"The private sector is doing fine."

[Dymanic]

The IEA report on fracking paints a pretty good picture and claims the risks are quite manageable but require oversight.

ETA: I would very much like to see a response by those in opposition to fracking but the report looks pretty good for fracking for a number of reasons including climate change.

“If this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its social license to operate,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report’s chief author. “This comes with a financial cost, but in our estimation the additional costs are likely to be limited.”

For a bit of perspective on this pretty good picture, let's have a fresh look at a picture that report's same author recently painted depicting the situation with regard to another important energy source, crude oil:

"When we look at the oil markets the news is not very bright. We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006".
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

Sure, there's lots of natural gas. Good thing, too, because it drives the turbines that provide roughly a fourth of our electricity, as well as providing the feedstock for most of the nitrogen fertilizers upon which so much of our food supply depends. As a transportation fuel, it's not as efficient as oil-derived liquid fuels, but it starts looking better and better as those get more expensive, so there definitely will continue to be a future in extracting and selling it. But I think anyone anticipating continued economic growth driven by the ushering in of a "Golden Age of Gas" is going to be bitterly disappointed.

The thing about Golden Ages is that most of the gold ends up in the hands of a select few -- a select few who may reasonably be said to be "doing fine", even though many of the rest are struggling to make ends meet.

 

[AlBell]

“If this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its social license to operate,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report’s chief author. “This comes with a financial cost, but in our estimation the additional costs are likely to be limited.”

For a bit of perspective on this pretty good picture, let's have a fresh look at a picture that report's same author recently painted depicting the situation with regard to another important energy source, crude oil:

"When we look at the oil markets the news is not very bright. We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006".
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

Sure, there's lots of natural gas. Good thing, too, because it drives the turbines that provide roughly a fourth of our electricity, as well as providing the feedstock for most of the nitrogen fertilizers upon which so much of our food supply depends. As a transportation fuel, it's not as efficient as oil-derived liquid fuels, but it starts looking better and better as those get more expensive, so there definitely will continue to be a future in extracting and selling it. But I think anyone anticipating continued economic growth driven by the ushering in of a "Golden Age of Gas" is going to be bitterly disappointed.

The thing about Golden Ages is that most of the gold ends up in the hands of a select few -- a select few who may reasonably be said to be "doing fine", even though many of the rest are struggling to make ends meet.

As has always been the case. The worry is without nat gas to run turbines, will most of us be doing so with no electricity in the grid? The "Green Dream".

 

[RandFan]

Now you're claiming that government payroll shouldn't count into GDP. Why not? GDP is a measure of all goods and services produced within a country.

Are you now claiming that the public sector is not part of the economy? That seems as indefensible as your "fiction" claim.

GOP meme. Seems that govt employees TAKE money out of the system and provide no services whatsoever.

(referring to a woman who has a govt job)

FOREMAN: What Ann means, she's not a revenue producer. She’s not a revenue producer.


COULTER: Right. She’s a revenue taker.


FOREMAN: No, she’s gainfully employed, but she’s not a revenue producer.


COULTER: No, it's worse than not having a job, having a government job, because you have somebody doing something nobody wants, taxpayers pay for it, and they can never get rid of them.

​

This is where this BS bubbles up from. Idiots like Coulter haven't the intelligence to understand the correlation between high functioning govts in prosperous nations and dysfunctional ones like Somalia. And what about her precious military? Are those jobs no one wants?​

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

GOP meme. Seems that govt employees TAKE money out of the system and provide no services whatsoever.

And presumably, government employees (which BTW do not comprise the total of the public sector) spend or invest none of their pay in the U.S., but send 100% of directly to their Cayman Island accounts.

 

[Dymanic]

As has always been the case. The worry is without nat gas to run turbines, will most of us be doing so with no electricity in the grid? The "Green Dream".

I really don't see that as the worry at all, and I certainly would not be so quick to assume that eliminating the use of natural gas in electricity generation is part of anybody's "green dream", considering that a much greater portion still comes from an even dirtier source (coal). The "dream" -- the fantasy -- is that any energy source has the potential to permit a continuation of the automobile-centric lifestyles and oil-powered economic growth of the previous 50 years. Elements within "the private sector", painfully aware of this, are now vacuuming up the last of the oil-driven wealth, because they plan to continue doing fine regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

 

[shuize]

I've already explained it to you. When he said that the private sector was fine he meant that the recovery for the private sector was going well. Now, that works either alone or with the other statement. I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

 

[RandFan]

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

It's jut not all that difficult. I've made it as crystal clear as I can. He didn't relegate the private sector to a minor role in the economy. The recovery of the private sector could be good but the overall economy not fine. Perfectly logical.

 

[Ziggurat]

The recovery of the private sector could be good but the overall economy not fine. Perfectly logical.

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

No, it's not. The entire effect you see would go away if government resumed it's activity.

 

[Dymanic]

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

Naturally, you're going to get a different picture if you use unemployment numbers rather than what the President was obviously talking about: record corporate profits and CEO pay (not to mention the nifty tax breaks the wealthiest Americans are still enjoying). It is beyond ludicrous to attempt to mischaracterize the President's statement as him saying that he sees all of the poor slobs who do the actual work involved in creating all of that wealth as "doing fine". Everything he has said and done since he took office -- or attempted to do, with Republicans stubbornly obstructing those efforts every inch of the way -- indicates that he is acutely aware that the American worker is not "doing fine".

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's not. The entire effect you see would go away if government resumed it's activity.

Uh, no. No, it wouldn't. Government spending is very high right now, government unemployment is very low. Government doesn't need to resume doing anything, because it's still doing as much of that as before the recession.

 

[Ziggurat]

Naturally, you're going to get a different picture if you use unemployment numbers rather than what the President was obviously talking about: record corporate profits and CEO pay

CEO pay is a red herring. It's a drop in the economic bucket, and the only purpose of raising it here is to engage in class warfare rhetoric. The only people who should care about CEO pay are the shareholders of the company in question. And corporate profits rise when you stop reinvesting that money.

(not to mention the nifty tax breaks the wealthiest Americans are still enjoying).

Since when are tax breaks a measure of economic health? This is a complete non-sequitor.

It is beyond ludicrous to attempt to mischaracterize the President's statement as him saying that he sees all of the poor slobs who do the actual work involved in creating all of that wealth as "doing fine". Everything he has said and done since he took office -- or attempted to do, with Republicans stubbornly obstructing those efforts every inch of the way -- indicates that he is acutely aware that the American worker is not "doing fine".

Those workers are part of the private sector. So by your own standard, the president misspoke. You really can't keep your own story straight.

 

[Dymanic]

Government spending is very high right now...

I hope you're not referring to the "Obama spending spree" -- the one that isn't actually happening, with annualized growth of federal spending rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, it's logically possible, it's just not true. The private sector of the economy is still suffering badly. Worse than the public sector, as those sector-specific unemployment numbers I posted before indicate.

But again, read Obama's remarks. The context was job creation. The private sector is adding jobs, and they have all they need to create more. (I'm not sure what figures you're talking about, but the private sector is adding jobs and the public sector is still losing them. See the chart here.)

What more would you do for them? Cut taxes on the "job creators" still further? Make money even cheaper?

Again, the only thing they need is some stability and predictability wrt issues the government faces (debt ceiling, federal budget, etc.)

Romney was entirely wrong to pretend Obama's remarks meant that the economy is doing fine. Obama even pointed out that his recognition that the economy is not doing fine is the very reason he had the press conference.

 

[Dymanic]

And corporate profits rise when you stop reinvesting that money.

Good point. It has been said that elements within "the private sector" are now vacuuming up the last of the oil-driven wealth, because they plan to continue doing fine regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

Since when are tax breaks a measure of economic health?

When you're one of the wealthy private sector individuals enjoying those tax breaks.

Those workers are part of the private sector.

And if the President considered them to be "doing fine", does it not fly in the face of all logic that he would be pressing so hard against the GOP resistance to his jobs plan? Around here, the "strawman" is considered one of the weakest forms of argument: argue against a mischaracterization of the opposing position rather than against the actual opposing position. Republicans have refined this into an art form, and since we do not reside in a nation of skeptics, it's often quite effective.

What I don't understand is how it gets traction with someone who, by participating in an online discussion forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism in general, implicitly declares himself to be a critical thinker. Either you are just pretending to accept the GOP story on this or you are just pretending to be a critical thinker. Which is it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Even if Obama was trying to distinguish between the "private sector recovery" and "overall economic recovery," I still do not see how someone can logically relegate the private sector to such a minor role in the economy to be able to say "the private sector is doing fine" but "it is absolutely clear the 'economy' is not doing fine."

Again, the context of Obama's remarks was job creation.

How is this relegating the private sector to a minor role?

Imagine a patient recovering from a severe trauma (say a double leg amputation). If the doctor notes that his heart is doing fine (but he's really concerned about the infection at the wound site that just hasn't been responding well to treatment so far, and which could lead to a systemic infection), does it follow that the doctor thinks the heart has a minor role in the patient's health?

Further, does it follow that the doctor thinks the patient's heart is strong enough for him to strap on prosthetics and run a marathon tomorrow?

Noting that the private sector is adding jobs in the recovery at a decent rate while the public sector is holding the recovery back is a perfectly reasonable observation. It shows us where our attention should be focused. More than anything, we need Congress to pass a compromise federal budget (preferably a multi-year plan that will address the long term debt crisis in such a way that we don't have the specter of government shut-down every year as part of budget negotiations).

 

[BenBurch]

Uh, no. No, it wouldn't. Government spending is very high right now, government unemployment is very low. Government doesn't need to resume doing anything, because it's still doing as much of that as before the recession.

You forgot all those jobs. You always discount knock-on effects, and as somebody who actually did study economics at the University of Chicago, I can state unequivocally that is a dishonest exclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

When you're one of the wealthy private sector individuals enjoying those tax breaks.

That might be relevant if your position is that wealthy individuals are the only part (or even the largest part) of the private sector. But since that's not the case, your point is irrelevant.

And if the President considered them to be "doing fine", does it not fly in the face of all logic that he would be pressing so hard against the GOP resistance to his jobs plan?

I've never claimed to know what the President actually thinks. Nor do I particularly care. What he said was wrong. I'm not of the opinion that it's a huge deal (politicians make gaffes, it's seemingly unavoidable), but it's strange to see people trying desperately to defend what Obama himself already disowned.

Around here, the "strawman" is considered one of the weakest forms of argument

What I don't understand is how it gets traction with someone who, by participating in an online discussion forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism in general, implicitly declares himself to be a critical thinker. Either you are just pretending to accept the GOP story on this or you are just pretending to be a critical thinker. Which is it?

Your posts have not been coherent enough for me to even know what you think the "GOP story" is. But I do know that you've been avoiding addressing what I've actually been saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

You always discount knock-on effects

Oh, you mean the effects of public spending on the private sector? Is that the knock-on effects you're talking about? So in other words, public spending is high and public unemployment is low, but if we spent more then we could help the private sector through "knock-on" effects. But why would we need to do that, unless the private sector wasn't doing well?

You do realize that you're arguing that Obama was wrong, don't you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I hope you're not referring to the "Obama spending spree" -- the one that isn't actually happening, with annualized growth of federal spending rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower administration.

That "statistic" is crap. It involves severe mischaracterizations of a whole bunch of spending to attribute growth Obama is responsible for to Bush. But even lying with statistics, you can only claim that growth in spending, and not actual spending itself, is low, and that only because it attributes so much growth to Bush in 2009.