Stimulus working? Hardly....ADP Says U.S. Companies Cut 298,000 Jobs in August

[petegz28]

By Timothy R. Homan

(Corrects first paragraph to say report is for August.)

Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Companies eliminated more jobs than forecast in August, a private survey indicated today, signaling that employers have yet to gain confidence about a recovery from the deepest recession since the 1930s.

The 298,000 drop followed a revised 360,000 decline the prior month that was smaller than previously estimated, according to figures from ADP Employer Services.

Today’s figures underscore the danger that consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, may be slow to gain traction in coming months. The report comes two days before a Labor Department release forecast to show the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent in August.

“Until the labor market turns, consumer spending and confidence will remain very weak,” Joseph Brusuelas, a director at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said before the report.

Stock-index futures dropped and Treasuries erased losses after the ADP report. Contracts on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 0.4 percent to 992.50 at 8:25 a.m. in New York. Yields on benchmark 10-year notes were little changed at 3.36 percent.

Labor Department

The Labor Department’s payrolls report, due in two days, may show employers cut another 225,000 jobs in August and unemployment climbed from 9.4 percent in July, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.

The economy already has lost 6.7 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, the most of any economic slump since the Great Depression.

The ADP report was forecast to show a decline of 250,000 jobs, according to the median estimate of 32 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Projections ranged from decreases of 396,000 to 160,000.

ADP includes only private employment and does not take into account hiring by government agencies. Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis produces the report jointly with ADP.

Employers announced 14 percent fewer job cuts in August than the year-earlier month, and 21 percent fewer on a month- to-month basis, according to a report today by Chicago-based placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.

ADP Details

Today’s ADP report showed a decrease of 152,000 workers in goods-producing industries including manufacturers and construction companies. Service providers cut 146,000 workers.

Employment in construction fell by 73,000, while financial firms trimmed jobs by 19,000, ADP said, the 21st consecutive monthly drop for the industry.

Companies employing more than 499 workers shrank their workforce by 60,000 jobs. Medium-sized businesses, with 50 to 499 employees, cut 116,000 jobs and small companies decreased payrolls by 122,000, ADP said.

Announcements of staff reductions continued last week. Whirlpool Corp., the world’s largest appliance maker, said Aug. 28 that it will close its Evansville, Indiana, manufacturing plant, resulting in the elimination of 1,100 jobs, or 1.6 percent of the company’s workforce.

Meanwhile, General Motors Co. last month called back 1,350 union workers, its biggest one-time increase in jobs since 2006, as it boosted second-half production in part because of the government’s “cash for clunkers” trade-in program.

The clunkers program, which ended Aug. 24, offered auto buyers discounts of as much as $4,500 to trade in older cars and trucks for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at Thoman1@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUeN8rZCpXJw

[Bwana]

Hope! Change! Wait..........

[BigRedChief]

yet.......

Productivity grows at fastest pace in 6 years
Labor costs fall sharply as firms slashed costs to survive recession
The Associated Press
updated 7:57 a.m. CT, Wed., Sept . 2, 2009
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633874930240000000');</SCRIPT>
Worker productivity, the single biggest factor determining living standards, grew at the fastest pace in nearly six years in the spring while labor costs fell by the most in nine years, as companies slashed costs to survive the recession.
Increases in productivity can help boost living standards because companies can increase wages financed by rising output. But during the recession, companies have been using their productivity gains to bolster their bottom lines as many struggle to stay in business.
This cost-cutting helped many companies report better-than-expected second-quarter earnings despite falling sales. But economists worry that such aggressive cuts will make it harder to mount a sustainable recovery. That's because the lack of wage growth and shortage of jobs will depress household incomes and make the prospects for a sustained rebound in consumer spending less likely.
Consumer spending is critical to the recovery since it accounts for about 70 percent of total economic activity.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, rose at an annual rate of 6.6 percent in the April-June quarter, the largest advance since the summer of 2003. Economists expected an increase of 6.4 percent, matching the government's initial estimate last month.
Labor costs fell at an annual rate of 5.9 percent. That's the largest drop since the second quarter of 2000, and slightly bigger than the 5.8 percent decline estimated a month ago.
The slight changes reflected that total output, as measured in productivity terms, did not drop as much as initially estimated and hourly compensation, after adjusting for inflation, did not rise as much.
The 6.6 percent rate of increase in productivity in the second quarter compared with a 0.3 percent rise in the first quarter. It was the largest quarterly increase since a 9.7 percent jump in the third quarter of 2003.
The 5.9 percent drop in unit labor costs followed a 5 percent decline in the first quarter.
Businesses producing more with fewer employees means that unemployed Americans continue to face a dismal job market.
While many of the nation's big retailers have said back-to-school sales have been dismal, the government's Cash for Clunkers program did boost auto sales in August.
Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. all reported increased sales in August as consumer snapped up their fuel-efficient models. But rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., which have just emerged from bankruptcy protection, saw their sales fall for the month.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32655208/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/?ns=business-stocks_and_economy&from=ET (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32655208/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/?ns=business-stocks_and_economy&from=ET)

[petegz28]

yet.......

Productivity grows at fastest pace in 6 years
Labor costs fall sharply as firms slashed costs to survive recession
The Associated Press
updated 7:57 a.m. CT, Wed., Sept . 2, 2009
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633874930240000000');</SCRIPT>
Worker productivity, the single biggest factor determining living standards, grew at the fastest pace in nearly six years in the spring while labor costs fell by the most in nine years, as companies slashed costs to survive the recession.
Increases in productivity can help boost living standards because companies can increase wages financed by rising output. But during the recession, companies have been using their productivity gains to bolster their bottom lines as many struggle to stay in business.
This cost-cutting helped many companies report better-than-expected second-quarter earnings despite falling sales. But economists worry that such aggressive cuts will make it harder to mount a sustainable recovery. That's because the lack of wage growth and shortage of jobs will depress household incomes and make the prospects for a sustained rebound in consumer spending less likely.
Consumer spending is critical to the recovery since it accounts for about 70 percent of total economic activity.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, rose at an annual rate of 6.6 percent in the April-June quarter, the largest advance since the summer of 2003. Economists expected an increase of 6.4 percent, matching the government's initial estimate last month.
Labor costs fell at an annual rate of 5.9 percent. That's the largest drop since the second quarter of 2000, and slightly bigger than the 5.8 percent decline estimated a month ago.
The slight changes reflected that total output, as measured in productivity terms, did not drop as much as initially estimated and hourly compensation, after adjusting for inflation, did not rise as much.
The 6.6 percent rate of increase in productivity in the second quarter compared with a 0.3 percent rise in the first quarter. It was the largest quarterly increase since a 9.7 percent jump in the third quarter of 2003.
The 5.9 percent drop in unit labor costs followed a 5 percent decline in the first quarter.
Businesses producing more with fewer employees means that unemployed Americans continue to face a dismal job market.
While many of the nation's big retailers have said back-to-school sales have been dismal, the government's Cash for Clunkers program did boost auto sales in August.
Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. all reported increased sales in August as consumer snapped up their fuel-efficient models. But rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., which have just emerged from bankruptcy protection, saw their sales fall for the month.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32655208/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/?ns=business-stocks_and_economy&from=ET (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32655208/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/?ns=business-stocks_and_economy&from=ET)


Increased productivity don't mean dick to someone out of work

[BigRedChief]

Increased productivity don't mean dick to someone out of work
It does in the long run. Read the article for th reason. It is well know that new jobs are the last piece of any recovery.

[petegz28]

It does in the long run. Read the article for th reason. It is well know that new jobs are the last piece of any recovery.

No shit, Sherlock. The problem is there is no job growth at all and many economists are forecasting a jobless recovery. And the numbers support that.


What happened to Obama creating all these jobs?

[BigRedChief]

No shit, Sherlock. The problem is there is no job growth at all and many economists are forecasting a jobless revocery. And the numbers support that.


What happened to Obama creating all these jobs?
I'm no economist, nor do I play one on TV. But, the McCain plan of more tax cuts for the wealthy and business's were not the answer.

[petegz28]

I'm no economist, nor do I play one on TV. But, the McCain plan of more tax cuts for the wealthy and business's were not the answer.

Where did I ever say it was?

[KC native]

ADP's data series is notoriously noisy and has been subject to major revisions. It's supposed to predict what the BLS's data is going to be but it is far from accurate. Just wait for the BLS' numbers to get a more accurate picture.

[InChiefsHell]

Face it, Obama can't make jobs, the fact that he promised to is ridiculous and should have been everyone's first clue as to what a phony he is.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'm no economist, nor do I play one on TV. But, the McCain plan of more tax cuts for the wealthy and business's were not the answer.

Define business and define wealthy.

I never saw one tax plan by McCain. Not one. All I saw was the stupid bitch he brought in to get woman to vote him....which caused more man and women not to vote for him.

[SHTSPRAYER]

B.O. hasn't done one thing to make this economy better. Just the opposite, everything he has done has made it worse.

He is a stupid, marxist piece of garbage.

[BigRedChief]

B.O. hasn't done one thing to make this economy better. Just the opposite, everything he has done has made it worse.

He is a stupid, marxist piece of garbage.
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

It aint a feeling, its the truth. The media created a fairytale and a lie and people like you fell for it.

[BigRedChief]

It aint a feeling, its the truth. The media created a fairytale and a lie and people like you fell for it.
Obama is a marxist, is the truth? You need to look up what a Marxist is, what that word actually means.

[petegz28]

Obama is a marxist, is the truth? You need to look up what a Marxist is, what that word actually means.

I'll play, yes Obama is a Marxist.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Obama is a marxist, is the truth? You need to look up what a Marxist is, what that word actually means.

I don't need to look up shit, the guy is a communist and you know it.

[kc rush]

Has anyone heard an update on how much of the "stimulus money" has been distributed?

I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks ago and heard someone crowing about how the stimulus had created X number of temporary jobs for teenagers over the summer in Nebraska. My thought was - that's nice, but what about doing something that will help promote permanent job growth for the adults. I'd think you would want to help those people that are paying taxes on property and are spending money to take care of their families.

[RINGLEADER]

It does in the long run. Read the article for th reason. It is well know that new jobs are the last piece of any recovery.

Doesn't increased productivity typically come from contractions like the one we're in as companies shed workers but demand similar output from fewer employees?

To wit:

"In a nutshell, productivity is good for the economy and it's good for employers, but it's usually not as good for workers," said Carl Van Horn, the director of the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic/12679862-1.html

[patteeu]

I'm no economist, nor do I play one on TV. But, the McCain plan of more tax cuts for the wealthy and business's were not the answer.

Well as an admitted non-expert, thank you for your uninformed input.

I'm no expert on bomb disposal, but cutting the red wire surely isn't the answer.

[BucEyedPea]

Well as an admitted non-expert, thank you for your uninformed input.

I'm no expert on bomb disposal, but cutting the red wire surely isn't the answer.

But the Bush stimulus worked right?


( actually the Greenspan/Bernanke stimulus)

[BucEyedPea]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

What a feeling, bein's believin'

[patteeu]

But the Bush stimulus worked right?


( actually the Greenspan/Bernanke stimulus)

What Bush stimulus are you talking about?

[BucEyedPea]

Face it, Obama can't make jobs, the fact that he promised to is ridiculous and should have been everyone's first clue as to what a phony he is.

Hey! That's why he's called the messiah!

[BucEyedPea]

What Bush stimulus are you talking about?

You have heard that the past 16 years has been the Greenspan economy, now the Bernanke economy, and they used stimulus through printing money, which is what brought us to the brink? WTF do you think was done under Bush to deal with the Clinton recession he inherited? He used some Keynesian stimulus too. It just wasn't on the grand scale this Krugmanite administration is doing. Face it, this has been used for a long time.

[banyon]

You have heard that the past 16 years has been the Greenspan economy, now the Bernanke economy, and they used stimulus through printing money, which is what brought us to the brink? WTF do you think was done under Bush to deal with the Clinton recession he inherited? He used some Keynesian stimulus too. It just wasn't on the grand scale this Krugmanite administration is doing. Face it, this has been used for a long time.

Bush didn't do subststantial stimulus spending, he cut taxes and gave people rebate checks to buy HDTV's with.

[Inspector]

Lots of new jobs are being created.












In China and Indonesia.

[KC Dan]

Bush didn't do subststantial stimulus spending, he cut taxes and gave people rebate checks to buy HDTV's with.Yeah, we are much smarter now...Gave people rebate checks to buy cars and appliances.

[KC Dan]

ADP's data series is notoriously noisy and has been subject to major revisions. It's supposed to predict what the BLS's data is going to be but it is far from accurate. Just wait for the BLS' numbers to get a more accurate picture.And, if those numbers aren't what we want to advance our agenda, we'll attack and demonize their accuracy or diminish their usefulness. You are so predictable...

[patteeu]

You have heard that the past 16 years has been the Greenspan economy, now the Bernanke economy, and they used stimulus through printing money, which is what brought us to the brink? WTF do you think was done under Bush to deal with the Clinton recession he inherited? He used some Keynesian stimulus too. It just wasn't on the grand scale this Krugmanite administration is doing. Face it, this has been used for a long time.

If you didn't really mean "Bush stimulus", then why did you call it that and why did you direct this question at me?

[BucEyedPea]

I didn't say Bush uses substantial stimulus but he did use it. The Fed printing money monetarizes the debt for the spending for the govt. This leads to malinvestments due to cheap and easy credit that creates speculation in markets. That lead ( as well as other things) to the real estate markets overheating, other debt by the people just as the dotcom boom did. That's just your boom phase.

[BucEyedPea]

If you didn't really mean "Bush stimulus", then why did you call it that and why did you direct this question at me?

It gets called that when it happens under any president. Just like the Clinton stimulus. The Fed is not as independent as claimed either. They were less independent in their decisions under Clinton and Bush. Volcker acted more independently under Reagan.( who also used a Keynesian stimulus too). The Fed exists to enable the govt to spend like drunken sailors. It's related to govt borrowing, that's the connection. Get it now?

You're a supply-sider pat. You know what that is? A Keyenesian with a tax cut on top.

[KC native]

And, if those numbers aren't what we want to advance our agenda, we'll attack and demonize their accuracy or diminish their usefulness. You are so predictable...

I have said since I started posting here that the economy is worse than they are represent but again we get another case of Pete trying to distort reality. The BLS's survey with all of its shortcomings is a lot better than the ADP report.

[patteeu]

I didn't say Bush uses substantial stimulus but he did use it. The Fed printing money monetarizes the debt for the spending for the govt. This leads to malinvestments due to cheap and easy credit that creates speculation in markets. That lead ( as well as other things) to the real estate markets overheating, other debt by the people just as the dotcom boom did. That's just your boom phase.

Bush was not a member of the Fed.

[BucEyedPea]

.

The problem is that since Mr. Limbaugh [patteeu] has a history of partisanship, and since he did not forcefully criticize the Bush Administration for similar (if slightly more modest) plans, many cannot see past the messenger to recognize the truth in the message...


Limbaugh merely said what members of the loyal opposition would say if they were true to their supposed philosophy. But since so many Republicans supported the Bush bailouts and stimulus packages, it would be too blatantly hypocritical to reverse course now. In truth, for all his talk of change Obama has merely continued and expanded the failed policies of Bush.-- Peter Schiff on Bush stimulus

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/schiff6.html

[BucEyedPea]

Bush was not a member of the Fed.

I didn't say he was a member. I was referring to influence on it. It enables and is related to borrowing by the govt. Bush was a big spender.

[petegz28]

Bush didn't do subststantial stimulus spending, he cut taxes and gave people rebate checks to buy HDTV's with.

The rebate checks were actually an idea of the Dems....but I agree, Bush signed on the dotted line

[BucEyedPea]

Myth of the Independent Fed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo147.html)


The Fed is obviously influenced by the executive branch. But the relationship between the Fed and administrations runs far deeper. As Robert Weintraub observed, such contact has been and continues to be fostered by cross-planting of high-level personnel in both directions. Officials have also met weekly for decades. But personal contact is not necessary for the Fed to allow itself to be used as a political tool. The administration's policy views are generally well known. Economist Thomas Havrilesky has even developed an index of executive branch signaling, based on newspaper accounts of the administration's monetary policy preferences as reported in the Wall Street Journal.[2] And as Weintraub concluded, a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who ignores the wishes of the President does so at his peril.

The Fed and presidents alike benefit from this arrangement. Economist Edward Kane has argued persuasively that the Fed's ultimate political function is to serve as a political scapegoat when things go wrong. Writes Kane: "Whenever monetary policies are popular, incumbents can claim that their influence was crucial in their adaptation. On the other hand, when monetary policies prove unpopular, they can blame everything on a stubborn Federal Reserve and claim further that things would have been worse if they had not pressed Fed officials at every opportunity."[3] In return for this favor, the Fed is allowed to amass a huge slush fund (discussed below) by earning interest income from the government securities it purchases through its open market operations.

[patteeu]

It gets called that when it happens under any president. Just like the Clinton stimulus. The Fed is not as independent as claimed either. They were less independent in their decisions under Clinton and Bush. Volcker acted more independently under Reagan.( who also used a Keynesian stimulus too). The Fed exists to enable the govt to spend like drunken sailors. It's related to govt borrowing, that's the connection. Get it now?

No it doesn't. Very few people call what the Fed was doing during the Bush administration "stimulus" and even fewer call it "the Bush stimulus". banyon was right. What most people call "stimulus" under Bush were his growth oriented tax cuts, of which I approved in part, and his rebate checks, of which I disapproved.

You're a supply-sider pat. You know what that is? A Keyenesian with a tax cut on top.

As usual, your terminology is wrong. It's actually pretty analogous to your problems with the "neocon" label. Generally speaking, Keynesians are demand side manipulators and Supply Siders are supply side manipulators. You don't like manipulation of any kind so you lump them together under an improperly used term. In any event, your opinion of supply siders is of just as little concern to me as your opinion of neocons.

[BigRedChief]

The rebate checks were actually an idea of the Dems....but I agree, Bush signed on the dotted line
BS. He has to use the budget reconciliation process to get the tax cuts through congress. There was no bi-partisan approach. These tax cuts were not a Democratic idea that Bush just went along with.

[BucEyedPea]

The rebate checks were actually an idea of the Dems....but I agree, Bush signed on the dotted line

Bush also spent and borrowed....that's the bigger connection. It's related to what the Fed does as the Fed enables the borrowing.

[patteeu]

Bush was a big spender.

Yes he was. And if that's what you were asking me about, I can say that I opposed his big spending.

[BucEyedPea]

No it doesn't. Very few people call what the Fed was doing during the Bush administration "stimulus" and even fewer call it "the Bush stimulus". banyon was right. What most people call "stimulus" under Bush were his growth oriented tax cuts, of which I approved in part, and his rebate checks, of which I disapproved.

As usual, your terminology is wrong. It's actually pretty analogous to your problems with the "neocon" label. Keynesians are demand side manipulators and Supply Siders are supply side manipulators. You don't like manipulation of any kind so you lump them together under an improperly used term. In any event, your opinion of supply siders is of just as little concern to me as your opinion of neocons.

No it's not my terminology. You're just being willfully ignorant out of partisan loyalty. The Austrian school says Bush had a stimulus too. Your partisanship blinds you to facts. And what banyon said does not conflict with what I said because I said it wasn't as substantial as Obama's.

Supply-Siders do not reject the entire Keyenesian model. They accept it's existence* so they NEVER address SPENDING which is the source of the problem that creates the harm. They only cut off the taxes. The taxes also harm and any tax cut will benefit but it leads to debt and deficits and that plays into the Fed's operations.


* you've even said so yourself....calling it pragmatism

[BucEyedPea]

Yes he was. And if that's what you were asking me about, I can say that I opposed his big spending.

It wasn't just the spending. It's that it leads to borrowing which is related to the Fed's activities. ( even more so with tax cuts) It enables the borrowing...and then the Fed monetarizes the debt by printing dollars resulting in inflation ( defined as more money in circulation). All that money leads to the boom which creates speculative markets. It always ends in a bust. That's where we were by Sept 08.

This allows presidents to get involved in wars and on their social programs; for the Rs on mercantilist programs ( like bank bailouts).

[petegz28]

BS. He has to use the budget reconciliation process to get the tax cuts through congress. There was no bi-partisan approach. These tax cuts were not a Democratic idea that Bush just went along with.

BS..Joe Lierbermna was the one who wanted the rebate checks. You are confusing tax cuts with the rebate checks.

[KC native]

BS..Joe Lierbermna was the one who wanted the rebate checks. You are confusing tax cuts with the rebate checks.

ROFL Are you really trying to hold Joe Lieberman out there as representative of Democrats?

[patteeu]

No it's not my terminology. You're just being willfully ignorant out of partisan loyalty. The Austrian school says Bush had a stimulus too. Your partisanship blinds you to facts. And what banyon said does not conflict with what I said because I said it wasn't as substantial as Obama's.

Supply-Siders do not reject the entire Keyenesian model. They accept it's existence* so they NEVER address SPENDING which is the source of the problem that creates the harm. They only cut off the taxes. The taxes also harm and any tax cut will benefit but it leads to debt and deficits and that plays into the Fed's operations.


* you've even said so yourself....calling it pragmatism

:rolleyes: More drivel.

You're confusing the actions of pragmatic politicians with the economic theory that they say they embrace. Just because a self-proclaimed supply side supporter fails to vote no on all government spending doesn't mean that supply side economic adherents "NEVER address SPENDING". There are plenty of supply siders who think the government is too big and want to see spending reduced. For that matter, there are probably Keynesians who think the same thing. That doesn't mean that the two economic theories are the same.

And no, I didn't say so myself. You're just not smart enough to understand the things you read. You translate them into what you want to hear.

[BucEyedPea]

:rolleyes: More drivel.

You're confusing the actions of pragmatic politicians with the economic theory that they say they embrace. Just because a self-proclaimed supply side supporter fails to vote no on all government spending doesn't mean that supply side economic adherents "NEVER address SPENDING". There are plenty of supply siders who think the government is too big and want to see spending reduced. For that matter, there are probably Keynesians who think the same thing. That doesn't mean that the two economic theories are the same.

And no, I didn't say so myself. You're just not smart enough to understand the things you read. You translate them into what you want to hear.

So you got nuthin' eh? Just more it's pragmatic when Bush or an R does it but it's not when a D does it.
The two economic theories are variants of one strain is what I was referring to.


We Are All Keynesians Now (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842353,00.html) Time Mag 1965


I see you've joined the club. Obama-lite! You see yourself in him. No wonder you project as much as you do.

[patteeu]

So you got nuthin' eh? Just more it's pragmatic when Bush or an R does it but it's not when a D does it.
The two economic theories are variants of one strain is what I was referring to.


We Are All Keynesians Now (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842353,00.html) Time Mag 1965


I see you've joined the club. Obama-lite! You see yourself in him. No wonder you project as much as you do.

This is what I said in the beginning. You lump it all together because you disagree with it. Your analysis is no more sophisticated than that.

[BucEyedPea]

This is what I said in the beginning. You lump it all together because you disagree with it. Your analysis is no more sophisticated than that.

No that's your twisting my words around to suit your own antagonism.
Angry people miss nuance.

[KC native]

No that's your twisting my words around to suit your own antagonism.
Angry people miss nuance.

ROFL Nuance? You have no nuance to your arguments at all. Either someone agrees with you or you label them. You really are bat shit crazy

[BucEyedPea]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120062129547799439.html

We're All Keynesians Now

Jan 2008

So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after yesterday, we're not sure what decade we're in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as "fiscal stimulus," an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter's $50 rebate can't be far behind.

Appearing before Congress, Mr. Bernanke told Democrats what he thought they wanted to hear. The former academic economist blessed a "fiscal stimulus package," as long as it is "explicitly temporary." How new federal spending can be "temporary," he didn't say, as if a dollar collected in taxes or borrowed and then spent can be recalled.

Wow! The Fed really sounds independent!
Did it work? Sept still came with the bailouts didn't it. Yup!
Looks like Keynesianism with a tax cut to me.
Oh and it wasn't a recession then either.

[patteeu]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120062129547799439.html




Did it work? Sept still came with the bailouts didn't it. Yup!
Looks like Keynesianism with a tax cut to me.
Oh and it wasn't a recession then either.

What's your point? Are you asking me if I agreed with this? If so, no I don't believe I did. I'm not interested in temporary tax cuts or spending (unless the tax cuts are of a specific pro-growth kind and in that case I'm in favor of making them permanent). I'm in favor of decreased spending and permanent tax reform that shifts the tax burden away from commercial enterprise/capital formation and toward consumption. That makes me a supply sider who isn't a fan of increased spending. Your bizarro worldview says that such a creature can't exist.

[BucEyedPea]

Yeah! Well, all I said originally that irked you into a rage, was that stimulus by Bush was okay with you. And you went off into this other argument.

[patteeu]

Yeah! Well, all I said originally that irked you into a rage, was that stimulus by Bush was okay with you. And you went off into this other argument.

Apparently you were wrong about that too. Big surprise.

[Direckshun]

Jobs are almost always behind the performance of the economy, though.

It is a classic lesson in Business 101 that economies can turn around while jobs continue to be lost for a period of time. Eventually jobs follow.

So even if the stimulus were incredibly effective, even if most of the money has been handed out, jobs at this point probably would still be on a downward trend.

So this news, while of course incredibly unfortunate, is irrelevent to how effective the stimulus may or may not be.

[petegz28]

Jobs are almost always behind the performance of the economy, though.

It is a classic lesson in Business 101 that economies can turn around while jobs continue to be lost for a period of time. Eventually jobs follow.

So even if the stimulus were incredibly effective, even if most of the money has been handed out, jobs at this point probably would still be on a downward trend.

So this news, while of course incredibly unfortunate, is irrelevent to how effective the stimulus may or may not be.

Yes, we all know this. Thank you for stating the obvious. Now WTF are these jobs Obama promised?

[BucEyedPea]

Jobs are almost always behind the performance of the economy, though.

It is a classic lesson in Business 101 that economies can turn around while jobs continue to be lost for a period of time. Eventually jobs follow.

So even if the stimulus were incredibly effective, even if most of the money has been handed out, jobs at this point probably would still be on a downward trend.

So this news, while of course incredibly unfortunate, is irrelevent to how effective the stimulus may or may not be.
Not it is not irrelevant when the person pushing stimulus also promises new jobs from it.

It's the savings from having to spend on a major cost of business—labor that eventually turns the economy around...not the govt stimulus. That is pure Keynesian socialist bullshit and propaganda.

[patteeu]

Jobs are almost always behind the performance of the economy, though.

It is a classic lesson in Business 101 that economies can turn around while jobs continue to be lost for a period of time. Eventually jobs follow.

So even if the stimulus were incredibly effective, even if most of the money has been handed out, jobs at this point probably would still be on a downward trend.

So this news, while of course incredibly unfortunate, is irrelevent to how effective the stimulus may or may not be.

The economy was going to recover eventually anyway. It's hard to know whether it recovered faster, slower, or about the same with the stimulus. I think the best way to judge the stimulus is against the predictions that were made by it's proponents. By that measure, it still looks like a failure to me, but we'll have to wait a while longer before a final judgment can be made.

[Taco John]

Just wait until they audit the Fed and show where this stimulus money went.

[Radar Chief]

Just wait until they audit the Fed and show where this stimulus money went.

You have faith that’ll actually happen? I don’t.

[Direckshun]

Yes, we all know this. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Hey the argument from the opening article was that the stimulus isn't working because jobs are getting cut.

I explained why that happens.

If you know why this happens, your thread title would have been different.

It wasn't, which leaves me to presume you don't.

[Direckshun]

Not it is not irrelevant when the person pushing stimulus also promises new jobs from it.

It's the savings from having to spend on a major cost of business—labor that eventually turns the economy around...not the govt stimulus. That is pure Keynesian socialist bullshit and propaganda.

I too am disappointed with the stimulus' record so far in creating jobs.

[Direckshun]

The economy was going to recover eventually anyway. It's hard to know whether it recovered faster, slower, or about the same with the stimulus. I think the best way to judge the stimulus is against the predictions that were made by it's proponents. By that measure, it still looks like a failure to me, but we'll have to wait a while longer before a final judgment can be made.

That's fair.

[BucEyedPea]

I too am disappointed with the stimulus' record so far in creating jobs.

Well, there, that's a rational point.

[Amnorix]

The economy was going to recover eventually anyway. It's hard to know whether it recovered faster, slower, or about the same with the stimulus. I think the best way to judge the stimulus is against the predictions that were made by it's proponents. By that measure, it still looks like a failure to me, but we'll have to wait a while longer before a final judgment can be made.

Especially when only a relatively small percentage of the stimulus money has been deployed.

Of course, that begs the question of (1) if it was intended that the stimulus plan deploy money so slowly, why the heck was that the case? You'd think quicker stimulation would've been better, or, alternatively, (2) if it was intended that the money be spent faster, then what is causing all the delays.

It would seem to me that if the economy appears to be turning around, then some unspent stimulus money could remain unspent, and we could start to try to focus on fixing our absurd deficit situation.

[petegz28]

Hey the argument from the opening article was that the stimulus isn't working because jobs are getting cut.

I explained why that happens.

If you know why this happens, your thread title would have been different.

It wasn't, which leaves me to presume you don't.

Well, you are free to be a dumbass, this is America. The Stimulus as proposed and sold to us by Obama, was to cap job losses and create jobs.


Perhaps you forgot what your hero said just a few short months ago?

[KC Dan]

Well, you are free to be a dumbass, this is America. The Stimulus as proposed and sold to us by Obama, was to cap job losses and create jobs.


Perhaps you forgot what your hero said just a few short months ago?In December 2008 he stated that would be 2.5 MILLION jobs created in the next two years. Eight months down and 2009 total job losses are ----- wait for it ------

3.8 Million Jobs lost in 2009 (thus far)

So add these to the 2.5 million jobs to be created as promised by BO = 6.3 Million jobs that need to be added to make his numbe in the next 16 months. He ain't gonna make it. His stimulus promise was a lie.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/obama.jobs/index.html
Sat December 20, 2008<!--startclickprintinclude--><!-- google_ad_section_start -->
Obama ups jobs goal to 3 million on bad economic news

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has decided to increase his goal for creating new jobs after receiving economic forecasts that suggest the economy is in worse shape than had been predicted, two Democratic officials told CNN.

The officials said Obama is increasing his goal from 2.5 million to 3 million jobs over the next two years after receiving projections early this week that suggest the recession will be deeper than expected.

The projections showed that unless significant action is taken, the nation is likely to lose up to 4 million jobs over the next year and that the unemployment rate will probably rise above 9 percent, a transition aide told CNN.

After hearing the projections, Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden "argued that we were being too timid and that we needed to develop a plan that would save or create at least 3 million jobs," the aide said.
One of the officials said Obama challenged his economic team to "think bolder" as some economists warn there is danger in the government doing too little to curb the recession.

They said the stimulus plan in the works in the Obama camp would have "oversight and transparency measures" to ensure spending on the plan would be focused on stimulating the economy (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/national_economy) and not devolve into just handing out congressional pork projects. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

They said it also would include measures that will "lay a foundation for a stronger economy in the future" -- such as health care, education and energy spending.

Other measures included weatherizing 1 million homes, saving the federal government $1 billion in energy costs, modernizing schools and doubling renewable energy production, among other initiatives, the transition aide said.

Obama also stressed to the team that it can't rely on "traditional Washington programs and politics" when drawing up the economic recovery package, the aide said. That means no earmarks, a use-it-or-lose-it policy for local funding, full transparency and "investing in what works," the aide added.

On Friday, Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/barack_obama) had repeated his original goal while announcing appointments to his Cabinet and economic team.

"Together with the appointees that I have announced, these leaders will help craft a 21st-century economic plan with the goal of creating 2.5 million jobs and strengthening our economy," he said.

The Obama team isn't putting a price tag on its economic stimulus plan, which Democratic leaders want to have ready for the president-elect to sign either on or very soon after Inauguration Day. The transition aide told CNN that Obama aides met with Capitol Hill staff this week to discuss plans costing between $675 billion and $775 billion.
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude-->

[KC Dan]

Especially when only a relatively small percentage of the stimulus money has been deployed.

Of course, that begs the question of (1) if it was intended that the stimulus plan deploy money so slowly, why the heck was that the case? You'd think quicker stimulation would've been better, or, alternatively, (2) if it was intended that the money be spent faster, then what is causing all the delays.

It would seem to me that if the economy appears to be turning around, then some unspent stimulus money could remain unspent, and we could start to try to focus on fixing our absurd deficit situation.The stimulus was NEVER intended to get into the economy quickly nor to create or "save" jobs. That was bullshit designed for the newscasts and opinion polls. It was out-n-out payback money. You are 100% correct that the money unspent thus far should be yanked back and not spent and kept to reduce budget damage. but it won't because there are still loyalists to pay off....It would be no different with the repubs except they would just hand the money out freely with tax cuts to achieve the same end (vote buying) though I like giving money back to people who earned it more than paying others off.