Unemployment falls below 9%

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "If this is "the Bush recession", what Bush administration policies does "...elvis" suggest brought this on?
Let's anticipate some answers:...

1. War
2. Mortgage subsidies and the housing bubble
3. The prescription drug benefit
4. Crippling regulation of commerce "

Didn't happen. Only idiots think that the problem was too much regulation. Clearly, it was NOT ENOUGH regulation of the financial sector.

A. What would regulation (laws) have accomplished if regulators spend their days downloading and watching porn in their offices instead of auditing companies? Consider the Madoff collapse, when analysts TWICE brought a case to the SEC that Madoff's firm was a ponzi scheme, and regulators could not be bothered to invstigate. What would regulation (laws) have accomplished if lobbyists and their kept Congressmen held regulators at bay (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac)?
B. It's not only financial regulation but, e.g., the ban on offshore drilling, CAFE standards, CPSiA.
(Malcolm): "5. (Subcategory of #4) The massive increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage."

That actually helped a lot of small businesses from going belly-up.

Please explain. Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers. How does this help any employers?

Nobody with any sense thinks that caused the depression.

1. Is this a depression?
2. Nobody with any sense thinks an increase in the mandated minimum wage generates an increase in real income or aggregate employment.

(Malcolm): "6. Other _____ (specify).'

Some bunch of whacktards decided that a tax cut at the outset of a war was a good idea.

Okay. A real hypothesis. The US financed the Afganistan and Iraq wars with debt.
A. How is this worse than financing Social Security, Medicare, or Ag subsidies through debt?
B. Why the delayed impact? The recession started in '07 or '08.

(Malcolm): "C. Since Europe, Russian, Japan, Argentina, and China face economic difficulties, "the Bush recession" looks like a misattribution to me."

Cow cookies. His idiotic ecconomic policies dragged the rest of the world down.

Answer "which idiotic policies?" and we're getting somewhere.

 

[Trakar]

...(Malcolm): "6. Other _____ (specify).'
Okay. A real hypothesis. The US financed the Afganistan and Iraq wars with debt.
A. How is this worse than financing Social Security, Medicare, or Ag subsidies through debt?

What is the difference between mortgaging one's home to pay for cancer treatment, and mortgaging one's home to pay for a six - month party in Aruba?

 

[leftysergeant]

4. Crippling regulation of commerce [/I]"A. What would regulation (laws) have accomplished if regulators spend their days downloading and watching porn in their offices instead of auditing companies? Consider the Madoff collapse, when analysts TWICE brought a case to the SEC that Madoff's firm was a ponzi scheme, and regulators could not be bothered to invstigate. What would regulation (laws) have accomplished if lobbyists and their kept Congressmen held regulators at bay (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac)?

The merry morons didn't enforce the regulations. That contributed to the collapse, like I said.

B. It's not only financial regulation but, e.g., the ban on offshore drilling, CAFE standards, CPSiA.

Banning? How about just saying "prove that it is safe?" What damned good is money if the food and air are poisoned?

Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers.

Unproven, Chicken Little snivel of greedy drongos who want to steal labor for fun and profit.

2. Nobody with any sense thinks an increase in the mandated minimum wage generates an increase in real income or aggregate employment.

Cow cookies.
(Malcolm): "6. Other _____ (specify).'

Okay. A real hypothesis. The US financed the Afganistan and Iraq wars with debt. How is this worse than financing Social Security, Medicare, or Ag subsidies through debt?

Ag subsidies are a good idea as long as they are used to keep family farms profitable and an adequate agricultural base in place. Using it to further fatten slime like Smithfield Ham is a bad idea. But there is the fact that an adequate tax base would fund those things that need to be done. Social Security is not funded by debt. The money has been collected already.

 

[lomiller]

Because Krugman switches arguments depending on which party determines the policy he wants to criticize/laud. Republican debt = trouble. Democrat debt = stimulus. He was right about Republican debt. He was right about the impact of tax-subsidized unemployment benefits in his textbook, and wrong about it in his NYT column.

Do you have any evidence of that? In the absence of such evidence it’s far more likely he’s looking at current economic conditions and evaluating whether stimulus should be applied.

In 2001/2002 the recession was largely driven by excess capacity, but consumer demand was strong the entire time. Under those type of conditions stimulus is just about the last thing you want because it will turn already strong consumer into bubbles. Conversely the current recession is mainly being sustained by low consumer demand so fiscal stimulus looks like the way to go, especially when you consider the “meh” results of Freidman style monetary policy. (I.E. it’s had some results, but not nearly enough)

All in all it looks to me like Krugman has it right on both occasions.

 

[Pardalis]

The merry morons

Chicken Little snivel of greedy drongos

Cow cookies.

Seriously, do you always talk like that?

 

[BenBurch]

Seriously, do you always talk like that?

He knows it annoys people he wants to annoy.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The merry morons didn't enforce the regulations. That contributed to the collapse, like I said.

We agree. Those bureaucrats were not politicians. More regulation means more bureaucracy, not better policy. The argument for regulation fails if regulators do not do their jobs.
(Malcolm): "B. It's not only financial regulation but, e.g., the ban on offshore drilling, CAFE standards, CPSiA."

Banning? How about just saying "prove that it is safe?" What damned good is money if the food and air are poisoned?

"Safe" is a continuum. Why suppose that political feedback mechanisms work better than market feedback mechanisms?

(Malcolm): "Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers."

Unproven, Chicken Little snivel of greedy drongos who want to steal labor for fun and profit.

The employment-reducing impact is:
a) a straightforeward consequence of standard economic analysis
b) the intent of the legislation (it makes a category of employment illegal).
c) an empirical fact.
I recommend Walter Williams The State Against Blacks on the racist history of minimum wage laws in the US and South Africa. They protect(ed) Northern, unionized, white workers and their employers against competition with Southeren, non-union, black workers and their employers.

(Malcolm): "2. Nobody with any sense thinks an increase in the mandated minimum wage generates an increase in real income or aggregate employment."

Cow cookies.

Even you are capable of a better argument than that.
(Malcolm): "6. Other _____ (specify).'

Ag subsidies are a good idea as long as they are used to keep family farms profitable and an adequate agricultural base in place.¹ Using it to further fatten slime like Smithfield Ham is a bad idea. But there is the fact that an adequate tax base would fund those things that need to be done. Social Security is not funded by debt. The money has been collected already².

1. Why family farms and not family steel mills (a la China's backyard steel plants)? Or family restaurants, etc.? What's special about the family farm?
2. Collected and spent.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

( leftysergeant): "The merry morons...Chicken Little snivel of greedy drongos...Cow cookies."
(Pardalis): "Seriously, do you always talk like that?"

He knows it annoys people he wants to annoy.

And the moderators are cool with that.

 

[leftysergeant]

We agree. Those bureaucrats were not politicians. More regulation means more bureaucracy, not better policy. The argument for regulation fails if regulators do not do their jobs.

No, but it is a good arguement for getting rid of useless bozos who appoint useless bozos to screw up the mechanisms of government. Bush the Lesser was unfit for his position, and it is to the shame of the GOP that they do not admit it.

Why suppose that political feedback mechanisms work better than market feedback mechanisms?

Because government relies more on scientists than on bean counters to assess public safety policies. The free market is amoral and not to be left to decide moral issues. Public safety is a moral issue.

(Malcolm): "Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers." The employment-reducing impact is:
a) a straightforeward consequence of standard economic analysis
b) the intent of the legislation (it makes a category of employment illegal).
c) an empirical fact.

Gobbledygook.

I recommend Walter Williams The State Against Blacks on the racist history of minimum wage laws in the US and South Africa. They protect(ed) Northern, unionized, white workers and their employers against competition with Southeren, non-union, black workers and their employers.

Williams is a bottomless cup of gobbledygook. Nothing in the minimum wage laws prevents the entrepreneurs from opening shops in the non-unionized states. The greedy bastards just don't want to do it. They insist that they be subsidized with tax breaks and stolen labor.

Why family farms and not family steel mills (a la China's backyard steel plants)? Or family restaurants, etc.? What's special about the family farm?

It slows the concentration of wealth into too few hands and preserves the agricultural base better than does subsidizing corporations. We are also talking about people's homes here. Steel mills in the backyard are a dumb idea. Family owned restaurants are better for the country than the corporate chains, but they need not be subsidized.

2. Collected and spent.

We have Treasury Notes. You gotta pay us, even if it means taxing the bejeebus out of the Koch roaches and their ilk. Those bastards took a tax break that was subsidized by borrowing fromm SS. They can bloody well pay it back.

 

[daredelvis]

A. There are few free marketeers in leadership positions in either party.
B. If this is "the Bush recession", what Bush administration policies does "...elvis" suggest brought this on?
Let's anticipate some answers:...

1. War
2. Mortgage subsidies and the housing bubble
3. The prescription drug benefit
4. Crippling regulation of commerce
I'd add
5. (Subcategory of #4) The massive increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage.
6. Other _____ (specify).

If the Federal Reserve's expansion of the money supply indicates an intention to annul the minimum wage increase through inflation and to disguise a default on dollar-denominated debts through inflation, then this will indeed take years to accomplish without major pain.

C. Since Europe, Russian, Japan, Argentina, and China face economic difficulties, "the Bush recession" looks like a misattribution to me.

A. A lack of a free market did not cause the recession.
B. A massively idiotic war, executed with total ineptness ("Sunni, Shia, there's two of them??? An occupation plan, or a plan to address an insurgency, why??)
2. Squandering the slightly not crappy finical footing this country was on when he took office with tax cuts slanted towards the top earners (and the unfunded war noted above).
C. With the situation what it is overseas, thank Ed for the stimulus and other moves taken by the fed (as disagreeable as they were), or we would be looking at 15% unemployment


The Federal Reserve's expansion of the money supply did squat to inflation. We were in a huge liquidity trap, and facing deflation, a fate far worse than inflation to a struggling economy. There are no signs of inflation in the economy.

Daredelvis

 

[daredelvis]

(Malcolm): "If this is "the Bush recession", what Bush administration policies does "...elvis" suggest brought this on?

I do not claim to be the Elvis, so please don't call me that.

A. How is this worse than financing Social Security, Medicare, or Ag subsidies through debt?

How is Social Security financed through debt? I just want to know how things work on your earth.

Daredelvis

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, but it is a good arguement for getting rid of useless bozos who appoint useless bozos to screw up the mechanisms of government. Bush the Lesser was unfit for his position, and it is to the shame of the GOP that they do not admit it.

We agree that Bush was unfit. In the 2000 primary, Molly Ivins wrote that a President Bush would disappoint conservatives as he would preside as Governor Bush had governed Texas, through compromise with the opposition party. Useless bozo bureaucrats have civil service protection.

Because government relies more on scientists than on bean counters to assess public safety policies. The free market is amoral and not to be left to decide moral issues. Public safety is a moral issue.

And "scientists" are moral? Really?
(Malcolm): "(Malcolm): "Minimum wage laws reduce labor-force participation by low-skilled workers." The employment-reducing impact is:
a) a straightforeward consequence of standard economic analysis
b) the intent of the legislation (it makes a category of employment illegal).
c) an empirical fact."

Gobbledygook

Conscience. No rebuttal.

Williams is a bottomless cup of gobbledygook. Nothing in the minimum wage laws prevents the entrepreneurs from opening shops in the non-unionized states. The greedy bastards just don't want to do it. They insist that they be subsidized with tax breaks and stolen labor.

Minimum wage laws put off limits to employment anyone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Any institution which hires people for less than the value of their contribution is a charity and not a business.
(Malcolm): " Why family farms and not family steel mills (a la China's backyard steel plants)? Or family restaurants, etc.? What's special about the family farm?"

It slows the concentration of wealth into too few hands and preserves the agricultural base better than does subsidizing corporations. We are also talking about people's homes here. Steel mills in the backyard are a dumb idea. Family owned restaurants are better for the country than the corporate chains, but they need not be subsidized.

We agree that China's backyard steel mills were stupid. Why do family farms "need" subsidization? Why are family-operated restaurants "better"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How is Social Security financed through debt? I just want to know how things work on your earth.

All economic activity occurs in the present. There is no SS "trust fund". All revenues, and more, are spent on current expenses. The government funds its operations on debt. Therefore...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What is the difference between mortgaging one's home to pay for cancer treatment, and mortgaging one's home to pay for a six - month party in Aruba?

Which is the better deal depends on the prognosis.

 

[leftysergeant]

All economic activity occurs in the present. There is no SS "trust fund". All revenues, and more, are spent on current expenses. The government funds its operations on debt. Therefore...

Cow cookies. SS holds Treasury Bonds. By the constitution, those have to be repaid. That is probably why the republicons are so hell-bent on destroying SS. If the bonds are repaid, the only place to get that kind of money is out of the hides of people like the Koch roaches or Murdoch or the Walton larvae.

Early in his interregnum, Bush the lesser did an interview with some reporter or another and showed him a file cabinet that he claimed held the trust fund for SS. It was full of what the Shrub called IOUs, which, supposedly, he expected the average low-information voters who made the mistake of electing him would assume were worthless.

These were, of course Treasury Bonds, the same sort that the merry morons were selling to the Chinese to finance his temper tantrum in the Middle East.

Did he really want the Chinese to hear him call those bonds worthless? Wow!

Maybe the answer is to open up sheltered workshops for republicons to get them out from under foot while the grown-ups put the country back together.

 

[leftysergeant]

Minimum wage laws put off limits to employment anyone whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Any institution which hires people for less than the value of their contribution is a charity and not a business.

Total mushroom food. The value of a day's labor is a day's decent provisions. If you employ someone for a day, that is what you owe him. Nobody owes you a day's labor for less that. If you cannot turn a profit paying a day's provisions for a day's labor, it means that your business model sucks and you are either too stupid or too dishonest to be in business in the first place. If you expect to earn several days' provisions while paying less that a day's provisions to your workers, you are a thief and should be driven out of business and your assets liquidated.

It really is that simple.

 

[BenBurch]

To say that there is no trust fund is the same as saying that you are a dishonest jerk who plans to default on US Sovereign debt. Is that what you mean to say, MK?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The value of a day's labor is a day's decent provisions. If you employ someone for a day, that is what you owe him.

So saith Pope Sergeant I.

Nobody owes you a day's labor for less that. If you cannot turn a profit paying a day's provisions for a day's labor, it means that your business model sucks and you are either too stupid or too dishonest to be in business in the first place. If you expect to earn several days' provisions while paying less that a day's provisions to your workers, you are a thief and should be driven out of business and your assets liquidated. It really is that simple.

This is obviously false. Some people's labor has negative value (thieves, etc.). Some have zero value (layabouts). Some have positive but small value (trainees).
In any case, in a free society, where people engage in uncoerced exchange, no authority enforces rules such as those that "lefty" propounds here. The rules in a free society give to individuals title to their own labor and give to individuals the power to exchange on any mutually agreeable terms assets to which they have title (including their labor).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To say that there is no trust fund is the same as saying that you are a dishonest jerk who plans to default on US Sovereign debt. Is that what you mean to say, MK?

Who is "you" in this application? The US will default, and that it will disguise this default with inflation. Yes, this is dishonest. Social Security was a dishonest ponzi scheme from the start.

 

[BenBurch]

You seriously believe that malarky?!