Unemployment falls below 9%

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yeah that school thing is overrated anyways. Better to blow them up in child sized coal mines. That way they won't have to suffer through a whole long life toiling for owners that care nothing for their lives.

Today, children toil, unpaid, for overseers who care nothing for their lives, as window-dressing in a massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. In Hawaii, between 1987 and 1997, juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fell when school was not in session.

For each sub-adult, somebody or some body decides how that child will spend the time between birth and age 18. Why suppose that any political process which gives to remote authorities will generate more benign results, on average, than will a policy that gives control to individual custodial parents? Please read this, and this.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wat.

 

[Francesca R]

The question at hand is what Friedman would have recommended in that economic climate with stagnant growth and a shrinking/stagnant money supply.

Would he recommend:
a) a policy not unlike the quantitative easing the Fed enactedb) a policy of tightening base money supply like US conservatives are calling for

From his statements it seems to me highly likely he would have called for just the policy the Fed pursued, do you agree or disagree?

I agree, though I can see why others disagree. In particular, the "shrinking/stagnant money supply" does not apply to the whole period over which the Fed's SOMA has rapidly expanded, so I don't think you can easily advance a Friedman endorsement of the entire exercise.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I agree, though I can see why others disagree. In particular, the "shrinking/stagnant money supply" does not apply to the whole period over which the Fed's SOMA has rapidly expanded, so I don't think you can easily advance a Friedman endorsement of the entire exercise.

Does the recent Bloomberg report that the Fed had been bailing out banks (expanding their credit) without informing Congress lead either of you to question the official numbers of "money supply"?
Hutt (The Keynesian Episode) argues that monetary policy cannot remediate non-monetary problems. Suppose an island where people use cowrie shells as currency. Suppose a blight destroys the breadfruit trees. Will the situation improve if some foreigner endows everyone with 1000 new cowrie shells? One reason for a transparent and inflexible rule such as Friedman proposed is to take from the table the possibility that monetary policy will bail out bad political decision-making (Hutt argues that monetary authorities inflate out from under market-distorting minimum wage laws).

 

[leftysergeant]

Today, children toil, unpaid, for overseers who care nothing for their lives, as window-dressing in a massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Utterly delusional ideation.

In Hawaii, between 1987 and 1997, juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fell when school was not in session.

More injuries occur under stress than at liesure. This would be true whether the child is in school or at a place of business. I fail to see your point. Wouild you care to break that down by specific sorts of trauma so that the figures mean something to those of us not already brainwashed into your dystopian vision of the world?

Please read this, and this.

I read as much as I could without gagging. Just more excuses for putting the little wretches to work instead of letting their monds get all full of ideas that conflict with the investor class' plans to exploit their labor for fun and profit and sadistic stimulation.

 

[Border Reiver]

Essentially, you're arguing that parents should select their childrens' careers when they are young, so that they can be trained to do that job, with little opportunity to do any other, as they won't have the eductaion to do it.

I am reminded of a quote from the new BSG - "So my son gets to grow up to be a grease monkey, because that's what I am?"

Robert, Malcolm look at your father's career, grandfather's career and compare them to your own and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is that what you would have chosen for yourself? ;
2. If the educational system had been one of apprenticeship vice general education would you have had an opportunity to do otherwise?
3. Will there be a requirement for that job in the future?

 

[lomiller]

I agree, though I can see why others disagree. In particular, the "shrinking/stagnant money supply" does not apply to the whole period over which the Fed's SOMA has rapidly expanded, so I don't think you can easily advance a Friedman endorsement of the entire exercise.

But we are not discussing the last 30 years we are discussing the Fed’s actions over the last 3 years.

 

[Francesca R]

Does the recent Bloomberg report that the Fed had been bailing out banks (expanding their credit) without informing Congress lead either of you to question the official numbers of "money supply"?

No since the data (discount window repos and other special/temporary programs) was and is reported weekly (H.4.1). This is the release for the week Bloomberg reported the "$1.2 trillion". The GAO investigation, which reported the headline-grabbing number of "$16.2 trillion" (page 144) was actually showing cumulative lending over 2.5 years (so if BofA borrowed $10bn for a week, repaid it and then borrowed it again the next week, that would show as $20bn)

The secret part was who was borrowing at the discount window. That has historically been released with a 2 year lag as far as I know.

Incidentally, all repo agreements do not show up in the monetary base, nor MZM. They used to show in M3 which is why conspiracists believe that the Fed stopped publishing M3.

 

[Francesca R]

But we are not discussing the last 30 years we are discussing the Fed’s actions over the last 3 years.

That is what I mean. My last chart shows M0 expanding for three years and MZM is not stagnant nor shrinking for much of that.

Therefore many monetarists (not just republicans and conservatives who do not have a lock on the discipline) would not agree that continued QE is warranted. For example, they would not necessarily advocate it on the grounds of inflation expectations being low or unemployment being high.

In other words--as is my point--the Fed's mandate is not a purely Friedmanite one.

 

[lomiller]

No since the data (discount window repos and other special/temporary programs) was and is reported weekly (H.4.1). This is the release for the week Bloomberg reported the "$1.2 trillion". The GAO investigation, which reported the headline-grabbing number of "$16.2 trillion" (page 144) was actually showing cumulative lending over 2.5 years (so if BofA borrowed $10bn for a week, repaid it and then borrowed it again the next week, that would show as $20bn)

My recollection is that the Bloomberg artcle wasn’t just cumulative lending but also included Fed commitment to lend as required. I.E. it included Fed commitments that “if there is a run and everyone tries to withdraw their deposits from your bank all at once, here is how much we are willing to lend you in our role as lender of last resort”

 

[Francesca R]

It's not a lot different (actually somewhat tamer) than the European Central Bank lending half a trillion Euros today for three years to several hundred banks. It isn't saying who borrowed how much

 

[lomiller]

That is what I mean. My last chart shows M0 expanding for three years and MZM is not stagnant nor shrinking for much of that.

Therefore many monetarists (not just republicans and conservatives who do not have a lock on the discipline) would not agree that continued QE is warranted. For example, they would not necessarily advocate it on the grounds of inflation expectations being low or unemployment being high.

But the period where it does expand lines up with when QE was occurring and but in the period before QE2 money supply was basically flat. IOW QE did exactly what it was supposed to do; it kept the money supply growing at a fairly normal rate. Far from being the massive binge of money printing Republicans believe it was the correct policy about the right amount.

All the leading Republican candidates have spoken out against QE and the Feds actions to increase the monetary base. The supposed justification for the people who support them is that economists like Friedman Hayek and Mises. IMO we can discount Hayek and Mises immediately, and when we look at Friedman’s views it’s pretty clear he would have supported increasing to the monetary base as a response to the conditions of the last few years.

In other words--as is my point--the Fed's mandate is not a purely Friedmanite one.

Agreed but it’s also clear the Fed isn’t simply ignoring Friedman either. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the approach the Fed has taken since the mid 80’s is superior to strict adherence to Friedman’s approach. Again though, that misses the point we are talking whether Friedman would be generally in favour or generally opposed to recent Fed policy.

 

[BenBurch]

Essentially, you're arguing that parents should select their childrens' careers when they are young, so that they can be trained to do that job, with little opportunity to do any other, as they won't have the eductaion to do it.

I am reminded of a quote from the new BSG - "So my son gets to grow up to be a grease monkey, because that's what I am?"

Robert, Malcolm look at your father's career, grandfather's career and compare them to your own and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is that what you would have chosen for yourself? ;
2. If the educational system had been one of apprenticeship vice general education would you have had an opportunity to do otherwise?
3. Will there be a requirement for that job in the future?

But, I don't want to be a street sweeper!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Essentially, you're arguing that parents should select their childrens' careers when they are young, so that they can be trained to do that job, with little opportunity to do any other, as they won't have the eductaion to do it.

No. I'm arguing for policies that give to parents the power to determine how and where to invest the time of their own children. Inevitably, for each child, somebody or some body does this. In the education industry, the case for local control is strong. Student motivation is the critical input. Motivation depends critically on the match between interests and curriculum, and parents know their individual children better than remote authorities and are more reliably concerned for their welfare than are strangers.

I am reminded of a quote from the new BSG - "So my son gets to grow up to be a grease monkey, because that's what I am?"

Robert, Malcolm look at your father's career, grandfather's career and compare them to your own and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is that what you would have chosen for yourself? ;
2. If the educational system had been one of apprenticeship vice general education would you have had an opportunity to do otherwise?
3. Will there be a requirement for that job in the future?

Regimes of parent control do not compete with the policy that an omniscient, benevolent God would impose, but with policies that remote, self-interested State bureaucrats would impose.

 

[Border Reiver]

No. I'm arguing for policies that give to parents the power to determine how and where to invest the time of their own children. Inevitably, for each child, somebody or some body does this. In the education industry, the case for local control is strong. Student motivation is the critical input. Motivation depends critically on the match between interests and curriculum, and parents know their individual children better than remote authorities and are more reliably concerned for their welfare than are strangers.

The case for local control may be strong, but there also needs to be a broader perspective than may be available locally. For example, a rural school district may not have the tax base to support a diverse educational program, while getting attendance and severely disadvantage students when they enter the workforce.

Regimes of parent control do not compete with the policy that an omniscient, benevolent God would impose, but with policies that remote, self-interested State bureaucrats would impose.

God ain't involved in this - education is a secular affair, the divine isn't going to train Johnny to think critically so he can solve the problem of how best to get foodstuffs from A to B with minimum spoilage, Jane to design the better mousetrap or Miguel to do your investment banking.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-12-22/unemployment-claims-gdp/52156110/1

New claims lowest since '08. GDP still weak. Recovering from the blow the Republicans dealt the country is very slow.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Civil education discussion (rare in these times)

(Malcolm): "I'm arguing for policies that give to parents the power to determine how and where to invest the time of their own children. Inevitably, for each child, somebody or some body does this. In the education industry, the case for local control is strong. Student motivation is the critical input. Motivation depends critically on the match between interests and curriculum, and parents know their individual children better than remote authorities and are more reliably concerned for their welfare than are strangers."

The case for local control may be strong, but there also needs to be a broader perspective than may be available locally. For example, a rural school district may not have the tax base to support a diverse educational program, while getting attendance and severely disadvantage students when they enter the workforce.

Dunno 'bout "need", but okay. I don't see any of that as an objection to parent control. It may amount to an argument for tax support of parents' choices (vouchers, subsidized homeschooling).

(Malcolm): "Regimes of parent control do not compete with the policy that an omniscient, benevolent God would impose, but with policies that remote, self-interested State bureaucrats would impose."

God ain't involved in this - education is a secular affair, the divine isn't going to train Johnny to think critically so he can solve the problem of how best to get foodstuffs from A to B with minimum spoilage, Jane to design the better mousetrap or Miguel to do your investment banking.

Please say you understood my point. As Milton Friedman said, "you have to compare something to something." Parents, like all humans, have flaws. We do not compare the results of a policy which gives to parennts control over schooling to the resuilts of a policy which gives control to an omniscient, benevolent God or to an altruistic philosopher-king , but to the results of a policy which gives control to self-interested, remote (i.e., ignorant) bureaucrats.

 

[leftysergeant]

Please say you understood my point. As Milton Friedman said, "you have to compare something to something."

Okay, let's compare Friedman to a male bonobo approaching a female who is clearly in a receptive condition, offering her a ripe banana. The ape's intentions are far more clear and probably better for the species than is anything that flowed from the old coot's mouth.

And if he was such an expert on how to raise kids, where did that drongo Thomas come from?

 

[Border Reiver]

Both your points require that there be something beyond the local level for education -

With respect to vouchers - who gives them, who determines what they are worth, who determines what programs the school teaches and to what standard?

And as to to last point, I do get your point - parents are supposed to have the best interests of their children first and formost, but there are many parents who due to economic reality can't take the time to do much more than quickly review the school ciriculum, or who lack the education themselves to determine if what is being taught is relevant or correct, or if the teaching methods used are appropriate. Who helps them out?

Comparisons are all well and good, but since there is a distinct lack of divinely run educational systems, or ones run by philosopher kings we are limited to the people based systems - such as school boards, and departments of education - the strictly locally run systems have flaws, which require a larger base to even things out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bumping this thread on the news that the economy gained 243,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. Even if recovery is slow, but stays on the positive side, I don't see how the GOP has much of a chance.

Yes, I understand that the unemployment rate most often reported doesn't measure all types of unemployment, but it's the number we generally use, and it's the one that will matter for the election in November.

ETA: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm