Latest unemployment figures

[Sbane]

I can't believe some people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. Just look at the December and January job figures you numbnuts. Obama can't be expected to change everything in a month. He hasn't even had a chance to get anything passed and implemented. That will take months if not up to a year. If the economy is still sh**tty in 2011 then its a different story. If unemployement isn't below 8% by 2012 I think Obama has a hard time getting re-elected.

One thing to keep in mind, is unemployment was barely down heading into the 84 election compared to where it was when Reagan took office (couple tenths).  Not comparing 2012 to 1984, but interesting to note nonetheless.

Yeah it depends but people certainly felt like it was "morning in America" back in 84. Obama has the skill to instill hope in people in trying times, but even he will have to show some results and the economy at least has to be on the upswing for him to win.

[opebo]

As president Obama obviously has had no causative effect or even influence on the unemployment, which was caused by right wing economic policy from 1981 to January of this year.

But certainly the rate should go up into the mid to upper teens, perhaps even over 20%, just as it did before.

Are you hoping for some 'proletarian' revolt against the 'bourgeois' in the event of unemployment being that high?

Dave

No, nor do I expect one.  The serfs are long-suffering, and anyway even if they did revolt they'd just be slaughtered.

[dead0man]

As president Obama obviously has had no causative effect or even influence on the unemployment, which was caused by right wing economic policy from 1981 to January of this year.

But certainly the rate should go up into the mid to upper teens, perhaps even over 20%, just as it did before.

Are you hoping for some 'proletarian' revolt against the 'bourgeois' in the event of unemployment being that high?

Dave

No, nor do I expect one.  The serfs are long-suffering, and anyway even if they did revolt they'd just be slaughtered.

I've asked you this before and you avoided, I'll try again.

Who will do this slaughtering?  The Army/military?  Full of the brothers, fathers and sons of the people they will be shooting?  Really?  So if the US population gets truly pissed (and I agree with you here...it's about funking time) and tries to raise hell (why they wouldn't do at the polls first makes no sense to me, but whatever), the Army will be called out and blow away the grandma's and children marching on the Capitol?  The privates and airmen are more loyal to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates than they are to their sisters and mothers?  You know the people in the military are actual humans and not actors in some Hollywood movie.  You do know it is against the law for a military member to follow an unlawful order no matter who gives it.

[opebo]

No, nor do I expect one.  The serfs are long-suffering, and anyway even if they did revolt they'd just be slaughtered.

Who will do this slaughtering?  The Army/military?  Full of the brothers, fathers and sons of the people they will be shooting?  Really?

Yes, absolutely.  There is no doubt that people would shoot their mother for their boss, too keep their salary and health insurance.  Haven't you noticed that a huge percentage of the US population is already imprisoned and an even greater percentage lives in slums abused by police every day.  Said police all come from the working class, and often not very far from those they're overseeing. 

So if the US population gets truly pissed (and I agree with you here...it's about funking time) and tries to raise hell (why they wouldn't do at the polls first makes no sense to me, but whatever), the Army will be called out and blow away the grandma's and children marching on the Capitol?  The privates and airmen are more loyal to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates than they are to their sisters and mothers?  You know the people in the military are actual humans and not actors in some Hollywood movie.  You do know it is against the law for a military member to follow an unlawful order no matter who gives it.

I think we're very far from any masses taking any mob action - that will take another year and 20+% unemployment, people starving in the streets.  But yes, the police and military will redily shoot such people - after all they will not be 'grandmothers and children', but mostly active, still healthy young people.  And they won't just be marching peaceably, they'll be burning down buildings, overturning cars, and beating honkeys to death if they find any in the street.

What you don't understand about working class automatons in the heirachy - such as police or military - is that they positively cling to their slight bit of security.  They can see every day the horror of being poor and powerless, and so their job is worth shooting anyone for.  Generally speaking they are fairly worshipful of the rich and powerful, just like most americans.

[A18]

I can't believe some people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. Just look at the December and January job figures you numbnuts. Obama can't be expected to change everything in a month.

Well, the mere fact that the economy has deteriorated under Obama certainly doesn't demonstrate that he's responsible for the deterioration. Rather, it's his illiberal and increasingly reckless policies that make him share in the blame.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I expect him to be re-elected. Despite Obama's counterproductive measures (and destructive rhetoric), the economy will almost certainly recover by November of 2012. Obama will then be able to claim credit for the recovery that his policies hindered.

(Of course, the data that will be used to track economic performance—the unemployment rate, and particularly real GDP—are woefully inadequate. Even entirely wasteful government spending counts, for purposes of GDP, not as a transfer payment, but as "production." The predictable result is that as the government grows in size, the accuracy of real GDP and real GDP per capita, even as a crude approximation of living standards, becomes increasingly remote.)

[Sbane]

I can't believe some people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. Just look at the December and January job figures you numbnuts. Obama can't be expected to change everything in a month.

Well, the mere fact that the economy has deteriorated under Obama certainly doesn't demonstrate that he's responsible for the deterioration. Rather, it's his illiberal and increasingly reckless policies that make him share in the blame.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I expect him to be re-elected. Despite Obama's counterproductive measures (and destructive rhetoric), the economy will almost certainly recover by November of 2012. Obama will then be able to claim credit for the recovery that his policies hindered.

(Of course, the data that will be used to track economic performance—the unemployment rate, and particularly real GDP—are woefully inadequate. Even entirely wasteful government spending counts, for purposes of GDP, not as a transfer payment, but as "production." The predictable result is that as the government grows in size, the accuracy of real GDP and real GDP per capita, even as a crude approximation of living standards, becomes increasingly remote.)

You may think his policies are illiberal and reckless but I am saying that his policies haven't even had time to take effect, either in a good way or bad. I wish he would keep some of this high cost items like healthcare reform for later and just focus on the economy for now, but thats too much to ask. Hopefully the more fiscally responsible democrats will cut all of that out and we will only have items that create jobs. Also I hope they pass the housing bailout although I don't know the specifics of the plan. It just makes much more sense to help the people at the heart of the problem rather than just throwing money at the banks.

[A18]

Their mere enactment, the rhetoric with which he sells them, and the very real uncertainty about what move the government will make next, is more than enough to effect drastic damage. Who wants to invest, in a political environment like this?

[CultureKing]

Their mere enactment, the rhetoric with which he sells them, and the very real uncertainty about what move the government will make next, is more than enough to effect drastic damage. Who wants to invest, in a political environment like this?

I feel like it is a bit more about the economic environment. Democrats, independents and moderate republicans seem to be supporting Obama and his decisions. It's only the more conservative half or 2/3 or whatever of the republican party that seems to see these measures as bad. Truthfully it kinda makes the republicans look bad...

[Democratic Hawk]

Their mere enactment, the rhetoric with which he sells them, and the very real uncertainty about what move the government will make next, is more than enough to effect drastic damage. Who wants to invest, in a political environment like this?

I feel like it is a bit more about the economic environment. Democrats, independents and moderate republicans seem to be supporting Obama and his decisions. It's only the more conservative half or 2/3 or whatever of the republican party that seems to see these measures as bad. Truthfully it kinda makes the republicans look bad...

Whether in government or opposition, the Republican't Party is good at one thing - fiddling while Rome burns

Dave

[Sbane]

Their mere enactment, the rhetoric with which he sells them, and the very real uncertainty about what move the government will make next, is more than enough to effect drastic damage. Who wants to invest, in a political environment like this?

This has everything to do with the economic environment and not much with the political. I don't get why spending hundreds of billions in Iraq is chill with these all knowing investors but spending on projects inside the nation is bad. These investors are irrational asshats who don't know what the f is going on with the economy. They fear Obama's plan because it isn't the same conservative BS we have been dealing with for the last 30 years. I also don't care where the DOW goes. I think consumer spending and unemployment are much more important. Obama has to find a way of stopping the rise in unemployment and the slide in consumer spending. On seeing these indices the market will again irrationally rebound. Our whole system is based on the presumption that people will act rationally, but that isn't the case now is it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Carl, the unemployment rate was already 7.6%. All that happened was that the official U3 rate cleared 7.6%.
U3: 8.1%
U6: 14.8%
shawdowstats.com estimation of the unemployment using pre-1982 methodologies: something over 18%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ah yes obama is the sole cause of the high unemployment not like it hadnt already hit 7%  under bush...

Hillary would not have allowed this to happen.

She is a Clinton, she has her ways.

Obama has only been President for a month and a half. sh**t, Bush was still blaming Clinton for everything years into his Presidency.

[Democratic Hawk]

ah yes obama is the sole cause of the high unemployment not like it hadnt already hit 7%  under bush...

Hillary would not have allowed this to happen.

She is a Clinton, she has her ways.

Obama has only been President for a month and a half. sh**t, Bush was still blaming Clinton for everything years into his Presidency.

Republican't speak:

When the economy is bad/good under Democrats it's because of/despite them; but when the economy is bad/good under Republicans its despite/because of them

Dave

[A18]

It has to do with expectations about the future economic environment. But those expectations are influenced by the prevailing policy regime. If that policy regime is shifting rapidly, it becomes difficult to plan intelligently. This is bad enough in times of prosperity. But in a time of recession—and particularly one that has been hyped up (with the blessings of the political class, who hope to use public fear to advance their agenda) as Great Depression 2.0—it can be disastrous.

This is a government that has made it perfectly clear that it's willing to run trillion-dollar deficits; that it's perfectly willing to use vast amounts of taxpayer money to subsidize those who made foolish decisions; that it is not even content to let housing prices fall; and (most distressingly) that it is untrustworthy and utterly unpredictable. Just where will the Obama team stop? No one knows—none of those things were conceivable as recently as a year ago. Meanwhile, the administration's dire rhetoric continues.

The spending package, while incredibly wasteful, is not per se economically damaging—not, that is, in terms of expansion versus contraction. But its budgetary impact has to make any sane person uncomfortable.

[Gustaf]

I saw a report in a major Swedish newspaper presenting this piece of news as "fewer new unemployed in the US" It took me a while to realize that it was completely nonsensical. The next day I read the actual news, i.e. this.

The attempts to put positive spins on the economy by economy journalists are amazing.

[Lunar]

I think economic journalists feel a sort of semi-moral obligation to spin the news positively and to consciously go above and beyond the call of duty to avoid negative spin.  I mean, their writing affects the economy and can potentially become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy regardless of its initial validity.

[Sam Spade]

There is actually a little bit of good news in the figures, as it appears U-6 is starting to slow down a bit and mirroring more of U-3.

Of course, the government's birth-death model had to go and create 134k *jobs* so it looks better than it is.  Ugh.

I think we are starting to get close to (if we're not already in the beginnings) of the lull period in these debt-deflation events (it always seems to occur) where, by the end of it (or close to the end, probably sometime in summer), some economists will probably start saying that we're starting to turn the corner economically upwards.

When we start to hear that, watch out...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is actually a little bit of good news in the figures, as it appears U-6 is starting to slow down a bit and mirroring more of U-3.

I'd at least wait until the 2nd derivative of the U6 was negative before saying that.

Oct 12.0
Nov 12.6
Dec 13.5
Jan 13.9
Feb 14.8

[Eraserhead]

I predict Obama wins the War on Prosperity.

Good.