless of its ownership, while a nail factory creates money regqrdless of its ownership.

---

That's not exactly true, a state run hospital will generally uses taxes to treat citizens, while a private hospital will bring money into the country when it treats foriegn nationals. Likewise, a nail factory only makes money for the economy if the nails are exported or they go into something that is exported. If all those nails build houses in their country of origin then just like a public sector hospital they do not generate wealth, they merely push the existing wealth through the national economy.

A country becomes richer when its exports generate more cash than it spends on imports, if it spends more than it makes the country gets poorer and GDP goes down. Of course, this equation is muddied by inflation, which makes it look like everyone is making money when in reality for one country to get richer another must become poorer.

So for Europe this means we need to sell more to China and India, especially China, so that more money flows out of the Chinese economy into the European one than flows into it from the European one.

No.

I stand by Adam Smith's definition; the wealth of a nation is determined by its annual land and labour-product. Creating a nail is the essence of creating wealth:

Let's say a man has 1 nail. Then he makes 3 more. Thus, through his labour and what he has taken from the land, he is now a wealthy 4-nail tycoon.

Wealth isn't created through trade with others, it is created by creating stuff. Odd concept, eh? Who pays for the workers upkeep while the nails are created, the government or a capitalist, is of no concern.

Trade is all nice and good as it allows people to focus on creating one thing to barter with what someone else is making, however it does not create any wealth itself. And the export/import-focus is re-donculous.

Services are an equally valid source of wealth. That it is not a physical construct does not invalidate it as being worth something.

The nail was created from iron ore, which is an item of less value and knowledge helped create something of increased utility. A nail is of itself of little value. If someone else has the knowledge to use it to create something of increased utility they have equally created wealth. The difficulty is that industries that create something from physical goods are difficult to relocate compared to those who deal with knowledge which can relocate much more easily.

Hospitals could in some cases be viewed as creating wealth if they are helping productive workers to continue to be productive workers. They are not doing so if they are spending resources on those that will not create wealth.

And how is a country that runs a chronic trade deficit is in essence trying to purchase something with IOUs which will become less and less valid if the country is not creating anything to repay these debts?

~:smoking:

For the purposes of this thread, what exactly is "public sector employment"? If a private sector company hires a bunch of people to work on government contracts, this skews the data somewhat.

It's somewhat ironic that red-state governments are shedding their workforce. While some of it is just the results of lowered revenue due to the recession/housing crash, reducing the local government without shrinking the federal just consolidates more power at the federal level. This effect is the opposite of what conservatives should want.

I'm having trouble with this belief that we're "well into recovery." 2% growth and a poor jobs report leading to a stock market plunge is more like treading water. 5% unemployment is a .long way off

I agree completely with rory's post. I could've written "creating stuff and services", but that would've taken a couple of seconds more to do, and I'm lazy.

Products are the foundation, though. It's possible to have life without the service sector, but it would be completely impossible without any products. For starters, unless someone invented a way to eat a massage, we would starve to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Products are the foundation, though. It's possible to have life without the service sector, but it would be completely impossible without any products. For starters, unless someone invented a way to eat a massage, we would starve to death.

---

Unless you view picking of fruit and eating it straight afterwards as "creating" product you are quite wrong. The massage/hair dressing/manicure/pedicure services predate the farm by more than the existence of the human species...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Unless you view picking of fruit and eating it straight afterwards as "creating" product you are quite wrong. The massage/hair dressing/manicure/pedicure services predate the farm by more than the existence of the human species...

---

The fruit is the product, yes, and picking it is labour/"creating" it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No.

I stand by Adam Smith's definition; the wealth of a nation is determined by its annual land and labour-product. Creating a nail is the essence of creating wealth:

Let's say a man has 1 nail. Then he makes 3 more. Thus, through his labour and what he has taken from the land, he is now a wealthy 4-nail tycoon.

Wealth isn't created through trade with others, it is created by creating stuff. Odd concept, eh? Who pays for the workers upkeep while the nails are created, the government or a capitalist, is of no concern.

Trade is all nice and good as it allows people to focus on creating one thing to barter with what someone else is making, however it does not create any wealth itself. And the export/import-focus is re-donculous.

---

No, Adam Smith was wrong, because something only has value when you trade it, either for cash or for another item. Creating wealth is the art of making the better trade. Your notional four-nail main eith has to use those nails in something else (a chair perhaps) or sell them for food. If he doesn't sell the chair for food he has to either grow the food himself or make something else to sell for food.

If Adam Smith were right then we would have no rish men, just lots of co-operatives, but men get rich by buying the labour of other men cheaply, using it to make product and selling it for more than the labour and materials are worth.

This is called "profit" - you may have heard of it, even in your Socialist Oil-fuelled paradise. Actually, that's an excellent example, Norway has made huge amounts of money by extracting oil on it's door step and then selling it at massively marked up prices, much more than it costs to extract and transport.

While's we're on the subject, Smith was wrong about somethin else. Capitalism reduces quality because it competes on margin, not product - the person who is most succesful is not the person who makes the best product, but the one who is able to make the product for the lowest percentage of it's sale price.

Further, if Smith were correct Britain would never have become a Superfpower, because we built ships and trains, but we sold cotton and comodities. We made out money through trade.

I stand by my original point, a country will become poorer if it only imports and does not export, as the State is generally involed in the provision of services it tends only towards the latter, and over time this leads to the country becoming poorer. Even if you agree in principle, you much be able to see that it is true in pratice. Countries with higher tax revenues and larger state expenditure grow more slowly or shrink. The ultimate example of this would be the US and the USSR, the US defeated the USSR by raising it's government expenditure building ships, tanks and planes. The USSR went bankrupt because it couldn't afford to keep up, because money was flowing out of its economy and into the American one via trade, anyone who could get hard currency in Russia spent it afroad.

Adam Smith never sold a bullock or a weanling at the fairday obviously then so, things only have value if someone is willing to do a deal.


Creating a product in and of itself makes nobody rich, if I make a PC Game and no one buys it then tis worthless.

We need to start making more nails

A little more perspective: Without the slashes in government payrolls, the unemployment rate would be around 7.1%, which is a marked difference.

One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

But the survey of households that the unemployment rate is based on suggests the government job cuts have been much, much worse.

PVC explain Apple products which on the whole have the best hardware design yet the largest profit margin leading to one of the most wealthiest companies in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

PVC explain Apple products which on the whole have the best hardware design yet the largest profit margin leading to one of the most wealthiest companies in history.

---

Sure that only proves someone is willing to do a deal to pay a big amount for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You're misreading the numbers. Private sector employment has been up for seven quarters, I believe. Maybe more. I'd have to Google it, and I'm on deadline. The graphs I posted are of public-sector employment.

---

Your chart looks a little 'weasely' to me.... Look at the source, "author's analysis".

Setting that aside, it doesn't chart changes in private sector employment. I think that'd be useful when comparing the recessions. We're 5 years from the start of our current recession and our private sector job growth is still extremely anemic. The last numbers for March to April are only 119,000 private sector jobs. The figure for required job growth just to keep up with population is usually pegged at 150,000.

Private sector job growth isn't even enough to keep up with population growth. The only reason the unemployment % crept down is because record numbers of workers are becoming discouraged and leaving the work force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Look at the source, "author's analysis".

---

Yes, it's a Business Insider/Fiscal Times analysis (key bit you omitted) of "Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics public data series." Here's the gateway to the raw data. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, it's a Business Insider/Fiscal Times analysis (key bit you omitted) of "Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics public data series." Here's the gateway to the raw data. Cheers.

---

Let me know when you get to the rest of my post- the part that started with "Setting that aside". Take your time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Let me know when you get to the rest of my post- the part that started with "Setting that aside". Take your time...

---

Hey man, when you start by implying that a seemingly neutral source is somehow tainted, and then retreat behind a wicker framework of "Setting that aside," you get what you get. I try to post from reputable sources. You got a problem with them, please, don't retreat behind some weasel words. Bring it.

Looks like the Orgs cafterteria ran out of ensure

GET IT

GET IT!

BECUASE BOTH OF YOU ARE OLD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

BECUASE BOTH OF YOU ARE OLD

---

I'll need you to enunciate clearly when you shout into my hearing trumpet.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...t_soldiers.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hey man, when you start by implying that a seemingly neutral source is somehow tainted, and then retreat behind a wicker framework of "Setting that aside," you get what you get. I try to post from reputable sources. You got a problem with them, please, don't retreat behind some weasel words. Bring it.

---

As I've said, even if your chart is completely non-distorting & accurate, it isn't proving your point. Private sector employment growth is extremely weak, so much so that it can't have a positive effect on employment. Seeing as how the recession began 5 years ago, that alone makes it different than the others on your chart. Your comparisons- and the following assertion aren't valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As I've said, even if your chart is completely non-distorting & accurate, it isn't proving your point.

---

Translation: "I got nuthin.' " (OLD MAN FIGHT!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5CGFVTIZwI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Private sector employment growth is extremely weak, so much so that it can't have a positive effect on employment.

---

Private sector employment growth has been positive for the better part of two years. I'll take that over the reverse, thanks very much. Is it weak? Sure. But it's growth.

Furthermore, reinforcing the net point of this thread, employment has been growing in the face of State and Federal layoffs, which have dinged the unemployment number by at least a percentage point. Details were posted in the thread, reposted here. Hence my observation: This has been an exclusively private-sector recovery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Seeing as how the recession began 5 years ago, that alone makes it different than the others on your chart.

---

And we returned to real (but weak) growth at least two years ago. Please explain how this invalidates the comparison of public sector employment in various recessions. And please speak loudly. I am quite old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'll need you to enunciate clearly when you shout into my hearing trumpet.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...t_soldiers.jpg

---

That one on the left is so gay. But aren't all people on the left so?

Kidding, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Private sector employment growth has been positive for the better part of two years. I'll take that over the reverse, thanks very much. Is it weak? Sure. But it's growth.

---

Yes, it's growth. Yes, it's better than losses. But it's still bad. The rate of growth as it is, and I'm talking about private sector jobs, will have no positive effect on the unemployment rate.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, reinforcing the net point of this thread, employment has been growing in the face of State and Federal layoffs, which have dinged the unemployment number by at least a percentage point. Details were posted in the thread, reposted here. Hence my observation: This has been an exclusively private-sector recovery


And we returned to real (but weak) growth at least two years ago. Please explain how this invalidates the comparison of public sector employment in various recessions. .

---

This is all typical for a recession. Private sector jobs react (drop) the fastest in response to a souring economy. As a result, tax receipts dry up and local/state governments are forced to cut their payrolls to stem the tide of red ink. Public sector jobs lag private in the recession and they lag in the recovery.

What's different here vs the average recession is that this one has been longer and deeper, with a very tepid recovery. The private sector has shown meager job gains, but it's not enough growth to fuel the public sector.

Quote:

---

And please speak loudly. I am quite old.

---

Try this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This is all typical for a recession. Private sector jobs react (drop) the fastest in response to a souring economy. As a result, tax receipts dry up and local/state governments are forced to cut their payrolls to stem the tide of red ink. Public sector jobs lag private in the recession and they lag in the recovery.

---

Um, no, that is the pattern of tax receipts, but not the usual response. In the '81, '90 and '01 recessions, deficit spending boosted the public sector, which boosted activity. In theory, at least, that spending should be dialed back when the economy is humming (doesn't work that way for the most part, but that's the idea). What is interesting about this recovery is that it is taking place despite government cutbacks. That's the observation I made in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Try this.

---

You kids with your computational devices and their softcore. Where is that "any" key? This thing keeps telling me to press "any" key. Where is it?

-edit-

FWIW, every economist I've read bears this out. Your argument seems to be, "But jobs aren't being created fast enough," which doesn't make a metric ton of sense, given that you are also in favor of austerity and total government paralysis. My point, which seems to be either missed or ignored in your comments, is that this is an interesting recovery in that it rests entirely on the private sector. Yet another article:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ov-jobs-ue.png

As we’ve noted before, the numbers back this up completely.

Obama’s been hobbled by public-sector layoffs during this crisis in a way his predecessor George W. Bush never was back in 2001. Where the federal government stepped up to prevent states and municipalities from laying off teachers and other government workers in previous recessions, it’s fallen on its face under Obama.

More broadly, government spending at all levels rose steadily under Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, but was mostly flat under Clinton and has gone negative under Obama.

How does this phenomenon contribute to current economic woes? It’s impossible to know for sure. But if like the Wall Street Journal you imagine that the massive government job losses in Obama’s first term had never happened, then, all else equal, the unemployment rate right now would be down near 7 percent, a full percentage point below where it actually is.

But that’s not how the economy works. If those state and local workers had kept their jobs, they would’ve been making and spending money the whole time, which would have further boosted the economy and provided jobs for other people in the private sector. Economists call this the multiplier effect, and it would’ve pulled the unemployment rate down further. On the flip side, if that demand had never been subtracted from the economy, fewer people would’ve grown discouraged by the economic outlook and would’ve remained in the workforce — instead of dropping out entirely as they did in reality, in large numbers. That would have pushed the unemployment rate back up.

But broadly, the unemployment rate would be significantly lower than it is in the absence of the past three years’ public-sector job losses, which in turn were the direct consequence of the austerity Republicans at the state and federal level demanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, no, that is the pattern of tax receipts, but not the usual response. In the '81, '90 and '01 recessions, deficit spending boosted the public sector, which boosted activity. In theory, at least, that spending should be dialed back when the economy is humming (doesn't work that way for the most part, but that's the idea). What is interesting about this recovery is that it is taking place despite government cutbacks. That's the observation I made in the OP.

---

But federal spending spiked during the recession. It spiked in 2009- two years after you peg the start of the recession. That's 2009, the same year that the GDP bottomed out and we nominally left the recession. Federal spending fell, slightly, in 2010, but only compared to the 2009 spike. Then it continued upward since. Both Bush and Obama threw alot of money at the economy- but it's still stagnant.

Quote:

---

Obama’s been hobbled by public-sector layoffs during this crisis in a way his predecessor George W. Bush never was back in 2001. Where the federal government stepped up to prevent states and municipalities from laying off teachers and other government workers in previous recessions, it’s fallen on its face under Obama.

---

Again, the Obama stimulus package threw hundreds of billions of dollars at creating local government jobs. See if you can still find the "Jobs created or saved by the stimulus" counter on the white house website.....

Quote:

---

More broadly, government spending at all levels rose steadily under Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, but was mostly flat under Clinton and has gone negative under Obama.

---

Federal spending is higher. Local government is funded largely by property taxes. I seem to remember something bad happening to the real estate market.

Also...

Quote:

---

But if like the Wall Street Journal you imagine that the massive government job losses in Obama’s first term had never happened, then, all else equal, the unemployment rate right now would be down near 7 percent, a full percentage point below where it actually is.

---

A couple of points on this. First, it's a WSJ blog post. Secondly you, and the entirety of the left wing blogosphere are cherry-picking it.

"The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%.

Ceteris is rarely paribus, of course: If there were more government jobs now, for example, it’s likely that not as many people would have left the labor force, and so the actual unemployment rate would be north of 7.1%."

That figure is speculative, not factual. The author dismissed the figure just as quickly as he stated it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

But federal spending spiked during the recession. It spiked in 2009- two years after you peg the start of the recession.

---

Recessions after financial meltdowns are harder and longer-lasting than normal boom-bust cycles. Just ask the Japanese. Also, as for the stimulus packages from Bush II and Obama, there's a legitimate argument to be made that in the face of a demand drought, they were too small. I know, I know, this is insane comedy from your perspective. But some economists make the argument, and they're not all insane leftist lesbian hippies who hate freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

First, it's a WSJ blog post.

---

Yes, it is. So true. Once again you impugn the source without bothering to describe any specific or tangible element. Is this becoming some sort of verbal tic? Cast aspersions on a source, then say it doesn't matter and go make some other point that has absolutely nothing to do with your quasi-dismissal of the source?

And yes, the analyst points out that due to interrelated forces, the final number would not be 7.1%. In an article. To which I linked. THE HORROR! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!

By the way, your post is just an anonymous post on an internet gaming site by a guy with a suspiciously Chinese name. That aside, and not that I'm saying anything about that, but you as a source are extremely iffy. I don't even know that you really exist. But I'm not saying that. I'm just making vaguely dismissive, content-free comments about you as a source. You're suspicious, and possibly tainted by leftism. Not that it matters to my argument. I'm just saying it. Oh, I can't back it up, but that's okay, because I'm leaving it aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Recessions after financial meltdowns are harder and longer-lasting than normal boom-bust cycles. Just ask the Japanese. Also, as for the stimulus packages from Bush II and Obama, there's a legitimate argument to be made that in the face of a demand drought, they were too small. I know, I know, this is insane comedy from your perspective. But some economists make the argument, and they're not all insane leftist lesbian hippies who hate freedom.

---

Using the White House's data, we're borrowing about 42 cents of every dollar we spend. Back, to the spreadsheet I linked from the White House's website, the 2012FY spending is pegged at $100bn more than 2009's spending- 2009 being the year the stimulus was passed, meaning we've exceeded even that. How much more money, and for how long would you recommend the federal government spend to make everything, "ok"? The deficit is already ballooning- but you say its not by enough. Don't you have any concerns about the current rate of debt accumulation? Should we really accelerate it?

Quote:

---

Yes, it is. So true. Once again you impugn the source without bothering to describe any specific or tangible element. Is this becoming some sort of verbal tic? Cast aspersions on a source, then say it doesn't matter and go make some other point that has absolutely nothing to do with your quasi-dismissal of the source?

---

A blog posting isn't expected, or required to meet the same standards that a regular news story would in the WSJ. I didn't think I'd need to spell that out for you.... but here we are. :shrug:

Quote:

---

And yes, the analyst points out that due to interrelated forces, the final number would not be 7.1%. In an article. To which I linked. THE HORROR! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!

---

It pretty well disproves your claim that without government job cuts the unemployment rate would be almost 7%. An assertion you've made repeatedly. It's based on a statement that even it's author dismisses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Don't you have any concerns about the current rate of debt accumulation? Should we really accelerate it?

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the United States has a short-term growth problem and a long-term debt problem. In the meantime, I think I'll trust Mr. Market about the validity of our debt. Short-term borrowing is costing us what percentage again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's based on a statement that even it's author dismisses.

---

The author says that the unemployment rate would be "north of" 7.1%, which is not exactly the thundering dismissal you imagine. An economic analyst says that a final number would not, in fact, be 7.1%. To you this is game, set and match? Really?

What intrigues me about your elliptical, half-hearted dismissal of sources is that you seem to do it reflexively, with no purpose toward furthering your own argument. It's more of a tic, as I said.