Patterico's Pontifications

1/8/2010

Unemployment Still at 10%

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 1:56 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Last month’s decline in job losses did not hold, and the US “unexpectedly” remains at 10% unemployment. What should the government do about this? At this point, the Obama Administration’s best bet may be to ask the BLS to issue its unemployment reports on Friday nights. Meanwhile, geoff at Innocent Bystanders updates his Stimulus chart with the new data:

null

In another chart, geoff shows the cumulative job loss is “over 8 million, with not much sign of slowing.” And in a separate post, he illustrates “Job Security the Government Way.”

— DRJ

67 Responses to “Unemployment Still at 10%”

  1. What should the government do about this?

    Isn’t it obvious? What they always do – drag the head of BLS into the Oval Office and have Rahm and his only One harangue the living sh-t out of him until he revises those numbers. Hey, it worked with Orzag, didn’t it?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  2. UEC beneficiaries are over 5 million now, which tells me that the U3 in geoff’s chart stabilized simply because a lot of people are starting to fall off the roles. Our employment to population ratio is the worst it’s been since 1983.

    Our economy is completely dependant on the idea that Americans can spend themselves into massive debt as long as inflation stays ahead of the debt accumulations. This sort of structure can never be sustained for long, and there is NO “miracle” industry right now that is going to compel a new bubble to form like the internet did for us in the mid-90s. “Green” technology, which is repeatedly touted as the nation’s next economic Miracle-Gro, remains a niche industry that requires continual liquidity pumps from the government to even maintain its niche status (see Cash for Caulkers). Even the defense industry can’t be supported by the government forever at the rate Uncle Sam is compiling debt–pullouts from the Middle East may become a matter of simple economics rather than policy, even with the initial costs of redeploying our troops and assets being taken into account.

    The bottom line is that until we deflate, get off the fiat currency rollercoaster, drastically curtail overall immigration, and go back to a production-based economy, we will continue to see these bubble cycles continue, and the dips will get progressively worse.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  3. The chart clear shows 1) the unemployment curve (as measured by the feds) has flattened. The “big drop” of Nov ’09 is now better understood: the October ’09 peak was an outlier, and the real rate has been flat to slightly up for about 5 months.

    Which is not good news; just not more bad news. The recovery is stalled and the government’s efforts have, at best, not helped.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  4. urr …and 2) the “big drop” ….

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  5. I think the second chart is more worrisome. Employment is going down and the policies of Obama and Pelosi will not create a job. We are looking at a depression unless the economy starts to move in spite of these fools.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  6. What’s interesting is North Dakota which has 4% unemployment and a state budget surplus. Did Dorgan ever wonder how that happened ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  7. What’s interesting is North Dakota which has 4% unemployment and a state budget surplus.

    There was a feature on CNN a few months ago about a town in North Dakota (can’t remember which one) whose banks didn’t suffer at all in the downturn because they hadn’t made the same risky loans as other institutions did. Imagine that–not allowing the promise of easy money to make you fall for the moral hazard trap. Reminds me of that line from Atlas Shrugged where Midas Mulligan automatically rejected any loan applications if the potential customer ever mentioned how badly they “needed” the loan as opposed to how they were going to pay it back.

    I read an article recently about the worker migrations to ND. One of the guys they profiled had worked in NYC for a long time, but had been unemployed for months and took the job in North Dakota because he couldn’t find anything in town that paid him enough to cover cost of living expenses. His friends couldn’t believe he’d give up the NYC cultural life to live on the prairie, but they were struggling too and some had asked him about jobs in the area.

    It’s amazing what people will give up or tolerate in terms of climate and social or cultural amenities when you are about to end up on the street.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  8. Another Chris: Exactly. People dig MOMA and Broadway and avant-garde fusion cuisine. But they like having decent job even more.

    You can have all the cultural gee-gaws you can stuff into a city, but if the government is determined to make it impossible for regular folk to live and find work there, people are gonna head for the burbs.

    KingShamus (fb8597)

  9. if it wasn’t for the over 600,000 people who just gave up trying to find a j*b, we’d be looking at 10.4 or higher.

    as to the supposed increase in orders that was supposed to be a good sign for December, how much of that was simply “use it or lose it” spending at the end of the year? i certainly see no signs of improvement in the local economy where i live. empty stores are staying empty, and business that have been there for years continue to close. the apartments & rental condos/town-homes that were once full are advertising vacancies and move in specials…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  10. I wonder how people will like 15% unemployment, which is what we’re headed for with the withholding tax increases already in force and the new taxes coming by the bushel load this year. We’re so totally screwed that even Democrats will start understanding what productive people “going Galt” does to the economy.

    MTF (a20706)

  11. If you connect the dots, they spell “Cut Taxes.”

    ropelight (0cfa03)

  12. So if the dots are the actual “with recovery plan” then what’s the actual “without recovery plan” ? Something like 12% unemployment?

    imdw (de7003)

  13. What should the government do about this?

    Repeal the Porkulus, withdraw Pelosi/Reedcare, give a tax holiday to all businesses and individuals, remove regulations on sales of medical insurance; promise to keep it this way until 2012.

    Then step back, watch the stock market explode, businesses hire, and unions shrivel up.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  14. Two points :

    Real unemployment is 17.3 % the U-6 number

    Elsewhere in the BLS report, 20% of the male workforce is now unemployed.

    Read the BLS report

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  15. “Real unemployment is 17.3 % the U-6 number”

    I understand what U6 is, but why is that more “real” than the other measures of labor market slack?

    imdw (688568)

  16. Raaaaaacists!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. Add in rising energy prices. If gasoline tops $4 again, there’s your double dip for sure.

    gp (f596a1)

  18. Only in your fantasy is the unemployment without the porkupolis higher, imdw, only in your fantasy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. I went out today and maxxed out the cash advance on my credit card because I am down with spending my way out of trouble.
    The problem is that like any pyramid scheme, I need 10 suckers to do the same for me.

    SteveG (909b57)

  20. So if the dots are the actual “with recovery plan” then what’s the actual “without recovery plan” ?

    That’s an incredibly stupid question. There can be no “actual” without the stimulus bill.

    Since so little of the stimulus bill was actually spent in 2009, there would be very little difference had the bill not been enacted.

    Some chump (d97978)

  21. “I understand what U6 is, but why is that more “real” than the other measures of labor market slack?”

    imdw – Don’t confuse your pretty head with numbers. Barcky today said that “the overall trend of job losses is pointing in the right direction.” I assume he he was looking at some statistics which showed an downward trend, but you never know. Job gains would be even better.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  22. Has anyone heard of the U10 and U12 numbers ?

    That’s where we all walk into the voting booth and vote against every incumbent Democratic/Socialist Party member and the Rinos in Congress/WH…

    DaveinPhoenix (2bd6c3)

  23. “Only in your fantasy is the unemployment without the porkupolis higher, imdw, only in your fantasy.”

    Really? I mean, more spending clearly makes for more GDP, and more employment. Definitely before we start paying for it.

    Or do you think the spending doesn’t add to GDP?

    “Since so little of the stimulus bill was actually spent in 2009, there would be very little difference had the bill not been enacted.”

    That’s more like it. I don’t know what SPQR is smoking.

    “imdw – Don’t confuse your pretty head with numbers. Barcky today said that “the overall trend of job losses is pointing in the right direction.” I assume he he was looking at some statistics which showed an downward trend, but you never know. Job gains would be even better.”

    We’ve been over this. Before we see unemployment rates decrease we’ll see them plateau. When that number has been going up, a plateau does point in the right direction.

    imdw (de7003)

  24. Then step back, watch the stock market explode, businesses hire, and unions shrivel up. Comment by Patricia — 1/8/2010 @ 4:36 pm

    Which is precisely why they won’t consider your smart suggestions. Tangentially related is Willie Brown’s unexpected explanation of Cali’s mess,

    Over the years, however, the civil service system has changed from one that protects jobs to one that runs the show.

    The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life.

    But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits to private-sector levels while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workers almost as much as current workers.

    Dana (f64b7d)

  25. Rich people have lots of money – now tucked away from high taxes – lowering taxes always fuels investment which fuels employment – which explodes economies and creates more tax revenue (yep people on unemployment dont pay much taxes – people off unemployment pay taxes)

    You’d think the Dems would have figured that out by now?

    EricPWJohnson (efaa3d)

  26. And it doesn’t help that wages have stagnated out there.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  27. “We’ve been over this.”

    imdw – Right. So 85,000 additional job losses are a good thing? Oooooh-kaaaaay. Talk about Voodoo Economics!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  28. And it doesn’t help that wages have stagnated out there.

    Comment by imdw — 1/8/2010 @ 6:54 pm

    It seems to me that things would improve more if wages went down. There’s an overabundance of workers so wages should be moving downward, but the government’s decisions are pushing businesses to make do with as few employees as possible and keep their wages steady. Businesses might hire more people if wages and benefits declined.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  29. I’m going to start up the old abandoned gold mines. Gonna find that South Dakota mine that Bear Grylls was in and eat buffalo and rattlesnake meat, come spring.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  30. In the first year of the Depression (before it got Great), Hoover was convinced by the academics that the great danger was a reduction of disposable income, so he jawboned the business community to maintain wages, which they did by scaling-back their labor force. Roosevelt continued this general policy with the incouragement of the labor unions, which gave rise to the saying that “The Depression’s not so bad, if you have a job.”
    H/T…Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man.

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  31. More spending does not make for more GDP, imdw, I suggest you quit making speculation on smoking and learn some economics – specifically what goes into the GDP figures. Regardless, the debate was about employment figures, which amusingly are not measured with GDP …

    Much of the porkupolus went to bailout broken state budgets, which imdw thinks increases GDP.

    Bwaaahaaahaaa.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. DRJ

    Wages will go down if – taxes go down – wages will go farther – who knows = might even see 5% annual growth

    EricPWJohnson (efaa3d)

  33. Problem is it will take 24 to 36 months for stronger measures to take effect – its like a 300 mile traffic jam = once the wreck is cleared away the ripple of movement takes time

    EricPWJohnson (efaa3d)

  34. “In the first year of the Depression (before it got Great)”

    AD – When was the Depression ever great, except in the mind of Democrats, when they got to expand the government’s powers so dramatically?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  35. It was the depression within a depression (’37 & ’38) that earned it the title of The Great Depression. The Crash in ’29 was pretty much like all the other hiccups that the financial community had experienced since the beginning of the country – The Business Cycle – and still experiences, notwithstanding the creation of the Federal Reserve, or the repeal of Glass-Steagell, or TARP, or Stimulus Plans.
    Many reports say that only 20% (at most) of the Stimulus Plan funds have been spent.
    That 80% is going to be a whole lot of “walking around money” in the coming election, and could change the historical dynamics.

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  36. Really? I mean, more spending clearly makes for more GDP, and more employment. Definitely before we start paying for it.

    Or do you think the spending doesn’t add to GDP?

    It depends which economists you’re consulting. The idea spending boosts GDP has been vigorously contested for decades. You seem to be unaware of that.

    Why do you think actual unemployment is so much higher than what Obama’s people said it would be? Or is that an irrelevant question to your liberal brain?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/08/stimulus-scam/

    Gerald A (da888e)

  37. tax revenues booming!

    oh. wait….. did i say booming?

    silly me: they are falling like a rock. for the economic geniuses amongst us, i point you to those terrible years when Reagan bankrupted the country with tax cuts that benefited the rich. (collections rose).

    after that, you fixed the tx rates so everyone paid their fair share, and they fell, until Bush dropped rates for (only the rich) again, and amazingly enough, the same thing happened: receipts rose, at least until you took over Congress and started screwing with everything.

    now you’ve got Ear Leader, who only wants to tax the rich, and for some unknown reason, revenues are down again….

    too bad there is just no way anyone could possibly be expected to connect all these dots…..there’s got to be a pattern there somewhere, if only we could figure it out. i guess what we need is a smoking gun to make it all clear……

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  38. Here’s another good analysis:

    http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/02/17/why-the-do-something-stimulus-bill-wont-work/

    This was a prediction that it would’t work. So far it’s looking prescient.

    Gerald A (da888e)

  39. redc1c4, I know you mean well but in fact your comment “… until Bush dropped rates for (only the rich) again …” is not really true. If you examine the effects of the George W. Bush admin tax cut, there were reductions in effective tax rates for all tax payers. The claim that only the “rich” got taxes cut was Democratic falsehood.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. dear SPQR, you should be aware that “sarcasm” is my default setting, with or without “/white smoke”.

    %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  41. And let’s not forget that people who hire others are probably considered “rich” by democrat demagogues. So even if a tax cut helps the “rich” more, that would obviously mean it’s having a positive impact on employers.

    Then again, it’s getting to the point where anyone paying substantial taxes is “rich”. So, of course, a tax cut on everyone would favor the “rich”. There’s no way to win.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. Inconvenient truths for a Leftist….
    No one was ever hired for a job by a poor person…
    Before the government can spend a dollar, it has to borrow a dollar from somebody else, or take it through taxes, thereby preventing that person from spending a dollar…
    As RR & GWB “cut taxes on the rich”, the percentage of the total income taxes paid to the government by the rich increased, until now, the percentage of taxes paid by the lower half of wage earners is virtually zero, where the top 10% pay almost half of all taxes…

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  43. In the lexicon of the Left, you’re rich if you have a job!

    Remember, in 2000, AlGore said he was going to increase taxes on Millionaires that made more than $500,000
    (in his demented little mind, you were a millionaire at that level of income since you would earn one-million each two years).

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  44. If Obama wanted to fix the economy in a hurry, he could issue a month long tax holiday and government nonessential spending freeze.

    Stop the pork projects, the aid, the assistance (some of it), the CPB, the arts $, etc. Basically shut down government and have a massive tax holiday. Perhaps limit the holiday to smaller businesses. Or don’t charge taxes for each new employee hired.

    Of course, the idea that this or any congress would agree to such a measure it absurd.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  45. (in his demented little mind, you were a millionaire at that level of income since you would earn one-million each two years)

    :/

    (that’s me making an awkward face)

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. Hey, I don’t make this stuff up; I would be sued by the Screen Writers Guild (no membership).

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  47. “It seems to me that things would improve more if wages went down.”

    Well then the 00’s were great for you!

    “More spending does not make for more GDP, imdw, I suggest you quit making speculation on smoking and learn some economics – specifically what goes into the GDP figures.”

    Actually yes. Government spending goes quite directly into GDP. The traditional econ 101 formula is C+I+G+X (Consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports).

    “Regardless, the debate was about employment figures, which amusingly are not measured with GDP …”

    You’ll find a good correlation between them. Unless there’s some major productivity changes.

    “Why do you think actual unemployment is so much higher than what Obama’s people said it would be?”

    Because I think they couldn’t bear to be anything but optimistic. It was a shame because I think a stronger case needed to be made for an even stronger stimulus.

    “Before the government can spend a dollar, it has to borrow a dollar from somebody else, or take it through taxes, thereby preventing that person from spending a dollar…”

    As well as preventing them from saving that dollar. But once the government has spent it, now it is in back in someone’s hand again.

    imdw (de7003)

  48. “It was a shame because I think a stronger case needed to be made for an even stronger stimulus.”

    imdw – A stimulus designed to work in 2009 or even even early 2010 would have been better than the back loaded plan they implemented, don’t you think?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  49. Actually yes. Government spending goes quite directly into GDP. The traditional econ 101 formula is C+I+G+X (Consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports).

    A cut in taxes would do the same thing, increasing consumption and investment. Correct?

    You can artificially increase GDP by spending, but if it means having less net income in the future (and thus, less consumption and investment), you haven’t gained anything.

    The aim for anything geared toward increasing GDP should be to make sure it sustains long-term growth. I suggest that the stimulus plan did not do so, so any gains in GDP it might have created are ephemeral.

    Some chump (d97978)

  50. For years the Keynesians (sic) told us that govt spending had a multiplier effect >1 (Christina Romer used that explanation as to why the Stimulus Plan would prevent any further disaster in the economy just a year ago) but recent scholarship on the issue by “Chicago School” economists (and I believe earlier by Milton Friedman) postulated that the actual multiplier of govt deficit spending was on the order of 0.80-0.85; that govt deficit spending would, in the long run, be a net drag on the economy, since the money was used for immediate consumer spending (FTMP) while true investment would expand the economy by adding jobs and production. Obama promised us the Stimulus would be used for “shovel ready projects” to repair and improve the infrastructure, etc, yet (again, FTMP) sent that money to state and local govts to attempt to keep them above water which they did by using it to satisfy their bloated payroll/benefit obligations. Since each hand that handled the money had some stick to it, the net benefit always ends up being less than the amount spent.

    We are on the same track that the Japanese Government took following the melt-down of commercial RE assets in the late-80’s/early-90’s, bringing on their “Lost Decade” from which they have yet to recover – just look at the high for the Nikkei index and where it is today – since many of their banks have yet to shed their “toxic assets”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (946807)

  51. “imdw – A stimulus designed to work in 2009 or even even early 2010 would have been better than the back loaded plan they implemented, don’t you think?”

    I think so. Better not just economically but politically too. But remember, to get 60 votes they had to make the stimulus worse, cutting quick stimulus things like aid to states and adding in slower things like tax cuts. Like health care, stimulus is one of those recent pieces of legislation that shows us that the powerful filibuster makes our policy worse, not better.

    “A cut in taxes would do the same thing, increasing consumption and investment. Correct?”

    Not by the same amount no. People save. Tax cuts at the way bottom may help — people with low income are more likely to consumer their whole income.

    “You can artificially increase GDP by spending, but if it means having less net income in the future (and thus, less consumption and investment), you haven’t gained anything.”

    What you’ve gained is that you’re consuming now, in a recession, what you’d be consuming in the future, in a boom. So your booms are smaller and your recessions are shallower. Of course this depends on boomtime leaders actually paying debt, rather than giving tax cuts as soon as a surplus is reached.

    Plus there is some sense in which today’s idleness can never be regained once lost. So you are gaining by preventing idleness.

    “The aim for anything geared toward increasing GDP should be to make sure it sustains long-term growth. I suggest that the stimulus plan did not do so, so any gains in GDP it might have created are ephemeral.”

    I think you’ve got it backwards — stimulus is exactly for short term counter-cyclical growth.Some stimulus projects can have long term benefits (better roads, high speed rail, broadband, etc…) but the logic of stimulus is plain old short term growth now paid for by less growth during some time in the future.

    imdw (f7b257)

  52. Not by the same amount no. People save. Tax cuts at the way bottom may help — people with low income are more likely to consumer their whole income.

    You don’t understand what you’re saying here. If people have more net income they either spend it (consumption) or they save it (investment). Either way, the GDP increases.

    Further, by not increasing government spending, the need for taxes in the future is smaller.

    What you’ve gained is that you’re consuming now, in a recession, what you’d be consuming in the future, in a boom.

    But what you’ve done additionally is made future taxes necessary by raising spending in the present. Future taxes means less net income in the future, which means less consumption and investment in the future. You’re actually making things worse.

    I think you’ve got it backwards — stimulus is exactly for short term counter-cyclical growth.

    I don’t have it backwards. The point should be to grow the economy overall, not just speed up cyclical growth. You don’t understand the concept of long-term growth.

    Some chump (d97978)

  53. “If people have more net income they either spend it (consumption) or they save it (investment). Either way, the GDP increases.”

    Oh no. Savings does not equal investments. If that was the case we wouldn’t ever have economic slowdowns!

    “But what you’ve done additionally is made future taxes necessary by raising spending in the present. ”

    That’s what I mean by consuming now what you’d consume in the future. Indeed I know it means less consumption in at a future time.

    “I don’t have it backwards. The point should be to grow the economy overall, not just speed up cyclical growth.”

    The point is to dampen cycles — speeding up the economy when the cycle is down and slowing down the economy when the cycle is up.

    imdw (de7003)

  54. imd-dummy, America has the poorest saving rate among the industrialized countries.

    Do you have to pull fecal matter out of your bum to have something to post?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  55. […] No, Virginia, Liberal Intellectuals Do Not Learn from Experience Patterico’s Pontifications: Unemployment Still at 10% Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King: Jane Fonda: Obama Funder Jodie Evans Met With Taliban; Code […]

    Bad News for Congress: Voters Have More Confidence in Random Phone Book Selections of People Than Those in Congress « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  56. “Why do you think actual unemployment is so much higher than what Obama’s people said it would be?”

    Because I think they couldn’t bear to be anything but optimistic. It was a shame because I think a stronger case needed to be made for an even stronger stimulus.

    Translation: They lied. Alternate translation: They don’t understand how the economy works.

    Government spending goes quite directly into GDP. The traditional econ 101 formula is C+I+G+X (Consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports).

    What you’ve gained is that you’re consuming now, in a recession, what you’d be consuming in the future, in a boom. So your booms are smaller and your recessions are shallower. Of course this depends on boomtime leaders actually paying debt, rather than giving tax cuts as soon as a surplus is reached.

    I notice you have no comment on the link I provided. The analysis of Obama’s stimulus is based on the Austrian school of economics. According to the Austrian school the next downturn will be even worse. It’s not just moving consumption from one period to another. Part of the reason is that the short term “stimulus” is not going into economically useful things.

    Also according to the monetarist school the stimulus raises interest rate expectations, wiping out the benefit of the stimulus even in the short term.

    Raising taxes which you see as some kind of virtue (gee I wonder why) has a negative impact on the economy because it affects behavior in a way which is detrimental to the economy’s dynamics, which Keynesian analysis simply ignores.

    You keep going on with your Keynesian narrative, which has been shown to be flawed in real world experience, as post #50 pointed out. It ignores behavior, the economic value of what “stimulus” is actually being spent on, and interest rate expectations, among other things.

    Gerald A (da888e)

  57. Oh no. Savings does not equal investments. If that was the case we wouldn’t ever have economic slowdowns!

    Well, you’re mostly wrong there.

    Now, let’s look at the role played by personal savings. The diagram indicates that personal savings (what we normally call “investment”) is actually a source of revenue for industry. This is because the money you put in the bank is loaned to businesses so that they can put it to work. Money NOT circulated in this way — the money you stuff in a mattress — would actually be subtracted from the GDP. For the most part, however, people do not put money in mattresses and the bank system uses the personal savings of individuals to give industry its reservoir of money to work from. This is why economists say that the amount of Savings is always going to be approximately equal to the amount available for Investment. Savings and Investment can become out of balance when there is more demand for investment money than what is available from domestic savings. In that case, more money is borrowed from foreign sources.

    You’ll find the cite here (emphasis added)

    The point is to dampen cycles — speeding up the economy when the cycle is down and slowing down the economy when the cycle is up.

    No, the point to stimulus is to encourage growth so that more growth will take place. The point to any economic policy should be to encourage more growth. We’ll always have cycles, any policy aimed at reducing them is wrong-headed.

    Some chump (d97978)

  58. “This is why economists say that the amount of Savings is always going to be approximately equal to the amount available for Investment.”

    The amount available for investment. That’s different than what is actually spent on investment.

    “We’ll always have cycles, any policy aimed at reducing them is wrong-headed.”

    Not at all. For example congress directs the fed to reach a situation of non-inflationary full employment. That implies hitting the brakes as well as providing stimulus, at different times.

    imdw (de7003)

  59. > providing stimulus

    Wow, you have drunk the koolaid, imdw. Like there is any financial stimulation to speak of.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  60. “Wow, you have drunk the koolaid, imdw. Like there is any financial stimulation to speak of.”

    Yeah I drank the Koolaid…by reading Greg Mankiw’s textbook.

    imdw (6951c3)

  61. Mankiw’s textbook….
    Would this be the same Mankiw who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to Bush-43?…
    the same Mankiw who was an advisor to Mitt Romney from 06-08?…
    and who was a sceptic on the chances of success of a trillion-dollar stumulus, and was subsequently criticized by VP Sloe-Joe Biden?

    The same Mankiw who is described as a New Keynesian?

    And who laid the seeds of the housing bust back in 1989 in the garden of the Boomers?

    Just questions….

    AD - RtR/OS! (abf624)

  62. Same dude. I remember my version of the book mentioned in the bio that he had a dog — maybe it was a border collie — named “Keynes.”

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (2946bf)

  63. AD – Their view of the economy is scary.

    JD (fd1993)

  64. […] No, Virginia, Liberal Intellectuals Do Not Learn from Experience Patterico’s Pontifications: Unemployment Still at 10% The Powers That Be: Distraction: Why the Obama Administration Can’t Connect the Dots Frugal Café […]

    Obama’s Stupid “2 Million Jobs Saved or Created” Claim: Jobless Claims Rise, 2009 Retail Sales Drop to Biggest Yearly Plunge on Record « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  65. […] No, Virginia, Liberal Intellectuals Do Not Learn from Experience Patterico’s Pontifications: Unemployment Still at 10% The Powers That Be: Distraction: Why the Obama Administration Can’t Connect the Dots Frugal Café […]

    More Audacious Obama Waste: Economic Recession, Record Unemployment… So, Why NOT Give a Cool Half Million of Stimulus Tax Dollars to ClimateGate Scientist Who’s Under Investigation? « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  66. […] No, Virginia, Liberal Intellectuals Do Not Learn from Experience Patterico’s Pontifications: Unemployment Still at 10% The Powers That Be: Distraction: Why the Obama Administration Can’t Connect the Dots and Detroit: […]

    Grab a Hankie: Barack Obama Is Lonely at the Top, Even with His Record Number of White House Parties « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  67. […] No, Virginia, Liberal Intellectuals Do Not Learn from Experience Patterico’s Pontifications: Unemployment Still at 10% The Powers That Be: Distraction: Why the Obama Administration Can’t Connect the Dots Frugal Café […]

    FOX News: “The Constitution & Freedom”… Why Constitution Is Greatest Political Document Ever Written (3-part video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6052 secs.